The US, UN & Iraq II

Timber wrote:

In the world in which I live, the price of peace includes the tax of war, and this is tax time.

This may become a notable quote---well said Timber.

timber,

Do you really buy the apocalyptic lines? The ones about the end of civilization and all? The psycological effect of 9/11 never ceases to amaze me. The only difference between post 9/11 and pre 9/11 is greater American awareness and worry about terrorism. The awareness in itself made terrorism less likely and it was already statistically negligible before that.

I understand the nature of he desire to prevent such attacks as 9/11. I understand, but do not share, the fears of an attack with WMDs. But I can't fathom what makes you see the situation as so dire.

In addition, other that the specter of WMD terrorist attacks, what relevance to the "war" on terrorism does this war (no quotes) have? There were easier ways to prevent the proliferation of WMDs (such as indefinite inspections and "smart sanctions"). I really am curious as to what tangible benefit in terms of the reduction of terrorist attacks you see as so integral.

Gravitas

Kara wrote:

You ask if I can prove that what we are doing is not the right thing. Perception, only history will answer that question. I would not presume to do so. I have grave doubts about what we have done and are doing, and mostly I doubt our reasons.

Now you have only grave doubts instead of vehement criticism of the administration. I detect a softening of your previous confrontational stance.

Now you only doubt our reasons---again a softening of your previous stance.

Do I detect a change in your mental concepts albeit ever so slight?

Lemme tackle that quote (the notion that war is needed for peace):

I tire of people using the inevitability of war to justify waging it. It is only due to people who are prone to accepting war as conflict resolution that war exists at all.

Each side says they need to arm themselves because it's inevitable that such armaments will be needed. That humans are unlikely to end their icious cycle I admit. It is indeed inevitable that humans will stoop to violence.

But this doesn't come close to justifying the propensity for violent resolution of conflict. Every "war monger" that walked the earth tried his best to put on the grim concerned face and say they hate war but it is sometimes necessary. It's kinda like the Steven Segal movie trailers, <deep movie trailer voice> "An innocent man... forced to violence.."

Simple men on both sides of any conflict invoke the existential threat, the inevitbility of violence and then proceed to drag their counterparts into their sick world.

What amazes me is that otherwise well balanced persons buy into this cycle with vigor. The boogyman of existential threat is more real to them, they are more willing to assume their destruction is imminent. Occasionally they will even contend that civilization itself is at risk, all to justify the cessation of civility.

In this kind of war these positions would be funny if they weren't so devastating. It's like the lions saying the wolf poses a threat to the whole damn world and by George they oughtta strick the wold a mortal blow before the wolf kills them all.

They do not place import on the fact that the wolf is in a cage, they do not acknowledge that the wolf has not shown the ability or inclination to harm them at this time.

But the possibility of said attack is raised, repeated, and then the inevitability of violence is suggested and accepted.

And we must concede moral high ground because violence is inevitable, because the threat of harm is a possibility, and because they do not see that violence is precipitated by a decision, and that in this case the ones that made the decision to employ violence did so first and with only the specter if possible violence as a justification. It's like saying "it's inevitable that men will beat their wives so lets start beating on men who might be capable of it".

I wish people who live in a world where violence against perceived enemies is nepenthe to their fears would quit dragging us into their world.

It's bad enough that some will wage war for financial, political or territorial gain. But we also have to put up with those who are so moved by the mere possibility of violence that they justify the initiation of such.

I picked up an interesting tidbit on local radio today (local radio in this case is the station I call "loco radio," so boulders of salt should be within reach): Riesen (sp?) and another biochemical agent has been found in Iraq and the FBI have alerted various police forces and county law enforcement in Texas and elsewhere that attacks are planned. There will be a sharp dividing line between those of us who believe the Iraqis and/or Al Qaeda are behind this (if it exists) and the rest of us who suspect the administration of creating handy distractions as needed. As I said, keep boulders of salt handy-by -- the broadcaster doesn't quite have his office in a bunker, but almost... Maybe someone has heard this news from another source?

So if at crunch time the Iraqi people tell us to shove democracy ...... will it be democracy at the point of a gun? Force fed freedom?

CdK, I see Iraq, not alone among many, as a Terrorism Enabling State. It is not THE Problem, but it is part of it. I do see the situation as urgent. I see it as being taken to hand, and I see it, even apart from Iraq, long and much work away from resolution. This is the begining.

Aha, it's spelled "ricin" and here is one probable source of the story:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/5542530.htm

just curious, if we dropped one of our 5,000 lb bombs on Bagdad ( a weapon specifically defined as a WoMD) it failed to explode and the Iraqi govenment impounded said bomb, could we then claim they did indeed have WoMD?

timber,
ANY nation has the potential to enable terrorism. ANY individual has the potention to cause tragedy.

If that is the logic behind such proclamations of doom, if the supporting evidence for preemptive attacks is of such little concern, I can imagine why this would be simply the beginning.

If no differentiating factors between possibility and probability are needed for you to justify attacking other nations without real provocation I can only imagine what you'd consider acceptable.

I call the following my "let see if this is an abject waste of my time" quiz:

Do you support preemptive attacks on

1) DPRK

2) Iran

3) Syria

4) Cuba


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

Really, the "pro" camp should stick to the "liberation" angle. It's an exemplary red herring to the "kill the neighbor because he could kill me" ratiocination.

http://www.adnan.org/

Click on the pic

Craven wrote:

The psycological effect of 9/11 never ceases to amaze me.

You seem to ignore the fact that the US was brought to it's economic knees and as a result the world economy was swiftly reduced to mush. Seems to me the global economy is a house of cards. Take a look at the airlines today---all are either in bankruptcy or teetering on the edge. Air Canada is the latest victim. One very tangible reason for this is the volitility of world oil prices----another reason to stabililze the situation in the middle east. Now we have a world health crisis to cope with and until just today the obstructionist Chinese gov't would not let health analysis experts into the province where the disease originated.

The actual tangible consequence of 9/II attack must be placed in the hundreds of Billions of dollars. This is quite separate from the psychological impact which in actual fact has only created more resolve and conviction that this world wide threat is real and that it must be dealt with.

Given the state of the global economy(very weak), the possible clash of civilizations (Islam vs the rest of the world), the threat of nuclear proliferation to terrorist entities, global warming, a possible world health crisis, the threat of bio warfare by terrorist organizations, etc., Timber's prediction of dire consequences does not seem as far fetched as you may imagine.

Your observations of reality create vastly differing mental concepts from my observations of the same reality. I am puzzled by that realization and have no answer.

The US stock market is ghoulishly tracking the war. Yesterday, being a fan of ever-improving memory cards, I bought into AMD which has just joined with Fujitsu to develop memory cards and compete with Intel, and on the back of the alleged "cakewalk" (that seems to be the impetus), watched the stock gain 10%. One doesn't know whether to thank Mammon or heave.

I maintain a decided interest in the economic situation. It prompted a very sharp change in my life.

The psycological effect I mentioned is largely responsible for it.

As to stabalization of the region, I agree that this is important, but not for oil prices (recently stabilizing Venezuela would have done more in that regard) and I did not see Iraq as the place wherein stabalization was most needed.

I'll skip China because I don't have a clue where you are going with that.

Now to settle the first issue: I do not rate psycological effects as negligible. This is a human world and human emotions, as illogical as they can be, are a real part of this world. You do well to remind us of the "brick and mortar" effects of our fragile minds.

Now, where our logic differs greatl is in your next part:

When calculating probability many do this:

A is possible, B is possible, C is possible, D is possible.

A+B+C+D=X therefore "the sky is falling"

They neglect that the probability of X occuring is LESS likely with each less than probable factor, not more likley.

A series of improbable possibilities that together might cause dire results is not probable at all.

edit: I must say that many who argue from positions opposite yours employ this faulty logic e.g. "america is going to start a world war.."

A) yes the economy is weak, this is quotidian economics.
B) "possible clash of civilizations" is as relevant as "possible case of marshmellows eating us" if no substantiating facts are given
C) nukes to terrorists :: this threat is as low as it will be. This war will not effect this threat either way.If you have a substantial case otherwise I am very interested. All I have heard so far on this is hyperbolic rhetoric
D) world health crisis are a fact of life and unrelated to the war. Primitive Biblical writings of "pestilence" aside this is an issue for rational scientific minds, not doomsday predictions.
E) Threat of bio warfare :: It has not yet been proven that any terrorist organization has the ability to deploy these weapons effectively. The scare of this has had more impact than reality has.

A series of possibilities, with no evidence to even hint at probability and even less evidence to suggest they can even be the catalyst in what would need to be a series of improbabilities to bring about civilization's fall is simply the same doomsday warnings that have been around since man could spin a yarn and make others believe in them.

Your perception of reality does not confound me. I was suprised at this thinking when I heard of Orson Welles' exploits but have now learned not to try to imagine what different levels of eyesight are like.

Lemme explain the eyesight thing, otherwise it seems like a slight.

As a kid I wondered "what if when looking at the color I see as red another sees the color I call blue".

If he/she always saw the colors that way the names would be the same while the color was vastly different and there would be no reconciliation.

Craven

That is the most lucid and enjoyable series of posts I have ever come upon.

Craven

LOL---as of this late hour your logic seems a bit incoherent but will take another look tomorrow.

I do consider your explanation of our differences in perception of reality a bit simplistic. I prefer to think that the primary difference has more to with our experience levels than in terminology. Yours is that of a 26 yr going on 40 and mine is a realistic 69.

I'm off to bed now but I may be forced to re examine my recently voiced opinion that you had studied logic since our last meeting.

Since I'm not a believer prayer is no comfort for me. I'm hoping one of the believers on this thread can say a prayer for someone. His name is Bakhat Hassan and he has just lost his daughters aged 2 and 5, his 3 year old son, his parents, two older brothers, their wives and 2 nieces aged 12 and 15 and his father.


Apparently this is the US version of liberation.

Not only on this thread, people have a different view of realistic:

While UK's Home Secretary David Blunkett questions the credibility of reports by the Arab news television channel al-Jazeera when its reporters are "only there because they are provided with facilities and support from the regime",
Al-Jazeera announced it was suspending the work of its correspondents in Iraq indefinitely after the Information Ministry banned two of them from working.