Page 7 of 43 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111217 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 845
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Why in the role of a child molestor in Florida?

    Why not put him in the role of a ballet dancer, or an astronaut? Because he is neither a ballet dancer, nor an astronaut? Fair enough, but he also isn't a child molestor in Florida, so I don't see what we can learn from this example.
    The analogy fits perfectly. Nudist used the example of someone having to prove they're not a child molestor. If that person has never been accused or convicted of that crime, then the burden of proof is indeed on the state. My point is that convicted child molestors are almost 100% guaranteed to strike again and can never be trusted. Saddam's actions, over decades, make him an easy fit for the convicted child molestor.

    Nudist seemed to be aruging that we should have trusted Saddam...the dizzying height of modern liberal ignorance.

    Tell me, did you believe Saddam?
  2.    #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    The analogy fits perfectly. Nudist used the example of someone having to prove they're not a child molestor. If that person has never been accused or convicted of that crime, then the burden of proof is indeed on the state. My point is that convicted child molestors are almost 100% guaranteed to strike again and can never be trusted. Saddam's actions, over decades, make him an easy fit for the convicted child molestor.

    Nudist seemed to be aruging that we should have trusted Saddam...the dizzying height of modern liberal ignorance.

    Tell me, did you believe Saddam?
    I simply argue that the burden of proof was ours before we invaded and occupied any sovereign nation. You don't invade and destroy and kill and say "oops, my bad. somebody gave me bad info that would have been discovered had I not chased out the verifiers (weapons inspectors)".

    Being wrong matters not to you.
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    I simply argue that the burden of proof was ours before we invaded and occupied any sovereign nation. You don't invade and destroy and kill and say "oops, my bad. somebody gave me bad info that would have been discovered had I not chased out the verifiers (weapons inspectors)".

    Being wrong matters not to you.
    Essentially what you're arguing is that you trusted Saddam and the corrupt UN organization that monitored him. You place the burden of proof on us, while accepting the word of a PROVEN genocidal maniac under the observation of an organization that has been PROVEN to have been on said maniac's payroll.

    That speaks volumes.
  4.    #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Essentially what you're arguing is that you trusted Saddam and the corrupt UN organization that monitored him. You place the burden of proof on us, while accepting the word of a PROVEN genocidal maniac under the observation of an organization that has been PROVEN to have been on said maniac's payroll.

    That speaks volumes.
    Please provide the PROOF that the UN weapons inspectors were on Saddam Husseins payroll.

    Don't beat around the bush or side step it... you made the claim, now show the PROOF.

    and were we wrong or not???? say the words with me... WE WERE WRONG.
  5. #125  
    There are several dictators in this world who have committed genocide (less being accused of committing genocide); however, the U.S. has either a) done nothing; b) done something (after apt political and social pressure) in favor of some political or financial return. So lets not use the genocide burden of proof theory. Everyone knows that Saddam committed genocide. The US, the Iraqies, the world concede this. Put it to rest. Ad nauseum.

    The problem is that the US went to war on false premises based on unsound assumptions which were bred - and here's the point of contention - on prejudices found in past and present Middle East foreign policy.

    I strongly question: a) the locus of our motives; b) the due diligence procedures of our government; c) our government's maturity and its willingness to come clean with its citizens.

    In the defense of Republicans (and Bush supporters) out there: politics defies logic (inductive and deductive). It's a mishmash of deontology, consequentialism AND emotion. And I think that's one of the reason we have such problems grappling with certain pivotal decisions our government makes.

    ...At least I do.
  6. #126  
    nudist you want proof...
    Ever heard of the UN's 'oil for food' program?
    If you haven't, I would suggest googling it and see the proof you need.

    Also, read all of the UN resolutions regarding Iraq.
    They all say that if Iraq does not comply they will respond with force. The UN of course refused to stand by their own resolution.
    Not much backbone if you go back on your own word.

    The problem with you people is not that Bush lied(which he didn't), but rather the fact that the media continues to lie and you eat it up as gospel.
    Do a little research for yourself, read the source documents, not the interpretation by the LA or NY times.
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    Please provide the PROOF that the UN weapons inspectors were on Saddam Husseins payroll.

    Don't beat around the bush or side step it... you made the claim, now show the PROOF.

    and were we wrong or not???? say the words with me... WE WERE WRONG.
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110005818

    Scott Ritter...UN Arms Inspector...caught with Saddam's money in his pocket.

    And you really don't think that the "Oil for Food" scandal isn't indicative of that whole morally bankrupt organization, do you? You don't really think that money didn't grease more than one wheel, do you?

    Also, WMD was ONE of SEVERAL reasons why we took on Iraq.
    1) Saddam was supporting terrorists.
    2) He was harboring terrorists.
    3) He had attacked in the past
    4) He routinely violated UN sanctions
    5) We thought he had a WMD program.

