THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yeah, right - if you quote me correctly! There's a big difference between what I post from another source, and what I write as a personal opinion. Yeah, right!

I apologize for my error. I did in deed jump to the conclusion that what you posted was in complete harmony with your own opinion. I wish to assure you that I shall not make that mistake again. Sad

0 Replies

Quote:

However, one generally cannot prove for certain that the axioms and definitions are true.

I agree with you here, Ican. If you start from a certain first principle and follow in logic all of the conclusions that could be drawn from it, you can prove anything that is contained within that first principle. If a fellow conversant starts from a different first principle, it is likely that the two of you will never come to common ground. If one person starts from "God Exists" as a first principle, and a fellow conversant starts with "It is not possible to know that God exists," there is really no way they can have a meaningful conversation.

Quote:

What we are generally debating here is whether or not a real threat to millions of people would have existed with a continuation of Saddam's regime.

My objection to this question is that it is a violation of the principles of logic to speculate on any outcome other than the one that has taken place. There are too many variables or contingencies that could have occurred or might have happened to affect the outcome.

Quote:

I claim that debate will go no where until we agree on the definition of real threat.

This term is too amorphous to define, as I see it.

Quote:

In addition, we must agree on this axiom or one like it:

A real threat cannot be transformed into an unreal threat in any other way than by destroying the cause of that real threat.

In order to say this, you would indeed have to define real threat, which is to me virtually indefinable. Having said that, I might define a real threat as one that has been stated to be so by the threatener: e.g., We in Al-qaeda will attack and destroy at every opportunity the infidels of the West.

_________________
Certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. Get over it!

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

My objection to this question is that it is a violation of the principles of logic to speculate on any outcome other than the one that has taken place. There are two many variables or contingencies that could have occurred or might have happened to affect the outcome.

Up to but not including this point in your response we were in complete agreement.

My problem with this point is I infer from it that you think statistical inference or probabilistic inference is a violation of the laws of logic. While any disciplined analysis can violate the laws of logic if illogically applied, I think that rational intelligence folks can and do this once in a while validly. Since we are speculating here anyway, why not speculate on that which influences our survival or demise?

Kara wrote:

In order to say this, you would indeed have to define real threat, which is to me virtually indefinable. Having said that, I might define a real threat as one that has been stated to be so by the threatener: e.g., We in Al-qaeda will attack and destroy at every opportunity the infidels of the West.

Ok! Let's get even more specific. A real threat is a threat which has more than a 10% probability of being fulfilled or at least being attempted to being fulfilled.

For example, I consider the following by a threatener to also be a real threat:

First paragraph from bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa:

Quote:

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement

23 February 1998
... [co-signed by multiple Muslim clerics]...
Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders. ...

One more time:

Quote:

I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped

There exists ample evidence that Saddam supported the effect if not the cause of this point of view by rewarding the families of suicide terrorists in Palestine, providing terrorist training facilities in Irag (e.g., the fuselage of a Boeing 727), meeting with and aiding terrorist leaders. That is, he did not justify his actions by appeal to Allah. He justified his actions by his claim that Iraq was entitled by its history to rule over certain countries/territories and that America and Israel were getting in the way. So Saddam was eager to use the jihadists to help him reach his objectives.

0 Replies

Ican, I agree with you about the fatwas. Those are threats.

Quote:

There exists ample evidence that Saddam supported the effect if not the cause of this point of view by rewarding the families of suicide terrorists in Palestine, providing terrorist training facilities in Irag (e.g., the fuselage of a Boeing 727), meeting with and aiding terrorist leaders. That is, he did not justify his actions by appeal to Allah. He justified his actions by his claim that Iraq was entitled by its history to rule over certain countries/territories and that America and Israel were getting in the way. So Saddam was eager to use the jihadists to help him reach his objectives.

I disagree with you that this regional "terrorist," if you insist on that definition, was any threat to us at all. We lost our moment in dealing with terrorism when we turned aside to fight a foolish, sad, and misguided war. The desperate disregarded warmongers keep asking, Well, isn't the world better off without Saddam Hussein? My only answer to that question is, Of course, the world is better off. But what have you traded for that "better off"? Almost 600 American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and thousands of maimed, limbless, and otherwise lost to the world injured and wounded. Are you happy to "trade off" all of that disaster for "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein"? The word I would use in response is not allowed on A2K.

