BS: Proof by Absence

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 10:14 PM

As I said, this hardly seems the place to get too upset over an anachronistic use of language.

"nuculus", though Merriam-Webster shows both pronounciations.

Never worried about Clinton's indiscretions, just the perjury he commited over them that resulted in a heavy fine and the loss of his law license. A little unseemly in a sitting President. If it weren't for there being several accusations of sexual harrassment and at least one rape levied against him, I wouldn't care less about Clinton's love life. He's welcome to all the voluntary he can get. It's just with that many accusations, you kinda wonder if the man understands the definition of the word "no". He admitted to trouble with "is" after all.

Roust out the leaker and provide adequate proof a crime was commited. That's how the game is played in both parties these days. Just as both parties hire plenty of professional mud slingers.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 10:02 PM

a double negative is a no-no.

to quote Bush in his own words 'they misunderestimated me'
'make the pie higher'
'put food on your family'
and countless others, are all examples of improper uses of the english language and idioms.

do you say nuculus? or nucleus?

- speaking of the last state of the union address..Bush said
'no will one can now doubt America's word'
one wondered whether one was hearing correctly - in fact
Americas word has been cast deeply in doubt..
of course what he really meant was no one should doubt Americas
willingness to go to war.

speaking of those 16 words on the (uranium from Africa) when a former ambassador travelled to Africa to check out the story and found no evidence, - but poorly faked letterheads etc. Someone in the whitehouse exposed the ambassadors wife as a cia-agent (which is illegal) and if you ask me far more serious than Clintons indiscretions with Monica.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 07:28 PM

BTW, I throughly approve of double negatives and the use of the word "ain't" as well. As you may have heard, double negatives are archaic but not invalid English usage. Before the advent of a common understanding of the principles of logic the double negative reinforced a negative intention rather than the negation of a negative. Who's to say that a usage common in 17th and 18th century England is inherently invalid just because it's old, particularly on a folk music forum such as this? Southern English, particularly in areas where there was less contact with Northern influences, merely retains the older form as it does the older pronouciations.

And of course we all know that "ain't" is still used by the English Royal family even today. I've heard Prince Charles use it. Given all the other English uses we Southerns have held on to, it's not surprising some of us who had less contact with the outside world continued this usage either, now is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 07:20 PM

On the contrary, I contend it is a valid pronouciation common amoung some 75 million Southerners and apparent other English speakers. Who am I to diagree with Merriam-Webster?

"Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-ky&-l&r\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president. While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers."

Merriam-Webster link for "nuclear" -- check the right most pronounciation

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Slick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 06:00 PM

No I'm not kidding. I wish you were.

So when my friend, a gentleman with a master degree who lives in Syracuse, NY, says "youse" instead of "you", it's out of ignorance, not an accent?

If he were speaking in front of the UN and he said "Youse guys from Eastern Europe" Hell yes that would be ignorant. I'm sure he's learned proper grammar somewhere along the way.

There a difference between a regional pronounciation of a sound and mispronouncing a word, especially a technical scientific term. Its not like they had nukular weapons at the alamo. If there is one person on this planet who should have some reverence and respect for the word nuclear, it is the President of the United States.

Can you even tell me with a straight face that it is a regionalism rather than ignorance? This is the man who said "Is our children learning?". I really doubt that your 17 year old would make that mistake. If he plans to make any presentations or speechs to people other than those unfortunate Texans who are unwise enough to wear their ignorance like badges of honour, than I'd advice him to use the correct pronounciation of technical and scientific terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 04:57 PM

You're kidding right? Not only does a candidate have to have a full head of hair, they can't speak like they're from anywhere TV network Mid-Western English?

So when my friend, a gentleman with a master degree who lives in Syracuse, NY, says "youse" instead of "you", it's out of ignorance, not an accent? And when someone from Brooklyn says they live on "turty-tree and a turd street", they're ignorant and not speaking with an accent? JFK's "pawk the cawr" accent was less ignorant? Kerry doesn't have an accent? You're kidding right? Or is it that only Southern accents are ignorant? Forgive me if I'm tempermental, but I've run across that kind of bigotry in the past.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

These are your infamous "16 words", right?

