BS: Proof by Absence

Subject: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 04:38 PM

I hold two opinions that will be unpopular here, both thru and odd coincidence the result of the absence of proof to the contrary.

1. Bush did not intentionally lie about the existance of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). It he did, where are the fake WMDs? Hear this out. Surely if the Administration knew there were no WMDs and Karl Rove is the evil genius some hold him to be, someone would have arranged the planting of fake ones. No finding WMDs would be (has turned out to be) a political nightmare. If you're going to lie and fake evidence to start a war, why not go all out and fake the cause of the war? It's been done plenty of times in the past.

They certainly had enough time to do it with the time it took to get troops in place and the wrangling in the UN. No shortage of people who hated Saddam enough to be willing to plant the evidence. Technically there were no obstacles. Biological or chemical WMDs are ridiculasly simple to make. Any chemical or pharmacutical plant would do for one (ask Bill Clinton) and you don't need much more than the makings for a micro-brewery or white lightning still for biologicals. Any reasonably large cache of artillery or rockets would be useful, too.

Can't you see it? Just dress Geraldo and his camera crew in containment suits, show them a site you claim is contaminated, some trumped up test "proving" what was in the shells and let him film you destroying them. It wouldn't hold up forever, but it would do until after the election. Later on you could simply declare anyone who doubts the evidence to be conspiracy nuts. That this didn't happen is proof that the Administration really expect to find the damned things.

1. The rebuilding of Iraq is going well. I owe this to Glenn Reynolds, a columnist at MSNBC. In his article, EXPERTS AGREE: WAR GOING WELL!, he says there are two things that prove it's going well. First, Tom Dashle says so:

"Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., on Thursday praised the Bush administration's war and nation-building work in Iraq and said he has no serious concerns about the lack of weapons of mass destruction.
Daschle told state chamber of commerce representatives meeting in the South Dakota capital that he is satisfied with the way things are going in Iraq.

'I give the effort overall real credit,' Daschle said. 'It is a good thing Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. It is a good thing we are democratizing the country.'

He said he is not upset about the debate over pre-war intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, an issue that has dogged President Bush as Democratic presidential contenders have slogged through the primary season."

Second, he points out that John Kerry is not making the Iraq war the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. As Reynolds points out "And how (er, besides the above) do I know that things are going well in Iraq? Because if they weren't, Presidential candidate John Kerry wouldn't be so anxious to talk about Vietnam instead."

See what I mean? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Schtick
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 06:25 PM

Those are two valid points, but I see flaws

1. In your first opinion, about the Weapons of Mass Destruction, I see two problems.

... 1.While most people argree that Rove is Evil, few would credit him with genius. ... 1. You seem to be assuming that Rove and Bush have the support of senior military officers who are willing to commit treason to support them. Oliver North no longer wears the uniform. ... 1. You seem to think that anyone stupid enough to support Bush would be smart enough to make weapons of mass destruction without killing themselves. It is likely that the recent surge in support for the Democrats is due to Bush supporters removing themselves from the voter registration lists through this very process.

1. In your first opinion, that the rebuilding of Iraq is going well, you have made another two faulty assumptions.

... 1. That Tom Daschle's opinion matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 06:47 PM

Well, "intentional lie" or otherwise, one thing was and is still obvious. Bush is dillusional. He sees only absolutes and nothing in between. He has no flexibility at all and where some folks think that makes a good leader, there are plenty who want their leader to have enough creativity to adapt to situations.

Now, lets *rewind* back to the 3 or 4 months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. There were inspectors in Iraq making what they thought to be "progress". There were tens upon millions of people in the streets in thre world saying "No War'. There was Scott Ritter, a former inspector, saying that there weren't WMD. There were problems with the UN and with old allies. This was the reality.

A *good leader* would have been *very, very, very* sure, under those circumstances that every concieveable rock had been overturned before taking the country into war. Bush and his folks were so intent on the invasion that completely overlooked dorring the I's and crossing the t's....

If for no other reason than that, these folks do not deserve another chance. War and killing is irreversible and lies don't suddenly become truths...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 06:50 PM

But you see, there's always another Ollie North what ever the part of the president and more to the point, always a crew right out of "All The President's Men".

Second, you don't need to actually make WMDs, merely fake them. Besides, are you suggesting that the people who participated in creating WMDs for the US for all these years are all Democrats?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Deckman
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 07:34 PM

The BOTTOM LINE (I hate that phrase) for me is this: President bush and his administration have absolutly NO CREDIBILTY with me. I'm not going to waste my time playing, what if this, maybe that. Forget it. There is NOTHING that this administration can do to win back my confidence ... NOTHING! This is the problem that will plague him throughout this election year.

It's 'gonna be a ride folks. Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 08:39 PM

secretary o'neill (a centre right republican) who was removed in Bush's first year in office, stated that one of the first things on the agenda was to get rid of Saddam. (many in that neo-con crowd were saying that for years- I remember seeing a documentary after the gulf war in 91, Wolfowitz claimed Saddam was 6months away from making nuclear weapons, then again in 2002 saying the same thing (Saddam is 2years away from making nukes)

the fact is they needed a reason to go after Saddam, and a US public
still feeling the shock from 9/11 was more likely to support a war if there was a possible threat to the US - even though the only link
between 9/11 and Iraq - was a possible meeting between Atta and an Iraqi embassy official in Prague (something the Czech Secret service - has since denied - and yet Dick CHeney still brings it up.

I think Bush & co. decided that they would worry about whether or not there were any wmds after the war - and figured people would quickly forget - (have you listened to Dennis Miller lately?).
The fact is secrets are hard to keep, if the US faked them and the truth came out - Bush would definitely find himself in a can of peaches. Its a lot easier to say, I guess we were wrong, but Saddam was a tyrant and the world is better off without him.

- the real reason may have been to establish - a democratic model in the middle east so the other countries in the region have a model - although that may have been an infantile fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Schtick
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 08:41 PM

But you see, there's always another Ollie North what ever the part of the president and more to the point, always a crew right out of "All The President's Men".

Sorry Dude, proof by absence. They haven't shown up by now therefor they don't exist.


Second, you don't need to actually make WMDs, merely fake them. Besides, are you suggesting that the people who participated in creating WMDs for the US for all these years are all Democrats?

No I didn't suggest any such thing. I suggested that they were too smart to vote for George W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 08:43 PM

infantile is right! Democracy can not be imposed by outsiders. Especially outsiders who have been stripped of their own consitutional rights.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 08:44 PM

If you need to lie to everyone else, the easiest way is to first become skilled at lying to yourself until you can't tell the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 11:13 PM

"Sorry Dude, proof by absence. They haven't shown up by now therefor they don't exist."

Right. So Nixon's burglars didn't exist until they were caught? The rest of what you have to say is ludicrous.

"Its a lot easier to say, I guess we were wrong, but Saddam was a tyrant and the world is better off without him."

Perhaps you're right, petr, at least it's the truth.

"Democracy can not be imposed by outsiders. Especially outsiders who have been stripped of their own consitutional rights."

dianavan, so what the hell were we doing in Bosnia? The UN wouldn't sanction intervening in a country that posed no threat to anyone else, so an alliance created by the US and Britain and attacked forced their view of democracy down throats anyway. BTW, I haven't felt any of my rights particularly pinched. The Supreme Court is already dealing with the few outrages, declaring a citizen in his own country a combatant is riduculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Schtick
Date: 23 Feb 04 - 11:36 PM

So Nixon's burglars didn't exist until they were caught?

1. That makes as much sense as your first opinion, where you are saying that Bush couldn't have lied because he's been caught in a lie.

1. I'm warning you now, for your own good, since you are a Bush supporter, don't try to make any Weapons of Mass Destruction. You are not nearly smart enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 08:41 AM

Schtick, most WMDs are remarkably low tech. Definitely early 20th century technology that could be manufactured in an empoverished country like Somlia according to one recent president. Getting enough material to fake their existance would be remarkably easy. After all, these weapons create near panic in everyone who comes in contact with them. No one's going to check your evidence too closely giving you plenty of time to destroy it as everyone expect you to do.

It's a little like some poor cop who shoots a deranged man threatening people with a toy gun. Under different circumstances the cop would never have taken it for a real gun; all bets are off once the adrenaline and training take over. Besides, they don't have to fool you. They just have to fool Geraldo in the example I gave.

I just want to be sure I understand your posts. You're saying that so long as you haven't noticed any "bad guys", they don't exist? You said that "They haven't shown up by now therefor(sp) they don't exist." How long before G. Gordon Liddy, James W. McCord Jr., and E. Howard Hunt Jr. were arrested were you aware that Richard Nixon kept men like that on his payroll? Was your knowledge of their existance a necessary prerequsite for their existance? You are aware that LBJ did the same kind of thing but was never caught? If a president bugs his opponent in the woods and no one catches him is the opponent still bugged?