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

I disagree with you that this regional "terrorist," if you insist on that definition, was any threat to us at all. We lost our moment in dealing with terrorism when we turned aside to fight a foolish, sad, and misguided war.

I think we have not turned aside from the Terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewere to the terrorists in Iraq. The Afghan campaign of destruction of al Qaeda and the Taliban has proceeded and is proceeding nicely. Many terrorists did collect and are collecting in Iraq. Of course, whereever they are, they must be destroyed; they will not be converted; they will not be rehabilitated. Continue watching and listening carefully to all the relevant media. You will get all the evidence you need to convince you of the truth of the forgoing.

Kara wrote:

... Of course, the world is better off. But what have you traded for that "better off"?

It is a horrible bitter tradeoff anytime a people goes to war to defend themselves against present and/or future threats. The death toll in WWII was enormous: millions were killed and millions more were crippled. The Quwait campaign was deadly for thousands. So were and are the Bosnian and Afghan campaignes. So is the Palestinian-Israeli war. Iraq is no different except perhaps for its tens of thousands of dead and crippled Iraqi soldiers and citizens who served Saddam or who are serving Saddam's replacements.

A careful analysis of the news is essential to understand and distinguish the fantasy from the real, the propaganda from the facts, the hate from the love, the fear from the courage, the intentions from the accomplishments, and the failures from the successes.

0 Replies

This is not quite on point to this discussion, but I hope that most of you have caught on to the importance and relevance of the 9-11 hearings of the past two days, and go with much haste to any venue you have to catch up on the events unfolding.

0 Replies

Quote:

against present and/or future threats.

Iraq was not a present or future threat to us.

Quote:

Many terrorists did collect and are collecting in Iraq.

There were no more terrorists in Iraq before we attacked the country than there are in many other countries, including our own. We created a vacuum and cranked up Muslim hatred. The terrorists rushed in.

Quote:

Iraq is no different except perhaps for its tens of thousands of dead and crippled Iraqi soldiers and citizens who served Saddam or who are serving Saddam's replacements.

How does this compare to the tens of thousands of Iraqis that WE killed?

I would lay my reading and listening next to yours any day, as well as my analysis of same.

0 Replies

Hey guys,

Someone sent me this link. Would appreciate your gut reaction to both the article, and the home page (link at bottom of the article). Ever heard of this group?

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GOD111A.html

0 Replies

Sumac: The source itself appears more slanted than Salon.com. Pistoff will probably love it (No slight; he likes that stuff).
A careful reading of the article tells me that the Taliban was told to cough up Bin Laden or else. We are not privy to what was said at the meetings; it may have been an oil negotiation as described or, more likely, it had a theme more like an "intervention". I doubt a 6 + 2 meeting involving Afghanistan's neighbors, the US and Russia would be there to discuss a dirty oil deal. That's to many witnesses. I think it more likely they were there to discuss the Taliban's internal and external policies and to set some ground rules for same. I think if the US had been there for the sole purpose of OIL, the Russian's would have screamed bloody murder long ago. It just doesn't add up.

0 Replies

The oil deal is old hat, no new news there. It is well know that Bush was in bed early with the Taliban for the pipeline.................

0 Replies

That wasn't being debated BillW. The implied purpose of these meetings is where I think the article is stretching beyond the breaking point.

0 Replies

It simply asked for my gut feeling, I gave it Laughing

0 Replies

My bad Bill; I thought you were responding to my post.

0 Replies

tidak apa apa - no problem amigo...........

0 Replies

It is well know that Bush was in bed early with the Taliban for the pipeline.................BillW said:
(I'm too lazy to go up and do it properly).

Which Bush and when? Are you serious? If true, will we never learn that it is bad policy and ultimately bad business to support bad people?

I can't believe it.

0 Replies

Remember, they aren't bad people if we support them! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203A.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html

It's never a question of which Bush - they are a family with Carlisle connections. Their allegience is to Carlisle and money.

