As A Wise Man, Umm, Guy, Once Said

@revelette2,

Is obtuse and inability to understand simple facts the same thing.

@RABEL222,

I'm not revelette2, but yes obtuse is actually a stultifying version of stupid.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

if Bush was provided with such poor intelligence and was somehow unable to find out the truth - which was covered in media around the world , you're saying something even more disturbing about his presidency than him simply lying

Brandon claims Bush was just stupid, you say he was being deceptive.

Can't he be both?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

I should have said deliberately obtuse. Is there a word for that?

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Obtuse is fine. I was just trying to be cute. Fell flat dident I?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

No, it was a good straight line. Brandon has a thimble full of information, so it's not easy to cover all the bases.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Found it as reprint at Libanvision. The interview really seems to have been in French and not in English as your quotation suggests. (If it is a translation, it should be done correctly.) And there's more than those sentences in the original version (if Libanvision archived the interview correctly)

Chirac was never convinced that Saddam had developed a new arsenal. He was simply, in that article, not dismissing the idea outright.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

But only for those who can read ... Wink

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

I'm sure a smart, but stubborn, young person has heard of satellites. What do you think they are used for, television shows and phone calls? Can you possibly think of another application????

During the Stone Age, we used jets to run surveillance over areas the US saw as problematic. Kennedy actually published the photos showing how the USSR was installing missiles on Cuban Soil. If your great great great grandfather is still alive, ask him how serious the American public took that threat. I believe you can still find information regarding "The Cuban Missile Crisis". Kennedy engaged Kruchev in a game of nuclear chicken. Kruchev blinked first.

So, after 9/11, without a rational, Bush decided to abandon the search for Bin Laden, because his advisors convinced him Saddam was attempting to develop WMD. He may have believed the lie, but it was still a lie. Wolofowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld hammered away at their suspicions to force leadership of the intell agencies to back them up, and since the leadership are appointed, it was easier to give the war criminals what they wanted.

What should keep you up at night is that the decisions made to invade Iraq were based solely on the fears of a handful of advisors who were not capable of interpreting the intelligence. They refused to believe the people who worked intell for decades and chose instead to go with their gut.

What everybody else should worry about, is that you are so poorly informed you actually believe you are in a debate. I hate to trot out an old adage, but, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. So deny all you want, more knowledgable people will be embarrassed for you. You actually embody what the rest of the world thinks of Americans. You make my country look like a bunch of hayseeds. I resent that, because you're just another lazy dope who thinks they know everything. I consider you a blemish on the integrity of my country. How can you possibly be so dense???? Nevermind, I know why.

Insult is the lowest form of debate. Claiming that smart people agree with you is called "testimonial" and is also irrelevant. You have to actually make your points or else you simply lose the debate.

Since Saddam Hussein had actually had nuclear and biological weapons programs, since he was known to be a very bad person, since he had invaded neighbors more than once indicating an aggressive desire to conquer, and since he apparently couldn't be persuaded to comply with verification that he had destroyed his weapons programs, strong suspicion that he had hidden his WMD programs instead of destroying them was perfectly reasonable. It was also a common opinion of world leaders and ordinary people at the time:

We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.
— Robert Byrd, October 2002

Furthermore, the stakes were very, very high. Nuclear and biological weapons are so powerful that one use of one could kill half a million people. Even strong suspicion that an evil monster is a step away from perfecting them justifies military action if peaceful methods have failed.

What are you going to do the next time - and there will be many next times - a horrible dictator is strongly suspected of being close to developing nuclear or biological weapons but denies it? Wait until he kills hundreds of thousands, maybe even in America, before taking action?
There is no reasonable grounds for supposing Bush wasn't simply one of the many people who believed it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
if Bush was provided with such poor intelligence and was somehow unable to find out the truth - which was covered in media around the world , you're saying something even more disturbing about his presidency than him simply lying

Brandon claims Bush was just stupid, you say he was being deceptive.

Can't he be both?

I'm claiming that Bush probably believed what many, many people including many Democratic leaders believed. The idea that Saddam Hussein might have merely taken his prior WMD programs underground was certainly not implausible. Furthermore, the stakes were high, since these weapons are so powerful.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

But only for those who can read ...

Use ad hominems when you can't win on facts.