BTW, what I said in the first post was that it was unlikely that Bush lied because it would have been fairly easy to avoid giving the appearance of a lie and those simple precautions weren't taken. Only a fool would lie when he knows he's going to get caught. See Clinton's speach denying he had "sex with that woman".

I'd be happy to compare my credentials against yours any day. On a friendly basis, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 10:59 AM

They think we're stupid, Strick (and they may be right). That's why they tried to make us believe, when we first started not finding the WMDs, that they had been snuck across the border into Syria. They don't care if the more discerning of the US population catches them in a lie. All they have to do is repeat the same lie often enough and most people in the US will believe them.

Take for instance the idea that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Just prior to the US starting the war with Iraq this last time, most people in the US believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. And quite a lot of them still do. That's how gullible the vast majority of the people in this country are. Bush's people know this and they use this gullibility to help them promote their agenda every chance they get. They count on it.

If you want to know what their agenda is, read the treatise from the Project for a New American Century. It spells things out pretty clearly.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 11:33 AM

"All they have to do is repeat the same lie often enough and most people in the US will believe them."

I'm sympathetic to that Carol. I thought the same thing about some of what Clinton said. Turned out to be true, enough people believed him.

On the other hand it's a whole lot easier to see that the Bush Administration really believed there were WMDs. Their every action is consistent with being stunned to discover they weren't there, even the story that they must have been snuck over to Syria. Then too, there's evidence that Saddam himself got taken in about the progress of his own programs, so it's shouldn't be that surprising we were as well. That should at least create reasonable doubt as to whether the Administration lied about the existance of the WMDs. The "big lie" apporach would have produced at least plausible evidence they existed and that they had been dealt with. That's my point. The absense of a that easy to create big lie is actually in the Administration's favor.

As to the Project for a New American Century, I don't give it much credence and never did. Anyone familiar with a realistic asssessment of the US's military assets would know that it couldn't happen. We couldn't have done it when our military forces were much larger during the Reagan Administration; after the cuts Clinton made it's pure fantasy. That's the simple reason Rumsfeld wanted a small army to invade Iraq -- he didn't want to reveal that we couldn't field any more effective combat forces. We're out, everything significant we have is in Iraq. Our advantages in technology only go so far and while we could hope to bluff some nations, we couldn't invade Syria (that's the next country on the list, right?) right now if we had to.

That's just the military picture, of course, the political picture is even more clear. I suppose you've noticed no one left or right wants to invade Syria? No democracy, especially not the US, would ever tolerate spending the kind of blood and money it would take to achieve any new world order. It ain't gonna happen and no experienced, pragmatic politician would have ever believed it would. (Say what you will about Bush, he is surrounded by experienced, pragmatic politicians.)

On the whole I have to compare the Project for a New American Century with the most extreme environmental policies espoused by the radical left. Neither is politically, economically or technically achieveable. Not in this life time, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 12:48 PM

the authors of the project for a new american century - wolfowitz, cheney and the like - are essentially in charge this time. They want the US to have complete hegemony - and to be so strong militarily that no other nation can be a threat.

to say that Clinton gutted the military is misleading, since the traditional enemy - the Soviet Union collapsed and was no longer a threat. And even under Clinton the US military spending was more than the next 9 most powerful nations. Hardly a weakling.

as for syria - they are not likely to be talking about invading it in an election year. they would also not get much support since Syria isnt anywhere near as bad a dictatorship as Iraq was not to mention that US credibility is at an all time lowpoint.

strictly speaking according to their own doctrine - the real terrorist states - are Americas allies - Saudi Arabia (guess where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from?) - which has been exporting the
the wahabi radical form of islam. The bombers of the East African US embassies in the late 90's were either Saudi, or came from a region
where a wahabi schools were setup and spread anti-us and anti-west rhetoric.
Pakistan the other ally: pakistani secret police setup and supported the Taliban, as well as supported the raids into Kashmir, and the terrorist attacks in India. Pakistan and India almost went to nuclear war a couple of times and it barely made the news in the west.
Whenever the US complains about Pakistani lack of will in the war on terror - there is a spurt of activity and they capture some al qaeda operatives. But they are doing nothing to clean up the western regions near the afghan border - where supposedly osama and zawahiri are hiding, and nothing to close down the blatantly political antiwestern madrassas which indoctrinate 1000s of young men with hatred and preach a worldwide islamic revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 12:59 PM

If you read the list of signatories to the Statement of Principles of the Project for the New American Century (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, lots of familiar names there) and then compare that list to a list of people who are members of the Bush administration or who were instrumental in getting Bush into the White House (Jeb Bush, for example), there is no room for doubt as to where the Bush foreign policy comes from.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 01:11 PM

"to say that Clinton gutted the military is misleading, since the traditional enemy - the Soviet Union collapsed and was no longer a threat. And even under Clinton the US military spending was more than the next 9 most powerful nations. Hardly a weakling."