"In a July 11 statement, The Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet took responsibility for not removing the questionable sentence.

"Tenet said 'the president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president.'

"'From what we know now, [Central Intelligence] Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct -- i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa,' Tenet said in his statement.

"'This should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed, he said."

It isn't a lie if you have every reason to believe it's the truth. You're right, Tenent should have been dismissed long ago.

(italics added)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Hick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 04:44 PM

Your attitude is insulting to all Southerners and reflects the worst kind of class bias.

Class bias? Against George W. Bush? HAHAHAHA

He's in the highest possible class for a US citizen, by family and by position. You are saying Petr is biased against him because he is too ignorant to correctly pronounce a word? So we're talking about middle class bias against upper class for talking like lower class?

Bush is living proof that ignorance can transend class.

BTW I thought the way Carter pronounce Nukular was amusing. I was too young to know the difference for LBJ

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Quick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 04:31 PM

Like Petr says....

Bottom line. The man should know better, he is either ignorant or feigning ignorance, I don't know which is more contemptable for a president but both are bad.

He's not just the president of Texas. He's the president of the whole country. As much as Clinton disgraced his office with fornication and lies, Bush is disgracing it by glorifying ignorance. He brags about not reading the papers, he refuses to learn to pronounce simple words, he unashamedly uses poor grammar.

Which brings back to your first pointless point about whether or not he intentionally lied. His sixteen words in his penultimate State of the Union address were carefully chosen to give the impression that there was new compelling evidence of a nuclear program in Iraq. UK sources were quoted to give plausible deniability. If he had quoted the CIA, he would have had to say that the CIA had looked into these allegations and drawn a blank. Instead he chose to tell a "Clinton" lie. A falsehood which is defensible against perjury charges. It has nothing to do with "Proof by Absence" It has everything to do with what the definition of is is. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 04:29 PM

As a native Texan and someone descended from a long line of Southerners, I heartly disagree. Your attitude is insulting to all Southerners and reflects the worst kind of class bias.

And, as I pointed out, no one was that upset when Southern Democratic presidents prounounced the word that way (including one who has a degree from Anapolis in the subject), so I have to assume it's a politically based slur at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 03:55 PM

heres what dictionary.com has to say.

[From nucleus.]
Usage Note: The pronunciation (nky-lr), which is generally considered incorrect, is an example of how a familiar phonological pattern can influence an unfamiliar one. The usual pronunciation of the final two syllables of this word is (-kl-r), but this sequence of sounds is rare in English. Much more common is the similar sequence (-ky-lr), which occurs in words like particular, circular, spectacular, and in many scientific words like molecular, ocular, and vascular.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 03:52 PM

the pronunciation - 'nucular' isnt just accent, it's plain ignorant.
- its not a regional variation like, aluminum - aluminium.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 02:35 PM

Besides, everyone knows a Southern accent is the true language of Shakespeare. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 02:33 PM

"Bush is a transplanted Texan, a New Englander, who attended Harvard and Yale. There is none so ignorant as those who have every advantage and still refuse to learn."

Fellow might take those words unkindly. Are you suggesting a Texas accent is a sign of ignorance? I'd point out that my 17 year old's SAT scores would probably not only beat yours, he could probably beat him up, too. (Sorry, attempted humorous reference to a bumper sticker common here.)

I live in a "commuter" neighborhood, where it's common to find people who move to Texas for their jobs and only stay here a few years. They're often shocked to find their younger kids say "fixin' to" and "ya'll" and such. Even the adults discover their friends think they've picked a bit of an accent even though we natives know better.

