Chemical weapons found in Iraq

[Denise]

According to AP and Fox. No citations yet.

[arcticpenguin]

I invoke the 24 hour rule. No discussion until it's verified.

[Denise]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I invoke the 24 hour rule. No discussion until it's verified.

Well, it's not just Fox. Can you please bring back the purple avatar?

[Richard G]

Mustard and nerve gas.

[scotth]

Even NPR is going with this story.

[Denise]

Originally posted by scotth
Even NPR is going with this story.

Ok, it's probably true then.

[Wolverine]

Patience! :)

Please note the very last sentence of this article (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83449,00.html):

"But right now we just don't know."

*awaits confirmation*

***Edited to add a smiley (lol).

[scotth]

There are actually two different reports of chem weapon in two different areas.

One find in drums outside of Baghdad and another loaded into rockets near the airport.

It seems rather unlikely that a warhead would have a substance that tests presumptive positive for chem weapons and be something else.

I agree that we need to wait and see. However, I suspect that we will get confirmation on at least one if not both of these sites.

Also, there is a third report of a captured BMP containing sarin and mustard gas.

[scotth]

The drums outside of Baghdad now appear to be pesticides.

[davefoc]

I agree with AP except it needs to be more like 48 hours.

I still am really skeptical of nerve gas reports when the stuff is stored in standard 55 gallon drums. This stuff is supposed to be incredibly deadly and you store it in drums with lids that can easily pop off or not seal completely. I think not, but I wait to be proved wrong.

If scotth report is true about stuff loaded into rockets one would think there's something to that because they're probably not loading pesticides into rockets but I'm still going with 48 hour rule before I begin to think seriously about the reports being true.

Also, sorry Denise, we are about to have our first disagreement here (and it pains me). I think AP's new avatar is cool. Stay with the new one AP.

[scotth]

The military has been pretty good at not saying anything until they are pretty sure.

When we get a Pentagon or Centcom announcement saying they have chem weapons, I'll be pretty confident that they are there.

[Smalso]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1514&e=3&u=/afp/20030407/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_wmd_030407175243

It's pesticide.

[scotth]

But that isn't the only potential chem weapon site.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

These are Missles though :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47645-2003Apr7.html

[DrChinese]

The one I heard was that a test was positive for sarin in the vicinity. Didn't say whether they found chemical weapons, barrels of useless goop, trace amounts, etc.

Finding chemical weapons does not justify an invasion. But it will help get Bush off the hot seat with those to whom he lied about the WMD - i.e. the suckers who fell for his rhetoric.

Remember this? "The President must know something we don't..." ROFTL.

[Incitatus]

Do you doubt that these agents will be found no matter what? After all, if none are found we simply engaged in regime change.

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese
The one I heard was that a test was positive for sarin in the vicinity. Didn't say whether they found chemical weapons, barrels of useless goop, trace amounts, etc.

Finding chemical weapons does not justify an invasion. But it will help get Bush off the hot seat with those to whom he lied about the WMD - i.e. the suckers who fell for his rhetoric.

Remember this? "The President must know something we don't..." ROFTL.

Clearly you have a poor understanding of Sadaam.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Smalso
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1514&e=3&u=/afp/20030407/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_wmd_030407175243

It's pesticide.

They where talking about the pesticide on Fox news mix withed other chemical it can be quite deadly the pesticide they found is often used to make chemical weapons.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392.asp?0si=-

[Charles Livingston]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DrChinese
The one I heard was that a test was positive for sarin in the vicinity. Didn't say whether they found chemical weapons, barrels of useless goop, trace amounts, etc.

Finding chemical weapons does not justify an invasion. But it will help get Bush off the hot seat with those to whom he lied about the WMD - i.e. the suckers who fell for his rhetoric.

Remember this? "The President must know something we don't..." ROFTL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, if we find chemical weapons then Bush didnt necessarily lie about them now did he? Maybe the sucker is you.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Baker


They where talking about the pesticide on Fox news mix withed other chemical it can be quite deadly the pesticide they found is often used to make chemical weapons.



Christ, you can mix carbon dioxide with other chemicals in the right way and make chemical weapons. Another good example of the geniuses at Fox News.

What will happen if they discover dry ice in Iraq?

[Baker]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Christ, you can mix carbon dioxide with other chemicals in the right way and make chemical weapons. Another good example of the geniuses at Fox News.

What will happen if they discover dry ice in Iraq?

I couldn’t remember the substance that they mentioned is mixed with it so I just said chemical.

As they were searching through the agricultural facility they discovered literature on controlling mosquitoes. But in a nearby pit camouflaged with leaves they found eleven 25-gallon barrels and three 55-gallon barrels.

Initial tests at the site were positive for chemical weapons, so more sophisticated gear — a mobile testing unit provided by the German government — was brought in.
Those tests also were positive for GA, known as tabun, GB, also known as sarin, both nerve agents, and for lewisite, a blister agent.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DrChinese

Finding chemical weapons does not justify an invasion. But it will help get Bush off the hot seat with those to whom he lied about the WMD - i.e. the suckers who fell for his rhetoric.


The UN resolution prohibiting Iraq from possessing chemical weapons authorzies the use of force if they refuse to comply.

The United States felt they were not complying (Iraq's choice, they could have turned over the chemical weapons we are finding now to inspectors) and chose to enforce the UN resolution.

So we invade Iraq and find prohibited weapons. Unfortunately we had to act unilaterally due to France abusing their veto power (likely because of France's illegal dealings with Iraq).

Are you saying the United Nations was wrong to authorize the use of force to disarm Iraq? When did you decide to oppose the U.N. and international law?

[reprise]

The reports on this morning's news specifically state that the materials found (preliminary tests returned a positive result for a nerve agent and a blistering agent) had not been weaponised.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by reprise
The reports on this morning's news specifically state that the materials found (preliminary tests returned a positive result for a nerve agent and a blistering agent) had not been weaponised.

And what is your point???

All it takes to weaponize these materials is to put them in a delivery mechanism, for example a bomb or missle warhead. Due to the extreme danger involved in handling these substances, one would typically not do this until they were about to be used. By that logic an assault rifle and ammunition would not be considered a "weapon" as long as they were seperated.

Regardless, Reuters is reporting Marines have discovered 20 medium range missles equipped with sarin and mustard gas and "ready to fire". Is that weaponized enough for you?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by scotth
Even NPR is going with this story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, it's probably true then.

Now this post raises many interesting points. For all the hoopla out there about free enterprise etc, it is humble NPR that is trusted.

We get to hear NPR out here in Australia on our own public radio station. I quite enjoy listening to it. Low key, not nobbled by the bosses interests, varied points of view, dedication to the old journalistic ethics of objective reporting.

[Brown]

Pesticide, eh?

Say, wasn't Zyklon B a pesticide?

[reprise]

Sarin was originally developed as a pesticide in the 1930s. It's kind of scary how many agricultural chemicals have found military/terrorist uses over the years.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by scotth


Clearly you have a poor understanding of Sadaam.

What did I say that reflects that, may I ask? I didn't even mention him.

Saddam = Lying, murderous person whose elimination will brighten the face of the planet. So what? Ever hear the phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right?"

I am asking for the truth from our government. The idea that we are in Iraq because of chemical weapons is ludicrous.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DrChinese
The one I heard was that a test was positive for sarin in the vicinity. Didn't say whether they found chemical weapons, barrels of useless goop, trace amounts, etc.

Finding chemical weapons does not justify an invasion. But it will help get Bush off the hot seat with those to whom he lied about the WMD - i.e. the suckers who fell for his rhetoric.

Remember this? "The President must know something we don't..." ROFTL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, if we find chemical weapons then Bush didnt necessarily lie about them now did he? Maybe the sucker is you.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said, or perhaps I was not clear.

We aren't in Iraq because of WMD. Bush's lie is that we are there for that reason. Some people supported Bush because they were worried by the possibility of Saddam possessing and using such chemical weapons. Bush always knew there was a possibility they would be found, but didn't really care. Saddam was going down regardless of the facts in this regard.

Finding the weapons will settle his promise/lie. If they are not found, Bush will still argue he did the right thing. And his supporters will be in his camp anyway, even though they bought into the lie. (It's a lie because he presented something as the truth, when he knew that noone really knew one way or the other. And people want to trust the President.)

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


The UN resolution prohibiting Iraq from possessing chemical weapons authorzies the use of force if they refuse to comply.

The United States felt they were not complying (Iraq's choice, they could have turned over the chemical weapons we are finding now to inspectors) and chose to enforce the UN resolution.

So we invade Iraq and find prohibited weapons. Unfortunately we had to act unilaterally due to France abusing their veto power (likely because of France's illegal dealings with Iraq).

Are you saying the United Nations was wrong to authorize the use of force to disarm Iraq? When did you decide to oppose the U.N. and international law?

How can someone abuse their voting rights? The French don't agree with Bush, what difference does it make why? The Russians and the Chinese were going to veto too. I happen to agree with them, but that's not the point.

The US is wrong to invade Iraq. International law prohibits this invasion in every respect. Bush is throwing the UN under the bus for his own agenda, the Bush Doctrine (http://drchinese.com/rundevilrun.php).

I hope this lesson has been informative, and that your misconceptions are now eliminated.

[scotth]

DrChinese,

I have been following Sadaam's story for better than a decade. I have been quite convinced he has those weapons for the entire duration.

His Arab neighbors have been convinced of the same for that entire time as well.

Without examining any of the fairly recently reveiled intelligence concerning those weapons, it would be foolish to think he disposed of those weapons.

Unless you think he never ever had them, it would be nearly impossible to conclude he doesn't have to this day.

Lets just look at just one tidbit. Even Iraq admits to the recent group of inspectors that it produced a certain pretty large quantity of these materials. When asked where they are today, Iraq answers that they unilaterally destroyed them in late '91.

That answer doesn't wash one little bit. At that very time, a huge group of inspectors were in Iraq for the express purpose of supervising the destruction of these weapons. Why would any even slight sane regime think it would be a good idea to destroy anything without calling those guys over to watch.

Keep in mind that the inspectors were not supposed to be there to find weapons, but merely to supervise their destruction.

They were not called over to watch the destruction, because it did not happen.

I hope this lesson has been informative, and that your misconceptions are now eliminated.

I can give several (many) more if necessary.

Originally posted by Richard G
Mustard and nerve gas.

Who gave to them?

Let me guess...USA when Saddam was the good guy....so he can used against inoccent people of Irak and Iran.
Who remember the war Iran vs Irak?

In that time....USA bless Saddam.


P.S: Who believe in the sock puppets media of the baby killers?

[scotth]

Originally posted by latinijral


Who gave to them?

Let me guess...USA when Saddam was the good guy....so he can used against inoccent people of Irak and Iran.
Who remember the war Iran vs Irak?

In that time....USA bless Saddam.


P.S: Who believe in the sock puppets media of the baby killers?

Nobody gave that type of material to that regime.

Even Iraq claims that it manufactured that material itself.

[bva]

Originally posted by DrChinese



The US is wrong to invade Iraq. International law prohibits this invasion in every respect. Bush is throwing the UN under the bus for his own agenda, the Bush Doctrine (http://drchinese.com/rundevilrun.php).

I hope this lesson has been informative, and that your misconceptions are now eliminated.


Resolution 1441 was in material breach. Your boys in France China and Russia were abusing their veto privilege (if russia or china wouldve really used it is still not certain - the FROGS defintiely would have) for their OWN FINANCIAL GAIN. US/UK intelligence knew WMD existed. That is now proven even clear enough for you unless you think we're planting them. The US had to trump the ineffective UN to disarm Iraq. Thank god they did because a devestated Iraqi people is close to being liberated. Just another wonderful cause helping out a country. TThey'll be glad to know you weren't in charge or it would be another 20 years of starvation, torture, and the rape room.

I cant wait to hear your tirades when the Iraqi people are hugging the american's in the street, waving the red, white and blue and we uncover underground warehouse and warehouse full of WMD. To you war will never be justified. You will never have enough information unless again the war is waged by some eco-terrorist on an engineer in Alaska "cuz that be JUST CAUSE" :)

Q. Was resolution 1441 breached by Iraq?

A. Yes

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DrChinese

How can someone abuse their voting rights?
The Russians and the Chinese were going to veto too.


Veto rights are not voting rights, if you use them to block a U.N. resolution in your own self interest thats abuse in my book.

How do you know the Russians and the Chinese were going to veto as well? Your magic crystal ball?


The US is wrong to invade Iraq. International law prohibits this invasion in every respect.


Really? Do U.N. resolutions count as international law? What about all the chapter 7 resolutions passed by the Security Council? You know, the ones that are ENFORCEABLE and Iraq is in breach of? The US is enforcing international law, not flaunting it.


I hope this lesson has been informative, and that your misconceptions are now eliminated.

Oh it has, I used to think you were a moron. Now I know for sure!

[armageddonman]

Veto rights are not voting rights, if you use them to block a U.N. resolution in your own self interest thats abuse in my book.

Tell this to the US government.

[iain]

There is genuine disagreement amongst experts on international law on whether resolution 1441 can be used to authorise the action the US has taken in invading Iraq.

Anyone who thinks that it definitely does or doesn't is simply hearing what they want to hear, and ignoring information to the contrary, to bolster their own case.

[bva]

Originally posted by iain
There is genuine disagreement amongst experts on international law on whether resolution 1441 can be used to authorise the action the US has taken in invading Iraq.

Anyone who thinks that it definitely does or doesn't is simply hearing what they want to hear, and ignoring information to the contrary, to bolster their own case.

[fsol]

I thought it was the US and UK who started the whole veto thing in the first place.

US/UK "we will ignore any unreasonable veto against a second resolution."

France "fine we will veto regardless then, as it won't make any difference"

When it became clear that the US/UK would not get a majority in favour of their resolution they stopped trying to get one. In this way they could claim the higher ground, rely on the percieved legality of 1441 and not have to blatently disobey the UN. Chirac just gave them the excuse they were looking for. The coalition should probably thank him.

[bva]

Originally posted by fsol
I thought it was the US and UK who started the whole veto thing in the first place.

US/UK "we will ignore any unreasonable veto against a second resolution."

France "fine we will veto regardless then, as it won't make any difference"

When it became clear that the US/UK would not get a majority in favour of their resolution they stopped trying to get one. In this way they could claim the higher ground, rely on the percieved legality of 1441 and not have to blatently disobey the UN. Chirac just gave them the excuse they were looking for. The coalition should probably thank him.

Is that how you spin it? Figures. How about more close to the actually transactions.

US/UK: Guys its been a decade we need to set some hard limits so they actually comply to the resolution and a show of force threat seems prudent.

France: No. We will not support any resolution that includes force Iraq is conforming they dont have WMD.

US/UK: What if we give them a bit more itme but we have to set a deadline.

France: No. There is no WMD.

[fsol]

where is the spin?

*before* Chirac said he would veto no matter what, Blair went on national television and stated that the coalition would ignore any unreasonable veto of a second resolution. That is the timeline.

Now if I wanted to spin I could ask what exactly constitutes "unreasonable" and who decides exactly. I could suggest that the coalition would find any veto against them unreasonable and act regardless of the outcome in the UN.

Chirac's statement gave them the excuse to go it alone that they needed. And they took the oppurtunity with both hands.

[armageddonman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fsol
[B]where is the spin?

*before* Chirac said he would veto no matter what...QUOTE]

Chirac didn't say that France would veto no matter what, he said that France would veto a resolution that would automatically sanction the use of force.

The assertion that Chirac announced a veto "no matter what" is a US propaganda lie.

[EvilYeti]

Why don't you?

Whoops, you're from Europe. We don't care what you think!

:D

Originally posted by armageddonman

Tell this to the US government.

[iain]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Why don't you?

Whoops, you're from Europe. We don't care what you think!

:D

Many a true word and all that :rolleyes:

[fsol]

armageddonman: you are quite right but as some people don't even believe the timeline for these things...

a few links.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2680075.stm

January 21st

Speaking after both the UK and US announced new troop deployments to the Gulf, Mr Blair said he reserved the right to join in military action, even if a UN Security Council member vetoed such a move.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/2732979.stm

February 6th

If, however, a country were to issue a veto because there has to be unanimity amongst the permanent members of the Security Council. If a country unreasonably in those circumstances put down a veto then I would consider action outside of that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2838269.stm

March 10th

French President Jacques Chirac said his country would vote against any resolution that contains an ultimatum leading to war.

So I hope that clears up the veto thing.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Veto rights are not voting rights, if you use them to block a U.N. resolution in your own self interest thats abuse in my book.

How do you know the Russians and the Chinese were going to veto as well? Your magic crystal ball?

Really? Do U.N. resolutions count as international law? What about all the chapter 7 resolutions passed by the Security Council? You know, the ones that are ENFORCEABLE and Iraq is in breach of? The US is enforcing international law, not flaunting it.

Oh it has, I used to think you were a moron. Now I know for sure!


Veto rights are voting rights, on this point we disagree. The US also exercises its veto power in its self-interest, as do other countries. If you want to call it abuse, whatever...

I don't know 100% that Russia and China were going to exercise their veto, they were certainly opposed to our invasion of Iraq. Bush chose not to embarass himself by bringing it to a vote.

The UNSC never passed any resolutions authorizing the invasion of Iraq. The UN Charter specifically prohibits an invasion of this type as being "self-defense". We are not there legally, but there is no-one to enforce it.

And finally, coming from you, I consider your name-calling a compliment.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by scotth
DrChinese,

I have been following Sadaam's story for better than a decade. I have been quite convinced he has those weapons for the entire duration.

His Arab neighbors have been convinced of the same for that entire time as well.

Without examining any of the fairly recently reveiled intelligence concerning those weapons, it would be foolish to think he disposed of those weapons.

Unless you think he never ever had them, it would be nearly impossible to conclude he doesn't have to this day.

Lets just look at just one tidbit. Even Iraq admits to the recent group of inspectors that it produced a certain pretty large quantity of these materials. When asked where they are today, Iraq answers that they unilaterally destroyed them in late '91.

That answer doesn't wash one little bit. At that very time, a huge group of inspectors were in Iraq for the express purpose of supervising the destruction of these weapons. Why would any even slight sane regime think it would be a good idea to destroy anything without calling those guys over to watch.

Keep in mind that the inspectors were not supposed to be there to find weapons, but merely to supervise their destruction.

They were not called over to watch the destruction, because it did not happen.

I hope this lesson has been informative, and that your misconceptions are now eliminated.

I can give several (many) more if necessary.

(Wow, a decade! And to think I hadn't heard of him until last year...)

I agree with much of what you say, I don't trust the words of the Iraqis either. They certainly had chemical weapons at one time. Even if they did have them in 1991, it is questionable what capability they have today. I doubt they have much that is useful for any military purposes. And much of it would not really qualify as WMD, emphasis on the "mass". And very unlikely they have produced anything new since 1991.

So we agree that they have "something". We disagree on these points: a) it is worth going to war over (it's not); and b) that this is why Bush took us to Iraq (it isn't).

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Veto rights are voting rights, on this point we disagree. The US also exercises its veto power in its self-interest, as do other countries. If you want to call it abuse, whatever...

I don't know 100% that Russia and China were going to exercise their veto, they were certainly opposed to our invasion of Iraq. Bush chose not to embarass himself by bringing it to a vote.

The UNSC never passed any resolutions authorizing the invasion of Iraq. The UN Charter specifically prohibits an invasion of this type as being "self-defense". We are not there legally, but there is no-one to enforce it.

And finally, coming from you, I consider your name-calling a compliment.

If you look at the cease fire agreement from 1991, it should be quite clear that any UN resolution is completely unnecessary and only a gesture to get everyone on board.

Iraq has not fullfilled the terms of the cease fire. Not even close. (Resolution 687). In the meantime, the UN and the rest of the world has said time and time again, even through more UN resolutions that Iraq is not and has not lived up to its obligations under section C of 687.

A cease fire, by definition is null if the parties do not fullfill the agreed conditions contained within.

While some people are fond of arguing that the latest resolution does not specifically authorize action in Iraq, it is completely irrelevant. Authorization for action is completely authorized by 687 if its terms are not met. Period. There is no other answer.

Every single subsequent resolution from the UN in the intervening time has stated nothing other than Iraq is obviously not meeting the conditions of 687.

If you want to argue legallity and the resolutions, read every word of every one of them and start with 687. The conclusion is inescapable.

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


(Wow, a decade! And to think I hadn't heard of him until last year...)

