Ableton Forum

hindsight 20/20 ?
when the world says 'No wmds'...and you discover there is indeed no wmds, and that there was indeed no real evidence, ..well I dont really think you get to be so blase with the ole 'hindsight is 20/20' routine. foresight was 20/20 to begin with.

M. Bréqs wrote:The US, and I, fell into his well crafted deception plan.

you'd think that someone who is cognizant of their gullability (or the bush administrations 'well crafted' deceit) would have developed a healthy mis-trust of their sources.

I guess not. I guess some people just say things to gain leverage in a debate.

b0unce wrote: foresight was 20/20 to begin with.

exactly

glu wrote:

b0unce wrote: foresight was 20/20 to begin with.

exactly

Then why did it lead to UN Security Council Resolution 1441?

The Russians, the French and the Chinese each have veto power; and all three were anti-invasion for their own reasons.

To pass 1441, there was a credible threat of WMDs in Iraq percieved by the UN security council.

To say that "the whole world knew there weren't WMDs" is fallicious. There were MANY people, many organizations, many institutions and many governments convinced otherwise.

I'm not defending the war, and I resent people trying to paint me into that corner; I am defending the rationality of believing that Iraq was hiding WMDs prior to 2003.

On December 19th 2002, Hans Blix wrote:During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated.

On March 7th, 2003, Hans Blix wrote: Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections.

Well golly gee, lookee who they fooled... Even the UN's chief inspector conceded that Iraq could have had chemical weapons. My point? HINDSIGHT IS 20/20, only people with preconcieved notions held in 2002 could think that Iraq's compliance was self-evident AT THAT TIME.

b0unce and glu, you guys have a real talent for revisionist history. You guys might have read some sources that happened to guess (correctly, despite the absence of evidence) that Iraq had dismantled all their chem/bio weapons and ceased research / production, but that does not change the fact that in 2002 the majority of the UN security council, and I along with them, disagreed. It's pretty easy to claim you were right all along when events unfold to confirm your beliefs, but that does not make them universal. Foresight was NOT 20/20 to begin with, you just made a lucky guess.

M. Bréqs wrote:Further, I think that it was 50% wishful thinking and 50% impatience that resulted in the failure regarding the false WMD assessments. I usually don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be attributed to incompetence.

It's not conspiracy really, they just flat out wanted to believe what they wanted to believe. I think they were so sure they were going to be vindicated in some way that they didn't care about the facts. That CIA guy in the link isn't the first or only guy from the CIA who stated that the current administration had no interest in information that went against their wish to war with Iraq.
It was pure arrogance on their part, there's no way a country as small, and with as little technological ability as Iraq is a threat to the US. How you can believe that is beyond me?
Personally I find it a sad state of affairs when a supposed freedom loving president like Bush, with the advantage of having little or no political prisoners, will not debate a man like Saddam. I thought that said a lot about Bushes lack of real evidence.

M. Bréqs wrote:b0unce and glu, you guys have a real talent for revisionist history. You guys might have read some sources that happened to guess (correctly, despite the absence of evidence) that Iraq had dismantled all their chem/bio weapons and ceased research / production, but that does not change the fact that in 2002 the majority of the UN security council, and I along with them, disagreed. It's pretty easy to claim you were right all along when events unfold to confirm your beliefs, but that does not make them universal. Foresight was NOT 20/20 to begin with, you just made a lucky guess.

Well for whatever reason, it was common knowledge that the inside source the CIA had,( like the guy states in the link ), said Saddam dismantled his WMD's years ago. Did you think that was liberal BS? or did you not catch that? because I remember it pretty clearly.
The UN was convinced he did not have them, you're confusing the issue here a bit. They were not fully satisfied with the inspections, but they were satisfied enough to not side with us on the issue of going to war.
There's a big difference there, they made a mountain out of a molehill, and in many ways, that is exactly how every war ever started on this planet is birthed! Through half truths and superstition.

Machinesworking wrote: Well for whatever reason, it was common knowledge that the inside source the CIA had,( like the guy states in the link ), said Saddam dismantled his WMD's years ago. Did you think that was liberal BS? or did you not catch that? because I remember it pretty clearly.

"an inside source"... HUMINT, (Human derived intelligence) is considered the most fallible, prone to deception and least consistent form of intelligence.

The US had HUMINT indicating that Iraq both had, and did not have, WMDs. That's just the way it is. They chose to consider one side and ignore the other to their own peril.

