No Nukes in Iran? - Page 8 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

t walgamuth · #**106** 01-19-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I'm unclear about what you mean (quoting you), "but your conclusions about the "evidence" that powell used to convince the world, is not true, imho.

Do you mean that Powell believed the evidence to be untrue, but asserted it was factual? That makes Powell a lying psychopath. Or did you mean that the evidence was not factual? Obviously, that is the case, else we'd have found factories and warehouses stuffed full of gases and stuff.

B

you should read the book. if i were more clever with this computer i would post the passage as you seem to be able to do effortlessly.

powell rejected large segments of "evidence" that was given him by the administration as completely unreliable and unconvincing. he went to the sources of the spying that we had and picked out things that he felt he could sell. did he believe that it was untrue? i think he believed the case was circumstantial and shakey but decided to sell it strong because he was a "good soldier" and wanted to be a team player.

and imho, after reading plan of attack, he is as you stated here recently "damaged goods".

and i am sorry to come to that conclusion because i had pretty high regard for him.

maybe too many years in the military as a team player.

when you get to the level of sec of state, you should be able to take a moral stand even if it means your job. back in the nixon days we had a few that did, elliot richardson and ruckleshouse come to mind in the "saturday night massacre".

ruckleshouse was a hoosier.

tom w

Botnst · #**107** 01-19-2007, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

you should read the book. if i were more clever with this computer i would post the passage as you seem to be able to do effortlessly.

powell rejected large segments of "evidence" that was given him by the administration as completely unreliable and unconvincing. he went to the sources of the spying that we had and picked out things that he felt he could sell. did he believe that it was untrue? i think he believed the case was circumstantial and shakey but decided to sell it strong because he was a "good soldier" and wanted to be a team player.

and imho, after reading plan of attack, he is as you stated here recently "damaged goods".

and i am sorry to come to that conclusion because i had pretty high regard for him.

maybe too many years in the military as a team player.

when you get to the level of sec of state, you should be able to take a moral stand even if it means your job. back in the nixon days we had a few that did, elliot richardson and ruckleshouse come to mind in the "saturday night massacre".

ruckleshouse was a hoosier.

tom w

I can't assume that somebody else's interpretation of what another party thought about some event is going to be especially informative, so no, I would read Woodward's book, just as I didn't read his previous book about Bush in which (I understand) he lauded Bush as fearless wartime leader. Woodward tries to have it both ways within 5 years about the same folks. That my friend, is bull-poopie.

Be that as it may, intellifgence evidence and criminal evidence are not the same thing and people always confuse them. In criminal evidence and trial we assume the defendent is innocent and try to prove he is guilty. In intelligence it is exactly the opposit.

Why?

In criminal justice, erring on the side of the defendent is seen as protecting the individual from injustice at the hands of the state. I think that is a great attitude.

When it comes to military matter the rules change dramatically. Would we be better served by an intelligence community that assumed all terrorists and unfriendly states really just want to get along and have group hug? Or would we prefer to have an intelligence community that assumed that terrorists want to kill us in as large numbers as possible? What are the consequences of being wrong in each case?

Being wrong concerning Iraq has cost us $300 Bn and over 3,000 american military KIA and probably another 20,000 wounded. A terrible cost.

What if we had been right--that Saddam had WMD and was training Al Qaeda for attacks on the USA and American interests?

Powell and the rest thought in the mode for which they had been trained -- as military and intel professionals.

GottaDiesel · #**108** 01-19-2007, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

What if we had been right--that Saddam had WMD and was training Al Qaeda for attacks on the USA and American interests?

And what if the Easter Bunny was real?

The problem with this mindset is that we knew early-on that the "WMD" were not there. Yet we are still there and we are STILL putting gasoline on the fire.

GottaDiesel · #**109** 01-19-2007, 08:42 AM

Oh! But I forgot. I think we should be there, because it stabilizes the region and keeps our friends in Israel safe. And since they are our friends and the only Democracy in the region we need to support them 100%.

(Wouldn't want to forget the broken-record routine enjoyed by so many -- that just wouldn't be right!)

Botnst · #**110** 01-19-2007, 08:52 AM

RainMan! It's you.

Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel. Israel is bad. Bad Israel. Israel makes us do bad things. Look out for Israel.

