What the hell is George Bush talking about?

PDiddie wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
A big deal was made over O'Neill's revelation that the Bush Administration was making plans for an invasion of Iraq almost as soon as they moved into the White House. Oops. Then we learn that the Clinton Administration had been making the very same plans, and that in fact those plans were required after a law was passed in 1998 making regime change in Iraq an integral part of American foreign policy.

Elementary school English:

plan - noun - a detailed formulation of a program of action

Did the Clinton administration have a plan (filed away somewhere) for toppling Saddam Hussein?

Yes.

Did the Bush administration have a plan for toppling Saddam Hussein?

Yes.

plan - verb - to have as a specific aim or purpose; intend: They plan to buy a house.

Did the Clinton administration plan to topple Saddam Hussein?

No.

Did the Bush administration plan to topple Saddam Hussein?

Yes, as early as the first weeks of Bush's term.

Conservatives would have us believe that there was no difference between Clinton and Bush because they each had a plan (the noun) for toppling Hussein.

But the difference is that Clinton did not plan (the verb) to do so.

Bush did -- right from the start, prior to 9/11 -- and the wisdom of that is what is at question.

Speculate much?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon

You seem like an intelligent, well-informed, decent human being...

...but you are revising history in order to rationalize what we've done here.

If things truly are the way you now say they were with regard for the reason being given by this administration for going to war the way they did and when they did...

...why didn't they put the message out there the way you are now?

(This is the third time I've asked that question -- using various wordings.)

Thanks. I will try to answer your question. I believe that I have stated the reasons why an invasion was necessary. The Bush administration and supporters often put out approximately the same argument that I am, but, depending on exactly who you listened to, sometimes their logic was confused, and sometimes they made arguments that were peripheral to the central issues. I believe that they attempted to put out the message that I am, but that sometimes they didn't do a good job of it. Among the various people who argued for the war, I seem to recall that Cheney gave relevant, correct arguments most of the times I heard him.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

....And like I said, I have nothing but contempt for the arguments that use things like "evil".....

There is only so much time I have to spend on this, but I would at least like to address a few points. I didn't mean that we should atack Hussein because he is evil. I didn't mean anything of the kind. I meant that because he is so evil, we cannot allow him to possess weapons of this destructive power. It seems to me self-evident that a latter day Hitler ought not to be allowed to possess WMD. You say that "evil" is a fantasy. I say that it is real. Do you mean, when you say that it is a fantasy, that there is no one who fits the commonly used definitions of evil? I think that there are people who seem to qualify under the definition. In what sense is it a fantasy?

I agree that at the end of WW2, the US used nuclear weapons to target civilians intentionally. What I am saying is that George Bush has not launched attacks in which civlians were the intended target. In every war, civilians will die, and sometimes the military planners know in advance of a specific attack that civilians will die, but this is not the same as launching an attack in which the goal is to kill civilians.

You have called the possibility of a WMD being set off in the US a "boogeyman" and a "fantasy." I believe that it is a real possibility because:

1. The weapons exist.
2. There are people who would like to use them against us.
3. As technology advances, WMD become accessible to more people. Once only the US and Russia could muster the resources to create a nuclear weapon, now a number of countries have them, and more all the time. Bioweapons are even easier to make.
4. If, over time, periodically people try to get a WMD into the US and set it off, eventually someone will succeeed. Does anyone doubt that terrorists would do it if they could?
5. If even one nuclear bomb or an effective bioweapon were used in the US, the resulting death toll could be exceptionally high.

The logic here is by no means fantastical. Why do you characterize this as a fantasy?

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Since Craven and others have done cavalier work of puréeing your arguments into a creamy fallacy mousse...

Actually, all of your arguments are wrong, and, in most cases so far, the flaws in the logic have been pretty obvious. What you are doing is simply drowning me in a high volume of words, since my time is not unlimited.

Quote:

....Bush started a war which has killed 500 American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi innocents....

Hussein killed at least a million civilians during his tenure in office, and also tortured many. If left in office, he would soon have killed more people than the number of lives lost in getting him out.

0 Replies

I thank you for that response, Brandon. And I truly understand where you are coming from.

But...

