+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Ochi reason number one... (/thread-11846.html)
Ochi reason number one... - Occhidiangela - 04-08-2003
No bile, no sneering. Been a bit testy with you, so I shall not be so in this post. ;)
Quote:We, the US military, are killing Iraqi citizens. They do not want to be "liberated"...that is a lie. Like so many other things being told to the US people by our govenrment and the so called "news".
The last time I checked, people die in a war. Take a look at the link Kandarthe put up about the Iran-Iraq war. Nothing changes without a price. As to whether or not the Iraqi's 'want to be liberated' that is an open question to which I do not pretend to have an answer, not sure where you get your confidence that they all love their leaders. The Kurds for sure do not. (Check my posts and comments for the last month about 'how do you impose democracy at the point of a bayonet.') Our own freedom from the Brits cost lives, as did the eventual freedom of the slaves via the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, and so on. The Vietnamese paid a heavy price for their efforts to shake off the influence of The West in the shape of the French and the US. If, and this is a huge if, the outcome of this conflict is that Iraq is a 'freer' place (nebulous term, really) perhaps that cost will have been worth it. Freedom is not free. The long term benefit that the administration claims will evolve remains to be seen. You are not the only skeptic on that one.
Quote:You bring up Shiia, you fail to mention that we encouraged them to rise up against Saddam in 1991 and then abandoned them to be slaughtered. Another kind move by the US governemt, as if we even pretend to care about the Iraqi citizens. Quit spouting that crap. The notion that we the US government cares the tiniest bit about 1 Iraqi citizen is a gigantic load of bull#$%&. That is NOT why we invade countires. Spare me that drivel.
Don't try to put words in my mouth. The decisions, and in the case of ignoring helicopters in the cease fire provision, errors, made by then Pres Bush and his Generals at the end of the 1991 war are a matter or record (So is the Bay of Pigs) as well as a matter of global politics of the time. IIMO, the decision to stop when we did was pointless, but hey, I was not President. :P The why and wherefores have been under discussion ever since, and you touch on an important topic: how sincere is Any American in caring for the average soul in Iraq, the guy who fixes the plumbing, the guy who runs a small pick up and delivery service, the guy whose son just got conscripted, the guy who runs the grocery? If the Americans, as a matter of policy, 'get in and get out and then wish them all well' a golden chance to build a constructive relationship, as we did in Japan, will have been lost.
The legal basis for going back in now is simple in the extreme. The cease fire agreement that ended the 1991 conflict, which meant that 'if you abide by this we stop shooting at you' has been violated by one party, at last count some 17 times, so action is being taken. Whether or not that is the only possible action is an excellent topic for discussion, but the illegality is blatantly false. The Wisdom of it? Well, that is a very good question.
Quote:You fail to mention that we didn't give a #$%& when Saddam used chemical weapons against ouor enemies...in fact we gave them the weapons.
One true, one false.
1. Yep, when he was gassing Iranians, looks like we, and MUCh OF EUROPE, took a passive stance because we did not like Iran either. (You did notice that the French kept selling Saddam F-1 fighters did you not, during the Iran Iraq war? See Kandarthe's link, good summary.) Do you forget the hostage crisis of 1979-1980? 444 Days where our Embassy Staff was held prisoner? I remember it vividly. That criminal act had an immense influence on our crappy relations with Iran then, and I suggest that it colors our relations with them even now. Politics is real life, not idealism, at work, and it makes for strange partnerships. We partnered with the biggest murderer in history, Joe Stalin, to deal with another SOB. We provided some support to Iraq and its SOB, last I recall was conventional bombs and artillery shells, due to another SOB, Ayatollah Khomenei, he of the Hostage Embassy fame.
2. We supplied Iraq with no chem or bio weapons. You are dead wrong, sorry, and living The Lie. I challenge you to prove that claim with fact, rather than rumor, which I am pretty sure you can't. Please remember who his primary arms supplier was for years: Soviet Union. Please remember who supplied Iran and Lybia with the methods to make gas: German firms. I am not sure if they were in Iraq, don't know. Who sold Iraq planes and missiles that he used to attack neutral shipping the Gulf for years? France. So, how about checking your facts on this one, OK? The US did not Arm Saddam, not in any substantial means, others took care of that.
Quote:What's happening in Afganistan right now? I understand they "forgot" to plan humanitarian relief there. The warlords are back in power, the country is in disarray...in fact the news the other day was something like this "Iraq this, Iraq that....1/2 hour later, oh yeah, we bombed in Afghanistan again today" ....do I find this disgusting? Yes, very. I have problems with THE US flexing its muscles across the world on a RELIGIOUS CRUSADE...anoother point you have failed to address with all your snotty little rant about how stupid I am.
1. Forgot to plan humanitarian aid? Who? The UN? What was the aim of the campaign? Take out the Taliban. OK, that was done. Find the Al Qaeda? On going. Are you asserting that no aid is being provided by the US to any one in Afghanistan? Your assertion is rather loose. Who asserts that it was not in the plan? Have you read CenCom's plan for the Afghanistan campaign? Sounds like outsiders who know nothing spouting off. I am curious: are you saying that there was no planning, or planning that had shortcomings or needed revision once the reality on the ground become more plain? Two different matters entirely.
2. To assert the action in Afghanistan as a religious crusade strikes me as an amazing leap of illogic. What started as pure payback to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, for 9-11, is turning into what anyone could have predicted: Afghan politics return to the very tumultuous and multifaction state of play present before the Soviets showed up in 1979-1980. (The fact that OBL had Massoud killed a few days before the 9-11 helped NO ONE in Afghanistan. He was a pretty popular guy with a lot of the factions. ) That the current state of play surprises anyone saddens me. The military operations continue, as I understand it, in the continued hunt for Al Qaeda and Taliban folks. Payback for 9-11 ala a needle in a haystack.