Pella is bad, too. Pella is evil. Pella ate my homework.

t walgamuth · #**111** 01-19-2007, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Oh! But I forgot. I think we should be there, because it stabilizes the region and keeps our friends in Israel safe. And since they are our friends and the only Democracy in the region we need to support them 100%.

(Wouldn't want to forget the broken-record routine enjoyed by so many -- that just wouldn't be right!)

this is one reason the administration has NOT used.

why are you saying it?

tom w

t walgamuth · #**112** 01-19-2007, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I can't assume that somebody else's interpretation of what another party thought about some event is going to be especially informative, so no, I would read Woodward's book, just as I didn't read his previous book about Bush in which (I understand) he lauded Bush as fearless wartime leader. Woodward tries to have it both ways within 5 years about the same folks. That my friend, is bull-poopie.

Be that as it may, intellifgence evidence and criminal evidence are not the same thing and people always confuse them. In criminal evidence and trial we assume the defendent is innocent and try to prove he is guilty. In intelligence it is exactly the opposit.

Why?

In criminal justice, erring on the side of the defendent is seen as protecting the individual from injustice at the hands of the state. I think that is a great attitude.

When it comes to military matter the rules change dramatically. Would we be better served by an intelligence community that assumed all terrorists and unfriendly states really just want to get along and have group hug? Or would we prefer to have an intelligence community that assumed that terrorists want to kill us in as large numbers as possible? What are the consequences of being wrong in each case?

Being wrong concerning Iraq has cost us $300 Bn and over 3,000 american military KIA and probably another 20,000 wounded. A terrible cost.

What if we had been right--that Saddam had WMD and was training Al Qaeda for attacks on the USA and American interests?

Powell and the rest thought in the mode for which they had been trained -- as military and intel professionals.

i guess in the end, i cannot support a preemptive strike. because you just can't say for sure what someone is thinking or going to do.

we never have done it before (i don't think) and i sure hope we never do it again.

tom w

aklim · #**113** 01-19-2007, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

The problem with this mindset is that we knew early-on that the "WMD" were not there. Yet we are still there and we are STILL putting gasoline on the fire.

We did know? IOW, it was fact? How? If so, why was the UN wasting time writing resolutions? So it gives the writers something to put on their resume?

aklim · #**114** 01-19-2007, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Oh! But I forgot. I think we should be there, because it stabilizes the region and keeps our friends in Israel safe. And since they are our friends and the only Democracy in the region we need to support them 100%.

(Wouldn't want to forget the broken-record routine enjoyed by so many -- that just wouldn't be right!)

How does it keep them safe?

Botnst · #**115** 01-19-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

i guess in the end, i cannot support a preemptive strike. because you just can't say for sure what someone is thinking or going to do.

tom w

Excellent point. To me, that is a far better argument than squabbling over WMD's and such. The problem in government with having a very strong team in power is that they cannot help but develop a synergism, for both good and bad. Bush assembled a very strong group of people whith shining credentials in warmaking, intelligence, and law enforcement. 9-11 forced them to jell into a very close and cooperative team. By having such a strong team attitude, they were able to militarily defeat Afghanistan and depose it's government within 2 months of the attack. That is the result of a very positive and very strong team effort.

The downside of of a team is that when a wrong idea takes hold, nobody sees it for what it is. Everybody wants to make it work. Powell & Cheney ignore or minimize contrary evidence. Rumsfeld's Pentagon devises a brilliant strategy for defeating Iraq. Tenant sees a massive conspiracy where there is none and Bush cheerleads his team to victory.

aklim · #**116** 01-19-2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

i guess in the end, i cannot support a preemptive strike. because you just can't say for sure what someone is thinking or going to do.

I guess the question is whether you are willing to take that chance or not.

Honus · #**117** 01-19-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I guess the question is whether you are willing to take that chance or not.

I disagree. The question was not whether we were willing to take any particular chance. The question was which chance we wanted to take.

AFAIK, here are the available choices:

(a) We could take the chance that an invasion would lead to an intractible mess in Iraq, alienate us from our would-be allies, do nothing to protect us from any terrorist threat, drain our budget and our military, and provide a ready-made recruiting tool for various terroist organizations; or

(b) We could take the chance that we would be harmed by a third-world country whose technological and economic capacity was insufficient to provide reliable electricity in its capital capital city and who was so weak militarily that it only controled the airspace in a narrow band in the middle of the country.