My kids have picked up some interesting grammar, too. It's really hard to understand why. My wife and I are fairly formal speakers. The kids are well read and spend enough time watching TV to pick up the standard American Mid-Western accent most people think isn't an accent at all. Must be just hanging out with the local school kids, all from affluent, well educated families. I don't think the accent has anything to do with intelligence or making use of your advantages.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Crick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 02:08 PM

Bush is a transplanted Texan, a New Englander, who attended Harvard and Yale. There is none so ignorant as those who have every advantage and still refuse to learn.

It appears he was as serious about his education as he was about his National Guard service.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:38 PM

"From him it comes out New Q Lur."

Interesting. I was raised a couple of miles from bunker after bunker filled with thermonuclear weapons and danged if that isn't exactly how everyone I knew, Air Force personnel included, pronounced "nuclear". Heck, at least in my imagination that's how I recall LBJ pronouncing it. Maybe I'm wrong because I only heard him speak in person once.

Like I said, must be the accent.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:31 PM

No, I like a southern accent. I was trying to emphasize the proper pronunciation of the word compared to what I hear every time the President says the word. From him it comes out New Q Lur. It makes me flinch.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 11:56 AM

I'm sorry. We're not talking about the New American Century anymore?

Yes, but in a tangential sort of way.

Doesn't your point make their success seem all the more unlikely?

My point wasn't that they would be successful. My point was, and is, that they will make the attempt. And that a lot of death and destruction will be the result. It seems that some people never learn from the mistakes of others.

Re: Saddam. I agree that his loyalties were only for his own agendas. But that is also true of the US (we are only loyal to our own agendas). We used Saddam for our purposes as much as the Soviets did. They may have provided him with the hardware he used against Iran, but we provided him with the deadly gasses he used against them and also against the Kurds.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 11:51 AM

I don't know, Rob. Remember that the Soviet Union defeated Germany, the western allies only helped (really, it's true).

Have we forgotten how Israel got to be such an important factor in US foreign policy? The US was the first nation to recognize Israel's independence, I'd say out of a feeling that they deserved a homeland after what they went through during WWII. Unfortunately the one they were evicted from in 70 A.D. had been occupied in the mean time. In classic fashion the US sided with the underdog in the wars that followed and the Israelis finally convinced their enemies that they couldn't be defeated on the battlefield. During this period there several movies made that tried to show the justice of the Israeli cause, "Exodus", "Cast a Giant Shadow" being two I remember. American sympathes grew.

It wasn't until Israel realized they could use their newly developed power and invaded Lebanon that things started to change if very slowly. It went down hill from there. It's hard to like the Sharon's policies toward the Palestinians, but even today no politician could be too openly critical of Israeli policy. Ask Hillary Clinton. She sure backed down quick.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Slick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 11:02 AM

There's a difference between being good and sharing a common enemy. The United States government doesn't seem to be very good at making that distinction. If they'd treated the Saudis the Baathists and the Israelis at arms length maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 10:30 AM

No disagreement. Just pointed out that for a brief period official US and British policy held that Stalin was a "good guy" and we didn't mention some of his bad habits.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: sledge
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 10:26 AM

He may have been an ally but anyone who will imprison/work to death millions of his own people, just to meet arbitrary quotas does not deserve the description good guy. He was a monster of the highest order.

Don't forget that just prior to the great patriotic war he was nicely in bed with Hitler, just ask the Poles who ended up under his rule and the 20 thousand or so polish officers murdered and later found in the Katyn wood.

Not to mention the huge chunks of eastern Europe that were later run by the communist governments imposed on them by heroic Uncle Joe.

And its a good job he died when he did, his final madness in the early fifties was a new anti jewish pogrom fueled by the so called Jewish Doctors conspiricy. It was quietly shelved on his death as it was known to be a complete fiction.

Much of this is forgotten now or ignored.

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 09:56 AM

Why yes, Stalin was a good guy when he was a vital ally from late 1941 to late 1944. He changed back when we began to realize that, in winning the Eastern Front, the Red Army was going to occupy the eastern half of Europe and Stalin might not want to give it back.

