Weapons of mass . . . something

Both CdK and Habibi are not disputing the possibility, they have consistently pointed out that your claims of probability are suspect, and they have asked you for your conclusions based upon your contentions. As this thread is titularly devoted to the topic of WoMD with specific reference to the case for war made before March, 2003, they inevitably ask if you think this position of yours is justification for pre-emptive war. You have consistently changed the subject, or rather, prevented its development, because you continue to hammer at a contention of high probability of disasterous attacks by terrorists using WoMD. I pointed out that in regards to the topic of this thread, probability was meaningless, because we were lead to war based upon an assertion of Hussein having WoMD and ties to AQ. CdK and Habibi are staying faithful to the topic of the thread, in that they are attempting to get you to draw a conclusion from your speculations about the probability of terrorist attacks with WoMD.

I have no interest in debating you, as i consider you deluded in this regard. Nevertheless, i've enjoyed reading along, but you're really throwing water on the entire debate by refusing to address the issue of what conclusion you come to about how to address your alleged terrorist threat.

0 Replies

Alright, Setanta. At least that was polite. I will address their repeated inquiries, but I consider the point that I was trying to make to be critical and will return to it at some point in some thread.

I am at work and don't have time to be very longwinded just now, but I will at least start the ball rolling. I believe that if a certain type of country, an example of which I give below, seems to be trying to develop WMD, we ought to take very aggressive action to stop them in order to protect ourselves. A prototypical example of such a country would be:

1. I will restate that the country appears to be working hard to develop WMD.
2. Ruled by a dictator who has clearly demonstrated great evil, e.g. Hussein and the citizens he tortured and murdered. The ruler appears to be the sort of person who would be willing to kill millions of people to further his interests.
3. The country has attempted to annex neighbors.
4. Many years of negotiations in an effort to persuade this country to verifiably halt its WMD programs and destroy existing WMD have apparently failed.
5. The country appears to have at least a sympathetic relationship with terrorists.
6. The country does not yet possess nuclear weapons.

I believe that such a country simply cannot be allowed to develop and stockpile WMD. There would appear to be too great a possibility that down the road one would be used. A delivery system is not necessary, since the weapon can be smuggled into the target country. And, as I have pointed out in this thread, it only takes one single successful use of a WMD in a city to kill as many as a million people. Under these circumstances, we should ask them nicely to disarm, and try very hard to negotiate peacefully. But ultimately, if after years of efforts they will not, we should stop them before they develop a working nuke, or stockpile too many biological and chemical weapons.

0 Replies

I probably don't have any business sticking in here. Hope you'll excuse me.

Brandon, I think your list is sensible.

Could your #4 be bolstered to include a Resolution from the UN re Putting the country on notice that they have been deemed by the international community to be a danger, and are called upon to submit to an inspection process, which is thoroughly outlined---to include what actions constitute non-compliance--

If you don't agree, please excuse.

"Many years" was just left to variable interpretation.

0 Replies

Brandon,

I can't believe you wasted so much time for what is really tantamount to having a point that boils down to:

"Terrorism coupled with WMD is really really dangerous and needs to be addressed."

With a dispute merely on how many instances of "really" are appropriate.

Seriously, unless you propose what fundamental measures you are advocating it is a very underwhelming argument.

Later on, I will parody your logic and illustrate how easy it is to make something like that about just about anything.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Brandon,

I can't believe you wasted so much time for what is really tantamount to having a point that boils down to:

"Terrorism coupled with WMD is really really dangerous and needs to be addressed."

With a dispute merely on how many instances of "really" are appropriate.

Seriously, unless you propose what fundamental measures you are advocating it is a very underwhelming argument.

Later on, I will parody your logic and illustrate how easy it is to make something like that about just about anything.

Well, then, let's make a habit of allowing such people to develop and stockpile WMD to their hearts' content, and see where that leads us. I said that under given circumstances, we should invade. That's specific. I also said that I was at work, and only had time to get the ball rolling. Later on I will make a parody of your logic and set it to music.

0 Replies

Difference: I said nothing of the sort, while what I will parody will be of the exact nature of what you DID say.

Small, but significant difference.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I probably don't have any business sticking in here. Hope you'll excuse me.

Brandon, I think your list is sensible.

Could your #4 be bolstered to include a Resolution from the UN re Putting the country on notice that they have been deemed by the international community to be a danger, and are called upon to submit to an inspection process, which is thoroughly outlined---to include what actions constitute non-compliance--

If you don't agree, please excuse.

"Many years" was just left to variable interpretation.

Sofia, of course you opinions are welcome. This thread doesn't belong to anyone. The more the merrier. I agree with you that it is desirable to get the responsible nations of the world to cooperate and work in tandem. However, if the UN is ultimately not willing to act to prevent a disaster, we need to take action with whoever is willing to help.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Difference: I said nothing of the sort, while what I will parody will be of the exact nature of what you DID say.

