|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
 Posted - 08/16/2002 : 14:19:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The questions (again):
What is acceptable 'proof'? You wouldn't know the proof if it bit you on your ass.
Proof of what? What are the claims that support the death of thousands more people? I haven't heard any claims.
quote:
What must be the source of the proof? You don't believe Bush when he says he has it, so obviously you will only trust certain sources.
Believe what? What has he said? He's said nothing. Has he said that Iraq is about to launch nuclear missiles at the U.S.? I don't think so. What has he said? He's said that someday in the future, Saddam being a bad guy, he will become the devil incarnate. Iraq is no threat to anyone. There is no proof that Iraq is even a threat to Kuwait anymore.
quote:
What is the 'real' reason that the leaders of the government want to go to war if it's not what they say? You're so convinced it CAN'T be a WMD program (since you claim none exists-there isn't proof) then it must be something else then. What?
Since they don't tell me, I can only speculate. I can only go by results. What they seem to want to do is commit genocide.
quote:
Who's definition of sufficient proof do you require? Obviously the president thinks there is proof of something bad enough to justify an invasion. So to him the 'proof' is satisfactory. Is US foreign policy going to be dictated by YOUR definition? If so, you better get more informed than you are now.
So, the president runs things and we fall in line. And I'm the nut.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 08/16/2002 14:37:19 |
 |
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 14:35:52 [Permalink]
|
Just fijnished reading your long-ass post, Cosmic.
You would believe Rumsfeld, but not Bush? One is credible and one is not? How do you figure. Their evidence is their word- but you won't believe their word, regardless of what information they have been presented. So you require more than their word. In fact you demand it.
Problem, you have no right to that information (provided it's classified) at all. All you are going to get is his word, because they will never, NEVER show you the intelligence that they have to come to that conclusion.
You are willing to take it 'From Authority', just not from Bush. You've taken all the 'no evidence' statements From Authority. I doubt you were ever on a UN Inspection team, so any info you gain from them is simply From Authority as well. In fact you have no 'proof' that the inspectors were ever there. Have you seen a passport or TDY voucher? No. You believe they were there because someone told you they were. Any newsreel can be faked. But you believe them.
At some point, you are forced to accept what someone tells you as the truth, or you will never agree to anything that you yourself didn't participate in. Such as determining the existance of WMD programs.
And neither of you understand what analysis is, at least in the context here. Analysis is always subjective. Usually an educated guess.
For example: the way crates were loaded onto Soviet ships was a key source of intel during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Crates. An analyst looked at pictures of the crates and determined they were nukes. They used past precedent and technical information to arrive at this. They could have been xmas trees. So an analyst makes an educated guess and a recommendation to his boss.
A chemical factory can dicerned by any number of 'identifiers' from barrel types, emmision readings, military presence, tracked shipping of known chems used in CW, etc. So an analyst must make a guess, based on all the info he has. In the end, there may be no conclusive 'smoking gun' piece of info. It may be derived from a huge amount of sources.
So that's what 'proof' would be given to the president. An analyst would say he believes there is or is not present, whatever, chemical weapons, nukes, you name it. There may be some supporting evidence to show him as a lock, but the president is not shown all the raw data, not only is he not an analyst, but there are thousands of analysts who do the work that goes into his JCS Morning Brief. In case you cared, his Morning Brief is usually just a PowerPoint slide show, sometimes with imagery pasted in.
If Rumsfeld believes there is proof, he gets it from the same .ppt that Bush does.
None of which you will ever see.
You won't take the word of all those intel analysts who do this work for a living.
Talk about a bullshit set of rules to expect; demanding proof that (if it exists) no one can give you. I don't know if that's Strawman, ad hominum or what you call it, other than bullshit.
The only way you will be satisfied is to be given something you cannot be given. That's why I say it sounds like a conspiracy theory. You set up a situation that you can never attain. Like people that surround Groom Lake. You seem to know what is or is not there, without having access to any of it.
You argue against just believing someone, but you're willing to believe it if it comes from anyone other than Bush.
Bush has seen anything that is there, having the access. And he says there is reason to invade. So your argument is that he must disclose what he has seen to appease you, knowing full well he can't do that.