However, again I will state I am not defending the decision to go to war. My objective in this debate is to justify my once held belief that Iraq had WMDs as rational given what we knew in 2002. Even the French, Russians and Germans, who voted against war in March 2003 believed that Saddam was hiding weapons (hence resolution 1441). There were naturally, on a planet of 6 billion people, dissenting voices with contrary evidence... However, in 2002 and early 2003, the majority of the world's decision makers believed what I believed, and it was only the fringe who thought otherwise.

The fringe happend to be right for once.

Remember, France, Germany and Russia did not oppose the invasion because they thought Saddam had disarmed - they believed he had not,as stated in resolution 1441- they opposed the invasion because they had money tied up in Iraq and they wanted to defy American hegemony.

Again, I assert that my opinion in 2002, based on all the available information, was rational.

M. Bréqs wrote: b0unce and glu, you guys have a real talent for revisionist history.

what kind of snooty comment is that? I have only offered two sentences in this entire ablelitical debate, I have yet to express anything...

M. Bréqs wrote: Foresight was NOT 20/20 to begin with, you just made a lucky guess.

Lucky? This is where we fundementally differ. Why don't you just admit WMDs/ Iraqi freedom (take your pick) was an excuse to go to war for a much larger utlilitarian motive?

You already expressed your polarizing views favoring western utility and global dominance on many threads, can we just stop the age old debate
about the smoking gun? I thought we have moved past that already.

We are down to utility, and you pick the west over the rest of the world. That is where you and I differ. I think this view will accelerate the human expiration date on earth.

Point is...

The U.S. dollar was at stake, and the U.S. knew what it had to do...

that's the bigger picture. The truth that hides behind this tapestry cannot be ignored.

was it right to put hundreds of thousands of people to death so you and I can continue to wipe our arses with 3-ply toilet paper, sit in our little studios twittling knobs and complaining about latency?

I don't know abount B0unce, but I have no business in revisionist History. That's my president's job.

glu wrote:

M. Bréqs wrote: b0unce and glu, you guys have a real talent for revisionist history.

what kind of snooty comment is that? I have only offered two sentences in this entire ablelitical debate, I have yet to express anything...

Snooty in response to your statement of "exactly" regarding b0unce's assertation that foresight is 20/20. I took it to mean that you were affirming his labelling of me as gullible. It's easy to look back four years and judge other people's judgement based on the information you have today. Foresight is not 20/20, and in this case, you were trying to claim it was. Hence, you were overtly agreeing with the assertion that everybody knew that Iraq didn't have WMDs, when the exact opposite is true; MANY PEOPLE, including Hans Blix and Baradei didn't know. That's the basis of my conclusion that you're revising history.

glu wrote: Why don't you just admit WMDs/ Iraqi freedom (take your pick) was an excuse to go to war for a much larger utlilitarian motive?

I can certainly admit that. The US decision to attack was utilitarian - but for a utilitarian reason which was to the benefit of the middle east as well as the West. Utilitarianism does not mean the absence of morality; often utilitarian actions can be taken that have a morally justified outcome.

I don't believe that they willfully doctored intelligence, I believe they were negligent in the interpretation of their intelligence. It makes a huge difference for motive. I believe that through excitement, pressure and desperately wanting to be proactive, they made errors of judgement, rather than insidious plots to mislead. Could I be wrong? Yes. But I work in a bureaucracy every day. I see every day institutionalized stupidity in government. That's why I think it is more likely that the incorrect intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq were more likely to be the result of error rather than conspiracy.

I think that the PNAC and the Neo-Con movement actually believed that they were going to do good for Iraqis, and for the Middle East as a whole. Get rid of WMDs that are possibly there? That's better for everybody in the middle East. Establish a democratic, religiously tolerant state? Again, good for everybody. Ensure that the planet has a stable oil supply? Good for everybody, an economic disaster caused by oil interruption could kill hundreds of millions of people throughout Africa, South America, and Asia.

Did it work out that way? Unfortunatley, due to their underestimation of the self-destructive hatred manifest in the Islamic world, they failed. Stupid? Yes. Was oil a motive? Certainly. But I think it was in addition to the (misguided) motive of producing a democratic and liberal Islamic state to act as an example for the rest of the Islamic world, with the long term objective of enhancing western security and regional stability. A win-win scenario for the west, a win-win scenario for the people of Iraq, a win-win scenario for every Israeli, Jordinian, Saudi, Kuwaiti, Lebanese and Iranian living within SCUD range of Iraq, and a win-win scenario for the people of every nation that depends on oil to keep their countries from crashing and their people from starving and freezing.

However, it wasn't to be.