I've never been any good at gambling, but you don't need hindsight to see that (b) is a better bet than (a). IMHO, of course.

aklim · #**118** 01-19-2007, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I disagree. The question was not whether we were willing to take any particular chance. The question was which chance we wanted to take.

AFAIK, here are the available choices:

(a) We could take the chance that an invasion would lead to an intractible mess in Iraq, alienate us from our would-be allies, do nothing to protect us from any terrorist threat, drain our budget and our military, and provide a ready-made recruiting tool for various terroist organizations; or

(b) We could take the chance that we would be harmed by a third-world country whose technological and economic capacity was insufficient to provide reliable electricity in its capital capital city and who was so weak militarily that it only controled the airspace in a narrow band in the middle of the country.

I've never been any good at gambling, but you don't need hindsight to see that (b) is a better bet than (a). IMHO, of course.

(a) alienate us from what allies? The Fair Weathered Friends we call allies who will be back at the end of the day when something happens? Just like my "friends" at the bar when I am buying? Small loss there. Afghanistan is already a recruiting tool if you want to look at it that way. BTW, one could also say that Israel has made that tool a long time ago so I don't see how one more "tool" makes the difference. One can always find a tool if they are looking for it. Iraq wasn't the start of muslims against us and probably won't be the end even if we didn't go there.

(b) Don't forget the goodies we knew he had and were trying to make sure it doesn't disappear into thin air and then reappear in our skies again. If you are thinking that Hussein could not launch a full scale invasion here, you are right. However, this "war by proxy" thing has been gaining popularity for a while.

Yes, if you omit some info, a would be a better bet.

Honus · #**119** 01-19-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

(a) alienate us from what allies? The Fair Weathered Friends we call allies who will be back at the end of the day when something happens? Just like my "friends" at the bar when I am buying? Small loss there. Afghanistan is already a recruiting tool if you want to look at it that way. BTW, one could also say that Israel has made that tool a long time ago so I don't see how one more "tool" makes the difference. One can always find a tool if they are looking for it. Iraq wasn't the start of muslims against us and probably won't be the end even if we didn't go there.

(b) Don't forget the goodies we knew he had and were trying to make sure it doesn't disappear into thin air and then reappear in our skies again. If you are thinking that Hussein could not launch a full scale invasion here, you are right. However, this "war by proxy" thing has been gaining popularity for a while.

Yes, if you omit some info, a would be a better bet.

No, I'm not talking about friends at the bar when you are buying, I'm talking about countries who would have been our allies because it would be in their best interest to work with the world's largest superpower by sharing intelligence and fighting focused, sensible battles against terrorists. Bush could have used the selfishness of other countries to our mutual advantage. Instead he did the opposite.

EDIT: Yes, I omitted information, but it's not as if your discussion is any more comprehensive than mine. If we had the time, energy, and resources to lay out all the issues, Bush's approach would come up lacking. IMHO.

dlssmith · #**120** 01-19-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Oh! But I forgot. I think we should be there, because it stabilizes the region and keeps our friends in Israel safe. And since they are our friends and the only Democracy in the region we need to support them 100%.

(Wouldn't want to forget the broken-record routine enjoyed by so many -- that just wouldn't be right!)

It is sad that this kind of thinking is acceptable in a modern world. The right of Israel to exist, or to protect itself, is as any other free nation. Stability in the middle east benefits not only Israel, but the entire world, including all of us in small town America. An epic disaster in the middle east would have far reaching consequences for Americans, Europeans, Asians and everyone else that lives in a modern society. As consumers of goods manufactured everywhere in the world, and as producers of food and other goods sold everywhere in the world, Americans can ill afford to maintain a myopic, self-centered view of events.

Many of you remember what it was like in 1962 when JFK held his ground against the soviets, how frightening it was. How different would it be if a nuclear armed, aggressive Islamic republic was propping up Cuba or Bolivia and wanted to place missiles there?

Do you think this is not possible?

After '62 a lot of people started smoking that wacky weed to escape the harsh realities of the world - just love one another and everything will be ok...they said.

There are aggressive, evil people in the world who are bent on the destruction of that which is good. You can't tell what's good in the world if you don't recognize evil, or pretend that it doesn't exist.