You misquote me. Never said Clinton "gutted" the military. He did sharply reduce and restructure US forces from the traditional two war doctrine to provide the now famous peace dividend. A key result was to rely much more on reservists and the National Guard, civilian troops that can be politically difficult to use much less keep active any length of time.

Even Clinton had problems with the result. During his second administration the reduced forces were frequently over-extended. When Clinton decided to intervene in Bosnia he discovered that the only way he could do so was to call up reserves to provide logistical support. Clinton knew that was not politically practical so he did the next best thing: gave a sole-source contract (i.e., one that was not open to general bid) to Halliburton to provide logistical support. You didn't think what happened in Iraq was new did you? Is that any way to fight a war if you're an invincible power bent on conquering the world?

We have at best a one war, and a relatively small war, army. Whoever is or isn't in charge, this fantasy agenda some have fixated on can't be accomplished unless there are sharp, I repeat sharp, increases in the US's military forces. That was clear during the 90s and it's even more clear from our position with our best troops in Iraq and nothing available to replace them. If what you say is true, where are the new troops? They're certainly not in this year's budget and it would take several years go get any increase up to combat readiness. The relatively small increases proposed won't cut this mustard. If the New World Order agenda is so important to these people, why aren't they acting on it?

Our relationships with Saudi are a fine, delicate mess, it's true. I don't pretend to have an answer there. We can't live with 'em and we can't live without 'em. What were you proposing? Remember, any answer that doesn't keep gasoline flowing to all those SUVs is political suicide.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 01:50 PM

Should come as no surprise, but I would say that Strick has got it about right.

The imperative that the US HAD to find WMD in Iraq, is not the case, and it never was. The issue on WMD was related to what UNSCOM said Iraq had but could not account for - That was what needed resolving, and to greater degree than ever before that matter has now been resolved.

It is also rather dangerous to bandy phrases such as "terrorist states" about without actually defining what you mean by "a terrorist state". You would have to stretch any real meaning of the phrase to include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the governments of which are under as much, if not more, of a threat from terrorists within their borders, as the terrorists declared and identified targets abroad.

Saudi Arabia, has long realised that it has to reform it's method of government, its education system and legal system. It has moved against clerics who have advocated violence (over 1,300 of them removed).

That Pakistan assisted the Taleban is not surprising, but the Taleban they, "set up and supported", were the Taleban that were fighting the Russians back in the eighties. Late "cold war period", India had close ties with the USSR, so Pakistan acted as the natural channel for assistance from the west, Iran could hardly have been used, particularly for assistance coming from the US and Saudi Arabia. They certainly do not support them now.

To "clean up" the tribal lands on the North-West Frontier, would require an effort similar to the Highland Clearances, nobody in history has ever managed to "clean it up". Various rulers have attempted to controlled it, normally by intimidation or bribery. They were all partially successful, but only for a while and without ever finding a lasting solution.

With regard to the, "blatantly political anti-western madrassas which indoctrinate 1000s of young men with hatred and preach a worldwide islamic revolution". The Pakistani government has acted against them, but such schools can so easily go underground, where their teachings are that much more difficult to counter. The Pakistani Government are making great efforts to come to some form of harmonious, and lasting, relationship with India, because that is where Pakistan sees its future. Without having to keep looking over their shoulders towards the East, the crack-down on the terrorist and radical groups within Pakistan will increase and become more effective. The better relations get between India and Pakistan, the more prosperous Pakistan will become. The more prosperous Pakistan becomes the less support there will be amongst the youth of the country for radical, or terrorist groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 06:38 PM

teribus - 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)

the threat of wmds and the fictitious 45minute launch window was part of Britains report on the IRaqi threat (which was just recently part of the Hutton inquiry). Blix pointed out correctly that the US got what it was asking for, inspectors on the ground and IRaqi cooperation
but in reality - they didnt want UN inspectors - they came out and said they want a regime change.

now I wasnt against the war, but supported it from a humanitarian standpoint, but they didnt go in to remove an evil dictator.
(remember the footage of RUmsfeld in the 80s eagerly shaking hands with Saddam, and no mention of gassing the kurds.) Remember them?
Bush Senior urged them to rise up against Saddam after the 91war - and then let Saddam fly armed helicopters and crush the uprising) - it was only months later the US set up safe havens. Basically, they
blew it in 91.

