A pathetic case of Pentagon incompetence

<sigh>

got one more

Quote:

Here's what Bush said:
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."
Interview of the President by TVP, Poland - 3/29/2003

Bush's claim:
- WMD were found in Iraq.
- Biological laboratories were found in Iraq.

Reality:
Not True

Zero WMD Found. Zero Biological Laboratories Found.
No WMD or biological laboraties have been found anywhere in Iraq

0 Replies

Oh, my... Thanx, old europe. :wink:

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

<sigh>

got one more

Quote:
Here's what Bush said:
"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."
Interview of the President by TVP, Poland - 3/29/2003

Bush's claim:
- WMD were found in Iraq.
- Biological laboratories were found in Iraq.

Reality:
Not True

Zero WMD Found. Zero Biological Laboratories Found.
No WMD or biological laboraties have been found anywhere in Iraq

Not only was the invasion of Iraq necessary, we will have to do it again with other countries in the not too distant future.

You make the same mistake over and over, and appear to be incapable of understanding the situation. Here is an analogy. Let's suppose that your doctor tells you that you may have a certain disease. The only way to really know for sure is to do exploratory surgery. If you do the exploratory surgery and find that you do have the disease, you can fix it on the spot. On the other hand, if you do have the disease and wait until it manifests symptoms, you are certain to die painfully. The chance that you have the disease at all is 25% The chance that the exploratory surgery will kill you itself is 10%. Should you have the exploratory surgery? I say yes. Although the chance that you have the disease is only moderate, the consequence if you do is immense.

Some people will point out all the differences between this analogy and the invasion of Iraq on the chance that the WMD had not been destroyed, but this is specious, because I am not suggesting that the two situations are very parallel. They are parallel only in the one sense that you must take into account both the likelihood that the hypothesis true, and the consequences if it is true. It is unintelligent to keep repeating that you shouldn't do the surgery because the chance that you have the disease is only 25%, because that ignores the fact that the consequences if you do have it are immense. Both factors must be taken into account, not just one or the other.

The very next time a dictator of a more than usually dangerous sort has been working on building WMD, negotiations have proven fruitless, and the actual situation is unclear, we will have to invade, or face a significant chance of incalculably severe consequences just down the road. Why is this true now when it wasn't true historically? It's a simple consequence of the advance of technology. Never before in history have WMD been within the reach of small countries and even private organizations.

0 Replies

There we go. I knew it. Once you start invading, yo just can't stop, can you?

Each and every one of them a "have to" - didn't wanna, HAD to.

Like the first political prisoners - the frst tortures - before you know it....

Let us hope the US Government is a little more restrained than the folk of Brandon's ilk.

0 Replies

I'm often amazed at how frightened some Americans seem to be. I've been wondering what causes that effect.

0 Replies

I ain't scared.

0 Replies

Are you American?

0 Replies

Si'!

0 Replies

Well, Kicky - you better get with the programme - and fast.

I think scared is the new black.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Well, Kicky - you better get with the programme - and fast.

I think scared is the new black.

No the new black is camouflage.

0 Replies

Blimey.

Baldimo made a funny.

I think....

0 Replies

Fear is good for wannabe dictators.

Get fear into the population and you can virtually do what you like domestically.

It's been tried and tested across time in various nations. We're human, we're all susceptible to fear.

Even Brandon in using his analogy is referring to a surgery example which evokes fear.

As children we're controlled by our parents with the use of fear. "Go to sleep or the boogeyman will get you".

Governments do that, treat us like children and them behaving as parents.
The boogeyman is evoked when governments want us to accept outrageous intrusions into our civil rights. We're human. We fear harm and death. If governments tell us they must be allowed to do things because they need to prevent us from harm or death, we accept it.

Creating a climate of fear is the new black, politically speaking.

0 Replies

Oh yes goodfielder, that reminded me of this one.