What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.
- Jacques Chirac 2002

You haven't made this quotation go away, even if it is a translation, nor the one I gave from the Australian foreign secretary, nor the ones I gave from American Democratic leaders. The quotations I have given demonstrate that suspicion that Iraq had hidden rather than destroyed its former WMD programs was common at the time.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

"Evidence" pumps up the French "indices", which is closer to "clues". Less definitive, more difficult to interpret than "evidence". "Laissent à penser" can be translated as "may lead to think"--not sure about the exact nuance expressed in English there--but the meaning is French is that it may also lead to think something else. In other words, it means that "one possible interpretation of these clues is that Saddam may be rearming." Very tentative.

What I find funny is the contrast between other threads where you lecture people about rationalism and loath unsupported beliefs, yet you still think the war in Iraq was a rational, fact-based thing to do... Here you go picking and choosing some words by Chirac among an ocean of evidence that he did nit trust the US propaganda on this issue, just so you can keep believing in you favorite lunacy.

Guijohn is also very funny in the same way. He thinks that global warming is a hoax... He reads books paid for by Exxon and co, written by an electric engineer, that tell him what he wants to hear and voilà! He can still pretend to himself and others that he is 100% rational... :-)

That should be a lesson for the no-belief crowd. It's much much easier to believe that you don't have beliefs, than it is to not have beliefs... In fact, the best way to remain a slave to your disproved beliefs forever, is to be naively unaware that you may harbor some belief.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

You haven't made this quotation go away, even if it is a translation, nor the one I gave from the Australian foreign secretary, nor the ones I gave from American Democratic leaders. The quotations I have given demonstrate that suspicion that Iraq had hidden rather than destroyed its former WMD programs was common at the time.

I don't mind what the Australian foreign secretary said - thus, I didn't reply to it.

And again: it isn't a "quotation" (= something that a person says or writes that is repeated or used by someone else in another piece of writing or a speech, from Latin quotare] but a translated sentences taken out of the context of the complete reply to a question during an interview at the sommet of the French speaking countries.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Use ad hominems when you can't win on facts.

I responded to olivier. I've posted the "facts" (= the interview) above. It has nothing to do with win or loose but with the fact that the full interview is online.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

[quote="Brandon9000I'm claiming that Bush probably believed what many, many people including many Democratic leaders believed. [/quote]

That's a lie, very few people believed he had WMDs. Those who thought he might have them wanted Hans Blix to be allowed to do his job.

If Hans Blix had been allowed to do his job he would have confirmed Saddam Hussein had no WMDs. It was academic because Bush had already decided to invade, and at the time most Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11, a misconception Bush was in no hurry to dispel.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

It is almost as though Brandon chooses to ignore there was an ongoing weapons inspections team in Iraq which was slowly coming to the conclusion there wasn't a stockpile of WMD but scattered remains of the old ones still around which could have been dealt with too without having to go to war. Rehashing this argument is so old I can't believe we are still doing now in the year 2014.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

So, you don't understand how satellite recon works, you haven't a clue how successful military actions are planned, you've probably never studied warfare. Leadership is always provided a best case and worse case scenario so they can make the best possible decision, while still being aware of the actual risks if things go wrong.
You mention many ordinary people were convinced we were on the eve of destruction. Do you recall seeing any thing that remotely resembled an overhead shot? Have you given any thought how difficult it would be to attempt to hid stockpiles? Moving something from A to B is a big undertaking and would be extremely hard to avoid overhead from noticing. Unless you think they were able to stuff chemical weapons in a backpack and just hoof it back and forth. Going underground without detection sounds frightening, however, we are talking about the Middle East, not making a futuristic fantasy film starring Tom Cruise. Hollywood makes ridiculous scorched earth end of the world nightmares for our entertainment.

Building a huge underground facility also requires transporting massive amounts of earth. Since projects like that can't be completed in 4 hours, it would be noticed by the overhead analysts.

Brandon, your mother may think you are the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you are actually embarrassing yourself by clinging to an imaginary view of intell collection. I'm not saying you're dumb, you just don't understand how the intell community works. On second thought, thats a good thing. Also, you should ask yourself why France declined to participate in the Iraq invasion, but did support the US when Afganistan was attacked. The entire world was shocked by the attacks on 9/11, they wanted to support us. When it became obvious that the administration lost the focus, we were on our own. Congress tried to have French fries renamed Freedom fries in the House and Senate cafeterias. That's how our massive group of nincompoops in Congress reacted.