(btw thanks to the Israeli bombing of the Baghdad reactor in 81- the US did not get nuked in the Gulf war)

and if the threat of wmds is really the point: the country they really should have focused on is NOrth Korea. Which openly states it has nukes, and got them from guess where? Pakistan (in exchange for missile technology). the father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb openly admitted sharing the technology with Libya and others. Lets just hope that Musharraf doesnt get knocked off.
(and NOrth Korea wouldnt be such a cakewalk either, with its 10,000 pieces of artillery aimed across the border)

the pakistani secret service set up the Taliban and helped them in order to have some influence in Afghanistan, but this was not in the 80s to fight the Russians. That was the Mujahideen, and many of them were clearly backed by the cia, in fact the turning point was when they were given stinger missiles to shoot down Russian gunships.
the Taliban were not the Mujahideen, at that time the Taleban were toddlers.

Saudi Arabia - whether or not its a stretch to call them a terrorist state, an awful lot of support & funding came from the upper levels of Saudi society, - quite a lot of classified information in the report on 911-. Also look at the way foreign nationals are treated there - maybe david Samsons case didnt make it on the American news but this canadian national was framed, made to confess under torture and sentenced to be beheaded. (plus a few other foreigners have experienced the same thing) It was only last year he was released under international pressure, after spending several years in a saudi jail.
Dont think its just a matter of 'reform' in Saudi Arabia. Id recommend a recent article in the NewYorker by a texan professor who spent a year, teaching in a university there.


anyway, we wouldnt be having any of this discussion about IRaq if the principal export was dates, instead of oil. Then Saddam would be just another Mugabe.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Sorcha
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 06:48 PM

Didn't read it all, but I'm with Deckman here...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 09:03 PM

I'm sympathetic to that Carol. I thought the same thing about some of what Clinton said. Turned out to be true, enough people believed him.

Yes, this is true.

As to the Project for a New American Century, I don't give it much credence and never did.

It doesn't matter whether or not you give it much, or even any credence. The people who are promoting it are right on schedule in making it happen. It's happening with or without your belief in it. They will continue to make it happen with or without your belief in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: Strick
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 09:20 PM

Sorry, Carol. I mean Clinton lied, but he repeated it enough that people believed him anyway. Clinton perjured himself when he was a defendant in sexual harrassment suit, one of several sexual harrassment charges he's faced. Still you think he was impeached for having consentual sex, not for felony perjury, don't you? That's the lie.

Carol, read my post three posts up. Politics be damned. This isn't going to happen because we simply can't do it. We don't have the military power. That's my considered opinion and unless you can show me where we have the capability to do what you think these people are up to, it will remain my considered opinion.

What you say reminds me of a child who thinks her parents were cruel for not giving her a unicorn for Christmas. Nothing will change the child's mind about their cruelty and the fact that the unicorn doesn't exist doesn't enter into consideration for her. Here, the unicorn is the US's capability to do the things we would have to do to usher in the New American Century. That that military capability doesn't exist doesn't enter into your thoughts on the matter, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof by Absence
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 09:28 PM

Sorry, Carol. I mean Clinton lied, but he repeated it enough that people believed him anyway.

I agree with this.

Clinton perjured himself when he was a defendant in sexual harrassment suit, one of several sexual harrassment charges he's faced. Still you think he was impeached for having consentual sex, not for felony perjury, don't you?

No. That's not what I think.

That's the lie

That's hardly the only one.

Carol, read my post three posts up. Politics be damned. This isn't going to happen because we simply can't do it. We don't have the military power. That's my considered opinion and unless you can show me where we have the capability to do what you think these people are up to, it will remain my considered opinion.

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

What you say reminds me of a child who thinks her parents were cruel for not giving her a unicorn for Christmas. Nothing will change the child's mind about their cruelty and the fact that the unicorn doesn't exist doesn't enter into consideration for her. Here, the unicorn is the US's capability to do the things we would have to do to usher in the New American Century. That that military capability doesn't exist doesn't enter into your thoughts on the matter, does it?

Now Strick. There's no need to be like that. You remind me of that child also, only with you, it's your belief that the US government is as benign as you think it is that is the unicorn.

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?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 11:39 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:46 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 10:34 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 - 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: 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: 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.