Hollywood even made war movies depicting the heroic Soviet stand against the Nazi invaders during that period. Those movies didn't get run on TV much in the 50s and 60s like the other war movies, though.

My real point was that Stalin's career set an unparalleled low in the 30s when he wiped out all of his potential rivals including most of the senior army officers, the bulk of the small but growing Soviet middle class and farmers who had actually owned any land. The numbers of people killed were reported in the millions. That period defined the style he was going to use the control the Soviet Union through out his career.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: sledge
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 09:29 AM

Was there ever a good Stalin, my reading of a recent history of the Gulag says not.

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 09:22 AM

"That's not quite the point I was trying to make, but I was being cryptic, I suppose."

I'm sorry. We're not talking about the New American Century anymore? Doesn't your point make their success seem all the more unlikely? That's the problem with war by proxie, at best it only stymies the other guy and the natural side effect is a build up nationalism in the countries you're using. Iran and South Viet Nam were successes?

Saddam participated in a CIA sponsored coup attempt, but I can't find anything I consider authoritative that says he worked directly for them.   He was always on his own side, using them as much as being used. I do find plenty of evidence that Saddam as head of the secret police he was trained by the KGB. In the same vein, Iraq was armed for decades by the Soviet Union. That's why they flew MiGs and drove T-72 tanks and the Iranians, up to the overthrow of the Shah, had our weapons and equipment.   

The final thought I'll offer as evidence of Saddam's real creater is that he ran Iraq based what he learned of Stalin's priniciples, the bad Stalin from the 30s, and, in a perverse from-his-point-of-view way, was very good at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:20 AM

BTW, Saddam was a assasin working for the CIA in his early career.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:39 PM

That's not quite the point I was trying to make, but I was being cryptic, I suppose.

The US fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan using the Mujahideen as their proxy fighters. Then, when the US no longer needed them to be their proxy fighters, the US abandoned them and the rest of people of Afghanistan. In the vacuum left from that war, the Taliban arose as a way of returning some semblance of order to a society in total chaos. But the Taliban was mostly made up of people who had grown up with war, and they knew nothing about how to live in any kind of normal society. So the society they created was a reflection of the only reality they ever knew. That is just one of the tragic stories of what happens when we use proxies to fight our wars.

And then, of course, all of the subsequent events that involve Afghanistan, including the 9/11 attacks, can, in one way or another, be connected to that one proxy war.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 10:34 PM

They were fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but from what I remember they go back quite some time in one form or another. I seem to remember that even Alexander the Great had trouble conquering Afghanistan. Didn't, in fact.

The US didn't invent the Taliban anymore than Ben Laden did. (Neither did the US invent Saddam, who was trained and supported in his early career by the KGB. He's a devout admirer of Stalin, remember?)

Even taking into account the fact that the US provided supported Afghan freedom fighters in the 80s, it doesn't support your contention that the New Century crowd could use something like them to conquer the world. I seem to remember that the Taliban hated us almost as much as the Soviets. Assume that Afghanistan was a target and we used the Taliban to hold it. How long do you think they would have waited to do everything in their power to throw us out? They wanted their country free of all the foreign devils.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 10:15 PM

Do you remember why the Taliban came into existance in the first place, Strick?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 10:02 PM

You're refering to film Jamie Doran was showing around last year that claimed the US was complicit in the death of upwards 5,000 Taliban at the hands of the Northern Alliance? Saw it in a couple of outlets. It was a while back, didn't Newsweek carry the story? Both Newsweek and the Guardian looked into it and couldn't find anything to substantiate the story. Haven't seen anything on it lately. What kind of coverage of the story were you expecting?

I see from the Newsweek I googled up that they call this a war by proxie. Interesting. So the Afghanis fighting to over-turn Taliban rule are proxies rather than people fighting for their own freedom from an oppressive regime? Have the Taliban been rehabilitated or do we still remember that soccer field?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 09:41 PM

In the US, the media drives public opinion. Although public opinion doesn't seem to really have all that much effect on policy or how policy is enacted, it does have the appearance of giving it legitimacy. So whoever controls the mainstream media in the US, has quite a lot of control over the government and the things it does.