Setanta wrote:

Just ran across a wonderful quote of Hermann Goering made after the war, which i had forgotten about, but which i consider very germaine here:

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

The quote has been vetted by Snopes.

0 Replies

Thanks for that mesquite. Small wonder I'm starting to wonder if government as a concept is viable. Still that's a thread of itself I suppose.

The interesting thing about Goering's idea is that he acknowledges that any government can pull the wool over our eyes. And they do. And we are either ignorant of it (because we can't see it) or we're wilfully blind to it (we deliberately ignore it).

At the current time in my country our federal government is lying to us about everything except what time it is and then I'm checking my watch. But we're ignorant or wilfully blind. Yes there are a few voices being raised against it but they're dismissed as being from the loonie left. Handy that, slap on a label and denigrate your critic without taking the argument.

And the really sad part is that even when evidence is exposed, there are those ordinary people who refuse to believe it. Why they choose to do that I don't know. Is it just political partisanship? Or are they simply unwilling to believe that their own government would lie to them?

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

As children we're controlled by our parents with the use of fear. "Go to sleep or the boogeyman will get you".

That may be the way it is in the land of OZ..........here the parents are controlled by the children........they say........give me that new car or I'll sick the ACLU on you.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
As children we're controlled by our parents with the use of fear. "Go to sleep or the boogeyman will get you".

That may be the way it is in the land of OZ..........here the parents are controlled by the children........they say........give me that new car or I'll sick the ACLU on you.

I grew up in the wrong country! waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

You make the same mistake over and over, and appear to be incapable of understanding the situation. Here is an analogy. Let's suppose that your doctor tells you that you may have a certain disease. The only way to really know for sure is to do exploratory surgery.

Wrong analogy, Branny. It should be "Let's suppose that your doctor tells you that he knows for a fact that you have a certain disease."

Would you sue him afterwards, when it turns out you didn't have the disease at all?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
You make the same mistake over and over, and appear to be incapable of understanding the situation. Here is an analogy. Let's suppose that your doctor tells you that you may have a certain disease. The only way to really know for sure is to do exploratory surgery.

Wrong analogy, Branny. It should be "Let's suppose that your doctor tells you that he knows for a fact that you have a certain disease."

Would you sue him afterwards, when it turns out you didn't have the disease at all?

You're obsessed with what Bush said. The scenario I gave is present just in the events in the newspaper. Do you base all of your beliefs and thoughts on what other people tell you? The case I made is apparent just from the recent history of Iraq - some probability Hussein still had WMD and/or development programs, some consequences for invasion, some consequences of no invasion if he did have them. You don't have the guts to face the analogy head on. I await your next evasion.

old europe wrote:

Would you sue him afterwards, when it turns out you didn't have the disease at all?

That's kind of the whole point of the analogy. If you do the sugery based on the odds, you have done the right thing, even if you find that you don't have the disease.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
You make the same mistake over and over, and appear to be incapable of understanding the situation. Here is an analogy. Let's suppose that your doctor tells you that you may have a certain disease. The only way to really know for sure is to do exploratory surgery.

Wrong analogy, Branny. It should be "Let's suppose that your doctor tells you that he knows for a fact that you have a certain disease."

Would you sue him afterwards, when it turns out you didn't have the disease at all?

You're obsessed with what Bush said. The scenario I gave is present just in the events in the newspaper. Do you base all of your beliefs and thoughts on what other people tell you? The case I made is apparent just from the recent history of Iraq.

Are you telling me "Nevermind what Bush says. He may lie every now and then, but that's not really that important"?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Are you telling me "Nevermind what Bush says. He may lie every now and then, but that's not really that important"?

I am telling you that the situation has an existence apart from what people say about it. My analysis of the situation doesn't really depend on how other people characterize it.

Whether Bush is a good guy or a bad guy, the Iraq situation was what it was. It had its own odds and consequences.

0 Replies

A pathetic case of Pentagon incompetence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know