Small, but significant difference.

Please note that I was modifying slightly the content of my post at about the time that you were writing yours.

0 Replies

The revision is just as deceitful.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

The revision is just as deceitful.

Now this is quite a major break from any of our past discussions. You have never accused me of deceit before, and frankly I am offended. I would never accuse you of deceit. In what way have I been deceitful? I state my honest opinions, and argue them as forcefully as I can.

0 Replies

Your straw man is deceitful Brandon. I'd never advocated making "a habit of allowing such people to develop and stockpile WMD to their hearts' content".

So you can continue that line of discussion with the effigy you created.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Your straw man is deceitful Brandon. I'd never advocated making "a habit of allowing such people to develop and stockpile WMD to their hearts' content".

So you can continue that line of discussion with the effigy you created.

If I misrepresent someone else's opinions, it is through lack of perceptiveness on my part, because of haste, or, at worst, openly exaggerating the other person's position to illustrate its weaknesses. In these debates, many people, for whatever reason, end up setting up straw men and knocking them down, but I would like to believe that it is very rarely a case of an intentional attempt to deceive by knowingly distorting an opinion. In the normal course of debating, posters frequently tend to unknowingly misrepresent each others opinions to some extent without deliberately trying to be deceptive.

To be deceitful, to have the intent to deceive is immoral, and if this is what you think of my character, I wouldn't think you would bother to interact with me at all. Conversely, I am not sure that I want to interact with someone who really considers me to be dishonest.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I believe that if a certain type of country, an example of which I give below, seems to be trying to develop WMD, we ought to take very aggressive action to stop them in order to protect ourselves. A prototypical example of such a country would be:

1. I will restate that the country appears to be working hard to develop WMD.
2. Ruled by a dictator who has clearly demonstrated great evil, e.g. Hussein and the citizens he tortured and murdered. The ruler appears to be the sort of person who would be willing to kill millions of people to further his interests.
3. The country has attempted to annex neighbors.
4. Many years of negotiations in an effort to persuade this country to verifiably halt its WMD programs and destroy existing WMD have apparently failed.
5. The country appears to have at least a sympathetic relationship with terrorists.
6. The country does not yet possess nuclear weapons.

A flimsier piece of Monday-morning quarterbacking I don't think I've ever seen. Really, Brandon, why don't you add:

7. The name of the country starts with an "I" and ends with a "Q."That would be just as valid a criterion as the ones you've listed.

But since you seem persuaded by lists, here are the factors that should weigh against a pre-emptive strike:

1. The target country has been under a regime of international sanctions.
2. The most accurate and reliable intelligence on that country is gained by inspectors who would, if a pre-emptive strike were launched, be forced to leave the country.
3. The international body that authorized the sanctions includes the country that now wishes to launch a pre-emptive strike, that country is bound by treaties to adhere to the international body's rules regarding pre-emptive strikes, and the international body has not authorized such a strike.
4. The evidence supporting a pre-emptive strike is suspect or not credible, and is supplied primarily by people who stand to gain personally from such a strike.
5. There exist alternatives to a pre-emptive strike that could accomplish the same security objectives as a pre-emptive strike.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Really, Brandon, why don't you add:
7. The name of the country starts with an "I" and ends with a "Q."
That would be just as valid a criterion as the ones you've listed.

Because that's not what I mean. I am listing the characteristics of a prototypical country that ought to be invaded and this would apply to any such country. I have been saying virtually exactly this same thing for about 35 years, although I missed the part about the bio and chem weapons and only applied it to nuclear weapons until about ten years ago, so it is not really Monday morning quarterbacking. Obviously I was aware of the existence of Iraq when I made the list, but at most that awareness provided a small amount of guidance. I strongly believe that the list I wrote is a prototype for a country that ought to be invaded.

joefromchicago wrote:

But since you seem persuaded by lists, here are the factors that should weigh against a pre-emptive strike:

1. The target country has been under a regime of international sanctions.

I do not believe that this should exempt a country that meets the other qualifications.

joefromchicago wrote:

2. The most accurate and reliable intelligence on that country is gained by inspectors who would, if a pre-emptive strike were launched, be forced to leave the country.

I believe that the inspectors had had their chance for many years and had shown themselves to be insufficiently effective.

joefromchicago wrote:

3. The international body that authorized the sanctions includes the country that now wishes to launch a pre-emptive strike, that country is bound by treaties to adhere to the international body's rules regarding pre-emptive strikes, and the international body has not authorized such a strike.