What is evidence is subjective. A photo of a ship stacked with crates looks like a boat with boxes on it to you or me. So given, let's say a satellite image of a NBC factory, you would see a building. You must rely on information "From Authority" that what the label on the photo says is correct. But you're not willing for someone to tell you they've seen the photo and what's on it.
I see where this sounds like FOAF info, but it's not, I'm just not going to explain to you how the clearance system works.
I am also not for an invasion. But I am for smoking that rat bastard out and launching a Tomahawk up his ass. I'd like to see another way, but what we've been doing so far hasn't worked.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 14:36:13 [Permalink]
|
And I generally don't watch TV news. Solly, you are the one relying on State Department handouts from the Corporate Media.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 14:47:19 [Permalink]
|
You're not for an invasion, so what have you been arguing about?
Which rat bastard are you talking about? The one that the U.S. supported for years? Why is that up to you? Can anyone attack anyone because they don't like them? Would it be okay for Haiti to attack the U.S. because we're hiding some of their criminals?
quote:
I am also not for an invasion. But I am for smoking that rat bastard out and launching a Tomahawk up his ass. I'd like to see another way, but what we've been doing so far hasn't worked.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Cosmic string
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 15:00:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You would believe Rumsfeld, but not Bush? One is credible and one is not? How do you figure. Their evidence is their word- but you won't believe their word, regardless of what information they have been presented. So you require more than their word. In fact you demand it.
If Bush provided evidence, I would believe him. Their word is not evidence, it is just an argument from authority.
quote:
Problem, you have no right to that information (provided it's classified) at all. All you are going to get is his word, because they will never, NEVER show you the intelligence that they have to come to that conclusion.
But I have no evidence that the information even exists. I can not honstly assume that it is classified but exists. That could only be based on blind faith.
quote:
You are willing to take it 'From Authority', just not from Bush. You've taken all the 'no evidence' statements From Authority. I doubt you were ever on a UN Inspection team, so any info you gain from them is simply From Authority as well. In fact you have no 'proof' that the inspectors were ever there. Have you seen a passport or TDY voucher? No. You believe they were there because someone told you they were. Any newsreel can be faked. But you believe them.
The straw man returns. I accept no argument from authority as evidence. That is why I do not conclude that there is evidence, nor do I conclude that there is not. I do not believe just any news piece. I demand evidence from those "authorities" also.
quote:
At some point, you are forced to accept what someone tells you as the truth, or you will never agree to anything that you yourself didn't participate in. Such as determining the existance of WMD programs.
I am never forced to accept what anyone says as truth. That is my choice and I base it on the evidence available. You seem to think that whatever the government says must be true. Regardless of what authority makes the claim, it is still only an argument from authority, not evidence.
quote:
And neither of you understand what analysis is, at least in the context here. Analysis is always subjective. Usually an educated guess.
Your point? Just because if the evidence existed it may be subjective doesn't mean it is or that it even exists.
quote:
So that's what 'proof' would be given to the president. An analyst would say he believes there is or is not present, whatever, chemical weapons, nukes, you name it. There may be some supporting evidence to show him as a lock, but the president is not shown all the raw data, not only is he not an analyst, but there are thousands of analysts who do the work that goes into his JCS Morning Brief. In case you cared, his Morning Brief is usually just a PowerPoint slide show, sometimes with imagery pasted in.
If Rumsfeld believes there is proof, he gets it from the same .ppt that Bush does.
None of which you will ever see.
Just because the evidence could be subjective if it exists does not mean it does exist.
quote:
You won't take the word of all those intel analysts who do this work for a living. Talk about a bullshit set of rules to expect; demanding proof that (if it exists) no one can give you. I don't know if that's Strawman, ad hominum or what you call it, other than bullshit.
No, it is called reason. You seem to be arguing that because the evidence would likely be classified it must exist. That is a bullshit set of rules. If you don't know what a straw man argument is or what an ad homonium attack is, you must not know that these types of claims are bullshit.
quote:
The only way you will be satisfied is to be given something you cannot be given. That's why I say it sounds like a conspiracy theory. You set up a situation that you can never attain. Like people that surround Groom Lake. You seem to know what is or is not there, without having access to any of it.