The Iraqis blew their best chance in all their history by refusing to cooperate with each other. Admittedly the Neo-Cons should have expected the Iraqis to shit in their neigbour's well, given the Islamic world's track record on making peace and cohabiting in a civil manner with each other.

I think the Neo-Con movement, once they get their shit together in terms of understanding just how self destructive Islam has become and how useless it will be to try to get them to democratize (or at least stop stoning women for being raped), I think the Neo-Cons are the right people to control the United States. Republicans have the right motive. All they need to do is master the execution of their plans and be a lot more realistic in setting their objectives.

But it's these principles that they're chasing that are the basis of WHY I so strongly support the United States. The current US administration is morally on track, they're just too stupid to get it done right, having bitten off more than they can chew by their underestimation of Islam's current societal retardation.

glu wrote: We are down to utility, and you pick the west over the rest of the world. That is where you and I differ. I think this view will accelerate the human expiration date on earth.

Again, you're welcome to think that because you live in the west and enjoy the benefits of western civilization.

I'm getting bored of this discussion.

I'm out. L8er

M. Bréqs wrote: I took it to mean that you were affirming his labelling of me as gullible.

Sorry, I had no intentions of that. When I said that I meant that the Bush administration knew exactly what they wouldn't find, that's why they rushed to war. They had foresight 20/20 and a hidden agenda.

Sorry for the confusion.

g

M. Bréqs wrote:I'm getting bored of this discussion.

I'm out. L8er

Sorry, but I think you're getting bored because you're having to admit that the government that you think is politically correct is stupid, and you're resorting to your assertion that all enemies of the US invasion of Iraq are fundamentalist whackos that we have a 'moral' imperative to remove from power as a way of justifying a deeply stupid war.
Its' a slippery slope to constantly have to blame the enemy for your sides own ugly war like behavior, and personally I think you can see the lack of fair play in that attitude, and it irks you that you're being forced to say things as vastly overeaching as ....

M. Bréqs wrote: Ensure that the planet has a stable oil supply? Good for everybody, an economic disaster caused by oil interruption could kill hundreds of millions of people throughout Africa, South America, and Asia.

M. Bréqs wrote:
I think the Neo-Cons are the right people to control the United States. Republicans have the right motive. All they need to do is master the execution of their plans and be a lot more realistic in setting their objectives.

I sincerely hope I never inadvertently hear your "music".

The thought of right wing, Neo-Con breakbeat makes me shudder.

You vile little nazi.

I find it utterly fascinating watching the ugly little right-wingers desperately defending the Neo-Cons' adventures in imperialism, despite overwhelming evidence that every pretext for war in Iraq was at best erroneous and at worst simply fabricated.

M. Breqs, you give yourself and your ugly xenophobia away when you evoke images of Muslims "stoning women for being raped" - as if that is the only valid criteria upon which to judge the standards of 1.5 billion people.

By that logic, "Christians are people who systematically rape and abuse children" - but only if you base your judgement of all Christians upon the actions of a hundred or so Catholic priests.

"Americans gun down children in schools"

"Israelis drop bombs on hospitals and schools."

Easy isn't it?


It's easy to demonise an entire population if it serves to justify your own prejudices: In 1930's Germany the Jews were denounced as uncivillised criminal scum - dehumanised in much the same way that you and your ilk seek to dehumanise Muslims today.

For a while I feared that the far-right might be gaining a toe-hold in international politics, but now I see that it was all just the half-arsed efforts of a bunch of greedy idealogues, cheered on by a sycophantic chorus of approval from the likes of you - "me first - fuck the world" types who saw an opportunity to rid the world of those you identify as "Untermensch" and maybe benefit personally from the "trickle down" of the spoils of international piracy.

I've a feeling that the phrase "cut and run" won't be nearly adequate to describe the eventual "exit strategy" employed by the US when the time comes. They'll pack up and leave Iraq with an even greater power vacuum than that which exists today - allowing the country to implode in a flaming pit of sectarian hatred without a thought for the innocent civillians who'll die in the carnage. You right-wingers never seem too bothered about the deaths of a few hundred thousand "sand niggers" after all.

Thankfully, the Neo-Cons are thoroughly spent and discredited and those of us who saw it coming can now sit back and watch as they clumsily attempt to extricate themselves from the mess they've made.

You can console yourself by re-reading the pile of Ann Coulter books you keep beside your bed and looking forward to the glorious day that the US finally annexes Canada.

That really doesn't help.
The point here is intelligent respectful dialogue, not bashing someone for their beliefs, or inflammatory posting.