OK, GWB is an avowed Christian. How does it follow that he pursues the Afghan as a religious conquest when the very people he is now supporting are also Muslim???? Eh? Bill Clinton asked for clerical help over that silly Lewinski matter, but it does not follow that his subsequent decision to shoot missiles at Saddam was anti Muslim, or that his decision to Bomb Belgrade was anti Serbian Orthodox (such few as were left after 50 years of Communism).
Quote:Do you understand that you being smarter than me, knowing more about the US govermnment, and American history has NO BEARING on the morality of the US government invadeing countries for personal gain?
Let's see, you consider the war immoral. OK, I look at the situation and accept that war is one of many possible ways to solve a regional and global security problem. If you assert that 'war is never the answer,' you play into the hands of international dictators the world over, since with that passivity there is no threat to their continued existence and power.
Is war the best answer?
Excellent question.
I do not have the answer, but it is a method. Check history, you will find that GW Bush is not the only American to use armed force. You just don't like him, so to you the war must be wrong because he is using it as a tool.
Try Woodrow Wilson . . . and others. Look particularly at what Wilson and other progressives, Democrats, did in the name of progress with armed force. Consider that FDR, when assistant Secretary of the Navy, was kind enough to draft, for the folks of Haiti, a constitution. It is called "the Export of Jefferson's Revolution" and is consistent with the American character.
You might consider this:
(Credit: Mr Woolsley provided this framework as a way to look at a certain historical flow. It aint airtight, but an interesting perspective)
World War I: a few democracies and a bunch of Empires in War. Outcome: More Democracies
World War II: A few more democracies and some Dictators in War. Outcome: Even more Democracies.
World War III (Cold War): Two Superpowers in ideological conflict, outcome, more democracies (See Eastern Europe and others, including, finally Chile and El Salvador)
World War IV: The 60+ % of global Governments who are genuine representative governments versus . . . who? Dictators remaining, including some Islamists (not Muslims, it is a political descriptive for those who use a form of Muslim theocracy to impose dictatorship, just as the Pope used to.) In this regard, OBL and his extranational network are a viable political force to be dealt with, just as Franco's Spain or Hitler's Germany was a political force to be addressed, or Milosevic's Serbia.
Quote:The UN sanctions don't effect Saddam. You think he ate badly? You think his houses got run down? It's moronic, it hurts the people, which no one seems to give 2 #$%&s about. Why is this hard to understand?
You have just reaffirmed why embargoes are rarely effective, even though the UN uses them. Blockade and embargo is one of the few methods of coercion short of war that is a UN sanctioned action aimed at getting governments to abide by their responsibilities. At the international level, which assumes the identity and sovereignty of each nation, even if a dictator is in charge, the responsibility is assumed, under the UN model of sovereign status and mutual obligation, governmental accountability and responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. Saddam screwed his own people out of their food, he had the dough to provide it. He used the food as a political weapon.
Do you remember the Haiti situation in early 1990's, when General Cedras tossed JB Aristide out on his arse, the freely elected under UN observers JB Aristide? That embargo did not work either, so WE SENT IN TROOPS, in concert with OAS, whose imminent arrival, and the good efforts of Carter and Powell on behalf of President Clinton, convinced General Cedras and friends to GTFO.
Quote:Funny you say that the US did not act alone, they acted with the "security council" in 1991, would that be the same one that is entirely against this illegal war? Yes it is. So what do we do...screw 'em, we do whatever we want because we are big bad America....
See above about the incorrectness of the 'illegal' issue, or those in the coalition who did show up would not have bothered. That dog won't hunt. However, the fact that the US will act, at long last after 12 years of trusting the international community to enforce UN Sec Council actions, merely highlights the inability of the UN, without immense force of leadership, to overcome inertia on difficult security challenges within its area of influence. You do remember how much effort G Bush, Senior, had to put into building that coalition that he put together? It did not come about on its own, and in that case, a sovereign nation, Kuwait, had been invaded and despoiled. It took extreme efforts to do anything about that one, by a man who was far more experienced in international affairs.
In getting 'international' law or the 'international order' to stick or be taken seriously, some one has to shoulder the burden. That is how multilateral action works.
Back to: was war the only way? Probably not, but thanks to a serious amount of blatant actions of self interest on the part of everysecurity council member, the question was: what action will actually bring about any change? And what was the point of 1441 if not to take further action? And following that logic, is the UN relevant as a collective security organ? If the US plays it right (no guarantees there) it can leverage any success in Iraq into greater support for UN authority. It will take some finesse, but given that such is the direction that Prime Minister Blair thinks he can take it, it is possible. We shall see if there is any statecraft left inside the Beltway, and if Blair gets his payback for his support.
Quote:Know how many vetos France has used vs how many the US has used in the History of the UN? France has used its veto 18 times. The US 76. When they do we have a National outcry, change the names of food, this is Politicians BTW, not just hill billy locals.
Yes, we use the veto, like France or Russia or England or China, because we get to. It is in the UN charter. (Hint: you do remember who created the UN?) So the point is what, here? That France has less frequently felt the need to use a veto. OK. They are also a lesser player on the international stage over the past 60 years.
Quote:The estimated military spending in 2002 was $850 Billion for the enitre world. Half from the US, .0015% from Iraq. Yet they need disarming? Wrong, we need disarming, and we are proving it every day.
*Sigh* Right. $260-320 billion dollar defense budget is how much of $850 billion? Check your math. But on that topic, you have to remember that when the US goes in to help NATO or UN in Bosnia, Kosovo, LIberia, Bangla Desh, et al, it aint cheap. No point in showing up crappily equipped and poorly trained, because then more people die, not less.
Quote:Heres some more....
89% percent of US citizens are getting their news on the war in Iraq from the TV. 92% of stories on NBC, ABC and CBS from 9/14/02-2/7/03 originated from the white house. It's called brainwashing. Enough of your "big Lie" comments...at least I have the guts to question the murderers in our government.