No, that is exactly what your position is. Just like the conspiracy nuts outside Groom Lake, you "know" that the evidence exists just because you would likely not have access to it.
quote:
You argue against just believing someone, but you're willing to believe it if it comes from anyone other than Bush.
That is a straw man if I ever heard one. I don't believe any authorities just on their words, regardless of who they are. I made that abundandly clear in my last two posts.
quote:
Bush has seen anything that is there, having the access. And he says there is reason to invade. So your argument is that he must disclose what he has seen to appease you, knowing full well he can't do that.
No, my argument is that there is no reason to believe him because no evidence has been presented which supports his claims. You, OTOH, assume that the evidence exists because he says so.
quote:
What is evidence is subjective. A photo of a ship stacked with crates looks like a boat with boxes on it to you or me. So given, let's say a satellite image of a NBC factory, you would see a building. You must rely on information "From Authority" that what the label on the photo says is correct. But you're not willing for someone to tell you they've seen the photo and what's on it.
You seem not to distinguish authorities from experts. Experts know their shit, so their statements carry some (but not much) weight without other evidence. Authorit |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 15:02:19 [Permalink]
|
And I generally don't watch TV news. Solly, you are the one relying on State Department handouts from the Corporate Media.
Then you missed all those times when the UN Inspection teams were stopped, harrassed, and prohibitted from certain areas causing the US military to re-deploy there. You obviously missed the chemical weapons attacks he has made and all the questionable dual-use equipment he is buying now.
Why do I think they have a WMD program? He has a well documented past with them. We helped him create a portion of it. He has shown evidence of continued WMD development. The evidence (that you or I can see) stopped after the war in '91. Obviously, he went underground with them, considering he had lost the war and was being pressed just for that very WMD program. He's doing his best to keep it from the US, and anything we did know about it would be classified out of our league to see it.
The pictures of his 'supergun' project were still classified in the 80's. You and I could not have known of it. That doesn't mean it didn't exist. You can see pictures of it in Jane's now. So to invade him then, based on the threat of the supergun (which would have been a threat to Israel) would have been 'illegal' then, simply because YOU didn't know it exists.
Anyone else that knew it existed cannot simply tell you it exists, because this is 'From Authority'. You require first hand knowledge, which you cannot have. Not unless you attain the clearance required to see that particular info.
The proof is subjective anyway. Are those barrels Anthrax or powdered milk? I may be convinced by pictures of barrels, you may not. So crying for proof is pointless unless you define the proof that meet YOUR personal standard.
I think that is the problem facing Bush now. It's not a lack of proof, but whether that proof satisfies everybody (that he's concerned with, don't mistake yourself to be in that group) enough to warrant an invasion. It satisfies some, but not enough people, hence we haven't attacked yet. Some people require more evidence than others. It appears we are trying to provide it- but again, they are constrained as to what they can release.
But given that neither of us have access to that info- we will eventually HAVE to take it From Authority.
And that carries the weight of the US armed forces, String. You crying about it isn't going to make a difference whether we attack. So yes, it carries alot of weight.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 15:32:49 [Permalink]
|
Now what's blind faith? being given all the unclassified archival evidence that you can access, his non-stop development of WMD, his willingness to use said weapons, and at least the allusion from the President that he is doing so now- yet somehow believing the contrary. You are the one taking an awfully big leap here of faith here.
Being a former Intelligence Analyst, I can tell you the open-sources alone provide enough evidence for me to provide the opinion that Saddam has and is now developing WMD. But my open sources end about '91, so I must infer he continues to this day. Part of analysis requires taking into account precedent, which Saddam has shown alot of. All the evidence that you or I can see points to a WMD program. It's a huge leap of faith to think he isn't guilty.
At the end of the day you have to take it 'from authority'. A doctor could tell you you have cancer but not show you an x-ray (if it was something you weren't allowed access to hypothetically). Now you could believe him or not, the cancer doesn't care. Your ignorance of evidence beyond his expert opinion does not mean the cancer doesn't exist. You either take the news 'from authority', since your x-rays are off limits, or you choose to ignore him.