First of all, I believe it is somewhat up in the air exactly what the legality of the invasion was, based on the history with the UN. Secondly, although I believe that adherence to treaties is the foundation of civilization, I think that the threat from WMD is so great that even breaking a treaty, as a last resort, would be justified. Saving a very large number of lives from a future WMD event probably trumps even something so basic as faithfulness to a treaty. However, as I said, I am not sure that the invasion was illegal given the totality of the facts.

joefromchicago wrote:

4. The evidence supporting a pre-emptive strike is suspect or not credible, and is supplied primarily by people who stand to gain personally from such a strike.

In this case, invasion would be inappropriate and further investigation would be needed at once. However, I do believe that the evidence known at the time justified invasion.

joefromchicago wrote:

5. There exist alternatives to a pre-emptive strike that could accomplish the same security objectives as a pre-emptive strike.

In this case, I would never be in favor of a pre-emptive strike, but I do not believe that this is the case.

0 Replies

Based on Joe's post, I have modified criterion 4 slightly.

1. The country appears to be working hard to develop WMD.
2. Ruled by a dictator who has clearly demonstrated great evil, e.g. Hussein and the citizens he tortured and murdered. The ruler appears to be the sort of person who would be willing to kill millions of people to further his interests.
3. The country has attempted to annex neighbors.
4. Many years of negotiations in an effort to persuade this country to verifiably halt its WMD programs and destroy existing WMD have apparently failed. There does not appear to be a peaceful solution that would be likely to be effective, and be effective soon enough to prevent the country from making significant use of its WMD.
5. The country appears to have at least a sympathetic relationship with terrorists.
6. The country does not yet possess nuclear weapons.

I believe that a country which satisfies these criteria should be invaded to determine the status of its WMD, and prevent their development from continuing. I believe that to observe a country that does satisfy these criteria and not take the steps necessary to halt its WMD program would be a serious mistake.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I am listing the characteristics of a prototypical country that ought to be invaded and this would apply to any such country. I have been saying virtually exactly this same thing for about 35 years, although I missed the part about the bio and chem weapons and only applied it to nuclear weapons until about ten years ago, so it is not really Monday morning quarterbacking. Obviously I was aware of the existence of Iraq when I made the list, but at most that awareness provided a small amount of guidance. I strongly believe that the list I wrote is a prototype for a country that ought to be invaded.

Then, of course, you were advocating an invasion of Pakistan prior to its testing of nuclear weapons in 1998, right?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I am listing the characteristics of a prototypical country that ought to be invaded and this would apply to any such country. I have been saying virtually exactly this same thing for about 35 years, although I missed the part about the bio and chem weapons and only applied it to nuclear weapons until about ten years ago, so it is not really Monday morning quarterbacking. Obviously I was aware of the existence of Iraq when I made the list, but at most that awareness provided a small amount of guidance. I strongly believe that the list I wrote is a prototype for a country that ought to be invaded.

Then, of course, you were advocating an invasion of Pakistan prior to its testing of nuclear weapons in 1998, right?

No, I was not. However, since the late 1960s, I have been saying that in the latter part of my life, one of the primary problems facing the world would be the proliferation of nuclear weapons to tiny, unstable dictatorships, and possibly even private groups, and that the world would probably have to take very extreme measures to have a chance of survival. As, I said, I missed the issue with bio and chemical weapons until something like a decade ago.

0 Replies

Brandon, first I would like to congratulate you. You are doing quite a good job here, against VERY tough opposition.

Second, just a question. How much do you know about how HARD it would be to do what you fear these "tiny, unstable dictatorships" are going to do?

It's not like making a diesel / ferteliser bomb.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Then, of course, you were advocating an invasion of Pakistan prior to its testing of nuclear weapons in 1998, right?

No, I was not.

Well, Brandon, I must say that you've got me confused. You say that your list (which, apparently, is still subject to revision) is applicable to any country, and that you've been "saying virtually exactly this same thing for 35 years," yet you say that you did not support an invasion of Pakistan even though that country fit all of those conditions prior to 1998.

Obviously, you can understand my bewilderment. If you sincerely believed, since around 1969, that any country that fit all of those conditions was a fit subject for invasion, then one should certainly have expected that you would have supported the invasion of Pakistan prior to its development of nuclear weapons (which would have taken it out of the running by virtue of item no. 6 in your list).*

Your admission, however, that you didn't support such an invasion (despite your unbroken record of, at that point, almost three decades of consistent adherence to your set of conditions) leads me to suspect that maybe, just maybe your belief in those conditions hasn't been as unwavering as you make it out to be. Indeed, I am inclined to conclude that those conditions were formulated solely with Iraq in mind.

*I won't even bother to ask you if you supported an invasion of apartheid-era South Africa, which also fit all of your conditions. I suspect I already know your answer.

0 Replies

Joe, I must say you being a bit mean. Pakistan did not meet all of Brandons criteria at the time it aquired nuclear weapons.

Play fair.

0 Replies

Weapons of mass . . . something

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know