I agree with much of what you say, I don't trust the words of the Iraqis either. They certainly had chemical weapons at one time. Even if they did have them in 1991, it is questionable what capability they have today. I doubt they have much that is useful for any military purposes. And much of it would not really qualify as WMD, emphasis on the "mass". And very unlikely they have produced anything new since 1991.

So we agree that they have "something". We disagree on these points: a) it is worth going to war over (it's not); and b) that this is why Bush took us to Iraq (it isn't).

They have certainly continued to manufacture banned materials in the mean time.

You don't need info from the US gov't to reach that conclusion.

Hans Blix has even said that much is obvious.

UNSCOM destroyed bio weapons production facilities in Iraq in 1996... you think they have been doing anything new since 1991?

Read the full text of this Hans Blix report.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6

There is a clear pattern in it, lets see if you can spot it.

And when I said more that a decade before, I probably would have been better off saying since about '86. At that time, I made several friends that were from Iraq. Their stories of home were very eye opening. I became fairly interested about that time.

Here is another point to ponder, that requires no belief in the words of Bush. Just a bit of reasoning.

1) The latest rounds of inspection would have NEVER been allowed to begin by Iraq if the pressure of military forces moving into the area didn't convince otherwise. If you will remember, Iraq strongly refused to re-admit inspectors until troops started arriving in Kuwait.
2) Keeping several hundred thousand troops on the Iraqi boarding in Kuwait just to keep pressure up is not a reasonable option. If France wanted to keep the inspections going indefinitely, they should have volunteer to post a quarter million of their troops on the border to keep up the pressure for as long as they wanted the inspections to continue.
3) Even with the pressue, it was clear as day that Iraq was still playing "hide-and-seek" with the inspectors.
4) Summer is too late to bring military action and anyone with a lick of sense can see why.

I don't know why the media sucks so bad at reading the signs, but it was pretty plain last fall that Iraq would actually seriously cooperate with inspectors by this spring or there would be a war.

The basic timeline of this should have been obvious to anyone for quite a while.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by scotth


If you look at the cease fire agreement from 1991, it should be quite clear that any UN resolution is completely unnecessary and only a gesture to get everyone on board.

Iraq has not fullfilled the terms of the cease fire. Not even close. (Resolution 687). In the meantime, the UN and the rest of the world has said time and time again, even through more UN resolutions that Iraq is not and has not lived up to its obligations under section C of 687.

A cease fire, by definition is null if the parties do not fullfill the agreed conditions contained within.

While some people are fond of arguing that the latest resolution does not specifically authorize action in Iraq, it is completely irrelevant. Authorization for action is completely authorized by 687 if its terms are not met. Period. There is no other answer.

Every single subsequent resolution from the UN in the intervening time has stated nothing other than Iraq is obviously not meeting the conditions of 687.

If you want to argue legallity and the resolutions, read every word of every one of them and start with 687. The conclusion is inescapable.

You are reading one thing by itself, as if it is the only thing in existence. I will not debate the technicalities of 687, I think this has been done already plenty of times. It is 12 years old, hardly justification for this year's invasion. There has been no material change in Iraqi behavior in over 4 years. None of the other Arabs states have asked us to intervene, virtually all of the rest of the world is against war over this issue, and Bush cited numerous other reasons as our primary justification (a flawed, changing list).

So if you are saying that 687 is the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq - to enforce a cease fire - and that finding a couple of barrels of goop demonstrates the wisdom of that action... I think you are sadly mistaken.

[Martin]

Originally posted by scotth
In the meantime, the UN and the rest of the world has said time and time again, even through more UN resolutions that Iraq is not and has not lived up to its obligations under section C of 687But only violation of section A sanctions military action.A cease fire, by definition is null if the parties do not fullfill the agreed conditions contained withinWith respect, cobblers. A UNSC resolution is null iff the UNSC decides so. It sanctions whatever it says it sanctions, no more. You can't just call it a ceasefire and claim an implicit justification for war. 687 very clearly does not specify military action as a consequence of violations of section C.

(For those who haven'r read it, UNSC687 can be found here (http://www.meij.or.jp/text/un/unscr/unscr687.htm))

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by scotth


They have certainly continued to manufacture banned materials in the mean time.

You don't need info from the US gov't to reach that conclusion.

Hans Blix has even said that much is obvious.

UNSCOM destroyed bio weapons production facilities in Iraq in 1996... you think they have been doing anything new since 1991?

Read the full text of this Hans Blix report.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6

There is a clear pattern in it, lets see if you can spot it.

And when I said more that a decade before, I probably would have been better off saying since about '86. At that time, I made several friends that were from Iraq. Their stories of home were very eye opening. I became fairly interested about that time.

Here is another point to ponder, that requires no belief in the words of Bush. Just a bit of reasoning.

1) The latest rounds of inspection would have NEVER been allowed to begin by Iraq if the pressure of military forces moving into the area didn't convince otherwise. If you will remember, Iraq strongly refused to re-admit inspectors until troops started arriving in Kuwait.
2) Keeping several hundred thousand troops on the Iraqi boarding in Kuwait just to keep pressure up is not a reasonable option. If France wanted to keep the inspections going indefinitely, they should have volunteer to post a quarter million of their troops on the border to keep up the pressure for as long as they wanted the inspections to continue.
3) Even with the pressue, it was clear as day that Iraq was still playing "hide-and-seek" with the inspectors.
4) Summer is too late to bring military action and anyone with a lick of sense can see why.

I don't know why the media sucks so bad at reading the signs, but it was pretty plain last fall that Iraq would actually seriously cooperate with inspectors by this spring or there would be a war.

The basic timeline of this should have been obvious to anyone for quite a while.

I actually agree with pretty much everything you have stated above (with the exception of them producing more since 1991, which wouldn't affect my reasoning anyway unless there was something really mind-blowing).

I don't think the inspections were ever Bush's requirements for peace. He knew there would never be any way they could satisfy him. Bush picked a fight with Saddam intentionally. The international community did not feel threatened by Saddam's barrels of goop. The rest of the world was ready to move on, even lift the sanctions.

Keeping the sanctions in place was probably the best thing the US has done to prevent Saddam from re-arming, and I think that was effective. The inspections were really optional, given that they would always be doomed due to questions about their completeness.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Martinm
But only violation of section A sanctions military action.

What would make you think that?

[Martin]

Originally posted by scotth


What would make you think that? The text of the resolution? Section A, paragraph 4 statesDecides to guarantee the inviolability of the above-mentioned international boundary and to take as appropriate all necessary measures to that end in accordance with the Charter'All neccesary measures' is UN-speak for military action, is it not?

In any case, section C states what Iraq is expected to do in terms of elimination of WMD, and lays down the framework for inspections. It most certainly does not state what should happen if any part of section C is violated. That would be covered by section I, paragraph 34 - Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of this resolution and to secure peace and security in the areaTo determine what further steps are required takes another resolution, of course.

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


I actually agree with pretty much everything you have stated above (with the exception of them producing more since 1991, which wouldn't affect my reasoning anyway unless there was something really mind-blowing).

I don't think the inspections were ever Bush's requirements for peace. He knew there would never be any way they could satisfy him. Bush picked a fight with Saddam intentionally. The international community did not feel threatened by Saddam's barrels of goop. The rest of the world was ready to move on, even lift the sanctions.

Keeping the sanctions in place was probably the best thing the US has done to prevent Saddam from re-arming, and I think that was effective. The inspections were really optional, given that they would always be doomed due to questions about their completeness.

I think you will get a chance to find out soon that your appraisal of the situation was/is off significantly.

As the regime goes down and people within the country start to talk, you will hear/see things that are "really mind-blowing".

I'll recount some testimony given by a defector nuclear scientist from Iraq to give you a taste for what you will hear.

Iraq knew/suspected that Isreal was going to bomb their nuclear facility. Sadaam ordered that the enriched uranium be moved to some other safe site. (A swimming pool as it turns out.)

After the facility was bombed, Sadaam then ordered that some amount of the saved uranium to be scattered about the bombed site.

The they claimed that all the uranium was destroyed/lost in the attack. The UN bought this story and endorsed the paper work saying that their nuclear material was destroyed/gone.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Martinm
The text of the resolution? Section A, paragraph 4 states'All neccesary measures' is UN-speak for military action, is it not?

In any case, section C states what Iraq is expected to do in terms of elimination of WMD, and lays down the framework for inspections. It most certainly does not state what should happen if any part of section C is violated. That would be covered by section I, paragraph 34 - To determine what further steps are required takes another resolution, of course.

Section C is Iraq's responsibilities.

It is a cease fire agreement.

Failure to comply with cease fire agreements do not require additional wording to indicate that resumption of war could result from failure to live up to agreed terms.

That is MORE than a given.

[Martin]

Originally posted by scotth
Section C is Iraq's responsibilities

Parts of it are, parts of it establish the framework for inspections - for instance, paragraph 13, which is a request to the IAEA. It's not an important point, though.

It is a cease fire agreement

No, it is a UNSC resolution.

Failure to comply with cease fire agreements do not require additional wording to indicate that resumption of war could result from failure to live up to agreed terms.

That is MORE than a given

There are no givens in international law. UNSC resolutions sanction what they say they sanction, no more. There is no provision for war under section C. More damning to your case, there is such a provision under section A - why, if it's a given anyway? Section I provides the catch-all clause to allow the UNSC to build upon 687 with further resolutions. That is the section which would need to be invoked to justify any action not specifically sanctioned in the text.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DrChinese

I actually agree with pretty much everything you have stated above (with the exception of them producing more since 1991, which wouldn't affect my reasoning anyway unless there was something really mind-blowing).


So this is your reasoning:

1. Iraq can violate the terms of its surrender at will, as long as it isn't "mind blowing" (I'm impressed by your masterful knowledge of political terminology). This is not a violation of international law. Or even if it is, it's irrelevant.

2. Any enforcement of international law is, in itself, a violation of international law. Ergo, international law is un-enforceable and meaningless.

It seems to me that you have absolutely no faith in the United Nations or international law in general. If so, why do you care so much when the U.S. acts unilaterally? Why the hypocracy?

[scotth]

Originally posted by Martinm


Parts of it are, parts of it establish the framework for inspections - for instance, paragraph 13, which is a request to the IAEA. It's not an important point, though.



No, it is a UNSC resolution.



There are no givens in international law. UNSC resolutions sanction what they say they sanction, no more. There is no provision for war under section C. More damning to your case, there is such a provision under section A - why, if it's a given anyway? Section I provides the catch-all clause to allow the UNSC to build upon 687 with further resolutions. That is the section which would need to be invoked to justify any action not specifically sanctioned in the text.

If that is the way you read it, then I would have to say that U.N. seriously failed in its responsibilities since then.

12 years later, and still not only doubt but near certainty that Iraq possesses considerable quantities of materials that are multiplied in their danger by the existance of organized international terrorism.

Anyone who honestly believes that Iraq only has some "barrels of goop" and that Sadaam would even hesitate to pass some to a willing third party if he thought he could get away with is living in a naive dream land.

The loss of life and economic damage that could be achieved with as little as a couple gallons of this goop, or a couple pounds of anthrax for instance could make 9/11 look like a trip to Disney Land.

The odds of the eventuality becoming reality increases every day that nothing is done to stop it.

I am no fan of Bush. Not even a little fan of Bush. I will gladly pummel him on many policy issues. I could not chastise him enough for his poor handling of the public message in the lead up to this conflict. But, this is a danger that needs to be addressed and at least I am glad that he is seeing that it happens.

I will also state with considerable confidence that the Iraqi people will be much better off after this is complete.

When you are very familiar with the stories of the people of Iraq, it is clear that Sadaam isn't just a ruthless person. He is a person that glories in the suffering of others.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Martinm


Parts of it are, parts of it establish the framework for inspections - for instance, paragraph 13, which is a request to the IAEA. It's not an important point, though.



No, it is a UNSC resolution.



There are no givens in international law. UNSC resolutions sanction what they say they sanction, no more. There is no provision for war under section C. More damning to your case, there is such a provision under section A - why, if it's a given anyway? Section I provides the catch-all clause to allow the UNSC to build upon 687 with further resolutions. That is the section which would need to be invoked to justify any action not specifically sanctioned in the text.

If that is the way you read it, then I would have to say that U.N. seriously failed in its responsibilities since then.

12 years later, and still not only doubt but near certainty that Iraq possesses considerable quantities of materials that are multiplied in their danger by the existance of organized international terrorism.

Anyone who honestly believes that Iraq only has some "barrels of goop" and that Sadaam would even hesitate to pass some to a willing third party if he thought he could get away with is living in a naive dream land.

The loss of life and economic damage that could be achieved with as little as a couple gallons of this goop, or a couple pounds of anthrax for instance could make 9/11 look like a trip to Disney Land.

The odds of the eventuality becoming reality increases every day that nothing is done to stop it.

I am no fan of Bush. Not even a little fan of Bush. I will gladly pummel him on many policy issues. I could not chastise him enough for his poor handling of the public message in the lead up to this conflict. But, this is a danger that needs to be addressed and at least I am glad that he is seeing that it happens.

I will also state with considerable confidence that the Iraqi people will be much better off after this is complete.

When you are very familiar with the stories of the people of Iraq, it is clear that Sadaam isn't just a ruthless person. He is a person that glories in the suffering of others.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I invoke the 24 hour rule. No discussion until it's verified.

Good thing, too.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392.asp

[bva]

Originally posted by armageddonman
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fsol
[B]where is the spin?

*before* Chirac said he would veto no matter what...QUOTE]

Chirac didn't say that France would veto no matter what, he said that France would veto a resolution that would automatically sanction the use of force.

The assertion that Chirac announced a veto "no matter what" is a US propaganda lie.

France/ Russia do gain more from OIL then weapons whereas Germany is
Iraq's weapons depot but France has sold them Mirage F1 fighter-bombers,
armed helicopters, armored vehicles, Exocet missiles, anti-tank and
air-combat missiles tens of billions of dollars. They are the true agenda
seekres but that goes by without a peep from anyone. Everyone talks
about well we sold some weaposn to them in the 80's but nothing to say
about France building Iraq's first nuclear reactor or the French political
activity designed to keep trade with Saddam wide open. The French are the
largest contractors in the UN oil for food program with Iraq. The French
seem perfectly satisfied that the money they pay Saddam for oil goes
toward WMD programs and supporting the military. Iraq owes France over $8
Billion in oil IOU's and France has huge oil development contracts with
Saddam that require cessation of the UN Sanctions to come to fruition.


{G6: replacing this with the actual link of the text}

http://www.pushhamburger.com/france.htm


And just to set the record straight: The sanctions regime has improved the
health of all Iraqi children not under Saddam Hussein's thumb. In the
Kurdish North . where American and British, but not French, planes prevent
mass slaughter . there is no mass starvation or child-health crisis.
Saddam, and not sanctions, has killed hundreds of thousands of children in
order to score propaganda points, which have in turn been manfully
presented to the world community by Mr. Chirac in exchange for fat oil
contracts. In effect, the French (and Russians) do not want a war-for-oil
because the current peace-for-oil allows them to collect billions from the
corpses of dead Iraqi children.

So when the French now say they are in favor of sanctions and continued
inspections, they merely mean they are in favor of preventing the U.S.
from changing the status quo and depriving the French of blood money. One
would not normally associate the word "chutzpah" with a country so hostile
to its Jews, but there you have it.


At least America wants to correct its mistakes. France doesn't even
think it was a mistake to create Saddam and is doing everything it can to
let Saddam out of his box It's a brainless slander to say America wants a
war for oil. It is a plain fact that France wants "peace" for oil.

You may think the U.S. needs U.N. approval and, because France says the
same thing, you think they agree with you. But the French spout this
righteous drivel because they want to hamstring American influence to
their advantage. After all, they virtually never seek U.N. Security
Council approval for their own military nannying of their basket-case
former African colonies. (Ivory Coast)

France is doing what it thinks is best for France . not the world, not
America, not humanity, but France. If that involves screwing America,
they'll do it. If that involves leaping to America's defense at the last
minute like the cartoon dog who's got the big dog at his side, they'll do
that too. If you are a dedicated opponent of an American war, fine. It's
perfectly defensible to be rooting for France's success at the U.N.

But if France's righteous bloviating against war makes them your DashboardSaint of International Integrity, it's either because you are
sand-poundingly ignorant of how the world works or it's because you thinkFrance's self-interest is more important than America's. If the formerapplies to you, read a book. If it's the latter, maybe you should movethere along with Alec Baldwin, Robert Altman, and the rest of the crowdwho promised to leave a long time ago. But whatever you do, don't call France's position principled, because that just insults us both.

[fsol]

America is doing what it thinks is best for America . not the world, not
Iraq, not humanity, but America. If that involves screwing Iraq,
they'll do it. If that involves leaping to Iraqs defense at the last
minute like the cartoon dog who's got the big dog at his side, they'll do that too.


Ooh a country in looking out for its self shocker. What is the difference between French self interest and American self interest? Is one somehow more "right" than the other?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by fsol
America is doing what it thinks is best for America . not the world, not
Iraq, not humanity, but America. If that involves screwing Iraq,
they'll do it. If that involves leaping to Iraqs defense at the last
minute like the cartoon dog who's got the big dog at his side, they'll do that too.

Ooh a country in looking out for its self shocker. What is the difference between French self interest and American self interest? Is one somehow more "right" than the other?

What we are doing is wrong. That is what is relevant. What do you teach YOUR children, that stealing is OK if you get away with it?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by DrChinese


What we are doing is wrong. That is what is relevant. What do you teach YOUR children, that stealing is OK if you get away with it?

It almost sounds as if you are appealing to some sort of absolute morality.....

[fsol]

OK to avoid confusion..

quoting bva

France is doing what it thinks is best for France . not the world, not
America, not humanity, but France. If that involves screwing America,
they'll do it. If that involves leaping to America's defense at the last
minute like the cartoon dog who's got the big dog at his side, they'll do
that too.

quoting myself


America is doing what it thinks is best for America . not the world, not
Iraq, not humanity, but America. If that involves screwing Iraq,
they'll do it. If that involves leaping to Iraqs defense at the last
minute like the cartoon dog who's got the big dog at his side, they'll do that too.

Two countries both looking out for themselves. What exactly is the difference? Where is the big surprise?

I made no judgement on whether one was right or one was wrong. I was just trying to point out that of course countries act in their own interests. It would be stupid not to. To attack France for doing so and then taking the high ground by claiming America is doing otherwise is ridculous.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Brown
Pesticide, eh?

Say, wasn't Zyklon B a pesticide?

Nerve agents were developed from organophosphate pesticides by Germany. During the 1st half of the last century Germany was a chemical powerhouse, having an extensive dye industry they had access to the know how, raw materials, and processing equipment to develop the ist generation of some of our most lethal CW. That said, the CW found in Iraq have been confirmed to be pesticides. The monitors detected Sarin which is a type of nerve gas and is also similar to the active ingredient in most bug sprays.

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


What we are doing is wrong. That is what is relevant. What do you teach YOUR children, that stealing is OK if you get away with it?

Wrong, eh?

You have a very strange idea of wrong.

We are not stealing. This war is going to cost the US and its allies. It will be a cost, not a gain.

But, it will be a price worth paying.

Even looking at the humanitarian side of things, how can you figure a month or two of war is not better than leaving a regime in power that has averaged over 10,000 civilian murders per year for over 2 decades.

Yes, averaged over 10,000 per year. Even if we kill 10,000 civilians during this (and that is extraordinarily unlikely), the Iraqi population is going to be hugely benefitted.

Open your eyes, man. How can this NOT be a good thing for the people of Iraq?

What are you going to have to see before you understand that population is already beginning to celebrate this war, inside of Iraq. Are you going to continue to maintain this naive position when 90% of the Iraqi population is overjoyed by this after the war?

I know it must be hard to imagine a population happy about being invaded. But, if you actually understood what life was like under Sadaam, it wouldn't be so hard any more. Talk with some people that have lived there. Get their stories first hand.

In my mind, the humantarian story is the greatest justification for this that could be conceived.

You seem to be in the habit of just assuming that out Gov't is always wrong headed and lies to you. The facts here do not support that position this time. If you weren't just habitually distrustful, you would see it for yourself.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by ssibal


It almost sounds as if you are appealing to some sort of absolute morality.....

No. We have to know the difference between right and wrong. What the French do - and why they do it - doesn't justify our actions.

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


No. We have to know the difference between right and wrong. What the French do - and why they do it - doesn't justify our actions.

Try turning on the news right now for a big lesson in right and wrong.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by scotth


Wrong, eh? You have a very strange idea of wrong.