So where is it happening now? Even with the election news, those stories should fill the papers, be even bigger that the troubles in Haiti. So where is it happening now? Even with the election news, those stories should fill the papers, be even bigger that the troubles in Haiti.

Right now, our troop related activity seems to be mostly in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. Now, in the case of Afghanistan, there are reports of mass killings of enemy combatants who were in custody as prisoners of war. This isn't happening right now, but it happened fairly recently. The bodies of these men have been found in mass graves. There are reports that US troops were present during the process of killing these people. Some were sumarily executed, but some died in the trucks that were transporting them.

Have you heard about this story, either in the mainstream US media or on the internet?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 07:03 PM

"Maybe. Maybe not. Your assertion presupposes the existance in the US of a free and open media."

Ah, but I don't limit myself to the US media. Don't you love the internet? Besides if something this serious were going on, it would be big news anyway. Even it the media isn't quite as liberal as it was, certain elements would be delighted to add to Bush's discomfort. Just the thing to help bring down a president. The media in the US is still certainly motivated by profit. The public reaction alone would fill the 24 hour news channels. They even more motivated by glory. The one to bring this kind of news to the table would be a lion among reporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 06:15 PM

Even with the election news, those stories should fill the papers

Maybe. Maybe not. Your assertion presupposes the existance in the US of a free and open media.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 06:03 PM

So where is it happening now? Even with the election news, those stories should fill the papers, be even bigger that the troubles in Haiti.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 05:46 PM

And if the old Imperialists were there now, they'd be burning villages and slaughtering hostages as we speak to stamp out attacks on their troops. Neither of us expect that from the US, do we?

No. We use proxies for that sort of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 05:46 PM

"perhaps they were percieved as uncooperative because they couldn't show WMDs that didn't exist"

Well, you're going quite a bit beyond my point, so I'm not going to reply too fully. We agree on the point of this thread.

"Cooperation" wasn't asking the Iraqis to show WMDs, just let the inspectors in where they were required show what documentation they had.

"I agree it's a good thing he's gone but what's going to happen now could be worse than if we had left him alone."   I can't agree. That's why we're going to be tied down there a while. There are still troops in Kosovo for that very reason.

"New-Clee-Arr" Funny, that's how Jimmy Carter pronounces it. Must be that degree he has in New-Clee-Arr Engineering. Or maybe just the Southern accent in general. So a Southern accent annoys you?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 05:44 PM

You may be right that this attempt at empire by the US is ultimately doomed to failure, Strick, but I don't think the people who are attempting it will discover that reality until they've exhausted all of their options and killed a lot more people in the process. I don't think they've even come close to reaching that point yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 05:12 PM

Strick -
Another possibility - perhaps they were percieved as uncooperative because they couldn't show WMDs that didn't exist (not because they were afraid for their skins but because they didn't exist. Why did we know they had bio/chem weapons? Simple enough, we gave them to them. Yes these type of weapons are easy to make and easy to deploy. effect afterward is a totally different matter. The whole point to the argument is the Bush led the U.S. right or wrong into an invasion of Iraq (to call it a war would be offensive to anyone who ever fought in a real war). I had absolutely no doubt in my mind that we would win after what happened in '91.

The premise for the war was:

- humanitarian - but what Saddam did before and immediately after Desert Storm was not enough to justify American or U.N. action at that time. I agree it's a good thing he's gone but what's going to happen now could be worse than if we had left him alone.

- WMDs - Almost all of the reports said that he had unaccounted for stockpiles (would you be surprised to learn that we can't always account for things as well, and I'm talking about A-1 Abrams tanks here, not something that you can easily lose or hide). This wasn't a good enough reason for everyone to let Clinton to go to war even with them shooting at our planes every so often. Every action taken by Clinton in regards to Iraq was called "wagging the dog". What's surprising to me is that they believed the reports on Iraq but absolutely nothing else including Bin Laden.