    The man had to go, and here you are weeping at his departure. 20 years from now history will be able to begin to decide if this was the right course of action.
  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    Don't beat around the bush or side step it... you made the claim, now show the PROOF.
    Hehe...was that a pun?! I know it wasn't because you didn't capitalize it...but I thought it was funny anyway
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by illustreous
    I strongly question: a) the locus of our motives; b) the due diligence procedures of our government; c) our government's maturity and its willingness to come clean with its citizens.
    You're pretty naive if you think any government entity could EVER effectively perform a due diligence procedure. (That's the libertarian in me speaking)
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    5) We thought he had a WMD program.
    Looks like he does to me....

    ...the WMDs are called terrorists, not insurgents. Insurgents rebel against the current government and attack them, attack their military, attack their police, attack government officials. Terrorists attack citizens in restaurants, malls, theaters. These terrorists ARE the WMDs. The airplanes on 9-11 were labelled as a form of WMD. In principle, there's not much different from those airplanes and suicide car bombers.

    Just from today....
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
  11. #131  
    One is to have effective due diligence procedures in place and the other is to perform the diligence itself. Failure of the former ultimately leads to sketchy practices of the latter. Hence, the question is not only about performance rather more about process.

    I advocate a better process of due diligence that could (and would) lead to better performance. How can this be done? Well, you and I have to first question the motives of our politicians when it comes to - in this case - foreign policy. Full disclosure (or similar concept), again, in foreign policy, is another way to make the diligence process transparent. Look what Sarbanes-Oxley has done to business *practices* in general. While I understand that issues of national security in some cases can not be transparent, this should be the exception, not the rule or a loophole.

    Scalia is a libertarian and, among other things, he's all about process and procedure.

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    You're pretty naive if you think any government entity could EVER effectively perform a due diligence procedure. (That's the libertarian in me speaking)
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by illustreous
    One is to have effective due diligence procedures in place and the other is to perform the diligence itself. Failure of the former ultimately leads to sketchy practices of the latter. Hence, the question is not only about performance rather more about process.

    I advocate a better process of due diligence that could (and would) lead to better performance. How can this be done? Well, you and I have to first question the motives of our politicians when it comes to - in this case - foreign policy. Full disclosure (or similar concept), again, in foreign policy, is another way to make the diligence process transparent. Look what Sarbanes-Oxley has done to business *practices* in general. While I understand that issues of national security in some cases can not be transparent, this should be the exception, not the rule or a loophole.

    Scalia is a libertarian and, among other things, he's all about process and procedure.
    I'm with you on this (not against you), all I'm saying is that government, especially ours, is rarely efficient and rarely effective at following processes and procedures be it Republican or Democrat.

    Don't hold your breathe waiting for the US government to effectively do its due diligence on anything.
  13. #133  
    Due diligence is a great concept in a sterile environment. Intelligence, at the strategic level, rarely affords that opportunity...and usually then on an "after the fact" basis.

    Try collecting information from a hostile foreign government. They are actively trying to prevent you from collecting and are at the same time actively feeding you misinformation.

    Take what you've collected and dump it into the machine. Personal and organization agendas will then get mixed in (budget fights between agencies, and then between departments within those agencies). Add congressional oversight (i.e. what can the congressman leak to further his agenda.) Add national and international politics. The add time sensitivity to this whole process...the best intel in the world is worthless if it arrives too late...and equally worthless if it is unprepared.

    Only when things fall apart is there time to do retrospective navel gazing and the subsequent finger pointing. I know there is constant oversight, but when things are humming along what do you really look for? Failure is what attracts attention.
  14. santas's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    641 Global Posts
    #134  
    I think the amusing thing in all these posts is the correlation between to very non-related items:

    Bush Lied - The war was bad

    The war is good - Bush told the truth.

    Well, it's pretty clear to me, Bush said what he needed to sell this war without a high regard to whether everthing he said was true.

    That said, I hope the Bush fans are right, and net result of the war will help transform the Middle East.
    Less than 400 posts to get my own little treo icon!
  15. #135  
    Generally, restating the obvious and what you think is the status quo (with respect to due diligence) is pretty easy. Complacency is an armchair's best friend.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Due diligence is a great concept in a sterile environment. Intelligence, at the strategic level, rarely affords that opportunity...and usually then on an "after the fact" basis.
    Due diligence is context sensitive. Intelligence, when gathered AND assessed with the right motives and through the right processes/procedures, can be extremely useful. For example, some of the largest drug busts in the world have happened right here on our borders and, as a consequence, recently brought down a major South American cartel. Right motives - check. Right procedures - check. This is simply a snapshot of what underlies the motivation for doing diligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Try collecting information from a hostile foreign government. They are actively trying to prevent you from collecting and are at the same time actively feeding you misinformation.
    Yes, this is generally a feature of rogue governments. However, the whiny excuse that it is tough to collect information doesn't quite seem to conclude that war and destruction is the answer. There is a significantly huge assumption you are making here. Do you undertand what it is?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Take what you've collected and dump it into the machine. Personal and organization agendas will then get mixed in (budget fights between agencies, and then between departments within those agencies). Add congressional oversight (i.e. what can the congressman leak to further his agenda.) Add national and international politics. The add time sensitivity to this whole process...the best intel in the world is worthless if it arrives too late...and equally worthless if it is unprepared.
    That's why the process needs to be changed. Homeland Security was, among other things, presumably the answer. Here, the motivations seemed to be correct, but the procedure was wrong. Combined with the Patriot Act and you have due process violations in this country every 15 minutes.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Only when things fall apart is there time to do retrospective navel gazing and the subsequent finger pointing. I know there is constant oversight, but when things are humming along what do you really look for? Failure is what attracts attention.
    It is only natural to speculate, assess and reassess when things fall apart. It is the locus of certain types of innovation. For what reasons do things fall apart though?? Things fell apart during the Tsunami, obviously not much finger pointing going on there (perhaps some for lack of warning systems). But what about that which is under our control? That for which consequences (for Iraqies and Americans) can be understood in advance? Things are falling apart for many poor folks here in our country.

