What Ariana thinks

[Ziggurat]

So then they can refuse some orders?

They can refuse any order. And they will be punished for that refusal if the order is lawful. The punishment does not remove the ability to refuse. Duh.

Not yet atleast...

And you haven't said you idolize Saddam. Not yet at least...
Wow, that's a GREAT debating technique. Just look at the nonsense I can "support" with it. I should try it out more often!

I don't have a problem with that. That just means the government will have a much harder job of convincing the American people that whatever they have in mind is worth the sacrifice.

Ah. NOW we're getting somewhere. In other words, you want to weaken the military in order to make it less likely for the government to use military power. Makes sense, I suppose, if you primarily see the US government as a source of evil in the world. But this is an opinion with which I simply don't agree. And nothing that you conclude based upon this viewpoint will follow for me.

Not really, it just means politicians can't bully around weaker countries. They'll actually have to *gasp* use diplomatic skills.

Yes. That's it. Those despots will be shaking in their boots, once they know we've armed ourselves with skilled DIPLOMATS. Head for the hills! The Americans are going to censure us!

Thanks, but no thanks. That kind of subservience must first come from government before it comes from the military. In fact, you can't have military subservience without first having government subservience.

What really gets your goat isn't that the government doesn't do what the people want, but that the government doesn't do what YOU want. Sorry, but Bush isn't president because the government wanted him president. He's president because that's who the country elected. You lost. Get used to it.

And you've STILL got the whole thing wrong. If the military is not subservient, then you get military dictatorships. Military subservience is not sufficient for subservience of the government, but it is most certainly quite necessary.

 

[Tony]

They can refuse any order. And they will be punished for that refusal if the order is lawful. The punishment does not remove the ability to refuse.

Which effectively means they can't refuse an order. Duh.

In other words, you want to weaken the military in order to make it less likely for the government to use military power.

It would have that effect yes, but it would also make the government more accountable to the people.

Makes sense, I suppose, if you primarily see the US government as a source of evil in the world.

In the world? No, not at all. You're trying to pigeonhole me into some kind of amerca hater (typical). That couldn't be farther from the truth.

Is it one of the primary sources of evil in this country? Yes.

But this is an opinion with which I simply don't agree.

And I've already explained why. You don't want to hold the government accountable to the same standard as me.

Yes. That's it. Those despots will be shaking in their boots, once they know we've armed ourselves with skilled DIPLOMATS. Head for the hills! The Americans are going to censure us!

You're true agenda reveals itself, you'd rather despots be afraid of the government than the government be accountable to the people and the constitution.

At this point, I really couldn't care less about foreign despots, I'm much more concerned with the ones we have here. But apparently, they're your type of despots.

What really gets your goat isn't that the government doesn't do what the people want, but that the government doesn't do what YOU want.

So you're admitting that the government doesn't want individual rights for the country or to be held accountable? That's all I want.

Sorry, but Bush isn't president because the government wanted him president. He's president because that's who the country elected.

No he's not. He's president because special interests groups were able to convince, fool, and scare more people into voting for him than the other guys. And no, the country did not want him elected. He won a slim majority among the 50 or so percent of people who bothered to vote.

If the military is not subservient, then you get military dictatorships. Military subservience is not sufficient for subservience of the government, but it is most certainly quite necessary.

This doesn't even make sense. Can you re-state?

 

[Ziggurat]

It would have that effect yes, but it would also make the government more accountable to the people.

No, it wouldn't. It would make the government more accountable to those who enlisted in the army than to the general public, depending upon the approval of this small subset in order to exercise military power. That concentration of power is undemocratic.

No he's not. He's president because special interests groups were able to convince, fool, and scare more people into voting for him than the other guys. And no, the country did not want him elected. He won a slim majority among the 50 or so percent of people who bothered to vote.

In other words, you didn't REALLY lose, that sneak just tricked everyone.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. I not only believe in democracy, but I believe it works, and I believe in respecting the democratic choices of the electorate. I don't buy this idea that the general public is all just a bunch of rubes - that's an elitist, undemocratic, and (dare I say?) authoritarian attitude which doesn't impress me.

This doesn't even make sense. Can you re-state?

Sure thing.
Saying that the government must be accountable to the people before the military is accountable to the government doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If the military is not accountable to the government, then it is likely to take over the government (the military being the ones with the guns), at which point you get a military dictatorship. It is possible to have a civilian dictatorship in which the military is accountable to civilian government, but the government is not accountable to the people. But I can't think of a single case where the government can remain accountable to the people when the military is not accountable to government. So you can't really put one in front of the other, you need both at the same time. Hope that clears it up.

 

[tofu]

Which effectively means they can't refuse an order. Duh.

Tony, you are ignorant of how the military works. And I'm willing to bet that you're too hard-headed to listen to someone with actual military experience who does know how it works. But, I'll say this anyway for the benefit of anyone with an open mind who happens to be reading this.

Soldiers refuse orders all the time. They are specifically trained to refuse orders. At least once a year every single member of the US Army receives this training. Every-single-one. The training is standardized so it's the same in every unit and it is delivered by a Captain or above. Every soldier knows that, not only is he allowed to refuse an illegal order, every single soldier in the Army knows that it is his *duty* to do it.