And what about folks who get their 'facts' from internet sites without indulging in any critical thinking? And 'Huh?' to murderers in our government? War is not murder, even though people die in war, it is a political act that has lawful basis in the Geneva Accords and even under the UN Charter. Or do you refer to some other issue that I am missing?
Quote:50% of weapons entering the global markets come from American firms.
Interesting numbers. Do you refer to new weapons, do you refer to dollar amounts, or total volume of sales? Do you include such things as trucks and utility helicopters? Our biggest competitors, in any case, are the French and Russians. :)
Quote:We manufacture terrorism, we manufacture war. It is OUR regime that needs changing. No matter how many times you call me stupid, that will not change.
Our regime changes every four years, or every eight years, peacefully. You and Senator Kerry both know that. :)
You do raise an interesting point, though, even if you don't realize it, and one which is raised all the time: what role should the U.S. play in the world, a world where the goal, but not the reality, is that we all wish to hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and turn all swords into plowshares?
The problem every government here, be it Clinton, Carter, LBJ, Reagan, whoever, has to solve, is what combination of economic, informational, and military strength is used to back up its diplomatic efforts to further our own economic and physical security? That responsibility is laid on them so that they look after the interests of the American people within the context of international affairs. That is in their job description.
Some, apparently yourself included, would suggest a far more isolationist policy, a retrenching. To adopt that stance also means to accept added risk, and to use hope as a method of dealing with uncertainty, as in 'I hope things work out.' The danger of doing that is that we can see happen globally what happened locally in Europe in the interwar period: the world gets more chaotic and violent thanks to our indifference or inaction. Since our way of life is inextricably tied to our nation trading globally, true since and before its inception as a natioin, we cannot ignore the world we hope to trade with.
Now, you assert that this war is unnecessary.
You are not alone.
It may solve one problem, and will very likely create others. I think you and I will agree on that point in any case, and you do realize that any action taken in the political arena has risks. The risk in the current action is that the outcome, the post conflict middle east and for that matter the post conflict world, will be worse off than we were February 28th of this year. I have no idea if that is true or false, and I see that you are very uncomfortable with that uncertainty. I am not, I grew up in the Cold War, and knew that any day if the folks in the Kremlin and the White House lost their grip on relaity, we were all atomic dust. This is child's play in comparison, although in reality it is in no way anything but a serious matter.
In questioning the wisdom of using war as a tool you are in pretty good company with a guy named Daniel Ellsberg, who has been peacefully protesting this war since some time before it started. You may lack his logic and eloquence, I find his views on all of this very thought provoking, but he is in your camp: he considers this course of action unwise in the long term, and a failure of statecraft in the short term.
If a few hundred Iraqi's die in this war, besides the soldiers, it will still be under the annual average of 3-5000 Iraqi's who annually die at the hands of the Baathist regime. One year later, that makes for a better Iraq already. (I refer to some discussion on CSpan with CIA Director under Pres Clinton by name of Woolsley. I confess that I am not sure how he arrived at that figure, or if he was including war deaths in Iran-Iraq in his averages, but his coomments seem to be backed up by the link that Kandarthe provided a few posts up in re Human Rights Watch.)
When and if 'smoking gun' of NBC weapons (the term WMD is too imprecise for my liking) march into the international court of public opinion, will the course of action seem better to you?
Were you willing to wait until another great building in New York blows up? That may hapen anyway, regardless of action in Iraq. I do not know what, if any, link Saddam has to Al Qaeda specifically, but I do know that
Iran sponsors Hezbollah
Syria sponsors, or once sponsored Islamic Jihad (need to check that one out)
Edit: Just to flesh this out.
Quote:Originated among militant Palestinians in the Gaza Strip during the 1970s. PIJ-Shiqaqi faction, currently led by Ramadan Shallah in Damascus, is most active. Committed to the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through holy war. Also opposes moderate Arab governments that it believes have been tainted by Western secularism. External Aid Receives financial assistance from Iran and limited logistic support assistance from Syria.. From FAS page on Islamic Jihad
Saddam Hussein sends/ has sent money (I believe those reports) to suicide bombers in Israel.
And, FWIW, Americans in Boston and New York, civilians, not the government, habitually send money every year to Ireland to support the IRA, who blow up buildings and cars in London and kill innocent civilians. (At any rate, that was their habit, the seem to have chilled out a bit lately. Good on them)
History moves forward, friend Grumpy. The price for inaction is sometimes extreme. The price for action is often high. In any case, there is no free lunch.
Ochi reason number one... - --Pete - 04-08-2003
Hi,
Well, there isn't enough info at places like amazon to really give me a feel for a book, which is why I like to hold it in my hands and scan it with the mark one eyeball.
As to owning your books, I share that sentiment. However, we are talking about books on history, government, etc. First, there are only a few in print at a time, so many of the good ones are out of print. Second, many of the better ones never make it into paperback, so we're looking at textbook prices. Third, only a very few of the ones worth reading are worth owning. The others are mostly fill in and background.
But, yes, I suppose that you can get a good feel for what books to look for on the net, and you might even be able to get them from amazon and e-bay. But the effort of getting the *book* that way may be as great as that of getting the info you really want.
As to getting the background info off the net, I don't think that is too likely. It is probably mostly out there, but as important as info is the way it is presented. A simple listing of facts, scattered over many sites, is not going to give you the understanding that you'll get from those same facts presented with a coherent structure and explanation.
Best of luck either way :)
--Pete
Ochi reason number one... - Mark - 04-09-2003
Quote:There is only one truth, and it is not a compromise of lies. The pursuit of truth requires one to keep an open mind, and to examine all the evidence.
That statement is a matter of belief as well. Truth is not nor has ever been an objective reality. Truth is subject to the point of view of the observers. Even seemingly inarguable facts are not necessarily truth to everyone. For example, the sky is blue. That fact seems true, unless you're color blind.
