Support NeoGAF

[Phoenix]

Macam, I really appreciate someone taking the time to craft a well-written post that goes beyond calling me a fascist. However, you're still working on assumptions that I don't share.

--The trouble in providing electricity does not prove that the administration cares nothing about building a better Iraq. As I understand it, the power situation is attributed to 3 main problems:
1. The plants were in terrible shape before the invasion because of sanctions and the generally terrible pre-invasion management of all facets of Iraqi society (except presidential palace construction) under Saddam.
2. Post-invasion looting.
3. Insurgent sabotage.

4. Its difficult to go from a bomb crater to a powerplant in a short amount of time. Don't forget that powerplants in various areas were actually strategic bombing targets.

The US has provided billions of dollars for Iraqi reconstruction. The pace of it is slow and frustrating, but that is mostly because of the difficulties in execution, not some nefarious intent. No doubt there could have been better planning, but that does not mean that the administration just doesn't care what happens in Iraq.

The administration also isn't directly controlling it either. At this point its mostly contractors and Iraqi officials doing the real grunt work of the rebuilding.

I view the administration's case as if it were a prosecutor in a criminal trial. A prosecutor is given a pre-determined result, and she must sift through the available evidence to contruct a case against the accused, highlighting what helps and downplaying what hurts the case.

The problem with your parallel is that a judge and laws sets bounds on what a prosecutor can get away with. The US didn't really present its evidence and await a verdict. It knew what verdict was acceptable and went through every avenue that would get it that verdict.

What you ignore, Macam, is that there was no "good" intelligence about Iraq, so the administration could not conclusively know anything. It is nearly impossible to get good intelligence in an Orwellian police state where the slightest hint of disloyalty to the absolute dictator means summary execution

That doesn't mean however that you engage in hostilities without information. We could have destroyed Iraq's military capacity a year later, 5 years later, etc. Iraq's military simply wasn't up to par so we could have stepped up our surveillence efforts (before coming public) to actually have evidence.

In a trial, if the other side of a dispute refuses to produce relevant evidence, then the jury is instructed to assume that the evidence contradicts their case. From 1998 until there was a credible threat of invasion, Saddam refused to allow inspections. Only after months of wrangling and a massive military buildup on his border did he allow inspecitons, and even then there were conditions. The administration was justified to assume that Saddam refused inspections because he had retained the weapons.

Don't confuce them being justified to be suspicious with justification to act. Even IF you had evidence that the weapons existed, there still wasn't legal justification to act - don't forget that. The US went out of its way to get the resolutions changed so that combat action was justified. This is an often overlooked fact.

This doesn't, of course, suggest that I support Macams position - but there are significant flaws in yours as well... just not as bad

 

[Macam]

This doesn't, of course, suggest that I support Macams position - but there are significant flaws in yours as well... just not as bad

I'm aware of them, but christ, I can only spend so much time on a post. I don't know how Loki does it.

 

[Mandark]

Spike and Guileless: Put up or shut up.

This ties in with this old thread. Much of public support for Bush's foreign policy is based on ignorance about certain facts, the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime being one of them. This is one of several vague statements made by Bush and other people in his administration that reinforce the connection in people's minds.

Spike is regurgitating the Operation Flytrap theory, a logically incoherent and just plain silly talking point. Thread later on why it's so idiotic.

Guileless says plenty of stupid things. Among them is a shifting of goalposts where a 51% chance of WMD existing, based on admittedly bad evidence, would justify this sorry venture. Hans Blix is cited, which probably isn't the best idea.

The really interesting one, though, is his likening the administration's role to that of a prosecutor in an adversarial system. He correctly points out that in that system, a prosecutor is given a conclusion, and must argue as best he can to convince others of that conclusion.

This makes me wonder who gave Bush the conclusion of the Iraq war? Cheney? His father? God? Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani? Ali Khamenei? Guileless himself?

Only Guileless knows, and he ain't telling.

 

[xexex]

USA =====> Iran 2007 ?
=========>

 

[Shinobi]

edit; having posted that, one thing struck me - i don't really give a shit anymore. i went through this phase of being really angry about the war - about how they lied about it, continue to lie about it etc - and i used to say before the war started, that it was all bullshit, they'd planned it for years, and i knew i was right.. but now i just don't give a fuck, and i think that's also the problem with a lot of people.

the most horrific truths about this whole debacle keep coming out, and noone bats an eyelid - a year ago i'd be reading more about it , just trying to comprehend how anyone can just continually lie to a populace and they just lap it up.. but now nothing surprises me, or shocks me, or even strikes that much of a reaction in me anymore. i think it's the feeling of not being able to change any of it. i hate being apathetic about it, i just accept thats how the world seems to work :\

The moment the election results came in last November, I quit caring about this shit. The people spoke, and if they think bullshit should be rewarded, then fine. I'm just worrying about keeping my own head above water now.