I was a platoon leader in Korea. My driver was an 18 year old Private just a few months out of basic training. He was very polite, very respectful, he almost seemed afraid of people with higher rank than him. They're all like that right after basic. We were cruising down MSR 1 a few cars behind a truck carrying South Korean Army soldiers. The wind caught one the Korean soldiers' helmets and pulled it off. It, along with a nice pair of goggles fell to the side of the road. I got a good look at it. It was pretty cool stuff. We drove a little farther and I realized that the Korean truck wasn't going back for it, so I told my driver to make a u-turn and go back, I told him I was going to grab it as a souvenir. This PVT says to me, an officer, "no sir, we can't make u-turns here, it's illegal and dangerous." He wasn't afraid. He shouldn't have to be. He was right.

I was a company executive officer in a training unit at Fort Gordon, GA. A drill sergeant had something he wanted to do in his office late one night (he was supposed to be sitting at the CQ desk) so he ordered the fire guard to secure the door by sliding a pair of rakes through the handles. That way, he could hear if anyone tried to leave the building. This private, this trainee, refused to do it. The DS made him do push-ups all night. The next morning the trainee reported this to the 1st Sergeant. The DS got in trouble. The trainee did not. And he shouldn't have. He was right.

Soldiers refuse orders all the time.

 

[demon]

Dan Beaird:
A read of the evidence you supply yields the quotes below. I have arranged the quotes under the links in the order you have supplied them (and Zigs source). I have also quoted your previous post with the appropriate assertions that you seem to believe these links support.

1)You said; "hundreds of tons of yellowcake were captured."

Nuke 'yellowcake' from Iraq found?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-01-16-netherlands_x.htm

"A spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Agency said the Rotterdam specimen was scarcely refined at all from natural uranium ore and may have come from a known mine in Iraq that was active before the 1991 Gulf War.

"I wouldn't hype it too much," said spokeswoman Melissa Fleming. "It was a small amount and it wasn't being peddled as a sample." "

and

"..yellowcake that was found in a shipment of scrap metal at Rotterdam harbor." and "He said the dealer was confident the yellowcake, which was contained in a small steel industrial container, came from Iraq."

and even, "She estimated that the Rotterdam sample contained around 5 pounds of uranium oxide."


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36632

"Paul de Bruin, spokesman for Rotterdam-based Jewometaal, told the AP he has dealt with the Jordanian dealer for 15 years, and the man is convinced the material came from Iraq. De Bruin has been told to not reveal the dealer's name, however, because the find is being investigated."

Oh, and that's not to mention that yellowcake is not a weapon of mass destruction, and that there is no evidence of any capability of facilities to refine yellowcake to weapons grade material. Or, if I'm wrong.....(I think you know what's coming..), provide the evidence.


2)You said; "Several binary nerve agent artillery rounds have been recovered as well as stocks of blister agent (mustard gas)."

'Nerve gas bomb' explodes in Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm

"However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC THE ROUND does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.

He said THE ROUND dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained. "

Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
http://www.FOXNEWS.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

"Intelligence officials stressed that the compounds did not mix effectively on Saturday. Due to the detonation, burn-off and resulting spillage, it was not clear exactly how much harmful material was inside the shell."

Mustard gas found by Iraq weapon hunters
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1120720,00.html

"However, the find of a small amount of mortar shells is unlikely to satisfy a growing chorus of criticism that the much-touted weapons of mass destruction either never existed or were destroyed years ago. The Danish team has found only 36 mortar rounds buried in desert about 45 miles from Al Amarah, a southern town. But it added that up to a 100 more could still be hidden at the location. The rounds were in plastic bags and some were leaking. It seems they had been buried for at least 10 years.

Even coalition military spokesmen said the weapons were likely to be a leftover from the Iran-Iraq war fought during the Eighties when mustard gas was widely used."

You said "In many cases there is little to distinguish them [chemical weapons] from commercial chemicals."
Presumably, then, many commercial chemicals could have been misclassified as chemical weapons. How do you know this did not happen?


3)You said;"A large stockpile of bilogical weapons may be placed inside the refrigerator of a mobile home. Sufficient quantities of Ricin and Botulism toxins were found that would enable the production of a biological weapon in short order."

Our jury said; "Where's the evidence?"
Found where, when, by whom, and what was the threat level from the refrigerator in question at the time of the invasion? Was the refrigerater capable of putting, say, a small frozen mushroom cloud over London within forty-five minutes?


4)You said;"55 gallon drums of sarin and blister agent were identified by Army mass spectrometry scans. These were afterwards classified as agricultural chemicals by the ISG."

Our jury said; "And your point is..?"

And then you finish with a Dubya speech, ectopic and baffling, but hardly an argument clincher.
This is a particularly poor argument. Was it a hard day at work?


Even Bliar has given up on the WMD front that Dan Beaird bravely tries to defend. This parrot is deceased, it is dead, it is no more.

 

[Dan Beaird]

I'm going to post the FULL paragraph of your post that I questioned you about.