We are not stealing. This war is going to cost the US and its allies. It will be a cost, not a gain. But, it will be a price worth paying.

Even looking at the humanitarian side of things, how can you figure a month or two of war is not better than leaving a regime in power that has averaged over 10,000 civilian murders per year for over 2 decades.

Yes, averaged over 10,000 per year. Even if we kill 10,000 civilians during this (and that is extraordinarily unlikely), the Iraqi population is going to be hugely benefitted.

Open your eyes, man. How can this NOT be a good thing for the people of Iraq? What are you going to have to see before you understand that population is already beginning to celebrate this war, inside of Iraq. Are you going to continue to maintain this naive position when 90% of the Iraqi population is overjoyed by this after the war?

I know it must be hard to imagine a population happy about being invaded. But, if you actually understood what life was like under Sadaam, it wouldn't be so hard any more. Talk with some people that have lived there. Get their stories first hand. In my mind, the humantarian story is the greatest justification for this that could be conceived.

You seem to be in the habit of just assuming that out Gov't is always wrong headed and lies to you. The facts here do not support that position this time. If you weren't just habitually distrustful, you would see it for yourself.

Gosh, where to start?

1. Let's see, our new justification for the invasion is that you see 90% of the people happy to see us (your words). So in future wars, we will remove their leaders and take a vote. What happens if we lose, do we take it all back?

2. Where were you in 1988? 1991? 1994? 1998? Early 2001? During all this time, you must have felt the strong urge to depose Saddam. Because his behavior has been much the same during this period. Or did this suddenly become a big issue for you last year when Cowboy George decided to take on Saddam? Bush certainly was silent on this topic when he ran for president, and I think a lot of people would have wanted to know his position on deposing Saddam if he held such a view at that time.

3. What is American foreign policy to be from here out? Depose all tyrants? Including the Saudis? Do you have any doubt that there would be plenty of people in Saudi Arabia who would cheer the arrival of tanks to throw off the yoke of the crown princes? What about in Pakistan? North Korea, etc.? Or do we go where the wind blows this week? Clearly, Iraq is a slippery slope. Now that we have acted there, we must either act consistently in other areas of the world, or decide what we did in Iraq was not worth repeating. I believe this is Bush's intention, to act again and to act unilaterally.

I believe and trust the vast majority of what my government does. However, when strange, conflicting or unusual statements come out of the mouths of our leaders, I become skeptical - not "distrustful". I am open to new information or viewpoints at any time. I am ready to concede some parts of the debate to the other side as appropriate. I certainly don't have a monopoly on reason, but I don't blindly follow either. As apparently some people in this forum - of all places - think I should.

Tell me something that addresses the relevant issues. To say that "Saddam is a bad man and we must act" ignores the entirety of American foreign policy for over 100 years. If we made a left turn (oops right turn) in policy with respect to tyranny in the world, it would only be reasonable that such dramatic shift be laid out and debated. Otherwise we are simply operating according to whim and chaos.

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Gosh, where to start?

1. Let's see, our new justification for the invasion is that you see 90% of the people happy to see us (your words). So in future wars, we will remove their leaders and take a vote. What happens if we lose, do we take it all back?

2. Where were you in 1988? 1991? 1994? 1998? Early 2001? During all this time, you must have felt the strong urge to depose Saddam. Because his behavior has been much the same during this period. Or did this suddenly become a big issue for you last year when Cowboy George decided to take on Saddam? Bush certainly was silent on this topic when he ran for president, and I think a lot of people would have wanted to know his position on deposing Saddam if he held such a view at that time.

3. What is American foreign policy to be from here out? Depose all tyrants? Including the Saudis? Do you have any doubt that there would be plenty of people in Saudi Arabia who would cheer the arrival of tanks to throw off the yoke of the crown princes? What about in Pakistan? North Korea, etc.? Or do we go where the wind blows this week? Clearly, Iraq is a slippery slope. Now that we have acted there, we must either act consistently in other areas of the world, or decide what we did in Iraq was not worth repeating. I believe this is Bush's intention, to act again and to act unilaterally.

I believe and trust the vast majority of what my government does. However, when strange, conflicting or unusual statements come out of the mouths of our leaders, I become skeptical - not "distrustful". I am open to new information or viewpoints at any time. I am ready to concede some parts of the debate to the other side as appropriate. I certainly don't have a monopoly on reason, but I don't blindly follow either. As apparently some people in this forum - of all places - think I should.

Tell me something that addresses the relevant issues. To say that "Saddam is a bad man and we must act" ignores the entirety of American foreign policy for over 100 years. If we made a left turn (oops right turn) in policy with respect to tyranny in the world, it would only be reasonable that such dramatic shift be laid out and debated. Otherwise we are simply operating according to whim and chaos.

Yep... I sure did want Sadaam ousted all through the 90s.

If I remember correctly, 9/11 happened between the election and today.

We certainly did NOT act unilaterally.

I sure hope it is a slippery slope. If it really obviously needs to be done, I hope it does get done. There are very few places that deserve the attention that Iraq did, but some do exist. Hopefully, they are watching this news as well and will begin to act accordingly.

Can American foreign policy never change? Why does it matter what it was for 100 years. This was/is clearly the right thing to do, and we are doing it.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by scotth

Try turning on the news right now for a big lesson in right and wrong.

Then you are stating clearly: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. I can't go there, sorry. Do you deny this is your view?

Or perhaps: THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS. I can't go there either. Do you deny this is your view?

Or maybe you just like to thump your chest and tell the world how great you are because you are an American? Do you deny this is your view?

Or maybe you don't have the foggiest idea of what you are saying with your talk of the "big lesson".

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Then you are stating clearly: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. I can't go there, sorry. Do you deny this is your view?

Or perhaps: THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS. I can't go there either. Do you deny this is your view?

Or maybe you just like to thump your chest and tell the world how great you are because you are an American? Do you deny this is your view?

Or maybe you don't have the foggiest idea of what you are saying with your talk of the "big lesson".

Might makes right? Hardly. How about, if you see what is the right thing to do and the power to achieve it, you should.

The ends justifies the means? Not as a blanket statement. When the benefits to us, the whole world, and the Iraqi people stupendously outweigh the costs of taking action, then action should be taken.

I hardly support everything that America does. But I will surely support America and the administration when they are doing something of such obvious benefit to everyone.

The "lesson" was the joy of the Iraqi's displayed.

Don't ya just hate it when what really happens doesn't support the doom and gloom predictions of the extreme left?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by scotth

The "lesson" was the joy of the Iraqi's displayed.


OK, then which "lesson" are we to believe?

A. Today's rejoicing Iraqis.
B. Same Iraqis burning Bush in effigy last month.

Or is it:
C. The joyous attitude of Iraqis aimed at whomever is in power currently.

Your argument is hollow, as should be obvious to all. You will get to have the last word, as we have gotten off-topic.

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


OK, then which "lesson" are we to believe?

A. Today's rejoicing Iraqis.
B. Same Iraqis burning Bush in effigy last month.

Or is it:
C. The joyous attitude of Iraqis aimed at whomever is in power currently.

Your argument is hollow, as should be obvious to all. You will get to have the last word, as we have gotten off-topic.

Or how about Al Jazeera running video of Iraqi's driving around Baghdad waving the Stars and Stripes? Not any American force in the vicinity to witness it. What a shocking image that has to be to many in the Arab world (and the left wing world).

and let me correct B for ya.

B. Some Iraqis burning Bush in effigy last month, with a gun aimed at them or their family just off camera.

And for C, It was the rule not the exception that Iraqi's were not jubilent about Sadaam whatsover, except at gunpoint.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by scotth

The "lesson" was the joy of the Iraqi's displayed.

Don't ya just hate it when what really happens doesn't support the doom and gloom predictions of the extreme left?
And when Saddam was in power, they were in the streets with anti-American posters. I think the message here is "show your support for whoever has the power". I would guess that none of Saddam's supporters are foolish enough to wave an "Americans go home" sign in front of the soldiers. I'll bet, though, that there are still a few around. Most, though, will probably heed the old adage, "better to be a live coward than a dead hero".

[scotth]

Originally posted by Tricky

And when Saddam was in power, they were in the streets with anti-American posters. I think the message here is "show your support for whoever has the power". I would guess that none of Saddam's supporters are foolish enough to wave an "Americans go home" sign in front of the soldiers. I'll bet, though, that there are still a few around. Most, though, will probably heed the old adage, "better to be a live coward than a dead hero".

You give the Iraqi people far too little credit.

[Number Six]

Originally posted by Tricky

And when Saddam was in power, they were in the streets with anti-American posters. I think the message here is "show your support for whoever has the power". I would guess that none of Saddam's supporters are foolish enough to wave an "Americans go home" sign in front of the soldiers. I'll bet, though, that there are still a few around. Most, though, will probably heed the old adage, "better to be a live coward than a dead hero".

You've directly implied that if an Iraqi waved an "Americans go home" sign in front of a US soldier they would be killed for it. Do you want to rephrase that or is that what you really meant to say?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by scotth


Try turning on the news right now for a big lesson in right and wrong.

"Might makes right"?

[scotth]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


"Might makes right"?

The news at the time, and primarily since then has been of Iraqi celebration.

Even Al Jazeera has had to cover it that way.

[Diezel]

bva:

Your post is in violation of the rules of this forum, specifically the rules against copyright infringment. You can selectively quote material, but not post a piece in full, or even large chunks. You must also identify the author and source of such quotes.

Your post has been quoted from this source: http://www.pushhamburger.com/france.htm

Please edit your post, to a few choice quotes and a link to the original material, in the next 15 minutes. If you have not edited your post within 15 minutes, I will have to do so for you.

[Baker]

For all of the anti-war posters here why don’t you personally go tell all of the cheering Iraqi’s all over Iraq that we shouldn’t be there and had no right removing Saddam!

[Denise]

Originally posted by Baker
For all of the anti-war posters here why don’t you personally go tell all of the cheering Iraqi’s all over Iraq that we shouldn’t be there and had no right removing Saddam!

They don't have to go to Iraq, they can go to Michigan.

[scotth]

The item that I found most amusing today....

This was written a banner being carried around by 3 or 4 Iraqi's in Baghdad today: "Go home human shields, you U.S. w@nkers"

The word w@nker on a banner in Iraq was somewhat surprising. They must watch too much U.S. TV.

Originally posted by Baker
For all of the anti-war posters here why don’t you personally go tell all of the cheering Iraqi’s all over Iraq that we shouldn’t be there and had no right removing Saddam!

This is patently idiotic. I am against unnecessary warfare. In this case, it wasn't necessary. SH is an a**hole, no question. But I blame this administration for the deaths of US military personnel so King George could satisfy his ego.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet


This is patently idiotic. I am against unnecessary warfare. In this case, it wasn't necessary. SH is an a**hole, no question. But I blame this administration for the deaths of US military personnel so King George could satisfy his ego.

That implies you believe either

1) It was fine to keep Sadaam in power to avoid the war
or
2) He could have been removed in some reasonable timeframe through other methods

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by scotth


That implies you believe either

1) It was fine to keep Sadaam in power to avoid the war
or
2) He could have been removed in some reasonable timeframe through other methods

I supported #1 as did most of the rest of the world. I guess the cat is out of the bag.

George Bush Sr. believed in 1991 that #2 was reasonable. This did not prove to be the case. He has never retracted support for his actions then.

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


I supported #1 as did most of the rest of the world. I guess the cat is out of the bag.

George Bush Sr. believed in 1991 that #2 was reasonable. This did not prove to be the case. He has never retracted support for his actions then.

I would call #2 wishful thinking now, but I think most people thought that in the early 90's.

I would call #1 completely morally bankrupt.

And thinking most of the rest of the world supported #1 is ridiculous.

Even the majority of the Arab street (where I would expect #1 to be believed) is changing its mind today. Are you gonna keep holding out.... for how long?

[scotth]

DrC,

I suggest you stop watching any news for about the next 6 months or so if you wish to keep you repulsively naive worldview.

The stories of the Iraqi people will be coming out in a flood pretty soon, many of them will be nearly unbearable to hear.

It is estimated that 3 million Iraqi's were killed by Sadaam's regime in the last 2 and half decades. 3 million poeple! His own people.

He deserves a place beside Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. You think he should have been left in power?

Try reading this report in Sports Illustrated of all places, of interviews with escaped athletes.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/

This will be the smallest preview of what you will hear in the news in the coming weeks from all over Iraq.

How you could think it was ok to leave something like this in power is simply beyond my comprehension.

[Smalso]

People who are anti-war are not necessarily pro-Saddam or anti-American.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by scotth

I would call #1 completely morally bankrupt.


Please do not confuse winning the war with making that war justified. So I state again, waging war to remove Saddam was morally wrong. Most of the rest of the world agreed with me on this point. I.e. France, Italy, much of Britain, Russia, China, etc. How can you debate this point? A million people showed up in London in February to protest the war. None had shown up previously to protest Saddam (at least organized demonstrations).

I am certain many people will adjust to the reality that Saddam is now gone, and some will even change their minds and say "it was justified" post facto. That's their right.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Smalso
People who are anti-war are not necessarily pro-Saddam or anti-American.

Thank you.

[DavidJames]

"People who are anti-war are not necessarily pro-Saddam or anti-American."

Now don't go making things complicated. Your suggestion contradicts the prevailing good/evil, us vs. them, you are with us or against us mindset. Sheesh, this IS a skeptic forum after all.

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Please do not confuse winning the war with making that war justified. So I state again, waging war to remove Saddam was morally wrong. Most of the rest of the world agreed with me on this point. I.e. France, Italy, much of Britain, Russia, China, etc. How can you debate this point? A million people showed up in London in February to protest the war. None had shown up previously to protest Saddam (at least organized demonstrations).

I am certain many people will adjust to the reality that Saddam is now gone, and some will even change their minds and say "it was justified" post facto. That's their right.

What about the 50 some nations that support the war?

But other peoples opinions (especially uninformed opinions) are pretty irrelevant. Even if every single human being on the planet held the opinion that Sadaam was ok to leave in power, a decent person should be able to look at his actions and conclude otherwise.

Sadaam's danger to his people and the rest of world is not decided by a vote or public opinion either way. It is determined solely by his own actions. Look at them for yourself.

Did you read that article? Do you think it is just made up propaganda to paint a potential war enemy as a monster? I know that kind of thing has happened before, but it certainly isn't the case this time.

[Baker]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Please do not confuse winning the war with making that war justified. So I state again, waging war to remove Saddam was morally wrong.

However, at the same time you can’t justify keeping him in power.
1. Keep him in power and let more innocent Iraqi’s die besides the hundreds of thousands that have already been killed by him.
2. Send in US forces to liberate Iraq by removing Saddam.
I don’t think all ever understand your logic.

[Segnosaur]

Do you notice the, well, contradition between these 2 statements:

Originally posted by Smalso

People who are anti-war are not necessarily pro-Saddam or anti-American.

(which Dr. Chinese agreed with)

And....

Originally posted by DrChinese

A million people showed up in London in February to protest the war. None had shown up previously to protest Saddam (at least organized demonstrations).


If the anti-war side won't even give lip-service to the idea that Saddam is a 'bad man', yet turns out in the thousands to complain about Bush and the Americans (even equating him with Hitler), I have to wonder where their priorities lie.

If at least some of the anti-war protestors had signs suggesting that Iraq should disarm, I would have a hundred times more respect for them than I currently do.

[NullPointerException]

I don't really understand how war's can be immoral. I mean you never say why it's immoral, you just sit there with the other beatnick hippies blabbing about lose of life. It's like stockholm syndrome only for fascist rapists. The irony of females protesting in favor of Saddam made me laugh till I cried. If they were in his country, I'm sure he would have had them raped then sent them flowers in the hospital. Saddam is a psychopath, his sons were psychopaths, and all of them received their karmic reward.

I can morally justify the war using any system of morality you give me, even categorical. So please give at least one justification for why the war isn't morally justifiable? Point made, you have no moral high ground, and this is just "moral politics" used to lower U.S. prestige. Protestors are just kicking their own nation in the crouch. If you think Saddam wasn't mocking the people defending him your ignorant.

As for removing him from power some other way... I think we tried that with Castro and look where that got us. *continues to wait for Castro to die from old age* Stupid good Cuban doctors keeping him alive!

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by scotth


But other peoples opinions (especially uninformed opinions) are pretty irrelevant. Even if every single human being on the planet held the opinion that Sadaam was ok to leave in power, a decent person should be able to look at his actions and conclude otherwise.


I don't get what you are saying between your put-downs of other people. Is it that all people who didn't want to remove from Saddam from power - on the day YOU concluded he needed to be ousted - are indecent? And can you tell me what day that was? A light went on, and you said "Saddam is really bad, and anyone who doesn't see that is darn indecent."

Having a different political view than you does not make someone indecent. (Unless, of course, you are from Texas.)

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Do you notice the, well, contradition between these 2 statements:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Smalso

People who are anti-war are not necessarily pro-Saddam or anti-American.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(which Dr. Chinese agreed with)

And....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DrChinese

A million people showed up in London in February to protest the war. None had shown up previously to protest Saddam (at least organized demonstrations).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You must have erased the part where you explained the contradiction. I am against some things which I don't protest. I reserve my protest efforts to try make statements for US politicians on US issues, for instance, and then only on rare occasions. There is no inconsistency in my being against Saddam but not protesting him, and still not wanting war to remove him. I don't feel that strongly about Saddam's ouster. I don't recall there being a single major protest in the US against Saddam's human rights abuses ever. Where were you?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DrChinese


You must have erased the part where you explained the contradiction. I am against some things which I don't protest. I reserve my protest efforts to try make statements for US politicians on US issues, for instance, and then only on rare occasions. There is no inconsistency in my being against Saddam but not protesting him, and still not wanting war to remove him. I don't feel that strongly about Saddam's ouster. I don't recall there being a single major protest in the US against Saddam's human rights abuses ever. Where were you?

First of all, I was referring to the anti-war movement in general (as Smalso's posts mentioned), not in anyone's case in particular. And, as I said, if they are protesting the war with a sign that said "No to Invading Iraq", it would not take much more effort to write "Saddam, please disarm" on the back of a protest sign. They can still go and chant their mindless nonsense during the protests, but at least I'd see they had a glimmer of what some of the real issues were. Heck, I'd even donate the paint for them to add that to the sign.

If you want to get into more specifics, remember that 1/3 of all French people wanted Saddam to win. So, in many cases, anti-war does equal pro-Saddam.

As for where I was, I attended the rally to support America on parliement hill here in Canada, because I have a belief that as bad as war is, there are some things (such as genocide) which are worse. And I'm realistic enough to realize that sometimes military force is the only way to stop it.

[bva]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


because I have a belief that as bad as war is, there are some things (such as genocide) which are worse. And I'm realistic enough to realize that sometimes military force is the only way to stop it.

Amen. There is life out there underneath the sea of liberal poison.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

As for where I was, I attended the rally to support America on parliement hill here in Canada, because I have a belief that as bad as war is, there are some things (such as genocide) which are worse. And I'm realistic enough to realize that sometimes military force is the only way to stop it.

The question was: where were you before Cowboy George made Iraq a priority less than a year ago? I have encountered any number of people that claim to have had their eye on Saddam sine way back when. Yet there were no protests. The only person who did anything much was Paul Wolfowitz.

On the other hand, once Bush made clear his plans, numerous people protested. That was because many people - myself included - feel that maintaining territorial sovereignty per the UN is more important than Saddam's abuses. I am NOT asserting that the number of people backing this position makes it right. I am simply stating a position held by many people.

So the upshot is: one side voiced its opinion loudly (anti-war), and the other said and did virtually nothing for decades (anti-Saddam). So where is the inconsistency you where trying to point out? I say that the anti-Saddam position materialized from nearly nothing 12 months ago into the avalanche it is today. And that change had little or nothing to do with what Saddam did differently, and had everything to do with changes in Bush's views.

As for who is the realist and who is the idealist, I think you have it backwards. I think you are the idealist if you think the reason Bush went to Iraq had anything to do with helping the Iraqi people.

[scotth]

DrC,

why would I or anyone else "protest" against Sadaam?

What a waste of time.

I was in the military (Marines) during the first Gulf war, and I would have been quite willing to go back in and actually fight in this war.

I have made Sadaam a topic of conversation repeatedly over the years to make sure the people I was in contact with where aware of the type of person he was. I don't recall telling people specifically that we need to go in and take him out, but I assumed people would draw that conclusion on their own if they were exposed to the information.