Nor is every thing a compromise of lies. Evidence is simply a collection of related information that supports or rejects what you observe. Take Occhi's previous response to Grumpy's. She went through each of his facts and questioned them all. According to Grumpy he has truth, according to Occhi he does not. If there exists real truth, it can only be achieved by seeing the event from all points of view.
When you express your point of view, as Grumpy did with his opinion of Bush, you immediately expose all your evidence as possibly biased. Since, in this case, we know that Grumpy will try to find only condemnation of him, not anything else. Therefore it is much easier to summarily indict each of his facts, as Occhi did in his response.
Now my kudos to Kandrathe, I was perhaps a bit too cliche with my remarks about finding the truth between two extremes. My intent was to say that those who live on the extreme sides of an issue are rarely unbiased. Therefore look to those sitting on the fence, since they are still weighing and measuring the evidence that exists. They are less biased since they don't immediately reject evidence that might disagree with their point of view.
Quote:I think the hallmarks of intelligence and wisdom are to know when to say things like "I don't know", "you were right", and "I'm sorry".
I totally agree, they are also the most difficult of words for people to say. As is the case with most things, the harder they are the more important they are. The three simple phrases above, could save a lot of marriages, ease relations between a boss and employee, improve relations between teens and parents, etc.
Mark
Edit: Sorry Occhi, thanks Pete.
Ochi reason number one... - --Pete - 04-09-2003
Hi,
For instance, a color blind person would still find that a spectrograph of the sky shows a peak in the short visible (i.e., "blue") end of the spectrum.
And, in spite of your misconception, Occhi will remain male. ;)
A person's perception of truth may be flawed. But there are matters of fact and matters of evidence and, insofar as they exist at all matters of fact are either true or they aren't. Many people, made more ignorant by exposure to a "liberal arts" education and taught by people more ignorant than themselves apply the relative truth of opinions to the absolute truth of facts.
As to the fence sitters: there is a fine difference between moderation and apathy. And, all too often, the first is used as a justification for the second. If you believe in nothing, if you care for nothing, then you will influence nothing and you will accomplish nothing. If it is your desire to do so, then you are a moderate. If you just let it happen, then you are apathetic.
But the truth, in matters of fact and often in matters of opinion, is not found at the geometric mean of the arguments. The world is not 1% flat and 99% round because that's the ratio of beliefs.
--Pete
Ochi reason number one... - Mark - 04-09-2003
Quote:For instance, a color blind person would still find that a spectrograph of the sky shows a peak in the short visible (i.e., "blue") end of the spectrum.
Perhaps a bad example, but then truth is dependent upon the quality of the measure, a spectrograph as opposed to the eyes. Therefore if I am of the extreme opinion that the sky is not blue, I simply have to disagree with the idea that the short end of the visible spectrum is in fact blue. Whatever proof offered that the sky is blue will not convince me because, due to my extremism, I simply refute everything. This trivial example demonstrates what happens in politics, often punctuated by people saying, "There's no way to convince these/those people. They have an answer to everything." Which then leads to the statement "We'll have to agree to disagree." Blah
Quote:A person's perception of truth may be flawed. But there are matters of fact and matters of evidence and, insofar as they exist at all matters of fact are either true or they aren't. Many people, made more ignorant by exposure to a "liberal arts" education and taught by people more ignorant than themselves apply the relative truth of opinions to the absolute truth of facts.
Your statement then begs the question: How many flawed perceptions does it take before it becomes truth? I'm not so foolish as to believe that everything is relative, that line of thinking soon degenerates into nihilism. I'm just pointing out when ideas are less obvious than the color of the sky, the problem of finding the real truth becomes even more difficult. We have to start defining everything, and soon apathy sets in. As in our previous example, a definition of the term, blue, is required by both sides of the argument.
Quote:As to the fence sitters: there is a fine difference between moderation and apathy. And, all too often, the first is used as a justification for the second. If you believe in nothing, if you care for nothing, then you will influence nothing and you will accomplish nothing. If it is your desire to do so, then you are a moderate. If you just let it happen, then you are apathetic.
I don't see the relationship between moderation and apathy. Moderation seems to be an attempt to maintain a sense of balance. Apathy would be no attempt at fomenting any opinion at all, and as you say accomplish nothing. I do not see how moderate's 'desire' is to accomplish nothing. Maybe I'm missing something there.
Quote:But the truth, in matters of fact and often in matters of opinion, is not found at the geometric mean of the arguments. The world is not 1% flat and 99% round because that's the ratio of beliefs.
Agreed. Truth, requires a definition. It seems that some believe that truth is a majority opinion. I would put forward that truth is only attainable when everyone observes the same event in the same way, which can never happen. The only truth then would be individual in nature. In that case, the sky is blue...to me.
Thanks for the response, Pete. Insightful.
Ochi reason number one... - Occhidiangela - 04-09-2003
Looks like my (Freudian) slip is showing again. :)
Sorry about that, not the first.
It all has to do with drunken rogues in Tristram, and my bad Italian . . . and Sergio Leone movies. I am sure that explains everything.
Ochi reason number one... - --Pete - 04-09-2003
Hi,
Therefore if I am of the extreme opinion that the sky is not blue, I simply have to disagree with the idea that the short end of the visible spectrum is in fact blue.
And if I call a stone a scone, will it then nourish me? That we call that part of the visible spectrum with the shortest wavelengths "blue" is meaningless. Any other sound with the same significance would do as well. That is the kind of pointless semantic discussion the Greeks (Socrates in particular) loved, playing with definitions. Educated people for the last few hundred years have gotten well beyond that. Yes, if you redefine "blue" to mean "a piece of furniture to sit on", then indeed the sky is not blue and ads will sell you a set of table and four blues. But our good friend Reverend Dodgson did a better job of parodying that outlook than I could ever do. :)
Regardless of what we call it, of what units we measure in, the peak of the spectrum of the daylight sky stays the same. To deny it, as to deny the (mostly) spherical nature of the Earth is not tenable. If you are implying that some people are mentally unsound, that is fine. If you are implying that we should then give those people's opinions equal weight with those of sound mind, then I strongly disagree.