    My little digression:

    There are about 90,000 people with schizophrenia in NYC (statistic is 1% of NYC population). The overwhelming majority of those people are homeless. What do we do currently? We give them food and provide them shelter. Is that what you would if it was your family member? Or, would you provide your kin with the medicine, an understanding of the situation and love?

    End digression.

    Failure is what encourages success.
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Since there were neither WMD nor a link to 9/11, it must indeed be location, location, location, in other words: Oil! Oil! Oil! Lets be open and honest about motives, ok?
    I have to agree with your location, location, location - what I don't agree with is that it was exclusively about oil. Isn't it also possible that the location has as much, if not more, to do with begining in earnest a process toward democratization of the Middle East?
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    By the way, the guy that called WMD in Iraq a "slam dunk" was the Clinton appointed director of the CIA.
    I know you meant George Tenet. Back in the Clinton days it may actually have been true that Saddam had WMDs. BUT it was NOT true when Bush started a war because of them. Look at the statements of 110% certainty in the beginning of this thread again. Those people made a fool out of themselves in the international arena. They have destroyed their credibility and the credibility of US intelligence. Well-respected men like George Powell drew the consequences and resigned.

    Now, what does Bush do when it turns out the CIA was totally, completly, dead wrong about WMDs in Iraq? Does he tell Tenet "thanks for your services, but you made a fool out of us, your organisation proved to produce total crap, please leave me alone, I never want to see you again"? No, far from that, Bush awards George Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the US' HIGHEST civil award. What for? For proving the total incompetence of US intelligence to the world in matter of central importance? OR for remaining silent and following the political guidlines for CIA "results" on Iraqi WMD?
    It is well known that Saddam was paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers...or doesn't that count?
    The Palestinian terrorism is terrorism (and hence bad), but not Islamistic terrorism. It's a fight for land.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    You place the burden of proof on us, while accepting the word of a PROVEN genocidal maniac [Saddam] under the observation of an organization that has been PROVEN to have been on said maniac's payroll.
    True, some people took money from the Oil for Food programme. But at that time Saddam was not geneocidal, nor had he attacked anybody else before the last war, not did he have WMDs.

    However, it is true that he used to be genocidal (e.g. against Kurds), that he attacked his neighbor Iran, and that he had had and used WMD (both against his people and Iranians). But that was ealier, when he (Saddam) was on the payroll of the US, and enjoyed full support of the US government with weapons and money... kind of ironic, isn't it, if not cynical? (Granted, also other nations like Great Britain and France participated)

    Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that made the report, said, "UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs." He added, "the executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual -use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record." (from Wikipedia, Iran-Iraq War)
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    I have to agree with your location, location, location - what I don't agree with is that it was exclusively about oil. Isn't it also possible that the location has as much, if not more, to do with begining in earnest a process toward democratization of the Middle East?
    I don't think democratization was the main part of it (nor WMD, nor terrorism). The US know that democracy does not mean pro-US per se, specially not in a Muslim country. It's about military presence in a country/region important for oil supply: Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait, now Iraq... why not be honest about the motives?

    Ironically, it was the US presence in Saudi-Arabia, the land of the most holy Muslim places, which triggered Osama Bin Laden's 9/11 attack. What started him off was his fight against US "occupation" of the land of Mecca and Medina.

    There would be enough countries in more dire need of freedom, peace, and security, such as the Sudan/Darfur, why no interest in action there, if "humanitarian" reasons are the driving force?
    Last edited by clulup; 06/03/2005 at 04:40 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by BugzLife
    i think it is a powerful clip but is it bush fault for receiving wrong information from the intelligence community?
    Yes. Analogy: CEO takes credit or blame for what his/her underlings do.
    ELR
    >> Drop by! <<

    Avatar courtesy of ButtUglyJeff!
Page 7 of 43 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111217 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions