Is Oil The Reail Reason For War With Iraq?

[RandFan]

I was really surprised when both France and Russia came aboard to join the United States in the resolution against Iraq. Russia and France have both negotiated lucrative deals to work with Iraq to rebuild the facilities and export oil. That fact would seem to indicate that the administration included a promise to let both countries keep at least part of those deals if they went along with Bush's desires.

If Bush invades Iraq there is no guarantee that he will actually get control of the oil in a way that he wants. There is a very good chance Saddam will wage a scorched earth policy as he did in Kuwait. It is very likely that he will blow up the oil wells. This time he has had much more time to make it much more difficult to restore operations and get the oil flowing than before. A new regime might be uncooperative and we might have to go to war again. It seems that there are a lot of unknowns in this scenario.

On the other hand, Bush could negotiate with Iraq, France and Russia right now. He could get together with Koffee Annan and other dignitaries to say that he had worked out a deal with Saddam. That after 12 years the dictator had come to his senses and was willing to "work" with the United States. We could drop the sanctions, the oil would flow, the economy would pick up and Bush's cronies would become fantastically wealthy.

This is completely doable right now. There are NO downsides. Unless of course the intelligence indicates that Saddam is really and truly dangerous. Then such a deal might not be such a good deal.

If oil is the single most important motivating factor then why does Bush not want to work with Saddam? Revenge? If revenge is so important then how important can the oil be.

I would like to see the counter arguments. However the idea that the reason for going to war is to get oil just does not ring true.

Let me know what you think. Go easy on me, if I were all that I would be working for CNN.

[corplinx]

Of course the war is about oil. The reason we stepped into Gulf I wasn't just because of Kuwait. It was because Saddam was gearing up to invade Saudi Arabia. Imagine if you will what would have happened. Global depression as the price of petroleum derivatives (plastic, etc) skyrockets. WW3. Cats and Dogs living together.

In this case I think the fear is the Saddam will provoke a response from Israel in some point in the future. He can only supply terrorists in Palestine for so long before Israel decides to cut off the flow. If that happens it could draw other countries into the conflict (Egypt, Syria, etc). When Saddam launched scuds at Israel during Gulf I, I knew then his days were numbered. He is just the sort of madman it takes to start a world war for the hell of it.

So, of course this is about oil, sort of. It's about power. It's about economics. It's about preventing the next foreseeably intercontinental large scale conflict.

[kourama]

Originally posted by corplinx
Of course the war is about oil. The reason we stepped into Gulf I wasn't just because of Kuwait. It was because Saddam was gearing up to invade Saudi Arabia. Imagine if you will what would have happened. Global depression as the price of petroleum derivatives (plastic, etc) skyrockets. WW3. Cats and Dogs living together.


...MASS HYSTERIA!

cool! A ghostbusters reference!

Unfortunately, the U.S. claims to have satellite pictures of Iraqi troops building up along the border were vapourware. Eye witness reports on the ground supported the fact that there never was a buildup. It was a ploy in '92 to get a military base established in Saudi Arabia.

It worked.

Saddam Hussein is an incredible *******. The U.N. sanctions against his country have only served to strengthen his grip on the country, since any goods in our out of there are on the black market that he controls.

BUT, the reason the U.S. imperialist regime wants war is because he is unpredictable. They want someone in there that they can control. They are not interested in free elections. (Consider Chile in '73). What the U.S. regime wants out of this war is a puppet government and secured control over oil resources. A foothold in that part of the world ain't too bad either, as it keeps the OPEC nations quivering in their boots.

If the U.S. military moves in and occupies the country, Bush would probably enourage a massive upgrade to the infrastructures of the country to win back world opinion, and local opinion too. We'd see schools and hospitals and eventually, a U.S. friendly puppet government who just loooooves sending dirt-cheap oil to North America.

The relatively comfortable middle-class lifestyle of the average iraqi would appeal to the impoverished people in neighbour nations which would lead to internal feuding and destabilization, and futrther opportunities for U.S. imperialist control.

At least, that's how I see it.

------------------
Edit - that should have been "military foothold" you get the idea.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by kourama
If the U.S. military moves in and occupies the country, Bush would probably enourage a massive upgrade to the infrastructures of the country to win back world opinion, and local opinion too. We'd see schools and hospitals and eventually, a U.S. friendly puppet government who just loooooves sending dirt-cheap oil to North America.

The relatively comfortable middle-class lifestyle of the average iraqi would appeal to the impoverished people in neighbour nations which would lead to internal feuding and destabilization, and futrther opportunities for U.S. imperialist control. Is Bush really so sure that this is what will happen? If that is what Bush is planning then would it not be a hell of a lot easier to do the same thing without war? Ok we wouldn't have the puppet government but we could flood money into the country right now, money that would come from the sale of Iraqi oil. We would stop starving children the economy would increase and Bush and his friends would get wealthy. Why the war?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by kourama

reference!

Unfortunately, the U.S. claims to have satellite pictures of Iraqi troops building up along the border were vapourware. .

According to the Christian Science monitor that is. The photos remain classified. I will concede that my assertion that the Saudis were next could be wrong.

[kourama]

Originally posted by RandFan
Is Bush really so sure that this is what will happen? If that is what Bush is planning then would it not be a hell of a lot easier to do the same thing without war? Ok we wouldn't have the puppet government but we could flood money into the country right now, money that would come from the sale of Iraqi oil. We would stop starving children the economy would increase and Bush and his friends would get wealthy. Why the war?

Well, no, I can't say what Bush is expecting for sure, but if I was playing the earth as a sim game, that's what I'd do.

The reason for the war, though, is secured control. Because Sadam is unpredictable, the U.S. regime cannot afford to become heavily dependent on his oil, and therefore be vulnerable to his oil-price whims. If he continued to play ball (remember in the 70's Saddam was a "good guy" in the U.S. media) his country would probably be better off right now. His major crime is trying not to be bullied by the U.S. foreign trade policies. That and, let's not forget, he is an incredible *******.

NB: I say U.S. imperialist regime, or U.S. ruling elite instead of U.S. because I'm talking about a small oligarchical group of people, not the whole U.S.

[subgenius]

Two oil men in the White House.....let's see, mmmmmm...........................maybe.....

[Skeptic]

What I don't understand is why oil is such a "dirty" reason to go to war, while "freedom" is such a good reason.

I am not claiming, of course, that oil is more important than freedom. But, in practice, the vast majority of wars fought in the name of freedom or some other ideal, have quickly deteriorated into massacres and unending slaughter where no side is remotely in the right (WWII being the big exception to this rule, of course). Wars over something tangible--oil, land, access to the sea, whatever--tend to end much sooner once the objective or a compromise is reaqched, at least.

Also, oil is just about as important to a modern society as water is. Without it, production, the economy, energy--not to mention necessities such as electricity, water, etc.--stop, and society goes back to the middle ages. Even a significant rise in price or its possible use as blackmail are a threat almost as bad, and often worse, than a direct military attack.

This doesn't mean EVERY war for oil is justified, of course, but the "moral" critics (who just reached the protest rally against the war in their SUVs because gas is only $0.99 a gallon) seem to believe that, somehow, the VERY FACT that the war is a "war for oil" makes it immoral, which isn't true.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What I don't understand is why oil is such a "dirty" reason to go to war, while "freedom" is such a good reason. My point wasn't so much that it was about oil but that Bush was doing it because he is an oil man and he wants to make him and his friends rich. So far I have not see or hear and argument to substantiate that or rebut my original argument.

[ihixulu]

There are easier ways to get a hold of Iraqi oil than using military efforts. They are called negotiating and containment, two skills which the current White House does not seem to possess.

I don't think it's immoral to go to war for economic reasons. In fact, I believe that most wars are economic at heart. But it is immoral to wage war when there are other avenues of resolution still available.

There is also a political dimension to this. So long as Bush can keep the threat of war hanging over people's head (conventional political thought would say) voters will be kinder to him if the economy in fact does not improve. Keep the people freaked out about secure borders and hopefully they won't notice that their opportunities are stunted.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by kourama
The U.N. sanctions against his country have only served to strengthen his grip on the country, since any goods in our out of there are on the black market that he controls.


I disagree. Both in the Kurdish north and the Shia south he essentially has no grip on the country. When he sends troops to either region they get chewed up by local forces. Also, the vast majority of the oil he sends out is not sent out under his control, and the cash is administered by the UN, with a percentage proportionate to their population going directly to the Kurds. (and perhaps the same is true for the Shia, but I'm not sure.)

Still, the sanctions hurt Iraqis in the region he controls, and I'll be glad when the region he controls is a 6x2x2 pine box and the sanctions are history.

MattJ

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted bu ihixulu:
There are easier ways to get a hold of Iraqi oil than using military efforts. They are called negotiating and containment, two skills which the current White House does not seem to possess.

So the negotiating and containment skills used by the previous administration worked in North Korea, then? I suppose Milosovic was negotiated and contained out of power as well?

[ihixulu]

So the negotiating and containment skills used by the previous administration worked in North Korea, then?

Let's see, for the cost of surplus grain (which would've been destroyed anyway) and a relatively minute amount of heavy oil the N. Koreans were dissuaded from building additional nuclear arms. Sounds like a decent bargain to me. They weren't building nukes and now they are.


I suppose Milosovic was negotiated and contained out of power as well?

No one paid attention to Milosevic until it was too late. Same thing with Rwanda, etc... Containment does not preclude the use of force mind you but it certainly doesn't take as much as full scale war. Americans didn't care a wit about Yugoslavia until the moral implications (and the stability of the surrounding region) came into question.

How is it that if someone outside of the US uses hardball tactics to negotiate, they are labeled as rogue states while when the Bushies engage in temper tantrums and threaten to take unilateral action it is regarded as good bargaining skill?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by ihixulu
They weren't building nukes and now they are.

It seems to me that the balance of the evidence says that they, in fact, never stopped their nuclear program, despite our bribes.

former Clinton administration officials are now prepared to testify before Congress that they got intelligence about the NK's clandestine uranium enrichment program back in 2000 and briefed the incoming Bush administration folks on that intelligence at the beginning of 2001.

Orginal Source not online. I got the info here. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/jan0302.html#010803249am) The author generally takes an anti-Bush administration stance on this issue, and is spinning this 'fact' to say that Bush waited too long and bungled the North Korean situation. He's noticably silent on whether Clinton waited too long or bungled it.

This (http://www.insightmag.com/news/342934.html) article says that the negotiating team believed in 1994 that the N. Korean's had nukes already. (This squares with Colin Powell's assertions of same last Sunday on every major Sunday morning talking heads show)

MattJ

[pgwenthold]

Iraqi oil? No.
Saudi oil? Yes.

The concern with Iraq is that they will try to take over the rest of the middle east, and gain control of the Saudi oil reserves.

And to agree with earlier sentiment, protecting our oil supply is most certainly a good enough reason for war. It goes right along with "protecting the American way of life."

It's not just SUV owners who are affected by high gas prices (they really aren't, they just like to bitch). So much of American commerce relies on oil, such that small increases in gas prices have very large effects on the cost of production and transportation.

Increases in gas prices will show up in the cost of all goods in the US.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by ihixulu
Let's see, for the cost of surplus grain (which would've been destroyed anyway) and a relatively minute amount of heavy oil the N. Koreans were dissuaded from building additional nuclear arms. Sounds like a decent bargain to me. I have some bad news for you. Aparently The north Koreans took the grain and oil and stabbed Clinton in the back. They built the arms. they were NOT dissuaded from building additional nuclear arms.

They weren't building nukes and now they are. My understanding is that the North Koreans broke the promise from the start.

How is it that if someone outside of the US uses hardball tactics to negotiate, they are labeled as rogue states... Who made this argument? Sounds like a straw man.

...while when the Bushies engage in temper tantrums and threaten to take unilateral action it is regarded as good bargaining skill? Nice ad hominem. Who said it was good bargaining skill by the way? Again I think this is a straw man. Bush is taking a course of action not bargaining. An appropriate one in my opinion. Belitteling Bush and making personal attacks don't improve your argument.

Edited to tone down. I gotta watch the emotion.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by ihixulu
There is also a political dimension to this. So long as Bush can keep the threat of war hanging over people's head (conventional political thought would say) voters will be kinder to him if the economy in fact does not improve. Keep the people freaked out about secure borders and hopefully they won't notice that their opportunities are stunted. This is probably the best response to my question. However it obviates the "it's for the oil" argument. Would it not be better to negotiate a deal with Saddam and turn the oil gates on, get a political plus by averting war and improving the economy? I still haven't seen a good argument that this war is a ploy for politics and greed. That argument seems far more cynical and self serving.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by ihixilu:
No one paid attention to Milosevic until it was too late. Same thing with Rwanda, etc... Containment does not preclude the use of force mind you but it certainly doesn't take as much as full scale war. Americans didn't care a wit about Yugoslavia until the moral implications (and the stability of the surrounding region) came into question.

Yugoslavia and the Balkans are in Europe. Europe is full of people and countries not short of opinions when it comes to American foreignpolicy. These were the same people who stood by with their thumbs up their asses while a region not more than a couple of hundred miles away descended into genocide. Guess who had to provide the firepower to topple Milosevic in the end?

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by ihixilu:


Yugoslavia and the Balkans are in Europe. Europe is full of people and countries not short of opinions when it comes to American foreignpolicy. These were the same people who stood by with their thumbs up their asses while a region not more than a couple of hundred miles away descended into genocide. Guess who had to provide the firepower to topple Milosevic in the end?

Actually there wasnt any "genocide" in Kosovo at all - there was certainly use of military aircraft and artillery against civilian targets, but nothing comparable to the way Israel uses her military against arab civilians in the occupied territories, which is supported by the US.
The real human rights abuses didnt begin in Kosovo until AFTER the NATO (not US) bombing and even then they were exaggerated in the western media.

The US wanted to attack Milosevic not because of his human rights record, but because socialists are bad for business and war makes money.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by originalgagster


Actually there wasnt any "genocide" in Kosovo at all - there was certainly use of military aircraft and artillery against civilian targets, but nothing comparable to the way Israel uses her military against arab civilians in the occupied territories, which is supported by the US.
The real human rights abuses didnt begin in Kosovo until AFTER the NATO (not US) bombing and even then they were exaggerated in the western media.

The US wanted to attack Milosevic not because of his human rights record, but because socialists are bad for business and war makes money.

I think I've seen this before. I don't think you're saying what you're coming across as saying, so I won't touch that one.

As far as socialists and war, most of Europe is socialist, and war usually loses money in the long run.

I'm not real supportive of Bush on a war with Iraq. Yes, Hussein is evil, he is sick, and he needs to go. But there are other ways to do this at this moment, and until those efforts have been exhausted, we ought to think twice about putting our sons and daughters in harm's way.

And, yes, I am biased in this argument: My son is one of those who will be fighting.

[E.J.Armstrong]

It seems fairly clear that the current aggression against Iraq is largely related to the presence of major oil reserves in Iraq.

If that premise is false one has to ask a number of questions. Before doing so let us take for granted that Saddam Hussein is a murderous swine - like many other dictators, military or otherwise the west has previously supported to further our own interests - some of whom had access to large amounts of oil interestingly enough.

1/ Is it because he has WOMD. Apparently not because the UN inspectors haven't found any yet. If he really has any why won't the US and the UK supply the details of the location of his WOMD to Hans Blix? And what about all those other countries which actually have WOMD? they don't seem to be military targets at the moment. Some of them not even democracies. Not even China with its aggressive actions against Taiwan. In fact, China can apparently bring down America planes at will with little retaliation. Is that because they are a tad bigger than Iraq and not such an easy target?
2/ Is it because he uniquely has an active nuclear programme? Apparently not because N Korea, a country with more evidence of having programmes to develop WOMD has been treated differently - to whit negotiated with diplomatically when it is also apparently part of the Axis of Evil? What about other undemocratic governments with nuclear weapons? Is Pakistan next on the list. Or China?
3/ If it is because he has a uniquely nasty regime? Apparently not because other countries with similarly nasty regimes been treated differently - to whit North Korea, which will be dealt with diplomatically apparently or Zimbabwe where you apparently only get food aid if you voted for Mugabe? cf what happened in Central and South America.
4/ Is it because he uniquely didn't follow UN resolutions? Apparently not, otherwise action would also be taken against all the other countries currently flouting UN resolutions?
5/ Is it is because he is a uniquely murderous swine who has killed his own people? Apparently not because little military action is seemingly contemplated against other murderous swine, cf Mugabe.
6/ Is it is because he is in league with Muslim fundamentalists? Apparently not because it seems Hussein has a fairly robust view about Muslim fundamentalists - namely, he's agin them.
7/ Is it is because he is uniquely ready to give his life and be a martyr for his religion? Pull the other one.
8/ Is it is because he is a uniquely destabilising influence in the world? Apparently not - cf China and Taiwan.
9/ Is it because he was implicated with 11th Sept? Could be - if there was any evidence that he was. Meanwhile the real and admitted perpetrator of the 11th September massacre is apparently happily sending video memos to all and sundry while much military might is being gathered to be expended against a people who weren't.
Pehaps there is some secret evidence that Hussein was in league with OBL with which we are not yet familiar?
10/ Is it because he is likely to attack his neighbours? Could be. Where is the evidence that he is? China certainly seems to be more likely to attack Taiwan and has committed many atrocities in over running Tibet.
11/ Is it because he can easily be defeated and in the process provide a big boost to military expenditure and trials of expensive weaponry? Hmmmn.
12/ Is it because he has enormous oil reserves that a puppet government, put into place by the UK and the USA would generously make available to the UK and the USA in times of crisis activated by unforced regime change within the Saudi republic? That seems to be highly likely, particularly with an American govenment which has many oil men in its ranks who are in charge of a country with an enormous appetite for cheap energy - oh and the UK will tag along for the benefit of Mr Blair's CV apparently despite the fact that a large proportion of his electorate is against the war unless the UN gives specific approval in the future.
13/ Is it because the US administration has said that oil is a factor. Bingo.
PS It seems that many in the rest of the world are of the same opinion as Mr Bush's administration.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Skeptic
Wars over something tangible--oil, land, access to the sea, whatever--tend to end much sooner once the objective or a compromise is reaqched, at least.
Like the Hundred Years War in the UK or the war in Vietnam or the war against the native American Indians or the war in the Middle East or the war in Northern Ireland etc.

Lets go to war about music. That's tangible. Robbie Williams could kick the butt of Donny Osmond any day. Donny's music is more destructive than other WOMD anyway.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Lets go to war about music. That's tangible. Robbie Williams could kick the butt of Donny Osmond any day. Donny's music is more destructive than other WOMD anyway.

Yes, but Donny Osmond is a Real Ammurrikin!

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by gagsta
The real human rights abuses didnt begin in Kosovo until AFTER the NATO (not US) bombing and even then they were exaggerated in the western media.

On what basis are you claiming that the reports of human rights abuses started only after the NATO (not US) bombing and that those abuses were exaggerated. That is Milosevic's argument and it is a complete fabrication. See www.senate.gov/member/ct/lieberman/general/r032598a.html

We also have the evidence of what Milosevic and his henchmen Mladic and Karadic did previously in murdering more than twice as many people in Srebrenica than were killed on 11th Sept. www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/srebrenica/srebrenica.html
The Dutch govenment resigned over the lamentable conduct of Dutch soldiers in that Serbian atrocity. It is clear that Serbians have suffered recently in Kosovo but let us not start to try to attempt to rewrite history so shortly after the murderous aggression carried out by Milosevic.

I thought that the US was a welcome part of the NATO bombing strategy and that they bombed from around 15000ft at certain times to keep the aircrew safe? Unfortunately some farm vehicles were mistaken for tanks because of the difficulty of accurate visual identification from that altitude and as a result some farmers were mistakenly killed in one such incident. www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200.htm#P37_987

[ihixulu]

Good thread...

It seems to me that the balance of the evidence says that they, in fact, never stopped their nuclear program, despite our bribes.

The impression I'm getting from the news sources is that it is only recently that the NK's have committed themselves to specifically using the radioactive materials for weapons. Up till then it is entirely possible they were figuring on other uses for the Uranium (which technically they were allowed to enrich under the standing agreements. Oversight on Clinton's part for only focusing on the plutonium.)

As it stands they have removed themselves from the non-proliferation pact which is an unfortunate circumstance that didn't exist before.

I have some bad news for you. Aparently The north Koreans took the grain and oil and stabbed Clinton in the back.

See above

How is it that if someone outside of the US uses hardball tactics to negotiate, they are labeled as rogue states...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who made this argument? Sounds like a straw man.

I'm making this argument. I believe that the manner in which the current administration is conducting itself with regards to the rest of the world shows inconsistencies at the least and a thorough disregard for the interests and concerns of the other nations at worst. Take fee trade for example, Bush consistently demands lower tariffs from other, weaker countries while proceeding to protect the steel industry via tariffs. With regards to Iraq, Bush was ready, willing and able to go ahead and invade (and remember the original excuse was "regime change" not WOMD) without considering the opinions of other forces in the world. I give him credit for finally acquiecing to the UN Secutiry Council protocols but he didn't have to make the US looks so bad getting there.

As far as I can tell, NK is simply using the limited bargaining chips it has in order to try to get its needs met.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ihixulu
There is also a political dimension to this. So long as Bush can keep the threat of war ... they won't notice that their opportunities are stunted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is probably the best response to my question. However it obviates the "it's for the oil" argument.

There is no simple, one dimensional answer to this. Geo-political realtions are complicated. I think that the economic impact of oil is a part of the reason, as well as the fact that GWB will look like a hero if he topples Saddam and brings democracy to Iraq (to make up for not getting OBL perhaps?) as well as having a good excuse for why the economy is slow.

I am not making judgements about GWB's motives. I may disagree with them but his philosophies of governing are just as vavlid as any other. Here's a real ad-hom though: I do think he is an idiot.

There is also the question of how expensive is it to keep the al-Sauds secure in Saudi Arabia. After all, a lot of the anti US sentiments come from there and if Iraq becomes an unconditional ally (cheap, secure source of oil) it would allow for an exit strategy from Saudi Arabia. Just thinking out loud on this one...

[originalgagster]

I don't think you're saying what you're coming across as saying, so I won't touch that one.

No i dont think i was, im not keen to rewrite history - theres no doubt milosevic was a thuggish political opportunist, and the crimes commited while he was president are very real.
Its really just a question of definition - what constitutes genocide? If using armed forces against innocent people is genocide then Milosovic commited genocide - but then so do Israel, Indonesia, Turkey and countless other countries the west sends weapons to, and we dont refer to this as genocide - to us these countries are just taking care of business in their own back yards.

On what basis are you claiming that the reports of human rights abuses started only after the NATO (not US) bombing and that those abuses were exaggerated. That is Milosevic's argument is a complete fabrication. See www.senate.gov/member/ct/lieberman/...l/r032598a.html

I didnt mean to imply that all reports of atrocities started after the invasion - there were perhaps as many as 2000 civilians killed during Serbian army operations against the KLA in the year before the bombing, but the mass expulsion of kosovan people didnt begin until the same day as the bombing , likewise the appearance of paramilitaries and the reports of assasinations and mass graves didnt begin until after the bombing started. My point is simply that if the object of bombing Serbia was to prevent human rights abuses it can only be judged an abject failure.

And the initial reports of human rights abuses were exagerrated, often ridiculously so. Initial reports in western newspapers gave figures as high as 100000 dead, the figure is now accepted as less than 3000. Of course if Milosevic had (as is likely) a hand in the atrocities he should be brought to justice.
But i dont see any difference between Milosevic and the dozens of military dictators the west has propped up over the years, in fact compared to many of these slobbo is really quite benign.

I guess what really wrankles with me is the sheer and blatant hypocrisy with which the US and its British lapdog conduct their affairs.

I agree with the rest of what you say - my aim was never to rewrite history, just to add a little symmetry

[Drooper]

I for one just don't understand this "he's after the oil" stuff.

I can't for a moment see the US being allowed to steal Iraq's natural resources.

As for Bushes oil buddies. I would have thought the best thing to line their pockets was to keep all that mid-east oil in the gound, keep up prices and make that West Texas crude all the more valuable.

[Skeptic]

I have some bad news for you. Aparently The north Koreans took the grain and oil and stabbed Clinton in the back.

You mean the blackmailers turned out to be liars, too? I'm SHOCKED.

But, then again, it was totally unexpected: appeasement worked SO well before, as in the case of Hitler... and the north vietnamese... and Arafat... and Stalin... er, I'll get back to you on that one.

This is not to say, of course, that negotiations never works and "bomb-them-to-the-stone-age" is always the only solution. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out negotiation isn't worth much with the likes of Kim and Hussein.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Drooper:
I for one just don't understand this "he's after the oil" stuff.

I've wondered whether anyone who thinks "he's after the oil" is going to do a personal protest against this tainted fuelstuff and turnoff thier central heating for the est of winter and eschew all forms of petroleum powered transport?

[ihixulu]

I've wondered whether anyone who thinks "he's after the oil" is going to do a personal protest against this tainted fuelstuff and turnoff thier central heating for the est of winter and eschew all forms of petroleum powered transport?

What are you, crazy? Once Britney's new album comes out people will be rushing to get in their SUV's to hurry to the mall. Iraqi oil? What Iraqi oil?

In truth, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with waging war in the name of one's economic self interest. The problem, IMO, is how the Bush administration is trying to make it seem like they are doing it for other "more noble" reasons. (How is it that Pakistan, a country that was supporting the Taliban at its highest levels was allowed to get a hold of a nuke? Saddam's a threat? Puhleeze)

Bush is using the mushroom philosophy* of management to communicate with the American people and that prevents a real and rational discussion of the nation's policies among the people.

Then again such a discussion might take up too much time and get in the way of watching the Bachelorette, so who knows, maybe he's doing America a favor by being shady.




* mushroom philosophy of management: keep them in the dark and feed them crap.

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by Drooper:


I've wondered whether anyone who thinks "he's after the oil" is going to do a personal protest against this tainted fuelstuff and turnoff thier central heating for the est of winter and eschew all forms of petroleum powered transport?

Shane by your own high standards this is a weak retort. Do you think he is not being driven by a combination of the following factors:

- His best buddies are all oil men
- He needs to keep up his popularity by inventing an easily defeatable enemy because Osama cant be found dead or alive as everybody knows a president at war time has a higher chance of being re-elected
- His own "credibility" the same reason various american presidents loaded soldiers into Vietnam into a war they couldn't win

He is getting more and more desperate as Blix for whatever reason cannot find a single thing in Iraq and this is making him more dangerous and giving Saddam more and more credibility in the middle east.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I have some bad news for you. Aparently The north Koreans took the grain and oil and stabbed Clinton in the back.

But, then again, it was totally unexpected: appeasement worked SO well before, as in the case of Hitler... and the north vietnamese... and Arafat... and Stalin... er, I'll get back to you on that one.



I cant see the sense in this argument, sure the way the west tried to appease Hitler was shameful, but what parallels do you draw between Hitler and Hussein?
Hitler was head of the worlds mightiest military machine and was annexing large parts of Europe and aggresively gearing up for war, Saddam Hussein is a danger to no-one. You can only appease someone who is an aggressor and Saddam Hussein isnt, and even if he wanted to be he wouldnt have anything like the capability.

And exactly how did the West try to appease Stalin? or Arafat?
I dont recall Arafat making demands on foreign territories.

[Samus]

ihixulu wrote:
Then again such a discussion might take up too much time and get in the way of watching the Bachelorette, so who knows, maybe he's doing America a favor by being shady.
Sadly, you're probably right. I think people are more concerned with the newest reality show then whether or not we're going to send our troops to war.

OBgac wrote:
Do you think he is not being driven by a combination of the following factors:

- His best buddies are all oil men
- He needs to keep up his popularity by inventing an easily defeatable enemy because Osama cant be found dead or alive as everybody knows a president at war time has a higher chance of being re-elected
- His own "credibility" the same reason various american presidents loaded soldiers into Vietnam into a war they couldn't win
I think those are some of the lesser factors. To say the aforementioned issues aren't a part of the decision would be naive. However, I think he has more substantial reasons for wanting to act.

Iraq is a threat not because they're going to invade us and try to topple our government. They are a threat because of the capabilities they have. Let us assume that they have the capability to deploy chemical and biological weapons (if you honestly believe they don't have this capability, then you haven't been paying much attention to the news). With U.N. weapons inspectors on their property, they're not going to flaunt their abilities.

However, what is to keep them from selling this technology to terrorist groups that will attack the U.S. on our soil? They (Iraq) don't have the ability to attack us directly, they're not strong enough. They are, however, in a good position to work with existing terrorist organizations that do have the capability of deploying an attack on us when we least expect it.

Iraq is a threat, and the president would argue they are a more immediate threat than anything Osama bin Laden is cooking up. I don't know if I agree with that, but that is the basis for his shift from targeting one terrorist network (al-Quida) to targeting a nation that seeks to sell to multiple terrorist networks.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by dwb

Iraq is a threat not because they're going to invade us and try to topple our government. They are a threat because of the capabilities they have. Let us assume that they have the capability to deploy chemical and biological weapons (if you honestly believe they don't have this capability, then you haven't been paying much attention to the news). With U.N. weapons inspectors on their property, they're not going to flaunt their abilities.



If Iraq is a threat only because of the capabilities they have then what do we make of the US which has more chemical and biological weapons than every country in the world put together? How do we gauge the threat the US poses to world security?

And dont forget Saddam Hussein has these weapons in large part because the US and UK were more than happy to sell him the technology he needed to build them. A little hypocritical of us to use his possession of weapons we gave him as justification for attack.

[Samus]

originalgagster, I'm opening a separate topic (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12345) to discuss your post, as the moderator in me doesn't want the topic drift... :)

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by dwb
originalgagster, I'm opening a separate topic (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12345) to discuss your post, as the moderator in me doesn't want the topic drift... :)

I don't see much drift in this discussion, DWB. Gagster is correct in pointing out that America, Britain, Germany, and a whole host of nations were willing over the course of years to sit back and say nothing as Hussein was building up his arsenal, purchased with the credit we gave him.

Our sons and daughters will be facing weapons we provided the enemy. They will be facing a technology we provided. If there were any justice, the children SOBs who armed Hussein would be the ones facing down the Republican Guards, and not ours.

But there is no justice, of course. Idiot, me...

[INRM]

There was a law made which made it illegal to kill foreign head of state...

Why not just repeal the law, assassinate Saddam Houssein, then after he's dead and we put a guy we like in power, we then put the law back into effect?

I call it "Law on Demand"; a law you create, then repeal to suit your purposes, you of course, bring the law back into effect after you've done your business to claim "we do not kill foreign head of state" (meaning "We do not kill foreign head of state unless it suits our purposes").

Assasination is ugly, but the whole problem is Saddam Houssein and his government. So why not whack Houssein and his Sons? It would be far more efficient than having to attack all of Iraq and kill lots of innocent people in an attempt to get a couple of people!

-INRM23

[ihixulu]

...if you honestly believe they don't have this capability, then you haven't been paying much attention to the news...

I watch the news and read newspapers and as far as I can tell Blix and Co. aren't finding anything. Even with the so-called imtelligence from the US and UK.

I think they MIGHT have something but it is not of a quantity, and lacking delivery methods, that would qualify it as a threat to the US.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by ihixulu

In truth, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with waging war in the name of one's economic self interest.
I'm in no mood to become involved in another Iraq debate on this board, but I'd like you to consider whether our oil supplies are imperiled. Just a few days ago, OPEC announced that it was boosting production to relieve the price of oil after it jumped up on war fears. If our oil supplies are not threatened, then that does not rule out oil as a motivation for attacking Iraq, but it does rule it out as a moral justification. Does anyone seriously think that Iraq poses a threat to Saudi Arabia at this time, as someone proposed as a consideration?

In thinking about oil as a factor, I propose that you consider it in a larger context: conquering Iraq to assert hegemony over the Middle East. The foreign policy strategy statement released by the Bush administration in September is pretty much a declaration of world hegemony as policy. Why not start with an easy and very lucrative target?

[ihixulu]

Wayne, interesting points,

I'm in no mood to become involved in another Iraq debate on this board, but I'd like you to consider whether our oil supplies are imperiled. Just a few days ago, OPEC announced that it was boosting production to relieve the price of oil after it jumped up on war fears.

I don't think it's necessarily that our oil supplies are imperiled (the US will be the last country in the world at this point to lose access to oil) but a president's political future may be imperiled by rising prices of oil. By keeping oil prices down Bush increases his chances of reelection thereby allowing more time for the exercise of the GOP agenda. Ultimately the GOP is who he works for.

Further, Americans have been conditioned to be very sensitive to rising oil prices. Note how the media portrays evey 2 cent rise on a gallon of gas as if it were as tragic as the Kennedy assasination. An imagined threat will be perceived as real if it is dramatized effectively.

Regarding the OPEC issue, my understanding was that the increase in production was a response to the Venezuelan strike situation. Since OPEC as a cartel aims to keep a certain price point, with Venezuela's exit from production it called for increases in production elsewhere.

[Drooper]

. By keeping oil prices down Bush increases his chances of reelection thereby allowing more time for the exercise of the GOP agenda

But according to some, GW is only trying to keep his oil buddies happy. And to keep his oil buddies happy he would need to increase oil prices.



Regarding the OPEC issue, my understanding was that the increase in production was a response to the Venezuelan strike situation

The reason OPEC countries are increasing (planned) output is because they are desperate for the money (especialy Saudi) and will take any opportunity they can to sell more oil, without risking a collapse in the price.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
1. Is it because he has WOMD. Apparently not because the UN inspectors haven't found any yet. It took years to find Saddam's biological weapons the last time around. He has had years to hide them. I haven't heard anyone suggest that the inspectors would be successful right at the start.

If no one expected them to be successful in so short of time then why would you make this argument?

If he really has any why won't the US and the UK supply the details of the location of his WOMD to Hans Blix? Doesn't this presume that the evidence that the US has is where the weapons are? Why would you make this assumption?

And what about all those other countries which actually have WOMD? they don't seem to be military targets at the moment. Some of them not even democracies. Not even China with its aggressive actions against Taiwan. In fact, China can apparently bring down America planes at will with little retaliation. Is that because they are a tad bigger than Iraq and not such an easy target? North Korea is successfully using its nuclear arsenal to extort money from the west.

Wouldn't it be prudent to keep Saddam from having the same ability?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by ihixulu
The impression I'm getting from the news sources is that it is only recently that the NK's have committed themselves to specifically using the radioactive materials for weapons. Up till then it is entirely possible they were figuring on other uses for the Uranium (which technically they were allowed to enrich under the standing agreements. Oversight on Clinton's part for only focusing on the plutonium.) My understanding is different. The North Koreans were caught breaking the agreement. We did not break our end btw. It is self serving of them to blame Bush's rhetoric for their actions.

ihixulu
How is it that if someone outside of the US uses hardball tactics to negotiate, they are labeled as rogue states...

RandFan
Who made this argument? Sounds like a straw man.

ihixulu
I'm making this argument. Sorry, this was miscommunication on my part. My question was "Who is labeling nations as rogue states when they use hardball tactics." I am unfamiliar with such rhetoric.


As far as I can tell, NK is simply using the limited bargaining chips it has in order to try to get its needs met. Of course they are. And soon Saddam will be able to do the same.

There is no simple, one dimensional answer to this. I agree, hence my answer. Why is the rhetoric focused on oil?

Geo-political realtions are complicated. Exactly. And explaining complicated concepts to the American people serves little political purpose. So keep repeating the mantra that Bush is stupid and he is going into Iraq because he wants to make his freinds rich. It's all ******** but easy to get accross. AKA politics.

I think that the economic impact of oil is a part of the reason, as well as the fact that GWB will look like a hero if he topples Saddam and brings democracy to Iraq (to make up for not getting OBL perhaps?) as well as having a good excuse for why the economy is slow. It just doesn't wash. Such arguments seem to serve those who are counter to Bush more than Bush.

I am not making judgements about GWB's motives. I may disagree with them but his philosophies of governing are just as vavlid as any other. Here's a real ad-hom though: I do think he is an idiot. Of course, why not. And Clinton was immoral. It's easier to deal with life when we can reduce our opponents to simple sound bites and judgments. It doesn't require critical thinking just knee jerk reaction and the willingness to tow a political line.

There is also the question of how expensive is it to keep the al-Sauds secure in Saudi Arabia. After all, a lot of the anti US sentiments come from there and if Iraq becomes an unconditional ally (cheap, secure source of oil) it would allow for an exit strategy from Saudi Arabia. Just thinking out loud on this one... It doesn't follow. There are two factions in Saudi Arabia. One pro US the other anti. Both would be happy if we left Iraq alone.

[kourama]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I disagree. Both in the Kurdish north and the Shia south he essentially has no grip on the country. When he sends troops to either region they get chewed up by local forces. Also, the vast majority of the oil he sends out is not sent out under his control, and the cash is administered by the UN, with a percentage proportionate to their population going directly to the Kurds. (and perhaps the same is true for the Shia, but I'm not sure.)

Still, the sanctions hurt Iraqis in the region he controls, and I'll be glad when the region he controls is a 6x2x2 pine box and the sanctions are history.

MattJ

True, I must admit, that there are kurds enjoying everything from peanut butter to cell phones within range of saddam-friendly artillery. However, large urban populations in the country are still under his control. Perhaps I should have said that the U.N. sanctions have served to tighten his control over already held areas, and create a more sharply contrasted border. Of course, if the U.S. patrols stop flying over Kurdish areas, he might crush them again as he did in '91.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by OBgac:
Shane by your own high standards this is a weak retort.

Compliments are always welcome, even the backhanded variety. :) Hint: This was a question, not a retort.

- His best buddies are all oil men
- He needs to keep up his popularity by inventing an easily defeatable enemy because Osama cant be found dead or alive as everybody knows a president at war time has a higher chance of being re-elected

1. Who are his oil man "best buddies"? What evidence is there that they have influenced the legislative process since Bush assumed the presidency? Hint: Americans love their motor cars, public transport is anathema to them and a lot of them live in places that get very cold in the winter.

2. "It's the economy, stupid!" A victorous military campaign and stellar approval ratings didn't do his Dad any good when it really mattered.

Can you please solid evidence for any of the claims you've made? If not, then it ill behoves you to call anyone else's comments weak.

[Smalso]

I cannot say that Bush's primary motivation for going to war with Iraq is oil and neither can anyone else unless they can get into his mind and read his thoughts; but it makes sense that any action in that part of the world would take oil into consideration. I believe the primary reason is the 2004 elections. Bush has won some victories for the Republican Party and would certainly like to keep it going and consolidate his power in a second term. The main thing is to keep the war on terrorism on everybody's mind and give the impression that the administration is doing something. Saddam is an easy target. The US kicked his butt once and there's no reason it can't do it again. The entire world knows he's a prick and even those countries who will not give us active support will not actively support Iraq, either. Hell, even the other Arab countries don't like him. Whether he has WMDs makes no difference. All Bush has to do is say that he has good evidence of them and who is to say otherwise? Add to that the state of the economy in the US and the desirability of keeping that off the front page....

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Drooper

But according to some, GW is only trying to keep his oil buddies happy. And to keep his oil buddies happy he would need to increase oil prices.

Raising the price too high would cause conservation to kick in. That's what caused the collapse of OPEC in the early 80's. The US's imports were cut in half from their peak in 1977. (Domestic production also increased as it became feasible to pursue more costly methods of recovery on capped wells, and production from other non-OPEC sources also put downward pressure on global prices: increased production from Mexico, new production from the North Sea.)

The US oil companies currently do not have access to Iraq's oil fields. That would change with regime change. For example, the Iraqi opposition groups that the US is supporting have said that if they came to power, they would not honor agreements made by the Hussein regime and would favor the development of Iraq's oil industry by a consortium headed by US companies. (The idea of these opposition groups forming a government has been abandoned in favor of a military government run by occupying US forces for an untold number of years.)

I don't think anyone can remove oil as a major consideration in the matter-- the major consideration. It is what makes the region strategically important to the US. I'm suggesing, however, that the reasons are more complicated than just enriching Bush and Cheney's oil buddies.

[OBgac]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shane Costello

Compliments are always welcome, even the backhanded variety. :) Hint: This was a question, not a retort.


Shane:
Are you arguing that a retort cannot be in the form of a question?



1. Who are his oil man "best buddies"? What evidence is there that they have influenced the legislative process since Bush assumed the presidency? Hint: Americans love their motor cars, public transport is anathema to them and a lot of them live in places that get very cold in the winter.


Seeing as you started the sarcasm I will use the Americanism to retort: "Hellooooo?"

Oil , Bush . Hmmm lets see. Difficult one.

G. W. Bush - Harkan Energy
Cheney - Halliburton
Rice - Chevron

Do I really need to go on? He is surrounded by people who were involved in the oil business.

So a lot of them live in places that get cold? I suppose those SUV's have better heaters in them and thats why people drive them? Hint: Maybe Americans consume more than a proportionate amount of natural resources because its really cheap and if they were forced to be a little more economical about it then e.g. an increase of 2c in the price of a gallon of gas wouldnt be so important.



2. "It's the economy, stupid!" A victorous military campaign and stellar approval ratings didn't do his Dad any good when it really mattered.


If the Economy was doing well then Bush wouldn't need a public enemy number 1 to be distracting the general public.



Can you please solid evidence for any of the claims you've made? If not, then it ill behoves you to call anyone else's comments weak.
confused: :confused: :confused:


Solid evidence? Its like asking for solid evidence that gravity exists. Look around. Open your eyes. Read something else instead of "The Telegraph" for a change.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by OBgac
Shane Costello
1. Who are his oil man "best buddies"? What evidence is there that they have influenced the legislative process since Bush assumed the presidency? Hint: Americans love their motor cars, public transport is anathema to them and a lot of them live in places that get very cold in the winter.

Shane Costello
Seeing as you started the sarcasm I will use the Americanism to retort: "Hellooooo?"

Oil , Bush . Hmmm lets see. Difficult one.

G. W. Bush - Harkan Energy
Cheney - Halliburton
Rice - Chevron

Do I really need to go on? He is surrounded by people who were involved in the oil business. You did not finish answering. I wonder why? Do you have any evidence that Cheney and Rice influenced legislation for personal purposes related to oil? Or Is Bush simply guilty by association?

Solid evidence? Its like asking for solid evidence that gravity exists. Look around. Open your eyes. Read something else instead of "The Telegraph" for a change. What??? Is that the "if it smells like a duck and quacks like a duck...?" Sounds like the typical woo woo answer.

Bill Clinton received illegal funds from China. The United States then relaxed export rules to China. We then discovered that China advanced ahead years in their nuclear arms development.... hmmmm.... Let's "see open my eyes". Oh my god....Clinton sold national secrets to China for personal economic gain.

Man on stage puts women in box. I can see her feet and her arms protruding from box. Man saws box in half...hmmmm... oh my god this man sawed a woman in half.

Hint, not all things are as they appear. That is why Shane asked for evidence. Shane is using critical thinking. Just because it looks like the man sawed the woman in half doesn't mean that he did.

Just because Bill Clinton has a lot of Chinese friends and received illegal funds from them does not mean that he sold national secrets to the Chinese.

Just because Bush worked in oil, had friends in the oil business does not mean that he is motivated by that fact. Try reading Randi’s commentaries (http://www.randi.org/jr/archive.html) sometime, he discusses critical thinking allot and you will recognize how to avoid such specious reasoning.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally p;osed by Shane Costello
I've wondered whether anyone who thinks "he's after the oil" is going to do a personal protest against this tainted fuelstuff and turnoff thier central heating for the est of winter and eschew all forms of petroleum powered transport?

Why on earth would anyone want to do that?

Just asking.

[OBgac]

Originally posted by RandFan
You did not finish answering. I wonder why? Do you have any evidence that Cheney and Rice influenced legislation for personal purposes related to oil? Or Is Bush simply guilty by association?

What??? Is that the "if it smells like a duck and quacks like a duck...?" Sounds like the typical woo woo answer.

Bill Clinton received illegal funds from China. The United States then relaxed export rules to China. We then discovered that China advanced ahead years in their nuclear arms development.... hmmmm.... Let's "see open my eyes". Oh my god....Clinton sold national secrets to China for personal economic gain.

Man on stage puts women in box. I can see her feet and her arms protruding from box. Man saws box in half...hmmmm... oh my god this man sawed a woman in half.

Hint, not all things are as they appear. That is why Shane asked for evidence. Shane is using critical thinking. Just because it looks like the man sawed the woman in half doesn't mean that he did.

Just because Bill Clinton has a lot of Chinese friends and received illegal funds from them does not mean that he sold national secrets to the Chinese.

Just because Bush worked in oil, had friends in the oil business does not mean that he is motivated by that fact. Try reading Randi’s commentaries (http://www.randi.org/jr/archive.html) sometime, he discusses critical thinking allot and you will recognize how to avoid such specious reasoning.


Thanks for the lecture Randfan on critical thinking. Lets just move slightly sideways and I will come back to the Oil thing:

My critical thinking tells me Saddam has hidden WMD somewhere although I'm pretty sure no-one will find them. So you and Shane should now proceed to ask me where the evidence is and imply that because I don't have the evidence I cannot come to the conclusion?

Same as the Oil thing. Somebody spends a considerable amount of your life in Oil or a considerable amount of your personal wealth has accumulated from it and you think as an Oilman/Oil person. You dont think like a tree hugger.

Randfan o great critical thinker you: If Saddam was in the middle of Africa with no oil but probability of WMD do you think the US would be in the position it is now? Hint: Not all things are as they appear but sometimes THEY ARE!

Man puts Woman in Box, Man saws box. Blood everywhere. Woman dies. Oh God, indeed he did saw her in half.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by OBgac
My critical thinking tells me Saddam has hidden WMD somewhere although I'm pretty sure no-one will find them. So you and Shane should now proceed to ask me where the evidence is and imply that because I don't have the evidence I cannot come to the conclusion? Without evidence Bush cannot prove that Saddam has WMD. I'm glad we cleared that up.

Same as the Oil thing. Somebody spends a considerable amount of your life in Oil or a considerable amount of your personal wealth has accumulated from it and you think as an Oilman/Oil person. You dont think like a tree hugger. What has this got to do with anything? So what if someone thinks like an oil man? Is that alone proof? No! It's what is known as specious reasoning.

Randfan o great critical thinker you: If Saddam was in the middle of Africa with no oil but probability of WMD do you think the US would be in the position it is now? Hint: Not all things are as they appear but sometimes THEY ARE! And critical thinkers require proof before they give their money to the guy selling land in Florida that it is ubove water.

It would be speculation on my part to say that we wouldn't. In any event the fact that oil might play a part need not have anything to do with oil connections.

Man puts Woman in Box, Man saws box. Blood everywhere. Woman dies. Oh God, indeed he did saw her in half. Thank you for making my point. Blood would indeed be evidence would it not. Where is the "blood" in the case of oil = war? Where is your evidence?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
It took years to find Saddam's biological weapons the last time around. He has had years to hide them. I haven't heard anyone suggest that the inspectors would be successful right at the start.

If no one expected them to be successful in so short of time then why would you make this argument.

The UN team is also not looking for WOMD in a vacuum insulated from the real world. America and the UK have claimed that they have evidence for Husseins weapons of mass destruction. See paragraph after the next quote. Hans Blix has complained that they have not shared that material with him and his life would be made easier if they did. Why have they not done so? Why are they asking Hussein to prove a negative. How would America go about proving to the UN that it did not have any chemical WOMD left?

On what possible grounds can anyone threaten a war on the basis that Iraq has WOMD and agree to send a team into Iraq but not tell that team or the world where those weapons are? It doesn't make any sense unless the oil reserves are taken into account as indicated by the GW team themselves. These are just a few reasons why many in the world are skeptical about the reasons for the war in Iraq.

Where is the evidence that Hussein had anything to do with 11th Sept? Is there any?
Doesn't this presume that the evidence that the US has is where the weapons are? Why would you make this assumption?
For the answer see www.usembassy.org.uk/bush201.html
For the very simple reason that GW and Tony Blair claimed that they know he has them. The world is asking. Where is that evidence?
North Korea is successfully using its nuclear arsenal to extort money from the west.

Wouldn't it be prudent to keep Saddam from having the same ability?
Sorry. Not with you there Rand Fan. The point of that part of my post was that NK, which has much greater evidence of a WOMD programme gets negotiated with while another country is about to be attacked. On the basis of your own argument Pakistan and N Korea should be atacked first. After all they actually have more immediate potential to use WOMD. Perhaps they are next on the list but I don't see any reason to believe that they will be. For some reason Iraq is singled out . The reason many people believe this is happening is very little to do with international terrorism and more to do with oil. If it really was the other way around surely all those other reprehensible states would be attacked first?

[OBgac]

Originally posted by RandFan
Without evidence Bush cannot prove that Saddam has WMD. I'm glad we cleared that up.

What has this got to do with anything? So what if someone thinks like an oil man? Is that alone proof? No! It's what is known as specious reasoning.

And critical thinkers require proof before they give their money to the guy selling land in Florida that it is ubove water.

It would be speculation on my part to say that we wouldn't. In any event the fact that oil might play a part need not have anything to do with oil connections.

Thank you for making my point. Blood would indeed be evidence would it not. Where is the "blood" in the case of oil = war? Where is your evidence?

Randfan
In an ideal world all criminals would be convicted by video evidence of them committing the crime too but sometimes the courts will go on circumstantial evidence.

My argument is the same regarding G.W.B. that there is (for me) sufficient substantial evidence reasons backing up my original reasons for going to war (which also related to other things than Oil) and I stand over my opinions while fully admitting that I dont have the level of evidence that you require.

For some reason I do believe that well over 90% of the animals that walk and sound like ducks are, in fact, ducks.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
Exactly. And explaining complicated concepts to the American people serves little political purpose. So keep repeating the mantra that Bush is stupid and he is going into Iraq because he wants to make his freinds rich. It's all ******** but easy to get accross. AKA politics.

The Bush administration has admitted that the war in Iraq is also about oil. Many believe that the evidence is against any other primary reason. I'm sorry but many in the world believe that it is not all ********. The evidence speaks for itself.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The UN team is also not looking for WOMD in a vacuum insulated from the real world. America and the UK have claimed that they have evidence for Husseins weapons of mass destruction. See paragraph after the next quote. Hans Blix has complained that they have not shared that material with him and his life would be made easier if they did. Why have they not done so? Why are they asking Hussein to prove a negative. How would America go about proving to the UN that it did not have any chemical WOMD left? The materials that Saddam gave as proof leave no doubt that he is not cooperating. We don't need to ask him to prove a negative. He needs to fill in the holes that are so glaring in his documentation. Even Blix admits this. It is something that they can do. Here is the important question that you for some reason are not asking. Why won't Saddam provide the information that is missing in his report?

I don't know why the UK or the US is not giving Blix the info. It might not help him. Hell the report proves Saddam is lying. Why does the US need to prove to Blix anything? If the information won't help Blix then there is no need to give it too him.

On what possible grounds can anyone threaten a war on the basis that Iraq has WOMD and agree to send a team into Iraq but not tell that team or the world where those weapons are? Maybe I wasn't clear. Let me try again. Why do you assume that the evidence in question demonstrates that we know where they are? You are making unsupported assumptions.

It doesn't make any sense unless the oil reserves are taken into account as indicated by the GW team themselves. These are just a few reasons why many in the world are skeptical about the reasons for the war in Iraq. No, that is just not right. The oil reserves do nothing to answer the questions I originally posed. In fact the oil makes it more difficult. And the sentiments of the rest of the world are proof of nothing.

Where is the evidence that Hussein had anything to do with 11th Sept? Is there any? I did not make that argument. Why do you ask?

For the very simple reason that GW and Tony Blair claimed that they know he has them. The world is asking. Where is that evidence? The world will have to wait. If they can't figure out that this guy is a dangerous liar on their own then tough.

Sorry. Not with you there Rand Fan. The point of that part of my post was that NK, which has much greater evidence of a WOMD programme gets negotiated with while another country is about to be attacked. Because the have WOMD is why they are being treated differently. And if we let Saddam get them we might not even get the opportunity to negotiate.

On the basis of your own argument Pakistan and N Korea should be atacked first. After all they actually have more immediate potential to use WOMD. Then you did not understand my point. Because the have nuclear weapons we have no choice but to deal with them differently. I only whish that they didn't have them and we could treat them like Iraq.

Perhaps they are next on the list but I don't see any reason to believe that they will be. For some reason Iraq is singled out . The reason many people believe this is happening is very little to do with international terrorism and more to do with oil. If it really was the other way around surely all those other reprehensible states would be attacked first? We have to treat them differently because the have working nuclear weapons right now. If Iraq had them we would treat him differently also. However, we may need to invade North Korea at some point.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
Hint, not all things are as they appear. That is why Shane asked for evidence. Shane is using critical thinking. Just because it looks like the man sawed the woman in half doesn't mean that he did.

Is that what Shane is doing?
I would just quote the following
/www.thebushblade.com/archive12.html
Or
www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=007zjd
Or
from th Washington Post
discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/02/sp_world_klare091902.htm.
etc etc.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by OBgac


My argument is the same regarding G.W.B. that there is (for me) sufficient substantial evidence reasons backing up my original reasons for going to war (which also related to other things than Oil) and I stand over my opinions while fully admitting that I dont have the level of evidence that you require.

For some reason I do believe that well over 90% of the animals that walk and sound like ducks are, in fact, ducks.

If you are going to start a war which could potentially involve WOMD and end in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and perhaps even involve the possibility of nuclear weapons, you damn well better provide something alot more rock solid than "well he walks and sounds like a duck so hes probably a duck"

We need genuine and irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein is actively developing WOMD, that he is planning to use these to launch a brutal attack on a sovereign state. Unless the US can provide this, they have no genuine reason for attacking Iraq.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The Bush administration has admitted that the war in Iraq is also about oil. Many believe that the evidence is against any other primary reason. I'm sorry but many in the world believe that it is not all ********.[/B] Many in the rest of the world? Are you kidding? Did you actually make that argument? Can you say fallacious? Many in the rest of the world believe that women should not vote. Many in the rest of the world worship god. Please see Argumentum ad populum (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#populum)

The evidence speaks for itself. WHAT EVIDENCE?????? Stop saying this and cite it ok?

[OBgac]

Originally posted by originalgagster


If you are going to start a war which could potentially involve WOMD and end in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and perhaps even involve the possibility of nuclear weapons, you damn well better provide something alot more rock solid than "well he walks and sounds like a duck so hes probably a duck"

We need genuine and irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein is actively developing WOMD, that he is planning to use these to launch a brutal attack on a sovereign state. Unless the US can provide this, they have no genuine reason for attacking Iraq.

I agree 100%, however some of the so-called critical thinkers on this site which hold everything else to such a high standard, have a blind spot when it comes to GW Bush. They somehow dont need the evidence to back him when he goes marching in.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by OBgac
Randfan
In an ideal world all criminals would be convicted by video evidence of them committing the crime too but sometimes the courts will go on circumstantial evidence. You can't convict a man for racketeering just because he hangs out with mobsters. You need evidence that he has committed a crime.

My argument is the same regarding G.W.B. that there is (for me) sufficient substantial evidence reasons backing up my original reasons for going to war (which also related to other things than Oil) and I stand over my opinions while fully admitting that I dont have the level of evidence that you require. Do you believe that Clinton sold national secrets to the Chinese? Sure you can believe anything that you want to but I choose to have proof. Just because a guy pulls a rabbit out of a hat doesn't mean it was magic. All I ask is for evidence.

For some reason I do believe that well over 90% of the animals that walk and sound like ducks are, in fact, ducks. And this proves what?????

Clinton’s campaign received illegal funds from a failed savings and loan. Clinton was the only one to have benefited from those funds. The funds were funneled through his business. Is this proof that Clinton broke the law?

It sounds good but where is the "blood" that you mentioned? Or should I accept that the man cuts the woman in half?

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by RandFan


We have to treat them differently because the have working nuclear weapons right now. If Iraq had them we would treat him differently also. However, we may need to invade North Korea at some point.

You are undermining your own argument here. on one hand you are saying "if Iraq had nuclear weapons we wouldnt be so quick to attack Saddam"

you are also saying "its not so safe to attack N. Korea because thay have nuclear weapons"


If your argument that saddam can be invaded safely only because he has no nuclear weapons is valid, then you are justifying the North Korean weapons program, for then by developing nuclear weapons they are, by your argument equipping themselves to deal with a potential US attack.

This seems to lend credence to the view that countries like N. Korea and Pakistan develop nuclear weapons to deter US aggression. And in this case the US has no excuse to invade N. Korea because as you yourself have shown the North Korean nuclear weapons program is entirely justified

[Wayne Grabert]

I like ducks. I like to feed them pieces of bread.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Toriginally posted by RandFan
The materials that Saddam gave as proof leave no doubt that he is not cooperating. We don't need to ask him to prove a negative. He needs to fill in the holes that are so glaring in his documentation. Even Blix admits this. It is something that they can do. Here is the important question that you for some reason are not asking. Why won't Saddam provide the information that is missing in his report?
That is a question you have to ask Saddam Hussein I feel. I am happy to abide with the CIA assessment. Given that assessment the world is asking is why the USA and the UK have not yet provided Hans Blix with the proof of the WOMD they claim to know about? Is there some reason the UN inspectorate shouldn't know where they are?
Many in the rest of the world? Are you kidding? Did you actually make that argument? Can you say fallacious? Many in the rest of the world believe that women should not vote. Many in the rest of the world worship god. Please see Argumentum ad populum
No I am not kidding RandFan. I am not kidding at all. If anyone wants to start a war on the basis of claims of WOMD let them defend their claims with proof. The rest of the world is entitled to ask for proof of the USA and the UK's claims unless you know otherwise. And your point is what exactly? That I am not allowed to point out that many people believe that the war is about oil? I disagree.
For your information I did not present that comment as proof of anything. It is a statement of fact. That is the only claim I make for that statement.
WHAT EVIDENCE?????? Stop saying this and cite it ok?
Perhaps you didn't read my post where I did just that RandFan? There was a long list of things which compared Husseins regime with others which are not under threat of attack. I recommend that you read others posts before accusing people of not posting any evidence. And in CAPITAL letters too with lots of question marks. I hope you feel better for it. I have supplied many reasons why the war is about oil. But as you seem to find it hard to locate evidence for the oil connection in relation to the war in Iraq how's about this one
www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,825105,00.html
or this one
www.democracymatters.org/ResearchCenter/Money/Oil_Money.htm
or this one
www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=4628

etc.

I hope that will give you a flavour of what many reasonable people believe. Of course you can claim that is not evidence of anything RandFan. But at least now some of it has been brought to your attention.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
You can't convict a man for racketeering just because he hangs out with mobsters. You need evidence that he has committed a crime.

Excellent point. I hope we have evidence of Hussein's WOMD before we trash his country. Oil being largely below ground is fairly safe even then of course.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I like ducks. I like to feed them pieces of bread.

Me too. Sometimes, I try to feed them hand grenades.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


Me too. Sometimes, I try to feed them hand grenades.
Goose lover! :mad:

[Roadtoad]

I, too, would like to see evidence of WMDs before we start charging across the border. But Randfan has made a critical point: Why would you wait until Hussein has them, and they are OPERATIONAL, before you make your move?

If I were to acquire the components to make nerve gas, including the lab ware, do you really want the FBI to wait until I have a few canisters of the stuff before they raid my home? Or do you want them to act? I may be very sane, and have no ill purpose intended for nerve gas, save as an exercise in personal research, but that doesn't mean my home is impregnable, and that someone with ill intent has no intention of using that material themselves. It makes more sense to stop Hussein before these weapons become operational, and Allied lives are lost.

And now that NK and Pakistan have WMDs, how can we get them to give them up? Pakistan might be easier to deal with; they're at least speaking to us for the moment. North Korea? That's going to be trickier. And it's not going to get easier with Kim still running that country. Remember: his father ordered the bombing of a civilian air liner.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by originalgagster
You are undermining your own argument here. It wouldn't be the first time. Hmmm.... I don't think so...let's look at your argument.

...on one hand you are saying "if Iraq had nuclear weapons we wouldn’t be so quick to attack Saddam" Yes that is correct.

you are also saying "its not so safe to attack N. Korea because they have nuclear weapons" Again, correct.

If your argument that saddam can be invaded safely only because he has no nuclear weapons is valid, then you are justifying the North Korean weapons program, for then by developing nuclear weapons they are, by your argument equipping themselves to deal with a potential US attack. They could make that argument, sure.

This seems to lend credence to the view that countries like N. Korea and Pakistan develop nuclear weapons to deter US aggression. Circular reasoning, that they could make the argument does not "validate" that argument. It might prompt them to get the weapons because we will treat them differently if they act in an aggressive nature. This does not undermine my argument it simply states why we would want to stop rogue states before they get the arms. I understand your point but it is akin to hate groups arming themselves with illegal weapons because they (hate groups) believe that the federal government will raid them before they acquire the illegal weapons. And therefore they are justified in acquiring said weapons. I don't think it would fly in a court of law, do you?

And in this case the US has no excuse to invade N. Korea because as you yourself have shown the North Korean nuclear weapons program is entirely justified No, it would not give them justification. If so then hate groups are justified in acquiring illegal weapons.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
That is a question you have to ask Saddam Hussein I feel. ????? Why would I have to ask Saddam? That he has failed to provide the information is proof that he is in material breach. You are the one out connecting dots. To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.

But for some reason you refuse to draw conclusions from something quite material. You tell me to go ask Saddam, I don't need to ask him, I can make assumptions about his reason for non compliance.

[list=1]
He has WOMD and providing the information would reveal that fact.
He was unable to provide the information. If so why was he unable to?
He is playing games.
Can you give me a reason?
[/list=1]

Bush on the other hand is a different story. His contacts could indicate that he is going to war because of them or it could be a coincidence. Do you have proof that it is not a coincidence or am I supposed to connect dots and imagine that Clinton killed foster, sold secrets to the Chinese and broke the law by diverting illegal funds into his account?

I am happy to abide with the CIA assessment. Which means what?

Given that assessment the world is asking is why the USA and the UK have not yet provided Hans Blix with the proof of the WOMD they claim to know about? Is there some reason the UN inspectorate shouldn't know where they are? I hate to be patronizing but you force me to. You have asked 3 times and I have answered 3 times.

I will make it as clear as I can and then I don't know what else to say.

The evidence that the United States and the UK posses is not necessarily THE LOCATION of the weapons.

It's logically possible to have proof of the weapons and still not know where they are. Will you acknowledge this logical fact?

No I am not kidding RandFan. I am not kidding at all. If anyone wants to start a war on the basis of claims of WOMD let them defend their claims with proof. Hold on just a minute. You are changing in mid-stream. Let's stay focused here ok? You made a fallacious argument. You appealed to the gallery with the following.

Many believe that the evidence is against any other primary reason. I'm sorry but many in the world believe that it is not all ********. This is a fallacious argument. Let me ask you again. Are you sure you want to engage in fallacious reasoning?

The rest of the world is entitled to ask for proof of the USA and the UK's claims unless you know otherwise. And your point is what exactly? That I am not allowed to point out that many people believe that the war is about oil? Sure you can point it out but it means nothing. Most of the world prays to an invisible man in the sky. I don't know what "many of the people believe" has anything to do with this issue. I asked a specific question and that question had nothing to do with world opinion. I asked you to provide evidence. You responded with an "appeal to the gallery". Don't go claiming that you just wanted to bring up the sentiments of "some" people. It means nothing.

For your information I did not present that comment as proof of anything. Then why present it at all. It means nothing. Many people in Ireland believe in leprechauns. Many people in South America believe in Voo Doo, So?

It is a statement of fact. And many people believe that America is not in it for the oil, So? And many people could be wrong, so what?

That is the only claim I make for that statement. Then it was a waste of time because I keep asking for evidence, proof and you give me the opinions of some of the people of the world. I'll bet you can't even give me precise numbers of how many people believe this, can you? What percentage of people from what countries? And even if you could of what possible value could the statement have been if it was not an appeal to the gallery? Sorry but it was fallacious.

Perhaps you didn't read my post where I did just that RandFan? There was a long list of things which compared Hussein’s regime with others which are not under threat of attack. What does this have to do with my question?

Let me ask again. Do you have evidence that Bush is doing this because of his and his friend’s links to Oil companies?

I recommend that you read others posts before accusing people of not posting any evidence. And in CAPITAL letters too with lots of question marks. I hope you feel better for it. And I would recomend that you figure out what it is that we are talking about before you post something that is immaterial to the question at hand. A long list of Hussein’s regime has nothing to do with Haliburton or Chevron or any other oil company does it? A long list doesn't prove that Bush is planning a war to enrich him and his buddies with Iraqi oil, does it? And BTW I feel fine.

Now, can you tell me where you posted this evidence that Bush is launching a war because he and his friends are linked to oil, or do I have to go on a search?

I have supplied many reasons why the war is about oil. But as you seem to find it hard to locate evidence for the oil connection in relation to the war in Iraq how's about this one Again, you are getting of course. I have admitted that there is a component of oil to the war. That is not in question. You have claimed that the main reason is the oil. I have asked for evidence.

From link #1.

Disclosure of talks between the oil executives and the INC - which enjoys the support of Bush administration officials - is bound to exacerbate friction on the UN Security Council between permanent members and veto-holders Russia, France and China, who fear they will be squeezed out of a post-Saddam oil industry in Iraq. Not a bad link. It is relevant, however it does not provide evidence that this war is only about oil or that we would not be going to war if Bush did not have links to the oil industry. This proves that the INC which is supported by the Bush administration is talking about dividing up the oil after a war. Ok? So what? We know that is going on. I intimated this earlier in this very thread. It does not prove that the oil is the prime motivation for war. It shows that the oil is important and that we are not going to sit around with our thumbs up our ass until the whole thing is over before we do something about it.

Link #2.

In a recent article in the magazine Commonweal, I speculate that one of the motivating factors in the Bush Administration's policy of using force to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein is our heavy and increasing dependence on imported petroleum. Are you sure you want to present this link as proof? Since when was speculation proof? Do you understand the defintion of proof?

spec•u•la•tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spky-lshn)
n.

[list=1]
Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.
[/list=1]

proof ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf)
n.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. For the record, speculation is not considered "proof" of anything. It's not even allowed in a court of law and legal proof has a lower threshold than scientific proof. Are you sure you want to stick with this one as proof of anything? If so could you tell me why?

USA: Thousands March on Capital to Condemn Iraq War

By Katherine Stapp
InterPress Service
October 27, 2002


WASHINGTON DC -- In the largest U.S. anti-war protest in recent memory, at least 75,000 demonstrators encircled the White House on Saturday to demand a diplomatic solution to escalating tensions with Iraq.

Chanting "No blood for oil!" and "Iraqis are people too!" the peaceful crowd of Americans from all walks of life rallied near the Vietnam Veterans War Memorial and then marched through the stately Capitol District to Washington's seat of power. And this proves what? Nothing, it is another appeal to the gallery, fallacious.

Look, I'm not trying to give you hard time here. However, if you are going to come to a skeptic’s forum and make claims you are going to be asked for proof.

Let me give you some friendly advice. Next time outline what it is that you think that your links prove and then post the most relevant quote that makes your argument. It will help you decide if the material is even worthy of posting. I think that the 1st link is relevant and worthy of argument it is not proof however.

[RandFan]

I hope that will give you a flavour of what many reasonable people believe. Of course you can claim that is not evidence of anything RandFan. But at least now some of it has been brought to your attention. Why do you presupose them to be reasonable? Is it just because they agree with you? Critical thinking demands that we question everything even those who think like we do.

I have questioned Bush's motives and I welcome discussion and debate on this issue. However you seem convinced and yet aren't even able to provide evidence. You seem to rely on conjecture and speculation and get angry if I question your held beliefs.

I'm not angry that people question me. I'm astounded that so many accept as truth that Bush is going to war to make himself and his freinds rich and to get himself re-elected.

Maybe, but so far the only proof that I have seen is the fact that Bush is/was an oil man. Cheney and Rice also and this proves what?

originally posted by RandFan
You can't convict a man for racketeering just because he hangs out with mobsters. You need evidence that he has committed a crime.

Excellent point. I hope we have evidence of Hussein's WOMD before we trash his country. Oil being largely below ground is fairly safe even then of course. Thank you, so you agree that the fact that Bush is an oil man and his friends and aids have links to oil is not proof that Bush is starting this war because of oil right? Or are you being insincere?

I think we should have evidence and have stated so before. I am not being inconsitent, are you?

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by RandFan
North Korea is successfully using its nuclear arsenal to extort money from the west.

Wouldn't it be prudent to keep Saddam from having the same ability?

Three kids are arguing after school. One picked up a stick in the past and tried to use it. His name is Shecky. One, is just now picking up a stick, and threatening to use it. His name is Kolin. Sam is badgering Shecky, and ignoring Kolin. Kolin picks up a stick and bludgeons Sam in the back of the head because he's obsessed with what Shecky did in the past and he has no proof Shecky is doing it right at that moment.

No, ignoring an announced threat for a perceived threat with no proof is not prudent. Acting on assumptions is hardly objective...

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I, too, would like to see evidence of WMDs before we start charging across the border. But Randfan has made a critical point: Why would you wait until Hussein has them, and they are OPERATIONAL, before you make your move?

But the US still havent provided any evidence that Saddam is actively ceveloping WOMD. Unless the US has evidence they cannot invade. You cant base an invasion on the type of conjecture you are indulging in.

If I were to acquire the components to make nerve gas, including the lab ware, do you really want the FBI to wait until I have a few canisters of the stuff before they raid my home? Or do you want them to act?

This is the argument that gives the lie to the US position here, time after time they tell us they have to act because this nasty dictator has chemical weapons which he may use to kill innocent people. What they dont like to remind us is that it was they, along with a couple of other western countries who sold him the technology he used to build much of his WOMD.
What they also dont like us to know is that arms support from the west was rolling into baghdad while he was using poison gas during the Iran Iraq war. Not only that, but during the year US military support for Hussein was at its highest, in 1987, Hussein carried out his worst ever human rights atrocities, wiping out thousands of Kurds in the north of the country with poison gas.
Why was it only when Hussein threatened the oil fields of the middle east that the US felt compelled to act?
I dont think anything could make it clearer that the only reason the US could have for war with Iraq is oil.

And now that NK and Pakistan have WMDs, how can we get them to give them up? Pakistan might be easier to deal with; they're at least speaking to us for the moment. North Korea? That's going to be trickier. And it's not going to get easier with Kim still running that country.

What right do the US have to dictate what countries can and cant have WOMD? The US has them, and has demonstrated on more than one occasion that it is prepared to use them. Perhaps the UN should be pressuring the US to disarm.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Hazelip
No, ignoring an announced threat for a perceived threat with no proof is not prudent. Acting on assumptions is hardly objective... I would agree that acting on assumptions is not objective. I don't know how one could say that the US is acting on assumptions. Saddam invaded Kuwait. He refused to leave untill he was forced out. While the Iraqis were fleeing they carried out Saddams order to wage a scorched earth inititive and ignited all of Kuwaits oil wells. As an agreement to end the war he agreed to cooperate fully and disarm. He did not cooperate. WOMD were discovered years after the cease fire. Saddam has been caught in lie after lie. He has breached his agreement time after time. Saddam is now in material breach. His documentation is full of holes and that is according to Hans Blix (aka Mr. Magoo) and the UN.

Just what assumptions are we talking about here.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by OBgac:
Shane:
Are you arguing that a retort cannot be in the form of a question?

No, but I fail to see to what or whom I was directing a retort.

Seeing as you started the sarcasm I will use the Americanism to retort: "Hellooooo?"

Oil , Bush . Hmmm lets see. Difficult one.

G. W. Bush - Harkan Energy
Cheney - Halliburton
Rice - Chevron

Do I really need to go on? He is surrounded by people who were involved in the oil business.

Helloooooo? E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, not H-E-A-R-S-A-Y and C-O-N-J-E-C-T-U-R-E! If a certain proportion of his immediate circle are practising Catholics, does this mean Bush is a paedophile?

So a lot of them live in places that get cold? I suppose those SUV's have better heaters in them and thats why people drive them? Hint: Maybe Americans consume more than a proportionate amount of natural resources because its really cheap and if they were forced to be a little more economical about it then e.g. an increase of 2c in the price of a gallon of gas wouldnt be so important

So maybe it's 280 million Americans, rather than a shady cabal of oil plutocrats, that have an interest in cheap fuel.

If the Economy was doing well then Bush wouldn't need a public enemy number 1 to be distracting the general public.

Or could it also be true that the general public broadly agree that Saddam is a threat to their security and that something needs ro be done?

Solid evidence? Its like asking for solid evidence that gravity exists. Look around. Open your eyes.

Guess what? My eyes are working just fine! Gravity does exist. What's more theres a wealth of scientific literature showing that it's existence has been scientifically proven, not just testimony from people who've fallen down ladders and of high buildings.

Read something else instead of "The Telegraph" for a change.

What a tasty little ad homimem attack! Did you form this opinion about my choice of newspaper the same way you form opinions about everything else? Guess what? You can't get "The Daily Telegraph" where I live. That's what's called a "fact".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by originalgagster
But the US still havent provided any evidence that Saddam is actively ceveloping WOMD. Unless the US has evidence they cannot invade. You cant base an invasion on the type of conjecture you are indulging in. Well first off we can invade. As I pointed out in my last post Saddam is in breach of his agreement. He has almost always been in breach. Evidence of WOMD would be nice and I think that it would be better for the US if we have it but we damn sure can invade.

This is the argument that gives the lie to the US position here; time after time they tell us they have to act because this nasty dictator has chemical weapons which he may use to kill innocent people. What they dont like to remind us is that it was they, along with a couple of other western countries who sold him the technology he used to build much of his WOMD.
What they also dont like us to know is that arms support from the west was rolling into baghdad while he was using poison gas during the Iran Iraq war. Not only that, but during the year US military support for Hussein was at its highest, in 1987, Hussein carried out his worst ever human rights atrocities, wiping out thousands of Kurds in the north of the country with poison gas. It's funny, when I argue that Saddam wiped out Kurds in the north everyone posts links to show that the notion is wrong and that there is no evidence that Saddam did this. If used to counter arguments to invade Iraq no links are posted. Hmmmm....

Yeah, we sold him weapons. We screwed up. It wasn't the first and it won’t be the last. It's fallacious to argue that because we made a mistake in the past it somehow prevents us from taking action now. By all means criticize our foreign policy but don't tell us that it now prevents us from acting.

Why was it only when Hussein threatened the oil fields of the middle east that the US felt compelled to act?
I don’t think anything could make it clearer that the only reason the US could have for war with Iraq is oil. No, it validates the argument that our first war was fought in part because of oil. We ended hostilities. We kept our end of the bargain. Saddam did not. So don't go making specious arguments. Oil may well be a component of this war but you have not in any way proven that oil is the "only" reason the US has for war.

What right do the US have to dictate what countries can and cant have WOMD? The US has them, and has demonstrated on more than one occasion that it is prepared to use them. Perhaps the UN should be pressuring the US to disarm. Let them. Hey and we will continue to pick up the tab for their work.

When the United States first acquired the Atomic bomb it was the single most powerful nation on this earth. We could have done what Hitler had wanted to do and conquered ruled the world. We didn't. We didn't even do as the Soviets had done and created an empire. On the contrary we re-built Japan and West Germany and let them rule themselves. Our intentions are quit clear to anyone willing to look at history. Now that we have the bomb and other WOMD and we know how destructive they are we wish to limit other countries from having them. What right do we have? I don't know but we damn well better work to keep other countries from having them or we will be in a lot of trouble. We are not going to stick our heads in the sand because you question our authority to protect ourselves.

[OBgac]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by OBgac:


No, but I fail to see to what or whom I was directing a retort.


To the general populus



Helloooooo? E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, not H-E-A-R-S-A-Y and C-O-N-J-E-C-T-U-R-E! If a certain proportion of his immediate circle are practising Catholics, does this mean Bush is a paedophile?


Thats a B.S. argument. Are all Catholics paedophiles?

Let me use your metaphor in a better way:

If Bush, Chaney and Rice were all Cardinals of the Catholic Church on sabbaticals running the U.S. and there was all the scandal that is going on as there is in the U.S. I would say that even though I have no evidence of the fact, knowing what I know about the Church, there could be grounds to assume that they were involved in a paedophile cover up at some point in time.




So maybe it's 280 million Americans, rather than a shady cabal of oil plutocrats, that have an interest in cheap fuel.


My money is on the shady cabal.


Or could it also be true that the general public broadly agree that Saddam is a threat to their security and that something needs ro be done?


The general public where? In Ireland where you are, in the UK where even the cabinet are split on it or in the US where people are trying to link 9/11 with Saddam?



What a tasty little ad homimem attack! Did you form this opinion about my choice of newspaper the same way you form opinions about everything else? Guess what? You can't get "The Daily Telegraph" where I live. That's what's called a "fact".


Once again your facts are indeed wrong. Of course you can get that paper where you live! Or maybe its the non democratic pro-European Union Irish government (thats what you called them isn't it after NICE2? ) blocking your internet access to www.telegraph.co.uk.

I formed your opinion about the Daily Telegraph because of your fawning over Maggy Thatcher in another post, your Anti-European stance and your pro-Bush outlook on this post. The only european english language newspaper that I am familiar with that follows that line is the Daily Telegraph.


BTW on a different note: Randfan writes earlier here that "Many people in Ireland believe in leprechauns". I dont know a single person from Ireland that does, but I daren't correct Randfan who always looks for evidence before he makes a statement. Whats your call on this one?;)

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by RandFan
Well first off we can invade. As I pointed out in my last post Saddam is in breach of his agreement. He has almost always been in breach. Evidence of WOMD would be nice and I think that it would be better for the US if we have it but we damn sure can invade.

No you cant, the agreement you refer to is a UN agreement, and any action has to be decided upon by the UN and carried out by the UN.

It's funny, when I argue that Saddam wiped out Kurds in the north everyone posts links to show that the notion is wrong and that there is no evidence that Saddam did this. If used to counter arguments to invade Iraq no links are posted. Hmmmm....

Ive never denied saddam carried out poison gas attacks, the evidence is in black and white, just like the evidence the US helped him attain his chemical capability, and the evidence they turned a blind eye to his human rights abuses in the past.

Yeah, we sold him weapons. We screwed up. It wasn't the first and it won’t be the last. It's fallacious to argue that because we made a mistake in the past it somehow prevents us from taking action now. By all means criticize our foreign policy but don't tell us that it now prevents us from acting.

I would say the US goverments past most certainly does prohibit them from acting now. It is utter hypocrisy to give someone a batch of lethal weapons, give them carte blanche to use them how they will, then use this as an excuse for an attack when it suits your own shallow purposes. This is elementary morality. The US is in a morally bankrupt position, they have no right to act or do anything else regarding Iraq.


No, it validates the argument that our first war was fought in part because of oil. We ended hostilities. We kept our end of the bargain. Saddam did not. So don't go making specious arguments. Oil may well be a component of this war but you have not in any way proven that oil is the "only" reason the US has for war.

Well the fact that it is the only reason that stands up to scrutiny is a pretty strong suggestion that it is why the US is going to war. There are countless dictators and human rights abusers around the world, and the US is more than happy to prop them up, sell arms to them or else just ignore them. There are countless countries which have WOMD and are in a far stronger position to threaten their neighbour than Iraq is, and the US does nothing. Unless some other plausible reason can be given for an invasion of Iraq, there is no other comclusion which can be reached other than the US is only interested in oil.

And why should the burden of proof rest with those who are in favour of peace? Im sure you will agree that war always has wild and unpredictable consequences. In particular a war in a muslim country which many would have us believe, has chemical and biological weapons and is surrounded by nuclear powers would seem a paticularly dangerous prospect.
It seems obvious to me that the burden of proof lies firmly in the hands of those who favour violence and destruction. Unless you can prove that a murderous war with unpredictable consequences is completely justified, there is no alternative but to accept that an invasion is wrong.


Let them. Hey and we will continue to pick up the tab for their work.

Funny how the US is only prepared to pick up the tab when its something which suits their interests. UN action in Iraq, a country rich with oil not yet under US control, now theres something worth pressuring the UN to take action over, theres something worth paying for. But when 1 000 000 people in Rwanda are hacked to death, well who cares about that? there aint no oil there so why get involved? When american buddies in Indonesia expel the entire indigenous population commiting countless atrocities, whats the point in getting invloved there? After all we dont want to jeapordise our arms sales, and they are just taking care of business in their own back yards.

When the United States first acquired the Atomic bomb it was the single most powerful nation on this earth. We could have done what Hitler had wanted to do and conquered ruled the world. We didn't.

Oh how very magnanimous of you, i guess we should all be eternally grateful.....or wait a minute perhaps the US were just a little unsure of how far the Soviets had proceeeded with their nuclear development?

We didn't even do as the Soviets had done and created an empire.

Not directly, but large parts of the world are under american economic control, for example most of latin americas economic resources are controlled by american corporations....the same goes for the middle east and large parts of asia.

On the contrary we re-built Japan and West Germany and let them rule themselves.

And what was the alternative? let them rot in poverty and just wait until they turned to communism and alligned themselves with the soviet union? And alot more went into rebuilding these two countries than yankie dollars.

I don't know but we damn well better work to keep other countries from having them or we will be in a lot of trouble. We are not going to stick our heads in the sand because you question our authority to protect ourselves.

So exactly what would war in Iraq contribute to the US protecting herself? Do you really consider Saddams armed forces a threat to American sovereignty? Are the American people hiding under the bed at night gripped by terror at the prospect of Iraqi invasion?
Saddams forces were swept aside in less than 4 days 12 years ago. He is far weaker now. You are kidding yourself if you think he is a threat to anyone, let alone the most powerful military strength on the face of the earth.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by OBgac:
Thats a B.S. argument. Are all Catholics paedophiles?

The penny's dropped! No they're not, but the "guilt by association" ploy you're following wold suggest they are.

If Bush, Chaney and Rice were all Cardinals of the Catholic Church on sabbaticals running the U.S. and there was all the scandal that is going on as there is in the U.S. I would say that even though I have no evidence of the fact, knowing what I know about the Church, there could be grounds to assume that they were involved in a paedophile cover up at some point in time.

If you failed to provide solid evidence that they were, I'd imagine there'd be good grounds for them suing you. Certainly it's scurrilous to suggest anyone could be involved in something as sick as paedophilia without any solid evidence they are.

The general public where?
The US.

Once again your facts are indeed wrong. Of course you can get that paper where you live!


No I can't. The only UK newspapers I can get in my local newsagent are "The Times", "The Guardian" and the tabloids. If there exists no market for a particular paper, then the Newsagent won't stock it. In fact I've never as much as laid hands on, much less read, a copy of "The Daily Telegraph" in my life!

I formed your opinion about the Daily Telegraph because of your fawning over Maggy Thatcher in another post, your Anti-European stance and your pro-Bush outlook on this post.

Fawning over Maggie Thatcher? Guilty as charged!

Anti-European stance? That could as easily mean I'm on the far left of the Labour Party!

Pro-Bush outlook? Where? I haven't opined on Bush or his policies on this thread at all. All I've asked is for you to provide evidence to back up your assertions. That doesn't make me pro or anti anything!

By the way, any chance you'll back up some of the assertions you made on the Maggie Thatcher thread?

BTW on a different note: Randfan writes earlier here that "Many people in Ireland believe in leprechauns". I dont know a single person from Ireland that does, but I daren't correct Randfan who always looks for evidence before he makes a statement. Whats your call on this one? ;)

Quite a lot of people do. Not that I'm going to provide any evidence for this. Open your eyes, look around you! :p

[Shane Costello]

Oh go on, here's the evidence that some people in Ireland give the "Little People" a lot of credence! :D

www.geocities.com/curtingenealogy/eddielenihan.html

www.celtic-connection.com/news/fairies-08-99.html

[Shane Costello]

Here (www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9016&highlight=historical+reputation+of+Thatcher) is that thread on Thatcher. OBgac believes Margaret Thatcher is culpable for the murders of innocent people in Northern Ireland. Evil bitch drove all those poor terrorists to it, don't you know. :rolleyes:

He also demanded I provid evidence to back up some of my assertions, but when I asked the same of him he told me to consult an economics book or google myself. He later promised to get back to on this, but never did.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by RandFan

Circular reasoning, that they could make the argument does not "validate" that argument. It might prompt them to get the weapons because we will treat them differently if they act in an aggressive nature. This does not undermine my argument it simply states why we would want to stop rogue states before they get the arms. I understand your point but it is akin to hate groups arming themselves with illegal weapons because they (hate groups) believe that the federal government will raid them before they acquire the illegal weapons. And therefore they are justified in acquiring said weapons. I don't think it would fly in a court of law, do you?

No, it would not give them justification. If so then hate groups are justified in acquiring illegal weapons.

My argument certainly wasnt circular, it followed directly from what you said. I havent seen any other reason given to invade N. Korea other than the fact Kim has nuclear weapons. Given that you have admitted he could plausibly be developing nuclear weapons to deter a US attack the US must, at least give some other reason why he should be attacked. And a damned good one too.

Your analogy with hate groups requires a little adjustment. WOMD are not illegal. If they were the US wouldnt have the worlds largest stockpile. There is a grossly unfair agreement ( a UN resolution - in fact several) which ties Iraq to various commitments, including allowing American spies into the country to give away all their military secrets. But nothing so far which gives a clear green light to the use of violence. So the FBI would have no right to authorize force in this case. Nor would they have any right to bust N. Korea.

Apart from these innacuracies your analogy is a very good one and it can be used to highlight exactly the light the US goverment is seen in around the world.
What do you reckon the american people would think if they were to find out that the federal government had ammased a huge stockpile of illegal weapons? Further that they had been supplying those weapons to hate groups? Not only that but had allowed the hate group to use them in a turf war with other thugs, then had turned a blind eye even when that hate group were using these weapons to attack innocent members of an ethnic community.

Pretty incredible huh? but by your own analogy this is precisely the position your government is in. I am glad you took the opportunity to point it out, but the question is what are the American people going to do to make sure it doesnt happen again?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by EJ Armstrong:
Why on earth would anyone want to do that?

Just asking.

Boycott oil based products? Well if you believe that a shady oil cartel is dictating American foreign policy to the point that it's going to result in the slaughter of innocents, then surely a boycott is the least you could do?

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Oh go on, here's the evidence that some people in Ireland give the "Little People" a lot of credence! :D

www.geocities.com/curtingenealogy/eddielenihan.html

www.celtic-connection.com/news/fairies-08-99.html

All I see is two threads with Eddie Lenihan in both of them. So you managed to get one person out of a population of circa 4 million. Still a long way from Randfan's "most of the people".

[Roadtoad]

Sorry to bust some bubbles here, gang, but when Hussein booted the inspectors the first time, that was grounds, under the UN sanctions, for another invasion. Hussein agreed to these inspections as part of his surrender at the end of the Gulf War. Unfortunately, Clinton did not uphold the sanctions, and did not enforce the agreement.

Let's face another fact, presented clearly by Randfan: Hussein's word is sh**. If he told you the sun would rise tomorrow, you'd still take a flashlight with you. As has already been pointed out time and again, he's murdered the Kurds, he's murdered the Iranians, and he's murdered his own people. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter who gave him the gas or the bombs, look at how he used them. That ought to cause some concern.

Bush's people and oil? And a shadowy cartel? It's starting to sound like a convention of the John Birch Society. I've still seen only circumstantial evidence for it, and that's thin at best. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's unlikely. Show me some meat, and I might be persuaded. It would seem to me that the only person who could gain from this war in terms of oil is Red Adair, given Hussein's penchant for blowing wells.

The last bit of hard evidence I've heard about WMDs is that some of them might be hidden with sympathetic tribesmen across the borders surrounding Iraq. (Frankly, given Hussein's track record, I'm surprised he has any friends left.) At this point, inspectors are trying to find evidence that Hussein has had nearly 10 years to hide. Anyone who thinks inspectors are going to find ANYTHING in the amount of time they've had to work is an imbecile.

Don't make the mistake others have made: Saddam Hussein may be crazy, but he's not stupid. He's not going to volunteer this information, and anything we find will come after months of investigation and research. When you think about the amount of money he spent just building his presidential bunker, you can bet he's spent a hefty chunk of change hiding his WMDs.

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Here (www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9016&highlight=historical+reputation+of+Thatcher) is that thread on Thatcher. OBgac believes Margaret Thatcher is culpable for the murders of innocent people in Northern Ireland. Evil bitch drove all those poor terrorists to it, don't you know. :rolleyes:

He also demanded I provid evidence to back up some of my assertions, but when I asked the same of him he told me to consult an economics book or google myself. He later promised to get back to on this, but never did.


Guilty as charged on the last accusation Shane, but as you can see from my no. of contributions I havent been a contributor since then. My job takes me far away from my online access.

I do believe that Thatcher contributed to the prolonging of the conflice in Northern Ireland and thereby shares some culpability but this is for another thread. And yes, I am about to do another disappearing act but I promise I will do a Thatcher bashing thread in mid-February when I return.

And BTW I think I agree with you for the first time...she is an Evil Bitch. If there is an after-life, I know where she will end up. Down with ol' Nick and her bosom buddy Pinochet.

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

In fact I've never as much as laid hands on, much less read, a copy of "The Daily Telegraph" in my life!





Shane:
But you quoted the daily telegraph in your post about Thatcher:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9016&highlight=historical+reputation+of+Thatcher

So have you or have you not ever read the Daily Telegraph?
:p

A little bit Clintonesque even by your standards.

[OBgac]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roadtoad
Bush's people and oil? And a shadowy cartel? It's starting to sound like a convention of the John Birch Society. I've still seen only circumstantial evidence for it, and that's thin at best. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's unlikely. Show me some meat, and I might be persuaded. It would seem to me that the only person who could gain from this war in terms of oil is Red Adair, given Hussein's penchant for blowing wells.



After Red Adair is gone, the other people who will gain are the US oil companies and suppliers who will gain by regime change when a pro-US (read: anti French and Russian) dictator will takeover. Anyone who thinks that this is not a consideration is not thinking this through.
I am not saying it is the only consideration but its a big one up there with the need to replace Osama with another bad guy and the other reasons I posted at the start.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Sorry to bust some bubbles here, gang, but when Hussein booted the inspectors the first time, that was grounds, under the UN sanctions, for another invasion. Hussein agreed to these inspections as part of his surrender at the end of the Gulf War. Unfortunately, Clinton did not uphold the sanctions, and did not enforce the agreement.



Hate to burst your bubble-bursting bubble, but Iraq did not boot any inspectors. The UN pulled the inspectors to protect them from the expected upcoming attack.

I'm not saying that Iraq necessarily cooperated fully, but they did not force the inspectors to leave.

from http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/11/19981111_iaea1328.html

"VIENNA, 11 November (IAEA) -- Upon consultation with the Secretary- General of the United Nations, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, has decided to temporarily relocate all IAEA inspectors currently in Baghdad to Bahrain due to concern for their safety in view of the escalating situation in Iraq.
This decision has been taken in parallel with that of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which is also withdrawing its personnel and on whose logistic support the IAEA inspectors are dependent. "

[Roadtoad]

Uh, Dude, I read your link. Sounds to me like Saddam forced 'em out...

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Unfortunately, Clinton did not uphold the sanctions, and did not enforce the agreement.
:confused: Clinton, to his discredit, bombed Iraq after pulling out the inspectors, and many other times as well. Hussein refused to let the inspectors back in because they were being used as spies for the US. "CIA paramilitary covert operators" (US terminology) had been slipped in among the inspectors.

Clinton's national security advisor Sandy Berger bragged that the sanctions' economic blockade had been "unprecedented for its severity for the whole of human history." Yes, to the point that 500,000 Iraqis died as result of the sanctions from 1991 to 1998 because of disease, malnutrition, lack of medical care and contaminated water. (We bombed each and every one of their water purification plants and prohibited replacement parts and chlorine from being imported by Iraq.) And yet you complain that Hussein has mistreated the Iraqis! Guess what? After Hussein goes there will be an Iraqi-Al Qaida connection as pissed off Iraqis seek retribution against the US! If the point of US policy is to remove an Iraqi threat to the US, it could not be more inept.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Uh, Dude, I read your link. Sounds to me like Saddam forced 'em out...

"Mohamed ElBaradei, has decided to temporarily relocate all IAEA inspectors "

How about this link: I know, it's FAIR and you won't believe it, but they do reference the Wash Post

http://www.fair.org/activism/post-expulsions.html

"The Washington Post reported all these facts correctly at the time: A December 18 article by national security correspondent Barton Gellman reported that "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night."

The US was about to attack (and they did). They got the inspectors out before they did so. Iraq did not boot them out.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Uh, Dude, I read your link. Sounds to me like Saddam forced 'em out...
Explain.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Explain.

VIENNA, 11 November (IAEA) -- Upon consultation with the Secretary- General of the United Nations, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, has decided to temporarily relocate all IAEA inspectors currently in Baghdad to Bahrain due to concern for their safety in view of the escalating situation in Iraq.
This decision has been taken in parallel with that of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which is also withdrawing its personnel and on whose logistic support the IAEA inspectors are dependent.

I took the forgoing directly from the link cited.

Hussein was already hiding information, and was elevating the stakes. Granted, there were American forces at the ready, and there had been overtures to combat, but, it wasn't until Hussein began to threaten the inspectors, declaring them to be spies for Western intelligence services, that they were called back. I'd say it looks like they were forced out.

I will be the first to grant that the whole Iraq situation has been badly played from the start. (Actually, badly is a terrible understatement.) We can point this out from the first shots fired in the Iran-Iraq War, and our support for Hussein, because we didn't want to see another Shi'ite fundamentalist state established in the Middle East. But, we can also point to the fact that Hussein agreed to allow the inspections, and that he would give up WMDs, period.

As to the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure: I'd like to see your information. (Not being a smart-ass, but I haven't hear about that part of the story.) If you've got a link, Wayne, I'll read it. But keep in mind, it's also been reported that Hussein used American ag credits to purchase the material for his WMDs. (He sold the credits for hard cash, and then used that for his purchases.) Hussein sure as hell hasn't had the best interests of his people at heart in the past.

Hey, I do not claim to have all the answers. That's one of the reasons I'm here. If my kid is going to be fighting this fight, dammit, I want answers.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


"Mohamed ElBaradei, has decided to temporarily relocate all IAEA inspectors "

How about this link: I know, it's FAIR and you won't believe it, but they do reference the Wash Post

http://www.fair.org/activism/post-expulsions.html

"The Washington Post reported all these facts correctly at the time: A December 18 article by national security correspondent Barton Gellman reported that "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night."

The US was about to attack (and they did). They got the inspectors out before they did so. Iraq did not boot them out.

I admit: this is the first time I've seen this. (God, and people wonder why I love the Internet!)

Actually, FAIR is not an organization I discount. There are many times when they get it right. No one does it 100% of the time, but when someone does, you take the time to read it, and evaluate it on its own merits.

I'm looking for more information. If you've got it, great. I'll take it. Like I said, my kid is out there.

[Roadtoad]

And since we're on this subject, here's a parallel story:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0113/p01s04-wosc.html

Pretty scary stuff, Kids. Once more, American diplomacy triumphs! (Yah, right.)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

As to the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure: I'd like to see your information. (Not being a smart-ass, but I haven't hear about that part of the story.) If you've got a link, Wayne, I'll read it.
Sure. Per the 500,000 civilian deaths, I've seen it cited in various sources. You can choose among these. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Iraq+sanctions+500%2C000+deaths&btnG=Google+Search)

I also referenced Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson (2000), page 9. He cites the 500,000 figure, the quote from Berger and the CIA operatives among the inspectors. Acknowledgment of the CIA infiltration of the inspectors has been made by Scott Ritter and cited by others.