How many flawed perceptions does it take before it becomes truth? . . . I'm just pointing out when ideas are less obvious than the color of the sky, the problem of finding the real truth becomes even more difficult.
As I've said, matters of fact, matters of opinion. No one is entitled to an opinion in matters of fact. The world *is* round. The battle of Agincourt *was* fought. And so forth. No amount of opinion will ever make the beauty of the Mona Lisa "true" or "false". It will always remain a matter of opinion. In (valid) opinion, there is no true or false, just more or less defensible. On the other hand, no amount of opinion will change the fact of the *existence* of the Mona Lisa. Solipsism aside, it exists. It is there.
We have to start defining everything, and soon apathy sets in. As in our previous example, a definition of the term, blue, is required by both sides of the argument.
That people in a discussion need to agree on the terms they are using is so basic that it barely needs saying. Of course the semantics must be established. That is almost trivial. Hence the often heard "that's just semantics", which is both a valid and a poor claim. Valid, in that semantics is not worth really arguing about. Some compromise can be easily reached, even if it involves inventing new terms or (as the education people love to do) stringing together a bunch of polysyllabic words. It is a poor claim in that semantics is never a "just". Like a building without foundations, an argument where the semantics haven't been settled soon falls down.
I don't see the relationship between moderation and apathy. Moderation seems to be an attempt to maintain a sense of balance. Apathy would be no attempt at fomenting any opinion at all, and as you say accomplish nothing. I do not see how moderates 'desire' is to accomplish nothing. Maybe I'm missing something there.
Bad semantics on my part ;)
I used the word "moderation" in a moment of metal weakness. I meant by it your "Here's how I choose to live. Take the extremes of both sides and cut them in half. The truth is not far away." but that is really a misuse of "moderate". Since I do not know of any appropriate term, then let me call it "averagate". So, take my statement and replace every occurrence of "moderate" with "averagate", thereby removing the connotations associated with "moderate".
By taking the position that the middle is right, then you take no position at all. What is the averagate position on abortion? On the death penalty? On affirmative action?
Since so many things have no averagate mean, then an averagate cannot have a meaningful opinion on them. That is in effect the same as having no opinion at all, which brings us back to apathy. Except that an averagate is an apathetic person with a rational -- or so it seems to me.
I would put forward that truth is only attainable when everyone observes the same event in the same way, which can never happen. The only truth then would be individual in nature.
Sorry, I disagree. The "truth" of your opinions is indeed personal, in that matters of opinion do not have a "truth" associated with them. The truth of past events, of scientific observation, etc. is beyond rational doubt. The existence of people who claim that gravity does not exist does not keep dropped glasses from breaking. While earlier you rejected relativism as being foolish, here you seem to embrace it fully. I think you might want to reflect on your belief system, for it seems to embody paradoxes. If you are comfortable with them, by all means enjoy. But if you are looking for a consistent world view, then you might want to replace some of what you believe.
--Pete
Ochi reason number one... - whyBish - 04-10-2003
Occhidiangela,Apr 9 2003, 04:41 AM Wrote:America has a pretty neat system of government.I thought my system was 'neater' <_<
Ochi reason number one... - WarBlade - 04-10-2003
Sshhhhhhhhh whyBish. You know that knocking on the superiority complex will only leave you apologizing for other people's misinterpretations . . . ;)
Ahh, what the hell.
Go for it! :lol:
Ochi reason number one... - Mark - 04-10-2003
Pete said:
Quote:As I've said, matters of fact, matters of opinion. No one is entitled to an opinion in matters of fact. The world *is* round. The battle of Agincourt *was* fought. And so forth. No amount of opinion will ever make the beauty of the Mona Lisa "true" or "false". It will always remain a matter of opinion. In (valid) opinion, there is no true or false, just more or less defensible. On the other hand, no amount of opinion will change the fact of the *existence* of the Mona Lisa. Solipsism aside, it exists. It is there.
I'll stipulate that matters of fact are irrefutable. Yet perceptions of facts are not. To get away from empircal examples let's take the event of a murder. We can state as facts such questions as who, what, when, where, and how given sufficient evidence. However the question that I would like to discuss is the why. This truth of this is based on perception, the eyewitnesses, the victim, the culprit all see their perceptions as true but disagree. Are they all true, is it possible to have absolute truth when it comes to why? Do we simply have to get a consensus of opinions to determine why the murder occurred and that consensus shall be truth? This is the crux of my argument, and what I was trying to get at with such a poor example as sky color.
This is further evidenced by the discussion between Grumpy and Occhi, they both have facts, they both disagree. Facts, though true, don't lead to proof of either opinion, if they did then people would have to admit they believe falsehoods. Then of course, how many irrefutable facts does it take before an opinion is true?
Pete said:
Quote:I used the word "moderation" in a moment of metal weakness. I meant by it your "Here's how I choose to live. Take the extremes of both sides and cut them in half. The truth is not far away." but that is really a misuse of "moderate". Since I do not know of any appropriate term, then let me call it "averagate". So, take my statement and replace every occurrence of "moderate" with "averagate", thereby removing the connotations associated with "moderate".
By taking the position that the middle is right, then you take no position at all. What is the averagate position on abortion? On the death penalty? On affirmative action?
Since so many things have no averagate mean, then an averagate cannot have a meaningful opinion on them. That is in effect the same as having no opinion at all, which brings us back to apathy. Except that an averagate is an apathetic person with a rational -- or so it seems to me.
Right. I admit that the median of two extremes was not truth and my intent was to say it was important to keep the blinders off when it comes to opinions. The point is yours, my statement was trivial and baseless.
Peter said:
Quote:Sorry, I disagree. The "truth" of your opinions is indeed personal, in that matters of opinion do not have a "truth" associated with them. The truth of past events, of scientific observation, etc. is beyond rational doubt. The existence of people who claim that gravity does not exist does not keep dropped glasses from breaking. While earlier you rejected relativism as being foolish, here you seem to embrace it fully. I think you might want to reflect on your belief system, for it seems to embody paradoxes. If you are comfortable with them, by all means enjoy. But if you are looking for a consistent world view, then you might want to replace some of what you believe.
Whoa, slow down here. This is a forum. My own personal beliefs are not on display here. Perhaps the confusion comes from my use of the pronoun 'I'. It's simply easier to write that way instead of using something less personal, the language tends to get complex . I will admit I enjoy this type of discussion, and in an effort to further the argument I have exercised a little intellectual masturbation. My difficulty, which led to such "foolish relativism" comes from trying to argue that the sky is not blue, and thus I hope to concede that argument.
:) Having said that: If enough people believe the glass will not fall...? :D
This type of thinking is just one of many unprovable suppositions in existentialism. This does call its evidence from corporate belief systems, like religion, and the documented miracles that have occured in the past. Though I don't want this discussion to degenerate into the legitimacy of miracles, there are enough books on that already.
Again, thanks for the response.
Ochi reason number one... - Occhidiangela - 04-10-2003
. . . his own.
Where you sit determines what you see. :)
Ochi reason number one... - Occhidiangela - 04-10-2003
Nice try.
They both grew from the same roots: The Brits and the Enlightenment. :P
Ochi reason number one... - ergates - 04-10-2003
Hi Occhi,
I am very reluctant to participate in political discussion in public forums but this struck me as a bit odd:
Quote:2. We supplied Iraq with no chem or bio weapons. You are dead wrong, sorry, and living The Lie. I challenge you to prove that claim with fact, rather than rumor, which I am pretty sure you can't. Please remember who his primary arms supplier was for years: Soviet Union. Please remember who supplied Iran and Lybia with the methods to make gas: German firms.
Please do some research on this topic. Perhaps a good starting point would be some of the 1994 senate's hearings.
Or try it with question 24 of congressman Paul. But this one may be a bit one-sided...
Overall I thought it common knowledge that the USA provided Saddam with the prerequisites, the material, the knowledge and the advice to start his WMD program. Am I wrong here?
Or is American mainstream TV already "gleichgeschaltet" (maybe "aligned" would be a proper translation) so that nobody brought up the facts?
Bye,
ergates
(being seriously irritated at many of the new "security" legislations... :( )
Ochi reason number one... - ergates - 04-10-2003
sorry for the double post - got an error during the first reply...
Ochi reason number one... - Occhidiangela - 04-11-2003
OK, here is one piece.
Quote:After the war, in addition to tens of thousands of other chemical munitions, U.N. inspectors -- now listen carefully to this -- U.N. inspectors found and destroyed 28 SCUD chemical warheads containing the chemical nerve agent Sarin.
According to a Department of Defense official, these warheads had been obtained from the former Soviet Union.
Then there was this bit.
Quote:24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?
On the first scan of the 1994 report, I did not see what he was referring to, but I will read it again.
What I could not ascertain was whether or not the dual use materials were on a list of prohibited materials for export under US law, or under UN resolutions, but I may have missed it. If so, I wonder why the Clinton and Bushadministrations, and the associated Secretary of commerce for each, allowed the export. That strikes me as bizarre in the extreme, and inconsistent with non proliferation policies that reach back to the Nixon era.
Thanks again for the link. :) I will comment again after I read the testimony again.
Ochi reason number one... - Occhidiangela - 04-11-2003
1. Hearing on Gulf War syndrome. Rep Pauls questions were, of course loaded, but some of them were, for Sept 2002, very timely. Glad he asked them if others had not the guts, they needed asking, even if some were based on flawed premises. He, failed to do a very thorough analysis, IMO, as politicians will do now and again. Comes with the badge, and the spin.
2. Department of Commerce regulated export licenses for sales of products with possible dual-use. That is the issue, not FMS sales of weapons, and not sales of chem or bio weapons.
Nice try on the use of 'gray area.'
Quote:Back in 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which is the Committee which has Senate oversight for the Export Administration Act, held an inquiry into the United States export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. inspectors had identified many United States-manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs.
This is an interesting bit, and I can only guess as to the various international commerce and balance of trade discussions that accompanied the licenses that Commerce issued, and the risk that the dual use materials might possibly be put to.
Do you stop selling gasoline to people in the fear that they will make Molotov cocktails and toss them at you, rather than put it into their cars? Depends on the customer, I suppose.
I will point out to you that pre August 2 1990, US still conducted commerce with Iraq, and that the chem and bio ARMS, as I stated, were not sold to Iraq, nor was Sarin gas sold to Iraq, nor was such stuff as Anthrax.
If you understand how chem weapons are made, you will understand that materials for such stuff as pesticide and fertilizer, legit agricultural products, can also, if processed in a certain manner, be made into other chemicals. That is what is meant by 'dual-use.' Read carefully what Under Secretary Dorn said.
'Materials that could contribute to' . . . got it?
Point: After the OKC bombing, and the large fertilizer and diesel bomb went off, some people were trying to regulate the sale of #$%&: that's right, regulating the sale of manure in one of the greatest agricultural countries in the world since some one 'could' make a bomb out of it. I am told that in Texas, now, if you buy more that a few hundred pounds of fertilizer now, your name is put on a list. Not sure if that is true.
Once again, the US did not sell or provide chemical weapons to Iraq, which is the BS charge that is being made, by both Grumpy and now your and by others who don't bother with facts and who know less than dirt about FMS cases. My statement on that stands, and your link, while great background, does nothing to challenge that. Thanks for it anyway, as it also showed that our Congress, with the Gulf War Syndrome as a catalyst, took steps to take even more stringent measures. Good for them. :)
So, once again, Iraq made the chem and bio materials, and others made the weapons that fired them. The U.S. did not. Case closed.