2 Replies

I find it fascinating that with as crappy a job Obama has been doing that you guys can still find time for some good ol' fashioned Bush beating. Trying to cheer yourselves up I suppose.

Like a " 'member when" segment on Conan. " 'Member when the President was a Republican and we could make jokes about him?"

Imagine if 6 years into the Bush presidency people still blamed Clinton for stuff.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

I find it fascinating that with as crappy a job Obama has been doing that you guys can still find time for some good ol' fashioned Bush beating. Trying to cheer yourselves up I suppose.

Like a " 'member when" segment on Conan. " 'Member when the President was a Republican and we could make jokes about him?"

Imagine if 6 years into the Bush presidency people still blamed Clinton for stuff.

I don't have to imagine, because I was paying attention. I've a pretty good memory and if I'm NOT certain, I can just google the quotes from the talk radio comedians. And if I remember correctly, Bush said he would bring dignity back to the Oval Office, he even said it with a straight face. But I do admire Bush for keeping his mouth shut after he left office. It tells me that eventually he grasped the concept that he was elected, and so was Obama. He understands what a difficult job the Presidency is.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

So, you don't understand how satellite recon works, you haven't a clue how successful military actions are planned, you've probably never studied warfare. Leadership is always provided a best case and worse case scenario so they can make the best possible decision, while still being aware of the actual risks if things go wrong.
You mention many ordinary people were convinced we were on the eve of destruction. Do you recall seeing any thing that remotely resembled an overhead shot? Have you given any thought how difficult it would be to attempt to hid stockpiles? Moving something from A to B is a big undertaking and would be extremely hard to avoid overhead from noticing. Unless you think they were able to stuff chemical weapons in a backpack and just hoof it back and forth. Going underground without detection sounds frightening, however, we are talking about the Middle East, not making a futuristic fantasy film starring Tom Cruise. Hollywood makes ridiculous scorched earth end of the world nightmares for our entertainment.

Building a huge underground facility also requires transporting massive amounts of earth. Since projects like that can't be completed in 4 hours, it would be noticed by the overhead analysts.

Brandon, your mother may think you are the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you are actually embarrassing yourself by clinging to an imaginary view of intell collection. I'm not saying you're dumb, you just don't understand how the intell community works. On second thought, thats a good thing. Also, you should ask yourself why France declined to participate in the Iraq invasion, but did support the US when Afganistan was attacked. The entire world was shocked by the attacks on 9/11, they wanted to support us. When it became obvious that the administration lost the focus, we were on our own. Congress tried to have French fries renamed Freedom fries in the House and Senate cafeterias. That's how our massive group of nincompoops in Congress reacted.

First of all, stop talking about chemical weapons. I am talking about weapons of mass destruction - nuclear and biological. We weren't sure whether or not North Korea had nuclear weapons until they told us they did in 2003. Your thesis is that we would always know if a country were secretly developing nuclear or biological weapons and be able to rush in at the last moment to stop them. I think that this is naïve. You exclude the possible scenario that we suspect a country is developing nuclear or biological weapons, but aren't sure until they announce it. That is a completely possible scenario. If we were only talking about chemical weapons, it might be alright to chance it. However, with nuclear weapons or man-made plagues, the stakes are higher. If a very evil dictator bent on conquest, like Saddam Hussein, were to acquire nuclear and/or biological weapons, the very best case scenario is that he uses their threat to dominate the region and extract concessions from the world. The worst case scenario is that he uses them and kills millions of people. That's a pretty bad consequence, wouldn't you say? In fact, such an evil dictator could smuggle the components into the US and annihilate a US city or two just to give us something else to worry about. He could then claim that he knew nothing about it and offer us aid. He could give the weapons to terrorists if he wanted to. We cannot allow a succession of evil dictators to acquire nuclear or biological weapons in cases where we can stop it. Do you think Saddam Hussein is the last one who will try it? You have persistently failed to answer my question about what you would do the next time a very bad dictator seems to be working on WMD but denies it. I'll leave you with a quotation from the period shortly before the invasion of Iraq:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Let me put this in way even you should understand, Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs. Hans Blix was not allowed to confirm that fact. Whether or not people may or may not have thought he had them is irrelevant, Hans Blix was not allowed to do his job.

1 Reply

As A Wise Man, Umm, Guy, Once Said

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know