Go ahead the damn thing is so long I must enjoy reading it as much as writing it...

You did, in fact, begin ("First off") by stating an opinion. Fine, no problem. We all have opinions. You then make some factual statements using the word "is" and finally end your paragraph with another opinion. But let's not quibble about english and take, for the sake of the discussion, that the whole paragraph is an opinion piece.

Thank you, otherwise I'd definitely have to defer to the left on the formal definition of is.

But generally one has facts that are a basis for one's opinions. More specifically, here on a skeptic forum, one is expected to have at least some basis for an opinion. For example, when Christian Dude expresses his opinions about ID, we are all over him like white on rice for him to back them up. I merely asked that you meet the same standard that.

I do have basis for my opinion, although I admit that the basis of the opinion is not as strong as my basis for say...saying that ID is complete and utter crap. As mentioned before I haven't bothered looking at Sheehan close enough to try and see all her dirty secrets. I just don't see this as an important enough issue to warrant it. I have seen her and her supporters saying things that disgust me and retreating behind the body of a slain soldier when confronted. That's all I really need to know. For the rest of it I will happily stipulate that it is nothing more than opinion which is fostered by seeing the circus that has formed around Sheehan. She may have nothing at all to do with it, but she seems to be enjoying it too much.

THIS is evidence? I'll not comment but let others judge for themselves whether you provided sufficient evidence to even begin to justify your opinion.

Well technically yes it is evidence. Unless you would like to provide evidence that my observations are not true, I would be happy to listen. Evidence, after all, means "that which is seen" and these are the things that have stuck in my head and lead me to form the opinions I have. I make no claim that they would provide enough evidence to convict her of being a Michael Moore croney even if congress would get off their butts and make that the capital crime it should be.

But your "observations" don't support your opinion. For example, blogging with Moore is evidence of "well orchestrated attack on the administration by a special interest group" (your exact words)?

Well that isn't the only thing that I'm basing my opinion on, but I have also learned that you find crap in an outhouse without opening every one to check the theory. I've mentioned before that I'm making an inference here, and the results are opinion, not fact. I will not bother mentioning that again because I'm getting tired of typing it. You are free to disagree with me.

You want Sheehan to support her position without appeal to emotion while you won't support your position at all.

My position throughout this thread is that Sheehan is scum, not because of her position, but because of how she chooses to present and defend it. I also think the same of those who choose to throw themselves onto the same crap-wagon just because it's going in a direction they like.

Nice, Dan. Very well done. Please provide a list of the comic books you subscribe to so I can pick up some rudiments of logic.

Anything with Doctor Doom will do.

Now, here is another instance of logic in response to how she "money-grubbing"

"How could she not be?" is evidence for your assertion? Wow! I've made my judgement about your idiocy but I'll not taint others with my private view.

Call this more an observation on modern culture than an indictment of Sheehan. I think just about anybody in the same situation would also be trying to sell their story. Of course there's also the observation that this poor grieving divorcee who just buried her son seems to have no problem flying around to all sorts of interviews and spending weeks at a time sitting by the road (in an air conditioned tent if my sight isn't failing, probably to avoid the press of all those supporters) instead of doing typical things like...oh...work to make money for food.

Why is at all important? Because you did not make a statement about your belief on whether it was going to rain tomorrow. Or whether the Phillies will win the world series. No, you made highly charged, scurrilous statements about a person and about those who support her.

And remind me, why is that only bad when we're not talking about the President or one of his supporters again?

Unfortunately, that is what much of ideologic rhetoric has come to in political America. It damages the political process, it stains those who simply want to express their opinions and it scuttles attempts at problem solving and moderation.

Simply expressing opinions I can live with. Stupid manipulative crap like Sheehan, the Swift Boat Vets, Farenheit 9/11 and just about anything that comes from either side in political discourse is exactly ideological rhetoric as you say. In this case, what upsets me is not Sheehan's anti-war ideology, while I am not anti-war I generally respect people who are, but the tactic of using an appeal to emotion to stifle political debate on the subject. I noticed you haven't once tried to tell me that she doesn't do that. Which is why I'm still maintaining a modicum of civility.

One might expect some of that out in the coarse arena of everyday politics. When it happens in a forum where ciritical thinking is supposed to be the common denominator it is disgusting.

And, finally, when you respond, remember your promise:

Egad! Hoist with me own petard. Well I'm not going back and running this through the universal translator just for you. As far as the critical thinking reference, you might want to remember that critical thinking encompasses inductive reasoning where deductive reason is not possible. Nor is critical thinking absolutely subject to rules of formal logic. Sheehan has adopted a debate tactic that disgusts me. I've expressed that opinion and even given reasons for that opinion and I think relatively clearly indicated that I was giving an opinion. You may think it is wrong, but the only way you will convince me it is wrong is by expressing other, more believable, reasons which lead me to form a different conclusion.

My opinion of her is obviously tainted by the disgust which I feel for her caused by her choice of debate tactics. On the other hand I believe your opinion of her is tainted because you support her underlying position. Tell me, would you be giving her this much attention if Casey Sheehan hadn't been blown up last year?