I only say there is conclusive evidence because that analysis is what the president was briefed on. I know the JCS Morning Brief exists, but can't 'prove' that Bush attends them. But you assume he does.
But your argument doesn't amount to much if you can't define exaclty what is this 'proof' you require. You want it so bad, but you don't even know what it is. Nor would you be able to recognize it if it were handed to you. You would need someone to tell you what you were looking at, From Authority, a situation you refuse to accept.
So you just created a situation that makes you right and nothing short of you being not only exposed to information you can't have, but also the training to know what you're looking at, will prove you wrong.
You have no answered as to why the president should only attack if he has a WMD program. This is your 'legal' limit, not his. We could have invaded any number of times for any number of reasons. I think you are mistaken to think the president gives a damn about whether you think WMD is his only legitimate reason to attack. You're clinging to it awful hard. But it is a bar YOU placed there. Bush's attack is only 'illegal' if he attacks without having satisfied you that a WMD program exists. He is not limited to that.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Cosmic string
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2002 : 17:09:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now what's blind faith? being given all the unclassified archival evidence that you can access, his non-stop development of WMD, his willingness to use said weapons, and at least the allusion from the President that he is doing so now- yet somehow believing the contrary. You are the one taking an awfully big leap here of faith here.
I have made it clear I don't "believe to the contrary." I simply have not seen enough evidence, for whatever reason (even if justified), to support the statements made by President Bush and his cabinet on this subject. That leaves me in the undecided category. No faith is involved there. But to simply take what he says as fact does require faith. It requires at least equal faith to believe the opposite. That is why I will not (yet) take either position.
quote:
At the end of the day you have to take it 'from authority'. A doctor could tell you you have cancer but not show you an x-ray (if it was something you weren't allowed access to hypothetically). Now you could believe him or not, the cancer doesn't care. Your ignorance of evidence beyond his expert opinion does not mean the cancer doesn't exist. You either take the news 'from authority', since your x-rays are off limits, or you choose to ignore him.
You are still failing to distinguish authority from expert. An expert's opinion carries some weight because an expert has proven himself to be knowledgeable on the subject. An authority, OTOH, is simply someone in a position to tell others what to do. That doesn't make what they say carry any more weight than a non-expert. The doctor is an expert, the government is an authority. As for the hypothetical situation with the doctor, do a simple cost-benefit analysis. If he is right (which you would have no reason to believe without him telling you why), the chemotherapy and surgeries, etc. could possibly save your life. If he is wrong (which you would have no reason to assume), you could go through great suffering for no reason. So in that situation, it would be time to find a doctor who will provide you with information. If that isn't possible, then it is essentially a flip of a coin between the two possibilities. BTW, it would not be ignorance of evidence; it would be lack of evidence. Ignorance would mean you chose to ignore evidence.
quote:
I only say there is conclusive evidence because that analysis is what the president was briefed on. I know the JCS Morning Brief exists, but can't 'prove' that Bush attends them. But you assume he does. But your argument doesn't amount to much if you can't define exaclty what is this 'proof' you require. You want it so bad, but you don't even know what it is. Nor would you be able to recognize it if it were handed to you. You would need someone to tell you what you were looking at, From Authority, a situation you refuse to accept.
Wrong. It is the claimant's (Bush's) burden to provide evidence if he expects people to reach a valid conclusion. That does not mean he should expose classified information. It simply means that I can not reach a conclusion without evidence to base it on. You have no evidence that what the President was briefed on other than his say-so. If you base a conclusion on that, I pity you. It is also not up to me to provide a list of every possible piece of evidence could support his position. It is up to the claimant to provide the evidence. Then it could be scrutinized by experts (not authorities) who could interpret it and allow me to make a true conclusion about the situation. I will not accept an argument from authority, but I will accept the conclusions of experts who have interpreted evidence. I would also accept obvious evidence such as radiation or toxic chemical levels. Of course this evidence is classified and therein lies the problem. Because the evidence (if it exists) is classified, I can't see it and therefore can't reach a conclusion. Also, your conclusion that the evidence exists because the President is briefed on intel is one of the worst non-sequiturs I've ever seen. It is almost as bad as "our country will prevail because god is great". The fact that he is briefed on intel says nothing about what intel he is briefed on or what evidence exists.
quote:
So you just created a situation that makes you right and nothing short of you being not only exposed to information you can't have, but also the training to know what you're looking at, will prove you wrong.