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


That was because many people - myself included - feel that maintaining territorial sovereignty per the UN is more important than Saddam's abuses.


That has to be one of the most disgusting positions that I have ever heard. What a lack of regard for human life and dignity.

[crackmonkey]

There have been plenty of pro-Saddam voices in the anti-war 'movement' - from the somewhat covert ( Iraq should teach the US a lesson) to the overt (waving Iraqi flags, sporting Hamas headwear and fake explosive belts, calling for a million Mogadishus). It's just dishonest to claim that there wasn't a significant percentage of anti-war folks hoping for Iraq to win.

As for agitation against Saddam - I don't know where you've been, but there has been a steady drumbeat calling for Saddam's ouster for years. True, there haven't been any rallies or marches against Saddam, but then most conservatives have jobs.

I must admit, I find your positions interesting, Dr. C. Not necessarily logical, but a departure from the usual...

[DavidJames]

"why would I or anyone else "protest" against Sadaam?"

"write "Saddam, please disarm" on the back of a protest sign".


Why don't you "pro-war" guys work out the rules of engagement issue so the "anti-war" crowd can follow them :)

Oh, and back to the real topic of this thread. I haven't seen any recent news on chemical weapons. What ever happened to the missles they found which were said to filled with nasty stuff.

[scotth]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I haven't seen any recent news on chemical weapons. What ever happened to the missles they found which were said to filled with nasty stuff.

NPR appearently completely blew that one.

The next couple of weeks should be pretty interesting when it comes to these items. People should start talk in the next couple of days.

There are also several samples from other sites that are field positive and in for more serious testing.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by scotth


That has to be one of the most disgusting positions that I have ever heard. What a lack of regard for human life and dignity.

As opposed to tank and artillary attacks, or 12 years of economic sanctions?

I don't know if I agree with DrChinese, but it is far from being clear-cut. There is an issue of the slippery slope, at what point do abuses outweigh territorial sovereignty? A black and white approach makes it easier to determine that. There is the issue of the loss of human life required to overcome the problem. How many Iraqi civilian deaths are an acceptable cost to free the rest of the country? I'm sure those who survive are extremely grateful to be freed. I don't know how the dead people feel about it. As for dignity, even arvid anti-Saddam people are disturbed by foreign tanks rolling through their lands.

It's a far more murky issue than simple good or bad.

As some might say, if you want to change the Iraqi government so bad, move to Iraq and move to rally the citizens for it. Or something like that.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by scotth


That has to be one of the most disgusting positions that I have ever heard. What a lack of regard for human life and dignity.

I wasn't the President when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, either. That would have been a REPUBLICAN president for the historically challenged. As I said, many people "got religion late" on this issue. About the time Bush Jr. did by my reckoning.

And now some claim to be the "early adopters" of an anti-Saddam stance. Everybody loves a winner! I challenge anyone to demostrate any significant degree of interest in this issue earlier than 12 months ago - ousting Saddam for human rights abuses. Should be easy for you, considering how "disgusting" any other position is. If you can't, I say you are just jumping on the bandwagon as a Johnny-come-lately. If you like, I'll give you some clues to Bush's upcoming positions so you will know who to be outraged against next week.

[crackmonkey]

Well, there was Clinton and Congress basically declaring war against Saddam in '98 to begin with...

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


I wasn't the President when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, either. That would have been a REPUBLICAN president for the historically challenged. As I said, many people "got religion late" on this issue. About the time Bush Jr. did by my reckoning.

And now some claim to be the "early adopters" of an anti-Saddam stance. Everybody loves a winner! I challenge anyone to demostrate any significant degree of interest in this issue earlier than 12 months ago - ousting Saddam for human rights abuses. Should be easy for you, considering how "disgusting" any other position is. If you can't, I say you are just jumping on the bandwagon as a Johnny-come-lately. If you like, I'll give you some clues to Bush's upcoming positions so you will know who to be outraged against next week.

There was several times during Clinton's presidency that I thought we would go back into Iraq. I was quite hopeful, and definitely thought it needed to be done.

Even if Clinton was still in office today, I would have hoped that after 9/11 he would have had the will to do it. I don't know that this would have been the case, but... I'll take a chance and give him that much credit.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Please do not confuse winning the war with making that war justified. So I state again, waging war to remove Saddam was morally wrong. Most of the rest of the world agreed with me on this point. I.e. France, Italy, much of Britain, Russia, China, etc. How can you debate this point? A million people showed up in London in February to protest the war. None had shown up previously to protest Saddam (at least organized demonstrations).

I am certain many people will adjust to the reality that Saddam is now gone, and some will even change their minds and say "it was justified" post facto. That's their right.

Morally wrong?? This is where you, sir, are completely confused. You have no sense of morality. Please explain to me how leaving Saddam in power...a man who's repressive government has murdered hundreds of thousands, and spread misery throughout the region....is more moral than removing him and replacing his repressive regime with a form of government which will allow the common people the freedom to govern themselves?

This is absurd. It is pretty obvious that a democratic society is a higher evolution than a totalitarian society. Allowing a less evolved form of society to endanger a more evolved society is alot like a doctor refusing to kill the germ that is killing his patient because killing the "innocent germ" would be immoral! No. What is immoral is to allow the lower form of life to devour the more advanced form....this is basic evolutionary morality. It is the very source of our sense of morality. Your views are merely a subversion of actual morality.

Your assertion that most of the world believes as do you is beside the point. Firstly, I see little evidence of this assertion...secondly, the belief is wrong. If 100 billion people were to agree that a horse is a dog, that would not mean that the horse would start barking. If a so called fact is indeed not a fact then the number of people who "believe" in it is irrelevant. It remains unfactual no matter how many people you trot out with opposing opinions.

"How can you debate this?" You ask... This is a skeptic board, we debate things based on objective facts,...not the number of how many idiots subjectively "believe" in something. We are interested in demonstrable objective fact. You argument that "the world believes with me that the war is wrong" is tantamount to the old "500 million Catholics can't be wrong!" ..... How can we not debate these things?? If we had not debated them throughout history there would be no such things as science. We'd still be living in the dark ages. All is evolution...we must continue to evolve and grow towards an ever more enlightened future....this is real, pure, unadulterated morality...nothing less.

-zilla

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by scotth
What about the 50 some nations that support the war?

What about them? What did they contribute? Did the citizens of these countries support the war as well?

[scotth]

Originally posted by armageddonman


What about them? What did they contribute? Did the citizens of these countries support the war as well?

England, Australia, and Polland contribute forces on the ground, there may be some others.

Many others provided support of other types (logistics, equipment, overflight, etc). Some (such as Japan) did not provide direct support, but were verbally supportive.

Some of the supporting nations, it should be admitted had less (sometimes significantly so) than a majority of support in their populations. It should also be recognized that a number of nations that did not support had significant support within the population (Canada springs to mind here).

Having said all that, why didn't you also quote the my very next sentence(s) where I also indicated that even the 50+ nation number was irrelevant to whether it was the proper course or not?

The only thing the number of nations supporting is useful for, is dispelling the obvious lie that is often bandied about that we took this action unilaterally or nearly so. We didn't. But, even if that was true, it does not/would not change the circumstances of the situation.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by DrChinese


I wasn't the President when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, either. That would have been a REPUBLICAN president for the historically challenged. As I said, many people "got religion late" on this issue. About the time Bush Jr. did by my reckoning.

And now some claim to be the "early adopters" of an anti-Saddam stance. Everybody loves a winner! I challenge anyone to demostrate any significant degree of interest in this issue earlier than 12 months ago - ousting Saddam for human rights abuses. Should be easy for you, considering how "disgusting" any other position is. If you can't, I say you are just jumping on the bandwagon as a Johnny-come-lately. If you like, I'll give you some clues to Bush's upcoming positions so you will know who to be outraged against next week.

Well, I was over there in '91 and '94, is that enough level of interest and early enough for you?

Oh, and I also volunteered to go to Haiti, foregoing my 21st birthday party, for the same reason, if that matters any.

[scotth]

I was in the Marine in '91 and '94 as well. Didn't ever go, but would have, gladly.

[Smalso]

by rikzilla: Morally wrong?? This is where you, sir, are completely confused. You have no sense of morality. Please explain to me how leaving Saddam in power...a man who's repressive government has murdered hundreds of thousands, and spread misery throughout the region....is more moral than removing him and replacing his repressive regime with a form of government which will allow the common people the freedom to govern themselves?

So, do we now go after the other oppressive and repressive governments in the world? North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait? Which one is next? Or are we to be selective of our morality? Don't those people deserve a form of government which will allow the common people the freedom to govern themselves?

[scotth]

Originally posted by Smalso
by rikzilla:

So, do we now go after the other oppressive and repressive governments in the world? North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait? Which one is next? Or are we to be selective of our morality? Don't those people deserve

Kuwait wouldn't be on that list (at least not as I understand things there). At least not high on the list.

As far as murdering their own people there are one or two nations in Africa that would be higher on the list than any of those you listed.

North Korea needs very close attention for reasons that should be obvious.

I am very (probably naively) hopeful that the Iraqi action will wake up a few of the truly hideous regimes out there. I hope it sends the message that we are willing to take action if we find it essential. This could encourage significant changes in at least some of the instances without taking any more action than diplomatic pressure. I am not holding my breath, but I truly hope this to be the case.

I really believe that diplomatic pressure should be used as much as possible to achieve these ends. It will take some time. They all can't be handled at once.

I think all of us need to watch the world fallout from Iraq very closely for the next 6 - 12 months for sure.

It is absolutely vital that we help the Iraqi people get back on their feet as quickly as possible. This process needs to be transparent to the whole world. Doing this properly and quickly (or failing to) will certainly influence world events for decades to come.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Smalso
by rikzilla:

So, do we now go after the other oppressive and repressive governments in the world? North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait? Which one is next? Or are we to be selective of our morality? Don't those people deserve

The real world, such as it is, is complex. If we had a perfect and symetrical world (as you seem to think we do) these dictators would never have been allowed to rise in the first place. Just because a brutal dictator exists in Baghdad does not mean that his situation is exactly equivalent to a brutal dictator in Pyongyang.

Morality is based on "the good". This "good" should be defined as what is best for the long term survival and advancement of free society. (A free society being a rung higher on the evolutionary ladder than a repressed society) The decisions taken should reflect the exigencies of the real world...not some laundry list of so-called "equivalent" badies.

-zilla

[Victor Danilchenko]

rikzilla

Morally wrong?? This is where you, sir, are completely confused. You have no sense of morality. Please explain to me how leaving Saddam in power...a man who's repressive government has murdered hundreds of thousands, and spread misery throughout the region....is more moral than removing him and replacing his repressive regime with a form of government which will allow the common people the freedom to govern themselves?I will ask a counter-question: Please explain how it is more moral to toss out damning evidence against a murderer, if such evidence was obtained by un-constitutional means, than it is to use the said evidence and convict the bastard.

if you understand the answer to that question, then you already know why this was was immoral, even though Saddam was an evil bastard; and if you think that our murderer should have been convicted on illegal evidence, then you have no clue about what freedom means in any sense but "freedom to do what I wish to do".

This is absurd. It is pretty obvious that a democratic society is a higher evolution than a totalitarian society.Indeed. And it's also pretty obvious that the notion of international law is a higher evolution than internation anarchy.

once you actually think abut the implications, the matters become far less clear.

"How can you debate this?" You ask... This is a skeptic board, we debate things based on objective facts,...not the number of how many idiots subjectively "believe" in something.being skeptical also means being skeptical of your naive epistemic assumptions -- which you aren't.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by rikzilla
"How can you debate this?" You ask... This is a skeptic board, we debate things based on objective facts,...not the number of how many idiots subjectively "believe" in something.


Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
being skeptical also means being skeptical of your naive epistemic assumptions -- which you aren't.



Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. :rolleyes:

[Smalso]

by rikzilla:If we had a perfect and symetrical world (as you seem to think we do)

Of course I don't believe that. I was merely wondering why you believe it is the duty of the U.S. to throw out an oppressive dictator in one area of the would, yet allow them to exist in others. You wrote:Morally wrong?? This is where you, sir, are completely confused. You have no sense of morality. Please explain to me how leaving Saddam in power...a man who's repressive government has murdered hundreds of thousands, and spread misery throughout the region....is more moral than removing him and replacing his repressive regime with a form of government which will allow the common people the freedom to govern themselves?

I just wondered why you believe the people of Iraq deserve the benefit of freedom and our morality more than those of other countries. I can't help but think the answer is, "Because Dubya said so."

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
[b]rikzilla

I will ask a counter-question: Please explain how it is more moral to toss out damning evidence against a murderer, if such evidence was obtained by un-constitutional means, than it is to use the said evidence and convict the bastard.

Glad you asked. Because actually I do understand the answer to your question,..perhaps better than your esteemed self does. :)

A murderer is a danger to society indeed...but a murderer is only one person. An isolated criminal....his murder of another, no matter how heinous, is of limited (extremely limited) concern to larger society. However a police force free to act outside the laws of the land is far more of a danger to the freedoms this society enjoys than a lone murderer. Therefore the correct decision to free the murderer if the police act outside the law is moral, and in the best interests of the larger society. (Personally involved persons such as the family of the victim, etc, may not see this as moral...but in a larger sense it is. The good of the many is a more moral outcome than the good of the few)

A repressive nation run by a dictator seeking to undermine the more evolved free society however, is indeed another story. Apples and Oranges Vic. The two cannot be equated, for their danger to the freedoms of our society are not equal.


if you understand the answer to that question, then you already know why this was was immoral, even though Saddam was an evil bastard; and if you think that our murderer should have been convicted on illegal evidence, then you have no clue about what freedom means in any sense but "freedom to do what I wish to do".


So you go on to assume that your answer is the only correct answer...you assume that to be correct I must come to your conclusion? Au contrare old buddy. :)


Indeed. And it's also pretty obvious that the notion of international law is a higher evolution than internation anarchy.


And yet the notion of international law is all that truly exists outside of mutually agreed upon trade law. The reality of international law would not even be a higher evolution if it sought to repress free society. No, only international law agreed upon by free nations worldwide will ever be binding and enforceable...and the reality of that situation is alas, far in the future. :(

You have merely used the false dichotomy fallacy...badly it seems. International law vs international anarchy....a clear choice and yet a false one as neither of these things currently exist on an "international" scale. The truth, like Shane likes to say, is somewhere in between...your "either or" choice is the very definition of the false dichotomy fallacy.


once you actually think abut the implications, the matters become far less clear.

No sir....I merely have decided to test out in Mr. Robert Pirsig's "Metaphysics of Quality" in my thoughts about this world. His views on evolutionary morality work quite well when applied to current world events. You should read his book "Lila"...it explains his metaphysics and philosophy....I have found that it works quite well in every situation I've tried to apply it to. Amazing stuff really,...but you have to be at least a little bit open to philosophy in order to get it. Hard core materialists dismiss this stuff out of hand...but hey, it works and clarifies such subjective notions as "morality".


being skeptical also means being skeptical of your naive epistemic assumptions -- which you aren't.

Ahh,...but your use of $10 words aside, neither do you. You expect me to second guess myself because you so clearly see that I'm wrong! You think me an uneducated boor....and I am, yet my lack of formal education does not mean that I'm stupid. But let me tell you this, just because the village idiot points at the sky and declares it blue,..sure as $hit don't mean it ain't! ;)

-zilla

[thaiboxerken]

I'm all for getting Saddam out, I just don't think we should lie about it. I also don't think Bush has good motives, I believe his motives are more religious than secular. Heck, the christians are all gunned up about going in and doing spiritual warfare.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030409.umiss0409/BNStory/International

[scotth]

And returning to topic.

There are reports of plutonium being found.

and

Really good reports of a mobile Bio Weapons lab being found.

It will be interesting to see what these reports develope into over the next couple of days.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by scotth
I was in the Marine in '91 and '94 as well. Didn't ever go, but would have, gladly.

I didn't ask if you would serve. I asked if you "early" advocated war to remove Saddam for human rights violations. So far, your answer is a big NO. So when did you change your mind and decide he was such a monster that war was the only way?

Reagan didn't think he was.
Bush Sr. didn't think he was.
Clinton didn't think he was.
Bush Jr. didn't think so until last year.

Now that it is inconceivable to you that there is another point of view on the subject, please address your change of mind.

[Victor Danilchenko]

rikzilla

A murderer is a danger to society indeed...but a murderer is only one person. An isolated criminal....his murder of another, no matter how heinous, is of limited (extremely limited) concern to larger society. However a police force free to act outside the laws of the land is far more of a danger to the freedoms this society enjoys than a lone murderer.True, in this specific case; but more generally, this is not just about the police. Constitutional law exists to protect people's freedoms, and the social atmosphere in which they can flourish. Thus, the alternative to tossing out evidence is not merely a risk of police going berserk, it's the corruption of the very fundamental rights and freedoms we all claim to cherish.

A repressive nation run by a dictator seeking to undermine the more evolved free society however, is indeed another story. Apples and Oranges Vic. The two cannot be equated, for their danger to the freedoms of our society are not equal. key word being "our society"; but we are talking about international society here.

International law exists for reasons similar to US constitutional law: to create international atmosphere that promotes peace, freedom, and cooperation (yes, freedom too). US, by ignoring international law, does not merely set itself up as the vigilante with self-assigned ultimate moral authority -- and in the Shrub's case, divine imprimatur as well; it also undermines the very precepts of international relations that our modern world is based upon.

So, the correct utilitarian comparison, analogous to comparing non-conviction of a few criminals to the loss of fundamental freedoms, would be the comparison between the continued existence of a dictator (worst-case scenario) to the corruption of the foundations of modern international law.

The problem is not that Saddam was deposed; the problem is that US has effectively undermined international law in order to do so. Humanitarian military intervention may be sometimes justified, but not on the terms this war did it.

No, only international law agreed upon by free nations worldwide will ever be binding and enforceable...USA violated international law it previously accepted, and it specifically ignored contrary position of other free countries. You can't dismiss this by claiming that tinpot dictators have no moral authority to tell US what to do -- they don't, true, but they aren't the only ones who opposed the war.

No sir....I merely have decided to test out in Mr. Robert Pirsig's "Metaphysics of Quality" in my thoughts about this world. His views on evolutionary morality work quite well when applied to current world events. You should read his book "Lila"...it explains his metaphysics and philosophy....I have found that it works quite well in every situation I've tried to apply it to.Pirsig's metaphysics is utter bollocks, and thus I have no interest in his ethics either.

Amazing stuff really,...but you have to be at least a little bit open to philosophy in order to get it.I forgot more about philosophy than Pirsig will ever know. Philosophically, MOQ is crap, I told you as much before.

Hard core materialists dismiss this stuff out of hand...but hey, it works and clarifies such subjective notions as "morality".So so the ten commandments.

Ahh,...but your use of $10 words aside, neither do you. You expect me to second guess myself because you so clearly see that I'm wrong!You missed my point. I wasn't referring to your post in general, but to the one specific statement I addressed that passage to -- '"How can you debate this?" You ask... This is a skeptic board, we debate things based on objective facts,...not the number of how many idiots subjectively "believe" in something.' it's that specific statement, with its adjacent a-priori dismissal or argumenta ad numerum and proclamations that we debate based on objective facts; that was the epistemic naivete I was referring to.

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


I didn't ask if you would serve. I asked if you "early" advocated war to remove Saddam for human rights violations. So far, your answer is a big NO. So when did you change your mind and decide he was such a monster that war was the only way?

Reagan didn't think he was.
Bush Sr. didn't think he was.
Clinton didn't think he was.
Bush Jr. didn't think so until last year.

Now that it is inconceivable to you that there is another point of view on the subject, please address your change of mind.

Clinton certainly did. The term "Regime Change" comes from the policy enacted during Clinton's term that states that the goal of the U.S. is "regime change" in Iraq.

Bush Sr certainly wanted it. It was the (wrong) opinion of nearly everyone that Sadaam would fall from power with months or at most a few years following '91.

I wanted him gone since before '91.
I was dissappointed that the war did not continue until his removal.
I hoped he would fall as predicted and was again dissappointed.
I hoped he would actually fully comply with the latest round of inspections.
I strongly suspected that if he fully complied with the latest rounds of inspections there was a good chance he would lose power.
It became obvious pretty quickly he was returning to hide and seek inspections.
I then was convinced that it would require force to get rid of his weapons (along with him).

But, I would have supported force to remove for solely humanitarian reasons for the entire time.

[scotth]

DrC,

lest you also forget, here are few nice quotes from Tom Daschle in 1998.

Congress "urges the president to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Daschle said the 1998 resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." And he vigorously defended President Clinton's inclination to use military force in Iraq.

Summing up the Clinton administration's argument, Daschle said, "'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

source: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-090602.htm

Read the rest of that page, you might find it illuminating.

I supported this stance by the Democrats then, and support Bush in it now.

[scotth]

Concerning the "mobile bio-weapons lab" that was found.

The news is stall calling it that, but listening to a discription of its contents, I find it much more likely to be a mobile chem weapons lab.

That is my personal opinion only.

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DrChinese

So when did you change your mind and decide he was such a monster that war was the only way?

Reagan didn't think he was.
Bush Sr. didn't think he was.
Clinton didn't think he was.
Bush Jr. didn't think so until last year.

Now that it is inconceivable to you that there is another point of view on the subject, please address your change of mind.
Here's what I find interesting...

Half the anti-war types argue that "The U.S. wasn't concerned about problems in Iraq until recently".

The other half argue "The U.S. was planning on attacking Iraq years ago, long before the whole Weapons thing recently became an issue again".

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by scotth


Clinton certainly did. The term "Regime Change" comes from the policy enacted during Clinton's term that states that the goal of the U.S. is "regime change" in Iraq.

Bush Sr certainly wanted it. It was the (wrong) opinion of nearly everyone that Sadaam would fall from power with months or at most a few years following '91.

I wanted him gone since before '91.
I was dissappointed that the war did not continue until his removal.
I hoped he would fall as predicted and was again dissappointed.
I hoped he would actually fully comply with the latest round of inspections.
I strongly suspected that if he fully complied with the latest rounds of inspections there was a good chance he would lose power.
It became obvious pretty quickly he was returning to hide and seek inspections.
I then was convinced that it would require force to get rid of his weapons (along with him).

But, I would have supported force to remove for solely humanitarian reasons for the entire time.

Then perhaps you will explain why - if those presidents were so convinced of the need for war - it didn't happen. After all, the President is commander-in-chief.

The fact is, it is possible - as you state in your quoted words - that someone (including yourself and multiple presidents) could be for "regime change" WITHOUT advocating war. Thank you for agreeing with me in my original statement (not worth a war to remove Saddam), and have a nice day.

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Then perhaps you will explain why - if those presidents were so convinced of the need for war - it didn't happen. After all, the President is commander-in-chief.

The fact is, it is possible - as you state in your quoted words - that someone (including yourself and multiple presidents) could be for "regime change" WITHOUT advocating war. Thank you for agreeing with me in my original statement (not worth a war to remove Saddam), and have a nice day.

Bush Sr had one. He unfortunately stopped where the U.N asked him too. Inspection were set up to finish the job.

The inspections were a failure. It became obvious during Clinton's time in office. He was a pud and only lobbed some cruise missles in and called it a day.

Now the job is getting finished.

What is your deal with insisting that we continue on the same course when mistakes of the past are recognized.

Clinton should have done this job. I thought he was gonna at the time. I was dissappointed again.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Here's what I find interesting...

Half the anti-war types argue that "The U.S. wasn't concerned about problems in Iraq until recently".

The other half argue "The U.S. was planning on attacking Iraq years ago, long before the whole Weapons thing recently became an issue again".

Now that really is interesting. Certainly makes me want to reconsider my anti-war position. You may find this just as interesting:

Some pro-war people believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. Others think it was a conspiracy. Still others don't know where Iraq is on a map.

ROTFL.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
rikzilla
International law exists for reasons similar to US constitutional law: to create international atmosphere that promotes peace, freedom, and cooperation (yes, freedom too). US, by ignoring international law, does not merely set itself up as the vigilante with self-assigned ultimate moral authority -- and in the Shrub's case, divine imprimatur as well; it also undermines the very precepts of international relations that our modern world is based upon.


Where exactly is this magical "international law" written down? Is it codified somehow? Are there penalties associated with breaking this law?

There is no overall "world government" with a fixed set of rules that everyone plays by. Instead, there are hundreds of treaties and organizations, covering everything: trade and commerce, human rights, the military, health, etc. Some of these organizations and agreements are on a large scale (such as the UN). Others are smaller (such as NAFTA or NATO). In some cases, one set of agreements or rules may conflict with others that a party is part of. And in other cases, the 'rules' are effectively ignored, which can be done when there are no established penalties (and no desire to enforce any).

The illegality of the U.S. actions is no more an issue than the illegality of the actions of Iraq (who failed to live up to terms of UN cease fires and other resolutions, and who abused human rights).

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DrChinese

Now that really is interesting. Certainly makes me want to reconsider my anti-war position. You may find this just as interesting:

Some pro-war people believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. Others think it was a conspiracy. Still others don't know where Iraq is on a map.

Your example (Oswand killing Kennedy) have nothing to do with the war, either for or against. It is a straw man (if such a pathetic argument can really be classified as such).

My observation (different opinions by the anti-war side on when the U.S. wanted to invade Iraq) is of direct relevance to topic at hand. What would YOU say to a fellow anti-war person who had made the claim that the US had been eager for a fight all along? (Although they are on the same side as you overall, they have a major difference in that one area.)

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Your example (Oswand killing Kennedy) have nothing to do with the war, either for or against. It is a straw man (if such a pathetic argument can really be classified as such).

My observation (different opinions by the anti-war side on when the U.S. wanted to invade Iraq) is of direct relevance to topic at hand. What would YOU say to a fellow anti-war person who had made the claim that the US had been eager for a fight all along? (Although they are on the same side as you overall, they have a major difference in that one area.)

Thank you for pointing out that belief in conspiracy theories has nothing to do with an anti-war stance, you did understand my point after all. There are many reasons people are Republicans, Texans, Methodists or against the war. Why would you expect a diverse group to have identical reasons for membership? The group is based on the common bond.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Thank you for pointing out that belief in conspiracy theories has nothing to do with an anti-war stance, you did understand my point after all. There are many reasons people are Republicans, Texans, Methodists or against the war. Why would you expect a diverse group to have identical reasons for membership? The group is based on the common bond.
What a horrible waste of perfectly good sarcasm. :D

[scotth]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Thank you for pointing out that belief in conspiracy theories has nothing to do with an anti-war stance, you did understand my point after all. There are many reasons people are Republicans, Texans, Methodists or against the war. Why would you expect a diverse group to have identical reasons for membership? The group is based on the common bond.

The common threads I have found in at least most of the people who are against this war are.

1) An utter lack of understanding of history, including recent history.
2) A complete distrust of Bush to such a degree that they completely refuse to look at this on its merits.
3) If they do look, #1 prevents them from being able to figure out the proper course.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Thank you for pointing out that belief in conspiracy theories has nothing to do with an anti-war stance, you did understand my point after all.

I did not, in any way, suggest that there was a 'conspiracy' involved. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Originally posted by DrChinese

There are many reasons people are Republicans, Texans, Methodists or against the war. Why would you expect a diverse group to have identical reasons for membership? The group is based on the common bond.

Your right, I don't expect everyone to have the same reasons. (On the other hand, that doesn't stop the anti-war side from complaining that the pro-war side doesn't have a single focus about why the war is a good thing.)

But when one of the 'prime' arguments used by some anti-war people is directly contradicted by a 'prime' argument by another anti-war person, what would happen if they managed to convince their fellow anti-war type of their view point? Would it cause them to change their opinion to a pro-war stance?

Anti-war person #1: I'm against the war; the U.S. has been planning on invading Iraq for years, which shows that they have been eager for a fight.

Anti-war person #2: No, you're wrong. The U.S. didn't really care about Iraq until a year ago.

Anti-war person #1: Hey, you're right. You've convinced me that the U.S. hasn't been eager to attack Iraq all along. I think I'll support the war now.

You still haven't answered the question though.... what would you say to a fellow anti-war person who pointed out that the U.S. had been planning to attack Iraq for years, and that was the reason they were anti-war?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by rikzilla


. . . [J]ust because the village idiot points at the sky and declares it blue,..sure as $hit don't mean it ain't! ;)

-zilla

Dibs on the sig! Dibs on the sig!


NA

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Tricky

What a horrible waste of perfectly good sarcasm. :D

You are so right, I should have saved it for something more worthy.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Your right, I don't expect everyone to have the same reasons. (On the other hand, that doesn't stop the anti-war side from complaining that the pro-war side doesn't have a single focus about why the war is a good thing.)

You still haven't answered the question though.... what would you say to a fellow anti-war person who pointed out that the U.S. had been planning to attack Iraq for years, and that was the reason they were anti-war?

Question not only asked and answered, you agree as well.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DrChinese


You are so right, I should have saved it for something more worthy.
Or at least made it useful, or entertaining.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Question not only asked and answered, you agree as well.
No, all I got was some statement that people are against the war for varying reasons.

My question is: what would you say to someone who claimed that the U.S. had been planning on attacking Iraq for years, and used that as support for their anti-war stance?

Note that my question was not: Can people have different reasons for being against the war?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

No, all I got was some statement that people are against the war for varying reasons.

My question is: what would you say to someone who claimed that the U.S. had been planning on attacking Iraq for years, and used that as support for their anti-war stance?

Note that my question was not: Can people have different reasons for being against the war?

You said (and I quote): "Your right."

If someone wanted to discuss with me whether or not the US had been planning an attack on Iraq for years - and they were against the war - I would share with them my opinion that Bush only decided to do this fairly recently (certainly post-9/11). As with anything I discuss with anybody: if that were to cause them to change their mind or not, that would be their business. I do not count success as "converting" someone to my opinion. The reason I come to this forum is to interact with other minds. I gain from that interchange. I hope others do too, but I certainly am not about changing people's minds. A free thinker will do that themselves, and that is - to me - what it is all about.

Is that answer sufficiently specific for you? Now can we go back to our regularly scheduled thread: the failure to find any chemical WMD? Or for Saddam to have NOT used his extensive stockpiles of same?

[crackmonkey]

Dr. Chinese,
In your previous posts, you seem to put a lot of emphasis on war advocates being pro-war exclusively for purposes of liberating the Iraqi people. Has Bush, or anyone, ever said that the war was motivated purely for liberation of the oppressed?
The liberation of the Iraqi people was certainly important, but not the sole reason for the action.

[Tricky]

It is quite true that before the war, one of the objectives mentioned by pro-war people was the liberation of the Iraqi people. I think any honest person would admit that that was not the issue that they talked about most. It was the WMDs. Second to the WMDs was Saddam's ties to terrorist organizations. Liberation might have been a distant third. However, since few or no WMDs have been found and the terrorist ties are still mostly hypothetical, the liberation has become the fallback issue.

That is actually good. If any of the reasons for the war had some merit, it was the liberation issue. Of course, it remains to be seen if Iraq stays "liberated" (as I fervently hope) or simply substitues another oppressive regime (as is quite likely). However, the point still remains that the primary reason offered for this war has still not been substantiated. It appears that the more conservative elements of the US media are in a frenzy to find something, so they will even portray a well-known radioactive waste site as a "weapons discovery". But of course, no delivery system has been discovered, no chemical plants, no caches of diseases. Perhaps they exist, but given that we were told they were "definate" and we knew where they were, that line is beginning to wear a bit thin. It is no surprise that war proponants have switched to the "liberation" angle. I'm quite sure they are hoping that their pre-war chorus of warnings will pale against the glorious scene of Iraqis dancing in the street. Some of us have longer attention spans.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
My question is: what would you say to someone who claimed that the U.S. had been planning on attacking Iraq for years, and used that as support for their anti-war stance?

Seg, if I may be so rude as to answer a question that was not asked of me, I would tell a person that was using the "They have been planning it for years" as their reason to be anti-war that it was a stupid reason. It is imperative that we have plans in the hopper for whatever eventuality may come up. Had Iraq attacked Kuwait again, we would have needed those plans.

However, I think if you question anti-war people at length (and not just listen to the slogans) then you will find that few of them are so simplistic. I have quite a few reasons for being against the war, and a smaller number of reason for being in favor of the war. Situations like this are a very tough call. I actually supported the ouster of Milosevic, because he was actively engaging in genocide on a grand scale, but it was a hard decision. I wanted Saddam out, but I thought that alienating so many of our allies and enraging the Arab world against us was a poor way to do so. I hope I was wrong.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Dr. Chinese,
In your previous posts, you seem to put a lot of emphasis on war advocates being pro-war exclusively for purposes of liberating the Iraqi people. Has Bush, or anyone, ever said that the war was motivated purely for liberation of the oppressed?
The liberation of the Iraqi people was certainly important, but not the sole reason for the action.

My sentiments: Bush is not in Iraq primarily for the benefit of the Iraqi people. I believe it has more to do with the status of the US in the world. As to why people are behind Bush: a multitude of reasons, most offered by Bush at different points in time to sway the public. If he snags someone with reason A, or B, or C, then he wins. Nothing sinister about any of this - except that Bush knows that it is D that is his main motivation. He'll explain that to us in time - election time.

No, I don't believe Bush has ever said: it is for reason A and A alone that we are doing this. And honestly, I wouldn't expect that of him or anyone else. It may be the sum total of several reasons that tips the scale of one's opinion.

As to why the apparent focus I have on the liberation issue: it was the latest and last of the big arguments Bush pulled out. For a while it was: Iraq is an imminent threat to the US. Then it was: Saddam is violating UN resolutions. Then it was: Saddam has WMD he is hiding from the inspectors. But I think he found a real winner with the liberation idea.

I would rather be behind our president than against him. I was willing to go with Bush on the Afghanistan war (although you would have to admit it was more style than substance, but that's another subject). But the Iraq war was as clear a case of picking a fight as anything I have seen in my life.

The truth is that in 1998, the rest of the world was ready to drop the sanctions on Iraq. We, alone, leaned the other way. The "deal" that resulted was: a) Iraq boots the weapons inspectors; b) sanctions remain in place; c) the US does not declare war. That was the status quo that Bush inherited and was comfortable with until some point after 9/11.

I provided my position on the matter, not trying to debate it but out of respect for what appears to be a straight up question by you.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Tricky

However, I think if you question anti-war people at length (and not just listen to the slogans) then you will find that few of them are so simplistic. I have quite a few reasons for being against the war, and a smaller number of reason for being in favor of the war. Situations like this are a very tough call. I actually supported the ouster of Milosevic, because he was actively engaging in genocide on a grand scale, but it was a hard decision. I wanted Saddam out, but I thought that alienating so many of our allies and enraging the Arab world against us was a poor way to do so. I hope I was wrong.

Very well said. I also had much of the same viewpoint on these issues, as I am not anti-all-war. I believe that war - and the threat of war - is necessary on occasion. But I am adamantly opposed to wars like Vietnam, Panama and Iraq.

[ImpyTimpy]

Well, I can only speak about Australia and what reason we were given for war. The only reason I ever heard was that Saddam has WMD"s and links to terrorism. Our prime minister paddled that point until he was blue in the face. A lot of skeptics from Australia bought the story outright so I find it amusing that no actual WMD's have been found over in Iraq. I highly doubt anything will be found considering the weapons inspectors who's job was to seek out the said weapons found nothing.

Originally posted by Tricky
It is quite true that before the war, one of the objectives mentioned by pro-war people was the liberation of the Iraqi people. I think any honest person would admit that that was not the issue that they talked about most. It was the WMDs. Second to the WMDs was Saddam's ties to terrorist organizations. Liberation might have been a distant third. However, since few or no WMDs have been found and the terrorist ties are still mostly hypothetical, the liberation has become the fallback issue.

That is actually good. If any of the reasons for the war had some merit, it was the liberation issue. Of course, it remains to be seen if Iraq stays "liberated" (as I fervently hope) or simply substitues another oppressive regime (as is quite likely). However, the point still remains that the primary reason offered for this war has still not been substantiated. It appears that the more conservative elements of the US media are in a frenzy to find something, so they will even portray a well-known radioactive waste site as a "weapons discovery". But of course, no delivery system has been discovered, no chemical plants, no caches of diseases. Perhaps they exist, but given that we were told they were "definate" and we knew where they were, that line is beginning to wear a bit thin. It is no surprise that war proponants have switched to the "liberation" angle. I'm quite sure they are hoping that their pre-war chorus of warnings will pale against the glorious scene of Iraqis dancing in the street. Some of us have longer attention spans.

[Number Six]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Well, I can only speak about Australia and what reason we were given for war. The only reason I ever heard was that Saddam has WMD"s and links to terrorism. Our prime minister paddled that point until he was blue in the face. A lot of skeptics from Australia bought the story outright so I find it amusing that no actual WMD's have been found over in Iraq. I highly doubt anything will be found considering the weapons inspectors who's job was to seek out the said weapons found nothing.


I don't know whether they'll find anything or not but regardless of whether there was anything there to find I doubt the inspectors would have ever found them considering the size of the country and the capacity for incriminating evidence to be moved.

Also, even if there were WMDs I doubt they'd have found them by now. It's a big country and the effort so far has mainly been to secure the country rather than search it. I think that the answer to the question of whether or not there are WMDs in Iraq will come out in the months (and maybe years) ahead, which ironically will be so far after the fact that most people probably won't even notice what is or isn't found.

[ImpyTimpy]

Well that is all well and good but the reason we were given for this conflict was that Iraq HAD/HAS WMD's and needed to be disarmed immediately due to it's links with terrorism. If we were so sure they had those weapons surely we'd know WHERE to look for those weapons no? Or are you saying it was just assumed they had the weapons?

Originally posted by Number Six


I don't know whether they'll find anything or not but regardless of whether there was anything there to find I doubt the inspectors would have ever found them considering the size of the country and the capacity for incriminating evidence to be moved.

Also, even if there were WMDs I doubt they'd have found them by now. It's a big country and the effort so far has mainly been to secure the country rather than search it. I think that the answer to the question of whether or not there are WMDs in Iraq will come out in the months (and maybe years) ahead, which ironically will be so far after the fact that most people probably won't even notice what is or isn't found.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
rikzilla

True, in this specific case; but more generally, this is not just about the police. Constitutional law exists to protect people's freedoms, and the social atmosphere in which they can flourish. Thus, the alternative to tossing out evidence is not merely a risk of police going berserk, it's the corruption of the very fundamental rights and freedoms we all claim to cherish.


We agree...! :) People in Hell are enjoying iced tea at this very moment!


key word being "our society"; but we are talking about international society here.

What "international society" Vic?? Are you referring to the UN perhaps? If so it has been shown to be little more than a flawed international debating club. It's so called laws are unenforceable (as shown by Uncle Saddam...and further demonstrated by the Shrub, as you so delicately call him) :) Therefore one can hardly be blamed for the unbiased objective observation that the only law the UN could possibly pass would cover the most mundane and uncontroversial aspects of "international law". Therefore, the only real binding law that the UN could possibly be expected to have enforced would be those things which every nation can agree upon. (That limits the spectrum of international law pretty severely doesn't it?)

International law exists for reasons similar to US constitutional law: to create international atmosphere that promotes peace, freedom, and cooperation (yes, freedom too). US, by ignoring international law, does not merely set itself up as the vigilante with self-assigned ultimate moral authority -- and in the Shrub's case, divine imprimatur as well; it also undermines the very precepts of international relations that our modern world is based upon.
But it doesn't Vic,...international law does not exist in any meaningful way unless there is a mechanism of enforcement available. This is the big difference between "international law" and the US constitution. The US constitution is paper backed by a legal system backed by a military/police enforcement arm. International law is paper..backed by nothing. Face it Vic, there is no "international society".

There are a collection of nation states, that diplomatically participate in the UN. It works well for such things as disaster relief,...and as we've seen recently it works well as a brake to slow the outbreak of war and extend negotiations....but at the end of the day, it's flawed nature makes it incapable to enforcing it's will. Not much of a society Vic. It's a noble idea, and perhaps if reformed properly someday in the far future your international society will come to fruition. But right now Vic, it's only a pipe dream...to pretend it exists in any meaningful way to directly influence the really big issues is to disregard reality.


So, the correct utilitarian comparison, analogous to comparing non-conviction of a few criminals to the loss of fundamental freedoms, would be the comparison between the continued existence of a dictator (worst-case scenario) to the corruption of the foundations of modern international law.
But that would only be true if there were a meaningful and enforceable internationla law to protect from corruption. There is not. If there were, the dictator in question would not even be an issue, as he would have been effectively dealt with by the "world society" that you envision.


The problem is not that Saddam was deposed; the problem is that US has effectively undermined international law in order to do so. Humanitarian military intervention may be sometimes justified, but not on the terms this war did it.

No sir. The US actually enforced the very international law that the flawed UN could not bring itself to do. In fact there is no law in any society that is not backed up by force. I don't mean to say that might makes right,...only to say that without an effective means of enforcement these "laws" become voluntary. How many voluntary laws do you know of that actually work? Even a law as mundane as a speed limit is commonly broken merely because enforcement is difficult given the limited number of police, and the massive number of speeders. In short, it's human nature that if there is an inconvienient law that one knows he can get away with breaking...he will routinely break it. Apparently Saddam was a victim of many inconvenient laws....and not a cop in sight! ;)

USA violated international law it previously accepted, and it specifically ignored contrary position of other free countries. You can't dismiss this by claiming that tinpot dictators have no moral authority to tell US what to do -- they don't, true, but they aren't the only ones who opposed the war.
There is no doubt about the fact that the US is the leader of the free world. Not France, not Germany, and certainly not the flawed UN. As leader of the free world we must lead. One cannot lead effectively by comittee. Before 9/11 I think it could be safely assumed that the US would have upheld the UN, no matter how flawed it's decisions. The moral decision would have indeed been as you described it. But you fail to realize the profound effect of 9/11 on the American people.

Now it is no longer an academic question of whether or not the UN is a good idea in social evolution that needs to be nourished at all costs,..no, now the subvertion of American sovereignty to the vagaries of this inept world body has become obviously dangerous to the health of ordinarily unconcerned American citizens who no longer feel safe in their own land. So now we lead, because we feel that we have no real choice. Welcome to the real world Vic. Not as pretty as an effective egalitarian UN would be, but alot more objectively real.

Pirsig's metaphysics is utter bollocks, and thus I have no interest in his ethics either.

I forgot more about philosophy than Pirsig will ever know. Philosophically, MOQ is crap, I told you as much before.

I know your thoughts on this, and thus have been loathe to mention the MoQ....but ethically it works. Morality per the MoQ is nothing more than an evolutionary reach for "that which is better". Not a God given mandate. Morality evolved because it was "better". Single celled creatures became more complex because why Vic? Again...better...more efficient....better able to survive and replicate. The basis for all morality is the answer to the question: "What is good?" Generally we don't even need to be told these things,...what is "good" is apparent to the smallest child in many cases. That's all the MoQ says. In a nutshell the MoQ says that is more moral to kill the germ than it is to allow the lowly germ to kill the more evolved creature it infects. Simple really. As society goes, it is more moral to topple the repressive regime, than to allow the repressive regime to destabilize or topple the free society.

Also, if the UN were indeed a more advanced form of free society as we envision it may someday be...it would indeed be more moral to subvert US sovereignty in the interests of an unflawed and free UN...but alas, this entity does not yet exist. :(

You missed my point. I wasn't referring to your post in general, but to the one specific statement I addressed that passage to -- '"How can you debate this?" You ask... This is a skeptic board, we debate things based on objective facts,...not the number of how many idiots subjectively "believe" in something.' it's that specific statement, with its adjacent a-priori dismissal or argumenta ad numerum and proclamations that we debate based on objective facts; that was the epistemic naivete I was referring to.

Doctor Chinese was the one I was responding to. His argument was that "most of the world believed it wrong to go to war against Iraq"....I merely stated that how many people "believe" something is irrelevant as to whether that something is true or not. Facts, of course, do not change according to how many people believe in them. That was all that I was saying...I think perhaps you took my answer to that poster the wrong way?

Regards,
Rick

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Well, I can only speak about Australia and what reason we were given for war. The only reason I ever heard was that Saddam has WMD"s and links to terrorism. Our prime minister paddled that point until he was blue in the face. A lot of skeptics from Australia bought the story outright so I find it amusing that no actual WMD's have been found over in Iraq. I highly doubt anything will be found considering the weapons inspectors who's job was to seek out the said weapons found nothing.


Just want to point out a very common error...

It was not the job of the inspectors to seek out weapons. It was their job to test for Iraqi compliance with the terms of U.N. resolutions; namely, that they had destroyed the weapons that they previously had. To assume that they were taking the role of detective is to assume they had functions that they did not.

At this point I reserve judgement on whether weapons will be found. However, prior to the war, it was clear that Iraq was violating the terms of UN resolutions on disarmament. The most logical assumption was that they were hiding something (and, in some cases, they were).

I have very little faith that weapons inspectors would be able to find anything on their own. Remember, these were the people who missed most of Iraq's weapons programs in the mid-90s, until a defector showed them where everything was located.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
rikzilla I will ask a counter-question: Please explain how it is more moral to toss out damning evidence against a murderer, if such evidence was obtained by un-constitutional means, than it is to use the said evidence and convict the bastard.
But no one says it's necessarily more moral to toss out good but tainted evidence. The so-called exclusionary rule in American criminal procedure is not a moral imperative, just a legal rule deemed to be good judicial policy for achieving certain objectives (including deterring widespread police misconduct and providing a simple remedy for constitutional violations). No one - and certainly not the Supreme Court when it created the rule (the Constitution, you'll recall, does not explicitly require exclusion of illegally obtained evidence) - has claimed a moral requirement in this regard.

For this reason, it's unsurprising that very few judicial systems (none come immediately to mind, in fact), whether common law or civil law, have adopted the American approach to suppression of evidence. Jurists outside the United States generally argue that the immorality of not prosecuting the murderer trumps any policy benefits gained by excluding illegally obtained evidence. Even in U.S. courts, the rule is not sacrosanct and has notable limitations.

[Victor Danilchenko]

rikzilla

No sir. The US actually enforced the very international law that the flawed UN could not bring itself to do.No sir. US enforced what it wished to enforce, and ignored what it wished to ignore.

In fact there is no law in any society that is not backed up by force.UN law is backed by force -- the force of cooperating nations. Legal application of this force is only when the UN has declared it to be so.

The international law would have been perfectly toothful towards Saddam, had US abided by UN rules.

I don't mean to say that might makes right,...only to say that without an effective means of enforcement these "laws" become voluntary.The laws have effective means of enforcement -- the power of the states in it. Pointing out that UN law is toothless without its members' participation is like pointing out that US law is helpless without the partitipation of the police.

There is no doubt about the fact that the US is the leader of the free world. Not France, not Germany, and certainly not the flawed UN. As leader of the free world we must lead.And this is what it comes down to. We will lead to wherever our government thinks the world should be lead to. After all, we know best!

This is not merely a vigilante mentality, this is a mentality of a warlord who is convinced he is acting in his people's best interest; mentality of a benevolent dictaror. Do you know of many "benevolent dictators" who were actually benevolent, and remained so? I don't; and yet this is what USA has become.

But you fail to realize the profound effect of 9/11 on the American people.Yes, profound effect. Suddenly, war and destruction wasn't something that is happening only to other people!

Guess what? many other countries remain civil and civilized when confronted with much greater devastation. But the gall of those terrorists, to make an attack on the soil of USA, the leader of the free world! surely this calls for unilateral vigilante action!

Earlier, you noted that relatives of the victim may not feel all that good about the damning evidence being tossed out on a technicality. You -- we -- are now in the same position as those relatives; and it is in a situation like this when we must hold fast to our principles. It's easy to be principled when no force opposes you, but America's true mettle, our comittment to the values we loudly espouse, got tested by the stress of 9/11. We failed the test.

I know your thoughts on this, and thus have been loathe to mention the MoQ....but ethically it works. Morality per the MoQ is nothing more than an evolutionary reach for "that which is better". Not a God given mandate. Morality evolved because it was "better". Single celled creatures became more complex because why Vic?This shows profound misunderstanding of both evolution and ethics.

Evolution does not create organisms which are "better"; there is no "better". It creates organisms which are better for a given environment. Who is better -- humans or rats? rats will probably outlive us, you know; in evolutionary terms, you would have to admit that they are 'better" than us, they are more fit sirvival-wise. It is simply the myopic, ignorant conceit that makes us proclaim that we are the top of the evolutionary ladder -- to even assume that there is an evolutionary ladder.

Similarly with ethics. if you proclaim that ethics is a tool of social fitness and nothing else, you are no tmerely comitting a naturalistic fallacy; you are proclaiming that whatever happens, is by definition and improvment. So if Hitler won WWII, it would have been an ethical improvement according to the "evolutionary ethics" approach -- because he would have won the evolutionary race!

No wthere is indeed a legitimate field of study called evolutionary ethics; but this field is not prescriptive but descriptive: instead of saying "This is how ethics is, and for evolutionary reasons, this is also how it should be", it says: 'This is the ethical systems people accept, and here is how and why they emerged in their present form".

prescriptive evolutionary ethics -- which is what you are talking to -- is a horrible system; for it by definition becomes a lackey of power. Whoever holds the power is almost by definition ethically superior, on social scale.

Think abou tthat. Think about what it means to proclaim that what is, is what ought to be.

You like MoQ ethics because you are a part of the said power-holder society. That's all it amounts to -- Pirsig's ethics gives you an excuse to feel that your ethical imperatives are objectively justified; in effect, it simply supports "might is right" -- it defines being "right" with regard to actually having the might. It's no different from medieval kings liking the "divine right of kings" doctrine.

Doctor Chinese was the one I was responding to. His argument was that "most of the world believed it wrong to go to war against Iraq"....I merely stated that how many people "believe" something is irrelevant as to whether that something is true or not. Facts, of course, do not change according to how many people believe in them. That was all that I was saying...I think perhaps you took my answer to that poster the wrong way?No, I took your answer exactly the ruight way; and my point is that you have a naive view of facts.

Tell me, what does the word "girl" mean? is your answer true? now tell me, what would happen to your answer if majority of people believed the word "girl" to mean something else? Words mean what people use them to mean, after all.

What you are missing is that many truths are explicitly socially constructed. Argumentum ad numerum is usually a fallacy, but there are many facts which are "true" purely by consensus, and thus where how many people believe or disbelieve the proposition, makes all the difference in the world with regard to its truth value.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko

No sir. US enforced what it wished to enforce, and ignored what it wished to ignore.

Just like every other country in the world.

There were 'rules' which obligated countries in the world to enforce (various resolutions requiring Iraq to respect human rights, cooperate with weapons inspectors, etc), but France, Germany, China, etc. decided not to enforce them.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
rikzilla
UN law is backed by force -- the force of cooperating nations. Legal application of this force is only when the UN has declared it to be so.

The international law would have been perfectly toothful towards Saddam, had US abided by UN rules.


In case you hadn't noticed, nations in the UN do not cooperate. Countries have their own agendas, and they often operate at cross purposes to the goals of the UN and world peace.

As for international law beeing toothful... why does their continue to be genocide in the world? Why did Iraq manage to oppress their people so long (even though there are rules against that in the UN)? Where was the 'toothful' UN in those cases?

Your argument is not supported by history.

If you want to argue that the ends don't justify the means, then I might accept that, or that it may cause more terrorism, I might listen to your arguments. But to say that the UN is 'toothful' is just plain wrong.
Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
rikzilla
The laws have effective means of enforcement -- the power of the states in it. Pointing out that UN law is toothless without its members' participation is like pointing out that US law is helpless without the partitipation of the police.

What is your point here?

There are many laws on the books which the police do not enforce, therefore those laws are 'toothless', until such time as someone (a politician or police chief) tells the cops to enforce it.

Of course, the big difference between police enforcement and UN enforcement is that police enforcement is to be applied to all members of a population uniformly, whereas UN enforcement is routinely blocked by apathy, or countries with particular agendas.

Still, what is your point of comparing UN law with US law?

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
rikzilla
This is not merely a vigilante mentality, this is a mentality of a warlord who is convinced he is acting in his people's best interest; mentality of a benevolent dictaror. Do you know of many "benevolent dictators" who were actually benevolent, and remained so? I don't; and yet this is what USA has become.

First of all, do you know what the phrase 'Dictator' is? It implies that the leader is not selected by a fair election. Guess what? There was an election 2 years ago in the US, and there will be another one in 2 years. Therefore, the US is not a dictatorship. And if the policies of the administration conflict with those of its people, they will loose the election.

You probably meant to say hegemony here.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
rikzilla
This shows profound misunderstanding of both evolution and ethics.

I think you're going far outside of what is necessary for your criticisms... Really, an understanding of the textbook definition of evolution (which I, as well as many others is very aware of) is not needed in doing this analysis.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko


No sir. US enforced what it wished to enforce, and ignored what it wished to ignore.

Okay,...I'll buy that if you also understand that other UNSC nations did exactly the opposite by blocking enforcement of resolutions that these same nations had earlier voted for. France, Germany, and Russia were the hypocrites here. They supported and did business with the tyrant, flaunting UN sanctions...it seems obvious to me that they were rather keen to not be found out.


UN law is backed by force -- the force of cooperating nations. Legal application of this force is only when the UN has declared it to be so.

Bull. You observe the UN to be something it is not. What force do they possess that is not on loan to them by some nation state? What you are describing is a sovereign...the UN is not a sovereign anywhere on this planet. What strong nation on earth can the UN impose it's will upon? What country large or small would stand still for the UN while it usurps that nation's sovereignty? The answer is none Vic. You are very simply wrong on this issue.


The international law would have been perfectly toothful towards Saddam, had US abided by UN rules.

So you believe that 12 years and 17 UNSC resolutions were not an honest attempt by the US to work within the UN's framework? That Vic, is absurd.


The laws have effective means of enforcement -- the power of the states in it. Pointing out that UN law is toothless without its members' participation is like pointing out that US law is helpless without the partitipation of the police.

Perhaps,...but remember the police are not sovereign entities, they are one entity that functions under the strict supervision of the sovereign nation that employs them. In order to make your example work in the real world you would need for the UN to take over the role of sovereign. One world government would be born. A brave new world...maybe even a better one....but it's something we'll never live to see Vic. It's your pipe dream again. You are confusing it with fact. As Wayne once said to Garth; "Live in the now, man!" ;)

And this is what it comes down to. We will lead to wherever our government thinks the world should be lead to. After all, we know best!

This is not merely a vigilante mentality, this is a mentality of a warlord who is convinced he is acting in his people's best interest; mentality of a benevolent dictaror. Do you know of many "benevolent dictators" who were actually benevolent, and remained so? I don't; and yet this is what USA has become.

Of course there are pitfalls as you have keenly observed, but what of the alternative? Is a rudderless world full of indecisive leaders a better world? Or is it a dangerous world, where terrorism goes unchecked and looms large as a danger to free society? I believe that under Clinton we saw a glimpse of just such a world. Clinton's "let's take a poll" approach set the stage for 9/11....and let's not forget that almost every year of his administration was punctuated with major terror strikes against American interests. Since the WOT began there have been how many successful terror strikes against America Vic?? It's easy man, put your forefinger and thumb together...yup...it's that many. I may not be as educated as you, but even I know enough not to argue with results. Say what you will about the Shrub...he gets results. It has become my firm opinion that in GWB we are looking at a President of the United States that will one day be lauded as a truly great man. You heard it here first. :)


Yes, profound effect. Suddenly, war and destruction wasn't something that is happening only to other people!

Guess what? many other countries remain civil and civilized when confronted with much greater devastation. But the gall of those terrorists, to make an attack on the soil of USA, the leader of the free world! surely this calls for unilateral vigilante action!

Vic, just because other nations put up with terrorism,...and even actually rewarded terrorism,...does not mean that the people of the United States must take the same stupid decisions! If Europe had fought terrorism back in the 60's instead of appeasing terrorists there may not ever have been a 9/11! Your logic is unforgiveably inane for such a smart guy.


Earlier, you noted that relatives of the victim may not feel all that good about the damning evidence being tossed out on a technicality. You -- we -- are now in the same position as those relatives; and it is in a situation like this when we must hold fast to our principles. It's easy to be principled when no force opposes you, but America's true mettle, our comittment to the values we loudly espouse, got tested by the stress of 9/11. We failed the test.

Not really. The murder of over 3,000 people, destruction of 3 buildings and 4 aircraft all in one horrific day is hardly small scale. Our analogy no longer works on this scale. We are now in a fight for the very survival of our free society, nothing less. If we don't change, and fight this threat what will be next? A nuclear bomb in Times Square? Unthinkable before 9/11....but after 9/11 it becomes more of a question of when than if. Our principles are fine things and we cherish them....but if we are not alive to hold these principles, then tell me Vic, what the hell good are they?

This is the very reason we need both liberals and conservatives. Our conservatives live to uphold the old values and safety of our nation,...while our liberals show us the way forward in social evolution. If not for liberals we might never have freed the slaves, given the vote to women, or sought to end racial discrimination. But without the stability that our conservatives provide there would be no safe plateau of old values from which to expand. Our conservatives win wars....our liberals expand our personal freedoms. We need them both.


This shows profound misunderstanding of both evolution and ethics.

Evolution does not create organisms which are "better"; there is no "better". It creates organisms which are better for a given environment. Who is better -- humans or rats? rats will probably outlive us, you know; in evolutionary terms, you would have to admit that they are 'better" than us, they are more fit sirvival-wise. It is simply the myopic, ignorant conceit that makes us proclaim that we are the top of the evolutionary ladder -- to even assume that there is an evolutionary ladder.

Speak for yourself Vic....personally I know that I am the rat's better! ;) You on the other hand seem to have the perception problem....and you demonstrate it very well with that quote.


Similarly with ethics. if you proclaim that ethics is a tool of social fitness and nothing else, you are no tmerely comitting a naturalistic fallacy; you are proclaiming that whatever happens, is by definition and improvment. So if Hitler won WWII, it would have been an ethical improvement according to the "evolutionary ethics" approach -- because he would have won the evolutionary race!

No, that's not what I said. "Anything that happens" is not necessarily always better. Nature is like a great science project, ever so often it produces genetic experiments like white rabbits for instance. The white rabbit born into a temperate climate is obviously not better. Darwinism takes over, the white rabbit becomes food and does not reproduce itself effectively. Ahh, but the white rabbit in Alaska...is indeed "better". :)

Now, let's say Hitler won WWII...so his way of government must be "better"....but really it is just another flawed social experiment. People have not historically laid down their freedoms and rights...no, they have fought and died for them all throughout history. Gee, maybe that's why we possess freedom now? Do you think that's possible? :confused: I firmly believe that if Hitler had won WWII, he would have never found real peace. The struggle of free thinking people to regain their rights would eventually renew itself until such time as those rights were restored.

No wthere is indeed a legitimate field of study called evolutionary ethics; but this field is not prescriptive but descriptive: instead of saying "This is how ethics is, and for evolutionary reasons, this is also how it should be", it says: 'This is the ethical systems people accept, and here is how and why they emerged in their present form".

prescriptive evolutionary ethics -- which is what you are talking to -- is a horrible system; for it by definition becomes a lackey of power. Whoever holds the power is almost by definition ethically superior, on social scale.

Again, your flawed perception rears it's ugly head. It's not a "lackey of power", just a way of explaining human morality without resorting to the old "It's a gift from God" line. Obviously, just as everything else in this world, morality and society evolved from earliest human social interaction....are you denying this? Of course all ethics is evolutionary...did you think that we came out of the trees with this stuff in our heads? :rolleyes: Or maybe you really do think morals are a gift of God? Tell me Vic, what does a moral look like under a microscope?...'cause golly gosh old dumbass me has never seen one! There are only logically evolved ethics, and the MoQ does a good job of providing a logical framework in which to better discern them.

Just how could the MoQ version of ethics be a "lackey of power" when it goes on to say that intellectual repression by society is always morally wrong because without the free exchange of ideas our society fails to grow, change, and evolve. In other words the MoQ is protective of society's radicals...because these intellectual radicals are the driving force behind societal change. In other words, freedom of speech...assembly...protest...are all morally good. Societal repression of these rights always morally wrong.

C'mon Vic....have you even read Pirsig, or do you merely assume this posture of disdain from your ivory tower without even an honest examination of his work?? You have told me many times that Pirsig is not a good philosopher, but you never really tell me why you hold this low opinion of his work.

I mean c'mon, we're talking philosophy here...is there a piece of test equipment somewhere that I don't know about that we can hook up to Pirsig's MoQ and will tell us how right or wrong it is?? No? Yet you seem to have a very hostile reaction...why? I mean, isn't it true that to be a philosopher all one really needs is the faculty of wonder!? (at least that's what I've always been told...)

Think abou tthat. Think about what it means to proclaim that what is, is what ought to be.

You like MoQ ethics because you are a part of the said power-holder society. That's all it amounts to -- Pirsig's ethics gives you an excuse to feel that your ethical imperatives are objectively justified; in effect, it simply supports "might is right" -- it defines being "right" with regard to actually having the might. It's no different from medieval kings liking the "divine right of kings" doctrine.

Wrong again...as I explained above. (I hope I don't need to explain it again!) You think you know me, and you don't. You think you know Pirsig's work, and yet you obviously don't because you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the MoQ with such thoughts as thos quoted above.


No, I took your answer exactly the ruight way; and my point is that you have a naive view of facts.

Tell me, what does the word "girl" mean? is your answer true? now tell me, what would happen to your answer if majority of people believed the word "girl" to mean something else? Words mean what people use them to mean, after all.

So what are you trying to say? Obviously a linguistic construction used to describe a thing will only be useful within the culture which produced the linguistic construction in the first place. I do not dispute this. I never did dispute this. I was merely saying that it matters not how many "believe" in something....the fact of that something will remain a fact no matter who or how many believe in it. Dr. Chinese was saying that since "most of the world" believed that the war was morally wrong, then the war is as a matter of course, morally wrong. But if the war is fought to bring people into freedom from repression, and to secure the safety of the free society....then the war cannot be morally wrong because freedom is "better" than oppression. More evolved...more right. Therefore, even if the entire world "believes" this war to be morally wrong....it would not change the fact of the inherrent moral rightness of the war. The MoQ supports this logic....and I can see myself that it works.

We could indeed turn it around on us Americans. Say that John Ashcroft gets more power and he and Bush begin to outlaw the freedom of speech, or of free association and assembly. If this were to happen, the US would be placed into a morally corrupt position. In that eventuality...even I would be out on the streets protesting in outrage at the immorality of it all! I do not exempt America from this logical morality Vic....it is no lackey to power. If America were to become such a place, people would stop coming here for a better life...instead they'd begin escaping from it!

I love my country, this is true....but even I would not support it if it were to become a morally bankrupt, repressive society. That has not happened....and despite your dire predictions I doubt we will ever allow it to become so. We must strike a balance between protection of our nation, and protection of our freedoms. Again, I think Bush and company have done a fine job of balancing these things.

What you are missing is that many truths are explicitly socially constructed. Argumentum ad numerum is usually a fallacy, but there are many facts which are "true" purely by consensus, and thus where how many people believe or disbelieve the proposition, makes all the difference in the world with regard to its truth value.

Yet a society such as Iraq, or NK....that participates in it's own subjugation will be peopled by folks exclaiming their "belief" in the state...yet it must be realized that they have no right to freely express what's really on their minds. Thus the Iraq of Saddam, and the NK of Kim Jung Il may contain a society that believes by consensus....but obviously that consensus is not real. They aren't allowed a real consensus...are they? Would we rely on a society such as this to tell us what is good, and what is not good? We'd be damned stupid if we did Vic. :p

Have a great weekend....it's been fun speaking with you. If you respond I'll get back to you on monday!

Ta,
Rick

[bva]

Originally posted by DrChinese



Reagan didn't think he was.
Bush Sr. didn't think he was.
Clinton didn't think he was.
Bush Jr. didn't think so until last year.



It's pretty senseless to say this Chinese. Im sure every one of the former presidents were in agreement that Sadam was an outlaw. The ramification of 9/11 made THIS administration look at dangers from a global view instead of just disregard their totaltarian regimes and their violent remarks toward free worlds. We now know we must pay attention to the warning signs and react to issues before there issues. Now wait efore you go off on another cacamamie tangent --> Iraq is in material breach of resolution 1441. We're disarming a threat to a free world before another 9/11 can happen here or anywhere else.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by bva


DrChinese said:
Reagan didn't think he was.
Bush Sr. didn't think he was.
Clinton didn't think he was.
Bush Jr. didn't think so until last year.

...

It's pretty senseless to say this Chinese. Im sure every one of the former presidents were in agreement that Sadam was an outlaw. The ramification of 9/11 made THIS administration look at dangers from a global view instead of just disregard their totaltarian regimes and their violent remarks toward free worlds. We now know we must pay attention to the warning signs and react to issues before there issues. Now wait efore you go off on another cacamamie tangent --> Iraq is in material breach of resolution 1441. We're disarming a threat to a free world before another 9/11 can happen here or anywhere else.

For whatever reasons, these presidents made the decision NOT to go to war to remove the outlaw Saddam. 9/11 didn't change Saddam at all, it changed Bush. As with many warmongers, you switch your arguments virtually mid-sentence. The half of your thought is about 9/11 and terrorism, the other half is about 1441 and Saddam.

1. 1441 is meaningless, it was made meaningless when Bush refused to bring enforcement to a vote in front of the UNSC in March. 1441 justifies nothing.
2. Where are the WMD?????????? Does this even matter any more?
3. Iraq's capacity for war doesn't look to scary right now. Entire divisions appear to have abandoned their positions. I recall they were supposed to have been an immediate threat to their neighbors. Hmmm.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by DrChinese


3. Iraq's capacity for war doesn't look to scary right now. Entire divisions appear to have abandoned their positions. I recall they were supposed to have been an immediate threat to their neighbors. Hmmm.

Agreed it performed badly against the US/UK.

However please dont forgetthat its a totally different thing to..

a) Atttack, rather than get blasted away in defense, note that most of the Iraqi armour was dug in, easy targets. (that's russian military advice for you).

b) No one in the area, except possibly Israel (but with much reduced volumes) has anything like the technology level we have.

I don't disagree with your point 3 in principle however I think the above are worth considering when evaluating the threat the Iraqi army may have posed.

[crackmonkey]

Dr. C -
Bva made a good point. The events of 9/11 made many of us reconsider the threats posed by outlaw nations. Iraq is about as outlaw as nations come.
Saddam has been seen as a threat since the end of the Gulf War. Up until Bush Jr., the administrations thought that sanctions and sporadic bombing would break Saddam's spirit and get him to live up to his agreements. They were wrong.
You should give them a little time to sort out the WMD issue. We've only been there for 3 weeks. Give it another couple of months. You'll see plenty.

[ImpyTimpy]

Sorry, got to butt in...

I don't understand the premise, give us time, we'll find the WMD's... There was allegedly ample evidence given that Iraq has WMD's... Now if the said alleged evidence was correct, surely the giver of the supposed evidence knows where to look for the WMD's right? Or was it just a guess that Iraq has WMD's so we should wait for a couple of months to see if we're right or not?

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Dr. C -
Bva made a good point. The events of 9/11 made many of us reconsider the threats posed by outlaw nations. Iraq is about as outlaw as nations come.
Saddam has been seen as a threat since the end of the Gulf War. Up until Bush Jr., the administrations thought that sanctions and sporadic bombing would break Saddam's spirit and get him to live up to his agreements. They were wrong.
You should give them a little time to sort out the WMD issue. We've only been there for 3 weeks. Give it another couple of months. You'll see plenty.

[Victor Danilchenko]

rikzilla

Okay,...I'll buy that if you also understand that other UNSC nations did exactly the opposite by blocking enforcement of resolutions that these same nations had earlier voted for.No, they did not do the same thing. They arguably did pursue their selfish interest, but they didn't break the international law in doing so.

France, Germany, and Russia were the hypocrites here. They supported and did business with the tyrant, flaunting UN sanctions...it seems obvious to me that they were rather keen to not be found out.To the extent to which they violated UN sanctions, they were also wrong, of course; but them being wrong doesn't excuse US acting as it did.

So you believe that 12 years and 17 UNSC resolutions were not an honest attempt by the US to work within the UN's framework? That Vic, is absurd.Those years and inspections aren';t th eproblem. The problem is that US, when it saw that it couldn't get its way within UN framework, decided to do it anyway.

So I really want your car. I sue you for it, but I fail; I try to buy it, but you refuse to sell. So after a decade, I simply steal it... right?..

Of course, you will say that US actions were morally right, unlike my car theft; but the whole point here is that US decided what is "right" here. the fact that Saddam was wrong, doesn't mean that going after him vigilante-style is right!

Perhaps,...but remember the police are not sovereign entities, they are one entity that functions under the strict supervision of the sovereign nation that employs them. In order to make your example work in the real world you would need for the UN to take over the role of sovereign.UN a different system from a sovereign government, certainly. My point was not to compare the two, but to simply show that saying "without cooperation of the members' militaries, UN is toothless" is a completely irrelevant point.

Of course there are pitfalls as you have keenly observed, but what of the alternative?Allowing UN to do it the lawful way. With US support. that's not rudderless world -- that's a world where US is not the sole controller of the rudder; which to many, yourself apparently mong them, is an unacceptable alternative.

Say what you will about the Shrub...he gets results.So did Lenin and Stalin -- they transformed Russia from an agricultural country into an industrial one. Means matter, dude.

Not really. The murder of over 3,000 people, destruction of 3 buildings and 4 aircraft all in one horrific day is hardly small scale.but it has nothing to do with Iraq. All the 'evidence' you cited, is weak and circumstantial. Even our glorious leader backed off of his claim about the link between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, and he was never afraid to over-state a case.

If we don't change, and fight this threat what will be next? A nuclear bomb in Times Square? Unthinkable before 9/11....but after 9/11 it becomes more of a question of when than if.Exactly. A nuke in a suitcase is not exactly impossible to smuggle in; or any number of other highly destructive weapons. US made it harder after 9/11, but it also made a lot more people be far more interested in doing so; so on the balance, have we actually made the world safer for ourselves?

Ever played witha chinese finger puzzle, Rik? that's what the situation is like, IMO. You tug, it grips you; you tug harder, it grips harder...

Our principles are fine things and we cherish them....but if we are not alive to hold these principles, then tell me Vic, what the hell good are they?And if we make things worse by pursuing such a near-sighted policy, what then? Al-Qaeda attacks can already be traced directly to US foreign policy, especially in countries like Saudi Arabia; what fruits will our current "belevolent imperialism" bear a decade or two down the road?

Speak for yourself Vic....personally I know that I am the rat's better! ;) You on the other hand seem to have the perception problem....and you demonstrate it very well with that quote.How do you know that you are better than the rat, besides your gut feeling which tell you that you personally are the most valuable person in the world? You are more complex; one-on-one, I am sure you will beat the damned varmint; but as species, there is nothing to indicate that we are better in the ethical or evolutionary sense.

Now, let's say Hitler won WWII...so his way of government must be "better"....but really it is just another flawed social experiment.Hitler's germany could, from your POV, be called 'flawed social experiment". What if Hitler won? Conquered the entire Europe and even US? On what basis would you claim it to be flawed?

People have not historically laid down their freedoms and rights...no, they have fought and died for them all throughout history.So? people have also historically tried to enslave others, but that doesn't mean that enslavement is good.

I firmly believe that if Hitler had won WWII, he would have never found real peace. The struggle of free thinking people to regain their rights would eventually renew itself until such time as those rights were restored.So your ethics isn't really evolutionary. You simply ad-hoc grab the data that support your pre-conceived notion of what is ethical, and discard the rest; but you say that it's "evolutionary" as a way to lend an air of objectivity to your beliefs.

Again, your flawed perception rears it's ugly head. It's not a "lackey of power", just a way of explaining human morality without resorting to the old "It's a gift from God" line.As I said, dude, explaining how morality came to be, using evolutionary concentual framework, is perfectly fine; but you go further and make claims about how things should be, and that is where all hell breaks loose.

Obviously, just as everything else in this world, morality and society evolved from earliest human social interaction....are you denying this?Didn't you see my appasage where I explained the difference between descriptive and prescriptive ethics?..

There are only logically evolved ethics, and the MoQ does a good job of providing a logical framework in which to better discern them.let me repeat again; there is the world of difference between explaining how ethical system came to be, and saying how things should be. the former in no way implies the latter.

Just how could the MoQ version of ethics be a "lackey of power" when it goes on to say that intellectual repression by society is always morally wrong because without the free exchange of ideas our society fails to grow, change, and evolve.Well, what change is good and what isn't is up to evolution to decide, not you. What you are describing sounds like an ad-hoc way to claim that one's personal ethical just happens to be the "evolutionary best" ethical system.

Did you notice how many species there are? Who is better -- a cat or a cow? Evolutionary framework offers no answers to those questions; what you are doing is simply ascribing undeserved authority to your personal views.

C'mon Vic....have you even read PirsigI read a few of his essays on metaphysics; i didn't read anything about his ethics, as I already said.

You have told me many times that Pirsig is not a good philosopher, but you never really tell me why you hold this low opinion of his work.I read both some of what he wrote on philosophy, and what others wrote about it.

I mean, isn't it true that to be a philosopher all one really needs is the faculty of wonder!? (at least that's what I've always been told...)one has to be able to both wonder and think critically.

Therefore, even if the entire world "believes" this war to be morally wrong....it would not change the fact of the inherrent moral rightness of the war.Moral rightness according to your personal ethics.

See, the funny thing is that you assume not only that there is an objective truth WRT ethics, but also that you know it. Unfortunately, unlike science, there is no way to check your claim; and so ethics remains -- must remain -- a domain of values rather than facts.

It's easy to come up with sophistry justifying many empirically unverifiable claims, such as about evolutionary ethics. However, there is no truth here -- only values; and if you forget that, if you lend your values the air of truths, then you become a very dangerous man. Every two-bit pseudo-philosopher like Rand or Pirsig is (was) convinced that they carry The Truth. The Truth according to the gospel of Saint Rand or Saint Pirsig, respectively...

The MoQ supports this logic....and I can see myself that it works.:rolleyes:

We could indeed turn it around on us Americans. Say that John Ashcroft gets more power and he and Bush begin to outlaw the freedom of speech, or of free association and assembly. If this were to happen, the US would be placed into a morally corrupt position.Then your ethics is not evolutionary; then you don't derive your beliefs from examining the evoltionary process, but rather start out with your ethical assumptions, and attept to justify them post-hoc -- and the "evolutionary" label becomes as much of a prestige fig leaf, as "science" is in "creation science".

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Reginald


Agreed it performed badly against the US/UK.

However please dont forgetthat its a totally different thing to..

a) Atttack, rather than get blasted away in defense, note that most of the Iraqi armour was dug in, easy targets. (that's russian military advice for you).

b) No one in the area, except possibly Israel (but with much reduced volumes) has anything like the technology level we have.

I don't disagree with your point 3 in principle however I think the above are worth considering when evaluating the threat the Iraqi army may have posed.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I think the risk was intentionally overstated by the administration. Everything was slanted to make it scarier than it was, and the ease of the victory is both a testament both to the US might and Iraqi weakness.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Dr. C -
Bva made a good point. The events of 9/11 made many of us reconsider the threats posed by outlaw nations. Iraq is about as outlaw as nations come.
Saddam has been seen as a threat since the end of the Gulf War. Up until Bush Jr., the administrations thought that sanctions and sporadic bombing would break Saddam's spirit and get him to live up to his agreements. They were wrong.
You should give them a little time to sort out the WMD issue. We've only been there for 3 weeks. Give it another couple of months. You'll see plenty.

I believe it is acceptable to have an event like 9/11 change your perspective. But 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq except possibly by way of analogy. There was no actual connection. So it was Bush who changed, not Saddam. Realistically, Iraq was no more threat after 9/11 than before.

As to the WMD, where's the beef? If I made the comment that they will find "something" and dismissed it before the evidence was in, what would you say to me? That my eyes are closed to the evidence? So when you say that I'll be seeing "plenty" in a few months, it makes me wonder:

Are you going to admit we made a mistake in Iraq if none are found? (Maybe you already admit it, I don't know.)

[rikzilla]

Then your ethics is not evolutionary; then you don't derive your beliefs from examining the evoltionary process, but rather start out with your ethical assumptions, and attept to justify them post-hoc -- and the "evolutionary" label becomes as much of a prestige fig leaf, as "science" is in "creation science".

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree Vic. I don't understand how you can get that from what I've written...but hey, to each his own.

It seems to me that per your philosophy one can never know right from wrong, or if a human is better than a rat. My own philosophy may be flawed, (and you have pointed out to me some of it's flaws)...but at least with it I am able to discern right from wrong to my own satisfaction. You see, I am satisfied that a repressive society is inferior to a free society. It is objectively demonstrable that this is so. One need only look at immigration patterns. People risk their lives to escape from Cuba, they do not have to escape from the USA....they leave or stay as they like.

Does a rat speculate what it means to be free or repressed? I think not. A rat may think, and know if it is content or unhappy, but beyond this I don't think rats do much wondering. Maybe this is why I believe myself superior to the rat. You, OTOH, seem to think that the rats superior ability to survive in almost any environment makes it superior to humans...but that is not the yardstick I choose.

I guess the bottom line is perception. What we percieve to be real becomes real to us. Like Socrates said, "All I know is that I know nothing." ...and he was the wisest man in all Athens...well, at least the oracle at Delphi thought so. ;) Perception again.
Choose your perceptions wisely Vic.

-zilla

[crackmonkey]

If there are no WMD found after a few months, I'll have no problem eating crow.
I'm not sure I follow your statements about dismissing evidence of WMD. All I'm saying is that I believe that there is a good deal of it in Iraq. I have no evidence to prove it, and I don't expect anyone to take my word on it. I, like everyone else, am waiting on the troops to find the evidence. As of yet there have been no smoking guns, but a fair amount of indirect evidence making WMD possession by Saddam more likely.
My point all along was that it is folly to dismiss the possibility of Saddam having WMD - a notion that most here have said that they do NOT dismiss. I'm merely stating that I think it's very likely indeed. We shall see.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
If there are no WMD found after a few months, I'll have no problem eating crow.
I'm not sure I follow your statements about dismissing evidence of WMD. All I'm saying is that I believe that there is a good deal of it in Iraq. I have no evidence to prove it, and I don't expect anyone to take my word on it. I, like everyone else, am waiting on the troops to find the evidence. As of yet there have been no smoking guns, but a fair amount of indirect evidence making WMD possession by Saddam more likely.
My point all along was that it is folly to dismiss the possibility of Saddam having WMD - a notion that most here have said that they do NOT dismiss. I'm merely stating that I think it's very likely indeed. We shall see.
And it seems really odd to me that Saddam would have WMDs, and yet not use them in a war for which he had plenty of advance notice. That indicates to me that the weapon inspections were doing the trick. I've said all along that the best solution to this was make weapons inspections permanent (or until the regime fell). He wouldn't dare drag them out with the inspectors right there. If he squirreled them away somewhere, then they were obviously unavailable to him, thus no great threat. We wouldn't have had to kill so many people and alienate most of the rest of the world.

[DanishDynamite]

Sorry to butt in...

rikzilla:You see, I am satisfied that a repressive society is inferior to a free society. It is objectively demonstrable that this is so. One need only look at immigration patterns. People risk their lives to escape from Cuba, they do not have to escape from the USA....they leave or stay as they like. I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here, but how is it objectively demonstrable that a repressive society is worse than a free society? It all depends on your values. For example, in the terms which for 4 billion years have really mattered, China is the most succesful society on Earth. I'm thinking here of evolution. And China is still a fairly repressive society.
Does a rat speculate what it means to be free or repressed? I think not. A rat may think, and know if it is content or unhappy, but beyond this I don't think rats do much wondering. Maybe this is why I believe myself superior to the rat. No comment. :)
You, OTOH, seem to think that the rats superior ability to survive in almost any environment makes it superior to humans...but that is not the yardstick I choose. That's fine. Just be aware that your yardstick is of little consequence to evolution.
I guess the bottom line is perception. What we percieve to be real becomes real to us. Careful, Rik. You almost sound like UCE. :) (Or perhaps you find that a complement?)

[Victor Danilchenko]

rikzilla

It seems to me that per your philosophy one can never know right from wrong, or if a human is better than a rat.That's right, one can't know. One can but compare the situation to their own values -- but values don't constitute knowledge.

My own philosophy may be flawed, (and you have pointed out to me some of it's flaws)...but at least with it I am able to discern right from wrong to my own satisfaction.Exactly. To your satisfaction. how does that imply that your specific values are the "true" ones?

Does a rat speculate what it means to be free or repressed? I think not. A rat may think, and know if it is content or unhappy, but beyond this I don't think rats do much wondering. Maybe this is why I believe myself superior to the rat. You, OTOH, seem to think that the rats superior ability to survive in almost any environment makes it superior to humans...but that is not the yardstick I choose.Again, this is the yardstick you choose; just realize that this is nothing but your choice, that it's not objectively true.

besides, survival is the only criterion by which evolutionary success can be reasonably judged. You survive = you win; you die = you lose. You survive a lot -- you win even more... Inasmuch as success and failure are applicable to evolution, survival and reproduction constitute success. Your perspective on evolution is, as I pointed out, nothing but human conceit allowing us to see ourselves as superior; but this conceit has nothing to do with reality.