Chalmers Johnson is a professor emeritus at the University of California, San Diego. Lest anyone suspect that he's some sort of leftist academic, they'd be wrong. During the Cold War, Johnson was staunchly anti-communist. He also supported the US policy in Vietnam in the Sixties, but now says that the anti-war protesters were right.

Edited to add: Most Americans are not aware of the devastation in Iraq that has been done in their name. It is not well reported in the mainstream media. That's why it's so laughable to hear conservatives complain about "leftist" media dominance. They are unaware of the extent to which the media in this country functions as a tool of the government.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Most Americans are not aware of the devastation in Iraq that has been done in their name. It is not well reported in the mainstream media. That's why it's so laughable to hear conservatives complain about "leftist" media dominance. They are unaware of the extent to which the media in this country functions as a tool of the government.

First, thanks for the Google links. That's a place to start.

Actually, Wayne, you'd be surprised. Both my parents worked in the media, and I was part of it, too, for several years. In addition, my father was the Sergeant Major of the American Forces Network, Europe, in the middle to late 70's. I'm well aware of the media's role in the Government, and the media's bias. (Just between you, me, and the gatepost, the media is really not so much left or right, but rather mercenary in its operations. Frankly, If we hung the bastards, I suspect we'd be better off.)

Just one other thing: People seem to have this idea that being proven wrong here is a bad thing, or that you should post here expecting to prove a point, or show yourself to be some sort of intellectual superior. I don't. I expect to be proven wrong. I plan on losing. I'm not here looking to show myself to be something I'm not. I'm needing information. It makes more sense to play the cards you have, and find out what's really out there, rather than to operate in ignorance.

If I get my pride bruised a bit, I see that as no great loss. If I take a shot to the chops now, that means I've gained something for the long run; maybe a new, reliable source of information, maybe information that could present a new perspective. Being of a Libertarian mind, I don't trust the Government in the first place, and would rather see it very limited, rather than this all-encompassing behemoth that it's becoming. The old saw still stands: The Government that can meet all your needs is the Government that can take all you have.

And that includes the lives of our children. And in that arena, I'll be damned if ANYONE gets a free pass.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Just one other thing: People seem to have this idea that being proven wrong here is a bad thing, or that you should post here expecting to prove a point, or show yourself to be some sort of intellectual superior. I don't. I expect to be proven wrong. I plan on losing. I'm not here looking to show myself to be something I'm not. I'm needing information. It makes more sense to play the cards you have, and find out what's really out there, rather than to operate in ignorance.

If I get my pride bruised a bit, I see that as no great loss. If I take a shot to the chops now, that means I've gained something for the long run; maybe a new, reliable source of information, maybe information that could present a new perspective. Being of a Libertarian mind, I don't trust the Government in the first place, and would rather see it very limited, rather than this all-encompassing behemoth that it's becoming.
That's true. We need to worry less about being competitive on the board than in sharing information and perspectives and learning from each other. I have learned through my participation on the board. I've also gotten my ego bruised at times. It's easier to be influenced by someone, though, if he isn't trying to demean you, so I'm grateful that we've had a civil exchange.

If you are a Libertarian, you may want to visit this site (http://www.antiwar.com) sometime. It contains links to news articles from various sources as well as some very interesting commentary by some regular contributors. It's run by Libertarians.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

If you are a Libertarian, you may want to visit this site (http://www.antiwar.com) sometime. It contains links to news articles from various sources as well as some very interesting commentary by some regular contributors. It's run by Libertarians.

Thanks for the input. That's another good site to bookmark. I'll repeat what's been said around here repeatedly: NO ONE should get a free ride when it comes to going to war. We have GOT to ask questions.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by OBgac:
Shane:
But you quoted the daily telegraph in your post about Thatcher:

Yes, I did a google search using the appropriate terms and a link to the Daily Telegraph came up. I have never laid hands on a copy, or read a copy, of the Telegraph in my life. It's physically impossible where I come from. Your back-peddling from your original asertion that I was a regular reader and the assumption that it was available where I live.

A little bit Clintonesque even by your standards.

It's a bit rich of you to complain about other people's standards. :rolleyes:

All I see is two threads with Eddie Lenihan in both of them. So you managed to get one person out of a population of circa 4 million. Still a long way from Randfan's "most of the people".

That's a misquote. Randfan said "many people", not "most of the people".

I formed your opinion about the Daily Telegraph because of your fawning over Maggy Thatcher in another post, your Anti-European stance and your pro-Bush outlook on this post. The only european english language newspaper that I am familiar with that follows that line is the Daily Telegraph.

"The Sun"? "The Spectator"? Kevin Myers in "The Irish Times", Andrew Sullivan in "The Sunday Times" or Eoghan Harris in "The Sunday Times"

I do believe that Thatcher contributed to the prolonging of the conflice in Northern Ireland and thereby shares some culpability but this is for another thread.

What about all the drug dealing, punishment beatings, murders and gun smuggling that have gone on since the "peace process" begun. Who's responsible for those?

[OBgac]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shane Costello



Yes, I did a google search using the appropriate terms and a link to the Daily Telegraph came up. I have never laid hands on a copy, or read a copy, of the Telegraph in my life. It's physically impossible where I come from. Your back-peddling from your original asertion that I was a regular reader and the assumption that it was available where I live.


Shane, let me say this in small words for you this time. It is available where you live and you did read it. The fact that you didn't buy it in your local shop does not mean that you dont read it or its not available.



That's a misquote. Randfan said "many people", not "most of the people".


Eddie Lenihan = 1, Many people >1.
Even you should know EL is a joke who appears on childrens TV.

(Although I would concede that the same amount of people in Ireland believe in leprechauns as like Thatcher - about three.)



"The Sun"? "The Spectator"? Kevin Myers in "The Irish Times", Andrew Sullivan in "The Sunday Times" or Eoghan Harris in "The Sunday Times"


So what paper do you read if you dont mind me asking? I can't impagine the Spectator is available to you if DT isn't.

Kevin Myers is not a fan of Thatcher so I dont know where you got that from. Your usual dubious sources of evidence I would imagine. (I can't post the link to his article on Thatcher in the IT as it is a pay site - the date was 24-11-2000.)



What about all the drug dealing, punishment beatings, murders and gun smuggling that have gone on since the "peace process" begun. Who's responsible for those?

Primarily the armed terrorists who still inhabit N.I. are responsible for this. Also Blair's strategy of appeasement and MI5's clearing out of the Special Branch anyone who is anti-agreement. YOur problem is that you see things in black and white. Its never just one side's fault.

Shall I repeat what I said about Thatcher to you in small words? I said that she delayed the process. I never said she caused it. My point is that more people are dead because of her and her refusal to compromise.

[Smalso]

I have fun trying to imagine what would have happened if Clinton had announced in 1994 that he was going to invade Iraq because he was sure Saddam had weapons of mass destruction hidden there.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by OBgac:
[/B]Shane, let me say this in small words for you this time. It is available where you live and you did read it. [/B]

Wrong and wrong.

The fact that you didn't buy it in your local shop does not mean that you dont read it or its not available.

It's not available in my local shop full stop!

(Although I would concede that the same amount of people in Ireland believe in leprechauns as like Thatcher - about three.)

But you've never met anyone in Ireland who believes in Leprechauns?

Eddie Lenihan = 1, Many people >1.
Even you should know EL is a joke who appears on childrens TV.

I'll bow to your superior knowledge of kid's TV.

So what paper do you read if you dont mind me asking? I can't impagine the Spectator is available to you if DT isn't.

How stupid are you? That wasn't a list of papers I read, it was a list of papers and columnists who propound views you claim are only to be found in "The Daily Telegraph". For the record I read "The Irish Independent", "The Sun" on Tuesday and Thursday for Richard Littlejohn and "The Sunday Independent" and "The Sunday Times".

Kevin Myers is not a fan of Thatcher so I dont know where you got that from.

I never claimed he was pro-Thatcher, that's just another one of your ignorant assumptions. Read over his most recent columns, then tell me what his attuitude to agricultural subsidies, America, and economics and welfare are.

Primarily the armed terrorists who still inhabit N.I. are responsible for this. Also Blair's strategy of appeasement and MI5's clearing out of the Special Branch anyone who is anti-agreement. YOur problem is that you see things in black and white. Its never just one side's fault.

So Tony Blair is going to rot in hell as well? I never apportioned blame either, you did that.

Shall I repeat what I said about Thatcher to you in small words? I said that she delayed the process. I never said she caused it. My point is that more people are dead because of her and her refusal to compromise.

Refusal to compromise? She signed the Anglo-Irish agreement.

As for repeating things in small words why don't you back the things you say in big words to begin with?

[OBgac]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by OBgac:


Wrong and wrong.


Its like being in kindergarden. You say its not available. Definition of available as from Webster's: "Readily obtainable, accessible". If you have internet then you are wrong.



It's not available in my local shop full stop!

I never said it was. Stop putting words in my mouth.


But you've never met anyone in Ireland who believes in Leprechauns?


Never. Have you? Maybe you do?


How stupid are you? That wasn't a list of papers I read, it was a list of papers and columnists who propound views you claim are only to be found in "The Daily Telegraph". For the record I read "The Irish Independent", "The Sun" on Tuesday and Thursday for Richard Littlejohn and "The Sunday Independent" and "The Sunday Times".


I will desist from commenting on your choice of press.



I never claimed he was pro-Thatcher, that's just another one of your ignorant assumptions. Read over his most recent columns, then tell me what his attuitude to agricultural subsidies, America, and economics and welfare are.


Cool your jets Shane old boy. Relax and take a deep breath.


So Tony Blair is going to rot in hell as well? I never apportioned blame either, you did that.


You implied blame. I apportioned it yes. Is there something wrong with that?



Refusal to compromise? She signed the Anglo-Irish agreement.

As I already said i nthe other thread, it was a sop to the nationalists.


As for repeating things in small words why don't you back the things you say in big words to begin with?

I cannot debate with you Shane. In your own mind you are never wrong. As well as that its disrupting the thread its a bit tiring. I am off to far off lands where even The daily Telegraph may not be available.
Talk to you in Feb.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Smalso
I have fun trying to imagine what would have happened if Clinton had announced in 1994 that he was going to invade Iraq because he was sure Saddam had weapons of mass destruction hidden there.

"Wag the Dog! Wag the Dog!"

Oh, right, that's what they said when he tried to kill Osamo bin Laden.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by OBgac


I cannot debate with you Shane. In your own mind you are never wrong.

I haven't been following y'all's discussion here, but I have to say that this is a silly claim. OF COURSE he doesn't think he was wrong! If in his own mind, he thought something was wrong, he wouldn't believe it in the first place.

I would be very concerned if anyone around here believed something that they thought was incorrect.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by originalgagster
No you cant, the agreement you refer to is a UN agreement, and any action has to be decided upon by the UN and carried out by the UN. The UN has already past a resolution allowing for action. It might be good to have everyone on board before we take action but Saddam is in clear breech. There really is not much more that is needed.

Ive never denied saddam carried out poison gas attacks, the evidence is in black and white, just like the evidence the US helped him attain his chemical capability, and the evidence they turned a blind eye to his human rights abuses in the past. I wasn't talking about you. Whenever I make the argument that you just made, 4 or 5 people jump in with articles showing that the Kurds died as an accident from either an Iranian attack on Iraqi positions or a friendly fire accident from Iraq. I just wonder where all of those people are right now. I know that they are reading this. I'm openly questioning their consistency.

I would say the US government’s past most certainly does prohibit them from acting now. It is utter hypocrisy to give someone a batch of lethal weapons, give them carte blanche to use them how they will, then use this as an excuse for an attack when it suits your own shallow purposes. This is elementary morality. The US is in a morally bankrupt position, they have no right to act or do anything else regarding Iraq. ********, by your logic the Allies shouldn’t have gone to war against the Axis powers. It doesn't wash.

Well the fact that it is the only reason that stands up to scrutiny is a pretty strong suggestion that it is why the US is going to war. Wrong again. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny for the reasons I have stated.

And why should the burden of proof rest with those who are in favour of peace? No one is asking you for anything. Saddam made an agreement and he has breeched that agreement. There is nothing left for you to prove.

Funny how the US is only prepared to pick up the tab when its something which suits their interests. First, that is demonstrably untrue. Second, it damn sure should be.

UN action in Iraq, a country rich with oil not yet under US control, now there’s something worth pressuring the UN to take action over, theres something worth paying for. But when 1 000 000 people in Rwanda are hacked to death, well who cares about that? WRONG! Did you conveniently forget Somalia where our solders were drug through the streets? Did you forget the tens if not hundreds of millions we spent bombing Kosovo?

...there aint no oil there so why get involved? There was no oil in kosovo, no oil in Somalia. We gave money to the Taliban while they were preparing to blow up our twin towers.

When American buddies in Indonesia expel the entire indigenous population committing countless atrocities, what’s the point in getting invloved there? After all we dont want to jeapordise our arms sales, and they are just taking care of business in their own back yards. There are atrocities all over the world and when we try to feed people they kill us just for trying to help. Climb down from your high horse. We give aid all over the world even while those that we help spit in our face. I'm not going to let you get away with that crap when it is so demonstrably false.

Oh how very magnanimous of you, i guess we should all be eternally grateful.....or wait a minute perhaps the US were just a little unsure of how far the Soviets had proceeeded with their nuclear development? Again, demonstrably untrue. We had proof that we had a nuclear bomb. The Russians didn't. Why did they build an empire and we didn't? We had the atomic bomb, how did they pull that off? And, if we really did believe that the Soviets had a bomb (we knew that they didn't have a bomb) then we could have done the same thing the Germans did with Russia when they split up Poland. Your argument is full of holes. We could have built an empire just like the Soviet Union, who would have stopped us?

RandFan
We didn't even do as the Soviets had done and created an empire.

originalgagster
Not directly, but large parts of the world are under American economic control, for example most of latin americas economic resources are controlled by American corporations....the same goes for the middle east and large parts of asia. It doesn't answer the question does it? No! The fact is that we could have and we didn't. On the contrary we spent money to rebuild Germany and Japan. Could you provide evidence that American company’s "control" Latin America? Sounds very specious, I am quite skeptical.

And what was the alternative? let them rot in poverty and just wait until they turned to communism and aligned themselves with the soviet union? And allot more went into rebuilding these two countries than yankie dollars. False dilemma, there is no evidence that there were no other alternatives. Try again.

So exactly what would war in Iraq contribute to the US protecting herself? A war with Iraq would prevent Saddam from using sarin gas, anthrax, nuclear weapons and against Israel and or supplying them to terrorists for the purpose of carrying out an attack on US soil.

Do you really consider Saddams armed forces a threat to American sovereignty? Not there armed forces. I have not seen anyone make that argument. Sounds like a straw man. 911 proved that we simply are not immune to attack. It was not the "armed forces" of the Taliban that killed 3,000 Americans. It was 19 men with box cutters. What's next? I think it is quite possible for Saddam to use vials of anthrax or sarin in an attack conceived of and developed by Saddam. I really do fear that. You claim that he is willing to gas his own people. How do you know that he isn't willing to detonate an Atomic bomb in downtown Manhattan?

Are the American people hiding under the bed at night gripped by terror at the prospect of Iraqi invasion? Clearly a straw man, fallacious, the American people have a healthy fear of megalomaniacs who have access to weapons of mass destruction.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by OBgac
I cannot debate with you Shane. In your own mind you are never wrong. When are you in your mind wrong?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by OBgac:
Its like being in kindergarden. You say its not available. Definition of available as from Webster's: "Readily obtainable, accessible". If you have internet then you are wrong.

We'll engage in semantics as soon as you provide evidence to some of the serious allegations you've posted.

Cool your jets Shane old boy. Relax and take a deep breath.
:confused:

.You implied blame. I apportioned it yes. Is there something wrong with that?

You suggested Margaret Thatcher had blood on her hands, you sick moral relativist. Plenty wrong with that.

As I already said i nthe other thread, it was a sop to the nationalists.

So when she was intransigient she was killing people, and when she offered concessions you dismiss it as a "sop"?

I cannot debate with you Shane. In your own mind you are never wrong. As well as that its disrupting the thread its a bit tiring.

Says the man who claimed there was no scientific evidence for gravity, and that this excused his own failure to back up claims with evidence. :rolleyes:

I am off to far off lands where even The daily Telegraph may not be available.

By "off to far off lands" do you mean "secured in a straight-jacket and placed in a padded cell till I stop foaming at the mouth"?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Smalso
I have fun trying to imagine what would have happened if Clinton had announced in 1994 that he was going to invade Iraq because he was sure Saddam had weapons of mass destruction hidden there.
For a change the Republicans and I would have been on the same side. :cool:

Edited to add this hint: I opposed Clinton's meddling in Haiti, his bombing campaigns in the Balkans, and I think that Madeleine Albright is just a swollen version of Jean Kirkpatrick.

[Smalso]

It's just a little fun game I play from time to time. Some commentators--and, I think, some posters in this forum--need to be reminded occasionally that Bill Clinton is not the president of the United States and hasn't been for two years. Bush and Bush alone is responsible for the decisions that are being made in his administration, a responsibility I have not noticed he is trying to avoid. I don't like him and I trust him even less, but I have to give him that.

[RandFan]

Smalso
I have fun trying to imagine what would have happened if Clinton had announced in 1994 that he was going to invade Iraq because he was sure Saddam had weapons of mass destruction hidden there.

Wayne Grabert
For a change the Republicans and I would have been on the same side.

Smalso
It's just a little fun game I play from time to time. Some commentators--and, I think, some posters in this forum--need to be reminded occasionally that Bill Clinton is not the president of the United States and hasn't been for two years. Bush and Bush alone is responsible for the decisions that are being made in his administration, a responsibility I have not noticed he is trying to avoid. I don't like him and I trust him even less, but I have to give him that. Hi Smalso,

I think that it is a fair question. However it is a sword that cuts both ways. I think many of the Republicans would have supported Clinton as they did in Kosovo. Certainly many of them would have made political gain out of such an action. Many of the Democrats who are currently against Bush would have supported Clinton as they did in Kosovo and other Clinton military excursions.

I supported Bill in most including Kosovo though I found a number attacks suspect because of the timing.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by originalgagster
My argument certainly wasnt circular,... It certainly was. You can't justify actions simply because someone else suspects you of that action and is thinking of taking action against you. Something is either right or wrong.

I havent seen any other reason given to invade N. Korea other than the fact Kim has nuclear weapons. Not relevant since no one is making the argument that N. Korea should be attacked.

Your analogy with hate groups requires a little adjustment. WOMD are not illegal. It's a perfect analogy. You forget that Iraq agreed to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction. Your (circular) argument is based on the fact that N. Korea is justified to have nuclear arms program because we enforce the Iraqi agreement to disarm. N. Korea can't then turn around and say "oh they are invading Iraq so we can continue to break our agreements also".

If they were the US wouldnt have the worlds largest stockpile. There is a grossly unfair agreement ( a UN resolution - in fact several) which ties Iraq to various commitments, including allowing American spies into the country to give away all their military secrets. Why is it unfair? Iraq violated international law and invaded a sovereign nation. They had to pay a cost for that. They negotiated their surrender or did you forget that?

But nothing so far which gives a clear green light to the use of violence. That is your opinion. That and a buck will buy you a soda.

So the FBI would have no right to authorize force in this case. Nor would they have any right to bust N. Korea. Go back to the textbooks. The FBI has no authority outside of the United States. The CIA is another thing but it is not relevant in this case. If Saddam doesn't disarm the Congress of the United states (both houses) gave President Bush the authorization to disarm Iraq. Saddam is clearly in breech of all of the resolutions. He has lied time and time again. The UN has failed to enforce its own resolutions time and time again. I doubt that the UN will do the same again. If they do then the US will act. Make no mistake about that.

Apart from these inaccuracies your analogy is a very good one and it can be used to highlight exactly the light the US government is seen in around the world. You mean the notion that America only does bad and no good? To see us in the light that you paint countries must conveniently forget that we supply more aid to more countries than any other entity? That we provide security to an otherwise volatile world? Hey, we can't force people to see the truth. I can't even get you to admit facts that I have enumerated, why should I expect the rest of the world fed on government propaganda to believe otherwise?

What do you reckon the American people would think if they were to find out that the federal government had amassed a huge stockpile of illegal weapons? Further that they had been supplying those weapons to hate groups? Not only that but had allowed the hate group to use them in a turf war with other thugs, then had turned a blind eye even when that hate group were using these weapons to attack innocent members of an ethnic community. Could you provide some proof of this? I dispute it. I'm quite skeptical of it.

Pretty incredible huh? You’re telling me that it is incredible. That is exactly what it is without evidence, proof or context. But I'm sure that you will give us some more "incredible" stories before we are through.

...but the question is what are the American people going to do to make sure it doesnt happen again? We are going to bomb the hell out of Saddam and we are going to stop giving so damn much aid to people who spit in our faces. Our policy has to change. If you are good to us we will give you aid. If you are going to blow up our buildings then we are going to hunt you down. If you surrender after we have defeated you and you don't do as you promise then we are coming back.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by RandFan
We are going to bomb the hell out of Saddam and we are going to stop giving so damn much aid to people who spit in our faces. Our policy has to change. If you are good to us we will give you aid. If you are going to blow up our buildings then we are going to hunt you down. If you surrender after we have defeated you and you don't do as you promise then we are coming back. [/B]

You make several solid points, Randfan, but I have a question here:

It's been said, as I mentioned earlier, that Saddam may have stashed his WMDs across the border with friends. As we saw when the Soviet Union collapsed, nukes just don't go away. They must be dismantled. Right now, the Russian government has nuclear weapons they can't find.

My concern here is that once we go in and stop the creation of WMDs in Iraq, what do we do about those that may already exist? If they're across borders, how do we track them down and get rid of them? We've already seen that Hussein will play shell games, and I see no evidence that his officials will be all that cooperative once the dust settles. Quite the opposite: If, in fact, Hussein has been bankrolling terrorists, it's entirely possible that he'll simply pass on the WMDs to other thugs to use against Western targets.

I'm not trying to cause a rift here, but I think we need to look beyond Iraq for a few moments. There's a real danger involved here, and it ought to be addressed. I've not heard anyone discussing this.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by OBgac
Still a long way from Randfan's "most of the people". Hey, I only ask for two things. Spell my name right and get my quotes right. You are 1 for 2. :D

RandFan
Many people in Ireland believe in leprechauns. My post came from a book that I had read about beliefs. The book noted that Americans are more likely to believe in Big Foot than the Irish. The Irish on the other hand are more likely to believe in leprechauns than big foot. The parsimonious answer to this disparity is that beliefs are based upon culture and environment. However I have no evidence to support that contention. In fact—

Kara Kane: The wee people, Ireland (http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~goliard/Scholars/1993.kara.kane.htm)

Whenever I asked the young of Ireland about leprechauns they would stare at me funnily and seemed to think I was missing a few things upstairs. They said it was all a lie and there were no such things as leprechauns. The first time I heard this I was crushed. Was this legend I had believed and embraced for over twenty-one years of my life completely made up? I don't know how many people belive in the wee people. I will modify my claim to "some", would that clear up any confusion?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
You make several solid points, Randfan, but I have a question here:

It's been said, as I mentioned earlier, that Saddam may have stashed his WMDs across the border with friends. As we saw when the Soviet Union collapsed, nukes just don't go away. They must be dismantled. Right now, the Russian government has nuclear weapons they can't find.

My concern here is that once we go in and stop the creation of WMDs in Iraq, what do we do about those that may already exist? If they're across borders, how do we track them down and get rid of them? We've already seen that Hussein will play shell games, and I see no evidence that his officials will be all that cooperative once the dust settles. Quite the opposite: If, in fact, Hussein has been bankrolling terrorists, it's entirely possible that he'll simply pass on the WMDs to other thugs to use against Western targets.

I'm not trying to cause a rift here, but I think we need to look beyond Iraq for a few moments. There's a real danger involved here, and it ought to be addressed. I've not heard anyone discussing this. Good post. I don't have enough info to offer a response. Your points are chilling. I suspect that there are many dangers out there. The administration and others have said that is a matter of when and not if.

Does action against Saddam make us more or less vulnerable? This is a valid question for debate. Thanks RoadToad.

RoadToad....Hmmm..... There is a killer on the road, his brain is squirming like a toad. :D I like it.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by RandFan
RoadToad....Hmmm..... There is a killer on the road, his brain is squirming like a toad. :D I like it.

Actually, I used to work for a rendering company, hauling roadkill. That was how I got the nick.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


Actually, I used to work for a rendering company, hauling roadkill. That was how I got the nick.
Did you keep a sterno kit under the truck seat? :p

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Did you keep a sterno kit under the truck seat? :p

Actually, you'd be surprised how much good meat gets tossed. We once picked up some tri tips that had been mislabeled. That was the only flaw. Since under Federal rules you can't repackage meat like that, we got about ten tri-tips which we ate over the course of several months.

Did the same thing with several cases of hamburger, and some bacon. We're a pretty wasteful society, when you think about it.

(No, never ate anything, shall we say, "exotic...")

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by RandFan
The book noted that Americans are more likely to believe in Big Foot than the Irish.

This American is not ashamed to admit he believes in the Irish.

MattJ

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Actually, I used to work for a rendering company, hauling roadkill. That was how I got the nick. OMG, I used to have to deliver plastic bags to a rendering company in Monfort Colorado. Their was no worse smell in all of the world. Whenever I had to make a delivery it made me sick the whole way just dreading the stench. I suppose you get used to it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
This American is not ashamed to admit he believes in the Irish. The fact is demonstrable. Who do you think invented drinking to excess? :D

[Roadtoad]

Interesting article, written by, (big surprise!) John LeCarre.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-543296,00.html

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by RandFan
The UN has already past a resolution allowing for action. It might be good to have everyone on board before we take action but Saddam is in clear breech. There really is not much more that is needed.

A UN resolution allowing an attack is certainly needed otherwise the US is in clear violation of international law. The relevant UN resolution, resolution 1441 of nov 8 2002 (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm) says plenty about Iraqi arms, but nothing specific about action which should be taken if Iraq fails to comply. It doesnt even legitimise UN armed intervention in Iraq, never mind US attacks.
The clearest violation of international law are the no fly zones over Iraq which are maintained by the British and Americans. There is nothing in any UN resolution which Justifies no fly zones.

********, by your logic the Allies shouldn’t have gone to war against the Axis powers. It doesn't wash.

That doesnt follow from my logic at all. There are no similarities between Iraq and nazi Germany at all, apart from the fact that Hitler and hussein are a couple of bad eggs. The reason for WW2 is that Hitler was annexing most of Europe. Saddam is a crushed tinpot third world dictator facing the mightiest military machine on the face of the earth. You cant compare him to the ruler of nazi Germany which invaded most of Europe and started a war which cost 50 000 000 lives. The comparison isnt even funny.

Wrong again. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny for the reasons I have stated.

You havent given any reasons why oil isnt a factor in this war at all. At least not in this thread - i even re-read your posts.

No one is asking you for anything. Saddam made an agreement and he has breeched that agreement. There is nothing left for you to prove

Dont you think it should even be proven that a breach of the agreement legitimises war? Or that a war is morally justified? Dont forget this is an area surrounded by nuclear powers. This has to be as cut and dried as possible.
Besides the resolution has only been in place for two months. Give it time. Even the US emphasises the magnitude and complexity of the task

First, that is demonstrably untrue. Second, it damn sure should be..

Im not sure it is demonstrably untrue. Im struggling to think of a genuinely humanitarian war involving the US and the UK post 1945. You can always see a strategic agenda behind intervention. The west likes governments which are friendly to Western "investment" (read exploitation) and if there is no strategic benefit to intervention it doesnt happen.
In fact the US and UK have often propped up explicitly evil regimes which are freindly to big business. Central America is a good example of this.

There was no oil in kosovo, no oil in Somalia. We gave money to the Taliban while they were preparing to blow up our twin towers.

Its an interesting thought though. Why invade Somalia and ignore far worse genocides in Rwanda? Why get involved in Kosovo but ignore genocide in East Timor or Turkey ? Im not just talking about the lack of US involvement, but western Europe also.
I dont have the time or inclination to get into a debate on Kosovo and Somalia at the same time as all this, we are off topic enough already i fear! But your points are well taken. I think what happened to the US soldiers there was genuinely awful. Ill leave it at that.

There are atrocities all over the world and when we try to feed people they kill us just for trying to help. Climb down from your high horse. We give aid all over the world even while those that we help spit in our face. I'm not going to let you get away with that crap when it is so demonstrably false.

You dont give that much aid, in fact as a percentage of gross domestic income US overseas development aid lags well behind the vast majority of developed nations. In 2001 US ODA was 0.11% as a percentage of GNI. The previous two years it was even less. This compares to, for example Portugal on 0.25%, France at 0.34% and Holland at 0.82%. The average effort was 0.4% and the UN target for the period was 0.7%.
Any aid given is good news of course, but with the amount of disease and starvation in the world i think everyone in the west could do more.


Again, demonstrably untrue. We had proof that we had a nuclear bomb. The Russians didn't. Why did they build an empire and we didn't? We had the atomic bomb, how did they pull that off? And, if we really did believe that the Soviets had a bomb (we knew that they didn't have a bomb) then we could have done the same thing the Germans did with Russia when they split up Poland. Your argument is full of holes. We could have built an empire just like the Soviet Union, who would have stopped us?

Well maybe you are right, but i still dont think using the argument that you could have reduced the world to slavery, but chose not to really shows the US government in all that benevolent a light. One reason could be that the American people would never have stood for it.... you are correct to point out the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was unjust.



A war with Iraq would prevent Saddam from using sarin gas, anthrax, nuclear weapons and against Israel and or supplying them to terrorists for the purpose of carrying out an attack on US soil.

What do you base this on? Is there any proof Saddam Hussein has ever sponsored anti-US terrorism in the past? Is there evidence he has nuclear weapons, anthrax or sarin?
Former UN weapons inspector Scot Ritter had this to say about the Iraqi WOMD program: "I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them."

Not there armed forces. I have not seen anyone make that argument. Sounds like a straw man. 911 proved that we simply are not immune to attack. It was not the "armed forces" of the Taliban that killed 3,000 Americans. It was 19 men with box cutters. What's next? I think it is quite possible for Saddam to use vials of anthrax or sarin in an attack conceived of and developed by Saddam. I really do fear that. You claim that he is willing to gas his own people. How do you know that he isn't willing to detonate an Atomic bomb in downtown Manhattan?

This is crazy talk. Why would Saddam Hussein detonate a nuclear bomb in downtown Manhattan? He may be evil but hes not stupid, he knows his entire country would be dust within minutes.
You may as well ask "what if Israel launches nuclear weapon strikes against Saudi Arabia?" or "what if the Indonesian government carries out a gassing in Australia?" Insane notions but just as realistic as the scenario you present, in fact probably even more so.

You cant use fanciful hypothesis as the basis of a brutal attack, you need something absolutely rock solid. Find evidence Saddam is planning a nuclear strike against downtown Manhattan and ill back you all the way in attacking the despot.

Clearly a straw man, fallacious, the American people have a healthy fear of megalomaniacs who have access to weapons of mass destruction.

No-one outside the US has any fear of Saddam, you dont hear the Kuwaitis pleading with the international community to defend them from Iraqi WOMD. The Iranian government has alot more to fear from Saddam than the US, and they dont want him attacked, in fact they are even opposed to the war, and they have far stronger and more realistic reasons to fear him than the US, but they dont. Hate him for sure, but not fear him.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by RandFan


Go back to the textbooks. The FBI has no authority outside of the United States.......

You mean the notion that America only does bad and no good? To see us in the light that you paint countries must conveniently forget that we supply more aid to more countries than any other entity? ............... I can't even get you to admit facts that I have enumerated, why should I expect the rest of the world fed on government propaganda to believe otherwise?

Could you provide some proof of this? I dispute it. I'm quite skeptical of it.

You’re telling me that it is incredible. That is exactly what it is without evidence, proof or context. But I'm sure that you will give us some more "incredible" stories before we are through.

[/B]


This is probably my fault, i should have been more clear. I wasnt putting forward the scenario you criticise as something which actually happened. I am perfectly aware of simple things such as the FBI is a federal institute which has no authority outside the US.

What i tried to do was take your analogy of hate groups and illegal weapons and apply it to the current situation regarding Iraq, with the US government in the role of the feds, and the turf war with other thgs as the Iran/Iraq war.

Apologies for the confusion.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by RandFan
Just what assumptions are we talking about here.

Well, we can't find any of the weapons we "believe" he has, yet Korea is all but pointing theirs at us and waving.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by originalgagster
A UN resolution allowing an attack is certainly needed otherwise the US is in clear violation of international law. The relevant UN resolution, Saying so does not make it true. We can and will act if the UN doesn't. Believe whatever you want.

The clearest violation of international law are the no fly zones over Iraq which are maintained by the British and Americans. There is nothing in any UN resolution which Justifies no fly zones. Then why isn't there a resolution condemning thee US. We do not need a UN resolution. They surrendered.

That doesnt follow from my logic at all. There are no similarities between Iraq and nazi Germany at all, apart from the fact that Hitler and hussein are a couple of bad eggs. The reason for WW2 is that Hitler was annexing most of Europe. Saddam is a crushed tinpot third world dictator facing the mightiest military machine on the face of the earth. You cant compare him to the ruler of nazi Germany which invaded most of Europe and started a war which cost 50 000 000 lives. The comparison isnt even funny. It wasn’t meant to be funny and I'm not trying to make such comparisons. But just to give you a little history. Hitler invaded his neighbors and so did Saddam.

But this relevant, you are saying we can't do anything to Iraq because we enabled him. By that logic we shouldn't have done anything to Germany and Japan because we enabled the also.

You havent given any reasons why oil isnt a factor in this war at all. At least not in this thread - i even re-read your posts. I believe it is a factor. But read my very first post. If you still don't get it let me know and I will try and make it clearer.

Dont you think it should even be proven that a breach of the agreement legitimises war? Or that a war is morally justified? Dont forget this is an area surrounded by nuclear powers. This has to be as cut and dried as possible.
Besides the resolution has only been in place for two months. Give it time. Even the US emphasises the magnitude and complexity of the task Whatever it takes. If Iraq is in breech and Bush says "let's roll" then let's roll.

Im not sure it is demonstrably untrue. Im struggling to think of a genuinely humanitarian war... You are straying. Humanitarian war has nothing to do with what you were talking about. You claim we only do things for oil. That is pure and utter crap. We went into Somalia to feed them. We bombed Kosovo with no regard to our own interests.

Its an interesting thought though. Why invade Somalia and ignore far worse genocides in Rwanda? Why get involved in Kosovo but ignore genocide in East Timor or Turkey ? Im not just talking about the lack of US involvement, but western Europe also. Yeah, great for conspiracy theorists. The examples prove you wrong.

I dont have the time or inclination to get into a debate on Kosovo and Somalia at the same time as all this, we are off topic enough already i fear! But your points are well taken. I think what happened to the US soldiers there was genuinely awful. Ill leave it at that. The examples prove that you are wrong. I will leave it at that.

You dont give that much aid, in fact as a percentage of gross domestic income US overseas development aid lags well behind the vast majority of developed nations. In 2001 US ODA was 0.11% as a percentage of GNI. The previous two years it was even less. This compares to, for example Portugal on 0.25%, France at 0.34% and Holland at 0.82%. The average effort was 0.4% and the UN target for the period was 0.7%.
Any aid given is good news of course, but with the amount of disease and starvation in the world i think everyone in the west could do more. We give one hell of a lot. Could please provide a source?

Well maybe you are right, but i still dont think using the argument that you could have reduced the world to slavery, but chose not to really shows the US government in all that benevolent a light. One reason could be that the American people would never have stood for it.... you are correct to point out the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was unjust. Our leadership flows from our people. We are a great nation because our people have a level of control over their leaders. You make my point for me. We are not perfect but we are nation that does care about others. The Peace Corps comes to mind.

What do you base this on? Is there any proof Saddam Hussein has ever sponsored anti-US terrorism in the past? Is there evidence he has nuclear weapons, anthrax or sarin?
Former UN weapons inspector Scot Ritter had this to say about the Iraqi WOMD program: "I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them." Oh yeah Scot Ritter knows. Did he know about the war heads discovered only this morning? Thanks Scot for the testimony, but it looks like it is wrong.

This is crazy talk. Why would Saddam Hussein detonate a nuclear bomb in downtown Manhattan? He may be evil but hes not stupid, he knows his entire country would be dust within minutes. This is a guy that set all of the oil wells on fire in Kuwait. This is a guy that launched Scuds at Israel. Why did he do that? He was not at war with Israel. He has proven that nothing is out of bounds with him.

Will you admit that Saddam is quite different and quite dangerous from most other leaders?

And why would he have to admit that he detonated a nuclear bomb in downtown Manhattan? I wouldn't imagine that he would however I am certain he fantasizes about it. I'm certain that if he could carry out such a task he would do it in a heartbeat. Can you personally guarantee that he never would?

You may as well ask "what if Israel launches nuclear weapon strikes against Saudi Arabia?" or "what if the Indonesian government carries out a gassing in Australia?" Insane notions but just as realistic as the scenario you present, in fact probably even more so. No, there is no motivation for that. On the contrary we know Saddam is royally pissed at the US for defeating him and he wants revenge. He has done what few others have. He invaded a neighbor, he launched Scuds at a sovereign nation that he was not at war with, he waged a scorched earth policy in Kuwait. He HAS the motivation and the resources to give him the means, if he does not already possess them. And it looks like that after this morning. He probably already has the means.

I'm damn glad we are taking this seriously.

You cant use fanciful hypothesis as the basis of a brutal attack, you need something absolutely rock solid. Find evidence Saddam is planning a nuclear strike against downtown Manhattan and ill back you all the way in attacking the despot. There is nothing fanciful about the invasion of Kuwait, the burning of the oil fields, the launching of scuds at Israel, the lying about anthrax found years after he swore over and over that he did not have them. I don't get that people don't realize that this man is truly dangerous.

No-one outside the US has any fear of Saddam,... False, Israel fears him. Kuwait fears him and the Saudis fear him. That is why they are cooperating with us.

...you dont hear the Kuwaitis pleading with the international community to defend them from Iraqi WOMD. Moslems don't go to the UN to complain about other Moslems. You don't understand the politics in that region. The leaders say one thing in public and another in private. He has attacked 3 neighbors, 2 of them Muslim. Trust me, they do fear him.

opposed[/i] to the war, and they have far stronger and more realistic reasons to fear him than the US, but they dont. Hate him for sure, but not fear him. Oh they fear him. The politics require them to stand against Israel and the US in any dispute, but they do fear him.

[Roadtoad]

Randfan, I'm going to look for the report about warheads being found this morning. That would strongly bolster your argument.

I would also agree that you're not dealing with a sane mind. The notion that no one in the region fears him is irrational. The man's track record alone would indicate the danger involved.

If the No-Fly Zones weren't acceptable to the UN, I would have expected the UN would have said something by now. After ten years, I would think there would have been some record of a protest from someone other than Iraq.

[Roadtoad]

More fuel for discussion...

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.N. inspectors on Thursday found 11 empty chemical warheads in "excellent" condition at an ammunition storage area where they were inspecting bunkers built in the late 1990s, a U.N. spokesman reported.

The weapons components found Thursday were not part of Iraq's declaration given to the U.N. in December under which Baghdad was required to itemize its doomsday weapons.

"It was a discovery. They were not declared," Hiro Ueki, the spokesman for U.N. weapons inspectors in Baghdad, told The Associated Press.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, traveling with President Bush in Scranton, Pa., said the administration was "aware of the reports and we look forward to receiving information from the inspectors."

McClellan would not comment on how significant the find was.

At the United Nations, however, a U.S. official said the discovery only raised more questions.

"It's something that's going to have to be looked at really closely," said U.S. deputy ambassador Richard Williamson. "It raises a lot of questions from the declaration and other things."

Inspectors found a 12th warhead, also of 122 mm, that requires further evaluation, Ueki said in a statement.

The inspectors used portable X-ray equipment for a preliminary analysis of one of the warheads and collected samples for chemical testing, Ueki's statement said.

"The warheads were in excellent condition and were similar to ones imported by Iraq during the late 1980's," the statement said.

The weapons components were found during a visit by inspectors to the Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area, 75 miles south of Baghdad. It was one of several sites inspectors checked on Thursday.

Inspectors do not usually report specific discoveries, which made Thursday's announcement unusual. It is up to the U.N. Security Council to determine whether Thursday's find would amount to a breach of U.N. resolutions.

On Dec. 7, a chemical team secured a dozen artillery shells filled with mustard gas that had been inventoried by inspectors in the 1990s before the program was halted.

The mustard gas shells were the first batch of weapons of mass destruction brought under their control in the current round of inspections in Iraq.

U.N. inspectors have said Iraq's final weapons declaration made in December failed to support its claims to have destroyed missiles, warheads and chemical agents such as VX nerve gas.

The United States and Britain doubt Iraq is committed to giving up its weapons of mass destruction and have dispatched thousands more troops to the Gulf region for a possible military showdown.

Washington has cited nine areas in which it said Iraq's declaration fails to give a complete picture of weapons holdings. These include thousands of pounds of unaccounted-for materials for producing anthrax, and the chemical precursors for manufacturing mustard gas.

"It's something that's going to have to be looked at really closely," said U.S. deputy ambassador Richard Williamson. "It raises a lot of questions from the declaration and other things."

Were these warheads mentioned in the declaration? "We're trying to doublecheck. We don't think so. Washington's trying to go through that right now," he told AP.

What about adding pressure, urgency?

"There has to be urgency to this process. The president said it was a growing threat. It's still a growing threat. He (Saddam) has not satisfied the terms of Resolution 1441. So inspections have to be forward-leaning and the U.S. has made that view known and we will continue to push for that. And the decision is up to the council, not to any U.N. employee."

[Smalso]

Just for the record, the US did not invade Germany because Hitler was an ******* and had the means to build weapons of mass destruction. Germany declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan the day following Pearl Harbor. I don't believe one has anything to do with the other.

As to invading Iraq, I really don't believe that Iraqi oil is the main reason for it. I believe that the security of all middle east oil is a large consideration. By some estimates it is 70% of the world's reserves. Oil has at least to figure into any action in that area. The main reason for invading Iraq is, of course, politics. Oil is part of politics.

[E.J.Armstrong]

See below.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
See below.

Yes, E.J., I have read your Jedi Knight quotes before. Are you trying to be his apostle? ;)

The last quote from him seemed very familiar when I first read it. I think he paraphrased Ann Coulter. Substitute "liberals" for "media" and you may have her verbatim.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Smalso
Just for the record, the US did not invade Germany because Hitler was an ******* and had the means to build weapons of mass destruction. Germany declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan the day following Pearl Harbor. I don't believe one has anything to do with the other. And I'm not claiming that they did. There was a statement about comparisons and an invasion was left out. I just wanted to point out that there were more similarities than were originally stated.

Additionally my point was to rebut the argument that we couldn't invade Iraq because we had provided weapons to them in the first place. Well we were active trading partners with Germany prior to WWII and had provided materials for their military build up. Using the before mentioned logic we could not have gone to war with Japan or Germany. It simply does not wash.

As to invading Iraq, I really don't believe that Iraqi oil is the main reason for it. I believe that the security of all middle east oil is a large consideration. By some estimates it is 70% of the world's reserves. Oil has at least to figure into any action in that area. The main reason for invading Iraq is, of course, politics. Oil is part of politics. I have stated that oil is a factor. I do not believe that this has anything to do with the fact that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice or any of the administration or friends of the president or others are linked to oil. And for the record, no one has provided any evidence to the contrary.

[Smalso]

RandFan:

I agree. What happened in the past concerning US relations with Iraq have little if anything at all to do with whether we invade now. The situation changes and 9/11 changed a lot of situations. This is not what Bush had in mind for his first two years in office but he is stuck with it. Perhaps he is using this opportunity to get a little payback at Iraq. Maybe he is using this opportunity to line his pockets and those of his friends. Maybe this, perhaps that. Your point is well taken that there is no evidence that compells the belief that this is all over oil. It's a nice fringe benefit, though. Excellent thread, by the way.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Smalso
RandFan:

I agree. What happened in the past concerning US relations with Iraq have little if anything at all to do with whether we invade now. The situation changes and 9/11 changed a lot of situations. This is not what Bush had in mind for his first two years in office but he is stuck with it. Perhaps he is using this opportunity to get a little payback at Iraq. Maybe he is using this opportunity to line his pockets and those of his friends. Maybe this, perhaps that. Your point is well taken that there is no evidence that compells the belief that this is all over oil. It's a nice fringe benefit, though. Excellent thread, by the way. I hate to be cynical but yes, I can’t eliminate money as "a" motivation if even it is a minor one. This would put the oil links into perspective. And it would be stupid to assume that a politican did not have at least some poltical motive for an action as important as this one. And let's be honest, Bush himself raised the issue that Saddam had tried to kill his father. I know that George W. Bush sought the Texas Governors office because of what Ann Richards had said about his father during the presidential campaign. So I don't think that it is far fetched at all to say pay back could also play a part.

So what do we have? A dynamic composed of oil, money, politics, revenge and national security. Hell, you take out the national security angle and you have a great episode from the TV show Dallas.

Good points Smalso

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by RandFan
Saying so does not make it true. We can and will act if the UN doesn't. Believe whatever you want.

Its got nothing to do with what i may or may not believe. The evidence is there in black and white. There is nothing in the resolution which legitimises violence.

Then why isn't there a resolution condemning thee US. We do not need a UN resolution. They surrendered.

Who is going to pass a resolution condeming the US against Saddam? No-one is powerful enough.
Just because there was no resolution doesnt mean you can assume the US and UK acted lawfully. The case is cut and dried, you dont have to depend on my word, the UN resolutions concerning Iraq are there in black and white, there is nothing in them which legitimises the maintenance of no fly zones.

Of course you need a UN resolution to invade Iraq, invading a sovereign country without a UN mandate is an outright breach of international law. It is right there in the UN charter to which the US is a signatory.

The war was not a US war to destroy Iraq, it was a coalition war to liberate Kuwait which was legitimised through UN resolutions. The US has no peace treaty with Iraq, any attack has to be done through the UN with regards to UN resolutions.

If you invade a sovereign territory without an international mandate you are no better than Saddam was when he invaded Kuwait in 1990.

It wasn’t meant to be funny and I'm not trying to make such comparisons. But just to give you a little history. Hitler invaded his neighbors and so did Saddam.

Yes Saddam did invade his neighbours. More than twelve years ago. What is relevant is the threat Saddam poses here and now, which is simply non-existent.

But this relevant, you are saying we can't do anything to Iraq because we enabled him. By that logic we shouldn't have done anything to Germany and Japan because we enabled the also.

Not at all. First of all we did not supply Germany with the weapons she used to attack all her neighbours, we also didnt send her military aid while these attacks were taking place. Secondly, as you pointed out yourself Germany attacked other European countries, and as has also been pointed out it was Germany who declared war on the US and the USSR, not the other way round.

Whatever it takes. If Iraq is in breech and Bush says "let's roll" then let's roll.

Well i guess if Bush says the US should attack, then any attack is entirely morally justified. Im glad you cleared that up.

Yeah, great for conspiracy theorists. The examples prove you wrong.

Its not a conspiracy theory that the west did nothing in Rwanda while 1 000 000 were slaughtered, or that they have supported the Indonesian and Turkish governments while they massacred their own people.

Surely you have to concede that the inconsistency requires some explanation. Especially considering human rights is the reason so often given for foreign intervention.

We give one hell of a lot. Could please provide a source?

These stats are easy to find, they are widely published. here is one source. http://www.just1world.org/development-aid.htm

Our leadership flows from our people. We are a great nation because our people have a level of control over their leaders. You make my point for me. We are not perfect but we are nation that does care about others. The Peace Corps comes to mind.

If your point was that the American people are decent, i have never disagreed.

Oh yeah Scot Ritter knows. Did he know about the war heads discovered only this morning? Thanks Scot for the testimony, but it looks like it is wrong.

Well Scot Ritter was chief weapons inspector in Iraq for 7 years, so his testimony is valuable. Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary.

And its my understanding that these are empty warheads. Not exactly an earth shattering find. Could well be some rubbish left over from the gulf war. No-one is sure yet, so its wrong of you to use this as evidence of Ritters incompetence.

Even if this find does put Saddam in breach of resolution 1441, it still has to be argued this is justification for attack.
This war could cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Is 12 empty warheads justification for such barbarism?

This is a guy that set all of the oil wells on fire in Kuwait. This is a guy that launched Scuds at Israel. Why did he do that? He was not at war with Israel. He has proven that nothing is out of bounds with him.
Will you admit that Saddam is quite different and quite dangerous from most other leaders?

Yes Saddam is a dangerous and depraved man, but i honestly dont think he is any worse than half of the governments of the world. The Turkish governments has massacred thousands of kurds. The Indonesian government has carried out Pol Pot type massacres in East Timor. The Kuwaiti and Saudi governments have woeful human rights records. The list goes on and on.

And why would he have to admit that he detonated a nuclear bomb in downtown Manhattan? I wouldn't imagine that he would however I am certain he fantasizes about it. I'm certain that if he could carry out such a task he would do it in a heartbeat. Can you personally guarantee that he never would?


He wouldnt have to necessarily admit it. Evidence is required though. If no evidence is required and any country could invade any other country on the basis of pure specualtion there would be a complete breakdown of international law.

Other countries could use similar justifications to begin wars. India could certainly attack Pakistan under the same pretext. Turkey could attack Greece. China could attack Taiwan.

The US is not exempt from international standards of law.

No, there is no motivation for that. On the contrary we know Saddam is royally pissed at the US for defeating him and he wants revenge. He has done what few others have. He invaded a neighbor, he launched Scuds at a sovereign nation that he was not at war with, he waged a scorched earth policy in Kuwait. He HAS the motivation and the resources to give him the means, if he does not already possess them. And it looks like that after this morning. He probably already has the means.

Is there no motivation? Australian troops invaded Indonesia, and Israel have threatened to attack Saudi Arabia before.

And he is not the only one who has launched attacks at countries he is not at war with. You do recall the bombing of Lybia? The invasion of Panama?

There is nothing fanciful about the invasion of Kuwait, the burning of the oil fields, the launching of scuds at Israel, the lying about anthrax found years after he swore over and over that he did not have them. I don't get that people don't realize that this man is truly dangerous.

Again , no more dangerous than dozens of other leaders, and since he is completely toothless, far less so.

Anyway, it could easily be argued that these are reasons for not going to war, for if he does have the capability to launch strikes against Israel or detonate a nuclear device in downtown Manhattan there is no surer way of making him do it than launching an attack.

False, Israel fears him. Kuwait fears him and the Saudis fear him. That is why they are cooperating with us.

They are co-operating with the US because they fear losing the handouts which keep them in power. The Arab nations have no fear of Saddam. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia know they are under US protection and Saddam doesnt have anything like the might needed to threaten Iran.

Moslems don't go to the UN to complain about other Moslems. You don't understand the politics in that region. The leaders say one thing in public and another in private. He has attacked 3 neighbors, 2 of them Muslim. Trust me, they do fear him.

Oh they fear him. The politics require them to stand against Israel and the US in any dispute, but they do fear him.

I do have an undertanding of the politics of the region, and i know that fear in Arab countries is very real should the US attack. They are afraid of popular uprising by fundamentalist Islamic groups (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2239277.stm), they are afraid of an upsurge in terrorism. These are very real fears, especially to an oppresive regime like the Saudi government. They are much greater and more pressing fears than fear generated by any threat Saddam may pose.
These fears are stated time after time by Arab governments - with the exception of the partially democratically elected government of Iran which has no reason to fear a popular uprising.
The main fear Iran has, and the reason they have begun mobilising their troops is a fear of invasion by the US. I notice they didnt even bother to mobilise their army to meet the grave threat posed by Saddam.
And i have seen no statement by any Arab country regarding their fear of Saddam.

[RandFan]

I really appreciate your responses. I think that they are thought out and you are obviously firm in your convictions. I look forward to further discussion.

Originally posted by originalgagster
Its got nothing to do with what i may or may not believe. The evidence is there in black and white. There is nothing in the resolution which legitimises violence. You simply don't know what you are talking about. We have the authority. We always have had since we agreed to stop firing and negotiated a surrendor.

Who is going to pass a resolution condeming the US against Saddam? No-one is powerful enough.
Just because there was no resolution doesnt mean you can assume the US and UK acted lawfully. The case is cut and dried, you dont have to depend on my word, the UN resolutions concerning Iraq are there in black and white, there is nothing in them which legitimises the maintenance of no fly zones. Sorry, you are making assumptions about things you don't know anything about. We negotiated the surrender of the Iraqis and we have the right to enforce the no fly zones.

Of course you need a UN resolution to invade Iraq, invading a sovereign country without a UN mandate is an outright breach of international law. It is right there in the UN charter to which the US is a signatory. See above.

The war was not a US war to destroy Iraq, it was a coalition war to liberate Kuwait which was legitimised through UN resolutions. The US has no peace treaty with Iraq, any attack has to be done through the UN with regards to UN resolutions. You fail to grasp that Iraq has never honored its agreement. They have been in breech from day one. They have broken every resolution and we are with in our right.

If you invade a sovereign territory without an international mandate you are no better than Saddam was when he invaded Kuwait in 1990. See above.

Yes Saddam did invade his neighbours. More than twelve years ago. What is relevant is the threat Saddam poses here and now, which is simply non-existent. See above.

Not at all. First of all we did not supply Germany with the weapons she used to attack all her neighbours, we also didnt send her military aid while these attacks were taking place. Secondly, as you pointed out yourself Germany attacked other European countries, and as has also been pointed out it was Germany who declared war on the US and the USSR, not the other way round. Your argument is irrelevant. German declared war on the US after we declared war on Japan, so what? Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The fact that we were trading with Iraq is totally irrelevant as irrelevant as trading with Germany. And I have news for you we did sell materials and weapons to Germany. Are you sure you want to stay with that one.

Well i guess if Bush says the US should attack, then any attack is entirely morally justified. Im glad you cleared that up. We have the right to protect ourselves. We have worked with the UN. Which we set up by the way.

Its not a conspiracy theory that the west did nothing in Rwanda while 1 000 000 were slaughtered, or that they have supported the Indonesian and Turkish governments while they massacred their own people. Are you really suggesting that we solve all of the problems around the world?

Surely you have to concede that the inconsistency requires some explanation. Especially considering human rights is the reason so often given for foreign intervention. Again we can’t solve all of the problems. The examples only prove you wrong. Oil is not the only reason we will go to war.

Well Scot Ritter was chief weapons inspector in Iraq for 7 years, so his testimony is valuable. Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary. Well he sure got it wrong didn't he. I think little of his testimony. The report the Iraqis gave us is stark testimony to how wrong he was. Look there is no need for them to obfuscate unless they have the weapons.

And its my understanding that these are empty warheads. Not exactly an earth shattering find. Could well be some rubbish left over from the gulf war. No-one is sure yet, so its wrong of you to use this as evidence of Ritters incompetence. They assured us that they did not have them. They did. Like I said in another post, I wonder what else this guy lies about. And this was how important? We found them, did he even make the effort? Come on, I can’t believe that you are defending this.

Even if this find does put Saddam in breach of resolution 1441, it still has to be argued this is justification for attack.
This war could cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Is 12 empty warheads justification for such barbarism? You are being ridiculous. How many times must I lay out the facts. Invaded his neighbors, killed thousands of innocent lives, attacked Israel, waged a scorched earth policy, broke every UN resolution, and lied time and time again. Yes, it is enough. The time has long since passed.

Yes Saddam is a dangerous and depraved man, but i honestly don’t think he is any worse than half of the governments of the world. The Turkish governments has massacred thousands of Kurds. The Indonesian government has carried out Pol Pot type massacres in East Timor. The Kuwaiti and Saudi governments have woeful human rights records. The list goes on and on. He is the most dangerous to us at the moment. We can't solve all of the problems at once so we will start with him.

He wouldnt have to necessarily admit it. Evidence is required though. You give me chills. So Saddam could get away with detonating a bomb in Manhattan.

Other countries could use similar justifications to begin wars. India could certainly attack Pakistan under the same pretext. Turkey could attack Greece. China could attack Taiwan. Sorry, none of those even come close to matching a country that invaded its neighbor, was forced out, waged a scorched earth policy, surrendered, and broke its agreement and every UN resolution. It doesn't wash.

The US is not exempt from international standards of law. No one said that we were.

Again , no more dangerous than dozens of other leaders, and since he is completely toothless, far less so. Are you nuts? This is a man who said that he did not have biological weapons and after years of searching we found them. He has the motive and the means and you take his word of George Bush. ?????

Anyway, it could easily be argued that these are reasons for not going to war, for if he does have the capability to launch strikes against Israel or detonate a nuclear device in downtown Manhattan there is no surer way of making him do it than launching an attack. BS, it's the best way.

They are co-operating with the US because they fear losing the handouts which keep them in power. The Arab nations have no fear of Saddam. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia know they are under US protection and Saddam doesn’t have anything like the might needed to threaten Iran. That is flat out wrong.

And i have seen no statement by any Arab country regarding their fear of Saddam. Well according to the news 60 minutes and the other programs the Moslem world does very much fear Saddam. The idea that they don't is really rather silly. He fought Iran and invaded Kuwait. I will search for more evidence tomorrow but the whole notion is just stupid. And the Iranians think that we are going to invade them? Under what pretext? Saddam has proven that he will invade without provocation. It is not true of the US and if we go in there it will because Saddam did not live up to his end of the bargain.

One more thing and this not a slam against you but could you please run your text through a spell checker? There is a great one at www.spellcheck.com. I’m no great speller either. It’s just that I spend allot of time skipping over your words when I am spell checking my responses to you. Sorry, it’s just getting annoying.

Thanks again

RandFan

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by RandFan
I really appreciate your responses. I think that they are thought out and you are obviously firm in your convictions. I look forward to further discussion.

Thank you, your responses are appreciated also. You are forthright and honest in your point of view, which naturally I respect.

You simply don't know what you are talking about. We have the authority. We always have had since we agreed to stop firing and negotiated a surrendor.

Can you please post a link to or excerpts from the agreement from which you say the United States extracts her authority to attack Iraq. Iraq and the US have no surrender agreement or formal treaty. The only agreement Iraq has which is relevant to the current situation is with the United Nations. Only the United Nations can decide if Iraq is in breech, and only the United Nations can decide on an appropriate course of action.
For the US to “go it alone” and attack Iraq without UN approval is a clear breach of the United Nations charter.

You keep re-iterating the point of view that because the US was on the winning side in the gulf war they have the right to attack when they decide Saddam is in breech. This is clearly fallacious, as the gulf war was carried out under the auspices of the UN and Iraq’s surrender is formalised by UN resolutions, it has to be the UN which makes decisions regarding Iraq. No one member state has the right to attack on behalf of the UN, any attack must be decided on by the organisation as a whole.

There is really nothing to argue here, the argument that the US has a legal right to attack Iraq in the event of Iraq being in breech is refuted by the facts.

Sorry, you are making assumptions about things you don't know anything about. We negotiated the surrender of the Iraqis and we have the right to enforce the no fly zones.

If you are aware of an agreement which allows the UK and US to take control of one third of Iraqi airspace then you should post a reference to it. If not you have no choice but to agree that both countries are in full breech of international law.
There are plenty of resources detailing the illegality of no fly zones, for example: here (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp), here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1175950.stm) and here (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/flyindex.htm)


You fail to grasp that Iraq has never honored its agreement. They have been in breech from day one. They have broken every resolution and we are with in our right.

That Iraq has been in defiance of UN resolutions several times over the past 12 years is not in doubt. Again you provide no argument to back up your assertion that it is a US right to attack Iraq in event of Iraqi breech of UN resolutions. As I have shown above trying to make such an argument with reference to any agreement or treaty does not wash because no such agreement or treaty exists.

Your argument is irrelevant. German declared war on the US after we declared war on Japan, so what? Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The fact that we were trading with Iraq is totally irrelevant as irrelevant as trading with Germany. And I have news for you we did sell materials and weapons to Germany. Are you sure you want to stay with that one.

The comparisons with Hitler don’t stand up to scrutiny. The allied powers did profit from Hitler’s rise, the rebuilding of his economy and the strengthening of his military, just as they did with Saddam. There are important differences. The west did not sell weapons technology to Germany then use German possession of those weapons as justification for an attack, as the US and UK are doing now. The reasons for war with Germany are completely different from the justifications for this war. We are using capabilities which Hussein would not possess but for our enabling them as our justification. This is arrant hypocrisy, pure and simple.

We have the right to protect ourselves. We have worked with the UN. Which we set up by the way. .

You do have the right to protect yourself. Under the UN charter you have the right to protect yourself in the event of an attack. You have no right to protect yourself in the event of unlikely theoretical possibilities.

Are you really suggesting that we solve all of the problems around the world?.

Nope, just that the West should show a little consistency.

You are being ridiculous. How many times must I lay out the facts. Invaded his neighbors, killed thousands of innocent lives, attacked Israel, waged a scorched earth policy, broke every UN resolution, and lied time and time again. Yes, it is enough. The time has long since passed.

Sorry, none of those even come close to matching a country that invaded its neighbor, was forced out, waged a scorched earth policy, surrendered, and broke its agreement and every UN resolution. It doesn't wash.

Are you nuts? This is a man who said that he did not have biological weapons and after years of searching we found them. He has the motive and the means and you take his word of George Bush. ?????


Yes Saddam did fire scuds at Israel and waged a scorched earth policy - when he was at war. Which backs up my point that if he does have WOMD the surest way to get him to use them is by attacking him.

The idea that Saddam could, any time soon, launch missile strikes against Israel is, frankly, insane. He knows full well he would be crushed within days. He may well be brutal, but there is no evidence he is suicidal.

Besides think about what you are saying - that the US has the right to launch an attack on Iraq because it is theoretically possible that some day soon Iraq could launch missiles at Israel. This is nuts. If Israel is concerned for her own security then it is up to Israel to take appropriate action by approaching the UN. The US has no right to invade sovereign states on behalf of the supposed security of foreign countries. That’s a crazy notion.
The breaking of UN resolutions, as I have pointed out is a UN matter, the US has no authority here. Any action to be taken has to be decided on by the UN.

You give me chills. So Saddam could get away with detonating a bomb in Manhattan..

Sorry, I misread your point. I thought you meant in the event of Iraqi plans to detonate a nuclear advice. Of course action could be taken then.


Well according to the news 60 minutes and the other programs the Moslem world does very much fear Saddam. The idea that they don't is really rather silly. He fought Iran and invaded Kuwait. I will search for more evidence tomorrow but the whole notion is just stupid. And the Iranians think that we are going to invade them? Under what pretext? Saddam has proven that he will invade without provocation. It is not true of the US and if we go in there it will because Saddam did not live up to his end of the bargain...

I believe you’ll find it hard to amass evidence that there is any Arab fear of Iraq. You will find plenty of evidence of fear of the consequences of an American attack, but none which provides real facts to back up the assertion that Saddam’s neighbours are afraid of him. No Arab country has made appeals to the international community or the Arab league which I am aware of. You will find that fear of Saddam is strictly an American paranoia.

One more thing and this not a slam against you but could you please run your text through a spell checker? There is a great one at www.spellcheck.com. I’m no great speller either. It’s just that I spend allot of time skipping over your words when I am spell checking my responses to you. Sorry, it’s just getting annoying.

Heh. Fair enough. I reckon that could have something to do with my use of British spellings, but its no biggie, ill do it anyway. Hope you find this post more readable, although the spelling is still UK.

[Wolverine]

Iraq, Russia sign three oil accords (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75888,00.html)

[E.J.Armstrong]

RandFan,

Before I respond to your comments can I just check what your claims actually are?

Is it your claim that if the US govenment goes to war with Iraq that it will have nothing to do with the presence of large oil reserves in that country?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
RandFan,

Before I respond to your comments can I just check what your claims actually are?

Is it your claim that if the US govenment goes to war with Iraq that it will have nothing to do with the presence of large oil reserves in that country? Hi E.J.,

The topic of my thread was poorly worded as well as poorly spelled. What I should have asked was is this war a result of the fact that Bush has links with oil companies and his desire to get rich and enrich his buddies.

As to what I think the cause of the war and to answer your question specifically, this is a post from this thread a few posts back.

I hate to be cynical but yes, I can’t eliminate money as "a" motivation if even it is a minor one. This would put the oil links into perspective. And it would be stupid to assume that a politician did not have at least some political motive for an action as important as this one. And let's be honest, Bush himself raised the issue that Saddam had tried to kill his father. I know that George W. Bush sought the Texas Governors office because of what Ann Richards had said about his father during the presidential campaign. So I don't think that it is far fetched at all to say pay back could also play a part.

So what do we have? A dynamic composed of oil, money, politics, revenge and national security. Hell, you take out the national security angle and you have a great episode from the TV show Dallas. So yes, I do believe that oil is a factor but not the reason for the reasons I state in my original post.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by originalgagster
Can you please post a link to or excerpts from the agreement from which you say the United States extracts her authority to attack Iraq. Iraq and the US have no surrender agreement or formal treaty. The only agreement Iraq has which is relevant to the current situation is with the United Nations. Only the United Nations can decide if Iraq is in breech, and only the United Nations can decide on an appropriate course of action.
For the US to “go it alone” and attack Iraq without UN approval is a clear breach of the United Nations charter.

You keep re-iterating the point of view that because the US was on the winning side in the gulf war they have the right to attack when they decide Saddam is in breech. This is clearly fallacious, as the gulf war was carried out under the auspices of the UN and Iraq’s surrender is formalised by UN resolutions, it has to be the UN which makes decisions regarding Iraq. No one member state has the right to attack on behalf of the UN, any attack must be decided on by the organisation as a whole.

There is really nothing to argue here, the argument that the US has a legal right to attack Iraq in the event of Iraq being in breech is refuted by the facts. You may be right. We might not have specific rights outlined by the UN. I'm not going to take the time to look for a rebuttal. In the end I don't really care all of that much. I don't respect the UN. I think the US shuold work with the UN as best it can for diplomatic purposes. But in the end we must not sacrifice our security to please some body that does not have our best interests at heart. If we are in breech of international law then let the UN give sanctions. I know that such an attitude has caused problems and will cause problems in the future but we would place our selves at great risk to do otherwise. I realise that this obviates my constant refrain that Iraq has broken all of the UN resolutions. I will note my inconsistent position in future arguments.

If you are aware of an agreement which allows the UK and US to take control of one third of Iraqi airspace then you should post a reference to it. If not you have no choice but to agree that both countries are in full breech of international law.
There are plenty of resources detailing the illegality of no fly zones, for example: Interesting that we are criticized for not helping the Kurds after the Gulf war but then are criticized when we do. The Iraqis were massacring the Kurds and others. Our enforcement of the no fly zone stopped this. I'm happy to break international law for this.

That Iraq has been in defiance of UN resolutions several times over the past 12 years is not in doubt. Again you provide no argument to back up your assertion that it is a US right to attack Iraq in event of Iraqi breech of UN resolutions. As I have shown above trying to make such an argument with reference to any agreement or treaty does not wash because no such agreement or treaty exists. I think it does but I really don't care to make the effort to back it up. I will point out that I usually research my points and posts links. I have based my opinion on the lack of commentary from pundits and others on this issue so I very well could be wrong. I will not make it any more. I believe we have the right UN or not. Yes, I understand the implications of this. I realize that I am demonstrating the very attitude that has gotten us in trouble in the past. I am prepared as is our administration as was the previous (Clinton) to have that attitude because if we were to leave our security up to the UN we would suffer serious consequences.

The comparisons with Hitler don’t stand up to scrutiny. The allied powers did profit from Hitler’s rise, the rebuilding of his economy and the strengthening of his military, just as they did with Saddam. There are important differences. The west did not sell weapons technology to Germany then use German possession of those weapons as justification for an attack, as the US and UK are doing now. The reasons for war with Germany are completely different from the justifications for this war. We are using capabilities which Hussein would not possess but for our enabling them as our justification. This is arrant hypocrisy, pure and simple. I think your argument to be vapid. The fact that we sold anything including technology to Iraq is valid only if we did turn a blind eye to atrocities and I don't know that we did that. I'm sure that you will provide a link. I have some counter ones when you do. In any event we can and should provide weapons to allies and those that we believe could provide us with a strategic advantage in the world. Sometimes such actions will turn out bad as they did in Iraq. Those are the consequences we must take into account. But to say, hey we made a mistake and we can't rectify that mistake is simply fallacious.

You do have the right to protect yourself. Under the UN charter you have the right to protect yourself in the event of an attack. You have no right to protect yourself in the event of unlikely theoretical possibilities. [ I reject your characterization. Saddam has made his intentions quite clear. The burning of the oil wells left no doubt that he was angry at the US and wants retribution. I don't translate his actions to mean "unlikely". I find his past actions to and his current behavior (refusal to comply with the UN to disarm) to make it quite likely that he will do as I have suggested.

Nope, just that the West should show a little consistency. I'm sorry that you won't give us any credit for Kosovo or Somalia. We are told by many that we can't be the world police. Most admit that we can't do everything even you. How on earth can we show consistency? Could you give some idea how that can be accomplished?

Yes Saddam did fire scuds at Israel and waged a scorched earth policy - when he was at war. Which backs up my point that if he does have WOMD the surest way to get him to use them is by attacking him. He engaged in a scorched earth policy while in retreat.

The idea that Saddam could, any time soon, launch missile strikes against Israel is, frankly, insane. He knows full well he would be crushed within days. He may well be brutal, but there is no evidence he is suicidal. I strongly disagree. It has only been the presence of the US that has kept him contained. A presence you say is illegal. Hmmm

Besides think about what you are saying - that the US has the right to launch an attack on Iraq because it is theoretically possible that some day soon Iraq could launch missiles at Israel. This is nuts. If Israel is concerned for her own security then it is up to Israel to take appropriate action by approaching the UN. The US has no right to invade sovereign states on behalf of the supposed security of foreign countries. That’s a crazy notion. Approach the UN? Yeah, the UN really cares about Israel. I suggest you do some research on that little point. Israel knows that the UN will not help her in times of crisis. It has almost always sided against her. There are far too many nations that routinely vote against her and few very few that vote for her. You make a very import and salient point. The UN simply can't guarantee the safety of any nation. It is valid only as a peripheral body to prevent certain hostilities and mediate disputes. If someone launches an attack against Israel, the best Israel can hope for is that action to be condemned. I can assure you that Israel garners no security from the UN for very good reasons.

The breaking of UN resolutions, as I have pointed out is a UN matter, the US has no authority here. Any action to be taken has to be decided on by the UN. I disagree. We should try to work with the UN. But it simply not possible to expect that the UN can always provide justice or safety.

Sorry, I misread your point. I thought you meant in the event of Iraqi plans to detonate a nuclear advice. Of course action could be taken then. Boy talking about closing the door after the horses got out.

I believe you’ll find it hard to amass evidence that there is any Arab fear of Iraq. You will find plenty of evidence of fear of the consequences of an American attack, but none which provides real facts to back up the assertion that Saddam’s neighbours are afraid of him. No Arab country has made appeals to the international community or the Arab league which I am aware of. You will find that fear of Saddam is strictly an American paranoia. I have seen the news reports of Arab fear of Saddam. That is plenty for me. Believe what you want. And anyone who is not in fear of a neighbor who has invaded another, has used chemical weapons indiscriminately, is stupid. I don’t think that they are that stupid. I don't buy your argument at all.

Thanks again,

RandFan

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Boy talking about closing the door after the horses got out.

I have seen the news reports of Arab fear of Saddam. That is plenty for me. Believe what you want. And anyone who is not in fear of a neighbor who has invaded another, has used chemical weapons indiscriminately, is stupid. I don’t think that they are that stupid. I don't buy your argument at all.

Thanks again,

RandFan
The United States has used nuclear weapons against an enemy. The United States has attacked its neighbors in Latin America (many times). The United States has attacked Vietnam, Cambodia, Bosnia, Serbia and Korea by involving itself in others' civil wars. Have you seen the news reports of Arab fear of the US? It exists. Shouldn't the international community impose sanctions on the US and demand that it give up its WMD?

Edited to add: Oh, and compared to the United States' treatment of the American Indians and Afro-Americans, Saddam's treatment of the Kurds has been gentle.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Oh, and compared to the United States' treatment of the American Indians and Afro-Americans, Saddam's treatment of the Kurds has been gentle.

I beg to differ: While America's treatment of Indigenous Americans, and Americans of African Ancestry has been egregious, extermination, for the most part, was not the goal. (This in spite of a certain U.S. Senator's remark that the "Only good Indian is a dead Indian," and the actions of the Eugenicists.)

Hussein's goal is the wholesale extermination of the Kurds, as demonstrated by his actions. He is not interested in any form of co-existence with the Kurds, he wants them dead. This would be called "genocide" in another day and age, though the term has been sanitized to "ethnic cleansing."

I'm in agreement with you, though, Wayne, when it comes to our foreign policy. We're sitting around wondering why we lack friends, when our actions have shown us to be short sighted, selfish, and crude at best. Dangerous business, when you get right down to it. We've been ill served by people like Henry Kissinger, or Madeline Albright.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The United States has used nuclear weapons against an enemy. The United States has attacked its neighbors in Latin America (many times). The United States has attacked Vietnam, Cambodia, Bosnia, Serbia and Korea by involving itself in others' civil wars. Have you seen the news reports of Arab fear of the US? It exists. Shouldn't the international community impose sanctions on the US and demand that it give up its WMD?

Edited to add: Oh, and compared to the United States' treatment of the American Indians and Afro-Americans, Saddam's treatment of the Kurds has been gentle.

Wayne,

We all know that US use of nukes against Japan was justified. Apparently you haven't read history. Did you know that the Japanese high command was warned that the bomb would be dropped? They ignored it as propaganda. After the US bombed Hiroshima the Japanese were again advised to surrender or be bombed again. Guess what? Even after the confirmed horror and great death in Hiroshima they refused. Only after Nagasaki was hit, and with a promise by the US that the next one would come down on Tokyo did they surrender. (BTW, there was no next one...the US only had two)

Your entire post is a non-sequitur. You are even misunderstanding the reason for the UN sanctions and banning of Iraqi WMD. These were things the Iraqi's were forced to accept in order for the cease fire to take affect. The first instance of non-compliance should have forced the immediate resumption of hostilities.

Saddam personally ordered the use of chemical weapons on two Kurdish villages, Dojaila and Hallabja. In Hallabja alone more than 5,000 Kurdish people....civilians...women and children, old men, etc died horribly from mustard and nerve agents. We have all seen the pictures. The towns were targeted on purpose to break the Kurds support for autonomy. Now please tell me again how gentle Saddam was to these people. Please remember past American actions whether good or bad have no bearing at all on the rightness or wrongness of the Iraqi regime's actions.

-zilla

(Gee Wayne...I thought you were going to do some constructive reading on this subject??)

[Shane Costello]

Just a thought.

Is there any Western nation that has followed a thouroughly virtuous foreign policy path in it's recent history? Can foreign policy be anything other than "enlightened self interest"? If not, then how enlightened has America's self interest been in comparison with some of it's critics in Europe, for instance?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
The United States has used nuclear weapons against an enemy. And demonstrated our restraint by not creating an empire the way that the Soviet Union did. Yours is a bankrupt argument. When the United States used the Atomic bomb there was no precedent for such a device. The ramifications of its use had not been discussed and debated in an international forum. It is quite appropriate to question the United States decision to use that device. It is fallacious to suggest that having used the device we are unable to take action to prevent others from using the device against us.

The United States has attacked its neighbors in Latin America (many times). Could you clarify this? It's rare I see something so out of left field.

The United States has attacked Vietnam, ... Communist North Korea was attacking the sovereign nation of South Vietnam. Your characterization is misleading and dishonest if you know the history of Vietnam.

...Cambodia, ... The government of Cambodia allowed the North Vietnamese to use its country for transporting munitions and safe harbor. In hindsight, it is obvious that bombing Cambodia was a tactical and strategic mistake. I have questions as to the morality of such a move. However Cambodia was not some innocent nation that we attacked. Again your characterization is misleading and intellectually dishonest.

...Bosnia, Serbia... You will need to clarify before I can respond. Why do you say we "attacked" Bosnia and Serbia?

...and Korea by involving itself in others' civil wars. Again your characterization is wrong. The communist North Koreans were invading the sovereign Nation of South Korea. Like the South Vietnamese the South Koreans were allies. They asked us for help. We would not have any credibility with our allies if we told them to go to hell. So we gave them aid. In this instance we kept many thousands of innocent people from being massacred and oppressed by communism. The net result is that we saved millions from starvation and oppression. I don't think Saddam is trying to help anyone out the way the US did in the examples that you cite.

Have you seen the news reports of Arab fear of the US? Only those who have been fed propaganda from self serving leaders. The leaders know that we would not invade without reasonable justification. We are nothing like Saddam. The president of the United States does not hold parties where he shoots people in the head. The president of the US does not massacre thousands of people indiscriminately. The US is stable and its actions deliberate and for cause. There simply is no reason to assume that the US would do what Saddam has done. The idea that we are worse or even the equivalant to Iraq is truly laughable. I understand why the leaders of other nations would feed this to their people what I don't understand how anyone on this forum can make such an accusation with a straight face.

It exists. Shouldn't the international community impose sanctions on the US and demand that it give up its WMD? In the years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki the United States has shown great restraint in not using Chemical and Biological weapons. The idea that we would now use them when we have a populace that can vote out leaders and that our populace took to the streets to end the Vietnam war makes such a proposal silly at best.

Edited to add: Oh, and compared to the United States' treatment of the American Indians and Afro-Americans, Saddam's treatment of the Kurds has been gentle. Fallacious! That we have committed atrocities in the past is not reason for inaction now. We have admitted to the wrongs of our past and have for some time taken steps to correct and punish those that would commit such atrocities. We have in place the means and the will to bring to justice those who would commit such atrocities. After the massacre at Mi Lai (sp) the United States codified rules of engagement that would increase the likelihood of conviction of soldiers and military leaders guilty of crimes against humanity.

I would like to note for the record that Iraq has no such protections. Saddam cannot be forced from office the way Nixon was. We do not use chemical weapons like Mustard Gas on innocent civilians. We have not done the kinds of things Saddam has. We are not perfect but again there is no evidence that we would invade a country like Saddam. You can keep arguing this line but it is quite pointless.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Your entire post is a non-sequitur.
No, it isn't. You fail to understand the point of it all. Iraq and Iran would argue that their use of chemical weapons was every bit as justified, if not more so, than the US's use of nuclear weapons (the only real "weapons of mass destruction") against Japan.

The point is that all of the arguments used to justify war with Iraq because Iraq is such a threat to the world can be used against the US and with much more credibility. It's funny how some will admit that the US did do bad things in the past, but that is not relevant now, yet the same argument does not apply to impoverished, humbled and greatly demilitarized Iraq. What new threat does Iraq pose? It is the US who is the aggressor. That is how the rest of the world sees it. The reason you can't is because you won't allow yourself to see it from anyone else's point of view. Lose the tunnel vision.

And I've yet to see (though maybe it's on a thread I haven't checked yet) any answer to my questions about whether Iraq would manufacture weapons or attack its neighbors or the US while inspectors are in Iraq.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

No, it isn't. You fail to understand the point of it all. Iraq and Iran would argue that their use of chemical weapons was every bit as justified, if not more so, than the US's use of nuclear weapons (the only real "weapons of mass destruction") against Japan.

The point is that all of the arguments used to justify war with Iraq because Iraq is such a threat to the world can be used against the US and with much more credibility. It's funny how some will admit that the US did do bad things in the past, but that is not relevant now, yet the same argument does not apply to impoverished, humbled and greatly demilitarized Iraq. What new threat does Iraq pose? It is the US who is the aggressor. That is how the rest of the world sees it. The reason you can't is because you won't allow yourself to see it from anyone else's point of view. Lose the tunnel vision.

And I've yet to see (though maybe it's on a thread I haven't checked yet) any answer to my questions about whether Iraq would manufacture weapons or attack its neighbors or the US while inspectors are in Iraq.

Wayne,

You have one hell of a set of blinders on. Please advise me where you get your information from. I'd like to check out your sources. You call Iraq "greatly demilitarized"...what does this mean? From where do you get this idea?

About inspections and Saddam's WMD making capacity...do you propose UNSCOM inspectors stay there forever? That is,..IF,..as you say he can't make the stuff while UNSCOM is present. Please go read Ritter's "Endgame" It details Iraq's apparatus of concealment. Also why do you characterize the nuke as the only "real" WMD?? It may make a bigger mess of structures...but other WMD's still will kill thousands just as dead.

...and why on Earth do you keep bringing up America's so called "crimes" of the past??? Let's just give you the argument. America is now the "Great Satan" of the world. How does this exhonorate Iraqi crimes???

-zilla

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
And demonstrated our restraint by not creating an empire the way that the Soviet Union did.
Try telling that to the people of Okinawa or the Phillipines. True, we did eventually let the Phillipines go, just as the USSR relinquished Eastern Europe. We've yet to genuinely relinquish Okinawa, even though the Cold War ended over a decade ago.

When we gave Japan its "independence," we made sure to keep control of it. The government of Japan is a puppet of the US, controlled by the CIA, and not respected by its own people. The same political party has been in charge continually for almost 50 years. When a new prime minister is selected, the first thing he does is dutifully hop on a plane and report to Washington. The real government of Japan is its bureacracy. It directs the economy with Japan's own twist on capitalism.

Our empire consists of hundreds of military installations around the world. We ringed the Soviet Union with bases "stretching from Korea and Japan through Taiwan, the Phillipnes, Thailand, and Australia to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany, England and Iceland." (Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, Chalmers Johnson (2000), page 36, a book that you should read.) More than a decade after the Cold War, we still have hundreds of bases and hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in foreign countries. Why? Why do we have them in Europe? And now we are building yet more bases in the former Soviet Republics of Asia (all the "-istans") to further envelope Russia. The excuse now is the war on terror.

(Edited to add: The Monroe Doctrine asserted our dominion over the Western Hemisphere. The Bush Doctrine asserts our dominion over the world.)

Originally posted by RandFan
Could you clarify this? It's rare I see something so out of left field.
It's rare that I encounter someone who has never heard the expression "gunboat diplomacy." Are you that ignorant of American history, or did you just forget?

(Edited to add: I apologize for using the word "ignorant," RandFan. I do not consider you to be an ignorant person. In fact, I respect your intelligence. However, I got a bit frustrated, especially after having to put up with a particularly obnoxious post by a "Doctor X" on anther thread.)

Originally posted by RandFan
Communist North Korea was attacking the sovereign nation of South Vietnam. Your characterization is misleading and dishonest if you know the history of Vietnam.
If you knew the history of Vietnam, you'd know that Ho's movement was one of national liberation and that the majority of South Vietnamese wanted to unify under Ho. The US decided that the Vietnamese were not entitled to the right of self-determination. They proved what ignorant asses we were.

Originally posted by RandFan
The government of Cambodia allowed the North Vietnamese to use its country for transporting munitions and safe harbor. In hindsight, it is obvious that bombing Cambodia was a tactical and strategic mistake. I have questions as to the morality of such a move. However Cambodia was not some innocent nation that we attacked. Again your characterization is misleading and intellectually dishonest.
Then why did you just justify it?

Originally posted by RandFan
You will need to clarify before I can respond. Why do you say we "attacked" Bosnia and Serbia?
We bombed them. Look it up.

Originally posted by RandFan
Again your characterization is wrong. The communist North Koreans were invading the sovereign Nation of South Korea.
My characterization was that it, like the Vietnam war, was a civil war. And that is exactly right. The US also attacked the sovereign nation of the Confederate States of America. Thanks for reminding me.

Originally posted by RandFan
Only those who have been fed propaganda from self serving leaders. The leaders know that we would not invade without reasonable justification. We are nothing like Saddam.
No, we are much more like the Soviet Union in our foreign policy, except that our imperialism has been much more successful and is much more ambitious. You need to see through the "my country right or wrong, and it's never wrong" propaganda. Maybe you think it is naive to believe that politics is about favoritism, special interests and making money, but try considering it.

Originally posted by RandFan
You can keep arguing this line but it is quite pointless.
I sense that, but not because I'm not making valid points.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The United States has used nuclear weapons against an enemy. The United States has attacked its neighbors in Latin America (many times). The United States has attacked Vietnam, Cambodia, Bosnia, Serbia and Korea by involving itself in others' civil wars. Have you seen the news reports of Arab fear of the US? It exists. Shouldn't the international community impose sanctions on the US and demand that it give up its WMD?


(1.) There was that little incident in 1941 called Pearl Harbor. America was attacked. America had a moral responsibility to ensure that not only America was never attacked by this enemy again, but also that no one else ever faced an attack by this enemy again. The goal was to break the enemy's will to fight, and therefore save more lives. (BTW: Rik, according to the book Enola Gay , there was another pair of atomic bombs of the Fat Man variety already being loaded for delivery when Japan surrendered. I could be wrong about this, though.)

(2.) America last attacked a Latin American enemy back during the Spanish American War. After that, we provided support to Cuban rebels in the Bay of Pigs, (a stupid move on our part, and on theirs; what were they thinking in the Kennedy Administration?), and have provided support to groups like the Contras. We also supported the regimes of Pinochet and his ilk, which made us no friends. We did not directly attack anyone in Latin America.

(3.) We did not attack North Vietnam. We were drawn into that stupid conflict by the actions of the French, (who then proceeded to criticize and ridicule us, as if they had a leg to stand on), and further drawn in by Eisenhower's insistence that we follow the doctine outlined by his Vice President, Richard Nixon. This was then followed by Robert McNamara's insistence that we become more active in Southeast Asia, through Kennedy's shortened term, and Johnson's. (Yeah, and they said about Goldwater, "In your guts, you know he's nuts." Take a look at what really happened, and you tell me who was nuts...)

(4.) In Bosnia and Serbia, our presence was requested by the UN and the victims of Ethnic Cleansing. Margaret Thatcher even criticized the West for its lack of action against thugs like Milosevic. Our goal there was not to fight, but to put up a buffer between those who were fighting. Ditto for Somalia, to insure people were able to eat, except the UN didn't want us to do anything that might piss off Mohammed Idid.

(5.) Korea was the first "police action," demanded by the UN, because the North attacked the South. Further, the North was backed by both the Soviet Union and Communist China. Once the US pushed the North Korean troops up above the 38th Parallel, China entered the war in force. What were we supposed to do? Allow the South Koreans to suffer the same fate as any other nation we'd seen overrun by the Communists?

(6.) No, I haven't seen any reports of Arab fear of the US. I have, on the other hand, seen a great many reports of Arab sympathisers for Hussein, primarily among Shi'ites, a group that Hussein has been systematically exterminating in Iraq. Go fig.

(7.) The US has been trying to eliminate its WMDs, unlike many other nations. The US is one of the few nations with that capability. My father worked for the US Army Corps of Engineers, and frequently made trips to locations where the dismantling of WMDs took place, including the destruction of nerve gas, and other chemical and biological agents. Your argument falters here. We are ahead of the curve so to speak.

Sorry...

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

...yet the same argument does not apply to impoverished, humbled and greatly demilitarized Iraq.


Greatly demilitarized?

That is a fantasy you have. See the link:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground.htm

24 divisions are present in Iraq. (That total combines the army and republican guard.)

About the best way to describe the Iraqi military is crippled. That is due to their lack of an effective air force. 24 division would still be plenty to knock over a Saudi Arabia and Kuwait unless they have help.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Doubt


Greatly demilitarized?

Sorry, that was not the right word. I meant "disarmed." Huge stockpiles of weapons were destroyed in the 90's. Thank you for allowing me to make that clarification.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Roadtoad

[Abbreviated]

(1.) There was that little incident in 1941 called Pearl Harbor.

(2.) America last attacked a Latin American enemy back during the Spanish American War.

(3.) We did not attack North Vietnam. We were drawn into that stupid conflict by the actions of the French,

(4.) In Bosnia and Serbia, our presence was requested by the UN and the victims of Ethnic Cleansing.

(5.) Korea was the first "police action," demanded by the UN, because the North attacked the South. Further, the North was backed by both the Soviet Union and Communist China. Once the US pushed the North Korean troops up above the 38th Parallel, China entered the war in force. What were we supposed to do? Allow the South Koreans to suffer the same fate as any other nation we'd seen overrun by the Communists?

(6.) No, I haven't seen any reports of Arab fear of the US.

(7.) The US has been trying to eliminate its WMDs, unlike many other nations. The US is one of the few nations with that capability. My father worked for the US Army Corps of Engineers, and frequently made trips to locations where the dismantling of WMDs took place, including the destruction of nerve gas, and other chemical and biological agents. Your argument falters here. We are ahead of the curve so to speak.

Sorry...
Roadtoad, my friend, I'll comment briefly on each of your points, then explain why I posted what I did.

1) Oh, so now you are trying to use a fictional movie starring Ben Afleck as "evidence?" (Just kidding.) I don't wish to debate the issue of whether bombing Japan with nukes was justified. The point is that the US used them in a war, just as Iraq and Iran used chemical weapons (hardly the WMD that nukes are) in a war. However, the US threatened to use nukes on Iraq if Iraq used chemical or biological agents against our troops in the Gulf War. The current Bush administration is considering using nukes in the Middle East for such purposes as bunker busting. So should the US be trusted with nukes anymore than Iraq who does not have them?

2) Please do a Google search on "United States intervention history" and similar terms. There have been dozens of cases of gunboat diplomacy in Latin America over the last 100 or so years.

3) Like we had no choice? You know better than that.

4) You are right about that. However, the bombing campaign was another matter.

5) Was not the US the force that pushed the issue in the UN? Why did we cross over the 38th Parallel? Wasn't that a stupid move? The result was a divided Korea.

6) Do you doubt that it exists? Browse and notice the first item. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Arab+fear+United+States&btnG=Google+Search)

7) We have an incredibly huge arsenal of WMD. We could destroy the world several times over. Cutting back is no big deal, is it? And we should. However, it is my hunch that our treatment of Iraq, especially in comparison to our treatment of North Korea, will do more to inspire nuclear proliferation than anything in the last 50 years. Would you suspect that Iran (on the axis of evil hit list) might be working overtime on its nuclear program?

My point is that all of the reasons people site for war against Iraq are arguments that could be used for war against the US.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Sorry, that was not the right word. I meant "disarmed." Huge stockpiles of weapons were destroyed in the 90's. Thank you for allowing me to make that clarification.

Disarmed would still be wrong.

2,200 tanks is a long way from disarmed.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Doubt


Disarmed would still be wrong.

2,200 tanks is a long way from disarmed.
Let's not waste our energy quibbling. I stated what I meant. Iraq also still has guns.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla

About inspections and Saddam's WMD making capacity...do you propose UNSCOM inspectors stay there forever?
Rik, I missed this post earlier. Will Saddam live forever? What about the trustworthiness of whoever replaces him? Would our troops have to stay there forever?

We've heard Bush say that if Iraq disarms, that would constitute "regime change." Well, why the impatience to go to war while the threat is effectively neutralized?

I have addressed your other questions in other posts, such as to Doubt and Roadtoad.

Edited to add: Rik, I thought that this article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_209) might interest you.
Top U.N. officials said Baghdad disclosed it found four more empty chemical warheads like a dozen others discovered last week, and said there had been "some progress" Sunday in talks to win greater Iraqi cooperation with arms inspectors.
Is this evidence that the inspections are working? What about this:
"The Iraqis claimed it was an oversight and they are looking for more of them. In fact, they said they found four more of them and they might find even further in the future."

[RandFan]

Hey Wayne,

It's easy to get frustrated when you think that the other person should "get" what it is that we are trying to say. We all think that we are right. It comes from ego (for instance I hope I'm not being patronizing). In any event, let's avoid ad hominem and respect each other. If and when I think you make a valid point I will acknowledge it. Let's remember that reasonable people can disagree.

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Try telling that to the people of Okinawa or the Philippines. True, we did eventually let the Philippines go, just as the USSR relinquished Eastern Europe. We've yet to genuinely relinquish Okinawa, even though the Cold War ended over a decade ago. There is no comparison at all. The Philippines have always ruled themselves. We had a close relationship but when we have been at odds we did not send in tanks and troops as the Soviets did in Hungary. I just can't believe accept this argument. Those in the Soviet Union could not travel without permission or speak against the leadership of the Soviet Union with out fear of imprisonment or even death.

Tell me, who in the Philippines did we put to death? Send to prison camp, who did we refuse visas?

When we gave Japan its "independence," we made sure to keep control of it. The government of Japan is a puppet of the US, controlled by the CIA, and not respected by its own people. The same political party has been in charge continually for almost 50 years. When a new prime minister is selected, the first thing he does is dutifully hop on a plane and report to Washington. The real government of Japan is its bureaucracy. It directs the economy with Japan's own twist on capitalism. The problem I have with this argument is that while an ally and while they have worked with us more than many other countries, there are many things that they have done that we didn’t and don't want them to do. They refuse to stop protecting there rice and beef markets. They would not intervene to stop the slide of the dollar to the Yen in the 80s. It is easier for the Japanese to own American businesses than the other way around. It would seem that if they were truly our puppets we would always get our way.

Our empire consists of hundreds of military installations around the world. We ringed the Soviet Union with bases "stretching from Korea and Japan through Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany, England and Iceland." We don't collect taxes; we don't keep capitals or leaders in these nations. This just can't justify calling us an empire. Bases don't an empire make. If and when we tell the Saudis that their women can vote and have freedom while at the same time not put up with their demands of telling American women what they must do, or when we tell the Philippines that they can't suspend our lease for our base, etc., etc. There are so many examples to show why bases don't make an empire.


(Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, Chalmers Johnson (2000), page 36, a book that you should read.) More than a decade after the Cold War, we still have hundreds of bases and hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in foreign countries. Why? Why do we have them in Europe? What an idiotic question (not you, Johnson) How anyone could know the history of two (not one) two world wars in a single century and be unable to answer that question is breathtaking. Just because someone writes a book does not inoculate them from stupidity. I can't even begin to imagine reading such a book that can't even begin to comprehend the danger that is present in the world.

And now we are building yet more bases in the former Soviet Republics of Asia (all the "-istans") to further envelope Russia. The excuse now is the war on terror. See above and add 3,000 dead in one morning. We are in danger; we must act to protect ourselves.

(Edited to add: The Monroe Doctrine asserted our dominion over the Western Hemisphere. The Bush Doctrine asserts our dominion over the world.) Propaganda, no foundation.

It's rare that I encounter someone who has never heard the expression "gunboat diplomacy." Are you that ignorant of American history, or did you just forget? I understand "gunboat diplomacy" but I'm still going to have to ask you to clarify. You are making arguments that I think are without foundation. You are going to have to at least give me examples.

(Edited to add: I apologize for using the word "ignorant," RandFan. I do not consider you to be an ignorant person. In fact, I respect your intelligence. However, I got a bit frustrated, especially after having to put up with a particularly obnoxious post by a "Doctor X" on anther thread.) See above.


If you knew the history of Vietnam, you'd know that Ho's movement was one of national liberation and that the majority of South Vietnamese wanted to unify under Ho. The US decided that the Vietnamese were not entitled to the right of self-determination. They proved what ignorant asses we were. ????? I'm sorry but I find this very disappointing. Many in the south new that they could not survive a communist invasion. They new that they would be put to death. They knew that they would lose businesses and families would be torn apart.