 

[Dan Beaird]

I've already addressed this.

Really? Oh yes, you addressed it by dismissing it as insignificant. Right. Well, that's that. Let's move on then.

Yes it is, the amount of WMD's that have been found do not satisfy the president's or Colon Powell's claims. Are you now claiming the the CIA intellegence was right all along?

So you are saying that NO WMD's is actually some quantity of WMD's and manufacturing facilities greater than zero. Tell me, exactly how many WMD's and facilities do we need to find before you would acknowledge that they exist?

As far as claims, go back and read claims from the Clinton administration, assessments by other world leaders and independent studies. The general consensus before the war is that Iraq had WMD's and the capabilities to produce more in the future, and you know what? They were right! Furthermore, it was the responsibility of the Iraqi government to prove that they were in compliance with the UN mandate to disarm, not for anyone to prove that they did not.

Sorry, there was no sign of levity when you posted it. But it is funny.

There's another one that indicates the yellowcake is from Martha Stewart but I didn't see it when I was looking up links. Well, even if you do have to explain jokes to you twice it's nice to see that you get them eventually. Slow and steady wins the race.

You do realize that Bush talked about WMD's in more than one speech, right? And you do realize that not just Bush talked up the WMD's right?

Allow me to remind you, you said:

I'm aware of what he said, and nothing you've presented supports his assertions.

And I provided you with a direct quote of his assertions that I believe are closely in line with my statements. So now it's up to you to provide more than assertions.

Remember one thing: it was Iraq's responsibility to prove that they did not have WMD's and did not have the capability of making WMD's. Do you have any proof that they met this responsibility? Failing that you should admit that you're blaming the wrong folks for starting the war.

 

[SezMe]

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever for you for your opinion. And you have no qualms about expressing vicious opinions without such. Fine. I'm am sure you can live with my opinion of your credibility.

And here, finally from me, is MY evidence of your credibility.

On the other hand I believe your opinion of her is tainted because you support her underlying position.

Really? Here is how I opened my first post in this thread:

I was ambivalent about Sheehan at first but have grown increasing distrustful, even disinterested as time goes on. I wish the anti-war movement would refocus on its core issues and not be diverted by the Sheehan sideshow (and I don't mean that in a derrogatory manner - I mean Sheehan's demand to see the President is NOT a significant issue).

You have again demonstrated that your opinions and beliefs arise from your OWN blind position and not from, as in my case, clear words written in clear black and white.

 

[Dan Beaird]

...A read of the evidence you supply yields the quotes below...

Thanks for all the effort you put in. I disagree with damn near everything you say on the politics board but at least you're presenting some arguments I can address. I'm not going to quote everything just the pieces I can address. I'm short on time right now (blame Tony).

and that's not to mention that yellowcake is not a weapon of mass destruction, and that there is no evidence of any capability of facilities to refine yellowcake to weapons grade material. Or, if I'm wrong.....(I think you know what's coming..), provide the evidence.

An ounce of yellowcake is enough evidence to imply that someone is mining and refining uranium ore. This leads people to wonder why they might be doing so. Al Tuwaitha contained not only 500 tons of yellowcake but the equipment necessary to start an enrichment program. It was under UN seal throughout the post gulf-war period but the equipment was there and available for use if they decided to start up an enrichment program.

He said THE ROUND dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained. "

So WMD's don't count if they're old WMD's or they don't count if the people who have them don't know they have them?

"Intelligence officials stressed that the compounds did not mix effectively on Saturday. Due to the detonation, burn-off and resulting spillage, it was not clear exactly how much harmful material was inside the shell."

Oh and WMD's don't count if they don't work when they try to use them, is that right?

"However, the find of a small amount of mortar shells is unlikely to satisfy a growing chorus of criticism that the much-touted weapons of mass destruction either never existed or were destroyed years ago. The Danish team has found only 36 mortar rounds buried in desert about 45 miles from Al Amarah, a southern town. But it added that up to a 100 more could still be hidden at the location. The rounds were in plastic bags and some were leaking. It seems they had been buried for at least 10 years.

And they don't count if we think that Saddam forgot about them.

You do see where this is heading don't you?

You said "In many cases there is little to distinguish them [chemical weapons] from commercial chemicals."
Presumably, then, many commercial chemicals could have been misclassified as chemical weapons. How do you know this did not happen?

I don't. It's one of the realities of chemical weapons that many precursor chemicals are very similar to agricultural and commercial chemicals. Remember though it was Iraq's responsibility to show that they were not stockpiling or creating WMD's and were dismantling facilities for their production. There are indicators that can be used to trace this, but I think we're off into an area beyond my direct knowledge.

3)You said;"A large stockpile of bilogical weapons may be placed inside the refrigerator of a mobile home. Sufficient quantities of Ricin and Botulism toxins were found that would enable the production of a biological weapon in short order."

Our jury said; "Where's the evidence?"
Found where, when, by whom, and what was the threat level from the refrigerator in question at the time of the invasion? Was the refrigerater capable of putting, say, a small frozen mushroom cloud over London within forty-five minutes?