How can a non-position be proven wrong? I have not, as you repeatedly claim (despite knowing otherwise), concluded that such evcidence does not exist or that the Bush administration has lied. I have failed to reach a conclusion because no evidence has been presented to base a conclusion on.
quote:
You have no answered as to why the president should only attack if he has a WMD program. This is your 'legal' limit, not his. We could have invaded any number of times for any number of reasons. I think you are mistaken to think the president gives a damn about whether you think WMD is his only legitimate reason to attack. You're clinging to it awful hard. But it is a bar YOU placed there. Bush's attack is only 'illegal' if he attacks without having satisfied you that a WMD program exists. He is not limited to that.
I never claimed that. I know he doesn't give a damn what I think. I never claimed it would be illegal for him to invade without proof of WMD. The only reason I ever mentioned WMD is because that is the reason Bush claims we need to invade Iraq. I never said it was wrong for him to take military action without providing evidence to the people. But I cannot, as you have done, assume on blind faith that these things he says is true, just as I cannot assume on blind faith that anything he says is false. I have seen no evidence and thus must not reach a conclusion, lest I be dishonest with myself.
Solly, unless you start using reason and start basing your arguments on reality (e.g., what people actually said, not what would be convenient for you to attack), I will not make any further posts on this thread in response. I have better things to do with my time than bang my head against a wall. I refuse to dignify such infantile behavior.
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.” --Voltaire |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2002 : 03:24:43 [Permalink]
|
This sounds like theists and New Age arguments. You have faith in science, so science is a religion. Since you're afraid to believe in god, you believe in science.
Since you're afraid to believe that America is Jesus, then you "believe" people who hate America and hate soldiers.
quote:
At some point, you are forced to accept what someone tells you as the truth,
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2002 : 15:36:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The only way you will be satisfied is to be given something you cannot be given. That's why I say it sounds like a conspiracy theory. You set up a situation that you can never attain. Like people that surround Groom Lake. You seem to know what is or is not there, without having access to any of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, that is exactly what your position is. Just like the conspiracy nuts outside Groom Lake, you "know" that the evidence exists just because you would likely not have access to it.
--I don't know what all the analysts have. Of course they have something, even if it were a lack of evidence, they would still have the intel used to arrive at that determination. There's no shortage of collection platforms aimed at Iraq. Moreover, the US not having evidence (unclassified or not) still doesn't mean he doesn't have a program. It means he can hide it well. Which, of course is sort of the point.
As to what the gov't does have; the analysts, being experts in thier fields came to the conclusion that there is a WMD program of signifigant threat in Iraq. They advised the president of this, and he advised you. That is all you are entitled to. It may not be want you want to hear, it may fly in the face of your self-importance, but you simply have no right to the 'evidence' if that evidence is classified. If it's not, then yippee, we all get to see it on CNN.
But I don't just draw my opinion of Saddam's programs from what Bush says. Being a thinking person, I can look at the mounds of open source material about his past programs and use of WMD(since anything we're gathering currently will be classified- you are going to be somewhat limited to the past) and use pretty common sense and analytical process to arrive at what should be obvious.
That's intelligence analysis. It's a guess. All the multi-billion dollar spy toys are just there to make it an educated guess. The determination of whether there is an Iraqi WMD program active, at some point relies on the expert advice of the analysts. They could be wrong.
But the security of the United States and the lives of it's people are at stake. Not taking action could be disaterous to the US.
All Bush did was tell you what his analysts told him. You are not privy to HOW he knows it. If that's your gripe, go become an intel analyst that contributes to the JCS brief.
My faith is in the analysts and the collection capabilities of the US. Bush can only repeat what he was advised of.
And you're forgetting that due to the nature of this discussion, just about any info there was WOULD be classified as it would most likely come from a protected source like a collection platform.