I guess the bottom line is perception. What we percieve to be real becomes real to us.Hey, where is your "objective good" now?

Choose your perceptions wisely Vic.I choose to attempt by best at discerning my hidden biases, and not be blindly led by them. One can't get rid of all the biases, nor would we want to; but we owe it to ourselves to understand what our biases are, because this is a case where ignorance will inevitably lead to agony. When we conceal our biases from ourselves with empty talk of objectivity, we are paving ourselves the proverbial road to hell.

I in fact do agree with you, that a free society is better than a repressive one, and that Iraqi regime is morally inferior to US government; however, I don't for a moment entertain the delusion that this is an objective truth, and thus I don't pave the way for myself to come up with pat cookie-cutter answers about how we, the morally superior americans, should deal with the reast of the world.

Moral clarity is the consequence of intellectual fogginess...

[Incitatus]

Originally posted by DrChinese


For whatever reasons, these presidents made the decision NOT to go to war to remove the outlaw Saddam. 9/11 didn't change Saddam at all, it changed Bush. As with many warmongers, you switch your arguments virtually mid-sentence. The half of your thought is about 9/11 and terrorism, the other half is about 1441 and Saddam.

1. 1441 is meaningless, it was made meaningless when Bush refused to bring enforcement to a vote in front of the UNSC in March. 1441 justifies nothing.
2. Where are the WMD?????????? Does this even matter any more?
3. Iraq's capacity for war doesn't look to scary right now. Entire divisions appear to have abandoned their positions. I recall they were supposed to have been an immediate threat to their neighbors. Hmmm.

1441 says
"13. Recalls, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; "

A war seems like a pretty serious consequence. It seems also that this alternative was agreed to by thee UN. Why another vote?

[Martin]

Serious consequences != military action

[Incitatus]

It also said

"Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,"


so kidnapping, terror, humanitarian stuff were also factors, not just wmd.

"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, "

ergo, no living up to what had been agreed to, no more cease fire. Seems pretty clear.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Incitatus
ergo, no living up to what had been agreed to, no more cease fire. Seems pretty clearApart from the minor detail that it doesn't actually say that?

[Incitatus]

"the council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein, "

ceasefire
based on
provisions
obligations on Iraq

How do you read it?

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
rikzilla Moral clarity is the consequence of intellectual fogginess...

Go read Ayn Rand.

[Martin]

Show me where 1441 explicitly states that the cease-fire is ended.

[ImpyTimpy]

I think that's the biggest problem. Should we execute convicts because we think they are guilty or should we actually provide the evidence? Should we just believe that psychics exist because a couple of people have said they do, or should we ask for evidence? Same with Iraq, should we have waited for conclusive evidence and proper U.N. resolution authorising war, or was acting on a belief justified?

Originally posted by crackmonkey
If there are no WMD found after a few months, I'll have no problem eating crow.
I'm not sure I follow your statements about dismissing evidence of WMD. All I'm saying is that I believe that there is a good deal of it in Iraq. I have no evidence to prove it, and I don't expect anyone to take my word on it. I, like everyone else, am waiting on the troops to find the evidence. As of yet there have been no smoking guns, but a fair amount of indirect evidence making WMD possession by Saddam more likely.
My point all along was that it is folly to dismiss the possibility of Saddam having WMD - a notion that most here have said that they do NOT dismiss. I'm merely stating that I think it's very likely indeed. We shall see.

[crackmonkey]

I'm assuming that Bush was telling the tuth - that he had conclusive proof. It has been reported that numbers of Iraqi defectors have said that SAddam was pursuing WMD and gave details, so this isn't an issue that Bush just dreamed up. If no WMD is found, the invasion would be based on lies and would be wrong, even though the end result is pleasing. I would feel betrayed by Bush and would never trust him again in this eventuality.
As far as the UN - France, China, and Russia had no intention of allowing any authorization for war. Period. The debate was merely for show... there was never any consideration of allowing it. If Bush showed them a warehouse full of WMD, they'd still veto any resolution authorizing force. I'm fairly certain that any chem weapons that show up will have come from one of these three...

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I'm assuming that Bush was telling the tuth - that he had conclusive proof. It has been reported that numbers of Iraqi defectors have said that SAddam was pursuing WMD and gave details, so this isn't an issue that Bush just dreamed up.

That's the problem - the proof given was considered less then conclusive, sometimes even downright misleading.
If no WMD is found, the invasion would be based on lies and would be wrong, even though the end result is pleasing. I would feel betrayed by Bush and would never trust him again in this eventuality.
As far as the UN - France, China, and Russia had no intention of allowing any authorization for war. Period. The debate was merely for show... there was never any consideration of allowing it. If Bush showed them a warehouse full of WMD, they'd still veto any resolution authorizing force. I'm fairly certain that any chem weapons that show up will have come from one of these three...
That's a huge assumption. I personally think it should have gone through to U.N. for a vote. IF it was vetoed then U.S. could've said it's unreasonable and went through with the war. This never happened, with U.S. basically telling U.N. we don't need your approval to do whatever we want.

[Incitatus]

Originally posted by Martinm
Show me where 1441 explicitly states that the cease-fire is ended.

It does not. It says that the very existance of a cease fire is predicated on certain things. If they do not come to pass, there is no cease fire. How do you read it?

[Martin]

All it does is recall the text of UNSC 687, which makes provision for military action only in specific circumstances, namely a violation of section A. WMD fall under section C. Section A deals with the Iran-Iraq border.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I'm assuming that Bush was telling the tuth - that he had conclusive proof. It has been reported that numbers of Iraqi defectors have said that SAddam was pursuing WMD and gave details, so this isn't an issue that Bush just dreamed up. If no WMD is found, the invasion would be based on lies and would be wrong, even though the end result is pleasing. I would feel betrayed by Bush and would never trust him again in this eventuality.
As far as the UN - France, China, and Russia had no intention of allowing any authorization for war. Period. The debate was merely for show... there was never any consideration of allowing it. If Bush showed them a warehouse full of WMD, they'd still veto any resolution authorizing force. I'm fairly certain that any chem weapons that show up will have come from one of these three...

I am glad to hear that you are open to the possibility that Bush has been deceptive. There is, of course, the concept of plausible deniability to protect him on this... i.e. it was one of his aides who bent the facts, he didn't have all of the evidence, etc.

As to your France/China/Russia theory, that door swings both ways. It was as much their right to vote against a new resolution as it was for the US to push it in the face of opposition. Ultimately, it was Bush who walked away from that showdown. As to the warehouse full of WMD, Bush didn't show them to others and hasn't show them to us either. So I don't think that one goes against other countries. Bush is playing the card that he knows something we don't, but he didn't show France. That isn't reasonable, if he had the evidence.

As to the suppliers of weapons to third world countries, where would the US show up in that list? I don't think we have so much to be proud of, we have supplied some of the worst.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Supercharts

Go read Ayn Rand.Ayn Rand is a philosophical joke. her ethics are arbitrary and unsupported (any ethical system based on selfishness alone, no matter how enlightened, doesn't work), and her metaphysics and epistemology are hopelessly confused. To top that off, she was a de-facto methodological infallibilist (even if she disclaimed such position), which bizarre factor was largely what lead to The Collective effectively becoming the world's first atheistic religious cult.

Oh yeah, did I mention that philosophically, she was clueless? She didn't understand Kant, Mill, and a number of other important philosophers whom she rabidly attacked. She was a cult leader and a bad fiction writer masquerading as a philosopher.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Supercharts

Ayn Rand is a philosophical joke. her ethics are arbitrary and unsupported (any ethical system based on selfishness alone, no matter how enlightened, doesn't work), and her metaphysics and epistemology are hopelessly confused. To top that off, she was a de-facto methodological infallibilist (even if she disclaimed such position), which bizarre factor was largely what lead to The Collective effectively becoming the world's first atheistic religious cult.

Oh yeah, did I mention that philosophically, she was clueless? She didn't understand Kant, Mill, and a number of other important philosophers whom she rabidly attacked. She was a cult leader and a bad fiction writer masquerading as a philosopher.
Is that what it is? And all this time I just thought she was a greedy, self-serving a**hole. I guess I'm deeper than I thought I was. :p

[Victor Danilchenko]

hey Tricky,

Who would dare accuse the King of Phlame of lacking in depth? :)

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Supercharts

Ayn Rand is a philosophical joke. her ethics are arbitrary and unsupported (any ethical system based on selfishness alone, no matter how enlightened, doesn't work), and her metaphysics and epistemology are hopelessly confused. To top that off, she was a de-facto methodological infallibilist (even if she disclaimed such position), which bizarre factor was largely what lead to The Collective effectively becoming the world's first atheistic religious cult.

Oh yeah, did I mention that philosophically, she was clueless? She didn't understand Kant, Mill, and a number of other important philosophers whom she rabidly attacked. She was a cult leader and a bad fiction writer masquerading as a philosopher. Not to metion her gift of Alan Greenspan.
http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/features/62greenspn.html

Show a little gratitude, Vic.:D

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko


That's right, one can't know. One can but compare the situation to their own values -- but values don't constitute knowledge.

Ah, but that's where you go veering off course Vic. Values do indeed constitute knowledge. Or will you now say that knowledge is without value? How could such a thing be? Perhaps you mean that for example; American values do not constitute all knowledge?? Is that better? I hope so, because the way you put it didn't make much sense to me.

If you took the time to read Pirsig you'd understand that the MoQ states that the material world is composed of nothing but dynamic and static patterns of value. But even without Pirsig, it's fairly intuitive to most people that knowledge has value! ;)

Exactly. To your satisfaction. how does that imply that your specific values are the "true" ones?

Again, this is the yardstick you choose; just realize that this is nothing but your choice, that it's not objectively true.
It is objectively true (by my yardstick of course) that a human is better than a rat. Sit down with a rat and do math, or discuss philosophy. If the rat is more intelligent than you, then you may have a point. ;) Again, my yardstick...but objective results? You bet! I know my biases of course....I realise that under a different test the rat may win....but those circumstances are irrelevant to me. I have values. I have knowledge. I can use these things as a framework to discover what is ethical. In short I can know right from wrong in the context of human relations. I have the tools. But like you have pointed out, and like Socrates said; "One thing I know is, I know nothing."

I agree with you that we need to examine our values and perspectives carefully in the knowledge that there may be a better way. But, unlike you, I know that consistently second guessing oneself is counter productive.

I'm a communications tech, people count on me to fix their important communications links. There are many, many ways in which to test and isolate a problem....techs tend to do things their own way. Some techs are faster than others, but on the whole techs like doing things their own way. Given a choice between the easy way, the hard way, and my way, I always choose my way. :) It's comfortable and I don't end up second guessing myself. Perhaps I'm not the most efficient tech in the world, but I do my job...(and while tests are running I get to speak with you nice folks. :) ) All techs make mistakes...but the worst tech is one who's not sure of himself. The constant worrying and second guessing creates pressure, which creates more mistakes. Luckily, most techs like this are very new and have yet to grow into the job.

If a tech were to adopt your philosophy Vic, I can't imaging the poor bloke would ever get anything done! :rolleyes: Sometimes people have to take decisions. Sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong...but to not take a firm decision at all is to fail every time by not trying. One must examine one's decisions based on what Vic? One's values and knowledge! :) Eh? We may not be right,...but we do what we can. We do our best, and keep trying to do better.

besides, survival is the only criterion by which evolutionary success can be reasonably judged. You survive = you win; you die = you lose. You survive a lot -- you win even more... Inasmuch as success and failure are applicable to evolution, survival and reproduction constitute success. Your perspective on evolution is, as I pointed out, nothing but human conceit allowing us to see ourselves as superior; but this conceit has nothing to do with reality.

This is true,...but who is better suited to survive? The smart human or the stupid rat? Someday soon we may find a gene therapy that we can introduce into nature that will cause rats to die out. Using our minds we can do such things....who will win the survival game then? ;) It is our intelligence that may one day kick the rat off our island...and that gives us a higher quality of life....again, my yardstick. But in the end my yardstick may be the only one that really counts, evolutionarily speaking of course! ;) Conceited? Yes. Nothing to do with reality? I beg to differ.
Hey, where is your "objective good" now?

All around you! If a thing is empirically observable, then it is objective. I observe that humans are more adaptable based on intelligence. It's this intelligence that makes our species potentially more survivable than even the world's great rat population. There is no potential in a rat....(well maybe in a million years from now, but as I said, I like to live in the now!)

I choose to attempt by best at discerning my hidden biases, and not be blindly led by them. One can't get rid of all the biases, nor would we want to; but we owe it to ourselves to understand what our biases are, because this is a case where ignorance will inevitably lead to agony. When we conceal our biases from ourselves with empty talk of objectivity, we are paving ourselves the proverbial road to hell.

I agree one hundred percent. But examining biases and motives, although a fine and ethical thing, is not the only thing. If we can pronounce a thing ethical based on the framework of rational thought, then we should get on with it. Maybe we will be proved wrong in the end? But to do nothing is almost always worse.

I in fact do agree with you, that a free society is better than a repressive one, and that Iraqi regime is morally inferior to US government; however, I don't for a moment entertain the delusion that this is an objective truth, and thus I don't pave the way for myself to come up with pat cookie-cutter answers about how we, the morally superior americans, should deal with the reast of the world.

The reason that I say it's objective Vic, is because we could empirically observe something as simple as immigration patterns and come to this conclusion logically. Would not this conclusion be objective? People escape from totalitarian nations....people escape to free nations. Is not this conclusion then, ahem, inescapable?? :D

Moral clarity is the consequence of intellectual fogginess...

Sounds like a bumper sticker Vic. And as a thought I'd say it's true more often than it's false....but the fact is that there can be moral clarity...good ethical moral clarity in some distinct cases. Totalitarian vs free societies...or human superior to rat are two of these. :D

Tschuss!
Rick

[Victor Danilchenko]

rikzilla

Ah, but that's where you go veering off course Vic. Values do indeed constitute knowledge. Or will you now say that knowledge is without value?Knowledge has value, but knowledge isn't value. You may know that male lions kill other lions' cubs, but that fact, while valuable in itself, does not prompt a value judgement on the merits or demerits of such behavior. Similarly, adoring or deploring something (infanticide, drug use, helicopter rides, whatever) does not constitute knowledge of that something's value.

Just because you think that helping little old ladies across the street is moral, does not mean that you know it to be moral.

It is objectively true (by my yardstick of course) that a human is better than a rat.it it's objectively true by your yardstick, then it's not objectively true. Similarly, if Ozzy is objectively good by your wardstick, doesn't mean that he is objectively good. the words 'objectively good by my yardstick' are an oxymoron.

Sit down with a rat and do math, or discuss philosophy. If the rat is more intelligent than you, then you may have a point. ;)Sp in evaluating evolutionary success, your yardstick is intelligence. What the fsck does it have to do with evolution?

Ask me what I think humans' most valuable trait is, and I will say intelligence; ask someone else, and they may say compassion, or athletic ability, or our attitude, or whatever. None of those have any objective value in evolutionary context -- nothing has objective value, all value is merely what we assign, and we every one of us assign values differently. However, evolution is a process that maximises adaptation to survival; inasmuch as you can extract any value from evolution, sheer survival is it.

Again, my yardstick...but objective results? You bet! I know my biases of course....I realise that under a different test the rat may win....but those circumstances are irrelevant to me. I have values.Exactly. Irrelevant to you. You have values. they are not objective values, they are your subjective values.

If a tech were to adopt your philosophy Vic, I can't imaging the poor bloke would ever get anything done! :rolleyes:The difference with technology, and material world in general, is that you generally have objective criteria of success. A dam was built successfully if it holds water; a problem was solved if the error does not occur any longer. What are your objective criteria for the success of an ethical system? Such criteria exist in other matters simply because we define success in terms of those criteria; a successful dam is defined as a dam that holds water. We make no greater pretense to objectivity.

So you will define success criteris for ethics. Something like "An ethical system is successful only if it effects a society with properties XYZ". How do you decide what those properties XYZ are? How are you going to be able to claim that your success criteria are objective? I can say that I designed a better damb using engineering than someone else did using crystal-ball divination -- but only because both that someone and I want the same thing from a dam: to hold water.

People don't want the same thing from their ethical system. Everyone wants to survive and have some basic standard of living, but such simple requirements don't mandate any specific social structure or ethical system. People want freedom, but they differ wildly in how they want freedom, and what they expect from freedom, and for that matter, what they mean "freedom" to be. There is absolutely no rational justification for coming in and saying; "My ethical system is right and your ethical system is wrong, because your expectations and desires and values are incorrect; you may want ABC from it, but you are wrong, and you must want XYZ from it".

Think about what that means, Rik; and remember that wanting certain specific results of a system (i.e. american prosperity) does not mean that they agree with that system, nor for that matter does it mean that the said prosperity is a consequence of the said system, rather than some other factors -- and even if it is, the fact that some want to immigrate into US does not justify us forcing our values on those who don't want to immigrate into US.

Sometimes people have to take decisions. Sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong...but to not take a firm decision at all is to fail every time by not trying. One must examine one's decisions based on what Vic? One's values and knowledge! :) Yes; but one mustn't forget that the decisions aren't objectively true in any sense.

Of course you have to make decision -- but don't forget that those decisions are far short of being objective, and that therefore the decisions you reached may not be acceptable to others in the same circumstances. You don't go to your colleagues and make them do things your way, why should we go to Iraq and make them do things our way? Even if our way works better than theirs for some criteria that you chose, the most we have a right to do is advise and agitate, not force. You can tell your colleague about your way and how it works better, but you should't force him to use it, should you?..

This is true,...but who is better suited to survive? The smart human or the stupid rat?the rat -- and the cockroach even more so.

Someday soon we may find a gene therapy that we can introduce into nature that will cause rats to die out. Using our minds we can do such things....who will win the survival game then? ;)Over rats, yes; but only then.

The whole point of this excercise, Rik, was to demonstrate that you cannot simply take arbitrary criteria and say that they are the objective yardstick for success.

The reason that I say it's objective Vic, is because we could empirically observe something as simple as immigration patterns and come to this conclusion logically. Would not this conclusion be objective?Well, that depends on what the conclusion would be. Would we be justified in concluding that people want to immigrate into US more than into Iraq? yes. Woould we be justified in concluding that the immigrants like US ethics more than iraqi ethics? Not at all. Would we be justified in concluding that those who remain in Iraq wish US to create mini-US over there? no. Would we be justified in concluding that our values and ethics are inherently superior to theirs, and that they must accept ours at gunpoint? Most certainly not.

Remember, i largely agree with your values; what i disgree with, is your assumption that US ethics is more evolved than Iraq ethics (whatever that is), and that therefore a less evolved society threatening a more evolved society ethically justifies righteous conquest.

"We'll force you to evolve!"

"The beatings will continue until the morale improves!"

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko


Remember, i largely agree with your values; what i disgree with, is your assumption that US ethics is more evolved than Iraq ethics (whatever that is), and that therefore a less evolved society threatening a more evolved society ethically justifies righteous conquest.

"We'll force you to evolve!"

"The beatings will continue until the morale improves!" [/B]

:D Well, once again we must agree to disagree. Thanks for the time tho Vic, it's been a blast! :D

-z

[DrChinese]

Oh, by the way...

Did they find the chemical weapons of mass destruction yet????

So far: papers found in English with formulas on it; barrels of goop which test negative; and a pesticide plant. Did I leave anything out?

[crackmonkey]

Not that I've heard. Why?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

I am not sure, but are we still waiting on the conclusive proof? I know what's done is done, but I thought evidence was forth coming?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
I am not sure, but are we still waiting on the conclusive proof? I know what's done is done, but I thought evidence was forth coming?


where is the conclusive proof?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe



where is the conclusive proof?

Would you count: a baggie filled with salt water, projected by a big rubber band, as a chemical warhead?

Before it is all over, I expect Wolfowitz to testify before Congress and pull one of these out to prove the Saddam threat was "real".

[Tricky]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Would you count: a baggie filled with salt water, projected by a big rubber band, as a chemical warhead?

Before it is all over, I expect Wolfowitz to testify before Congress and pull one of these out to prove the Saddam threat was "real".
But if he does that, we'll have to overthrow Wolfowitz! :eek:

[American]

I normally don't believe stuff Denise says, but she may be right this time.

2 years to the day.... what a coink-y-dink.

[American]

Oh. It was bumped. Ooopsie daisy..... :D