- 9/11 Connection - Not true / never true. The terrorists aboard the planes were almost exclusively Saudis. That hasn't been a reason to invade Saudi or call for a regime change.

- Nuclear program - (pronounced New-Clee-Arr, sorry that annoys the hell out of me)yes they had one at one time. Doesn't seem to have turned out to be worth much and the evidence seemed to be a story about Yellow Cake Uranium which was discounted prior to the invasion.

The plain truth of the matter is that Bush did what he wanted to do / believed was necessary to do. I believe that he discounted anything that didn't support his view of things. Did he lie? No, everything that he showed us supported his conclusion. That the conclusion seems to be faulty now is the problem. It would suit him better to say that:
"The Buck Stops Here! I made the decision, I sent the troops in harms way based on what I believed at the time to be true. We have since found the intelligence to be faulty at best."

Instead he (or more precisely those working for him) are blaming everyone and anybody else for the decision. In my job if I make a right decision and things go well I give the credit to my troops for doing a good job. If I happen to get credit for the work as well than that's icing on the cake. If I make the decision and things go bad then it is my fault entirely. For a Commander In Charge, Bush hasn't figured out that sometimes the skipper goes down with the ship.

I also believe that although this has helped the people of Iraq but it has done exactly what the folks against the war have said it would do as well. It has made Martyrs out of the hundreds killed in battle by our troops. Each and every mistake made by our troops will be magnified by the countries that hate us and will be great for their recruiting efforts and harden their hatred towards us. It has also taken the troops away from our country when we need them the most for securing our own borders. The war also took needed troops away from Bin Laden and the Taliban and has unfortunately allowed them to re-group to a certain degree when they needed to be brought under control and Afghanistan needed to be fully stabilized. The fact that Halliburton and its subsidiaries got most of the contracts (no bid) because they have the expertise really only made sense. Unfortunately they are not handling the contracts with the appropriate amount of care that they should be and this is causing further headaches for the administration.

But once again "Oval Office - The Buck Stops Here!" should be the motto.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 04:12 PM

No forgetting either empire, but the world has changed. Napolean's example, where the locals never ever accepted his rule and were always eager to throw it off when he was busy somewhere else seems to fit what we see happening in Iraq better. The modern world's nationalism has sort of made Empires difficult to keep.

The US is just not cut out for that path anyway. Neither the British nor Roman would ever have made the mistakes we made immediately after active combat in Iraq. And if the old Imperialists were there now, they'd be burning villages and slaughtering hostages as we speak to stamp out attacks on their troops. Neither of us expect that from the US, do we?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 03:58 PM

You seem to be forgetting the British Empire, Strick. And the Roman Empire, for that matter. One possibility is the idea that once they have the ground, all they have to do is co-opt enough of the natives to keep order, and then they'll have their empire.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 01:12 PM

"and strick - you dont need a 5million man army for modern warfare-they already found out in 91 they didnt need a half million troops to do the job in Iraq."

Ah, there's the rub. To win the battles, no, you're right. Holding the ground afterward is different as Napoleon learned. A half million tied down here, a half million tied down there and before you know it, you don't have any troops left at all. Then they all try to over throw you at once, so what have you gained?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 01:01 PM

if you think oil had nothing to do with it teribus, you are deluding yourself - if Saddam had an invaded a Kuwait that had zero oil reserves - it might have been like a war between Libya and Chad, or any other conflict in Africa.
Certainly America wouldnt care.

it also, certainly wasnt because he was a tyrant and committed genocide on his own people - because when it happened in Cambodia
(which incidentally was bombed by Nixon without the knowledge or approval by Congress, leading up to the whole mess that came with Pol Pot), or in Rwanda the US didnt want to get involved. Hell, in Rwanda
when the US was asked by the UN peacekeepers if they could jam the radio stations that were telling the Hutus where to go and slaughter people - the response was 'that would be restricting freedom of speech!'

heck the US was overjoyed when Saddam invaded Iran, even supplied him with weapons and satellite intelligence - basically he was 'a son of a bitch but he was our of a bitch' - Iraqi freedom certainly didnt matter to Rumsfeld then.

President Carter stated clearly in 1980 when Russia invaded Afghanistan - that the persian gulf region is of vital interest to the US and that policy has been reaffirmed time and again with every administration.

and strick - you dont need a 5million man army for modern warfare-
they already found out in 91 they didnt need a half million troops to do the job in Iraq. The trend has been toward more special forces that are highly trained. they make less of a target, less logistical problems - although a bit short on keeping order, as Rumsfeld found out after the Iraqi collapse. (even then, a lot of the troops werent even used for security - in a new yorker article, one US soldier wrote
April 9th - "no activity today, sitting in our camp", at a time when
hospitals, museums and govt bldgs are being looted.

I also wouldnt say that North Korea hadnt been involved in anything since 1950, - they blew up a south korean govt meeting, killing most of the cabinet in the 80s, blew up a south korean airliner, and attempted to do another one, kidnapped foreing nationals, held the crew of the USS pueblo for a year. (although a cocky US general might call their artillery a target rich environment, not much would be left of seoul - and if Kim does have one or two nukes, whats to stop him from sneaking one on a fishing boat and making San francisco a target rich environment.

(not to mention the fact that Pakistan has admitted sharing nuclear technology with NK) even though NK is part of the axis of evil, and Pakistan is an ally (as long as Musharaf doesnt get knocked off,
and not too many pakistani presidents have gone into quiet retirement
lately)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:39 AM

That's my prediction. Take it or leave it. I don't think this agenda is necessarily dependent on Bush getting re-elected. I'll be delighted if it turns out that my prediction is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:32 AM

"Iran and Syria will be targets for "regime change" and "nation building" within one or two years after the next presidential election."

Are you sure? I've read the New Century stuff and these guys are goning to want a LOT of money to buy troops and toys. Regardless, I'll accept what you offer as a condition. Any administration makes those kinds of noises without fairly dramatic provocations, and you're on. What surprises me, though, is that this seems to presume that Bush will get re-elected?

I didn't mean to slam you that hard, Carol, I was focused on something else and should have thought more before I posted. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:21 AM

I'll make you the same kind of offer. Let me know when you hear that Congress is considering funding the building of a 5 million man standing army (not counting reserves) and going on a buying spree for new weapons. You'll have plenty of time as it'll take 2-3 years to make it happen once the first dollar is allocated. Then we'll go fight the bastards together to keep it from happening. In the mean time I'll be off to other things.

Well, first of all, I don't exacely agree with you on what it would take to enable the US government to carry out its agendas.

Here's my prediction. I don't have any specifices to give you on how they're going to do it, but this is what I'm betting is going to happen:

Iran and Syria will be targets for "regime change" and "nation building" within one or two years after the next presidential election.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 10:49 AM

"Strick, You have way too much faith in the wisdom and restraint of the Chicken Hawks."

Why Rob, I have absolutely no faith in them at all. I just know what they up against politically, diplomatically and militarily. None of those things remotely suggest the US could invade another country anytime soon even if we wanted to. Years. You'll have them out of power long before then won't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 09:05 AM

"I think a brief refresher course in logic (and fallacies) would be in order.."

I've posted those numerous times...what fun is it for many of these folks to argue, if they're limited to strict rules of logic? Can't let obvious truths be hampered by silly requirements of internal consistancy, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 07:41 AM

I think a brief refresher course in logic (and fallacies) would be in order...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 07:13 AM

petr,

Some questions for you related to your post:

"The US used the threat of wmds - and the fact that the US could be attacked by wmds - to gain support for invading Iraq (although everyone knows the decision was made at least as early as spring 2002 - I remember the rumours and the White HOuse denying that the US intends to attack Iraq)"

Exactly what decision was made? and under what circumstances was force to be used?