Mea culpa, that's not a statement that such a stockpile of biological weapons was found, merely that the components of biological weapons are what we technically call really really small and may be hidden easily. The quantities of Botulism and Ricin, while sufficient for weapons can also be accounted for with more benign explanations.

4)You said;"55 gallon drums of sarin and blister agent were identified by Army mass spectrometry scans. These were afterwards classified as agricultural chemicals by the ISG."

Our jury said; "And your point is..?"

That there is more than one opinion on the subject, yet there is sufficient evidence to conlcude that WMD's and the facilities to make them existed in Iraq prior to the invasion. Unless you'd like to try and do Tony math and tell me how many WMD's equal none.

And then you finish with a Dubya speech, ectopic and baffling, but hardly an argument clincher.

I know better than to expect Winston Churchill quality speeches from dubya, but considering the context, yes it was an argument clincher.

This is a particularly poor argument. Was it a hard day at work?

Too bad nobody seems to have an argument on the other side that's any better. Must feel really humiliating to have such poor arguments blow holes in the sacred cows.

Even Bliar has given up on the WMD front that Dan Beaird bravely tries to defend. This parrot is deceased, it is dead, it is no more.

I tend to think that folks who know better realize they cannot win against the constant repetition of the NO WMD's slogan and so hope it will go away quicker if they don't try to fight it. I don't agree with that tactic, but I'm not in a position to make that decision.

Nah...it's not dead, it's pining for the fjords.

 

[Dan Beaird]

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever for you for your opinion. And you have no qualms about expressing vicious opinions without such. Fine. I'm am sure you can live with my opinion of your credibility.

I'm sure I'll manage.

And here, finally from me, is MY evidence of your credibility....

Really? Here is how I opened my first post in this thread:

Interesting. So you're saying you support the war? Sorry, I got quite the opposite feeling after reading your posts. I'll tell the RNC to put you down for a 10k dinner ticket.

You have again demonstrated that your opinions and beliefs arise from your OWN blind position and not from, as in my case, clear words written in clear black and white.

Sorry if my words aren't black and white enough for you. I'll have my keyboard checked immediately.

Tell me, if the realm of political opinion is such a single-minded pursuit of the truth as you imply, why do you see such a diversity of opinions? I've honestly tried to address each point you've made about my posts up till this point while I notice you pick and choose carefully where to place your shots. You think my position is useless because it is formed with less than perfect observations...very well...prove it. Post the facts with supporting documentation that prove that my observations are incorrect. I've already mentioned I will change my opinion if my understanding changes. Go ahead, you seem to enjoy calling me a liar so much...here's another opportunity.

Or present an opinion of your own and let me call you an idiot for a while. Or better yet, swallow some of your own advice and don't post a comment until you have all the facts.

 

[billydkid]

Okay

Okay, setting aside arguments about whether or not the war is a just war or whether or not there was any legitimate reason to invade another country that could not seriously be considered a threat our own or whether or not the administration deliberately deceived the American people for the purposes of getting us into this war, how many of you really think this war was a good idea or that what we have accomplished is worth the loss of American life, the lives of our allies and the lives of so many Iraqis?

Even you will have to admit that the justification for attacking Iraq has shifted several times since the beginning. It started with the mushroom cloud then it became freeing the Iraq people and then it became fighting the terrorist threat. In as much as Iraq has turned precisely into the quagmire so many people predicted it would become even before the war started and in as much as noone could reasonably argue that the world is a safer place because of the war and in as much as Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists, something it certainly was not before the war, and in as much as the war has energized radical Muslims all over the world and radicalized Muslims who were largely indifferent to the US previously - would any of you seriously argue that starting this war was good foreign policy? Would any of you argue that it has been hundreds of billions of dollars well spent?

Can you think of a better, more effective use for all that money? Even if you accept the notion that Saddam was some kind of serious threat to the world or the US, don't you think we could have contained his activities for a relative pitance without going to trouble of invading the entire country? Hadn't we effectively contained him for the past ten years prior to the war? I honestly don't think any reasonable justification can be given for having invaded this country. There is nothing we have accomplished that could not have been accomplished at almost no cost, relatively speaking, in terms of either life or money. If anything the world is a more dangerous place because of the invasion and we are in a worse position to deal with it. Suppose there were a serious attack on the US and we have a couple of hundred thousand of our troops and most of our reserves and national guard in the middle east.

I just can not fathom the support I see for using our troops to occupy a country in the middle east. Is that what our military is intended for? To occupy foreign countries? The bottom line is that George Bush wanted be a "war President" because he thought it would make him a great President. What he fails to recognize is that in order to be a great President you have to first be a great man.

I must say, the contempt and suspicion I see directed toward Cindy Sheehan is astonishing. It is precisely the same sort of venom that was directed toward those people who had the courage to stand up against the Vietnam war. It is the same sort of hatred I saw in those people who cheered the police as they beat up protesters and emptied cans of mace into the faces of college kids who were determined to stop the war. You say she is using her son's death to further her political agenda. What the hell do you think her agenda is? Her agenda is to stop an unjust war so that other mothers don't have to lose their sons and suffer the agony that comes with it and so the the lives of other young people are not wasted in an exercise in futility.