...surely you see that the objections some of us have to your characterizations of what was said in justification of the invasion -- are hardly the kind of thing that can be brushed aside as cavalierly as you and others are attempting to do now that the MAIN two issues have pretty much been shown to be false. And that there is plenty to suggest that the major parties to the decision to go to a preemptive strike HAD PLENTY OF REASON TO REALIZE THOSE TWO ISSUES WERE, if not false, certainly questionable. Very questionable.

Any realistic look at developments has to point to the fact that the administration knew they were hyping dubious reasons for the invasion -- at the expense of what you now assert were the REAL reasons.

And now, well-meaning individuals such as you are attempting to make it look as though any questioning of this is off base, in some way.

My recollection of things before the invasion -- and I think my recollection is fairly keen in this regard -- is that the Bush administration used the "we want to stop a vicious dictator" reason -- but that they played that element of their arguments way down - and allowed the "they've got weapons poised" and "Saddam is joined at the hip to Al Queda" WAY, WAY UP!

That is the way it was. We wanted to put an end to a brutal regime - but we intended to do it on our schedule and in the way we wanted to do it BECAUSE the weapons presented a threat to our country and because Saddam was an integral part of Al Queda.

And we did all that for good reasons, Brandon.

If the administration had "played the game" the way you are trying to suggest they did play it -- it is reasonable to assume THEY NEVER would have gotten anywhere near the approval from the congress and from the people that they both wanted and needed.

In every reasonable sense of the words -- the administration lied and mislead the public and the world.

Acknowledge that!

Then, if you choose, simply assert that you are a part of the admittedly large number of people who feel the ends justified the means in this instance.

I will continue to disagree with you and with them - and I suspect many of the people arguing in this thread will also..

Just as I suspect a large number of people feel the ends do justify the means in this instance, I suspect an even larger number of people feel the ends did not justify the means -- and the precedent set of preemptive strikes on the part of the United States is too high a price to have paid for getting rid of this scumbagh.

But at least if you acknowledge all of that rather than inferring that we are being unfair in saying that what happened actually happened -- the air will be cleared -- because Brandon -- it could not be more clear that the administration deceived us all with distortions, misrepresentations and out-and-out lies in order to justify and initiate this invasion.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:

....And like I said, I have nothing but contempt for the arguments that use things like "evil".....

There is only so much time I have to spend on this, but I would at least like to address a few points. I didn't mean that we should atack Hussein because he is evil. I didn't mean anything of the kind. I meant that because he is so evil, we cannot allow him to possess weapons of this destructive power.

Good! So you supported the continued inspections and not the invasion right? Laughing

Quote:

It seems to me self-evident that a latter day Hitler ought not to be allowed to possess WMD.

Correct, the specter of Hitler in the modern age should not have WMDs, just as the boogeyman shouldn't.

Quote:

You say that "evil" is a fantasy. I say that it is real. Do you mean, when you say that it is a fantasy, that there is no one who fits the commonly used definitions of evil? I think that there are people who seem to qualify under the definition. In what sense is it a fantasy?

Look, like I said before if this philosophical point is crucial to you feel free to assume that it exists. I am perfectly willing to discuss this with you even based on the premise that "evil" is not a fictional concept.

Quote:

I agree that at the end of WW2, the US used nuclear weapons to target civilians intentionally. What I am saying is that George Bush has not launched attacks in which civlians were the intended target. In every war, civilians will die, and sometimes the military planners know in advance of a specific attack that civilians will die, but this is not the same as launching an attack in which the goal is to kill civilians.

It's called predictable consequences. Knowingly deciding a course of action that will inevitably kill civilians is to intentionally decide on a course of action that will inevitably them.

Now I agree that it's morally superior than having as its goal their deaths, and while I don't think you have supported Saddam's purported intent I am willing to let this slide as well.

Quote:

You have called the possibility of a WMD being set off in the US a "boogeyman" and a "fantasy." I believe that it is a real possibility because:

1. The weapons exist.
2. There are people who would like to use them against us.
3. As technology advances, WMD become accessible to more people.

Your logical error is in that you do not delienate between probability and possibility.

Yes, it's possible that the US will suffer a nuclear attack. But it's also "possible" that the US will never suffer a nuclear attack.

So get back to me about probablity, not possibility. As almost everything is "possible" this is pointless.

I call it fantasy because you have in no way supported the probability of Iraq doing so, in fact this represents significant complications for you and it is for this reason that you, in your above argument, have ceased to argue about Iraq at all.

Watch:

Quote:

1. The weapons exist.

Yes, in the USA for example, but not in Iraq.

Quote:

2. There are people who would like to use them against us.

I'm sure there are, but that's a piss-poor argument for invading a specific nation to topple a specific leader to whom you can ascribe no intent to do so.

Quote:

3. As technology advances, WMD become accessible to more people.

This axiom is irrelevant to invading Iraq as it's not exclusive to Iraq at all. It is, in fact, the most inclusive type of statement.

So like I said, your arguments can easily be repurposed to any aim, let's keep it to the subject of the invaded nation.

An easy test to determine if it is at all relevant is to ask yourself whether it would make a difference at all if Iraq were invaded.

In this axiom you posted (in support for Invading Iraq) the answer is it will not make a damn bit of difference. The axiom is true regardless of whether or not Iraq is invaded.

Quote:

Once only the US and Russia could muster the resources to create a nuclear weapon, now a number of countries have them, and more all the time. Bioweapons are even easier to make.
4. If, over time, periodically people try to get a WMD into the US and set it off, eventually someone will succeeed. Does anyone doubt that terrorists would do it if they could?
5. If even one nuclear bomb or an effective bioweapon were used in the US, the resulting death toll could be exceptionally high.

The logic here is by no means fantastical. Why do you characterize this as a fantasy?

Ok, let me state it to you again.

I consider it fantasy to argue that we needed to invade Iraq at the time we did due to the threat of nuclear attacks on ths US.

As I state, anything is possible, even the boogeyman. I call it absurd and idiotic fantasy based on it's probability, not mere possibility.

I call it idiotic and absurd fantasy because even if it were both probable and possible you have done nothing to argue for the urgency of the invasion as opposed to other means that were suceeding.

So yes, stating the possibility of a boogeyman is swell and dandy. You can state the possibility of almost any absurd fantasy you can conjure. Most realize that mere possibility is not in any way comparable to probablity.

That is logical error number 1 for you.

Error number two is to exclude alternate means without any basis for doing so.

So please, argue about probablity, not mere possibility.

Argue about why this particular means to the end, as opposed to alternate means, because we agree in large part on the end.

0 Replies

Craven wrote: "international law gives very very little lee way for pre-emption at all, and no allowance whatsoever of "preemption" of an act that isn't even likely or imminent. "

and

Frank wrote: "the precedent set of preemptive strikes on the part of the United States is too high a price to have paid for getting rid of this scumbagh."

We all want to make our country (and the world) safer from the threat of terrorism. Does UNILATERAL pre-emption work to do that ?

Or does it foster resentment among masses of people in foreign countries from whose ranks terrorist organizations hope to draw recruits?

And among our long-term international allies who have been shown in-your-face disrespect and dismissed as irrelevent, and who would likely have been willing to offer more support had we had the patience and wisdom to use diplomacy to build a coalition rather than lie about the immediacy of the threat to justify our military agenda?

And among the American people who love their country but hate being lied to, and have now been seriously divided by a president who ran for office as someone who would strive to bring people together ?

-----------------------

During the cold war, there were two existing superpowers (and one emerging one) who kept each other in check. We would not have dreamed of making any pre-emptive strikes, and neither would the Soviet Union.

I think I felt safer then.

We now pretty much have free reign to do as we wish militarily around the world - no one can match our military power. How sad that this administration chooses to flaunt that power and use it to unilaterally implement policy through fear and the threat of invasion. America is better than this. America is smarter than this.

As I said before, this will surely foster resentment around the world, feed the terrorist ranks for years to come, and, in the end, no one will be safer from the threat we all seek to diminish.

0 Replies

Good post, Angie.

We are not any safer -- and we are not likely to get any safer using these tactics.

One would think that grown men and women would finally grasp the fact that you cannot garner respect by trying to bully your way to it.

Unfortunately, this group in Washington has mass myopia. How else can the possibly have gotten into the incredible position of essentially espousing:

We have to protect our precious freedoms even if we have to give them up to do so!

I never thought I'd see this day.

0 Replies

What the hell is George Bush talking about?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know