Iraqi WMD's non-existence still confounding some buggers!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 14, 2007 17:16
VIEWED: 19028
PAGE 8 of 27
You know Finn- when I come across people who seem to know more than I do - who make better predictions - I go out of my way to learn from them. I suppose your defensiveness about your background and education won't let you do that.
If you have to tell yourself that people who were right when you were wrong are just mean-spirited lucky guessers, then go right ahead and do that if it makes you feel better.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was certain. Could I go to Iraq and verify what I was sure about? Of course not. But did I have any doubt whatsoever? No.
Quote:You're looking at the wrong precedent, my friend. I can point out a number of times that leaders have gone to war... or taken military action... for reasons that they dare not say out loud. Remember the Tonkin Gulf? The Mayaguez? Grenada? The Falklands? Panama? In hindsight, the "reasons" why a military action was taken don't stand up to the scrutiny of history.
Historical precedent? At no time in history has a nation believed to have WMD turn out to have them?
Quote:Just assume that what you're told has little to do with the truth. Take a step back and try not to be so engaged in the moment- take a historical perspective.
Lack of trust in most politicians – so what?
Quote:No: Believed to have had. Which everyone knew were no longer useful (except mustard gas) What they were doing - aside from looking for active WMD programs- was an accounting of the weapons that Saddam claimed to have destroyed but didn't document.
Reports from Blix – Blix went before the UN and listed tons of biological and chemical weapons Saddam was believed to have.
Quote:Finn, politicians only tell you what they want you to hear when they want you to hear it. They seek to manipulate you to further their own agendas. Take a step back, put it in that context. Most politicians lie. And I don't mean about little stuff like whether they go to church, I mean about whether to go to war or bankrupt the country.
The timing and tone of the administration statements – again so what?
Quote:No, it's not based on ideology. I'm not a Democrat, I didn't vote for Clinton (and I could give you a long list of things that he did that galled me, starting wtih NAFTA), I think Hillary is dangerous. But I know when I'm being manipulated. If you want to call that an insightful guess, that's fine with me. But it was a guess based on lots of experience and analysis.
What you did was make a guess, based largely on your political ideology more than any kind of real knowledge. Now if you want to admit that you made a guess, even an insightful guess, I can believe that and even tip my hat to your insight, but if you’re going to insist that you somehow knew what you couldn’t possibly have known, don’t bother, because I’m not that stupid.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is a key point of disagreement: the sole reason I did not scream loudly at the start of the war was -only- due to the threat that Sadam had WMD; nothing else justified the war, imho. Of course, the real question is what was there a significant portion of the US public who felt the same way; harder to say. But it seems to me that there were a goodly number of folks in that leaky boat.
Originally posted by Hero:
And the WMDs were only one issue in the multi-issue cause for war that the administration presented. If we had ten good reasons and 1 bad one, then the war is still good.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero, from a LEGAL perspective there is only one reason to pre-emptively attack and that is when faced with imminent danger. And even that notion isn't fully supported. There was nothing imminent about Saddam.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And that's why Bush had to call it a preventative war. Though there's no such definition in international law - a fact that was pointed out at the time.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Being mean-spirited has nothing to do with the WMD issue.
Originally posted by rue:
If you have to tell yourself that people who were right when you were wrong are just mean-spirited lucky guessers, then go right ahead if it makes you feel better.
I happen to think that there is a lot to be said for insightful guesses, most of the opinions I’ve had that turned out to be right were more often than not guesses. But when someone tries to convince me that they knew all along something that they couldn’t possibly have known – that’s a red flag that this person is trying to inflate the reliability of their opinions.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In Signy's case, it's called having specific scientific knowledge of certain realities.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You didn’t know. You bet against your country and may have gotten lucky, and now you’re trying to pass that off as knowledge.
When Bush wanted to go into Afghanistan, I didn't yell that we shouldn't, just 'cause it was Bush sayin' it. But when the frenzy to invade Iraq started, I smelled Horse poop all over it.
Like when 'scientific' reports showed how 'good' margerine was for you, I balked. It was another case of finding or creating the evidence to support the findings they wanted.
In my case, common sence sufficed (but not so common as it should be, clearly).
And most of us don't BET against our country, we just call foul when we see it. It's just too bad that recently it's been often.
Chrisisall, no believer in real-life Treknobabble
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It prolly depends on what you mean by "know". Was I certain? Yes. Was Rue certain? Yes. Does that constitute "knowing"? Well, I've predicted this kind of stuff b4. I know how it works, I have confidence in my model based on past success. IMHO yes.
that they knew all along something that they couldn’t possibly have known
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There were other things that justified the war in my mind and probably in the minds of many key policy makers in the administrations, but the WMD issue was seen as the strongest argument to make as the CB to the public. And this was Fletch2’s point, that the administration would never have focused on this issue if they didn’t believe it completely. That makes a lot of sense.
Originally posted by leadb:Quote:This is a key point of disagreement: the sole reason I did not scream loudly at the start of the war was -only- due to the threat that Sadam had WMD; nothing else justified the war, imho. Of course, the real question is what was there a significant portion of the US public who felt the same way; harder to say. But it seems to me that there were a goodly number of folks in that leaky boat.
Originally posted by Hero:
And the WMDs were only one issue in the multi-issue cause for war that the administration presented. If we had ten good reasons and 1 bad one, then the war is still good.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Absolutely technically speaking, I can see your point. No one could "KNOW".
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I happen to think that there is a lot to be said for insightful guesses,
But in that way, I can only guess that Mt. Everest exists; I've never actually seen it...and I can only guess that Earth has only one moon since I can't PROVE a second or third one doesn't exist.
I plead guilty to leaning according to a propondererance of evidence- not first-hand conclusive proof.
Not perfected yet Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME