What the hell do you mean, afraid to answer?!? I did answer.
Quote:
Here's a hypothetical. If in 2003 there had been a 20% chance that in 3 years, Saddam Hussein would possess serious bioweapons, would it have been warranted to invade?
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:What the hell do you mean, afraid to answer?!? I did answer.
Quote:
Here's a hypothetical. If in 2003 there had been a 20% chance that in 3 years, Saddam Hussein would possess serious bioweapons, would it have been warranted to invade?
Cycloptichorn
I stand corrected.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Nope. There is a 20% chance right now that some country unfriendly to us will develop weapons that we don't want them to have. This doesn't warrant invasion of every country that is unfriendly to us.
No it doesn't, but it might warrant invasion of a specific country with a very, very evil dictatator, who had a history of trying to annex his neighbors, were it given that he did have or had had bioweapons development programs, and there was a 20% chance that in 3 years he would have very deadly bioweapons.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Should other countries invade the US, who not only has a chance of developing Bioweapons, but in all probability has quite a few of them stockpiled? There is a nonzero chance that we would use them in the future, and they have the safety of their societies to think about, after all.
You are mistakenly assuming that WMD in Saddam Hussein's hands would pose no more of a risk than WMD in the hands of the American government. You seem to be implying in fact, that if anyone prsents a certain level of risk in possession of a gun, everyone else presents exactly that same level of risk in possession of a gun.
Quote:
You are mistakenly assuming that WMD in Saddam Hussein's hands would pose no more of a risk than WMD in the hands of the American government. You seem to be implying in fact, that if anyone prsents a certain level of risk in possession of a gun, everyone else presents exactly that same level of risk in possession of a gun.
It is only a matter of personal opinion on how much the risks differ. You cannot know the heart of the person holding the gun, their true intentions, therefore, you cannot say with certainty that one is a greater risk than another or not.
Also, it doesn't have to be 'official' US policy to use the bioweapons for them to escape or to be actively used in a covert fashion. The only way another country can guarantee their safety is by removing the possible problem. Remember, even a 1% chance that we would use the weapons is too high. Right? That's the mindset used by those who advocated attacking Iraq.
This whole tack is asinine, however, since there was never any credible evidence that Saddam was developing Bioweapons. Just more fearmongering from the Right.
Cycloptichorn
Robert Borosage? The "cow" quotes Robert Borosage??????????
I do hope that she knows who Robert Borosage is.
He writes for the "Nation". That magazine was once known as Pravda West. I am going to assume that if the "cow" can quote from the "Nation", I can also quote from National Review. I rarely quote from National Review because I know it is too far right wing and unbalanced in its views AS THE NATION IS IN ITS PRONOUNCEMENTS.
Calling upon Norman Podhoretz on matters of the current state of affairs is like asking a methhead to explain the positives of using crystal meth.
Podhoretz, or his wife, are hardly what any of us would call unbiased specimen.
I thought that many of the neoconservative PNAC spokesmen have lost their credibility in the eyes of the majority of Americans.
Apparently a select few still validate their tripe.
Bush on the TEEVEE now lying his ass off. They hate us for our freedom, still trying to link 9/11 with Iraq. It's all just one BIG LIE.
If we leave Iraq, "the terrorists" will follow us here. Liar !
But they love our freedom too!
Candidone wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling upon Norman Podhoretz on matters of the current state of affairs is like asking a methhead to explain the positives of using crystal meth.
Podhoretz, or his wife, are hardly what any of us would call unbiased specimen.
**********************************************************
A typical answer from a highly IGNORANT poster. He did not read my post and did not read the quotes in that post. Candidone is a fraud!
Podhoretz did not make up the quotes. If Candidone thinks so, he should point that out. He can't so he uses the weak argumentum ad hominem ploy.
How Ignorant and predictable!!
Well, now, Candidone 1 , I will give you some quotes that the Democrats made about WMD's. Either show that the quotes are not correct or admit that you are IGNORANT about the fact that even the Democratic leadership believed that Saddam had WMD's.
quote
Bill Clinton( who. of course,. had NO access to intelligence on WMD's) in 1998.
"IF SADDAM REJECTS PEACE AND WE HAVE TO USE FORCE, OUR PURPOSE IS CLEAR, WE WANT TO SERIOUSLY DIMINISH THE THREAT POSED BY IRAq'S W E A P O N S O F M A S S D E S T R U C T I O N
P R O G R A M"
Secretary of State Madeline Albright( in 1998) who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on WMD's
"Iraq is a long way from (the USA),but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL, OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AGAINST US OR OUR ALLIES IS THE G R E A T E S T S E C U R I T Y T H R E A T T H A T W E F A C E"
Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on WMD's
"Saddam will use those weapons of Mass Destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983"
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on WMD's( IN 2002)
"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-QUADA MEMBERS"
Al Gore, who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on Wmd's in 2002
"We KNOW that Saddam has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country"
and, last but not least, John Kerry who had no access to intelligence on Wmd's(2002)-
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force---if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in his hands is a real and grave threat to the country"
These are the quotes from Podhoretz's piece which it is apparent Candidone was either too lazy to read or too dismissive of Podhoretz's evidence.
I therefore challenge Candidone( I know he can't do it) to show that the DEMOCRAT LEADERS ABOVE did not say what I quoted.
It is clear from the quotes that Democratic Leaders did believe that Saddam had WMD's.
So I am to gather that it is Clinton's fault that Bush is a liar?
Candidone wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling upon Norman Podhoretz on matters of the current state of affairs is like asking a methhead to explain the positives of using crystal meth.
Podhoretz, or his wife, are hardly what any of us would call unbiased specimen.
**********************************************************
A typical answer from a highly IGNORANT poster. He did not read my post and did not read the quotes in that post. Candidone is a fraud!
Podhoretz did not make up the quotes. If Candidone thinks so, he should point that out. He can't so he uses the weak argumentum ad hominem ploy.
How Ignorant and predictable!!
Well, now, Candidone 1 , I will give you some quotes that the Democrats made about WMD's. Either show that the quotes are not correct or admit that you are IGNORANT about the fact that even the Democratic leadership believed that Saddam had WMD's.
quote
Bill Clinton( who. of course,. had NO access to intelligence on WMD's) in 1998.
"IF SADDAM REJECTS PEACE AND WE HAVE TO USE FORCE, OUR PURPOSE IS CLEAR, WE WANT TO SERIOUSLY DIMINISH THE THREAT POSED BY IRAq'S W E A P O N S O F M A S S D E S T R U C T I O N
P R O G R A M"
Secretary of State Madeline Albright( in 1998) who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on WMD's
"Iraq is a long way from (the USA),but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL, OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AGAINST US OR OUR ALLIES IS THE G R E A T E S T S E C U R I T Y T H R E A T T H A T W E F A C E"
Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on WMD's
"Saddam will use those weapons of Mass Destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983"
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on WMD's( IN 2002)
"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-QUADA MEMBERS"
Al Gore, who, of course, had NO access to intelligence on Wmd's in 2002
"We KNOW that Saddam has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country"
and, last but not least, John Kerry who had no access to intelligence on Wmd's(2002)-
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force---if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in his hands is a real and grave threat to the country"
blatham wrote:brandon
Quote:I said that something is not a lie if the speaker believes it to be true. This is simply the most reasonable definition of a lie
.
blatham
Quote:How might you or anyone know that the speaker believes his statement to be true?
brandon
Quote:I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that there would be a number of ways. If, for instance, someone said that he didn't go to a meeting, but other witnesses attest that he did, that would be strong evidence of a lie. Another example would be if someone said that a = b, but it can be shown that it had already been proven to him that a does not equal b. Whether I can list every method of doing this is irrelevant. A person cannot be said to be lying who believes that he is telling the truth, yet proving perjury, libel, slander, or informal lying to a sufficient degree of confidence does not require mind reading.
You are correct to argue that if someone believes he isn't lying, then we can't really refer to what he's done as a lie. The term presupposes intent to deceive.
But as their is no way to establish intent with certainty, we have to accept the limitation of reliance on inference from behaviors, past things said or done, contradictions, etc.
All of which makes the "we don't know he didn't believe what he was saying" criterion quite useless.
So, Bush says, at a particular point in time, "There are no war plans on my desk" and yet we also have solid evidence (in the form of statements by dozens of administration, military, intelligence and investigative individuals) that he had ordered up war plans many months earlier, then it seems rather reasonable to conclude that the inference Bush was trying to deceive is far more reasonable than inferring he was speaking truthfully.
This one is still open, Brandon.
blatham writes
Quote:So, Bush says, at a particular point in time, "There are no war plans on my desk" and yet we also have solid evidence (in the form of statements by dozens of administration, military, intelligence and investigative individuals) that he had ordered up war plans many months earlier, then it seems rather reasonable to conclude that the inference Bush was trying to deceive is far more reasonable than inferring he was speaking truthfully
.