One recurring item in every single report that Hans Blix made to the UN Security Council was the absence of full and pro-active co-operation on the part of the Iraqi authorities. That full and pro-active co-operation was what was specifically required under the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441.

Strick, in his post, may well have identified the reason for this lack of co-operation. Imagine yourself as an Iraqi scientist, engineer or army officer, who has come up with a scam, involving proscribed weapons, you have convinced Saddam that you can deliver without the UN, or anybody else finding out about it. You then start to receive funds for this "project", no paper work because it's secret, no fear of discovery because no "project" exists. You are making a tidy sum of money, when all of a sudden, there are truck loads of UN weapons inspectors at your door. You are being told by your Ba'athist government to co-operate with those inspectors fully. You know that to do that will reveal your scam. Would you co-operate fully knowing that when the inspectors get back on the plane to make their report to the UNSC, Saddam will still be in power and will most likely want to have a chat to you about certain things?

Petr, regime change in Iraq has been US Foreign Policy since half way through Clinton's second term - that was when plans were drawn up for military action against Iraq 1998, it was not something the current administration came up with in 2000, or spring 2002.

Hand shaking, normally eagerly while the press are about, is what Heads of State and politicians do, so not much significance there. In addition I believe that there are things I would have said and done, almost 20 years ago, that I would not say or do now. Times, situations and people change.

Norman Schwarzkopf, admitted almost immediately that his decision to allow the Iraq army to fly helicopters was a big mistake. It was actually done for humanitarian reasons. The Iraqi's said that they needed the helicopters to ferry in aid as vital bridges had been destroyed. As you said the helicopters flew but not for the purpose the Iraqi's had told Norman.

You forgot to give thanks to the French for providing the Israeli's with something to bomb in 1981

Why focus on North Korea? Hasn't threatened or invaded anyone since it tried to take over the South in 1950. The little git in charge of the place has no grandiose plans for ruling the region. That is a situation that can be negotiated. The 1,000,000 strong North Korean Army with it's 10,000 pieces of artillery, were perfectly described by a US military spokesman as presenting a uniquely target rich environment. North Korea, even with nukes, is no threat in the way that Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya could be.

I believe that irrespective of principal export, if Iraq had behaved in the same way that it had in the region, then action would have been taken. Mugabe has only got away with it so far because he has confined his outrages to the domestic scene, he has not attempted to step out side his own borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Schtick
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 12:53 AM

Strick, You have way too much faith in the wisdom and restraint of the Chicken Hawks. They went into Iraq with way too little international support, way too little intelligence, of both kinds with too few troops, especially trained MP's. Why in the world do you think they'll wait for a 5 million man standing army. Their Pearl Harbour like event was handed to them, coincidentally, buy Bush family friends, the Bin Laden family. They are cowards and opportunists. They are vultures. They'll jump at any chance they get to push thier agenda. Vote for them if you want but their agenda is a lot more important to them than you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 11:27 PM

Carol, read my other posts. I hardly think the US government is benign no matter who's in office.

"It doestn't really matter what our capabilities are right now. They can and will change. Count on it."

True enough, but not in a way that matters. Once five or six months ago, a poster on that other forum we used to visit was absolutely convinced that the US was going to attack Syria at any moment. I pointed out that the US would need at least three carriers groups to do that (no one is going to let us use bases in their countries for that kind of attack) and that none of the carriers were in position. Nothing would convince this guy, so I pointed him the website that lists where each of the carriers are at any point in time (you can't hide a carrier after all) and told him to call me when two or more carriers were moving in position. He'd have plenty of time since it would take a month or more for them to get there. Haven't heard a word since.

I'll make you the same kind of offer. Let me know when you hear that Congress is considering funding the building of a 5 million man standing army (not counting reserves) and going on a buying spree for new weapons. You'll have plenty of time as it'll take 2-3 years to make it happen once the first dollar is allocated. Then we'll go fight the bastards together to keep it from happening. In the mean time I'll be off to other things.

Fair enough?