 

[billydkid]

What?

Remember one thing: it was Iraq's responsibility to prove that they did not have WMD's and did not have the capability of making WMD's. Do you have any proof that they met this responsibility? Failing that you should admit that you're blaming the wrong folks for starting the war. [/B]

What??? How do you prove you DON'T have weapons? I am curious, just precisely how do you go about that? They let the inspectors in, right? The inspectors said they didn't have weapons, right? Scott what's-his-name, the UN inspector went on TV all over the place saying - please, there's no need for an invasion, they don't have weapons. But, no, he's just a weapons inspectors, let's ignor him and go with old, discredited intelligence and invade a foreign country. and try to paint him as whacko while we're at it.

 

[demon]

billydkid:
"What??? How do you prove you DON'T have weapons? I am curious, just precisely how do you go about that? They let the inspectors in, right? The inspectors said they didn't have weapons, right? Scott what's-his-name, the UN inspector went on TV all over the place saying - please, there's no need for an invasion, they don't have weapons. But, no, he's just a weapons inspectors, let's ignor him and go with old, discredited intelligence and invade a foreign country. and try to paint him as whacko while we're at it."


I agree with that totally.
How could any nation pass Dan`s test of "no" wmds.
It seems to me that Dan argues convincingly against himself. Iraq could never pass this test, nor could Tuvalu, Granada or Timbuktu. This is the fatuousness of the position. In effect it is that if you can find any scrag of evidence that means Bush's entire position is vindicated.
The proponents of this line of argument seem to have no understanding of the weakness of their position, even when they state the case such that the inferences inevitably lead us to the lack of candour in US/UK policy regarding WMDs.

They have been comprehensively answered regarding the weakness of the claim that there was a real danger regarding WMDs.

It's ******** that the general consensus was that there were significant WMDS. Neither Powell nor Blair believed this pre-911 and produced no new evidence that could have possibly changed their minds since.

One final question about that "responsibility" that Saddam supposedly bore. How do you - how does anyone - know what was submitted by the Iraqis given the US redacted most of it before it got into anyone elses hands?

 

[corplinx]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The tragedy

What did you think during the run-up to the war? Was the case that Iraq was out looking for nuclear materials enough to justify this war for you? Is it still?

I thought then what I think now.

1. We have been militarily engaged with Iraq since the war to free Kuwait.
2. Saddam Hussein had unaccounted for stockpiles of WMD.
3. Saddam Hussein was a supporter of terrorism.
4. Saddam Hussein was a destabilizing force in the region.
5. Saddam Hussein would most likely try to reconstitute a nuclear program after the lifting of sanctions and the end of military no-fly zones. Saddam's last nuclear program ended due to Israeli intervention. Iran's own nuclear program was in progress. And we know he had tried to acquire materials from Niger before the end of sanctions.

The only dynamic that has changed is we found out what most likely happened to the unaccounted for stockpiles. That doesn't change the fact that we were already militarily engaged with that country and put into the precarious position of leaving and letting him reconstitute his programs.

Were you bamboozled people only able to see one dynamic behind the push to topple the regime? Or do you only pretend now to have seen one reason because you can declare that reason invalid and therefore declare you were bamboozled?

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: What?

What??? How do you prove you DON'T have weapons? I am curious, just precisely how do you go about that?

By complying fully with the letter and spirit of the UN inspection orders maybe?

They let the inspectors in, right?

When they felt like it.

The inspectors said they didn't have weapons, right?

Nope, not exactly. Read the UN report. They said they didn't find weapons but also complained about the level of cooperation and activities that lead them to believe they weren't seeing everything.

Scott what's-his-name, the UN inspector went on TV all over the place saying - please, there's no need for an invasion, they don't have weapons.

I have just shown that they did have weapons. One of the reasons they call them weapons of mass destruction is that you don't need a lot of them to do a lot of damage.

But, no, he's just a weapons inspectors, let's ignor him and go with old, discredited intelligence and invade a foreign country. and try to paint him as whacko while we're at it.

Whacko or not, he was wrong wasn't he?

 

[Dan Beaird]

Re: Okay

...how many of you really think this war was a good idea or that what we have accomplished is worth the loss of American life, the lives of our allies and the lives of so many Iraqis?

Personally I'll wait a few more years and see how things look when the dust settles. It can still go either way.

Even you will have to admit that the justification for attacking Iraq has shifted several times since the beginning.

Well I'll admit that the attention of the media tends to shift with the prevailing wind of opinion, but I've found that official government statements tend to be pretty consistant with the possible exception of dubya's disfiguring speech impediment.

would any of you seriously argue that starting this war was good foreign policy? Would any of you argue that it has been hundreds of billions of dollars well spent?

I don't think the decision to start the war was based on foreign policy so much as internal security, but nobody deep enough inside the loop to know that is talking...yet. As for the rest of it, see the first answer.

Can you think of a better, more effective use for all that money?