That materials that had possible dual-use were sold is a charge that can be laid at every country that traded with Iraq, to include the U.S. and as I read the testimony, a subsequent piece of legislation went into effect to stop even that. Export Controls Act. That strikes me as sound policy, one followed up by both Pres Clinton and Pres Bush via continued UN Sec Council Resolution support.
From Sec Def:
Quote:Now let me turn to the Defense Department's role in the export licensing process. First, it should be noted that DoD is not a licensing agency. That responsibility falls on the Department of Commerce for dual-use items. The Department of Defense, however, reviews and provides recommendations on export license applications when they're referred to Defense, or to inter-agency groups in which Defense participates. Records on the ultimate disposition of dual-use biological, chemical, nuclear, or missile technology-related licenses reside in the Commerce Department.
A bit later:
The Department has taken, and will continue to take, its responsibility here very seriously. For example, DoD made an important contribution in halting export of the Argentine Condor Program that was aiding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. And we spearheaded the effort to prevent Iraq from acquiring a more capable missile than the SCUD.
Defense also played a leading role in developing the President's Enhanced Proliferation Control Initiative and most recently, the Comprehensive DoD Counterproliferation Initiative. The Department of Defense continues to consider proliferation as a significant military threat. The growing ability to produce and use chemical weapons is a great concern to DoD. We fully support any measures that will prevent or control this proliferation, which includes strengthening the Export Administration Act.
It is important to remember that all exports made to Iraq in the 1980's were completely consistent with the laws in effect at that time, and Iraq was not considered a hostile country. Defense's role in reviewing exports was greatly expanded in 1991, and would be further expanded through measures you were considering in this Committee.
Now, weapons and arms: Check the artillery pieces and shells sold to Iraq, the tools to pump gas into the shells. The Weapons. Made where? Russia.
Do you understand the difference between selling arms, and manufacturing arms from materials sold? Such as, the scrap iron sold to Japan before WW II, some of which was most likely returned to us in bomb and torpedo form at Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Wake, and Corregidor? We did not sell the Japanese the weapons, we sold them the iron. They built the weapons themselves. They could have built container ships instead, or rice harvesters.
Which is the entire point of the UN sanctions in re Iraq. Given a choice not to, Saddam made the crap anyway. We did not sell him the arms, or the bio and chem agents. He made that stuff himself, even when he had agreed, under 1991 cease fire, not to.
And as for you nice Europeans. :)
Quote:The Iraqi program was developed gradually over the course of the 1980's. By the time of the invasion of Kuwait, it had become deeply entrenched, flexible, and well-orchestrated. Project managers for the weapons of mass destruction programs went directly to vetted European suppliers for the majority of their needs. Throughout the 1980's, German companies headed the list of preferred suppliers for machinery, technology, and chemical precursors. German construction companies usually won the contracts to build the CW facilities in Iraq. And Iraqi procurement agents were sophisticated in exploiting inconsistencies in local export control laws by targeting countries for substances and technologies that were not locally controlled.
In the pre-war years, the dual-use nature of many of these facilities made it easier for Iraq to claim that chemical precursors, for example, were intended for agricultural industries. European firms, arguing that the facilities in Iraq were for the production of insecticides, built the Samarra chemical plant, including six separate chemical weapons manufacturing lines, between 1983 0986.
European middlemen broke red chemical precursor deals for Iraq under the pretext that the materials were intended for pesticide plants. A Dutch firm purchased supplies from major chemical firms around the world, supplying the Chemical Importation and Distribution State Enterprise in Baghdad in the late 1970's, and in the 1980's supplying the Iraqi State Establishment for Pesticide Production -- cover names for the CW program. The middleman supplied dual-use chemical precursors including monochlorobenzene, ethyl alcohol, and thiodiglycol. When the Iraqis requested phosphorus oxychloride -- a nerve agent precursor banned for export under Dutch law without explicit permission -- the supplier balked and drew this request to the attention of Dutch authorities. Subsequent Dutch investigations found that two other Dutch firms were involved in brokering purchases of chemical precursors.
Iraq exploited businessmen and consortia willing to violate the export laws of their own countries. As has been indicated in press and television reports, The Consen Group -- a consortium of European missile engineers and businessmen established a network of front companies to cover its role as project director of an Argentine-Egyptian-Iraqi sponsored Condor II ballistic missile program.
Iraqi procurement officers, knowing full well the licensing thresholds, requested items that fell just under the denial thresholds -- but nonetheless would suffice. Prior to Desert Storm, U.S. regulations on the export of these technologies were drafted to meet U.S. technical specifications and standards. Technologies of a lower standard worked just as well, and permitted Iraq to obtain the goods and technology consistent with Commerce Department regulations.
Let me turn to the question of the involvement of U.S. firms in Iraq's proliferation programs. We were watching these programs very carefully, and it was clear that the major players assisting Saddam's effort were not American firms -- they were principally European. We saw little involvement of U.S. firms in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
In discussing this issue, we should remember that, by law, the CIA, as a foreign intelligence agency, does not focus on U.S. persons, to include U.S. companies. By this definition, companies founded by foreign nationals and incorporated in the U.S. are treated as U.S. companies.
This is not to say that we did not occasionally come across information on a U.S. person that was collected incidentally to our foreign intelligence target overseas -- we did. But, when we did, and when there was a possibility of a violation of U.S. law, we were obligated to turn our information over to the Justice Department.
We provided what we called ``alert memos'' to the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Treasury, and to the FBI. These memos resulted whenever this incidentally-collected information indicated that U.S. firms had been targeted by foreign governments of concern, or were involved in possible violations of U.S. law. Between 1984 and 1990, CIA's Office of Scientific and Weapons Research provided five memos covering Iraqi dealings with U.S. firms on purchases, discussions, or visits that appeared to be related to weapons of mass destruction programs.