It's pretty obvious that there would be extremely little information you could get your uncleared mitts on, much less 'proof'. It's a big secret project, remember? So getting any evidence would take some serious insider knowledge, people who I doubt are going to share this info, or impressive collection systems. Neither of which you have access to. So looking for some kind of 'proof' is pissing in the wind.
quote:
At some point, you are forced to accept what someone tells you as the truth, or you will never agree to anything that you yourself didn't participate in. Such as determining the existance of WMD programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am never forced to accept what anyone says as truth. That is my choice and I base it on the evidence available.
--How do you know that Pluto exists? Ever seen it for yourself? No, you chose to believe astronomers word 'from authority'. Evidence? Sure lots of it, none of which you (unless you're an astronomer and I picked a bad analogy) would understand without an expert to analyze it for you. So demanding 'evidence' is pretty pointless unless you yourself are an expert in the field. Otherwise your information will come from authority. Having a picture of a white dot in a telescope lens is all the evidence you may be able to fathom yourself. That would make for some pretty flimsy evidence. It takes an expert analysis to achieve the notion that it is the 9th planet. Including- what makes a planet a planet.
What makes a building a chemical weapons plant? If you don't know for yourself, you will have to accept it from authority. You're argument seperates an Expert as having proof he will show you, even if you don't understand it. An Authority tells you the same thing but doesn't (or can't in the case of classified info) offer proof regardless. So you are just dismissing the expert analysis of someone (in this case Bush) based on his not showing HOW he arrived at his (or more correctly- his analysts) opinion. But, especially in this case, you have no right whatsoever to that information. This is your shortfall, not Bush's. He gets alot more info than you or I, much of which he can't share. You are pretty much just crying because he is complying with national security protocol and not revealing what sources were used to arrive at the conclusion that Saddam has a WMD program.
quote:
Bush has seen anything that is there, having the access. And he says there is reason to invade. So your argument is that he must disclose what he has seen to appease you, knowing full well he can't do that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, my argument is that there is no reason to believe him because no evidence has been presented which supports his claims. You, OTOH, assume that the evidence exists because he says so.
I base my conclusion on the analytical process, at least how it is represented in this context.
I know for fact he has had a sizable WMD program. Open source evidence of it abounds.
He has used it several times to kill tens of thousands of Kurds and Shiites. Again, covered by multiple open sources.
I know that there is a huge amount of collection effort spent on Iraq. So intelligence must exist, even if it is evidence that there is no WMD program- there is intelligence.
I know the JCS MB covers the proliferation of WMD world-wide. This would include any 'axis of evil' with it's own special little section.
It's a far larger stretch to doubt there is a mountain of intelligence concerning Iraq's WMD.
You also seem to be waiting for one, difinitive 'smoking gun' document or picture that seals the case. Intelligence doesn't work that way. The analysts advised Bush that their evidence (along with their opinion based on thier expertise) pointed to a WMD program. That's what Bush related to you.
Dammit, gotta go. be back
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2002 : 08:58:16 [Permalink]
|
I'm not arguing that blind faith or even arguments 'from authority' are not generally going to satisfy most people. I'm not debating the pitfalls of taking something from authority.
But this is a singularly bad topic to argue the point on. You are dealing with information that will almost certainly come from a protected source and remain classififed.
Your argument would be much more valid if you weren't talking about an issue of national security and classififed information. Not only are you not allowed to see any intel, you are not even allowed to know of it's existance. Which kind of makes this whole argument pretty circular. You want evidence you have no right to see. Even 'evidence' that there is no WMD program in Iraq is not for your eyes.
Either way, this is a private playground and your clearance needs to be this tall or you can't come along for the ride.
Your arguments against all things 'from authority' may sound nice in high school debate class, but the real world doesn't work that way. It's just not going to hold up, especially when you delve into the world of government, security clearances, and need to know.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2002 : 00:57:59 [Permalink]
|
Published on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 in the Chicago Tribune
Cheney's Warped Perspective on the Need to Attack Iraq
by Scott Ritter
It was a tour de force in terms of storytelling--the vice president of the United States speaking before an enthralled audience at the Veterans for Foreign Wars national convention last month in Nashville. Vice President Dick Cheney took full advantage of his bully pulpit to reinforce the case for war against Iraq, which hinged on Saddam Hussein's alleged continued possession of weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles, all outlawed since 1991 by a United Nations Security Council resolution).