 

[bob_arctor]

Translation: We've purposely made Iraq the frontline in our War on Terror to draw our enemies there, where they can fight our military and democracy on foreign soil, instead of here in the US where your lives and comfort would be in danger and our efforts in fighting terrorists would largely be reactive.

:lol As if fighting a war on American soil would ever be a consideration. As if the Bush administration actually had that in mind. "Well, either we invade Iraq for no logical reason or fucking hell, the homeland's gonna be the next Iraq! Errr...provided we invaded Iraq of course." Yes, roving teams of murdering terrorist scum would have sorely impacted my runs to the bodega for dutches every night. Surely they would have double parked their suicide bomb cars all over the city, delaying us all on the morning commute.

It's like the accidental assassin:
"Well, I was aimin' at that there tree right there, ya know just for practice, when BOOM! Up pops Dubya's head right around the middle of the bark there. I tell ya, 2 birds, man, 2 birds."

 

[fortified_concept]

Spike and Guileless: Put up or shut up.

This ties in with this old thread. Much of public support for Bush's foreign policy is based on ignorance about certain facts, the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime being one of them. This is one of several vague statements made by Bush and other people in his administration that reinforce the connection in people's minds.

Spike is regurgitating the Operation Flytrap theory, a logically incoherent and just plain silly talking point. Thread later on why it's so idiotic.

Guileless says plenty of stupid things. Among them is a shifting of goalposts where a 51% chance of WMD existing, based on admittedly bad evidence, would justify this sorry venture. Hans Blix is cited, which probably isn't the best idea.

The really interesting one, though, is his likening the administration's role to that of a prosecutor in an adversarial system. He correctly points out that in that system, a prosecutor is given a conclusion, and must argue as best he can to convince others of that conclusion.

This makes me wonder who gave Bush the conclusion of the Iraq war? Cheney? His father? God? Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani? Ali Khamenei? Guileless himself?

Only Guileless knows, and he ain't telling.

IAWTP

 

[Guileless]

The conclusion to do something about Iraq evolved among what would become Bush admininistration policymakers throughout the nineties as Saddam blatantly violated the treaty ending the Gulf War, refused inspections, and consolidated his power despite sanctions by paying off the UN.

Wasn't it reasonable to think that Saddam had WMD before the war?
After 9/11, our political leadership determined that such a risk was no longer comfortable to live with. In light of 9/11 and the ramifications of WMD use, wasn't that reasonable?
After 10 years of trying sanctions to change Saddam's behavior that not only failed but backfired because they hurt the Iraqi people disproportionately, wasn't it reasonable to try something else?
After 25 years of escalating terrorist attacks, culminating in 9/11, wasn't it reasonable to send a message to rogue regimes that there is some price to pay for the continued refusal to conform to international standards?

While you can plausibly disagree with all of these statements, you also have to admit they're reasonable. Based on what we now know, the reasonable person does not have to conclude that the Bush administration consciously lied about WMD evidence in a cynical attempt to profit from war with no regard to the consequences for Iraqis or Americans.

I've said everything I want to in these threads barring some important new information. This is my final word on the subject. Obviously y'all are always going to keep believing that, and I won't contradict you anymore. I'm argued out about this, both here and among my friends. You can go on telling yourselves how much more clever you are than all the rednecks in Jesusland who love war and Fox News and aren't savvy enough to understand what's really going on like you are. In the event someone else ever does challenge the GAF party line on this I'm sure you can run him off by calling him a fascist or telling him to enlist in the army.

 

[ronito]

In the event someone else ever does challenge the GAF party line on this I'm sure you can run him off by calling him a fascist or telling him to enlist in the army.

As little as Guileless and I agree, I actually agree with this and have seen it too many times. Calling someone facist because the way they run the government or their policies is one thing. Calling someone facist because they disagree with you is...well... facist.