The United States was asked to support the sovereign nation of South Vietnam. After years of war the American people tired of the war. Nixon negotiated a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese that the North promptly violated. And everything that those in the South feared came true. Many were massacred, families were destroyed and innocent people lost their way of life and all that they owned.

I reject completely that we were ignorant asses. Defending an ally is not wrong. Trying to protect people and there way of life was not wrong. Ho Chi Men did not have a right to invade a sovereign nation. His idea of unification did not give him the right to murder thousands, seize property and businesses. I really can't understand your attempt at justification for such a brutal oppression of a people.

Then why did you just justify it? I did not justify it. I explained why it is not as you characterized it.


We bombed them. Look it up. Ethnic cleansing and genocide were being committed I guess when a policeman sees a woman being raped and he stops the attacker you would characterize the action of the police as an "attack". I reject your characterization. You say that you were frustrated with someone else. I simply do not understand how you could say that Clinton and the United states "attacked" Bosnia?

My characterization was that it, like the Vietnam war, was a civil war. And that is exactly right. The US also attacked the sovereign nation of the Confederate States of America. Thanks for reminding me. You have it completely backward. The example would work better if you said that the Confederates attacked the Union. But it would still be wrong. Neither the North nor the Southern United States was a sovereign Nation. On the contrary Korea was split apart when the North became communist and invaded its neighbor to the south. Sorry but your example is poor, backwards and wrong.

No, we are much more like the Soviet Union in our foreign policy, except that our imperialism has been much more successful and is much more ambitious. You need to see through the "my country right or wrong, and it's never wrong" propaganda. Maybe you think it is naive to believe that politics is about favoritism, special interests and making money, but try considering it. I believe nothing of the sort. But comparing us to the Soviet Union is wrong headed. There is no justification to do any such thing. The Soviet Union would separate families, starve millions of foreigners because the wanted their lands, send dissidents from foreign lands under their control to the Gulags (hundreds of thousands), seize people in front of their children and send them to jail or shoot them on site. Can you show any activity on the part of the US that even approaches the brutality of the Soviet Union? Or for that matter the control? The nations that you mentioned earlier all did things that the United States did not want them to do. In the Soviet Union such a leader would be killed. Your argument simply does not stand up. The United States wields a lot of influence and rightfully so after World War II but we are not as you suggest.

I sense that, but not because I'm not making valid points. If I thought you had a made a valid point I would have said so. I have conceded much on these forums. But I can't equate the attempts of the US to influence the world with the brutal oppression of foreign dictators. It is as I said without any real foundation.

[Roadtoad]

Just as an FYI, when the Soviet Union fell, we immediately began removing our troops from European soil. In fact, (and I can say this with some authority), Frankfurt am Main was among the first to close up shop, with the American pull-out. I used to attend Frankfurt American High School, and FAHS closed up shop in 1995. Ditto much of US EUCOM. I don't even think we've got half the troops there than we had when I was in, (1980-83).

So much for an "Empire...":D

[shuize]

The Western Europeans say: Sure you saved us from Hilter and bankrolled our defense against the Soviet Union for fifty years. Not to mention keeping us all from starving with the Marshall plan. But what have you done for us lately, America?

The Japanese: You may have reformed our nation to allow for 50 years of peace and prosperity, given back Okinawa, and bankrolled our defense, too. But what have you done for us lately, America?

The South Koreans: We know you've come to our aid when the North invaded. Helped us fight off the Chinese who plunged into the war by the hundreds of thousands. But besides the 30,000 Americans still in our country prepared to stand with us should the North invade again, what have you done for us lately?

Saudi Arabia: 15 of 19 Saudi hijackers, who you can't really prove weren't jews in disguise, may have killed over 3000 Americans. And we know you were there in our time of need against Iraq. But, really, what have you done for us lately?

And the Left says: Don't you see? All those American bases ... It's obviously an Empire. America hasn't done anything for the world lately.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Let's not waste our energy quibbling. I stated what I meant. Iraq also still has guns.

Yes, lets not let little things like facts get in the way of a perfectly good opinion.
:rolleyes:

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Doubt


Yes, lets not let little things like facts get in the way of a perfectly good opinion.
:rolleyes:
Why have you decided to be an *******?

FACT: Iraq has been greatly disarmed. Huge stockpiles of weapons were destroyed by US bombing during the Gulf War and by inspection teams during the 90's.

So get off of my ass!

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hey Wayne,

It's easy to get frustrated when you think that the other person should "get" what it is that we are trying to say. We all think that we are right. It comes from ego (for instance I hope I'm not being patronizing). In any event, let's avoid ad hominem and respect each other. If and when I think you make a valid point I will acknowledge it. Let's remember that reasonable people can disagree.


Reasonable people are not a problem, but some people go out of their way to pick a fight. (For the latest example, someone calling him/herself "Doubt.")

I don't have the time to go into a debate on the world history of the 20th Century, but I stand by my statements. As far as "empire" goes, it is a term that is becoming used more and more to describe US foreign policy. It isn't just me. It certainly isn't just "people on the left." (Unless you consider Pat Buchanan and Libertarians leftists, for example. Chalmers Johnson, who wrote that book I referenced, is moderately conservative. It's refreshing to see in his book, criticism of Clinton that is spot-on based on policy and not on partisan venom.)

In this analysis "Visions of Empire or Delusion?" (http://metimes.com/2K3/issue2003-3/opin/visions_of_empire.htm) written by a UPI senior news analyst, you may get a clue about what I've been trying to bring to your attention.

_
Can the United States remake the Arab Middle East in its own cheerfully optimistic and (small 'd') democratic image? As John Judis reports in an important article in the January 20 issue of the New Republic, the key Pentagon and other planners driving policy in the Bush administration certainly think so.

Judis expressly identifies "Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board (chaired by Richard Perle), Undersecretary of State John Bolton" and their allies as pushing a Middle East policy vastly more ambitious than "only" toppling President Saddam Hussein of Iraq. "The hawkish argument," he continues is ... that Iraqi oil resources should be used to remake the Middle East in our democratic, capitalist image by leveraging expanded Iraqi oil production to undermine Saudi dominance in the region."

Judis went on to report – on the basis of conversations with senior administration officials - that "other neo-conservatives, including Wolfowitz, share a similar outlook."

In short, the Wolfowitz-neo-conservatives strategy Judis concludes, envisages an "imagined chain of events – beginning with Saddam's ouster and concluding with the transition to a democratic, free-market Mideast."

It seems ironic that the enthusiasts for this sweepingly visionary strategy should describe themselves as, and be regarded as "neo-conservatives".

But what is being envisaged is American Empire – and an empire half a world away with scores of millions of Arab Muslims who in their expressed public sentiments are inimically hostile to having American power, and political and cultural values imposed upon them.

(snip)

The radical Islamists preaching jihad against the "Great Satan" of the United States obviously are the latest example of those utopian mass movements generating the violence and suffering that Berlin was describing.

But the equally sweeping neo-conservative vision of sweeping them all away by imposing the panacea of American-style democracy on the Middle East instead would certainly have been regarded by Berlin as equally utopian – and dangerous. As Ignatieff concluded, "only a very deluded imperialist would believe otherwise".

[Wayne Grabert]

Salon interviews a Georgetown University professor of international relations who wrote a book. (http://www.salon.com/books/int/2002/12/02/kupchan/)
As far as the nature of our empire, I'd say the British probably comes closer to ours. The Roman empire was more contiguous. We have a more far-flung empire that relies on offshore balancing, which is what the Brits did: Send troops abroad but more to keep the balance than to occupy. You could almost call it Empire Lite. That's more or less how we run the show. One of the benefits of that is that Empire Lite is cheaper and it also provokes less resistance.

But one of the real dangers that we face at the moment is that Empire Lite might become Empire Heavy and rather than reassure others, we'll alienate them. Rather than appear as a benign hegemon, we appear predatory. We appear to lose our legitimacy as a great power, which is probably our most precious commodity. If that happens, then all bets are off. Then you really see countries run for cover and join arms against the United States.

Could that scenario speed up this whole process of the decline of the American era?

It depends on how it goes. If the war goes smoothly and Saddam falls and all goes well and there aren't chemical weapons exploding in Tel Aviv, I think it will probably turn out OK and not change the landscape all that much. If anything, it will fuel the neoconservative view.

If it goes poorly ... I think the war will go smoothly actually. What I really worry about is the occupation. You ought to see a therapist if you want to occupy Iraq. It's just the last place I would want to set up shop. The whole region is deeply anti-American. They'll probably be dancing in the streets for 24 to 48 hours and then they'll take up sniper positions. That's where I think things could go wrong with barracks exploding, etc. If that were to happen, at the end of the day it would cause us to pull in our horns and cause Americans to say, "What have we gotten ourselves into?"

I'm not going to debate his opinions. I'm just putting it out for your consideration.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I don't have the time to go into a debate on the world history of the 20th Century, but I stand by my statements. As far as "empire" goes, it is a term that is becoming used more and more to describe US foreign policy. It isn't just me. It certainly isn't just "people on the left." (Unless you consider Pat Buchanan and Libertarians leftists, for example. Chalmers Johnson, who wrote that book I referenced, is moderately conservative. It's refreshing to see in his book, criticism of Clinton that is spot-on based on policy and not on partisan venom.) That more and more people are using the term empire to describe the United States is irrelevant and Fallacious. The number, large or small that believes in something is not an indication as to the validity of that "thing". It's an appeal to the Gallery. The only time that I think such an argument is valid is if a majority of experts in a given field accept a proposition.

Interesting how criticism is not partisan venom if it aligns with your point of view. I'm sorry, but while not an expert I have studied history of the 20th Century and would say that anyone Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Democrat or Republican who characterized the United States as imperial is using it as a rhetorical device.

And let me be clear, I stand by my statements also.

But what is being envisaged is American Empire – and an empire half a world away with scores of millions of Arab Muslims who in their expressed public sentiments are inimically hostile to having American power, and political and cultural values imposed upon them. Thank you for taking the time to post the excerpt. It is most telling. Preceding the noted paragraph is an argument atributed to "neo-conservatives" that democracy can be brought to the Mid-East by using Iraqi oil.

Let's get something out on the table right now. I don't want there to be any confusion between us at all in our discussion. Representative Democracy underpinned by Capitalism with some forms of regulation and socialism (emphasis on some) is in my opinion, demonstrably the best form of combined government and economic system in the world. While it is not perfect (no economic or political system is) it provides the most opportunity and least suffering to the most people possible. Yes we can debate the degree of regulation and socialism (being libertarian I like less, a lot less) but no other systems have provided both freedom and economic opportunity that Capitalism and representative democracy have.

That being said, it is in our best interest and theirs also for nations to move towards representative democracy. Such a desire and such efforts are not in and of themselves imperialistic.

The radical Islamists preaching jihad against the "Great Satan" of the United States obviously are the latest example of those utopian mass movements generating the violence and suffering that Berlin was describing. I am aware of the causes of suffering of people in the mid-east. And it lies squarely with the politics of the nations from which these people come from. Those that are not democratic are poor, they have no say in their every day lives. They can't complain about the government or they will be put to death. However their government has provided them with a scape-goat. Don't blame us they say, blame Israel, blame the United States.

Funny, Israel is one of the few democracies in the mid-east and they are affluent. No Jews in Israel are looking for someone to blame their problems on (asside from problems of security). They are self reliant, they stand and fall on their own. They have the ability to choose their leaders. They have control of their destinies. Jews can vote for their leaders. Oh that evil, awful, horrible... how did he say it....? "cheerfully optimistic and (small 'd') democratic image".

The Palestinians and most other Moslems have no such control over their lives. If they are born in a country without oil or are not born into a wealthy family then they have two options. Be poor for the rest of their lives and say nothing, or hate Israel and the United States and speak out against them. And it serves their government for you to do just that.

If you are hungry and your children are sick you can't say to your leaders "take care of me, feed my starving children". If you do you will be put to death. However you can hate the Jews, you can hate the Americans. It's their fault after all. Read the protocols. With the Jews and Americans ruling the world what can your impotent dictatorial leader do? Sure he pockets western aid but you don't even know that. You are not allowed to hear anyone tell you that. You are given only one message, and that message is that you suffer because of Israel and the United States. Your children die because of the United States and the Jewish conspiracy.

Utopia? Conservatives don't want utopia, they want ALL children to be born into societies where ALL people have opportunity, where ALL people can go out in public with out covering their faces, where ALL children can go to school regardless of sex, where ALL people can choose who to marry and where to live, where ALL people are free. Where a small girl isn't held down and her clitoris and vulva scraped off with a dull soup can lid. Where children are not forced into slavery or forced labor. Where a woman can choose to be a doctor or engineer. Where people aren't drug out into the night and shot in the back of the head. Where there is due process and legal representation. Such radical and awful notion this freedom and democracy. Heaven forbid we should shove freedom down peoples throats. People should blow up buildings for such ideas.

Yeah I suppose that to most living in the Mid-east such ideas are impossible. I suppose that to them such a society is utopia. I suppose that is why so many are willing to risk their lives to come to the west to start a new life with nothing but opportunity and NO ONE is willing to go to the Mid-east without means or education.

Let me ask you, would you like to swap places with some one from a lower class in any mid-east country?

I was born poor in the United States. There were times that I went to bed hungry. But I never starved. There was always aid available though my father tried really hard not to use it because he knew that it was important to be self reliant. He struggled but eventually bought a home and raised a family. All of his five children grew up to be able to support their families and live middle class lives.

It breaks my heart that poor people in other countries don't have the opportunity that I had. I was educated and learned how to program computers. I started my own business and purchased my own home and I am able to pay my bills and enjoy evenings out on the weekends and provide for my family.

All people are born with certain inalienable rights, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that with all my being. I would like all people to live in a society where they could have control of their destinies. If this means influencing the mid-east and risking being called an imperialist by people without any vision then that is fine. Have at it.

Martin Sieff's article is poorly written propaganda. He moves from a sincere desire by conservatives to transform Moslem nations into Democracies to a desire to empose american culture and values on them without any evidence that conservatives really want to force their culture and values on anyone (excepting of course the value of freedom and the freedoms that I enumerated). Oh golly, the Conservatives would like women to be able to vote...hell, they would like men to vote.

I think most conservatives want all people to be able to choose for themselves how they want to live. If it's not, then it's what I want for them. It's hard to make a choice when you are poor and your leader is a dictator.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I'm not going to debate his opinions. I'm just putting it out for your consideration. It's one man's opinion Wayne. If you don't wish to debate it then I don't wish to consider it. I could come on line and post a bunch of excerpts from articles that reflect my ideology and opinion but in the end what good is that? Your position to not debate makes the post static and uninteresting to me. I come to the forum for dynamic discussions. I get my share of opinion from sources like the Los Angeles Times, New Republic, Mother Jones, and others. I'm not looking for the words of pundits but discussion and debate.

Feel free to post it but if it says "I don't want to debate it" then I don't want to even read it.

Thanks anyway,

RandFan

Please forgive me if I am being presumptuous in assuming that I am one of the individuals that you wanted to read the post.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by shuize
The Western Europeans say: Sure you saved us from Hilter and bankrolled our defense against the Soviet Union for fifty years. Not to mention keeping us all from starving with the Marshall plan. But what have you done for us lately, America?

Hitler would almost certainly have lost WW2, USA or no USA. He bit off more than he could chew when he invaded the Soviet Union. This was becoming apparent by the end of 1941 when the USA joined the war. And once again it has to be pointed out that Hitler declared war on the US, not the other way round.

The USA gained some serious strategic benefits through the Marshall plan. It wasnt such a magnanimous piece of charity as you imply. And i dont remember Western European countries screaming out for the USA to send troops to our defence, they were more than willing to send their army over.

Of course you probably think the Soviet troops stationed in Eastern Europe for over 50 years were there solely for the defence of Eastern Europe and had no role to play beyond the security of those nations.

[Smalso]

Hello, RandFan. Good to see you back on the board; and in form, I see.

I can agree with the ideals you have expressed. The concept of personal liberty and freedom is one that has always been dear to me and one that I believe should be jealously guarded and fervently defended. I cannot see, however, that a conservative Republican administration is the best to do this. Too many of these freedoms are now being chipped away in the name of national security. Lest it be thought that I am over-generalizing, I also believe that there are precious few liberals crying out over this. While we are bringing freedom to the rest of the world, perhaps a closer look at home is in order.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Why have you decided to be an a**hole?

FACT: Iraq has been greatly disarmed. Huge stockpiles of weapons were destroyed by US bombing during the Gulf War and by inspection teams during the 90's.

So get off of my a**!

Profanity edited by me.


I would assume since you are now calling me names that you have no argument left. Here are a few things for you to ponder:

UNSCOM Reports to the Security Council, 25 January 1999

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/index.html

From the report:


6. Iraq undertook active deception measures, during the Commission's verification of the unilateral destruction, such as "seeding" warhead destruction areas with parts unrelated to special warheads to lead the Commission's team to believe it had accounted for all that was claimed to exist. At that time, Iraq also melted down weapons and components to make impossible accurate identification or quantification of them. Because of Iraq's false declarations, the Commission was not in a position in 1992 to question, fully, Iraq's accounts. It was only later, after 1995, that the Commission became aware of the concerted deception efforts and was forced to reexamine the 1991-1992 period.


Now try reading the report and tell me you think that Iraq has been disarmed.

Further more, here is a good reference to the state of the Iraqi armed forces, and what they have now vs. what they had before the gulf war:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/index.html

Pay special atten. to the amount of hardware still around:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment.htm

They had 5500 tanks. Now they have 2200. The Republican Guard alone has 10 divisions.

If you have a fully loaded gun and take half the bullets out, are you disarmed?

Unfortunately, Globalsecurity.org has not yet posted relevant data for Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. To compare numbers, I have to look to other sources:

http://www.csis.org/burke/saudi21/SaudiMilBook_04.pdf

Page 4 of that report says the Saudi's have the manpower to field about 600 tanks. They own around 1,000 tanks. Their army has about the equivalent of 3 heavy divisions.

As for Kuwait, http://orbat.com/site/data/kuwait/open.html

They have a little over 380 tanks. Total manpower for the army is around 1100 people.

Fortunately, both countries have a relatively large numbers of planes compared to Iraq. But air power is not all that it is cracked up to be. Back to Globalsecurity.org for what was destroyed by who.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment-intro.htm

According to CENTCOM, most of the armor was either abandoned or destroyed by ground forces, not air strikes. The photo intel. People say otherwise, but they were not the ones on the ground.

In short, Iraq is a threat to at least two of its neighbors. Three things are keeping it in check:
1. The presence of the US
2. Sanctions
3. Inspections

The Iraqi Government is playing a waiting game. They hoped the inspections would not restart, but they have. They hoped that the US would go away but it is still there. They hope that abusing their own people by diverting the funds from the sanctions that they could make the sanctions go away.

If all three of those things ended tomorrow, what to you think Hussein would do?

If you want to question the US government and its motives, go right ahead. But be realistic about what is happening on the other side.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
That more and more people are using the term empire to describe the United States is irrelevant and Fallacious. The number, large or small that believes in something is not an indication as to the validity of that "thing". It's an appeal to the Gallery. The only time that I think such an argument is valid is if a majority of experts in a given field accept a proposition.
It is NOT irrelevant. In politics, perceptions matter. For example, in politcs, if the majority vote for something, it is not a matter of science; it is a matter of law. You mention the importance of experts. I am providing you the opinion of experts. Johnson is an expert. His book has been highly praised by esteemed historians and reviews in major press.

Originally posted by RandFan
Interesting how criticism is not partisan venom if it aligns with your point of view. I'm sorry, but while not an expert I have studied history of the 20th Century and would say that anyone Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Democrat or Republican who characterized the United States as imperial is using it as a rhetorical device.
I'm surprised to read the opening sentence of that paragraph since you have stated that you thought many of the attacks on Clinton (though you didn't like him) were unwarranted. Johnson's book does not dwell on criticism of Clinton. It does criticize foreign policy decisions made during his term, though they are not viewed as uniquely Clintonian, but as a continuation of a misguided foreign policy of the United States. The criticism is based on policy and fact rather than on lies and innuendo (the many alleged "scandals" and legends from Arkansas state troopers and other unreliable sources). So it seems to me that you are attacking me personally rather than recognizing something that you should agree with--if you've been honest about how you defended Clinton against purely partisan attacks. Was your statement about being open to acknowledging it when I make a valid point honest?

Originally posted by RandFan
Let's get something out on the table right now. I don't want there to be any confusion between us at all in our discussion. Representative Democracy underpinned by Capitalism with some forms of regulation and socialism (emphasis on some) is in my opinion, demonstrably the best form of combined government and economic system in the world.
Let me be clear. I have always supported democracy and capitalism as the best available systems, but I think it is folly and inappropriate for us to IMPOSE that on the rest of the world. It is, as the EXPERT quoted says, "imperial delusion." And yet I am supposed to accept that when the Soviet Union allegedly wanted to impose its values and system on the rest of the world, that THAT was imperialistic. Well, I considered the Soviet Union an empire before Ronald Reagan called them so; so, yes, I do accept that proposition as well. Do you? It appears not.

Originally posted by RandFan
Martin Sieff's article is poorly written propaganda.
It is not propaganda. He has not said anything that has not been said by others--and with the supporting words and stategies of the people currently in the executive branch. In fact, Sieff's article soft-peddles the matter. Don't you remember how I have posted links to the master plan of these people?

New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/)

Originally posted by RandFan
I think most conservatives want all people to be able to choose for themselves how they want to live. If it's not, then it's what I want for them. It's hard to make a choice when you are poor and your leader is a dictator.
Did you notice the contradiction in your first two and last sentences in the above quote? Some people do choose to live under a dictator, even one they despise. Other people decide to overthrow their dictators. The choice should be theirs.

(Edited for minor corrections.)

[rikzilla]

Well there's also this little nugget from Scott Ritter's "Endgame"

While working the "UNSCOM 150" inspection Ritter encountered resistance from the Special Republican Guard unit which was guarding the facility to be inspected. Other UNSCOM inspectors went around the back way and caught two guys carrying stacks of documents. Embarrassed they explained they were just students taking a short cut. They got a look at some of the papers which were marked Top Secret and made reference to the use of explosives.

page 120:

Major General Hossam Amin arrived and was briefed by his colleagues. The look on his face indicated that he understood the gravity of the situation. He suggested that the two men be allowed to return to the facility before continuing our discussion, a suggestion I refused. If the documents were important enough to remove from an inspection site in violation of Security Council resolutions, then they would need to be examined. After going off to make a secure phone callfrom inside the facility, he returned.

"The Iraqi side has made a mistake here," he said, "and we must not give you any excuse to report to the Security Council that we are hiding anything." Hossam Amin invited us into the site to carry out an inspection and to examine in more detail the documents in question. I asked him what kind of facility this was, and he looked at me with grave eyes. "You will find out in due course."

We entered the main headquarters building. I was introduced to the director of the facility who said that this was an anti-terrorism school run by the Mukhabarat. (Iraqi political police) Sending the bulk of my men to survey the entire facility, I sat down with the director and a British translator from my team to examine the documents at the center of the controversy. They were extraordinary.

The first thing we established was that this was not just any anti-terrorism school, but one under the auspices of Directorate M-21 of the Mukhabarat, the directorate for special operations. M-21 reported directly to the secret office of Directorate M-4, covert operations. Next, we learned that while it was true that they taught many subjects at this school, none related to anti-terrorism. In classic doublespeak, the "anti-terrorist" school was a school for terrorism.

Page after page revealed plans for terrorist operations-many for example against the Kurds. A requisition to the army asked for Iranian land mines so that the high explosives could be removed and used in booby traps overseas-the purpose being to dupe any forensic examiner into concluding that the culprit was Iran and not Iraq. There were designs for mines disguised as toys.

Document after document outlined an international program of terror. (snip)

These documents had nothing at all to do with our mandate and would not have been examined at all if the Irqis had not been trying to sneak them off. They were an indictment of a regime that would authorize such an organization to exist.

I wonder what opinion the high minded Georgetown professor would have of this? What to do with Iraq after it's defeat is a hard question,....but allowing these international terrorists to continue running a state rich in oil wealth will only create more terrorism. Not even to mention the systematic human rights violations that the Iraqi people live under. The Mukhabarat makes the Stasi look like slackers. Do Arab people somehow count less than Europeans? IMO we are missing the boat here. WMD is one matter,...but aside from that the ongoing crimes against humanity in Iraq should be the real trigger for military action. It seems racist to me to say that white Europeans (Kosovo) deserve international intervention more than Iraqi Kurds do.

-zilla

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
It's one man's opinion Wayne. If you don't wish to debate it then I don't wish to consider it.
I don't want to debate it because I haven't the time. I'm trying to withdraw from this board a while. It is not just "one man's opinion;" it is the opinion of an EXPERT, something you supposedly care about. The point to my post it is that it reinforces the points I have already made.

The topic of this thread was "Is oil the real reason for war with Iraq?" My position has been: it is about oil and hegemony.

The two posts I made with links to supporting arguments are being ignored by you. No wonder you continue to argue that my arguments "don't have any support." You ignore any support I offer. If I post without a link, then I am arguing without support. If I post and link to factual information and the opinions of experts whose opinions are based on their wealth of factual information, then I am "arguing through links" and you are not interested.

READ what I have posted. You don't have to read the entire article. Read the excerpts that I've posted. If you can't do that, then you are too close minded to bother with anyway.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Well there's also this little nugget from Scott Ritter's "Endgame"

Unfortunately, Rik, we are not given any examples of what qualifies as "plans for international terror." Payouts to families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Could you please provide some specifics?

While brutality against the Kurds--whether by Iraq, which the US seems to mind, or by Turkey, which causes the US to look the other way--is awful, no matter who does it, the Kurds have been enjoying a peaceful existence in Iraq for the last 12 years--except for when they brutalize each other. They haven't been so lucky in Turkey. Maybe we should be concerned? (Yes, the no-fly zones are responsible for that peaceful existence.)

"They were an indictment of a regime that would authorize such an organization to exist." You understand that this is supposition and not proof of an Iraqi-al Qaida connection? (To what organization was he referring anyway?)

I just want to add an aside that the links I provided last night in my posts to RandFan (to the UPI analysis and to the Salon interview) were discovered by me last night. They are not responsible for the formation of my opinions, but do provide support for them.

[Supercharts]

You Think A Gallon Of Gas Is Expensive?

Makes one think, and puts things in perspective.

Diet Snapple 16 oz $1.29 -- $10.32 per gallon

Lipton Ice Tea 16 oz $1.19 -- $9.52 per gallon

Gatorade 20 oz $1.59 -- $10.17 per gallon

Ocean Spray 16 oz $1.25 -- $10 .00 per gallon

Brake Fluid 12 oz $3.15 -- $33.60 per gallon

Vick's Nyquil 6 oz $8.35 -- $178.13 per gallon

Pepto Bismol 4 oz $3.85 -- $123.20 per gallon

Whiteout 7 oz $1.39 -- $25.42 per gallon

Scope 1.5 oz $0.99 -- $84.48 per gallon

and this is the REAL KICKER...... Evian water 9 oz for $1.49 --$21.19 per gallon $21.19 FOR WATER! ....
and the buyers don't even know the source.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Supercharts
and this is the REAL KICKER...... Evian water 9 oz for $1.49 --$21.19 per gallon $21.19 FOR WATER! ....
and the buyers don't even know the source.

Evian backwards spells?

Is it any wonder it's so expensive?

[Wayne Grabert]

Page after page revealed plans for terrorist operations-many for example against the Kurds. A requisition to the army asked for Iranian land mines so that the high explosives could be removed and used in booby traps overseas-the purpose being to dupe any forensic examiner into concluding that the culprit was Iran and not Iraq. There were designs for mines disguised as toys.

Document after document outlined an international program of terror.

Rik, I read through your post a second time, paying special attention to the above. Was the "international program of terror" planting land mines in Kurdish areas of Iraq, Iran and Turkey?

Could you please cite page numbers from Ritter's book so that we can read more of what he says about this matter?

[Wayne Grabert]

Though I hope that I am wrong about this, I believe there will be another war with Iraq and that it will probably start next month. If any of those things I have warned about come to pass (or all of them), I doubt that any of you who have so adamantly disagreed with me will ever acknowledge that I told you so, or acknowledge your steadfast rejection that the outcome was likely.

For the record, I think it is very plausible that the war will end quickly if the Iraqi army decides that it is in its best interest not to resist the inevitable and surrenders at its earliest convenience. If they are motivated to fight, then things could get very messy, but they will be defeated. Then the quagmire will begin.

Here is a cute little cartoon. (http://nosweatapparel.com/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=N&Product_Code=oSama-poster)

If history prooves me wrong, I will have no problem with acknowledging it.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert


Rik, I read through your post a second time, paying special attention to the above. Was the "international program of terror" planting land mines in Kurdish areas of Iraq, Iran and Turkey?

Could you please cite page numbers from Ritter's book so that we can read more of what he says about this matter?

Pages 120 and 121..... it didn't go into any further detail. I'm guessing here that what Ritter saw were more "how to" types of documents and not specific targeting.

BTW, Ritter is now adamantly opposed to the comming war. I find it strange that "Endgame" seems to advocate such a war with each page. I'm still reading...trying to figure out what makes Ritter tick. He's a complex guy.

-z

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFAn????? Why would I have to ask Saddam? That he has failed to provide the information is proof that he is in material breach. You are the one out connecting dots. To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.

But for some reason you refuse to draw conclusions from something quite material. You tell me to go ask Saddam, I don't need to ask him, I can make assumptions about his reason for non compliance.

He has WOMD and providing the information would reveal that fact.

He was unable to provide the information. If so why was he unable to?

He is playing games.

Can you give me a reason?

Bush on the other hand is a different story. His contacts could indicate that he is going to war because of them or it could be a coincidence. Do you have proof that it is not a coincidence or am I supposed to connect dots and imagine that Clinton killed foster, sold secrets to the Chinese and broke the law by diverting illegal funds into his account?

Its really quite simple Rand Fan. You asked me in effect why I thought Saddam Hussein was doing something. Now, as I have no idea what is in his warped mind the correct answer is that you will have to ask him. Somehow that simple answer does not seem to be enough for you. I wonder why? You then erected a straw man argument about me.

You specifically claimed that 'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.' You are big on justifying claims so I would be grateful if you could jpoint to one place where I said what you claimed RandFan. I also don't want to be patronising but to paraphrase your own words - if you want to come on a sceptic bulletin board you should be prepared to back up your own claims.Can you now do so?. I have other comments to make on your response to me but will wait to see what you have to say about this simple claim.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Doubt

They had 5500 tanks. Now they have 2200. The Republican Guard alone has 10 divisions.

If you have a fully loaded gun and take half the bullets out, are you disarmed?

Doubt, I never said that Iraq was completely disarmed; I said it was greatly disarmed. The loss of their air force, over half their tanks and 90-95% of their banned WMD by December 1998 (according to estimates by the UN inspectors) as well as other weapons was what I had in mind. If I am still semantically incorrect, then please reread the post that first caused you this problem and substitute the word "crippled" where necessary. Thank you.

Now please go over to the thread "For Jedi Knight" and have a laugh or two. Peace.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Its really quite simple Rand Fan. You asked me in effect why I thought Saddam Hussein was doing something. Now, as I have no idea what is in his warped mind the correct answer is that you will have to ask him. Somehow that simple answer does not seem to be enough for you. I wonder why? In every instance Saddam has lied and obfuscated. For over a decade he has refused to come clean, even after we caught him red handed with anthrax and you expect me to ask him? He lied over and over and over and you want me to ask him?

Asking Saddam is an exercise in futility, thank you but I have better things to do. He invaded Kuwait and when a coalition of world leaders told him to leave he refused. This coalition led by the United States ran him out of Kuwait by force. As his troops fled he ordered them to set fire to all of the Kuwaiti oil fields. Saddam in his surrender made certain agreements. In addition the United Nations passed resolutions that he agreed to. He broke all of his agreements to the US and the United Nations. He violated all of the resolutions (I must note that my position regarding the UN is inconsistent see above) His intentions are quite clear to anyone willing to look at his record.

Yet for some reason you want me to ask him. Hmmmmmm........

You specifically claimed that 'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.' [/b] There is no need for that. Do you reject the notion that Bush's ties to the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil?

If you answer yes, then thank you and welcome aboard. I'm sorry but it seems that I have confused you for someone else. I hope that you will accept my public apology.

The idea that the fact that Bush has links to the oil industry is in and of itself "proof" the he is starting war for oil is silly and stupid. I'm glad that more and more people are coming to this realization and if you indeed reject such a stupid notion then again I am sorry.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by originalgagster
Hitler would almost certainly have lost WW2, USA or no USA. He bit off more than he could chew when he invaded the Soviet Union. This was becoming apparent by the end of 1941 when the USA joined the war. I reject this. The outcome of the war was no forgone conclusion, no certainty. The Russians and England desperately wanted the US to enter the war. Stalin desperately needed a second front to take the pressure off of the eastern one. They had nearly lost the war and they were losing many troops. Stalin and Churchill were very concerned as to the outcome of the war. England could have hardly managed an invasion on its own.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Boycott oil based products? Well if you believe that a shady oil cartel is dictating American foreign policy to the point that it's going to result in the slaughter of innocents, then surely a boycott is the least you could do?

Well its not much of an Axis of Evil is it, when one member of the 'Axis' with an admitted nuclear programme is engaged at a diplomatic level, while another member of the same Axis of Evil with no nuclear weapons facility to be found at this time and which the CIA states is not an immediate threat, is targetted with the threat of imminent war?

That is just one of the many reasons why oil is considered to be the primary reason for the current US administration's approach to Iraq - a country with no link as far as I am aware to Sept 11 while OBL remains free to harass the world at will. (Or is that free will for all the Frankophiles on this thread?)

If oil is not the primary factor perhaps you can explain why North Korea is being dealt with diplomatically when it has more evidence to date of actually having a nuclear weapons programme and is just as lethal a regime as its other partners in the 'Axis of Evil'.

On your own 'logic' I trust you are boycotting everything that comes from Europe because of your attitude towards the EU. Please note that I am not actually recommending that course of action because I recognise it would be just as inane as your own suggestion.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Smalso
Hello, RandFan. Good to see you back on the board; and in form, I see.

I can agree with the ideals you have expressed. The concept of personal liberty and freedom is one that has always been dear to me and one that I believe should be jealously guarded and fervently defended. I cannot see, however, that a conservative Republican administration is the best to do this. Too many of these freedoms are now being chipped away in the name of national security. Lest it be thought that I am over-generalizing, I also believe that there are precious few liberals crying out over this. While we are bringing freedom to the rest of the world, perhaps a closer look at home is in order. Hi Smalso,

As usual you raise a very valid point. I agree that freedoms are threatened. It is troubling however in times like these we must make some consessions. Thankfully there are people like yourself and others (myself at times) who fight against the administration and others to demand freedom. I believe that in the end the "chiping" away won't lead to an erosion. It is a scary thought though and I thank you for bringing it up.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFanI reject this. The outcome of the war was no forgone conclusion, no certainty. The Russians and England desperately wanted the US to enter the war. Stalin desperately needed a second front to take the pressure off of the eastern one. They had nearly lost the war and they were losing many troops. Stalin and Churchill were very concerned as to the outcome of the war. England could have hardly managed an invasion on its own.


Without wishing to be patronising (again!) I reject this. Can I just point out that England was not alone in the Second World war. It had the assistance of the Welsh, Northern Irish (and many Southern Irish) and the Scots. This, I think, was truly the defining influence on the outcome of the second world war. Oh and a few Commonwealth countries.

On a more factual note England is a single country. It is a component part of Great Britain, which also includes Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland also, surprisingly, includes Northern Ireland.

If you persist in referring to England when you mean the United Kingdom I will have no choice but to retaliate in kind and call the US after one of its many component states. My preference is for Florida. In future when I refer to Florida I will be referring to the whole of the USA. For example, when I refer to the the leader of Florida I am of course referring to Mr Bush. I hope that makes the matter entirely clear.

Please learn some geography and make the world a more peaceful place.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
It is NOT irrelevant. In politics, perceptions matter. Let's get this straight. I am not a constituent of yours and I am at odds with you as to the best way to solve this problem. Since we are at odds there is no need to discuss the best "political" strategy. In other words I am not interested in perceptions. When you and I are discussing whether a course of action is right or wrong I am only in logical argument, the truth.

This does not mean that politics are irrelevant it just means that you can't use politics to justify your position.

For example, in politcs, if the majority vote for something, it is not a matter of science; it is a matter of law. Not necassarily, if the majority vote to take away the rights of a minority the courts can reverse the law.

[quote][b] You mention the importance of experts. I am providing you the opinion of experts. Johnson is an expert. His book has been highly praised by esteemed historians and reviews in major press. Johnson is just one person. Such an example is anecdotal. Especially since I can find an expert who disagrees with Johnson. Now, if a significant majority of experts in this field agree with Johnson then I would be willing to consider this as evidence. To provide such proof you will need a scientific poll as to the beliefs in experts in this field. Do you have such a poll?


I'm surprised to read the opening sentence of that paragraph since you have stated that you thought many of the attacks on Clinton (though you didn't like him) were unwarranted. The opening sentence has nothing to do with me. I notice that people are more likely to agree with someone of an opposing ideology if a specific issue is on their side. It is more difficult to side with someone when the issue goes against them. I disagreed with much of Clinton's policies. My opinion about the unwarranted attack were not self serving.

Johnson's book does not dwell on criticism of Clinton. It does criticize foreign policy decisions made during his term, though they are not viewed as uniquely Clintonian, but as a continuation of a misguided foreign policy of the United States. The criticism is based on policy and fact rather than on lies and innuendo (the many alleged "scandals" and legends from Arkansas state troopers and other unreliable sources). So it seems to me that you are attacking me personally rather than recognizing something that you should agree with--if you've been honest about how you defended Clinton against purely partisan attacks. Was your statement about being open to acknowledging it when I make a valid point honest? You are getting turned around. Is your judgment of Johnson self serving? In other words does the fact that his analysis coincides with yours the reason for you to judge his opinion as not being venomous?

The fact that they could be self serving is a reason for me to question them. It happens allot. But that is fine I will take you at your word that it is only coincidental. I'm not sure what point you have made. That Johnsons criticism is not venomous? I don't know but I will let it stand that it is not for the purpose of this discussion.

Let me be clear. I have always supported democracy and capitalism as the best available systems, but I think it is folly and inappropriate for us to IMPOSE that on the rest of the world. It is, as the EXPERT quoted says, "imperial delusion." And yet I am supposed to accept that when the Soviet Union allegedly wanted to impose its values and system on the rest of the world, that THAT was imperialistic. Well, I considered the Soviet Union an empire before Ronald Reagan called them so; so, yes, I do accept that proposition as well. Do you? It appears not. Wait a minute now. When Hungary decided that they wanted to choose for themselves how best to run their contry the Soviets sent in tanks and troops and put down an uprising in a foreign land that they occupied. That is not the case of the United States.

It is not propaganda. He has not said anything that has not been said by others--and with the supporting words and stategies of the people currently in the executive branch. In fact, Sieff's article soft-peddles the matter. Don't you remember how I have posted links to the master plan of these people? You failed to answer the critique that he provides evidence for one thing and arrives at an asumption of quite a different one. That is a great example of propaganda. And the fact that others have said it is quite irelevant and fallacious. You are apealling to the gallery again. His article is really poorly written and does not provide evidence for his assumptions.

New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) Can't the article stand on its own? I don't see how the above link validates Johnsons article. Could you post exeprts that show that Johnson is right? It wouldn't really justify his position but would provide a means for us to test yours.

Did you notice the contradiction in your first two and last sentences in the above quote? Some people do choose to live under a dictator, even one they despise. Other people decide to overthrow their dictators. The choice should be theirs. Oh yeah, the Iraqis love starving to death as do the North Koreans. The East Germans just loved their dictator. How do you choose to live under a dictator when anyone who speaks out or tries to leaves is put to death. How do you have a choice under a dictator. The Romanians loved their dictator so much that when the Soviet presence was withdrawn they had Ceausescu to executed. Sorry but living under a dictator is to have no choice.

Living under a dictator and having freedom of choice is an oxymoron. Dictators don't want you to have a choice.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
My preference is for Florida.
:D :D :D

You are witty, E.J., but is it not true that Mr. Churchill wanted the US to join the allies against Germany before Germany declared war on the US? It was not an unreasonable desire.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I don't want to debate it because I haven't the time. I'm trying to withdraw from this board a while. It is not just "one man's opinion;" it is the opinion of an EXPERT, something you supposedly care about. The point to my post it is that it reinforces the points I have already made. I only care about the opinions of experts in this instance if they constitute a significant majority. There are EXPERTS who disagree with him.

The topic of this thread was "Is oil the real reason for war with Iraq?" My position has been: it is about oil and hegemony. Then argue the point and don't post opinions that you are unwilling to defend.

The two posts I made with links to supporting arguments are being ignored by you. No wonder you continue to argue that my arguments "don't have any support." You [B]ignore any support I offer. If I post without a link, then I am arguing without support. If I post and link to factual information and the opinions of experts whose opinions are based on their wealth of factual information, then I am "arguing through links" and you are not interested. You are proving that there are opinions on this matter. I already knew that. There are many links that prove that there are opposing opinions. BFD. Make arguments and provide links that prove any claims. Leave the opinions of others out of the debate.

READ what I have posted. You don't have to read the entire article. Read the excerpts that I've posted. If you can't do that, then you are too close minded to bother with anyway. No, make arguments and support those arguments with links that contain factual data. I don't care about other peoples opinions but I am willing to read them but NOT if you are unwilling to debate them. Do you care about the opinions of 50 republicans who disagree with you without me being willing to support their arguments?

Don't get me wrong, you can post opinions of other but be prepared to defend them or don't bother posting the info. It is meaningless otherwise.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Without wishing to be patronising (again!) I reject this. Can I just point out that England was not alone in the Second World war. It had the assistance of the Welsh, Northern Irish (and many Southern Irish) and the Scots. This, I think, was truly the defining influence on the outcome of the second world war. Oh and a few Commonwealth countries.

On a more factual note England is a single country. It is a component part of Great Britain, which also includes Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland also, surprisingly, includes Northern Ireland.

If you persist in referring to England when you mean the United Kingdom I will have no choice but to retaliate in kind and call the US after one of its many component states. My preference is for Florida. In future when I refer to Florida I will be referring to the whole of the USA. For example, when I refer to the the leader of Florida I am of course referring to Mr Bush. I hope that makes the matter entirely clear.

Please learn some geography and make the world a more peaceful place. How about making an argument to rebut mine that the war was not a foregone conclusion. Is the best argument that you have is that I made a mistake? Wow, good for you. Please put a star on your head and we will all clap now for your reprimand of me. Oh happy day, the sanctity of the United Kingdom has been upheld and the barbarians have been corrected.

Can we move past semantics and argue the facts or would you like to correct my grammar?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
You are getting turned around. Is your judgment of Johnson self serving? In other words does the fact that his analysis coincides with yours the reason for you to judge his opinion as not being venomous?
First of all, Johnson wrote a book that I referenced, not an article. If you were to read the book, it would be obvious to you that his criticisms are not venomous. He is not on a political campaign. His criticism is not directed at Clinton the man. It is focused on the actions taken during his administration and their consequences. Johnson relies on a telling of the facts.

Originally posted by RandFan
Wait a minute now. When Hungary decided that they wanted to choose for themselves how best to run their contry the Soviets sent in tanks and troops and put down an uprising in a foreign land that they occupied. That is not the case of the United States.
You have not heard of Latin America. What about Allende in Chile? The Bay of Pigs and the economic embargo of Cuba? Our occupation of Nicaragua--twice, once for 30 years? Our support of the unpopular Contras with their death squads? The dozens of other interventions in the region from the 1890's onward?

Let's move onto other regions. In Iran we overthrew a democratic government to install the Shah. That turned out nicely, didn't it? The blowback was the Ayatollah Khomeni. There was supposed to be a referendum in South Vietnam on whether to unite under the auspices of North Vietnam. When it became clear that the government of South Vietnam would lose the referendum (badly), the US intervened and the referendum was cancelled and our involvement in the Vietnam War began. And whom did we fight in Vietnam? South Vietnamese! That's who the Viet Cong guerillas were: SOUTH Vietnamese who were popularly supported by the many villages we razed! The North Vietnamese Army was the Viet Minh, not the Viet Cong.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of how it is US policy to tell everyone else "how best to run their country," and now that policy is being extended to the Middle East--and you are cheering it on! So who is the hypocrite here, RandFan?

I suppose it would be too much to expect an acknowledgement that ole Wayne has made a valid point, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan

Oh yeah, the Iraqis love starving to death as do the North Koreans. The East Germans just loved their dictator. How do you choose to live under a dictator when anyone who speaks out or tries to leaves is put to death. How do you have a choice under a dictator. The Romanians loved their dictator so much that when the Soviet presence was withdrawn they had Ceausescu to executed. Sorry but living under a dictator is to have no choice.

Living under a dictator and having freedom of choice is an oxymoron. Dictators don't want you to have a choice.
Thank you for helping me prove my point. Ceausescu, Mussolini, the Shah of Iran, Marcos of the Phillipines, Samoza in Nicaragua in the 70's, and many, many other dictators who were overthrown. How do you think Castro and Mao came to power? They overthrew dictators (Batista and Chiang Kai Chek).

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
First of all, Johnson wrote a book that I referenced, not an article. If you were to read the book, it would be obvious to you that his criticisms are not venomous. He is not on a political campaign. His criticism is not directed at Clinton the man. It is focused on the actions taken during his administration and their consequences. Johnson relies on a telling of the facts. You missed my point but whatever.

You have not heard of Latin America. What about Allende in Chile? The Bay of Pigs and the economic embargo of Cuba? Our occupation of Nicaragua--twice, once for 30 years? The dozens of other interventions in the region from the 1890's onward?

Let's move onto other regions. In Iran we overthrew a democratic government to install the Shah. That turned out nicely, didn't it? The blowback was the Ayatollah Khomeni. There was supposed to be a referendum in South Vietnam on whether to unite under the auspices of North Vietnam. When it became clear that the government of South Vietnam would lose the referendum (badly), the US intervened and the referendum was cancelled and our involvement in the Vietnam War began. And whom did we fight in Vietnam? South Vietnamese! That's who the Viet Cong guerillas were: SOUTH Vietnamese who were popularly supported by the many villages we razed! The North Vietnamese Army was the Viet Minh, not the Viet Cong.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of how it is US policy to tell everyone else "how best to run their country," and now that policy is being extended to the Middle East--and you are cheering it on! So who is the hypocrite here, RandFan?

I suppose it would be too much to expect an acknowledgement that ole Wayne has made a valid point, wouldn't it? :rolleyes: First let me note that you did not respond to my earlier reference of the brutal killing of those who opposed the communists in South Vietnam before and after the war. You paint it as this blissful desire of the peasants to become communist and our desire to stop them. This is wrong, the government of South Vietnam asked us to protect them and secure their possessions. Just because a majority want to take the property of their neighbors does not make it morally ok. The United States was correct in intervening to attempt to stop the brutal campaign that eventualy came.

I have admitted in this forum that the United States has sought to influence foreign governments. I have admitted that through the CIA the United States has worked to overthrow governments and has acted militarily in foreign affairs. I have said that I accept that an argument can be made as to our imperialism. We simply do not treat countries the way the Soviets did.

I will grant that you have made a point. Though our actions were very different than the Soviets and have been very different since 1933.

In any event the actions in the mid-east are very different than any actions taken prior to 1934. The Bay of pigs was not the same as Hungary nor was Panama. We left Panama to themselves and they hold democratic elections. If we had been successful in Cuba the net effect would have been the same. The Soviets didn't grant democracy to Hungary.

I have granted that you have made a point. Will you do the same? Will you agree that the intentions of the United States is to grant democracy to the citizens while the Soviets was simply to control? We will see? Should I hold my breath?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Thank you for helping me prove my point. Ceausescu, Mussolini, the Shah of Iran, Marcos of the Phillipines, Samoza in Nicaragua in the 70's, and many, many other dictators who were overthrown. How do you think Castro and Mao came to power? They overthrew dictators (Batista and Chiang Kai Chek). It does not make your point at all. Those who where under these dictators were lucky that they could eventually overthrow their dictators. The Romanians had to wait untill the colapse of the Soviet Union. The Cubans and Chinese went from one Dictator to another. Thanks to Mao tens of millions starved to death. Do you think that the people of China were happy with their dictator. And when students tried to overthrow their current dictators in the 80s they were brutually put down.

NO! It does not make your point. It is a sad commentary as to the nature of dictators and the years of suffering that these people must endure under them before they get the chance to over throw one only to possibly get another. And you cheer them on.

Enough, let's have democray and end this brutal survival of those under dictatorial regimes.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
I have granted that you have made a point. Will you do the same? Will you agree that the intentions of the United States is to grant democracy to the citizens while the Soviets was simply to control? We will see? Should I hold my breath?
You have made a point that the USSR was an evil empire, but that was already my opinion.

The US has been benevolent at times, but it has been selective in its support for democracy when the people of a country have wanted democracy. Take the case of the Shah in Iran, Allende in Chile, Marcos in the Phillipines (tellingly, the US fully supported Marcos in the face of the revolution against him, maintained a large military presence in the Phillipines, and yet he was still overthrown by Filipinos wanting democracy), or, just a year ago, support for a military coup in Venezuela that tried to overthrow a democracy. (That effort failed after two days and the US was giving material support to the coup for months before the attempt. Chavez may be run out of office yet now that opposition against him has grown greatly, but at least it will be because the people have demanded he step down. They don't want to replace him with a military dictatorship.)

My point has never been that the US is worse or as bad as the USSR, but that too often we have behaved the same way. We were so clumsy about it that the USSR was winning the global propaganda war.

I told this story once before on this board, so I apologize if you've read it before. Back in 1977 or '78, I was in a political science class at LSU that was taught by the chairman of the department (Dr. Crabb, a Middle East expert). He asked the class who was more popular throughout the world, the USA or the USSR. Like most of the students, I guessed wrong. I remember the surprise on the faces (and in my body), even a couple of gasps, when he revealed the answer: the USSR. Dr. Crabb was no commie sympathizer. He was just being frank. That's how badly our foreign policy has been conducted.

RandFan, I am such a big supporter of democracy and capitalism that I get angry when our government does things (of which the vast majority of Americans are not even aware) that are contrary to our principals (such as the rights of others to self-determination) and that cause us long-term harm in order to serve short-term special interests. For example, in the 1950's we assassinated the democratically elected leader of Iran and orchestrated the Shah's ascendency to power. Why? Because Iran was nationalizing its oil fields. What happened? A couple years or so after assuming power, the Shah nationalized the oil fields! Now we have a militant, extremely anti-American government in Iran that is probably working around the clock to develop nuclear weapons. However, there is genuine reason to expect that soon the Ayatollahs will be overthrown and democracy restored in Iran. There are a lot of people there who want it--but they DO NOT want the USA to interfere and "liberate" them. That's important to remember.

So I am not anti-American. I am exactly the opposite. I am against those who harm our long-term interests and the beneficial influence we could have on the rest of the world by leading by example rather than by force. Our pursuit of empire will turn the rest of the world against us.

One more story. Do you remember some years ago (it may have been back in the 80's) the story of the town bully who was assassinated after the town conspired against him? No one was ever arrested for the murder because no one in town would give any information to law enforcement.

Well, the US is perceived as the world's bully. This is a perception that is growing. Why do perceptions count? Because the rest of the world will secretly conspire against us to work against our interests if they think we are too powerful for their good. I'm not saying they will go to war against us (some might, such as Islamic militants), but they will cooperate with us less and less.

[E.J.Armstrong]

There is no need for that. Do you reject the notion that Bush's ties to the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil?

If you answer yes, then thank you and welcome aboard. I'm sorry but it seems that I have confused you for someone else. I hope that you will accept my public apology.

The idea that the fact that Bush has links to the oil industry is in and of itself "proof" the he is starting war for oil is silly and stupid. I'm glad that more and more people are coming to this realization and if you indeed reject such a stupid notion then again I am sorry.

There is no need for what exactly RandFan? Pointing out that you misrepresented me? I am glad that you accept that you did so. I will accept your apology on that basis alone. Should you wish to tie your apology to a particular stance concerning Bush's approach to Iraq then I am afraid I will not be able to accept your apology. Your apology either stands alone or it isn't acceptable.

I continue to believe that Mr Bush's stance towards Iraq is based primarily on the presence of the large oil reserves in that country. That other issues are also at stake is not in doubt but having worked in the oil industry my reasons for taking that view are many and varied and I have supplied much supporting evidence for that view. That this evidence is circumstantial is self evident. That it points in favour of my hypothesis is I think also self evident.

You are of course entitled to take an altenative view.

[QUOTE]I hate to be patronizing but you force me to. You have asked 3 times and I have answered 3 times.

I will make it as clear as I can and then I don't know what else to say.

The evidence that the United States and the UK posses is not necessarily THE LOCATION of the weapons.

It's logically possible to have proof of the weapons and still not know where they are. Will you acknowledge this logical fact?
On what basis do you claim that the USA and the UK do not have evidence for the location of the WOMD? Why has Hans Blix complained about their lack of openness on this matter? I think it is important to understand exactly what the evidence is for Iraq's WOMD before drawing conclusions as to whether the USA and the UK do not know where it is.

What is the evidence that WOMD exists in any form? Do you have any evidence that Iraq actually has WOMD? If the UK and the USA don't know where the WOMD are then how can you know if they still exist? How can they know that the WOMD have not been destroyed in the place they apparently do not know where they are? Is that not also a logical conclusion? And if they did exist why does the CIA think that Hussein is not an imminent threat?
Hold on just a minute. You are changing in mid-stream. Let's stay focused here ok? You made a fallacious argument. You appealed to the gallery with the following.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many believe that the evidence is against any other primary reason. I'm sorry but many in the world believe that it is not all ********.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a fallacious argument. Let me ask you again. Are you sure you want to engage in fallacious reasoning?

Sorry RandFan but I have no idea what you are talking about. Exactly how did I change in mid-stream? What exactly are you focusing on which I am not? Please explain yourself.

I made a fallacious argument, really. I claimed that many people in the world believe that the UK's and US governments' stance towards Iraq is because of Iraq's oil reserves. That is not a fallacious argument RandFan. It is a simple statement of fact. I even stated that it wasn't presented as proof of anything which would be necessary for it to be a fallacious argument. Particularly in response to a thread started with your own opinion.

To paraphrase your own words I do not want to be patronising but I have said it a number of times now. If it isn't a statement of fact no doubt you will let me know otherwise. I am more than happy to stand by statements of fact and when I feel they have proved anything I will say so.
originally posted by RandFan
Sure you can point it out but it means nothing. Most of the world prays to an invisible man in the sky. I don't know what "many of the people believe" has anything to do with this issue. I asked a specific question and that question had nothing to do with world opinion. I asked you to provide evidence. You responded with an "appeal to the gallery". Don't go claiming that you just wanted to bring up the sentiments of "some" people. It means nothing.
So why ask the question if you care nothing for the views of those you ask?
With respect RandFan, I have provided evidence for the thesis that the primary reason for Bush's stance towards Iraq is related to the presence of oil reserves in Iraq. I have posted many points suggesting that the reason for the US governments position is related to oil. The view of many people is a fact but you can ignore the fact if you want. We are dealing with the acts of man after all rather than a science lab and I do not doubt that like some past American presidents who lied to their people there will be others in future who will do the same. And no I don't present that as proof of anything either but I really don't believe I am saying anything particularly contentious. Why I remember a president (I'm not sure which one) saying 'Read my lips. No, new taxes!' I'm sure he meant it at the time - election time.
originally posted by RandFan[/I]Then why present it at all. It means nothing. Many people in Ireland believe in leprechauns. Many people in South America believe in Voo Doo, So?
See above comment. As it wasn't presented as a proof of anything I do believe it has as much worth as your own comments. Not more but just as much.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the only claim I make for that statement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then it was a waste of time because I keep asking for evidence, proof and you give me the opinions of some of the people of the world. I'll bet you can't even give me precise numbers of how many people believe this, can you? What percentage of people from what countries? And even if you could of what possible value could the statement have been if it was not an appeal to the gallery? Sorry but it was fallacious.

See above comments. A lot of circumstantial evidence points to Bush's stance towards Iraq being based on the presence of oil. You might not like that fact but hey ho. And my daddy's opinion could certainly kick the butt of your daddy's opinion any day and my baby broth'es opinion could probably ...yawn.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you didn't read my post where I did just that RandFan? There was a long list of things which compared Hussein’s regime with others which are not under threat of attack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does this have to do with my question?

Let me ask again. Do you have evidence that Bush is doing this because of his and his friend’s links to Oil companies?

For the n'th time Rand you asked for comments. I have provided evidence for my views. You just don't seem to be reading my posts. I believe that Bush's stance towards Iraq is based primarily on the presence of oil. I have taken a significant number of reasons why it might be related to the war on terror and shown that Iraq is no different from other states, which are not being attacked in the same way. The difference is that they do not have easily obtainable oil reserves in the same way Iraq has. Let me address your own argument that if it was about oil then Bush would just negotiate with Saddam. Bush has stated that his aim is regime change. Given that objective how can he negotiate with the regime he has stated he wants changed. That is and not make himself look more stupid?
My claim is that the available evidence indicates that Bush is taking the stance that he is because primarily of Iraq's oil reserves. I have given you much evidence supporting that point of view but here is another one for you www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,805580,00.html

originally posted by RandFanAnd I would recomend that you figure out what it is that we are talking about before you post something that is immaterial to the question at hand. A long list of Hussein’s regime has nothing to do with Haliburton or Chevron or any other oil company does it? A long list doesn't prove that Bush is planning a war to enrich him and his buddies with Iraqi oil, does it? And BTW I feel fine.

Now, can you tell me where you posted this evidence that Bush is launching a war because he and his friends are linked
So I haven't figured out what we are talking about. Really. I think tha comment speaks for itself, don't you. You still do not appear to have read my posts properly. I took many of the arguments put forwards for an attack againat Iraq being because of the war on terrorism and showed that on most of them Iraq was not the only or even worst sinner in some of them. Given that fact one has to ask what then is the real reason for attacking Iraq when on many grounds for doing so it is merely similar to other countries? The primary reason left is oil. Unless you can suggest in what unique way Iraq at present is offering more of a threat than other countries?
Once again and counting I have not claimed what you have stated. Read the posts please. Or not. It's entirely up to you.
originally posted by RandFan
It is relevant, however it does not provide evidence that this war is only about oil or that we would not be going to war if Bush did not have links to the oil industry.
Once again RandFan I have claimed neither of those things. You can continue to attack things I have not said, that is up to you. Pointless, but up to you.
Are you sure you want to present this link as proof? Since when was speculation proof? Do you understand the defintion of proof?
You seem to be confused because once again I did not say what you are claiming. Yes I do understand the definition of proof. You appear not to understand the difference between the different forms of evidence and proof. You also do not seem to understand what a straw man argument is.
For the record, speculation is not considered "proof" of anything. It's not even allowed in a court of law and legal proof has a lower threshold than scientific proof. Are you sure you want to stick with this one as proof of anything? If so could you tell me why?
Watch my lips very carefully RandFan. I did not present the links as proof. I'll say it again and then maybe you will get it. I did not present the links as proof. I really don't know how many times I have to tell you this. I presented the link as part of a discussion that you started and as evidence in support of my view that the stance Bush is taking towards Iraq is primarily because of Iraq's oil reserves. I do not regard it as proof. I do regard it as part of the long chain of circumstantial evidence that goes to support my thesis. As you are fond of dictionary definitions I am sure that you wll enjoy this one listed for circumstantial in relation to legal matters '..tending to establish a conclusion by inference from known facts hard to explain otherwise...' Oxford Compact English Dictionary.
As part of establishing that conclusion I have presented you with a number of relevant facts. One being the fact that North Korea, towit a member of the Axis of Evil, is being negotiated with diplomatically despite having an acknowledged nuclear programme whereas Iraq, another member of the same Axis apparently without a nuclear weapons programme, is being targeted for imminent attack and only today Bush expressed his desire for a quick timescale to with not giving the Inspectors more time to complete the inspections you yourself indicated could not be completed quickly
...Let me give you some friendly advice. Next time outline what it is that you think that your links prove and then post the most relevant quote that makes your argument. It will help you decide if the material is even worthy of posting. I think that the 1st link is relevant and worthy of argument it is not proof however.
Thank you for being so helpful. I also do not wish to give you a hard time but can I suggest that when you post your opinion and ask for others comments that you actually read those comments and refrain from erecting straw man arguments to support your own position.

I have given you evidence for my opinion that Bush's stance on Iraq is primarily based on the presence on oil reserves in that country. I have never claimed that I have proved that position but I do claim that there is a lot of evidence of a circumstantial nature which taken together supports that thesis.

I am naturally amazed that you disagree with that thesis but I am resigned to living with that fact and hope that some day you will see the light. Perhaps shortly after Hussein has been deposed and the oil licences are handed out to many large US oil firms before the smell of cordite has completely wafted away across the desert.
PS I understand that the country has already been divided up for that very purpose. But hey thats just a side issue.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Enough, let's have democray and end this brutal survival of those under dictatorial regimes.
Please see my comments above regarding Iran's past, present and potential future. Research it.

How many wars will it take to fight others' battles for them--whether they want us to or not? What will be left of our economy, our population, and our reputations when it is all over? Remember what happened to others (Napoleon, Hitler) when they tried to conquer the world. Don't argue about the differences in motivations. Consider the consequences.

Don't forget the phrase "imperial delusions." Let's see what happens first: genuine, stable democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the US pullout from those countries in chaos.

I have to add that our occupation of Iraq will stretch us too thin to fulfill any hope of bringing stability (if not democracy) to Afghanistan. I don't know exactly what could work in Afghanistan, but rebuilding their infrastructure and creating a national army would be a good start to a solution. A structure like that in Egypt might work.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
How about making an argument to rebut mine that the war was not a foregone conclusion. Is the best argument that you have is that I made a mistake? Wow, good for you. Please put a star on your head and we will all clap now for your reprimand of me. Oh happy day, the sanctity of the United Kingdom has been upheld and the barbarians have been corrected.

Oh my gawd. My unrecognised humour quotient has plummeted to new depths. Still the help Florida gave us in the war was much appreciated when it arrived.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I continue to believe that Mr Bush's stance towards Iraq is based primarily on the presence of the large oil reserves in that country. That other issues are also at stake is not in doubt but having worked in the oil industry my reasons for taking that view are many and varied and I have supplied much supporting evidence for that view. That this evidence is circumstantial is self evident. That it points in favour of my hypothesis is I think also self evident. Talk about speaking out of both sides of ones mouth. You have evidence but it is not "proof"? Sorry but I don't know how to take this seriously.


proof ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf)
n.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

I will only address the rest of your post if you answer the following question. If you don't answer it then I do not take you as being serious.

Ok, here goes, does the "circumstantial" evidence that you detail in your above quote compel your mind to accept the assertion that "Mr Bush's stance towards Iraq is based primarily on the presence of the large oil reserves to be true"? In other words, using deductive reasoning and your circumstantial evidence are you able to arive at a conclusion as to whether or not oil is the primary reason for the war with Iraq.

Enough with the games, Yes or no?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
It's an appeal to the Gallery. The only time that I think such an argument is valid is if a majority of experts in a given field accept a proposition.

The majority of experts in science used to be church goers.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
RandFan
It's an appeal to the Gallery. The only time that I think such an argument is valid is if a majority of experts in a given field accept a proposition.

The majority of experts in science used to be church goers. (emphasis added)

Times have changed. Most experts demand peer review and don't easily cling to fanciful whims. When a majority of astronomers accepted "red shift" then it was reasonable in my opinion to accept "red shift". When a significant majority of doctors accepted epylori (sp) as a cause of ulcers then I think it is reasonable to accept such a notion. It's a combination of appealing to authority and appealing to the gallery. In this instance the gallery is made up of experts in a given field.

If one has evidence that a majority of experts hold a given position then I think that position is worthy of consideration.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by RandFan
I will only address the rest of your post if you answer the following question. If you don't answer it then I do not take you as being serious.

Ok, here goes, does the "circumstantial" evidence that you detail in your above quote compel your mind to accept the assertion that "Mr Bush's stance towards Iraq is based primarily on the presence of the large oil reserves to be true"? In other words, using deductive reasoning and your circumstantial evidence are you able to arive at a conclusion as to whether or not oil is the primary reason for the war with Iraq.

Enough with the games, Yes or no?.

Oh you are so masterful RandFan. Two can play at your game. I will only take you seriously when you stop erecting straw man arguments about me. Enough of the games. Yes or no. Or does that only work for you? Sorry. A sudden attack of irritable bowel syndrome. You know what I mean.

I have told you over and over again RandFan. I do not know how to say it again. I have posted a large amount of evidence of a circumstantial nature which together with my knowledge of the oil industry leads me to believe that the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country.

Is that clear enough for you?

Let me put it to you in a simple easy to understand way. In court a matter is under trial. As part of that trial evidence is presented. One piece of evidence is that the acused claimed to be at a pool hall at the time of the murder, which was committed miles away. The prosecution produced evidence that he wasn't in fact at the pool hall at that time. Now unless I am very much mistaken the evidence that he was not in fact at the pool hall was just that. Evidence that he was not all the pool hall. It is not proof that he killed the victim. Unless I am also very much mistaken that is still called evidence in a trial in the USA. Another example (yawn) that he had some of the murdered man's money in his wallet. Again evidence but not proof of guilt. The accused might still be found guilty because of other evidence which in combination proved that he did it .
You see. Much evidence tending towards a conclusion. No proof. But lots of such evidence might possibly be enough to convict in Mr Bush's old state of Texas.

That Saddam Hussein is an evil SOAB is not in dispute. Neither is it that it would probably be better for Iraqi's (plural and innocent) that he be removed. What is at issue is the reasons presented for attacking Iraq now. When the CIA itself says he is not an imminent threat. When North Korea is negotiated with diplomatically. When other regimes are just as bad and with nuclear potential. I could go on but have already discussed much of the evidence supporting my view. If the quality of argument we have seen over Iraq is really all there is (and there may yet be proof that he has WOMD, which the people of the world have yet to see) then I can only ask the real who next and how far does it go? To those countries who kill their own people without trial, to those countries which have nuclear weapons, to those countries whose aeronautical industries threaten Boeing?

You have already agreed that oil is a factor in the US govenments stance on Iraq so we are talking about degree and if you read Michael Moore's book Stupid White Men you will find much additional supporting evidence for my view. Not Michael Moore's view, my view and not proof. Just evidence linking Bush amongst other things with people from Enron and certain actions he took after being elected. Please note RandFan this is only part of the evidential trail.

We might also usefully ask where exactly on the creaming cycle are the lower forty eight? Where is the world oil supply curve going? What is the projected energy needs of the USA? Where is that need to be supplied from? Interesting questions. What is the political state of play within Saudi Arabia? Where are the world's oil reserves located? Who has control over the primary Caspian Sea export routes. China? Iran? Georgia? Chechnya?

Now I notice that you have not engaged with many of the reasons I have presented for my viewpoint and have interestingly tended to lecture me about other peripheral points. Now tell me what makes Iraq a unique target for Bush (and Blair but he is just riding George's coat tails for his future CV. You know giving lectures to the faithful in Pittsburgh at gazillions of dollars per talk. Just a hunch. No proof. Just a wild surmise. No doubt entirely wrong headed as usual)at this time as opposed to two years ago and as opposed to other nauseous countries around the world?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Times have changed. Most experts demand peer review and don't easily cling to fanciful whims. When a majority of astronomers accepted "red shift" then it was reasonable in my opinion to accept "red shift". When a significant majority of doctors accepted epylori (sp) as a cause of ulcers then I think it is reasonable to accept such a notion. It's a combination of appealing to authority and appealing to the gallery. In this instance the gallery is made up of experts in a given field.

Not as much as we had hoped apparently.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Oh you are so masterful RandFan. Two can play at your game. I will only take you seriously when you stop erecting straw man arguments about me. Enough of the games. Yes or no. Or does that only work for you? Sorry. A sudden attack of irritable bowel syndrome. You know what I mean.

I have told you over and over again RandFan. I do not know how to say it again. I have posted a large amount of evidence of a circumstantial nature which together with my knowledge of the oil industry leads me to believe that the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country.

Is that clear enough for you? Hold on there tex, you are the one having fits over my use of the word "proof". All your courtroom examples won't change the fact that it was correct for me to use the word "proof". You might not like it but the dictionary supports my use of the word.

Let's go back.

E.J.Armstrong
You specifically claimed that 'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.' You are big on justifying claims so I would be grateful if you could jpoint to one place where I said what you claimed RandFan.

RandFan
There is no need for that. Do you reject the notion that Bush's ties to the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil?

E.J.Armstrong
There is no need for what exactly RandFan? Pointing out that you misrepresented me? You say that my use of the word constitutes a straw man. I'm not going to back off. The usage of the word was correct. For evidence I offer the dictionary.


proof ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf)
n.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

RandFan
Ok, here goes, does the "circumstantial" evidence that you detail in your above quote compel your mind to accept the assertion that "Mr Bush's stance towards Iraq is based primarily on the presence of the large oil reserves to be true"? In other words, using deductive reasoning and your circumstantial evidence are you able to arive at a conclusion as to whether or not oil is the primary reason for the war with Iraq.

It's really a simple question E.J., by the dictionary standard was it appropriate of me to use the word "proof", Yes or no?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Not as much as we had hoped apparently. So this passes as argument?

Do you have to prove to yourself all scientific principles or are you willing to accept those that are endorsed by the majority of the scientific comunity?

[Supercharts]

Basically it's what the USA wants.
This isn't Stalinism, or any other crap-ideology. This Is What We Want.
If it disagees with your view then too bad.
We [U.S.A.] rule!!!
You don't like it too bad.
No apologies.
Bitch, ain't it?
We rule and you don't.
[Of course we coud all embrace 'Juche'. The 'Dear Leader'. We could all eat grass & roots and stufff.
I can have a pizza delivered in 20 minutes. Does that make you angry?
Bwaahaahaa. :D

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
You have made a point that the USSR was an evil empire, but that was already my opinion. That is not the point that I was making. There is no comparison between the 10s of millions murdered by the Soviet Union and the attempt of the United States to influence other nations.

The US has been benevolent at times, but it has been selective in its support for democracy when the people of a country have wanted democracy. Take the case of the Shah in Iran,... The United States was justifiably concerned about fundamentalism.

Allende in Chile, Marcos in the Phillipines (tellingly, the US fully supported Marcos in the face of the revolution against him, maintained a large military presence in the Phillipines,... I will have to look up Chile but the military presence in the Philippines was not the reason why Marcos was in power.

and yet he was still overthrown by Filipinos wanting democracy),... The revolution was Supported by the US. You can't just throw out examples. Their must be a reason.

...or, just a year ago, support for a military coup in Venezuela that tried to overthrow a democracy. (That effort failed after two days and the US was giving material support to the coup for months before the attempt. Chavez may be run out of office yet now that opposition against him has grown greatly, but at least it will be because the people have demanded he step down. They don't want to replace him with a military dictatorship.) Again I don't have information. Could you supply some evidence when you post these examples?

My point has never been that the US is worse or as bad as the USSR, but that too often we have behaved the same way. We were so clumsy about it that the USSR was winning the global propaganda war. My point is that we are better than the Soviet Union and I don't believe that the Soviet Union was winning anything. Western nations knew of the murders and Gulags and kidnapping and human rights abuses. Your notion is silly.

I told this story once before on this board, so I apologize if you've read it before. Back in 1977 or '78, I was in a political science class at LSU that was taught by the chairman of the department (Dr. Crabb, a Middle East expert). He asked the class who was more popular throughout the world, the USA or the USSR. Like most of the students, I guessed wrong. I remember the surprise on the faces (and in my body), even a couple of gasps, when he revealed the answer: the USSR. Dr. Crabb was no commie sympathizer. He was just being frank. That's how badly our foreign policy has been conducted. Sorry, I don't accept this. It was unfortunate that you where not skeptical. I usually questioned my teachers in poly-sci when they made such dumb claims and on a number of occasions I got them to admit that they were wrong.

RandFan, I am such a big supporter of democracy and capitalism that I get angry when our government does things (of which the vast majority of Americans are not even aware) that are contrary to our principals (such as the rights of others to self-determination) and that cause us long-term harm in order to serve short-term special interests. For example, in the 1950's we assassinated the democratically elected leader of Iran and orchestrated the Shah's ascendency to power. Why? Because Iran was nationalizing its oil fields. What happened? A couple years or so after assuming power, the Shah nationalized the oil fields! Iran was moving to a fundamental government long before the Shah ascended to power. We may have provided the catalyst to accelerate the inevitable but we did not cause the fundamentalism. Again I'm surprised that you are not skeptical of such notions. Have you ever read any counter theories as to what was happening in the mid-east or do you just accept what is taught in school?

Now we have a militant, extremely anti-American government in Iran that is probably working around the clock to develop nuclear weapons. However, there is genuine reason to expect that soon the Ayatollahs will be overthrown and democracy restored in Iran. There are a lot of people there who want it--but they DO NOT want the USA to interfere and "liberate" them. That's important to remember.

So I am not anti-American. I am exactly the opposite. I am against those who harm our long-term interests and the beneficial influence we could have on the rest of the world by leading by example rather than by force. Our pursuit of empire will turn the rest of the world against us. I would say that you have been fed a steady diet of propaganda. If I could get you to do just one thing it would be this. Please keep an open mind, learn to think critically and question things, there are often two sides to every story.

One more story. Do you remember some years ago (it may have been back in the 80's) the story of the town bully who was assassinated after the town conspired against him? No one was ever arrested for the murder because no one in town would give any information to law enforcement.

Well, the US is perceived as the world's bully. This is a perception that is growing. Why do perceptions count? Because the rest of the world will secretly conspire against us to work against our interests if they think we are too powerful for their good. I'm not saying they will go to war against us (some might, such as Islamic militants), but they will cooperate with us less and less. I do remember that story. It does not justify people strapping bombs to them and killing other people.

Wayne, there will always be people fed propaganda by their leaders. We can't stop that. I agree that the US needs to do a better job diplomatically but we must not sacrifice our security in the false hopes that it will make people happy. Such an attempt is a fool’s hope. You make some points that we should act morally but you have not made a valid argument why we should not ensure that Saddam keep his promise and disarm.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
The United States was justifiably concerned about fundamentalism.

:confused: I was talking about how we overthrew a democratic government in Iran in the 1950's, not the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. In the 50's we were not the least bit concerned about fundamentalism. We were concerned about the oil fields. This can be easily learned by you with a minimum of research.

You say that I have been fed propaganda, but the shoe is on the wrong foot. From your unfamiliarity with the examples I've provided, including events as recent as what happened in Venezuela last year, it is clear to me that what you "know" comes from the right-wing propaganda mill. You need to learn more about recent history and current events before you become so sure in your opinions.

Edited to add: The Iranian prime minister that the CIA had assassinated in 1953 was Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq. His first name is sometimes spelled "Muhammed."

Here is a snapshot summary (http://smccd.net/accounts/helton/decoloni.htm) of the event. There are many other sources that go into detail.
1953 In Iran, the CIA instigates the overthrow of the nationalist Mossadeq government after it attempts to nationalize Iran' oil industry. The Shah, supported by the U.S., returns to power. The Shah's regime, which lasts until 1979, is characterized by brutal repression.

Edited again to add: I just noticed as I looked through that source I provided above that it provided this little gem that I mentioned to you earlier.
1954 The French agree to recognize Vietnamese independence. The country is divided into two zones, pending elections. U.S.-backed anti-communists in the Southern zone refuse to allow elections to be held. U.S. involvement in Vietnam increases. Under the same agreement, Laos and Cambodia become two separate states.

Two zones, created by France, pending elections, NOT sovereign states as you were misinformed.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
The revolution was Supported by the US. You can't just throw out examples. Their must be a reason.

The Reagan administration eventually asked Marcos to leave, but it was very slow and reluctant to do so, just as it was with the Shah of Iran in 1979. I remember both of these events and how slow the US government was to recognize the will of the people in those countries and the inevitable overthrow of the dictators (as well as the overthrow of Somoza in Nicaragua).

I found this brief history (http://www.planetholiday.com/philippines/philippines_history.asp) of the Phillipine revolution.
The turning point for the regime came after the assassination of Benigno Aquino upon his return from exile in 1983. Public opinion rallied behind his widow, Corazon Aquino. A massive campaign of demonstrations and non-violent protest confronted Marcos. Equally important, President Reagan faced a groundswell of American public opinion in favour of Aquino, and withdrew his backing from Marcos. The Filipino military, Marcos' last bastion of support, followed suit and Marcos left for Hawaiian exile in February 1986 and died in September 1989....
The Reagan administration for a long time continued to voice support for Marcos in defiance of the revolution underway in the Phillipines. I remember VP George H.W. Bush making a speech toasting Marcos even after popular opinion in the U.S. was that he should go. If my memory is correct, it was only about a month after that stupid speech that Reagan withdrew support for Marcos.

[Wayne Grabert]

I found this summary (http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpwei153088895jan15,0,4508116.story?coll=ny-opinion-archive) of the coup attempt in Venzuela last year. Here is some of the one-page article.
Uncle Sam's Hands Are Oily in Venezuela

By Mark Weisbrot
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, an independent nonpartisan think tank in Washington. This is from The Washington Post.

January 15, 2003

(snip)

Most Americans seem to believe the Chavez government is a dictatorship, and one of the most repressive governments in Latin America. But these impressions are false.

Not only was Chavez democratically elected; his government is probably one of the least repressive in Latin America. This, too, is easy to see in Caracas. While army troops are deployed to protect Miraflores (the presidential compound), there is little military or police presence in most of the capital, which is particularly striking in such a tense and volatile political situation. No one seems the least bit afraid of the national government and, despite the seriousness of this latest effort to topple it, no one has been arrested for political activities.

(snip)

To anyone who has been in Venezuela lately, opposition charges that Chavez is "turning the country into a Castro-Communist dictatorship" - repeated so often that millions of Americans apparently now believe them - are absurd on their face.

If any leaders have a penchant for dictatorship in Venezuela, it is the opposition's. On April 12 they carried out a military coup against the elected government. They installed the head of the business federation as president and dissolved the legislature and the supreme court, until mass protests and military officers reversed the coup two days later.

(snip)

Now consider how people in Caracas' barrios see the opposition, a view rarely heard in the United States: Led by representatives of the corrupt old order, the opposition is trying to overthrow a government that has won three elections and two referendums since 1998. Its coup failed partly because hundreds of thousands of people risked their lives by taking to the streets to defend democracy.

The United States, alone in the Americas, supported the coup, and before then it increased financial support of the opposition. Washington shares PDVSA executives' goals of increasing oil production, busting OPEC quotas and even selling off the company to private foreign investors. So it is not surprising that the whole conflict is seen in much of Latin America as another case of the United States trying to overthrow an independent, democratically elected government.

Edited to add: These three posts by me support what I said earlier about Iran, Vietnam, the Phillipines and Venezuela. You said you'd research the Allende/Chile matter. Allende was assassinated too. Henry Kissinger was behind that one. Allende was democratically elected and replaced by Pinochet, one of the most ruthless, murderous dictators in the history of Latin America.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
You make some points that we should act morally but you have not made a valid argument why we should not ensure that Saddam keep his promise and disarm.
It's because I don't want to make that argument. If I were Bush, I'd be trying to resolve the Iraq situation by getting the inspectors in there to finish their job and hold out the end of the sanctions as the incentive. I'd also start some humanitarian efforts while the inspectors were carrying out their work, such as rebuilding Iraq's water purification plants and allowing the import of chlorine for those plants under UN supervision and maintenance. Then, once the disarming process was complete, I'd pull out our forces from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but after getting some concessions for the safety of the Kurds, perhaps including an international peacekeeping force in northern Iraq.

Getting our troops out of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would kick the legs out of financial support for al Qaida.

What I have been arguing against is war against Iraq. Isn't it clear to you now that the decision to go to war was made a long time ago and that the new inspections were just a fig leaf? Look at the troop deployments that have been going on and the bellicose war talk coming from Bush lately. We're going to war--soon. I predict it will be next month. The first smoking guns found Iraq will be those fired by US Marines.

And by the way, I have long thought that the Iraq situation should be resolved the way I described and I'm angry that Clinton didn't get the job done.

(Edited for a couple minor corrections and to clarify the last sentence.)

Edited to add: in your last post you say that the notion that the USSR was winning the global propaganda war is silly because of what Western nations knew. The world is not just the West. In the REST of the world, the USSR was looked upon more favorably, as hard as that might be to believe.

[rikzilla]

Well guys,

On several threads here I have posted much circumstantial evidence pointing to Iraq's direct involvement in the first WTC bombing. I've read some other books that point out that Iraq's Mukhabarat (political secret police) actively run terrorism schools. Yet other books point out connections both proven and inferred between al Qaida and Iraqi intelligence.

Now we all know the world is a complex place. There are a myriad of interactions taking place in crafting the decision to go after Saddam. Are economic (oil) considerations being addressed? Well, I'm sure they are. Are they being addressed to the exclusion of all else?? Of course not. Only a fool would suppose such a thing.

I believe consideration #1 is Saddam's danger to his neighbors via WMD. #2 is Saddam's sponsorship of terror and likely cooperation with al Qaida. #3. is most likely the oil card. #4 is the danger to his own people and the Kurds. #5 would have to be something like the need to liberate Iraq and return it to the world community....ie the need to provide humanitarian support and lift sanctions so that the common Iraqi can return to a life of relative peace, freedom, and prosperity.

That's my top 5.....I'd be interested in how you guys might rearrange them to fit your view of reality.

-zilla

Edited to add....if the US removed it's military completely as Wayne suggests, not only would it destabilize the region, it would likely embolden al Qaida and promote further terrorism as Osama would undoubtedly point to US withdrawal as a triumph of al Qaida terrorist tactics. Also, it would further help the cause of terrorism by leaving an Iraqi regime in place that is amenable to providing training, weapons, and money to terrorists.

Clinton pulled the US out of Somalia after the blakhawk down incident. Proving to Osama that we would cut and run if blooded. Clinton's move emboldened al Qaida to kill more Americans. Clinton's mistakes helped make 9/11 happen. A general bail out from the middle east would even be a worse strategic move IMHO.

[Drooper]

Taking your inference about the removal of the US military presence in Saudi Arabia.

This is OBL's primary objective. Why? Because he wants to lead an uprising and establish an Islamic fundalemtalist state there. With the US hanging around this isn't possible.

I just made that up, but it fits the known facts about OBL, his relationship with the Saudi rulers and his policy on US baes in Saudi.

[Roadtoad]

Just a few points I'd like make:

(1.) At this stage, it still acceptable to admit you do not possess all the facts, and that it is possible to either have no opinion, or to admit that you hold an incomplete opinion. (I hold the latter.) It is better to admit to such rather than to claim knowledge you do not possess, and damn yourself and others.

(2.) Having said that, it occurs to me that the smear campaign against certain individuals (they know who they are) serves no purpose save to bolster either Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. The same can be said for extremist views coming from both the right and the left. The facts remain facts, regardless of how we "feel" about them.

(3.) Given what is known about Hussein, it is unlikely that he will ever tell the truth about what he has, or how far research has proceeded in regards to WMDs. Even the documentation is likely suspect, and leaves one wondering if there's any value to it, until we actually find the weapons themselves. To date, we've permitted this shell game to continue since 1991, and we've shown little resolve to end it.

(4.) The UN has not backed up its words with positive action since the end of Gulf War I. It has left itself suspect in the Arab world, and has brought about the questions of its credibility on its own. Its internal corruption and incompetence when armed force is required are ultimately going to bring about its downfall. This worries me: what will replace it?

(5.) Bin Laden is trying to obtain WMDs. If he gets them, he will use them. He will do so, especially if it kills his own people, claiming any number of things regarding such an incident, including saying it was the fault of the United States.

(6.) Oil is always going to be a factor in any Middle East conflict. Get used to it.

Any comments?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla
That's my top 5.....I'd be interested in how you guys might rearrange them to fit your view of reality.

You left out "he tried to kill my daddy."

Getting our military presence out of Saudi Arabia is something we should do out of respect for the people of the region. It would do much to boost our esteem there. It's something I felt we should do ASAP long before I had ever heard of bin Laden or al Qaida.

I was familiar enough with Middle Eastern culture (though I've never been there) to know what a big deal it would be to put troops there and much was made in the news at the time about what a big deal it was to get the Saudis to agree to let us station troops there. Showing people some respect would be a refreshing change in our foreign policy since it is something we have frequently overlooked.

[Wayne Grabert]

It occurs to me that I should add some clarification to the USA vs USSR in past world opinion question. I'm sure that if an international poll were taken 25 years ago asking people in which country would they rather live, the USA or the USSR, the USA would have easily won that popularity contest.

It may be that Dr. Crabb was limiting his consideration to the international elites (people in government or who have a lot of influence on their government). The reason is that the non-alligned countries would play the two superpowers against each other and the USA tended to be more heavy-handed in its foreign policy than the USSR. Again, I'm talking about the non-alligned countries and that would exclude Eastern Europe.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
The Reagan administration eventually asked Marcos to leave, but it was very slow and reluctant to do so, just as it was with the Shah of Iran in 1979. I remember both of these events and how slow the US government was to recognize the will of the people in those countries and the inevitable overthrow of the dictators (as well as the overthrow of Somoza in Nicaragua). I remember Aquino being shot in the plane as he returned from exile. As I remembered that we supported the revolution, slow or not. That was from my memory so I'm not as stupid as you would suppose. That Regan backed Marcos does not make the US an empire.

The Reagan administration for a long time continued to voice support for Marcos in defiance of the revolution underway in the Phillipines. I remember VP George H.W. Bush making a speech toasting Marcos even after popular opinion in the U.S. was that he should go. If my memory is correct, it was only about a month after that stupid speech that Reagan withdrew support for Marcos. Please note that public opinion was fickle in the Philipines. Marcos enjoyed public support that grew and waned. It was the assasination that put it over the top and the subsequent discover of the Marocs' greed that almost put the nail in the coffin. I say almost because public opinion moved in their favor after the corrupt leader passed away. Emelda returned to the Philipines from exile with significat support.

The picture you paint is not quite correct.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
That was from my memory so I'm not as stupid as you would suppose.
I don't think that you are stupid. I think you are underinformed about the matters we've been discussing. I don't know it all, either.

Anyway, this just in. Here is what Russia (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030122/wl_nm/iraq_russia_dc_4) has to say about the topic of this thread.
World - Reuters
Russia Military See U.S. Iraq Attack in Feb -Report
Wed Jan 22, 4:36 AM ET

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's armed forces have obtained information that the United States and its allies have already decided to launch military action in Iraq from mid-February, news agency Interfax said on Wednesday.

The agency's specialist military news wire AVN, quoting an unnamed high-ranking source in the Russian general staff, said U.S.-led operations would be launched once an attacking force of 150,000 had been assembled in the Gulf.

"According to the information we have, the operation is planned for the second half of February. The decision to launch it has been taken but not yet been made public," the source told the agency, which has generally authoritative contacts in the Russian military and political establishment.

The source added that the main aim of the war would be to secure control of Iraqi oilfields.
"The military operation against Iraq will be conducted by a combination of means -- strikes will be from the air, land and sea. The war will be short, lasting about one month," the Russian source was quoted as saying.

The source added that the main aim of the operation was not so much to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) but to secure U.S. control over Iraqi oilfields.

"Hussein is the pretext. The real aim of the military action is control over Iraqi oil," he said.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Two zones, created by France, pending elections, NOT sovereign states as you were misinformed. Interesting that the French defended the south before the United States did. It was they who divided the nation and agreed to let the Vietnamese hold elections. The fact remains that the North invaded the south. It was a separate state by your own admission. What right did the North have to invade the South and why did the French step in to protect the South. Because the French had intended for the people to be self governing and knew that the sentiments of the North were different than the South.

If the south had decided to become communist there would be no turning back. No more decisions, no more choice, mo more freedom. You refuse to acknowledge that business owners would lose their businesses by force, also that land owners would lose their land by force and people would be killed simply because a majority of people wanted to forever eliminate their opportunity to decide what kind of life they would lead.

It was not as simple a story as you paint.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Interesting that the French defended the south before the United States did. It was they who divided the nation and agreed to let the Vietnamese hold elections. The fact remains that the North invaded the south. It was a separate state by your own admission. What right did the North have to invade the South and why did the French step in to protect the South.
It was the FRENCH who divided the nation. I made NO admission that it was a separate state. That was YOUR claim. Are you now going to claim that the Confederate States of America was a sovereign nation and the Union had no right to send in troops to try to reclaim it? In THAT war, the French also stepped in to assist the South.

The South Vietnamese government had no legitimacy. Almost all its support came from Saigon. The rest of the country was sympathetic to the North and wanted to unite under "Uncle" Ho. Maybe they were foolish, but that's what they wanted. Ho understood this when he said to the US, "you may kill more of us, but we will outlast you." He was right. That's also why, once the US left, South Vietnam fell without resistance.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
It was the FRENCH who divided the nation. I made NO admission that it was a separate state. That was YOUR claim. Are you now going to claim that the Confederate States of America was a sovereign nation and the Union had no right to send in troops to try to reclaim it? In THAT war, the French also stepped in to assist the South.

The South Vietnamese government had no legitimacy. Almost all its support came from Saigon. The rest of the country was sympathetic to the North and wanted to unite under "Uncle" Ho. Maybe they were foolish, but that's what they wanted. Ho understood this when he said to the US, "you may kill more of us, but we will outlast you." He was right. That's also why, once the US left, South Vietnam fell without resistence. The comparison with the US is wrong. We were not under the leadership of another nation when the South ceded. If the south had formed it's own state at the end of the Revolutionary war then I woul say YES they would have been a soverign nation.

The French divided the country for a puprose Wayne. The South fell because they were demoralized after the US left. South Vietnames soldiers fought bravely during the war. Your implication is an insult to the South Vietnames people who did want freedom and the many who were rounded up and shot by that dear beloved uncle "HO".

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
The French divided the country for a puprose Wayne.
The French were always interested in dividing people. That's why they came to the assistance of the Confederates.

Originally posted by RandFan
The South fell because they were demoralized after the US left.
Well, that's weak. It seems like they just didn't care.

Originally posted by RandFan
South Vietnames soldiers fought bravely during the war. Your implication is an insult to the South Vietnames people who did want freedom and the many who were rounded up and shot by that dear beloved uncle "HO".
I'm not implying anything or insulting anyone. I am just reporting facts that you are trying to ignore. If it were up to you, I suppose we'd still be trying to win that no-win situation.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
The French were always interested in dividing people. That's why they came to the assistance of the Confederates. Dumb argument. They did just becuase they wanted to divide people

Well, that's weak. It seems like they just didn't care. When the US left they were in disaray, they were scared and demoralized. Simple fact. They did care.

I'm not implying anything or insulting anyone. I am just reporting facts that you are trying to ignore. If it were up to you, I suppose we'd still be trying to win that no-win situation. First off it was winable. The North could not have sustained the losses for much longer. America just simply gave up. And thanks to Johnson and Mcnamara we did everything wrong. Slow build up, ever changing rules of engagement. Vietnam as a no win situation is the biggest myth in military history.

And BTW Newt Gingrich says that hollywood is to blame for our ugly reputation. I don't agree but I thought you would get a kick out of it. The headline is at Drugereport.com.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posed by EJ Armstrong:
If oil is not the primary factor perhaps you can explain why North Korea is being dealt with diplomatically when it has more evidence to date of actually having a nuclear weapons programme and is just as lethal a regime as its other partners in the 'Axis of Evil'.

1. North Korea hasn't invaded any of it's neighbours lately.
2. The North Korean regime hasn't engaged in acts of genocide against it's citizens. Of course, many of them have died as a result of being under the cosh of a failed economic system and a kleptocratic dictatorship.
3. One argument I've heard in favour of a military initiative against Iraq is to prevent the Iraqis gaining nuclear weapons in the way the North Koreans did.


On your own 'logic' I trust you are boycotting everything that comes from Europe because of your attitude towards the EU. Please note that I am not actually recommending that course of action because I recognise it would be just as inane as your own suggestion.

They've already priced themselves out of the market. The clothes I'm wearing were presumably made in a developing country, the food I eat is of Irish origin, while the tools of my trade in scientific research originate for the most part in the UK and US.

Without wishing to be patronising (again!) I reject this. Can I just point out that England was not alone in the Second World war. It had the assistance of the Welsh, Northern Irish (and many Southern Irish) and the Scots. This, I think, was truly the defining influence on the outcome of the second world war. Oh and a few Commonwealth countries.

In fairness while WWII was a glorious moment for the UK for many reasons it simply didn't have the manpower or materials to launch an amphibious invasion of Europe on it's own. Churchill devoted much energy to securing American entry prior to Pearl Harbour.

For example, when I refer to the the leader of Florida I am of course referring to Mr Bush. I hope that makes the matter entirely clear.

And where does recently re-elected governor of Florida Jeb Bush fit into all of this?

The majority of experts in science used to be church goers.

Your point being? Many scientific innovators were actual clerics. Copernicus and Gregor Mendel, for instance.

[Smalso]

It is in the national interest of the United States that stability be maintained in the Middle East. It is also in the interest of the rest of the world; but the primary interest the US has in the are is oil. We want--and need--a cheap and plentiful supply. It is not conceivable to me that oil is not a very important reason for going to war with Iraq. Maybe the main reason. Maybe not. Only Bush knows Bush's mind. Even if oil is the main reason for going to way with Iraq and toppling Saddam's regime so that Iraqi oil will be more available to us, it does not mean that Bush's primary motive is to line the pockets of himself and his friends. If Iraqi oil is allowed to flow freely to the US, somebody is going to make a lot of money. So what? An abundant supply of oil to the US is certainly in our national interest.

I was contemplating the possibility that this whole thing just possibly may be a giantic bluff. It is conceivable that the Iraqi military and high politicians are not as much under Sadaam's thumb as is believed and that a real threat, backed up by troops massing for attack, would be enough to turn them against him. Maybe this is what Bush is banking on, or, at least, hoping for. Some of them could be seeing the writing on the wall and be planning to cover their own asses and let Saddam take the fall. The leader of a coup against Saddam would certainly endear himself to the US. And it could very well be that Saddam himself, for all his bluster and posturing, will blink first. Such a senario would certainly be preferable to war and would, not coincidentally, boost Bush's popularity and approval ratings over the top. Of course, having gone this far, the US must be fully prepared to invade Iraq in spite of the potential problems involved with being an occupying power in the area.

Just a few random musings and ramblings.

[Roadtoad]

I got this from a speech by Charles Krauthammer, (a writer I admire tremendously). I read it in Imprimus, which came from Hillsdale College. If you don't get it, you ought to. Great stuff...


There are two schools of committed multilateralists, and it is important to distinguish between them There are the liberal internationalists who act from principle, and there are the realists who act from pragmatism. The first was seen in the run-up to the congressional debate on the war on Iraq. The main argument from opposition Democrats was that we should wait and hear what the U.N. was saying. Senator Kennedy, in a speech before the vote in Congress, said, "I'm waiting for the final recommendation of the Security Council before I'm going to say how I'm going to vote." Senator Levin, who at the time was the Chariman of the Senate Armed Services Commitee, actually suggested giving authority to the President to act in Iraq only upon the approval of the U.N. Security Council.

The liberal internationalist position is a principled position, but it makes no internal sense. It is based on a moral vision of the world, but it is impossible to understand the moral logic by which the approval of the Security Council confers moral legitimacy on this or any other enterprise. How does the blessing of the butchers of Tiananmen Square, who hold the Chinese seat on the Council, lend moral authority to anything, let alone the invasion of another country? On what basis is moral legitimacy lent by the support of the Kremlin, whose central interest in Iraq, as all of us know, is oil and the $8 billion that Iraq owes Russia in debt? Or of the French, who did everything that they could weaken the resolution, then came on board at the last minute because they saw that an Anglo-American train was possibly leaving for Baghdad, and they didn't want to be left at the station?

My point is not to blame the French or the Russians or the Chinese for acting in their own national interest. that's what nations do. My point is to express wonder at Americans who find it unseemly to act in the name of our own national interest, and who cannot see the logical absurdity of granting moral legitimacy to American action only if it earns the prior approval of others which is granted or withheld on the most cynical grounds of self interest.


From the same speech:

Of course, unilateralism does not mean SEEKING to act alone. One acts in concert with others when possible. It simply menas that one will not allow oneself to be held hostage to others. No one would reject the Security Council support for the war on Iraq or for any other action. the question is what to do if, at the end of the day, the Security Council or the international community refuses to back us? Do we allow ourselves to be dictated to on issues of vital national interest? The answer has to be "no," not just because we are being willful, but because we have a special role, a special place in the world today, and therefore a special responsibility.

Let me give you an interesting example of specialness that attaches to another nation. During the 1997 negotiations in Oslo over the land mine treaty, when just about the entire Western world was campaigning for a land mine ban, one of the holdouts was Finland. the Finnish prime minister found himself scolded by his Scandanavian neighbors for stubbornly refusing to sign on to the ban. Finally, having had enough, he noted tartly that being foursquare in favor of banning land mines was a "very convenient" pose for those neighbors who "want Finland to be their land mine."

In many parts of the world, a thin line of American GIs is the land mine. The main reason that the U.S. opposed the land mine treaty is that we need them in places like the DMZ in Korea. Sweden and Canada and France do not have to worry about an invasion from North Korea killing thousands of their soldiers. We do. Therefore, as the unipolar power and as the guarantor of peace in places where Swedes do not tread, we need weapons that others do not. Being uniquely situated in the world, we cannot afford the empty platitudes of allies not quite candid enough to admit they live under the protection of American power. In the end, we have no alternative but to be unilateralist. Multilateralism becomes either an exercise in futility or a cover for inaction.


I find it somewhat disingenuous that we're hearing the arguments for multilateralism from the self-same people who insisted back in the late '90s that we needed to go back in and kick Saddam's ass. Not to cast aspersions, but it sounds pretty damn weird that the same Dems who insisted we had to attack now are suddenly demanding we wait for fine folks like France, who's engendered the ire of the world for continuing to conduct tests of its own nukes. Odd...

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Smalso
It is in the national interest of the United States that stability be maintained in the Middle East. It is also in the interest of the rest of the world; but the primary interest the US has in the are is oil. We want--and need--a cheap and plentiful supply. It is not conceivable to me that oil is not a very important reason for going to war with Iraq. Maybe the main reason. Maybe not. Only Bush knows Bush's mind. Even if oil is the main reason for going to way with Iraq and toppling Saddam's regime so that Iraqi oil will be more available to us, it does not mean that Bush's primary motive is to line the pockets of himself and his friends. If Iraqi oil is allowed to flow freely to the US, somebody is going to make a lot of money. So what? An abundant supply of oil to the US is certainly in our national interest.

How very principled smallso. Lets start a war to make money. Who cares about all the dead Iraqis, so long as Americans are guaranteed reasonably priced fuel ?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by originalgagster


How very principled smallso. Lets start a war to make money. Who cares about all the dead Iraqis, so long as Americans are guaranteed reasonably priced fuel ? [/B]

Let's try this again about dead Iraqis. Seems to me over the past decade, more Iraqis have died at the hands of Hussein than are likely to die at the hands of Americans. Just a thought.

No, I don't have figures. Just call it a gut feeling...

[Smalso]

original gagster: Sarcasm aside, I believe what I stated to be true. An abundant oil supply is in the national interest of the United States. If Saddam torches his oil wells and, as some have suggested, the price of gasoline goes to $5.00 per gallon with proportional prices for heating oil, diesel fuel and other petroleum products, I think it will be readily seen what the US dependence on cheap oil is. I re-read my post and I could not find the part where I suggested a trade-off of oil for dead Iraquis. Nor was I suggesting that the primary purpose of the war is to make money. It is a possibility, and I do not rule it out. I believe that war should be the last resort, after all other means have been exhausted. Maybe they already have, but I have an uneasy feeling that the decision to go to war with Iraq had been made before anything else was attempted; aand that war with Iraq is inevitible as long as Sadam is in power regardless of any inspections. As I have posted elsewhere in this Forum, I do not approve of the way Bush is handling his office; and I simply don't trust him. If we are to go to war, I would rather have someone else in charge.

My post to which you replied was the result of some thoughts I had on this subject that I thought might add a little something to the discussion. It was in no way an endorsement of this impending war. Sorry if it came across that way.

[E.J.Armstrong]

So this passes as argument?

Do you have to prove to yourself all scientific principles or are you willing to accept those that are endorsed by the majority of the scientific comunity?

It's a comment. If you start a thread asking for opinion you should be prepared for comments offered in the same spirit as your own. If you don't want any such input perhaps you might state as much at the start of the thread.

No I don't have to prove all scientific arguments to myself and am prepared to accept those endorsed by the majority of the scientific community. I do not bind myself to that position because at times many new ideas are only accepted by less than the majority and I have been engaged in such research and thus knew more than the majority of experts on certain topics at certain times. I am not claiming such knowledge in relation to Mr Bush's stance towards Iraq. I am trying to assess the situation form the information available to any reasonably intelligent member of the world community through a varied press which is open to discussion about all the possible implications.

Forgive me if I am wrong but as I understand it, you are uninterested in what people think about a subject unless they are experts in that subject and in the majority on that subject. If my precis is an accurate summary of your position can I ask then if you have any expertise on why Mr Bush has adopted the position he has on Iraq as opposed to say, North Korea, and about what he actually intends to do in Iraq? Or is you view based upon what a reasonably intelligent member of the world community could surmise from the available evidence?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Hold on there tex, you are the one having fits over my use of the word "proof". All your courtroom examples won't change the fact that it was correct for me to use the word "proof". You might not like it but the dictionary supports my use of the word.

You made a false claim against me welsh and I pointed that out. Now you have made another silly claim. Please justify your claim that I am having fits over your use of the word proof. Is that proof or is it meant to be a figure of speech? Really RandFan - an ad hominen argument as well as a straw man argument. You really will have to do better than that if you want your arguments to be taken seriously.

Let us be absolutely what your strawman argument was. You stated that
'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.'

Let us look at that simple statement more closely. There are two areas where it is factually incorrect.
1/ I never stated that it was only on the basis of one issue (the knowing of people in the oil industry) that Bush is starting a war. I gave many different lines of agument (evidence of a circumstantial nature, as I have already pointed out a number of times) to support my views. On that basis alone your claim is false.
2/ I never said that my evidence constitued proof. You are therefore debating your use of the word proof, not mine and as such you will have to jusify your own argument. I don't think it is my responsibility to justify your arguments RandFan. That would be a novel idea. Rather I claimed that there was much evidence of a circumstantial nature for my view. I even gave you the dictionary definition of circumstantial. I will now give you the dictionary definition of evidence which is the word I did use rather that the word you seem to prefer. Evidence '...the available facts, cirumstances, etc indicating whether or not a thing is true or valid...' Oxford Compact English Dictionary. One such available fact is that North Korea, despite being a member of the Axis of Evil with apparently a mature nuclear capability, is being negotiated with diplomatically rather than being under threat of imminent attack. That is also an available fact, which is indicative of Bush's attitude towads Iraq. As you know there are many other relevant facts of a circumstantial evidential nature supporting my views on the matter.

Can I just point out that the two false claims discussed above pretty well constitute a straw man argument. Whether you wish to accept and justify your own words is however ultimately a matter for you, not me.

I have challenged you to show any place where I stated what you claimed I said. You have failed completely to do so. When this was pointed out a conditional apology was offered bizarrely tied to your own viewpoint.
You say that my use of the word constitutes a straw man. I'm not going to back off. The usage of the word was correct. For evidence I offer the dictionary.

Not again RandFan. You have made yet another false claim. As I have conclusively demonstrated above, my claim is not merely that your use of the word proof constitutes a straw man argument. At least read my posts, or not, as the case may be.

It really is very simple so let me take you through it again slowly.
1/ You stated that I claimed something when I hadn't.
2/ I asked you to show anywhere I said what you claimed.
3/ You failed to do so and bizarrely offered an apology tied to your own position.
4/ You now make another false claim relating merely to one word rather than the totality of your claim.
5/ You appear to be going back on your limited apology or does it still stand?
5/ You appear not to be able to recognise that your claim about my position is a straw man argument.

Do you want to go for a third strike RandFan?
It's really a simple question E.J., by the dictionary standard was it appropriate of me to use the word "proof", Yes or no?
Third strike RandFan I'm afraid.

You will have to defend your own claims yourself not me RandFan. You made a false claim. Now if you want to try to justify that claim please do so but using words that I actually used. Not ones that you made up on my behalf. I am more than happy to defend my own words as I have shown but I really don't think that I need to defend your straw man arguments as well.

I note that the Bush administration are unwilling to give the UN team more time to do their job. I wonder why. I also note that plans are in place to take over Iraqi oil installations in the event of war. One could argue that is simply to prevent an ecological catastrophe (which in Kuwait was much less extensive than initially predicted) or equally that the primary objective for the war is to be taken under western control at the earliest opportunity.

[rikzilla]

Answer: No

Click here and learn some reasons why Iraq is in "material breach" of res 687. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=311735#post311735)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You made a false claim against me welsh and I pointed that out. Now you have made another silly claim. Please justify your claim that I am having fits over your use of the word proof. Is that proof or is it meant to be a figure of speech? Really RandFan - an ad hominem argument as well as a straw man argument. You really will have to do better than that if you want your arguments to be taken seriously. No false claim, no ad hominem, no straw man.

Look, it is real simple. I stated a fact and that fact was that you had arrived at a conclusion. That is my claim. You arrived at a conclusion based upon evidence and deductive reasoning. I did not state that you claimed something.

The dictionary says; The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. it also says; The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

Now, Do you or do you not accept as true the assertion that oil is the primary reason? I ask the question rhetorically only as a means to get you to realize that YOU DO.

How do I know? Simple, I read your own words. Let's look at those words ok? Remember these are your words.

E.J.Armstrong
I have posted a large amount of evidence of a circumstantial nature which together with my knowledge of the oil industry leads me to believe that the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country.

"Leads me to believe" again, these are your words. Now stop just a minute. Take a deep breath, compare your words to the definition from the dictionary.

Again, your words;

"Large amount of evidence...together with my knowledge...leads me to believe...primarily dictated by...oil."

Now the dictionary;

The validation of a proposition by application...of induction or deduction, to assumptions...sequentially derived conclusions.

Now, please compare the two. Do you or do you not agree that your own words testify to the fact that you have fulfilled the dictionary definition of having proof that oil is the primary reason for the war? So we have "proof" by your own words that you have arrived at a conclusion (not the only possible conclusion I never said only possible conclusion) that oil is a primary reason for the war.

Now that the evidence is clearly on the table that you have come to the conclusion (not the only possible conclusion, I never said only possible conclusion) let's look at your points.

RandFan
To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise. Yes this is my statement.

1/ I never stated that it was only on the basis of one issue (the knowing of people in the oil industry) that Bush is starting a war. I NEVER said that you did!

Look more closely at my statement. I never said that it was the "only" basis. Look again, it doesn't say "only", it doesn't even imply "only". The word only is no where to be found. It is perfectly reasonable for there to be other proofs or that you could arive at other conclusions. My point is only that you have been "lead to believe" and that this is consistent with "proof" as it is defined in the dictionary.

Can you show me anywhere in my text where I say "only"? You can't, can you. Which unfortunately for you makes YOU guilty of the straw man. One down, let's look at the other one.

2/ I never said that my evidence constituted proof. I NEVER said that you did say such a thing. This is important, I never claimed that you "said" anything in this specific circumstance. I am merely showing your "state of mind". What I am claiming is what your "state of mind" was. I am claiming that you had reached a conclusion. And that conclusion was based upon evidence and your "own knowledge" and deductive reasoning. Instead of saying that by using those specific words I said "that to you...oil is proof". Which is another way of stating that you had come to "believe" that oil was a primary reason for the war.

Look at it again "that to you...oil is proof" That is all. I am stating what your state of mind is. "that to you...oil is proof"

Let me brake it down for you. You have said yourself that using circumstantial evidence and your own knowledge that you have arrived at a conclusion ("led me to believe"). Isn't that right?

The dictionary defines such a conclusion based upon such a process as "proof". There is nothing wrong with using a word to define such a conclusion based upon such a process. This is what I did. I used the word proof to define the process that you so eloquently laid out. I get the feeling that you are still in denial so look at your words again and compare them to the dictionary definition of the word "proof" and tell me that the process that you describe that lead you to a conclusion (led me to believe) is not the same process outlined in the dictionary?

You are therefore debating your use of the word proof, not mine and as such you will have to justify your own argument. I am showing you why my "usage" of the word was correct. Let's not forget how this all started. You criticized me for the "usage" of the word "proof". I went to the dictionary, the purpose of which is to define the "usage" of words. You said that my usage of the word proof constituted a straw man. Yet the word "proof" so eloquently and accurately defines the net effect (conclusion) of the very process that your words lay out. There is no other word that could more accurately describe what that conclusion would be based upon the process that you used.

Are you saying that I can only use a word if you use it first? Silly and fallacious. Just because you did not use the word proof does not remove it from my vocabulary. You describe a process by which you come to a conclusion. The only word that sums up that conclusion based upon evidence and deductive reasoning is "proof".

I don't think it is my responsibility to justify your arguments RandFan. Another straw man. Can you show me where I asked you to justify my argument? You can't because I did no such thing.

Rather I claimed that there was much evidence of a circumstantial nature for my view. Not quite, you also said that your own "knowledge" helped lead you to a conclusion.

Here, let's look at again, I get the feeling that you are confused about what it is that you said.

Again, your words;

"Large amount of evidence...together with my knowledge...leads me to believe...primarily dictated by...oil."

"Leads me to believe" those are your words. Is that statement consistent with "The validation of a proposition" from the dictionary?

I've noticed that you don't answer all of my questions. This one is not rhetorical, could you answer it?

I even gave you the dictionary definition of circumstantial. I will now give you the dictionary definition of evidence which is the word I did use rather that the word you seem to prefer. Evidence '...the available facts, circumstances, etc indicating whether or not a thing is true or valid...' Ahhh but we are talking about MY usage of the word "proof". And nothing in the definition of "circumstantial" of "evidence" can change the fact that I clearly used the word "proof" correctly now can it?

Can I just point out that the two false claims discussed above pretty well constitute a straw man argument. Whether you wish to accept and justify your own words is however ultimately a matter for you, not me. You could but you would be completely wrong. There were NO false claims. Whether YOU choose to accept that FACT or not is up to you. And it is you that is making a straw man argument and not me.

I have challenged you to show any place where I stated what you claimed I said. Well, first off I never claimed that you stated anything. Again, it is YOU that is making the straw man. Let's look at my original statement.

RandFan
'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise. Now, does anything strike you about my statement? Hmmmm..... well first it is completely devoid of "you said" or "you claimed". Thaaats right. Look at it again. What does it say? "To you...it is proof".

In other words, you have arrived at the conclusion in your mind (to you) based upon evidence (circumstantial) and using deductive reasoning that oil is the reason for war.

1/ You stated that I claimed something when I hadn't. Wrong, show me where I stated that you claimed something that you had not.

2/ I asked you to show anywhere I said what you claimed. Non sequitur since I never stated that you claimed something that you had not.

3/ You failed to do so and bizarrely offered an apology tied to your own position. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Since I never stated that you claimed something that you had not this is stupid. I did however post your words that support my contention that there is proof in your mind that oil is the primary reason for the war.

4/ You now make another false claim relating merely to one word rather than the totality of your claim. I made no claim. I showed how the dictionary supports my use of the word "proof". It's funny how your words so closely mirror the dictionary definition.

5/ You appear to be going back on your limited apology or does it still stand? What are you talking about? It would help if you would post my words when you reference them.

5/ You appear not to be able to recognize that your claim about my position is a straw man argument. You fail to realize that

[list=1]
I never stated that you claimed anything
I claim only that you have arrived at a conclusion based upon evidence, your knowledge and deductive reasoning
That I used the word proof to define the conclusion based upon the process outlined in the dictionary
Your own words you use to explain your position describes perfectly the dictionary definition of proof
That you are the one making straw man arguments since I NEVER stated that you claimed anything
[/list=1]

Do you want to go for a third strike RandFan? This is so funny, you keep saying that I am making a straw man argument. Yet you never took the time to verify that claim. No where in any of your posts do you show where I stated that you claimed anything. I was simply defining the conclusion that you reached based upon circumstantial evidence coupled with knowledge that led you to "believe". If it led you to believe then it is accurate to say that you came to a conclusion and that you did so through deductive reasoning. Sorry E.J. but that is the exact definition of "proof".

You will have to defend your own claims yourself not me RandFan. But it is you that are going to have to defend YOUR claims. You have said specifically that I "claimed" something that I did not. Remember, I never stated that you claimed anything. I merely pointed out that you had reached a conclusion based upon evidence and using deductive reasoning. Well, I didn't actually use those words, I didn't have to. The english language contains words that are capable of conveing meaning with a single word. The word "proof" is just such a word.

You made a false claim. Now if you want to try to justify that claim please do so but using words that I actually used. Again, and please go back and read the record. I never stated that you used the word "proof". I never stated that you made ANY claim. I simply noted the fact that you had arrived at a conclusion based upon evidence using deductive reason or in a word "proof".

For evidence of that fact I use your own words.

"Large amount of evidence...together with my knowledge...leads me to believe...primarily dictated by...oil." I would describe the conclusion (or as you said "leads me to belive") as "proof". Especially since you go out of your way to demonstrate that you relied on evidence and that this conclusion could have only been arrived at through deductive reasoning.

Not ones that you made up on my behalf. I am more than happy to defend my own words as I have shown but I really don't think that I need to defend your straw man arguments as well. And I am happy to defend mine. But it is you that are making up words on my behalf. I have posted all of your words that are central to my point and you have never posted anything that demonstrate that stated that you "claimed" anything. Unfortunately you are the one with the straw man I only stated that you had arrived at a conclusion (that you had proof) that some thing was true. I never stated that it was the only "proof" or the only conclusion just that you had arrived at a conclusion. I did that by using a single word and I have provided the dictionary definition to show why that word was justified.

Edited to add;

Just in case you did not get the gist of what it is that I am trying to say, my point was and is that there is suficent "proof" to allow YOU ("to you") to come to a conclusion ("led to believe") that oil is the primary reason for the war.

I never tried to state that you were claiming that you had proof for everyone else or that the proof was sufficient for everyone else or that the proof met some legal or scientific level of proof. Only that "to you" there was "proof". I hope that you are getting this because it is getting very old. You said that circumstantial evidence led you to believe. The dictionary says that what ever leads you to that conclusion is proof.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
It's a comment. If you start a thread asking for opinion you should be prepared for comments offered in the same spirit as your own. If you don't want any such input perhaps you might state as much at the start of the thread. First off I wasn't even talking to you in this instance. Second off I describe a perfectly reasonable position about accepting a position that is supported by a majority of experts in a given field. Since this is a perfectly reasonable and rational position I don't think it is necassary to make snide remarks. If you are going to make snide remarks about reasonable positions then expect a rebuttal.

No I don't have to prove all scientific arguments to myself and am prepared to accept those endorsed by the majority of the scientific community. Thank you. This is ALL that I was saying. It did not require a rejoinder. My statement should go without say. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind being questioned or responded to but I do take issue with snide remarks about something so obvious.


I do not bind myself to that position because at times many new ideas are only accepted by less than the majority and I have been engaged in such research and thus knew more than the majority of experts on certain topics at certain times. I did not say that it is requisite of anyone to bind themselves to any postion. I just stated that it is reasonable to accept an appeal to the gallery and to authority in certain cercumstance especially when the gallery is composed of authorities in a give field. Stated another way, it would be ok to appeal to Einstien if we were discussing physics. It would be just as appropriate if not more so to appeal to the gallery if the Gallery were made up of experts in physics. Example, almost all anthropologists accept evolution. Almost all physicists accept the theory of relativity.

I am not claiming such knowledge in relation to Mr Bush's stance towards Iraq. I am trying to assess the situation form the information available to any reasonably intelligent member of the world community through a varied press which is open to discussion about all the possible implications. This has nothing to do with my position on an appeal to authority or an appeal to the gallery.

Forgive me if I am wrong but as I understand it, you are uninterested in what people think about a subject unless they are experts in that subject and in the majority on that subject. No, I am interested in what people say because it gives me a gauge on world opinion. However in this instance Wayne was trying to demonstrate why a certain position was not propaganda base upon the fact that other people believed in and supported that postion. Wayne made the following statement "It is not propaganda. He has not said anything that has not been said by others..." What "others" have said does not validate a statement. Wayne was quite literally "apealing to the gallery". Now, if he had said and could demonstrate that a majority of experts in this field had said the same then I would be willing to consider the experts of these "others". As it is "others" mean nothing.

If my precis is an accurate summary of your position can I ask then if you have any expertise on why Mr Bush has adopted the position he has on Iraq as opposed to say, North Korea, and about what he actually intends to do in Iraq? Or is you view based upon what a reasonably intelligent member of the world community could surmise from the available evidence? Your precis is wrong but I don't see how it is in anyway relevant to your question.

[E.J.Armstrong]

No false claim, no ad hominem, no straw man.

Look, it is real simple. I stated a fact and that fact was that you had arrived at a conclusion. That is my claim. You arrived at a conclusion based upon evidence and deductive reasoning. I did not state that you claimed something.

The dictionary says; The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. it also says; The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

Now, Do you or do you not accept as true the assertion that oil is the primary reason? I ask the question rhetorically only as a means to get you to realize that YOU DO.

How do I know? Simple, I read your own words. Let's look at those words ok? Remember these are your words.
Let me quote them to you yet again. You stated the following.
' 'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.'

I have already taken those words of yours and showed that they are factually incorrect on two grounds.
Let me help you with a couple of definitions from the Oxford Compact English Dictionary 1996 edition.
Claim - ...3 a contention or assertion...
Assertion - ...1 a declaration; a forthright statement.

Now unless I am very much mistake you made an assertion about me, which by definition amounts to a claim.

I can give you many examples but one will suffice. In court if a defendent says about a prosecuting witness - 'To him the fact that I had a knife in my hand is proof that I did it.' I think that any reasonable person would naturally conclude that the defendent has just made an assertion about the witness and that assertion is in fact a claim.

Now you are asking a new question, so let me address that one. Can I just point out to you RandFan that I know exactly what I have posted and know exactly what I mean. I have stated my position to you many times now, which is for the reasons I have stated (which are many and numerous - unlike your claim repeated above) and my experiences in the oil industry I believe that Bush's stance towards Iraq is primarily based upon the presence of large oil reserves in that country. This is the n'th time I have stated this. I have also provided you with many of the reasons I take that view.

With regard to your definitions I would point out that you have not stated exactly what it is you are offering a definition of.
What exactly are you defining here RandFan? Are you defining a word you used or a word I used?
You claimed also that
'...you are the one having fits....'
I have asked you to provide proof that I am having fits. Once again you have declined to do so but hey ho. Until you do I think that qualifies as an ad hominem attack. You know - where you attack the person rather than the argument.

Forgive me but what are you defining here RandFan? Is it one of your own words again or one of mine?
[QUOTE]So we have "proof" by your own words that you have arrived at a conclusion (not the only possible conclusion I never said only possible conclusion) that oil is a primary reason for the war.

Now that the evidence is clearly on the table that you have come to the conclusion (not the only possible conclusion, I never said only possible conclusion) let's look at your points.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RandFan
To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes this is my statement.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/ I never stated that it was only on the basis of one issue (the knowing of people in the oil industry) that Bush is starting a war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I NEVER said that you did!

Look more closely at my statement. I never said that it was the "only" basis. Look again, it doesn't say "only", it doesn't even imply "only". The word only is no where to be found. It is perfectly reasonable for there to be other proofs or that you could arive at other conclusions. My point is only that you have been "lead to believe" and that this is consistent with "proof" as it is defined in the dictionary.

Can you show me anywhere in my text where I say "only"? You can't, can you. Which unfortunately for you makes YOU guilty of the straw man. One down, let's look at the other one.

Er. No we havn't got proof yet RandFan but at least you have acknowledged your own words. If you want to engage in trial by dictionary you should at least let me know what words you are defining.
Let me repeat your words for you again. You stated
'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.'
Unless I am very much mistaken you mentioned only one reason in that assertion/claim and that is the only reason you gave which apparently constituted "proof" for me that Bush is starting a war for oil. Now I can count beyond one and it sure doesn't look to me as though there is more than one reason there RandFan. Perhaps you could explain if you posted another reason. I don't see it. No siree. Nope. Nada. You really did post only one reason in that simple assertion/claim. It was completely open to you to accurately represent the reason for my point of view but you didn't take the opportunity to do so. Now I don't expect verbatim reproduction of everything I said but I do expect some correspondence between my claims and your representation of them and feel free to point that oit as I see necessary.

Given that I provided many reasons for my views regarding Mr Bush's stance towards Iraq it is factually incorrect to post only one and state that is to me the fact (notice the lack of a plural ending 's' to the word fact. Now that is very interesting is it not? You could have said facts and even those not as linguistically aware as you RandFan often take the singular to mean only one. Yet there wasn't one fact for my taking the view that I have. There are many and various reasons and facts for my taking my view so whichever way you look at your claim it is factually incorrect - as has already pointed out to you.
2/ I never said that my evidence constituted proof.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I NEVER said that you did say such a thing.
Let me post your words to you again RandFan (sigh)
'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.'
You were saying?
My point is only that you have been "lead to believe" and that this is consistent with "proof" as it is defined in the dictionary.
Really? If I understand your latest claim correctly, the fact that I am lead to believe something means I believe I have proof for it?Let me look for an analogy for this latest surprising claim. As I am lead to believe that the mobile ice cream van will arrive at 6pm tomorrow evening somehow demonstrates I have proof that it will arrive at 6pm tomorrow evening. Sorry again RandFan but nope - that somehow doesn't seem to work at all. Not even close.
I am showing you why my "usage" of the word was correct. Let's not forget how this all started. You criticized me for the "usage" of the word "proof". I went to the dictionary, the purpose of which is to define the "usage" of words. You said that my usage of the word proof constituted a straw man. Yet the word "proof" so eloquently and accurately defines the net effect (conclusion) of the very process that your words lay out. There is no other word that could more accurately describe what that conclusion would be based upon the process that you used.
Let us at least get the claims right here RandFan. I criticised your use of your own word proof in combination with the fact that you asserted one reason provided that proof. Both those things are factually incorrect. I am naturally glad that you are happy with the eloquence of your own words but if you wish to take issue with my position can I suggest that you might at least actually debate the words I did use rather than your own which I didn't. If you refuse to do so you might at least provide a cogent argument for me to start debating your words rather than my own. I regret to say that, as yet, you have not done so.
Another straw man. Can you show me where I asked you to justify my argument? You can't because I did no such thing.
Sigh. You said:-
'It's really a simple question E.J., by the dictionary standard was it appropriate of me to use the word "proof", Yes or no?'

QED.

Or what is you don't understand about your own question about your own agument concerning the use of your own word?
Not quite, you also said that your own "knowledge" helped lead you to a conclusion.

Here, let's look at again, I get the feeling that you are confused about what it is that you said.

Again, your words;

"Large amount of evidence...together with my knowledge...leads me to believe...primarily dictated by...oil."

"Leads me to believe" those are your words. Is that statement consistent with "The validation of a proposition" from the dictionary?

I've noticed that you don't answer all of my questions. This one is not rhetorical, could you answer it?

No RandFan. So I am geting confused about what I said? Really. You really are racking up the ad hominen arguments though. Still I'm used to that now. Shall we try yet again though?

Leads me to believe I think has been definitively shown not to mean what you are trying to ge it to mean. See the ice cream van analogy. QED.
Duh. Like you answer all my questions RandFan? You see two can play at your game.
Now let me help you once again. You need to justify your own words. If you are happy that you have done so then I am happy for you that you fee you have achieved that objective. I however prefer to debate the words I actually did use. Why, I even defined them for you.
Ahhh but we are talking about MY usage of the word "proof". And nothing in the definition of "circumstantial" of "evidence" can change the fact that I clearly used the word "proof" correctly now can it?
Now we're starting to get somewhere though we still have some way to go I can see. As I did not use the word proof you will have to make your own case for using it in relation to what I said. I do not accept that you have done so correctly. I can state that in many different ways if you like. Also as stated many times I am very happy to defend my use of my own words. What us it that you are not clear about RandFAn?
Well, first off I never claimed that you stated anything. Again, it is YOU that is making the straw man. Let's look at my original statement.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RandFan
'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, does anything strike you about my statement? Hmmmm..... well first it is completely devoid of "you said" or "you claimed". Thaaats right. Look at it again. What does it say? "To you...it is proof".

In other words, you have arrived at the conclusion in your mind (to you) based upon evidence (circumstantial) and using deductive reasoning that oil is the reason for war.
.

Can I make this very plain for you RandFan. You cannot read my mind. Is that clear enough for you. Given that fact your claim that 'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise' is simply completely and ludicrously wrong.
Now unless you can actually read my mind the only way you could rattionally make your claim is on the basis of what I have actualy posted. I think that is very clear. From what I posted you could not have come to your stated conclusion. It is factually incorrect - unless you can read minds of course.

Wrong, show me where I stated that you claimed something that you had not.
See dictionary deinitions of claim and assertion.
QED.
You could but you would be completely wrong. There were NO false claims. Whether YOU choose to accept that FACT or not is up to you. And it is you that is making a straw man argument and not me.
See final comments.
Non sequitur since I never stated that you claimed something that you had not.
See final comments.
I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Since I never stated that you claimed something that you had not this is stupid. I did however post your words that support my contention that there is proof in your mind that oil is the primary reason for the war.
See next quote.
There is no need for that. Do you reject the notion that Bush's ties to the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil?

If you answer yes, then thank you and welcome aboard. I'm sorry but it seems that I have confused you for someone else. I hope that you will accept my public apology.

So there we have it. As stated an aplology tied to your own claim, not mine. Does that help?

QED. Again.

This is becoming repetitive. So he just won't accept that I didn't actually use the word proof and is trying to justify his own use of the word instead of the words I did use. My brain hurts. Somebody take me out and shoot me now. I don't deserve to live any longer (Joke. No honestly! A pathetic one admittedly but humour of the gallows kind at least. )
I made no claim. I showed how the dictionary supports my use of the word "proof". It's funny how your words so closely mirror the dictionary definition.
Perhaps a little trip up this post to view the first comments might be the very thing required here?
What are you talking about? It would help if you would post my words when you reference them.
With pleasure. You said:-
There is no need for that. Do you reject the notion that Bush's ties to the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil?

If you answer yes, then thank you and welcome aboard. I'm sorry but it seems that I have confused you for someone else. I hope that you will accept my public apology.'

Glad to have helped.
You fail to realize that




I never stated that you claimed anything

I claim only that you have arrived at a conclusion based upon evidence, your knowledge and deductive reasoning

That I used the word proof to define the conclusion based upon the process outlined in the dictionary

Your own words you use to explain your position describes perfectly the dictionary definition of proof

That you are the one making straw man arguments since I NEVER stated that you claimed anything
See final cmments.
This is so funny, you keep saying that I am making a straw man argument. Yet you never took the time to verify that claim. No where in any of your posts do you show where I stated that you claimed anything. I was simply defining the conclusion that you reached based upon circumstantial evidence coupled with knowledge that led you to "believe". If it led you to believe then it is accurate to say that you came to a conclusion and that you did so through deductive reasoning. Sorry E.J. but that is the exact definition of "proof".
Thank you RandFan. Reading my mind again? Sorry but if you didn't how else are you able to make claims about me. Perhaps you should take the test. I believe that a million dollars is up for grabs. But it is you that are going to have to defend YOUR claims. You have said specifically that I "claimed" something that I did not. Remember, I never stated that you claimed anything. I merely pointed out that you had reached a conclusion based upon evidence and using deductive reasoning. Well, I didn't actually use those words, I didn't have to. The english language contains words that are capable of conveing meaning with a single word. The word "proof" is just such a word
As always I am happy to defend my claims. See above and fina comments. So you merely pointed out that 'you had reached a conclusion based upon evidence and using deductive reasoning. ' Really. You actually claimed that
'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.'
If I do not mistake your words, and I believe that I do not, your claim mentions only one fact (singular - not plural) giving rise to your own word "proof ". I repeat - your claim is factually incorrect on two counts. Even if we now take your interpretation that your claim related to happened in my mind you are still factually incorrect on the two main points. See final comments for additional material.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence supporting my view that Mr Bush's stance on Iraq is primarily based on the presence of large oil reserves in that country. These relate not only to the reported arrangements for dividing Iraq up for licensing post Saddam Hussein and the reported plans to gain quick control of the oil fields in the event of hostilities to the way in which North Korea has been treated and the way other countries have been treated but also the geopolitical position over the future oil requirements of th west. The fact of Mr Bush's friendships within the oil industry and the proposed selling of oil and gas tracts in the Alaska Wildlife Reserve is just some additional evidence of a circumstantial nature. Again, and please go back and read the record. I never stated that you used the word "proof". I never stated that you made ANY claim. I simply noted the fact that you had arrived at a conclusion based upon evidence using deductive reason or in a word "proof".
So no reference to one fact leading to that "proof" then?And I am happy to defend mine. But it is you that are making up words on my behalf. I have posted all of your words that are central to my point and you have never posted anything that demonstrate that stated that you "claimed" anything. Unfortunately you are the one with the straw man I only stated that you had arrived at a conclusion (that you had proof) that some thing was true. I never stated that it was the only "proof" or the only conclusion just that you had arrived at a conclusion. I did that by using a single word and I have provided the dictionary definition to show why that word was justified.

Edited to add;

Just in case you did not get the gist of what it is that I am trying to say, my point was and is that there is suficent "proof" to allow YOU ("to you") to come to a conclusion ("led to believe") that oil is the primary reason for the war.

I never tried to state that you were claiming that you had proof for everyone else or that the proof was sufficient for everyone else or that the proof met some legal or scientific level of proof. Only that "to you" there was "proof". I hope that you are getting this because it is getting very old. You said that circumstantial evidence led you to believe. The dictionary says that what ever leads you to that conclusion is proof.
Can I just point out that you asked the following: -
'Now, can you tell me where you posted this evidence that Bush is launching a war because he and his friends are linked to oil, or do I have to go on a search?'
Now unless I am very much mistaken, for you to ask that question you must have seen me make that claim. So which is it RandFan? You imply here that I made such a claim namely that 'Bush is launching a war because he and his friends are linked to oil...?' There's that use of one reason again. Interesting. Sort of ties in with the claim at issue here and sort of spoils your agument that it was all in my mind unless I am able to post my mind by means other than the internet that is. Unfortunately despite my many failings that particular claim is not one of them.
QED.

Once again. There may be sufficient "proof" for you RandFan to conclude what I might think but you do not read my mind and there isn't for me - yet. You see it really is quite simple. I am lead to believe that the available evidence supports the big bang theory. That is until something turns up which contradicts that view such as an adequate alternative explanation for the microwave background radiation which shows that it arose say within the last ten thousand years and possibly just after the expulsion from the garden of Eden or other more rational reason. That does not believe that I consider the Big Bang is fully proven yet. The available evidence seems to support it at present and it is currently a hypothesis I am happy with. I reman open to other rational explanations.

Similarly, given the many lines of reasoning which suggest that Iraq is being treated in a unique way from other countries which are equally if not more guilty of the things the murderer Hussein is accused of and without similar oil resources the lack of hard evidence (how confusing all these types of evidence are) so far of actual WOMD in a usable form then my working hypothesis is that Mr Bush's stance on Iraq is primarily based on the presence of large oil reserves in that country. The bulk of the circumstantial evidence seems to support that conclusion. Despite your repeated attempts to justify the use of your own word "proof" I prefer my own words.

Am I then merely like a fundamentalist christian convinced against all the evidence that the bible is a text telling the literal truth. I don't think so. What would change my mind? Many things could do that.
The primary one would be renunciation of any future rights to any oil in Iraq for all American companies. They don't have any rights now and if the proposed action is purely for WOMD or other terrorist reasons then it will be of no consequence that American companies do not have any access in future. If the primary reason is related to the presence of large oil reserves I wouldn't expect that to happen. If it did happen of course I would happily and completely change my views on the matter. Care to bet on this one? With imaginary money of course. Or shall we dance further on the head of even smaller pins?

[E.J.Armstrong]

First off I wasn't even talking to you in this instance. Second off I describe a perfectly reasonable position about accepting a position that is supported by a majority of experts in a given field. Since this is a perfectly reasonable and rational position I don't think it is necassary to make snide remarks. If you are going to make snide remarks about reasonable positions then expect a rebuttal.
I thought you were talking to me. I must remember only to speak when I'm spoken to. Sorry, was that a snide remark?
What about this comment.
'Dumb argument. They did just becuase they wanted to divide people'
Yours I think.
Or this
'I would say that you have been fed a steady diet of propaganda. If I could get you to do just one thing it would be this. Please keep an open mind, learn to think critically and question things, there are often two sides to every story'
If I was a judgemental person RandFAn, which I am not, or the person to whom that particular homily was addressed, again which I am not but then one has to be careful to whom you are addressing your remarks (sorry I recognise that could be construed as a snide remark) I might say something aong the lines of 'Tut tut (anodyne but you get my drift) RandFan. Lecturing others but not seeing the mote in your own eye.' I am however too well bred to descend to such puerile ad hominen attacks because it is clear to me that you feel a need to lecture others on what they should do and that when you accuse others of having fits when they respond in kind that is certainly not an ad hominen attack or an irrelevant comment. Unfortunately I do see the need sometimes to do what you do. Not what you say. Sorry. Thank you. This is ALL that I was saying. It did not require a rejoinder. My statement should go without say. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind being questioned or responded to but I do take issue with snide remarks about something so obvious.
So we are talking then? Please note that statement was intimately connected with my next where I qualified it significantly. Sauce and goose spring to mind for some reason. Like multiple question marks in your own response to perfectly reasonable remarks. When you stop patronising others so frequently perhaps they will desist from patronising you. PS I will rejoinder when I want not when you want. Sorry. I did not say that it is requisite of anyone to bind themselves to any postion. I just stated that it is reasonable to accept an appeal to the gallery and to authority in certain cercumstance especially when the gallery is composed of authorities in a give field. Stated another way, it would be ok to appeal to Einstien if we were discussing physics. It would be just as appropriate if not more so to appeal to the gallery if the Gallery were made up of experts in physics. Example, almost all anthropologists accept evolution. Almost all physicists accept the theory of relativity.
And I did not say that you did. You should recognise by now that other posters sometimes like to point out the logical consequences of some of your utterances. By the way, who in fact is the expert on Bush's views on Iraq? I don't believe that I am. I don't believe that you are either. I do believe that I am permitted by the laws of sense to draw conclusions from the available facts in relation to the acts of men. For example - If Mr Mugabe repeatedly tells me that the UK's claims about his despicable regime are wrong who should I believe. Him? He after all is the expert on his country. Or if Mr Nixon claims he had nothing to do with Watergate when the Washington Post says otherwise who should I believe? Him? He was the expert. Or when Clinton says that he did not have sex with that woman who should I believe? This is not some physics laboratory that we are dealing with on this thread. We are dealing with the affairs of men and even Presidents and Prime Ministers have been known to lie to their people so the people sometimes have to make up their own minds based on the available evidence and yes those conclusions sometimes disagree with the experts including the Presidents and the Prime Ministers and their aides such as Mr Haldeman and J. Gordon Liddy. And just sometimes the people are right to draw their own conclusions. And no, their views are not proof but hey that's the beauty of having views.
Now if I was measuring the speed of light I would not trust the opinions of the public. But the affairs of men are somewhat dfferent.This has nothing to do with my position on an appeal to authority or an appeal to the gallery.
This is a pertinent comment on my claims for authority on the matter under review. That it does not meet your personal criteria for comment is irrelevant. No, I am interested in what people say because it gives me a gauge on world opinion. However in this instance Wayne was trying to demonstrate why a certain position was not propaganda base upon the fact that other people believed in and supported that postion. Wayne made the following statement "It is not propaganda. He has not said anything that has not been said by others..." What "others" have said does not validate a statement. Wayne was quite literally "apealing to the gallery". Now, if he had said and could demonstrate that a majority of experts in this field had said the same then I would be willing to consider the experts of these "others". As it is "others" mean nothing.
I stand corrected and am happy that you are interested in what others think. Its the affairs of men again RandFan. Sorry.
Do you accept that many people around the world have a low opinion of America (and the UK as well while we're asking)? If you do accept that suggestion can I ask exactly why you think that might be the case because I sense a big disjucture between how Americans view themselves and how they are perceived elsewhere in the world and for the reasons for that disjuncture. Tha is if you believe it exists of course. I am talking perceptions here, as in perceptions about Bush's stance towards Iraq outside the US.Your precis is wrong but I don't see how it is in anyway relevant to your question.
Sorry to be so dense. Can you just summarise for us on what you base your opinions about Bush's stance on Iraq? Where exactly did you get your information from and how did you assemble that material to arrive at your own trenchant views? If you are not claiming proof for your views and I am not claiming proof for mine who is right?

[E.J.Armstrong]

1. North Korea hasn't invaded any of it's neighbours lately.
2. The North Korean regime hasn't engaged in acts of genocide against it's citizens. Of course, many of them have died as a result of being under the cosh of a failed economic system and a kleptocratic dictatorship.
3. One argument I've heard in favour of a military initiative against Iraq is to prevent the Iraqis gaining nuclear weapons in the way the North Koreans did.
What do you mean by lately? Does that mean anytime between when North Korea actually did invade its neighbour and when Iraq invaded Kuwait? N.Korea has been accused of sending military machines such as submarines into S.Korean waters within the last few years. Therefore the timing argument is a tad convenient in trying to differentiate between the two members of the Axis of Evil.
If it is a matter of numbers Shane that Iraq is being attacked rather than N.Korea can you say how many Saddam has killed of his own people and how many have been killed by the North Korean regime? That seems like just another convenient argument.
So let me see. The way to stop Saddam gaining access to nuclear weapons, which the inspectors say he doesn't currently have, is a military initiative as opposed to say the current containment initiative which has successfully stopped him gaining nuclear weapons for a number of years. On that basis perhaps there should be a military initiative against say Iran or Burma or Cuba which I see is not on the cards. Not a very good argument is it unless of course the real reason for the militay initiative is something different - like oil.

They've already priced themselves out of the market. The clothes I'm wearing were presumably made in a developing country, the food I eat is of Irish origin, while the tools of my trade in scientific research originate for the most part in the UK and US.
I take it that the answer you are looking for is no then.

In fairness while WWII was a glorious moment for the UK for many reasons it simply didn't have the manpower or materials to launch an amphibious invasion of Europe on it's own. Churchill devoted much energy to securing American entry prior to Pearl Harbour.
Perhaps it really is only in the UK? No. It's my fault for not being clear enough. Humour can only be called humour when it is obvious what was intended. As such I am guilty as charged. Sorry.

And where does recently re-elected governor of Florida Jeb Bush fit into all of this?

Sorry Shane. It's what's commonly called a joke. I do actually know how the governor of Florida helped his bro.....(no I can't go on).See last response for my abject self immolation for not flagging my pathetic and totally undeserving humour properly. If it was really not recognised by any other human being I will jump off a high cliff immediately. Or not.

Your point being? Many scientific innovators were actual clerics. Copernicus and Gregor Mendel, for instance.:
Yes I do know that. My point was that if you say that you only believe what the majority of experts believe then you will be wrong at certain times. You know, belief in God. That sort of thing? It didn't make their scientific work any less worthwhile. It did mean that they believed some dumb things and that particularly in the case of clerical scholars fact that most of them believed in the said God did not make that belief correct.

Likewise more recently. Most gelogical experts believed that the earth's crust was not divided into mobile plates until relatively recently such as the mid fifties or later and therefore most of the experts were wrong. It took some time for the idea to develop until the majority believed it. Until they did I believe RandFan is claiming that the new view should be discounted because the majority of scientists in that field believe a certain thing. I do not agree that is correct in many circumstances.

Why it is even possible that a some stage you might discover something truly revolutionary in molecular genetics which will cause a paradigm shift in our thinking on that subject. If I am correct in my summary of his position, according to RandFan's simplistic view your discovery can be safely ignored until the majority of scientists in that field agree with you. I don't agree.

Even today I understand that most experts in film persist in producing loud explosions from crashing X-wings or Millenium Falcons or Starship Enterprises etc. If they don't believe such rubbish then why do they have loud sound effects when two bodies viewed from afar collide in outer space. The experts in film making are wrong - but hey it makes better films so who cares about about such trivia as sound waves propagating through a vacuum or who actually did find the marine enigma machine.

[Shane Costello]

Originally psted by EJ Armstrong:
So let me see. The way to stop Saddam gaining access to nuclear weapons, which the inspectors say he doesn't currently have, is a military initiative as opposed to say the current containment initiative which has successfully stopped him gaining nuclear weapons for a number of years.

Containment was the plan of action towards North Korea, and it failed.

What do you mean by lately? Does that mean anytime between when North Korea actually did invade its neighbour and when Iraq invaded Kuwait? N.Korea has been accused of sending military machines such as submarines into S.Korean waters within the last few years.

Accusations are one thing, physical invasions are quite another.

On that basis perhaps there should be a military initiative against say Iran or Burma or Cuba which I see is not on the cards.

Cuba and Burma are developing, or have the capability to develop, WMD? Don't know much about Iran, but it seems that there are diplomatic moves afoot, particularly with the Russians who appear to be providing the Iranians with most of their material.

If it is a matter of numbers Shane that Iraq is being attacked rather than N.Korea can you say how many Saddam has killed of his own people and how many have been killed by the North Korean regime? That seems like just another convenient argument.

And your unproven and unsubstantiated claim that "it's all about oil" isn't a convenient argument on your part? Anyway this is a strawman since I never claimed that it was a matter of numbers.

Yes I do know that. My point was that if you say that you only believe what the majority of experts believe then you will be wrong at certain times. You know, belief in God. That sort of thing?

Randfan made the point that nowadays scientific findings are published after being subjected to critical peer review. He said that the beliefs of experts in a field are "worthy of consideration". The presumption here is that there is no dogma in science, with scientific fact being under constant review and examination.

All you provided was a one-liner with no qualification. "The majority of experts in science used to be churchgoers", as if to suggest that the integrity of their work was compromised by this fact.

Until they did I believe RandFan is claiming that the new view should be discounted because the majority of scientists in that field believe a certain thing.

I don't believe he did. He referred to the fact that scientific claims are subjected to rigorous peer review. The original claim must be shown to be reproducible. Changing conventional views in science doesn't happpen instantly on the basis of a single published paper.

Why it is even possible that a some stage you might discover something truly revolutionary in molecular genetics which will cause a paradigm shift in our thinking on that subject. If I am correct in my summary of his position, according to RandFan's simplistic view your discovery can be safely ignored until the majority of scientists in that field agree with you. I don't agree.

Where did Randfan say this, exactly?

". Most experts demand peer review and don't easily cling to fanciful whims. When a majority of astronomers accepted "red shift" then it was reasonable in my opinion to accept "red shift". When a significant majority of doctors accepted epylori (sp) as a cause of ulcers then I think it is reasonable to accept such a notion. It's a combination of appealing to authority and appealing to the gallery. In this instance the gallery is made up of experts in a given field."

Where does he suggest that innovative claims be rejected out of hand? What he suggests is that my claim would be critically reviewed by other "experts in the field" and published in a scientific journal. This is standard procedure, and without it any scientific claim can be safely rejected. The opinions of experts in their particular field is of very considerable merit since it has been rigorously and critically formed, and under constant examination. Their religious belief or lack thereof.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Shane Costello
Containment was the plan of action towards North Korea, and it failed.
So because containment failed in North Korea they are not under threat of attack whereas although containment has worked with Iraq they are under threat of attack. Nope, not with you there Shane, if that is in fact your position. I hope I understand your one liner!
Accusations are one thing, physical invasions are quite another.
I rather think you will find that it was a tad more than a accusation Shane if you care to look at this site http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1132268.stm where you will find a handy summary of N Korean actions including firing a satellite/missile over Japan. So there we have an aggressive nation engaging in interesting and potentially aggressive acts towards its neighbours and with an active nuclear programme. Yet it is being dealt with diplomatically. Not a very consistent policy towards the components of the Axis of Evil is it?Cuba and Burma are developing, or have the capability to develop, WMD? Don't know much about Iran, but it seems that there are diplomatic moves afoot, particularly with the Russians who appear to be providing the Iranians with most of their material.
Sorry I thought your agument was that Iraq should be threatened with aggression now because it might be capable of developing WOMD. I must be wrong again because the nations I listed also have that potential yet they are not apparently under the same threat of attack. Not a very consistent policy towards the component members of the Axis of Evil it seems. And your unproven and unsubstantiated claim that "it's all about oil" isn't a convenient argument on your part? Anyway this is a strawman since I never claimed that it was a matter of numbers. As I never claimed that my actual view, which, for your information, is that MrBush's stance towards Iraq is primarily based on the presence of large reserves of oil in that country, was proven, I fear that your latest argument is a tad dried grassish but you are definitely entitled to attack your own words Shane.
I have provided many lines of evidence of a circumstantial nature to support my views. As demonstrated above I feel that your own response to some of those lines of argument are weak, so the rationale for your dogmatism regarding my own views is somewhat unclear. Perhaps you actually have better aguments to present? What is it that you actually believe Shane? That Mr Bush's stance towards Iraq has nothing to do with the vast oil reserves in that country or that it has something to do with the presence of oil. You don't seem to be boycotting EU goods to support your own position over the EU or did I miss your response to my surmise that you weren't?
As to your other claim about me Shane can I just point out that you tried to justify your position by saying 'The North Korean regime hasn't engaged in acts of genocide against it's citizens. Of course, many of them have died as a result of being under the cosh of a failed economic system and a kleptocratic dictatorship.'
Unless I am very much mistaken I believe that refers to many dead N Koreans and I also qualified my point by saying 'if' it is a matter of numbers... I think that says it all.Randfan made the point that nowadays scientific findings are published after being subjected to critical peer review. He said that the beliefs of experts in a field are "worthy of consideration". The presumption here is that there is no dogma in science, with scientific fact being under constant review and examination.

All you provided was a one-liner with no qualification. "The majority of experts in science used to be churchgoers", as if to suggest that the integrity of their work was compromised by this fact.

I am sorry that my one liner was unintelligible to you Shane. I think I understood the one liners in your latest post. Perhas I didn't but I will try to elaborate my own responses more in future so that you can grasp my meaning more easily. I trust that my response to your original comment on this matter has now enlightened you as to my meaning. If it hasn't please let me know what it is you still do not understand and I will try to be more helpful in future. I don't believe he did. He referred to the fact that scientific claims are subjected to rigorous peer review. The original claim must be shown to be reproducible. Changing conventional views in science doesn't happpen instantly on the basis of a single published paper.
RandFan actually said 'It's an appeal to the Gallery. The only time that I think such an argument is valid is if a majority of experts in a given field accept a proposition.' I hope that helps you Shane.Where did Randfan say this, exactly? RandFan stated 'It's an appeal to the Gallery. The only time that I think such an argument is valid is if a majority of experts in a given field accept a proposition.' Please note that I prefaced my point by the words 'If I am correct in my summary of his position,...' I hope that helps you Shane.Where does he suggest that innovative claims be rejected out of hand? What he suggests is that my claim would be critically reviewed by other "experts in the field" and published in a scientific journal. This is standard procedure, and without it any scientific claim can be safely rejected. The opinions of experts in their particular field is of very considerable merit since it has been rigorously and critically formed, and under constant examination. Their religious belief or lack thereof.
I will repeat RandFan's words to you again then.
He said 'It's an appeal to the Gallery. The only time that I think such an argument is valid is if a majority of experts in a given field accept a proposition.' Now unless I am very much mistaken I prefaced the main point by the words 'If I am correct in my summary of his position,... ' As such I am happy to have summary challenged.
I believe that unless I am very much mistaken (I accept that in the light of a rational counter argument I could be - just like Murray Walker - a retired Formula One commentator for those unfamiliar with his oeuvre), RandFan's quote indicates that an argument which claims support from others who do not amount to a majority of experts in that field is invalid. Logically therefore, in matters of a similar nature we might infer that he means it is not of relevance in the wider debate and as a consequence perhaps can be safely ignored. Until your conjectural astounding discovery was accepted by the majority of experts in your field it is not valid in his view. As you know that might of course be a long or a short process.

Unless we have a simple Monty Python negation exercise going on here perhaps you will explain how RandFan's quote allows the views of less than a majority of experts in a given subject to be treated as valid in the circumstances he was referring to?

[RandFan]

E.J.,

There is a simple way to stop this. There are 3 legal standards of proof. (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s217.htm) Beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence and preponderance of the evidence. I honestly believe that you have arrived at a conclusion based upon the preponderance of the evidence. Your words clearly illustrate that you have reached a conclusion based upon a preponderance of the evidence. If this is not the case let me know. Just say that you think that is more unlikely than likely based upon the evidence that you have that Bush is doing this primarily because of oil. Of course you will then have to reconcile your statement that you have come "to believe" that it is. If you will do these two things then I will apologize and admit that I am wrong. If you can't do these two things then I expect the same of you.

Of course the dictionary clearly showed that you had arrived at this conclusion based upon proof. However since you won't acknowledge the dictionary definition and you keep bringing up legal definitions I thought perhaps you would accept the "standards of proof" as defined by Electric Law Library.

First I think I might have figured out where you are going wrong so let me touch on that first and then restate my position based simply on the dictionary definition of proof maybe you will acknowledge it this time). The we will get to my proposition.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I have already taken those words of yours and showed that they are factually incorrect on two grounds.
Let me help you with a couple of definitions from the Oxford Compact English Dictionary 1996 edition.
Claim - ...3 a contention or assertion...
Assertion - ...1 a declaration; a forthright statement. And I have proven that you are wrong. I have shown by your own words that you indeed arrive at a conclusion based upon evidence and deductive reasoning or as the dictionary says "proof"

Now unless I am very much mistake you made an assertion about me, which by definition amounts to a claim. Ahhh... I think that is where you are screwing up.

No, I'm just restating your position.

Your words:

"I have posted a large amount of evidence of a circumstantial nature which together with my knowledge of the oil industry leads me to believe that the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country."

My words:

"To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise."

Now the dictionary (which you won't even acknowledge).

The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

There it is. You can't (won't) see it but my sentence is an accurate restatement of your position.

You say yourself that the evidence has led you to believe. I can only assume that it has led you to believe that it is true.

Proposition: Oil is primary reason for war.
Premise: (based upon circumstantial evidence and your knowledge of the oil industry.) Bush has close ties to people in the oil industry.
Premise: Iraq is the 2nd largest oil producer in the world.
Premise: There are many countries with dictators and weapons of mass destruction and are threats to the United States.
Conclusion: Bush is going to war so that he can exploit Iraq's vast oil reserves to make his friends rich, improve his political standing.

E.J. This is what is commonly known as "deductive reasoning".

Now for the rest of the definition of "proof".

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

There really is not much more to say. The fact that I only gave "one" position is not proof that I have excluded all others. Your argument is silly and fallacious.

I absolutely stand by my statement. Let me post it one more time and annotate it so that maybe you might understand what I meant and hopefully you can finally understand.

To "you" (this does not imply that you think that it applies to others) the fact that Bush has friends in the oil industry is (a) proof (not the only proof and not absolute proof, not beyond a reasonable doubt proof, not clear and convincing evidence proof, but proof based upon a preponderance of evidence) that Bush is going to war for oil.

Do you believe that the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that Bush is going to war for oil?

Proposition

If you answer NO or that you are unable to come to a conclusion and reconcile either of those statements with your statement that "it leads me to believe that the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country". then I will acknowledge that I was wrong in asserting that "To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil".

However, If you say yes then please stop this stupid debate because that is exactly the definition of "proof by a preponderance of the evidence" (see below).

If I had believed that I had made a straw man argument then I would have acknowledged that fact and apologized. I have done so before on this forum a number of times. The facts are quite convincing that I did no such thing.

Legal Definition of Standard Of Proof (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s217.htm)

STANDARD OF PROOF - The amount of evidence which a plaintiff (or prosecuting attorney, in a criminal case) must present in a trial in order to win is called the standard of proof. Different cases require different standards of proof depending on what is at stake. The common standards are:

* Beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal cases)--for a criminal defendant to be convicted of a crime, the prosecutor must prove her case to the point that the jurors have no reasonable doubts in their minds that the defendant did whatever he is charged with having done.

* Clear and convincing evidence (civil cases involving the potential loss of important interests such as the termination of parental rights)--for a party to prove a case under this standard, she must show something more than it is more likely than not, but not as much as beyond a reasonable doubt. No legal scholar has ever been able to define clear and convincing evidence more precisely than that.

* Preponderance of the evidence (most civil cases including fault divorces)--preponderance of the evidence generally means that a party will win if she can show that it is more likely than not that her contention is true.

Ok let me make this easy.

Please choose one of the 3 statements. If you choose either #2 or #3 please state why those statements are not inconsistent with your earlier statement.

[list=1]
[/list=1] [list=1]
I find it more likely than not that Bush is going to war primarily because of oil and this statement is consistent with my earlier statement that "...a large amount of evidence of a circumstantial nature which together with my knowledge of the oil industry leads me to believe that the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country"

I do not have enough evidence to conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that Bush is going to war because of the oil industry. However this is not inconsistent with my earlier statement that "...a large amount of evidence of a circumstantial nature which together with my knowledge of the oil industry leads me to believe that the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country" because ???

I find it less likely than not that Bush is going to war because of oil and this is consistent with my earlier statements that "...a large amount of evidence of a circumstantial nature which together with my knowledge of the oil industry leads me to believe that the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country" because ???
[/list=1]

If you choose #1 then by definition I am right. Please apologize and let's move on.

If you choose #2 or #3 AND reasonably explain how you can 1. not find it likely based upon the evidence AND 2. "belive that the war is based on oil then I will apologize.

[Shane Costello]

E.J. Armstrong:
So because containment failed in North Korea they are not under threat of attack whereas although containment has worked with Iraq they are under threat of attack.

The situation with North Korea is ongoing. I can't say they're not under threat of attack.

How do you know containment has worked wiht Iraq, or is likely to continue working?

I rather think you will find that it was a tad more than a accusation Shane if you care to look at this site

According to the site:
1. The North Koreans were repulsed during the Korean war.

2. There were two incidents with US reconissance craft in the 1960's.

3. North Korea sends troops into the demilitairised zone in the 1990's

4. The missile/satellite flies over Japan and lands in the sea.

5. The South Koreans find a Northern mini-sub with a dead crew in it's waters.

6. In a recent gun battle in the yellow sea the North Koreans sustained nuch greater casualties than their Southern combatants

7. There has been some thawing of relations between North and South.

A tad more than accusations, but only just a tad.

I must be wrong again because the nations I listed also have that potential yet they are not apparently under the same threat of attack.

Are they actively pursuing the development of WMD?

What is it that you actually believe Shane? That Mr Bush's stance towards Iraq has nothing to do with the vast oil reserves in that country or that it has something to do with the presence of oil.

I believe oil is a factor, though not the overriding one. We all have a selfish interest in oil being as cheap as possible. French and Russian objections to any military action are also partly based on their intersets in Iraqi oil, don't forget.

As to your other claim about me Shane can I just point out that you tried to justify your position by saying 'The North Korean regime hasn't engaged in acts of genocide against it's citizens. Of course, many of them have died as a result of being under the cosh of a failed economic system and a kleptocratic dictatorship.'
Unless I am very much mistaken I believe that refers to many dead N Koreans and I also qualified my point by saying 'if' it is a matter of numbers... I think that says it all.

I never said anything about the number of people killed in either regime for whatever reason. I don't believe anyone could furnish reliable numbers for either situation. The crude number of deaths never enterd into my argument.


I trust that my response to your original comment on this matter has now enlightened you as to my meaning. If it hasn't please let me know what it is you still do not understand and I will try to be more helpful in future.

"Yes I do know that. My point was that if you say that you only believe what the majority of experts believe then you will be wrong at certain times. You know, belief in God. That sort of thing? "

Who suggested that we adapt the beliefs of scientific experts wholesale, regardless of whether those beliefs have anything to do with their area of expertise?

RandFan actually said 'It's an appeal to the Gallery. The only time that I think such an argument is valid is if a majority of experts in a given field accept a proposition.' I hope that helps you Shane.

You went on to repeat this no less than three times, while ignoring Randfans subsequent comments:

"Most experts demand peer review and don't easily cling to fanciful whims."

And one of his previous ones:

"If one has evidence that a majority of experts hold a given position then I think that position is worthy of consideration." - my emphasis added. "Worthy of consideration", not "infallible".

So where exactly does he suggest that peer-reviewed scientific theories shopuld be dismissed, simply because there adherents are in the minority of experts?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If I was a judgemental person RandFAn, which I am not, or the person to whom that particular homily was addressed, again which I am not but then one has to be careful to whom you are addressing your remarks (sorry I recognise that could be construed as a snide remark) I might say something aong the lines of 'Tut tut (anodyne but you get my drift) RandFan. If I was a judgental person E.J., which I am not, I would say that your a jerk. Particularly since that person to whom that particular homily was addressed and I are on good terms and I would gladly have apologized to him if he had been offended and asked me for an appology.

Lecturing others but not seeing the mote in your own eye.' I am however too well bred to descend to such puerile ad hominen attacks because it is clear to me that you feel a need to lecture others on what they should do and that when you accuse others of having fits when they respond in kind that is certainly not an ad hominen attack or an irrelevant comment. And I'm too well bred to call you an ******* since I only respond in kind. Go back and check the thread, check any thread. I am more than willing to be acomodating to those that are acomodating and hard on those who won't acknowledge when I have made a reasonable argument or when I believe someone is being rude. If you give me respect then I will do like wise. If you are a prick by responding to a perfectly reasonable position with a snide (and stupid) remark then expect me to respond.

Now before you respond to this paragraph you go back and check the thread and please post any remark that I made and show how that remark came about by posting the previous posts that I responded to. You will see that I only respond in kind.

E.J., I don't mind snide remarks per se. Check out those made by Subgenious, Victor Dalenchenko, Frank Newgent and many others. I can give as good as I get. Read my post again. You would do well to check these things out before you respond.

Also, I do keep an open mind and have reversed my position a number of times when shown to be wrong. A number of posters who I am at odds with will attest to this so don't accuse me of hypocrisy. And I have done it on this very thread and have been willing to compromise and accept positions that I don't agree with for the purpose of the discussio. I don't have to be right on ever issue. It is obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes and look.

Unfortunately I do see the need sometimes to do what you do. Not what you say. Sorry. That's fine. Like I said, I take as good as I give. Let me ask you one little favor though, before you again attempt a repartee, GET IT RIGHT!

So we are talking then? Please note that statement was intimately connected with my next where I qualified it significantly. Sauce and goose spring to mind for some reason. Again, I like my sauce served deliciously cold. Unfortunately when you get it wrong "it hurts my ears" --My Blue Heaven.

Like multiple question marks in your own response to perfectly reasonable remarks. That would be fine if the remarks were reasonable.

When you stop patronising others so frequently perhaps they will desist from patronising you. PS I will rejoinder when I want not when you want. Sorry. Oh don't give me that. I did not start out patronizing you. I only respond in kind. You were the one being rude.

And I did not say that you did. You should recognise by now that other posters sometimes like to point out the logical consequences of some of your utterances. Now what are you talking about. The appeal to the gallery statement? I didn't say that you did say it. I was showing you why I responded in the first place. And please tell me "what" logical consequences and to "which" utterances?

By the way, who in fact is the expert on Bush's views on Iraq? I don't believe that I am. I don't believe that you are either. I do believe that I am permitted by the laws of sense to draw conclusions from the available facts in relation to the acts of men. What does this have to do with anything?

Wayne appealed to the gallery, I noted the fact and told him that there are times that it is appropriate. Why are you asking me this question? I never said that there were experts that Wayne could rely on for an appeal. So why bring it up? You are going off to distant lands. Please stay focused. Not everything is about you. The only salient point is that I was correct when I told Wayne that there were times that it was ok to appeal to the gallery but only if that gallery was composed of experts from a specific field for a given subject.

For example - If Mr Mugabe repeatedly tells me that the UK's claims about his despicable regime are wrong who should I believe. Him? He after all is the expert on his country. Or if Mr Nixon claims he had nothing to do with Watergate when the Washington Post says otherwise who should I believe? Him? He was the expert. Or when Clinton says that he did not have sex with that woman who should I believe? This is not some physics laboratory that we are dealing with on this thread. We are dealing with the affairs of men and even Presidents and Prime Ministers have been known to lie to their people so the people sometimes have to make up their own minds based on the available evidence and yes those conclusions sometimes disagree with the experts including the Presidents and the Prime Ministers and their aides such as Mr Haldeman and J. Gordon Liddy. And just sometimes the people are right to draw their own conclusions. And no, their views are not proof but hey that's the beauty of having views. And chimps like bannanas but don't usually like to eat their own feces, most people believe in god, many people believe in UFO's and the price of rice in China (http//www.oryza.com/) is Y8.28 as of Monday, January 6, 2003 at 194421 EST. Thanks for taking the time of giving me other peoples views.

E.J.Armstrong
I am not claiming such knowledge in relation to Mr Bush's stance towards Iraq. I am trying to assess the situation form the information available to any reasonably intelligent member of the world community through a varied press which is open to discussion about all the possible implications.

RandFan
This has nothing to do with my position on an appeal to authority or an appeal to the gallery.

E.J.Armstrong
This is a pertinent comment on my claims for authority on the matter under review. That it does not meet your personal criteria for comment is irrelevant. We are not talking about you E.J. We are talking about whether or not it is appropriate to appeal to the gallery. {sigh} O.k. let's go back.

originally posted by RandFan
It's an appeal to the Gallery. The only time that I think such an argument is valid is if a majority of experts in a given field accept a proposition. This is a perfectly appropriate, reasonable and rational response. However you responded with

E.J.Armstrong
The majority of experts in science used to be church goers.

So...

1. Wayne appealed to the gallery (http//www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#populum) .

2. I pointed it out to him.

3. I told him that appealing to the gallery would not be wrong in some instances if the gallery was made up of experts in a relevant field since appealing to authority (http//www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#authority) is not always wrong.)

Infidels.org (http//www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html)
"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."
This line of argument isn't always completely bogus; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"
and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

4. My position was correct and can be found on any site that deals with logic, deductive reasoning and fallacies.(See The Atheism Web - Logic & Fallacies (http//www.infidels.org/)

5. Yet out of ignorance or for whatever reason you chose to make a snide remark.

6. I argued why my position was correct and you again for some other reason chose to take me to task.

7. Then, out of the blue I get "I am not claiming such knowledge in relation to Mr Bush's stance towards Iraq. I am trying to assess the situation form the information available to any reasonably intelligent member of the world community through a varied press which is open to discussion about all the possible implications. "

So Let me state again for the record.

This has NOTHING to do with my position on an appeal to authority or an appeal to the gallery. In addition it has NOTHING to do with your original snide remark. In addition it has NOTHING to do with the thread. In addition it has NOTHING to do with the point at hand.

I am sure however that those facts will not keep you from arguing some obscure irelevent point for who knows what reason.

E.J., You were wrong. If you can't bring yourself to admit it that is fine. But let it go.

Now if I was measuring the speed of light I would not trust the opinions of the public. But the affairs of men are somewhat different.
This is a pertinent comment on my claims for authority on the matter under review. That it does not meet your personal criteria for comment is irrelevant. Sorry, but what others think in this instance (my conversation with Wayne) is irelevent.

I stand corrected and am happy that you are interested in what others think. Its the affairs of men again RandFan. Sorry. Could you clarify?

Do you accept that many people around the world have a low opinion of America (and the UK as well while we're asking)? What does this have to do with your statement that most scientists used to be church goers?

If you do accept that suggestion can I ask exactly why you think that might be the case because I sense a big disjucture between how Americans view themselves and how they are perceived elsewhere in the world and for the reasons for that disjuncture. Tha is if you believe it exists of course. I am talking perceptions here, as in perceptions about Bush's stance towards Iraq outside the US. Now you have really lost me. What does this have to do with anything that we are talking about? How does world perception about the US and the UK outside of the US have to do with the central question? Let me bring you back to where we are.

We are discussing whether or not Oil is;
A. The primary reason for war.
B. The only reason for war.
C. A significant part of a number of issues including; national security, national and domestic politics, money, revenge, etc.

And for some bizzare reason we are discussing the apropriatness of appealing to the gallery. Since you have not at all been clear I could not even state your position on the subject. It is off topic but I will indulge you. Could you clarify your position on appealing to the gallery? Is it ok or not? Was I wrong when I told wayne that it is appropriate at times to appeal to the gallery?

Since you don't answer questions I will expect some argument and no answers. Thanks anyway.

Sorry to be so dense. Hmmmm....

Can you just summarise for us on what you base your opinions about Bush's stance on Iraq? Where exactly did you get your information from and how did you assemble that material to arrive at your own trenchant views? It's not that trenchant. Unlike you I have modified my opinion since the begining of the thread at least twice (I think 3 times) and I have stated so. My discussion with Wayne and others ended quite amicably and I have apologized for some of my remarks. My purpose for starting the thread was a sincere one and I have engaged a number of participants who disagree with me and have modified my view based upon logical debate.

So do me a favor, if you don't care to read all of my responses (an assumption on my part based on your response) then qualify your characterizations of me. For instance, why are your responses with me (E.J.) trenchant? See the difference?

As to your question, I have posted logical arguments for my positions. If I have quoted or alluded to some data or information please feel free to ask me to cite reference. I often make statements based upon memory. Most here will tell you that I can back up my claims. If I am unable to I will quickly admit to the fact and withdraw or qualify the claim. Let me note that I usually take the time to verify my info before I post but by all means please don't hesitate to ask for "proof".

I try and construct coherent argument. Those arguments should stand and fall on their own (allowing for proof of claims of course). I have come to this forum to grow and learn. I read allot of source material and am somewhat knowledgeable of the world around me but am no expert. I don't claim to be.

If you disagree with a position that I take please feel free to engage me. If I am wrong please show me. If my argument is fallacious please tell me.

But E.J., I have no responsibility to explain to you exactly how I arrive at my point of view. If you don't like that then tough.

If you are not claiming proof for your views and I am not claiming proof for mine who is right? How about this? Why don't we each provide logical argument based upon deductive reasoning as to why we each think that we are right. If you take a position and can show me through coherent argument that I am wrong then I will alter my view and be better for it.

You on the other hand can go through life knowing that you are alway right.

[E.J.Armstrong]

The situation with North Korea is ongoing. I can't say they're not under threat of attack.

How do you know containment has worked wiht Iraq, or is likely to continue working?
.
I have queried why N Korea are not under threat of attack? I must have missed it too.

As to Iraq. If containment hasn't worked perhaps you can let us know where any of Iraq's WOMD are? Or are you saying that they have them and we kust don't know ewhere the are?
According to the site:
1. The North Koreans were repulsed during the Korean war.

2. There were two incidents with US reconissance craft in the 1960's.

3. North Korea sends troops into the demilitairised zone in the 1990's

4. The missile/satellite flies over Japan and lands in the sea.

5. The South Koreans find a Northern mini-sub with a dead crew in it's waters.

6. In a recent gun battle in the yellow sea the North Koreans sustained nuch greater casualties than their Southern combatants

7. There has been some thawing of relations between North and South.

A tad more than accusations, but only just a tad

What is your point here Shane? That N Korea are not a threat to their neighbours? Please let us know.
Are they actively pursuing the development of WMD? I don't know but they have the potential to do so. Somewhat like Iraq. Do you know if the are not? believe oil is a factor, though not the overriding one. We all have a selfish interest in oil being as cheap as possible. French and Russian objections to any military action are also partly based on their intersets in Iraqi oil, don't forget.[/I]
So oil is a factor. Can you let us know why you think that is the case? Why shoould oil be a factor at all if we believethat any war is based upon WOMD? Has Bush said tha the war has anything to do with oil? [QUOTE]I never said anything about the number of people killed in either regime for whatever reason. I don't believe anyone could furnish reliable numbers for either situation. The crude number of deaths never enterd into my argument.

Can I just point out that you actually said
'The North Korean regime hasn't engaged in acts of genocide against it's citizens. Of course, many of them have died as a result of being under the cosh of a failed economic system and a kleptocratic dictatorship.' So what exactly are you saying Shane? In what way is the N Korean regime better than Iraq's?Who suggested that we adapt the beliefs of scientific experts wholesale, regardless of whether those beliefs have anything to do with their area of expertise?[/I]
I don't know. Please explain.[QUOTE]You went on to repeat this no less than three times, while ignoring Randfans subsequent comments:
And your point is?So where exactly does he suggest that peer-reviewed scientific theories shopuld be dismissed, simply because there adherents are in the minority of experts?
I have already posted his comments three times. Suely I don't have to do it again Shane. It seems so.
RandFan said'It's an appeal to the Gallery. The only time that I think such an argument is valid is if a majority of experts in a given field accept a proposition.' Thus if in similar circumstances the maority of experts in a given foeld d not acept a proposition the appeal to the gallery is invalid. I hope that helps you Shane. Please let me know if you still don't understand the comment?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by EJ Armstrong;
As to Iraq. If containment hasn't worked perhaps you can let us know where any of Iraq's WOMD are? Or are you saying that they have them and we kust don't know ewhere the are?

Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction in the past. Neither has Han Blix given him a clean bill of health.

What is your point here Shane? That N Korea are not a threat to their neighbours? Please let us know.

Not as serious a threat as Iraq is to it's neighbours, IMO. The South Koreans are also able to at least match the North Koreans in military terms, it seems.

I don't know but they have the potential to do so. Somewhat like Iraq. Do you know if the are not?

Well Burma and Cuba haven't been included in the axis of evil.

Please let me know if you still don't understand the comment?

I understand Randfan all to well, thank you.

[E.J.Armstrong]

If I was a judgental person E.J., which I am not, I would say that your a jerk. Particularly since that person to whom that particular homily was addressed and I are on good terms and I would gladly have apologized to him if he had been offended and asked me for an appology.
As I don't own a jerk I think the word you are looking for RandFan is 'you're' a jerk. Feel free to keep using ad hominen arguments. Perhaps you might justify that ad hominen argument? You said
'Belitteling Bush and making personal attacks don't improve your argument.' But then we knew that.
Is it because I have pointed out that you complain about snide remarks despite using them readily yourself? Is it because I have pointed out your propensity for imprecise precis or your desire to use your own words rather than the words actually posted by people you disagree with? Of course if you don't want to justify your claim that is up to you. And I'm too well bred to call you an ******* since I only respond in kind. Go back and check the thread, check any thread. I am more than willing to be acomodating to those that are acomodating and hard on those who won't acknowledge when I have made a reasonable argument or when I believe someone is being rude. If you give me respect then I will do like wise. If you are a prick by responding to a perfectly reasonable position with a snide (and stupid) remark then expect me to respond.

Now before you respond to this paragraph you go back and check the thread and please post any remark that I made and show how that remark came about by posting the previous posts that I responded to. You will see that I only respond in kind.

E.J., I don't mind snide remarks per se. Check out those made by Subgenious, Victor Dalenchenko, Frank Newgent and many others. I can give as good as I get. Read my post again. You would do well to check these things out before you respond.

Also, I do keep an open mind and have reversed my position a number of times when shown to be wrong. A number of posters who I am at odds with will attest to this so don't accuse me of hypocrisy. And I have done it on this very thread and have been willing to compromise and accept positions that I don't agree with for the purpose of the discussio. I don't have to be right on ever issue. It is obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes and look..
Why not tell me what you really think FrandFan. A jerk and an ******* and a prick in one post. Is this a non-Franko record? I do hope so and feel suitably chuffed (adj. Brit. slang - delighted) at attracting such opprobrium simply by responding in kind.

You previously stated the following
'If you are going to make snide remarks about reasonable positions then expect a rebuttal.' As you are prone to making snide remarks to others then I will do exactly as you do. For whatever reason you repeatedly use patronising, derogatory and snide comments to others, so if you use them you shouldn't complain to me about snide remarks. If you want to interpret your own position as you being hypocritical please feel free.

I am glad that you can change you mind when shown to be wrong. Please keep up the good work. Are you saying here that I have claimed that you don't or that I haven't looked at the posts on this thread in the way you claimed?That's fine. Like I said, I take as good as I give. Let me ask you one little favor though, before you again attempt a repartee, GET IT RIGHT!
Get what right RandFan? Capital letters again. Wow. At least explain your comments. Or not.Again, I like my sauce served deliciously cold. Unfortunately when you get it wrong "it hurts my ears" --My Blue Heaven
Again I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry. Perhaps you mean that as a serial user of ad hominen attacks and patronising and snide remarks you will not complain when others respond in kind? If so, fine.That would be fine if the remarks were reasonable. Sorry? Let me analyse this. When someone makes a comment unless you personally accept that it is reasonable you feel free to use snide remarks or quotation marks. That will apply when ayone else in their opinion thinks your comments are unreasonable. Good. I'm glad that we've got that sorted out.Oh don't give me that. I did not start out patronizing you. I only respond in kind. You were the one being rudeAs a serial user of ad hominen attacks (see above) you repeatedly said things to the effect that you did not mean to be patronising and then went on to be exactly that. You must expect others to do the same. Repeatedly.Now what are you talking about. The appeal to the gallery statement? I didn't say that you did say it. I was showing you why I responded in the first place. And please tell me "what" logical consequences and to "which" utterances? I mean every time you do it. Like when you made factually incorrect comments about me, using words I did not use. What does this have to do with anything?

Wayne appealed to the gallery, I noted the fact and told him that there are times that it is appropriate. Why are you asking me this question? I never said that there were experts that Wayne could rely on for an appeal. So why bring it up? You are going off to distant lands. Please stay focused. Not everything is about you. The only salient point is that I was correct when I told Wayne that there were times that it was ok to appeal to the gallery but only if that gallery was composed of experts from a specific field for a given subject.

And I told you what I thought about that comment. I never said that you said that there were experts that Wayne could rely on for an appeal. Let us keep focus here. QUOTE]And chimps like bannanas but don't usually like to eat their own feces, most people believe in god, many people believe in UFO's and the price of rice in China is Y8.28 as of Monday, January 6, 2003 at 194421 EST. Thanks for taking the time of giving me other peoples views.[/QUOTE] I asked a question RandFan of specific relevance to the topic of this thread. For some reason you will not answer it. Who are the experts on Bush's stance towards Iraq? If you don't know don't tell us. 5. Yet out of ignorance or for whatever reason you chose to make a snide remark.
As opposed to your use of repeated snide remarks. E.J., You were wrong. If you can't bring yourself to admit it that is fine. But let it go. If you want to keep on debating something that I am not then feel free. My position as posted is quite simple. Sorry, but what others think in this instance (my conversation with Wayne) is irelevent That something does not meet your personal criteria for comment is also irrelevant but let it go.Could you clarify? In a thread that you started I thought it might be of relevance to inquire who you thought were the experts on this matter, if any. As I understand it you don't feel that question is relevant. Hmmmm.... Memo to self. Try not to offer any further hostages to fortune.It's not that trenchant. Please, RandFan I beg to differ.But E.J., I have no responsibility to explain to you exactly how I arrive at my point of view. If you don't like that then tough. You are entitled to take that view. Now perhaps you will refrain from telling me how I arrive at mine such as claiming that I used only one reason to arrive at "proof" when I have multiple reasons for arriving at no "proof". Do you understand now?What does this have to do with your statement that most scientists used to be church goers? Nothing. It's really quite simple. You made a statement about gauging opinion. I'm asking a follow up to that comment. If it doesn't meet your personal criteria for comment then don't comment. I will know better than ask you questions relating to your comments in future.(does that braech the site rules for excessive use of the word comment in one post?) How about this? Why don't we each provide logical argument based upon deductive reasoning as to why we each think that we are right. If you take a position and can show me through coherent argument that I am wrong then I will alter my view and be better for it.

You on the other hand can go through life knowing that you are alway right..

Excellent idea. Like my stating that what I posted wasn't proof and your refusal to accept that simple position. Right. Got you. And finishing with another ad hominen attack RandFan. Tsk Tsk. Nevertheless let me address your other post.There is a simple way to stop this. There are 3 legal standards of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence and preponderance of the evidence. I honestly believe that you have arrived at a conclusion based upon the preponderance of the evidence. Your words clearly illustrate that you have reached a conclusion based upon a preponderance of the evidence. If this is not the case let me know. Just say that you think that is more unlikely than likely based upon the evidence that you have that Bush is doing this primarily because of oil. Of course you will then have to reconcile your statement that you have come "to believe" that it is. If you will do these two things then I will apologize and admit that I am wrong. If you can't do these two things then I expect the same of you.

Of course the dictionary clearly showed that you had arrived at this conclusion based upon proof. However since you won't acknowledge the dictionary definition and you keep bringing up legal definitions I thought perhaps you would accept the "standards of proof" as defined by Electric Law Library.

First I think I might have figured out where you are going wrong so let me touch on that first and then restate my position based simply on the dictionary definition of proof maybe you will acknowledge it this time). The we will get to my proposition.
.
Still trying to justify your own words RandFAn. Good on you cobber. Like you, I am am happy to justify my own words and am happy for you to continue to try to justify yours. I believe that I have already shown that your attempts to use your own words rather than mine are invalid and consider that the above attempt continues to dodge the issue.
Of course you will then have to reconcile your statement that you have come "to believe" that it is.
I have already done so.

Of course the dictionary clearly showed that you had arrived at this conclusion based upon proof
Of course it hasn't. (This is fun).

Not only that but I have told you repeatedly that I don't consider my views to be proven and have posted many rational reason for that position. You made a false claim about me. QED. If you want to continue trying to dispute the obvious that is up to you. I am happy to accept that you have and get on with my life. How's about that so we can get off the head of this pin.
You may honestly believe somthing RandFan but I have honestly told you many times that you are factually wrong. You are debating your use of a word that I did not use. That you are happy with your own words is fine but me but I have told you why I believe tha you are wrong in so doing and have already quoted to you the dictionary definitions of the words I did use. And I have proven that you are wrong. I have shown by your own words that you indeed arrive at a conclusion based upon evidence and deductive reasoning or as the dictionary says "proof"
No you haven't.

I repeat. You stated 'To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise.'

Let me take you through it again real slow. You claimed that I arrived at a position based on one reason. Firstly, the position you claim I arrived at is factually incorrect and I have stated so many times. Secondly, I arrived at the position I did on the basis of many reasons as I have already explaned to you, not the one that you claimed. The one you claimed would be insufficient on its own for me to reach the view I currently have. It really can't be put any simpler no matter how much I try. Do you get it now RandFan?

Let us take the word 'fact'. Unless I a vey much mistaken that is a singular noun. As in not plural. QED.
That you refuse to accept such simple propositions is your problem. You made a false claim. Get over it. I have. Now yet again you are debating a statement different from the false one I originally took issue with. Why? If you want to keep losing focus feel free.
Ahhh... I think that is where you are screwing up.

No, I'm just restating your position.

Your words:

"I have posted a large amount of evidence of a circumstantial nature which together with my knowledge of the oil industry leads me to believe that the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country."

My words:

"To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise."

Now the dictionary (which you won't even acknowledge).

So I am screwing up? It is remarkably simple. Let me take it real slow. You claimed 'fact' whereas I stated 'large amount of evidence of a circumstantial nature which together with my knowledge of the oil industry' So there we have it - you made a false claim based on one fact and I arrived at a different conclusion based on a lage amount of evidence. I really don't think that the nature of your false claim could be clearer. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

There it is. You can't (won't) see it but my sentence is an accurate restatement of your position.

You say yourself that the evidence has led you to believe. I can only assume that it has led you to believe that it is true.

Proposition: Oil is primary reason for war.
Premise: (based upon circumstantial evidence and your knowledge of the oil industry.) Bush has close ties to people in the oil industry.
Premise: Iraq is the 2nd largest oil producer in the world.
Premise: There are many countries with dictators and weapons of mass destruction and are threats to the United States.
Conclusion: Bush is going to war so that he can exploit Iraq's vast oil reserves to make his friends rich, improve his political standing.

E.J. This is what is commonly known as "deductive reasoning".

Now for the rest of the definition of "proof".

Interesting but why don't we look at your actual words?
There it is. You can't (won't) see it but my sentence is an accurate restatement of your position.
As I have already demonstrated your claim is a travesty of my position.

Why not actual use you logical reasoning upon the words you actually did use RandFan. As you are keen to ask of others, let us keep focus here. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

There really is not much more to say. The fact that I only gave "one" position is not proof that I have excluded all others. Your argument is silly and fallacious.

I absolutely stand by my statement. Let me post it one more time and annotate it so that maybe you might understand what I meant and hopefully you can finally understand.

To "you" (this does not imply that you think that it applies to others) the fact that Bush has friends in the oil industry is (a) proof (not the only proof and not absolute proof, not beyond a reasonable doubt proof, not clear and convincing evidence proof, but proof based upon a preponderance of evidence) that Bush is going to war for oil.

Do you believe that the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that Bush is going to war for oil?

Let us actually debate what you actually claimed RandFan. Lest we forget (how could we?)you stated:-
"To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil even when logic would suggest otherwise."
In any analysis of this simple claim there is a clear relationship between the singular noun 'fact and your claim of "proof" namely that it is on the basis of that singular fact that I arived at my so-called "proof". You had the choice to say that on the basis of many factors or facts I had arrived at a conclusion. You did not do so. That was your choice not mine. As such it is factually incorrect. I will repeat it again altough I am falling asleep as I do so....... zzzzzz. Sorry.

I did not arrive at my view on the basis of one fact let alone your claim of "proof" based upon that one fact.

You have to prove that your own word proof is relevant. You have failed to do so. Amongst other things you tried to claim that it was because I used the words 'lead to believe' that you justified your word "proof". I have shown that those words can be used differently showing you were wrong about them. Depite having your justifications for your false statement shown to be incorrect you now claim that my argument is silly and fallacious. (Burst of laughter.) Sorry. That was justified but not helpful. I am now not only a jerk and an ******* and a prick (is that rude in the States?) but am using silly and fallacious arguments. Yea verily I have transgressed in spades (slang. to a high degree).

I wll state my postion again for you RandFan. It is that based on the available nature of the circmstantial evidence from many and varied sources that Mr Bush's stance towards Iraq is based primarily on the existence of large oil reserves in the country. Will he got to war, I don't know. He may yet decide to prove his claim that Iraq has WOMD before attacking that country. Perhaps we are all entitled to call upon him to provide "proof" of his claims.Proposition

If you answer NO or that you are unable to come to a conclusion and reconcile either of those statements with your statement that "it leads me to believe that the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country". then I will acknowledge that I was wrong in asserting that "To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil".

However, If you say yes then please stop this stupid debate because that is exactly the definition of "proof by a preponderance of the evidence" (see below).

If I had believed that I had made a straw man argument then I would have acknowledged that fact and apologized. I have done so before on this forum a number of times. The facts are quite convincing that I did no such thing.

I had hoped that you are able to take my statements at face value. If you can't so be it. Your statement is factually incorrect in two ways. That you are unable to admit that is your problem not mine.
Claim
Proposition
To you the fact that Bush knows some people in the oil industry
Conclusion
is "proof" that he is starting a war for oil.
Analysis
The "proof" is on the basis of only one fact. Otherwise you would have referred to other facts.
Fact.
It is on the basis of many lines of evidence that I came to my view point.
Conclusion
RandFan's original statement is factually incorrect.
Fact
I do not consider that my view had been proved.
Conclusion
RandFan's original statement is factually incorrect.

Let me help you further with a definition of the word 'believe' from the Oxford Compact Dictionary 1996 edition. 3b ..have confidence in... No reference to "proof" even if one is 'Lead to believe'. Your other rationalisations of your own words talks about reaching a conclusion. As anyone knows it is possible to reach a conclusion with having proof that the conclusion is true. If you need any examples of that simple conclusion please let me know and I will provide some examples.

The facts are quite convincing that I did no such thing. Run that past me again. Which facts are those then? Would they be based on your reinterpretation of the words you used or the words you and I actually did use.

However, If you say yes then please stop this stupid debate because that is exactly the definition of "proof by a preponderance of the evidence" (see below).Far be it from me to agree that your refusal to acknowledge your false claim,which is what we are debating here, is s****d. STANDARD OF PROOF - The amount of evidence which a plaintiff (or prosecuting attorney, in a criminal case) must present in a trial in order to win is called the standard of proof. Different cases require different standards of proof depending on what is at stake. The common standards are:

* Beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal cases)--for a criminal defendant to be convicted of a crime, the prosecutor must prove her case to the point that the jurors have no reasonable doubts in their minds that the defendant did whatever he is charged with having done.

* Clear and convincing evidence (civil cases involving the potential loss of important interests such as the termination of parental rights)--for a party to prove a case under this standard, she must show something more than it is more likely than not, but not as much as beyond a reasonable doubt. No legal scholar has ever been able to define clear and convincing evidence more precisely than that.

* Preponderance of the evidence (most civil cases including fault divorces)--preponderance of the evidence generally means that a party will win if she can show that it is more likely than not that her contention is true.

Ok let me make this easy.

Please choose one of the 3 statements. If you choose either #2 or #3 please state why those statements are not inconsistent with your earlier statement.






I find it more likely than not that Bush is going to war primarily because of oil and this statement is consistent with my earlier statement that "...a large amount of evidence of a circumstantial nature which together with my knowledge of the oil industry leads me to believe that the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country"


I do not have enough evidence to conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that Bush is going to war because of the oil industry. However this is not inconsistent with my earlier statement that "...a large amount of evidence of a circumstantial nature which together with my knowledge of the oil industry leads me to believe that the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country" because ???


I find it less likely than not that Bush is going to war because of oil and this is consistent with my earlier statements that "...a large amount of evidence of a circumstantial nature which together with my knowledge of the oil industry leads me to believe that the stance Bush is currently taking towards Iraq is primarily dictated by the presence of oil in that country" because ???



If you choose #1 then by definition I am right. Please apologize and let's move on.

If you choose #2 or #3 AND reasonably explain how you can 1. not find it likely based upon the evidence AND 2. "belive that the war is based on oil then I will apologize.
You claimed before that 'All your courtroom examples won't change the fact that it was correct for me to use the word "proof". ' Either you want legal examples or you don't. I correctly used the definition of circumstantial (which is a word I atually did use) in relation to a legal example. It was incorrect for you to use the word proof because 1/ I do not believe that there is proof for my view and 2/I have never claimed that there was proof and 3/ I have provided dictionary definitions of the words I actually did use and 4/ Your use of the word proof does not accord with the words I did use which do not constitute proof. That you want to erect arguments over your own words is a matter for your RandFan. I simply do not accept that your use of the word is accurate in relation to my view. I know what I believe and you do not read minds therefore you can only reach a conclusion based on what I have posted. You have failed to justify your argument about what I believe from what you have posted. I have repeatedly and conclusively shown that you claimed I held the view based upon one fact alone. Given that your argument is based on a false premise I am amazed that you seem to want to continue to try to erect further constructions on a false premise.

Let me summarise all this debate for you RandFan in ten easy steps.

1/ You made a false claim about me.
2/ er that's it.

Hey ho - my goldfish still loves me.


I have just heard about the disaster in the shuttle and would like to send my condolences to all involved. It starkly puts all this pathetic pin dancing into perspective.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction in the past. Neither has Han Blix given him a clean bill of healt
Agreed. I just hope that Mr Bush and Mr Blair actually provide some adequate evidence for their claims that Iraq has WOMD and that they go through the UN properly before killing any innocent Iraqi people. Not as serious a threat as Iraq is to it's neighbours, IMO. The South Koreans are also able to at least match the North Koreans in military terms, it seems.
I disgree and think that they are both equally dangerous regimes. Well Burma and Cuba haven't been included in the axis of evil.
Not sure what relevance that is. Do you have a clear definition of the Axis of Evil?I understand Randfan all to well, thank you. Good.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by EJ Armstrong:
Agreed. I just hope that Mr Bush and Mr Blair actually provide some adequate evidence for their claims that Iraq has WOMD and that they go through the UN properly before killing any innocent Iraqi people.

Saddam has killed countless numbers of his own people, infinitely more than would be killed in any allied military action, and will continue to do so as long as he's in power.

Not sure what relevance that is. Do you have a clear definition of the Axis of Evil?

GWB coined the phrase "axis of evil" to describe Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Burma or Cuba never entered the equation.

[RandFan]

E.J.,

I have made it very easy for you. I even offered to appologize and admit that I was wrong if you do a simple thing.

I stand by my offer.

Let's just take it one step at a time ok?

If you would just choose one of the options or tell me why you can't?

Let's try again. Just choose one.

[list=1]
I find it more likely than not that Bush is going to war primarily because of oil.
I do not have enough evidence to conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that Bush is going to war because of oil.
I find it less likely than not that Bush is going to war because of oil
[/list=1]

This is not a false dillema E.J. There are no other options that are needed. However please feel free to give me another if you feel you can.

[Darat]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Agreed. I just hope that Mr Bush and Mr Blair actually provide some adequate evidence for their claims that Iraq has WOMD and that they go through the UN properly before killing any innocent Iraqi people.

...snip...

I keep asking people who say we need another "UN resolution" before we kill “innocent” people by going to war – why?

Either it is wrong to kill innocent people or it isn't. Why and how does the UN have the power to change a right to a wrong?

What is the unique ability that allows the individuals who form the UN to determine that it is “now right to kill innocent people”? Why is it only this group of people in the whole world who can make this determination?

When did the UN provide you (or me) with the evidence that they know how to make this determination and know better then a Bush or Blair or any other person including you or I when it is “OK” to kill an innocent and when it isn’t?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Saddam has killed countless numbers of his own people, infinitely more than would be killed in any allied military action, and will continue to do so as long as he's in power.

I agree that he is killing his own people. So are other regimes which have no substantial oil reserves in their countries. Could there a connection between those two observations? GWB coined the phrase "axis of evil" to describe Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Burma or Cuba never entered the equation.
I agree that Bush (or one of his speechwriters on a bad day)coined the term but it seems to have little to commend it other than as a catchall term for those his administration doesn't like.
As that is a very subjective group, excluding, for instance, certain dubious regimes, some of which have received military support from the west. I am afraid that isn't much of an Axis to me or a very helpful definition. Therefore, it does seem like much of a basis to differentiate between those countries which are in and those who are out of the Axis at any particular time.