"The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents," Cheney told the audience. "And they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago."
On what basis did Cheney substantiate his assertion?
"We've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors," he grimly noted, "including Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction."
And so the tale began. "During the spring of 1995, the weapons inspectors were actually on the verge of declaring that Hussein's programs to develop chemical weapons and longer-range ballistic missiles had been fully accounted for and shut down," Cheney told the veterans. "Then Saddam's son-in-law [Hussein Kamal] suddenly defected and began sharing information. Within days the inspectors were led to an Iraqi chicken farm. Hidden there were boxes of documents and lots of evidence regarding Iraq's most secret weapons programs."
All of this would be valid, if it were only true. I have spoken with the CIA and British intelligence officials who debriefed Hussein Kamal after his defection and reviewed the complete transcript of UNSCOM's own session with Saddam's prodigal son-in-law.
Contrary to the myth propagated by Cheney, there were no "smoking gun" revelations made by Hussein Kamal regarding hidden Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Throughout his interview with UNSCOM, a UN special commission, Hussein Kamal reiterated his main point--that nothing was left. "All chemical weapons were destroyed," he said. "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons--biological, chemical, missile, nuclear--were destroyed. There is not a single missile left ... they [Iraq] had kept blueprints and molds for production, but all the missiles were destroyed."
Everything Hussein Kamal said about Iraq's undeclared weapons programs was confirmed, in parallel, through the ongoing analysis by UNSCOM experts of the chicken farm documentation alluded to by Cheney.
There was nothing unique, nothing that differed from the documentary evidence. The bottom line from this high-profile defector--there was nothing left, that all proscribed weapons and their programs had been eliminated, and that the worst fears of a retained Iraqi capability--a nuclear device, for instance--were without substance.
Up until the Cheney's speech, the Bush administration had been vague about its objections to the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq.
However, in speaking of the defection of Hussein Kamal, Cheney revealed some of the thinking behind the rhetoric, and in doing so exposed fundamental flaws in the factual basis supporting the reasoning of the White House. The vice president's speech was intended to help solidify the case for war against Iraq. But if the evidence cited is representative of the level of knowledge possessed by those promoting regime change in Iraq, then it is high time we as a nation demand a halt to this rush toward war.
Unfortunately, as far as the Bush administration is concerned, it seems that when it comes to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, truth is more often than not the first casualty. Consider Cheney's emphasis during his speech that " ... we often learned more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself."
I would ask Cheney to review the transcript of the debriefing of Hussein's son-in-law, and heed carefully the words he spoke to the weapons inspectors that day in August 1995. "You should not underestimate yourself." Hussein Kamal said. "You are very effective in Iraq."
Inspectors were very effective in Iraq, and would be again if given a chance to carry out their tasks. Some in the Bush administration are waking up to this fact. "The president has been clear that he believes weapons inspectors should return," Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently. "And so, as a first step, let's see what the inspectors find. Send them back in."
That, Mr. Vice President, is advise worth heeding.
Scott Ritter is the former UN weapons inspector in Iraq and the author of "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem-- Once and For All."
Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2002 : 15:41:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Cheney's Warped Perspective on the Need to Attack Iraq
by Scott Ritter
"The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents," Cheney told the audience. "And they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago."
On what basis did Cheney substantiate his assertion?
How about Ritter's very own letter of resignation?
quote:
The Special Commission was created for the purpose of disarming
Iraq. As part of the Special Commission team, I have worked to achieve
a simple end: the removal, destruction or rendering harmless of Iraq's
proscribed weapons. The sad truth is that Iraq today is not disarmed
anywhere near the level required by Security Council resolutions.
As you know, UNSCOM has good reason to believe that there are significant
numbers of proscribed weapons and related components and the means to
manufacture such weapons unaccounted for in Iraq today.
------------
The NASA Vision:
To improve life here,
To extend life to there,
To find life beyond. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2002 : 15:49:40 [Permalink]
|
I have to admit that Ritter is hard to believe entirely in light of that letter. Was he lying then and truthful now? Just what is going through his mind?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