Or, given that there are existing war plans on file for just about any scenario you can imagine, it could very well be that the President was simply saying he had not received any specific plans for any specific scenario and there were no such plans literally on his desk.
Going back to an earlier post of mine this week, I reposted a looooooooong list of specific quotes by people who were saying a lot of brave things about what must be done in Iraq including many urging the use of force. I would guess that every single one of those people, if asked, would have said there were no war plans on his or her desk.
To make the leap that the President engaged in his Constitutional role as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces extrapolates to an intention to go to war is a huge leap of faith that appears to be based on a dislike of a person rather than on any reasonable opinion. And it is certainly no proof that the President lied.
On the other hand, for any President to telegraph such an intention before a decision was made would have been irresponsible and a dereliction of his Constitutional responsibility.
I am willing to concede that the necessity for government to not telegraph certain components of national security, including the safety and welfare of people engaged in necessary clandestine operations, could easily result in a necessary lie. I would imagine that most high ranking officials do have to sidestep a clear truth to avoid putting people's lives or a critical mission in jeopardy.
But I don't think that is the kind of lie Brandon meant when he started this thread.
Amazing. The Bush apologists will dance on the head of a pin to try to defend Bush's lies.
Bernard, aside from your incessant ad hominem attacks please be reminded that much of your drivel goes unread.
I have seen those quotations before and I immediately went
to Podhoretz's essay "Who is Lying in Iraq"
If you are quoting an author, I assume it's fair to make judgements about their affiliations, as you have so frequently done with my alleged affiliations.
I'm curious Bernard, why you are citing individuals
who had no access to intelligence as authoratative. What they offer is merely an hypothesis and not anything grounded by empirical evidence.
The "clueless left wing" made the same flawed judgements about Saddam's weapons program as the
informed right wing.
Do you have a point?
If so, cease the puerile name calling and make it.
Foxfyre wrote:blatham writes
But I don't think that is the kind of lie Brandon meant when he started this thread.
Who cares? Brandon doesn't set the agenda here. Brandon's every waking moment seems to be devoted to defnding the lying war criminal Bush. Pathetic!
candidone1 wrote:Bernard, aside from your incessant ad hominem attacks please be reminded that much of your drivel goes unread.
I have seen those quotations before and I immediately went
to Podhoretz's essay "Who is Lying in Iraq"
If you are quoting an author, I assume it's fair to make judgements about their affiliations, as you have so frequently done with my alleged affiliations.
I'm curious Bernard, why you are citing individuals
who had no access to intelligence as authoratative. What they offer is merely an hypothesis and not anything grounded by empirical evidence.
The "clueless left wing" made the same flawed judgements about Saddam's weapons program as the
informed right wing.
Do you have a point?
If so, cease the puerile name calling and make it.
It's always interesting to see who gets called on ad hominem attacks around here. If you want to call someone on it, why not call everyone on it instead of only those that disagree with your point of view?
blatham wrote:blatham wrote:brandon
Quote:I said that something is not a lie if the speaker believes it to be true. This is simply the most reasonable definition of a lie
.
blatham
Quote:How might you or anyone know that the speaker believes his statement to be true?
brandon
Quote:I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that there would be a number of ways. If, for instance, someone said that he didn't go to a meeting, but other witnesses attest that he did, that would be strong evidence of a lie. Another example would be if someone said that a = b, but it can be shown that it had already been proven to him that a does not equal b. Whether I can list every method of doing this is irrelevant. A person cannot be said to be lying who believes that he is telling the truth, yet proving perjury, libel, slander, or informal lying to a sufficient degree of confidence does not require mind reading.
You are correct to argue that if someone believes he isn't lying, then we can't really refer to what he's done as a lie. The term presupposes intent to deceive.
But as their is no way to establish intent with certainty, we have to accept the limitation of reliance on inference from behaviors, past things said or done, contradictions, etc.
All of which makes the "we don't know he didn't believe what he was saying" criterion quite useless.
So, Bush says, at a particular point in time, "There are no war plans on my desk" and yet we also have solid evidence (in the form of statements by dozens of administration, military, intelligence and investigative individuals) that he had ordered up war plans many months earlier, then it seems rather reasonable to conclude that the inference Bush was trying to deceive is far more reasonable than inferring he was speaking truthfully.
This one is still open, Brandon.
Alright, then, give a citation to his statement, and at least one citation to evidence that it was false.
Respectfully McG, he was speaking to me and I responded to his direct insults.
I'm certainly in no position to police this board in that manner, nor is it my responsibility to speak up for those under personal attack from other members.