Turning now to export controls, the Intelligence Community was asked by the Department of Commerce during the 1980's to review export license applications primarily when the licenses had significance to Intelligence Collection equities. And here the concern was not so much Iraq, but whether there was a possibility the equipment would be diverted to the Soviet Union or other Communist countries.
Prior to 1991, there were four instances in which the Department of Commerce sought information on Iraqi export license applications -- all dated in 1986. These applications involved computer technologies and image processors. For some of these, we reported no derogatory information on the end user. In one case, we referred Commerce to a classified intelligence report.
After evidence mounted in the mid-1980's about the use of chemical warfare in the Iran-Iraq war, the United States began to put into effect unilateral controls on exports of chemical precursors to Iraq and other countries suspected of having chemical warfare programs. The U.S. and several other industrialized nations joined what is called the Australia Group to establish more uniform licensing controls for the export of several chemical weapons precursors. Since then, more nations have been brought into the Australia Group, and recently, controls have been added for chemical equipment, certain pathogens, and biological equipment.
Since the Gulf War, U.S. export controls on CW/BW have been considerably strengthened. Enforcement mechanisms involving several Federal agencies have been put into place. The scope of the regulations has also been broadened considerably. In 1991, export controls were tightened to require validated licenses for all dual-use equipment being exported to end users of proliferation concern. Intelligence information is often the basis for this determination. This catch-all provision has served as a model for other countries interested in joining the U.S. Government's non-proliferation efforts.
So, for those who want to point the finger at Washington, how about this:
When it was found that Saddam had put dual use technology to illicit use, the US took actions, and after 1991 Iraq War, suported the sanctions that were aimed at disbanding and stop that illicit use, CONSISTENT with the US POLICY of NON PROLIFERATION.
I consider that a responsible bit of non-prolieration, to find an error, and take steps to correct it. What galls me is that some European governments were not willing to correct the errors that they had contributed to.
Thanks again, ergates, for helping me make my point. :)
Ochi reason number one... - ergates - 04-11-2003
Hi Occhi,
ok, maybe there was not enough info in this specific hearing to aid my opinion which still is:
Quote:... that the USA provided Saddam with the prerequisites, the material, the knowledge and the advice to start his WMD program
I never said that the US directly delivered C or B weapons to iraq.
But for example if you look at U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990 (especially the part on 1984) you may become a bit more sceptical that my opinion is mainly wrong.
BTW I never stated any innocence of European countries or the Russians. This was simply not my point. I wanted to emphasize that there is no moral high ground for the US with respect to WMD in iraq.
Of course I can not give you a video of a military advisor instructing iraqi scientists in developing CW for the iraq-iran war. Nor can I give you links which contain very explicit official statements regarding this. But there are at least two possible reasons why I can not do this... :o
Bye,
ergates
Ochi reason number one... - ergates - 04-11-2003
... another link and maybe bit of evidence:
Iraq: Claim vs. Reality
There is this statement:
Quote:Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological agents.
Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM's chief weapons inspector 90â95 percent of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s. As one recent press report stated:
One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three...
Bye,
ergates
Ochi reason number one... - kandrathe - 04-11-2003
You seem to be falling victim to "As it is written, so it must be true." You can find sources (even in the US congressional record) to support any ludicrous claims you want, but what you are not doing is synthesizing the information to discover your own truth. Our congress persons are just people, and mostly not the brightest bulbs we have. They have only demonstrated that they are good politicians who were able to convince their constituencies to vote for them. Politicians always get their knowledge from advisors, and it is them and their sources I'm interested in. UNSCOM never claimed to have destroyed 90-95 percent of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons, unless it was in the midst of doing so. Why would they leave 5-10 percent if they had discovered it? Their job was to find and destroy 100% of Iraqs WMD capability that they found. And, then how would they know how much was left undiscovered? But we shall soon discover how wrong they were.
And, about biological samples... Back in 1986, it was common practice amongst universities to share research samples for study. That was what went to Iraq, which was supposedly for research on vaccines and beneficial use. After it was discovered that it was being perverted by thugs like Saddam to create biological weapons, it was stopped. Shame on us for being so naive and trusting research universities. Still, out of context. It is a far cry from having a vial of a biological agent and the discovery on how to make it potent, to stabilize it and then weaponize it for use as a biological weapon. Whoever, supplied them with that information and technology are really to blame for Iraq's BW programs.
Ochi reason number one... - ergates - 04-11-2003
No I am not falling victim. But I think this is as far as you can get by doing your own research without access to classified information. As I have stated before:
Quote:Of course I can not give you a video of a military advisor instructing iraqi scientists in developing CW for the iraq-iran war. Nor can I give you links which contain very explicit official statements regarding this. But there are at least two possible reasons why I can not do this...
Take for example this qoute from one of the links I have given before:
Quote:According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq uses to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography...to assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Postâs source said that this data was essential to Iraqâs war effort.[17]
Source:
Quote:[17] Bob Woodward, "CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War; Target Data From U.S. Satellites Supplied for Nearly 2 Years," Washington Post, 15 December 1986.
Yes, this needs not necessarily to be true. But not necessarily wrong either.
You have to draw your own conclusions some time:
We have deliveries of agents usable for producing C and B weapons, we have the clear interest of the USA from this period of time that iraq has to win the iran-iraq war. We have close contacts of American military advisors to iraq in this time.
This does not prove anything but it strengthens my opinion.
BTW what would be a proof in your eyes? Even the aforementioned hypthetical video I can not come up with probably would not be a proof for you because it may be a fake.
I think in your eyes it only would be a proof for the US helping the iraqi WMD program if the president would say exactly this in an official statement.
Strangely, then I would begin to have doubts... :-(
Bye,
ergates