That being said Guileless I understand your whole point about the "plausible arguments" I just don't buy it. Like I said earlier if you logically followed those plausible arguments to their logical end with an open mind they would've all taken you somewhere other than Iraq first. I still maintain that Bush made up his mind long ago that he was going to invade Iraq and bent his administration's policy to do so. And there is evidence to back this up. A lot of the people that point out this 51% chance of WMDs are the same who say that we should "err on the side of life" in the Schaivo case. Any eye that's bent on finding fault will find it, even if it's not true.

But perhaps I'm being too Utopian or naive, hindsight is really 20/20. However, even if that were the case we see now that this is a problem, a problem that we got into due to massive failures (whether they were in leadership or intelligence is debatable but I'd say the former and not the latter). But we're still not doing anything about it. There is no timetable to leave, no finite plan, no real strategy other than "When the Iraqi forces are ready and the insurgency are under control" (how long did OBL fight against the communists? Didn't the communists loose that war?). Sure, one could argue about why we went to war, but even if all arguements were moot there are things that we should be doing that we are not.

 

[Dilbert]

As little as Guileless and I agree, I actually agree with this and have seen it too many times. Calling someone facist because the way they run the government or their policies is one thing. Calling someone facist because they disagree with you is...well... facist.

1) The bolded statement is nonsensical.

2) Could you please show me some examples where someone has called another person a "fascist" for disagreeing with someone, rather than as a judgment of their views?

 

[ronito]

1). Yes, I added it for irony. Glad you caught it. Too bad you didn't enjoy though.

2).

Anyone who is more concerned with the accuracy of a metaphor than with our government's belief that it can incarcerate anyone it wants without a scrap of due process is a hypocrite, a coward, a fascist, and an idiot.

Bolded for your enjoyment. That's the first one I found. Not going to clog this place up with them.

 

[bob_arctor]

Anyone who is more concerned with the accuracy of a metaphor than with our government's belief that it can incarcerate anyone it wants without a scrap of due process is a hypocrite, a coward, a fascist, and an idiot.

To be fair, that quote doesn't really disprove Jinx's statement:

Could you please show me some examples where someone has called another person a "fascist" for disagreeing with someone, rather than as a judgment of their views?

To be even more fair, that's a nice shade of gray right there.

 

[Shinobi]

Wasn't it reasonable to think that Saddam had WMD before the war?
After 9/11, our political leadership determined that such a risk was no longer comfortable to live with. In light of 9/11 and the ramifications of WMD use, wasn't that reasonable?

If it was reasonable, we wouldn't be having this fucking argument...

 

[teruterubozu]

All I know is - Everytime I watch the Giants play now I'm going to think Eli Manning is a redneck in Jesusland who loves war and Fox News.

 

[Mandark]

You know, I'm the one who lobbied to have Guileless unbanned, and this is what I get. No flowers, not even a fruit basket.

ronito: Tosh.

I don't use the word lightly (check my posting history), but what would you call a state that can arrest and detain anyone it wants without ever bringing charges? What would you call someone who supports that power?

Oh, it might not be fascist. I'm sure a communist dictatorship would do this too, or a divine monarchy, or a pissant kleptocracy. So maybe I should use the word "totalitarian," or "anti-human rights," but I don't think that's too far off.

I say mean things, but I pick them carefully.

I'm only stupid because you guys are so mean!

No, I'm mean because you're stupid.

You contradict yourself within your own post, bringing up the regime change consensus from the 1990's, then saying 9/11 was a major part of the reason.

You bring up a prosecutorial analogy in one post, have it slammed, then pretend you never made the analogy in the first place.

You ignore the fact that support for the Iraq war is directly correlated to ignorance about it. It makes your team look bad.

You never argue against anything I actually say. You cherry-pick from the most extreme anti-war rhetoric, and repeat it as if that discredits all criticism of the administration.

You avoided the Put Up Or Shut Up thread, because you know there's no way you can justify sending 1,700 Americans to their death while the military begs for recruits. You whine about being told to join a war that you think is necessary. Guess what: It's not a cheap rhetorical device, it's a moral argument. And that's what scares you.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Don't know if anyone else has said it, but he's actually right. Without the attacks on the US, it would've been much harder convincing the US that Iraq had WMDs, and that action needed to be taken. 9/11's a solid crutch the Bush admin can lean on whenever the road gets slippery.

 

[Shinobi]

Which is where the 9/11 conspiracy theories come from...though that's a road I'll leave untraveled (for now).