Saddam was a supporter of terrorism, I really think that fact is patently obvious just from the offers of paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. At the very least we can say he isn't doing that anymore. If that is the only benefit we receive then yes, I might come to think that we would have been better off doing something else with the money...like giving it to Paris Hilton or some other worthy charity case. Just like the first question I think that the ultimate answer to "is it worth it" is not something we're going to be able to answer for a while. Unless you are prepared to say at this point that there is absolutely no possible benefit that can come from this action that makes the expenditure of blood and treasure worthwhile.

There is nothing we have accomplished that could not have been accomplished at almost no cost, relatively speaking, in terms of either life or money.

Care to elaborate on this? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I must say, the contempt and suspicion I see directed toward Cindy Sheehan is astonishing. It is precisely the same sort of venom that was directed toward those people who had the courage to stand up against the Vietnam war.

Nonsense. Unless you care to count in those courageous people the contemptuos slime that spit on the soldiers returning home and called them baby killers...they get about the same level of contempt for me that I give Sheehan now. Fortunately we don't see a lot of them on the news these days.

You say she is using her son's death to further her political agenda. What the hell do you think her agenda is? Her agenda is to stop an unjust war so that other mothers don't have to lose their sons and suffer the agony that comes with it and so the the lives of other young people are not wasted in an exercise in futility.

It's not what she is trying to do that bothers me, it is how she is doing it. Becoming a millionaire is a good thing, but doing it by stealing welfare checks is not a good thing.

The issue is not Sheehan's anti-war position, it is her using the death of her son to create an emotional fortress that is proof against any argument against her position.

 

[Dan Beaird]

It's ******** that the general consensus was that there were significant WMDS. Neither Powell nor Blair believed this pre-911 and produced no new evidence that could have possibly changed their minds since...

Take a break. Those goalposts must be heavy and you've moved them so far.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Okay

how many of you really think this war was a good idea or that what we have accomplished is worth the loss of American life, the lives of our allies and the lives of so many Iraqis?

I believe that, yes.

Even you will have to admit that the justification for attacking Iraq has shifted several times since the beginning.

I don't see it that way at all. I see the focus of the debate has shifted several times since the beginning, but all those various reasons (many of which are STILL operative) were there from the beginning.

In as much as Iraq has turned precisely into the quagmire so many people predicted it would become even before the war started

Let's be clear about this: what you're doing is saying that the pro-war crowd was wrong because the optimistic predictions of some have turned out to be wrong. But if you want to play the "who was right" game, you can't just pick and choose. Many people in the anti-war crowd were spectacularly wrong too. Casualties have been low by historic standards. There was no mass flow of refugees out of the country: in fact, the reverse happened, there's been a net RETURN of Iraqi refugees because of the war. And the arab world hasn't exploded into violence, our invasion did NOT trigger more wars in the region.

and in as much as noone could reasonably argue that the world is a safer place because of the war

You presume quite a lot here. But it's not simply about whether the world is safer today, it's also about what the world will be like 5 or 10 years from now. And I honestly don't see how you can argue that you know it will be more dangerous with Saddam gone.

and in as much as Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists, something it certainly was not before the war,

Claim without supporting evidence. Iraq has become a magnet for terrorists, but a sink is different than a source (to use an electrical metaphor). And you're actually wrong about it not being a source for terrorism before the war.

and in as much as the war has energized radical Muslims all over the world and radicalized Muslims who were largely indifferent to the US previously

Again with picking the hits and ignoring the misses. Yes, some of this has happened. It has ALSO energized democracy advocates within the muslim and arab world. It's broken the taboos, made many of them realize that they aren't doomed to live under perpetual tyranny. And it's taken the wind out of many radical's sails as arabs start to believe that Islamic radicalism isn't the only alternative to secular despots and pan-arab fascism. And that's already shown dividends. You honestly think that what happened in Lebanon could possibly have occured in the absence of our invasion of Iraq? I doubt it. And there's been a number of people in Lebanon who attribute our invasion of Iraq and efforts to establish democracy as being PRECISELY the inspiration for their decision to push for democracy and the exit of Syria from their country.

- would any of you seriously argue that starting this war was good foreign policy? Would any of you argue that it has been hundreds of billions of dollars well spent?

Yes. Yes I would. I have. And I did.

Can you think of a better, more effective use for all that money? Even if you accept the notion that Saddam was some kind of serious threat to the world or the US, don't you think we could have contained his activities for a relative pitance without going to trouble of invading the entire country? Hadn't we effectively contained him for the past ten years prior to the war?

Containment comes at a terrible price - not only is it NOT very cheap (we were spending quite a lot of money on it), but it too was inflaming opinion against us. And the oil for food program was rotting the core of the UN. If you care about multilateralism, then you should recognize how serious that disease really was, and how important it is to not let a body such as the UN become so compromised.

I honestly don't think any reasonable justification can be given for having invaded this country.

It is one thing to disagree with an argument, but if you cannot even understand it (and you evidently don't if you cannot see how any justification can be offered), then you're not really ready to debate the issue. I suggest you spend a little more time trying to understand exactly why someone WOULD support the war, rather than simply trying to attack a position when you haven't even grasped it.

You see, I understand the anti-war position. It's the default position for most of the people I'm around. I understand why someone would, in good faith, pure motives, and careful consideration, would come to that conclusion. I just don't agree with it. But because I can see how someone might feel that way, I'm able to credit those who do feel that way with having good motives and having thought about their position. If you can't do that for your opponents, then your position is weaker, not stronger, because of it.

There is nothing we have accomplished that could not have been accomplished at almost no cost, relatively speaking, in terms of either life or money.

How about getting rid of Saddam and his Ba'athist regime, and establishing an arab democracy in the heart of the middle east? Got an idea for how to do that on the cheap?

Suppose there were a serious attack on the US and we have a couple of hundred thousand of our troops and most of our reserves and national guard in the middle east.

Well, first of all, let's not "suppose" the part of several hundred thousand troops. Let's use the real number, which (IIRC) is around 135,000 troops, not quite "a couple of hundred thousand". This is about a third of our deployable troop strength. It becomes very difficult to deploy more than this for any extended period (due to the need to rotate troops to keep them fresh), but if there were a true emergency of the sort you imply, there'd still be a LOT of troops available.

A direct attack on US soil by another country would either be nuclear (in which case the response would probably be nuclear too), or it would come from naval and air attacks (unless you're suggesting war with Canada or Mexico). Our navy and airforce are not tied down in Iraq. Another 9/11 style attack wouldn't really need much in the way of military response to the attack itself. Our deployment in Iraq would make invading another country very unlikely right now, but is that honestly the capability you think we need right now? Do you honestly believe that our inability to carry out another invasion (as opposed to only air strikes which we're plenty capable of) is really a security weakness? Somehow, I suspect that's not really your position.

I just can not fathom the support I see for using our troops to occupy a country in the middle east. Is that what our military is intended for? To occupy foreign countries?

When necessary, HELL yes. You can debate all you want to about whether we should be occupying THIS particular country, but damned straight that one of the roles of our military is to occupy foreign countries when necessary. That's exactly what we did after WWII, and it worked pretty damned well. It's also what we DIDN'T do after WWI, and I hope you can figure out how well that particular one worked out.

The bottom line is that George Bush wanted be a "war President" because he thought it would make him a great President.

When your argument has to rest on the presumed MOTIVES of the person you're attacking, your argument is weak. I see this obsession with motives all the time: it is a sign of fuzzy thinking, not the keystone in a logical structure of arguments. If you want to argue based on what someone TELLS you their motives are, then go ahead, but if you want to assign motives TO them, well, that becomes essentially worthless. You're correct to point out that this is what some of Sheehan's critics are doing, but you can't recognize it in yourself.

 

[Beerina]

They could be given the order to rape children, and if it's legal and if they happen to refuse, they still get prosecuted. AND YOU'RE OK WITH THAT. So much for "casting off tyranny".

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as a "straw man" argument. :rollseyes
[/quote]
You obviously haven't read the whole exchange then. It is merely Zigg's position taken to its logical conclusion. If you keep reading, you'll see that Zigg made a damn good rebuttal to it. [/QUOTE]


No, it is not the logical conclusion. He points out that soldiers may not refuse moral, legal orders, or refuse legal orders for political reasons. You propose an immoral, legal order, then knock it down as idiotic. That is a staw man argument.

 

[Tony]

No, it wouldn't. It would make the government more accountable to those who enlisted in the army than to the general public, depending upon the approval of this small subset in order to exercise military power.

Actually, I'd say we're both right.

That concentration of power is undemocratic.

How? How is people refusing to do what they're told "undemocratic"?

In other words, you didn't REALLY lose, that sneak just tricked everyone.

No, it would have been the same if Kerry would have won. Unlike you, I'm not under any illusions as to the true workings of our oligarchic system.

I not only believe in democracy, but I believe it works, and I believe in respecting the democratic choices of the electorate.

So do I, but for democracy to work, you first have to have democracy. We don't.

You also have to have honest and credible politicians, a forum where all views are heard and no demagoguery or proagandistic political campaigns.

I don't buy this idea that the general public is all just a bunch of rubes

Why not? It's proven to be the case more often then not. Look at how Germany was fooled by Hitler and the Nazis. I think it's unrealistic for you to expect the general public to be able to detect and counter-act the sophisticated propaganda to which they are often subjected. I don't think that's the fault of the public, it’s the fault of the government/leaders/politicians.

that's an elitist, undemocratic, and (dare I say?) authoritarian attitude which doesn't impress me.

Not really. It's a fact of humanity. It's more undemocratic, elitist and authoritarian to deny it and sweep it under the table, because, as long as it swept under the table, leaders can exploit it.

Saying that the government must be accountable to the people before the military is accountable to the government doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If the military is not accountable to the government, then it is likely to take over the government (the military being the ones with the guns), at which point you get a military dictatorship. It is possible to have a civilian dictatorship in which the military is accountable to civilian government, but the government is not accountable to the people. But I can't think of a single case where the government can remain accountable to the people when the military is not accountable to government. So you can't really put one in front of the other, you need both at the same time. Hope that clears it up.

Got it.