0 Replies

I should think that they have enough of their own.

0 Replies

One would think <sigh> one would think. What motivates mankind to do the things they do Question

0 Replies

sumac, thanks for the link.

My reading was cursory but it seemed it mentioned that the Bush Admin people offered a peaceful solution to the Bin Laden situation and somehow this was a Bad Thing. This seems a situation like that encountered in the FedEx commercial where the recipient of a package complains that his package was delivered exactly when they said it would be. Are the publishers of this article disappointed because the Taliban regime was unwise or that the Bush administration did what they said they would do given Taliban intransigence?

Then there is this from the article:

Quote:

"Brisard and Dasquie contest the U.S. government's claim that it had been seeking to try bin Laden since the attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. "Actually," Dasquie says, "the first state to officially prosecute bin Laden was Libya, on the charges of terrorism." "Bin Laden wanted to settle in Libya in the early 1990s, but was hindered by the government of Muammar Qaddafi," Dasquie claims. "Enraged by Libya's refusal, bin Laden organized attacks inside Libya, including assassination attempts against Qaddafi."

The fact that any country was "the first state to officially prosecute bin Laden" cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the U.S. failed to so endeavor. However, the actions of Libya, an Arab state not above using terrorism, against bin Laden, an Arab terrorist, are instructive. It would seem they have developed a policy towards that particular mode of self expression so demonstrated by bin Laden. Since the book in question was completed before 9/11 we cannot accuse the authors of second guessing the Bush Admin's changed policy towards the Taliban after that fateful day in September but we can question the purpose of this article as to why it seems to want to damn the Bush administration for seeking peaceful means to a sticky situation.

Well, Bunky, it seems it's all about "The Oil"! Of course it's about the oil. As I, and others have mentioned in this thread, (way, way back) the Middle East (ME) is important not because Israel is there but because it possess a significant amount of the world's oil reserves. Some would like us to believe the United Sates is evil because it uses so much oil, so much so that it can be considered to be addicted to oil. This implication of moral weakness is simply incorrect because the whole world depends upon oil. Can we really charge the planet's human population with such immorality for wanting better living conditions? The fact is that a significant and quick disruption in oil supply would be a disaster for the global economy. (This is one of the important reasons why a Saddam in Kuwait was intolerable)

Then we have the age old charge of greedy corporations trying to make money. Capitalist Pigs! -- Please! In the words of John Stossel: "Give Me a Break!" Were U.S. Firms trying to make a buck? Yes, absolutely, nothing wrong there. Were they going for a monopoly? Of course, that's what all business wants and strives towards. A U.S. administration trying to freeze the Russians out of the oil game in the ME? Sounds good to me! It's a zero sum game, so, better the U.S. has control than, well, anybody else (The U.S. is the one of the few countries where, if necessary, the masses can change policy).

About the CRG (The web site publishers): It equates war with globalization. Wrong. It sees the European military establishment (NATO)in Co hoots with the Pentagon and the CIA-- probably other intelligence services too. This seems a bad thing to CRG. Why? Then we find that the IMF, World Bank, and just for good measure, all those greedy capitalists on Wall Street have their hooks into NATO also.

We also find more questionable characters systematically trying to deceive the world in that:

Quote:

"The powers behind this system are those of the global banks and financial institutions, the military-industrial complex, the oil and energy giants, the biotech conglomerates and the powerful media and communications giants, which fabricate the news and overtly distorts the course of world events. In turn, the police apparatus represses, in the name of "Western democracy", all forms of dissent and critique of the dominant neoliberal ideology"

Seems quite a conspiracy, even the media is in on it! Fortunately, we may assume the CRG is above such attempts to lead us all down the garden path. What is noteworthy is that this group is made up of "progressive writers, scholars and activists". This assures us that CRG members are not only willing to think and write about such injustices but that their actions are legitimized in the name of progress. This is comforting in that it implies all other thinking and concepts are outdated and therefore invalid. Thank goodness this group is looking out for us! CRG's assault against

Quote:

"The New World Order...based on the "false consensus" of Washington and Wall Street, which ordains the "free market system" "

seems vaguely familiar. Are these mere leftist or worse?

JM

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know