Bush Administration logic
The Bush Administration's stance on Iraq relies on enforcing a logical inconsistency, namely "proving a negative". Iraq has been told to prove that is has no weapons of mass destruction in order to avoid a war.
In parallel: the police show up at Laci Peterson's husband's home and say: "We know you killed her and it's up to you to prove that you didn't. If you fail to convince us, you will be found guilty and get a death sentence".
And also: Many people believe (and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence) that upper ranking personnel within the Bush Administration had foreknowledge of 9-11, and maybe even allowed it to happen. Maybe it should be up to the Bush Administration to prove that it had nothing to do with foreknowledge and complicity, as regards 9-11.
Why not assume guilt in all cases?
In parallel: the police show up at Laci Peterson's husband's home and say: "We know you killed her and it's up to you to prove that you didn't. If you fail to convince us, you will be found guilty and get a death sentence".
And also: Many people believe (and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence) that upper ranking personnel within the Bush Administration had foreknowledge of 9-11, and maybe even allowed it to happen. Maybe it should be up to the Bush Administration to prove that it had nothing to do with foreknowledge and complicity, as regards 9-11.
Why not assume guilt in all cases?
Comments
Only include all of the facts that help your case and avoid the ones that don't.
Now, don't get me wrong. I disagree with the way we are handling Iraq. However, it is not entirely baseless. If Laci's husband has a history of killing wives, much more scrutiny will be placed on the husband to prove that his alibi is sound. If he lies in a statement to the police, it will only place further suspicion upon him.
Iraq definitely has exhibited a certain amount of this type of guilty behavior and adding their history to the mix definitely should increase our suspicions. However, show me the money. SHOW ME THE MONEY. Bush still needs to provide some evidence that Hussein either has or is hiding weapons.
Within a nation you have a body who have (or ought to have) monopol on violence. In return it gives its citizent some fundamental rights like being innoncent until proven guilty. The rationale is that even if the citizent IS guilty of a crime and isn´t convicted he or she won´t be able to threathen the state.
In IR you don´t have that body that is immune to the doings of others. So sometimes you have to act even if you don´t have all the evidence that would lead to an conviction in a normal courtroom. If Kennedy hadn´t reacted when USSR placed missiles in Cuba because he didn´t have a paper from Kreml stating that those missiles were to be used in an agressive war against US he would have made a mistake IMHO.
That doesn´t say this is a case where the west can do as we please but we just have to find some other arguments since domestic justice != IR justice.
And I for one hope one day we WILL have a situation where we have a international body that can react in cases like this. Natos article five in UN anyone?
BR: Looks like we delivered the best thread kill EVAR!!!
<strong>Wow. :eek:
BR: Looks like we delivered the best thread kill EVAR!!!
they were supposed to document when/how they destroyed them, and didn't.
it would be like a felon who owned a handgun, and had to turn it in to the police. you wouldn't accept their answer of "well, i chucked it, and i don't remember where, and no one saw me do it, but you should believe me"
Bush will attack now no matter what Iraq does. He's just waiting for the right moment.
Expecting that compliance from Iraq has anything to do with it is naive.
<strong>It's not that Samantha's not right. It's just that we've been over this ground before.
Bush will attack now no matter what Iraq does. He's just waiting for the right moment.
Expecting that compliance from Iraq has anything to do with it is naive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmm, i'm not sure about this. if tomorrow, Saddam came on T.V. and said
"aww shucks, you guys got us. here's a list of everything we have hidden away, how to get to it, and how we're going to get rid of it." then invited the inspectors to look, had the scientists interviewed without govt. representatives in the room, and truly went forward with disarmament?
at that point the U.S. couldn't attack. there's not way. no one would support that action.
but that ain't gonna happen either.
HELL BENT ON WAR: Will Attacking Saddam Really Make Us Safer?
Pictured is a freaked-out US soldier....
I just had to think: What are we getting ourselves into?
<strong>
hmm, i'm not sure about this. if tomorrow, Saddam came on T.V. and said
"aww shucks, you guys got us. here's a list of everything we have hidden away, how to get to it, and how we're going to get rid of it." then invited the inspectors to look, had the scientists interviewed without govt. representatives in the room, and truly went forward with disarmament?
at that point the U.S. couldn't attack. there's not way. no one would support that action.
but that ain't gonna happen either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If that did happen Bush would say " He's holding something back. " Then he would attack anyway.
Couldn't attack? They're ready to attack now with evidence that they aren't sharing with the world.
Probably because this evidence doesn't exist. They will have to doctor something up later.
[ 01-28-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>hey, you heard the inspectors yourself i'm sure. Iraq is holding back. if they weren't you might have a point. until they you're guessing, just like i am as to what might happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The inspectors have also said " No smoking gun ". They gave Iraq a " B ". This is worth going to war over? It's not the inspectors advocating war here. It's Bush.
They're getting frantic to start before the civilians of this country wake up.
Too bad I'm not Saddam. When I got a C in Spanish, I could have threatened to kill my TA if he reported my test score to the professor, then had my buddy stand in for the TA and tell my prof I got a great score. Even if the prof knew what I did, I'd get a B! Sweet!
Most of those Iraq-friendly comments are coming from the head of the IAEA, who IMHO doth protest too much. The Head Chief Inspector Guy Blix is sounding significantly more dissatisfied.
But the point is that it isn't about Iraq's WMD, it's about Saudi Arabia. Iraq is the first step of a very long-term plan, and Saddam's WMD are a convient means to the first intermediate end: creating a stable liberal, democratic Arab state with a stable US presence that can pump enough oil to make Saudi Arabia...dispensable.
<strong>I'm still trying to figure out how they came up with a "B". Given all the ways Iraq has resisted and subverted measures of disclosure and inspection, I wonder what sort of circumstance would get an "F". I put this "B" stuff right about in the same place where "Saddam gets re-elected by 100% vote" stuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think this is why you're not in charge. How could you even consider giving a grade, much less one that's supposed to be taken more seriously than the inspector's grade, when you're not even there?
If Saddam Hussein DOES still has weapons of mass destruction, as alleged, and he declares 25% of them to the inspectors....it would appear as if he is disarming.
Similarly, if he gave up 50%, or 75% of them...it would really look as if he was disarming.
Similarly, if he gave up every single (alleged) WMD in his inventory, it would also look as if he is disarming.
Would the Bush response be any different for 25%, 50%, or 100%?
Proving a negative in this fashion is an impossibility, and it gives some flawed "legitimacy" to start a war.
*
Re. WMD, Saddam has given up nothing. Zip. But...he could have declared, say, 90% of his WMD and it would have looked far better, as far as the world was concerned, that he was disarming, and the US would have am even weaker case for going to war.
Saddam Hussein may be a horror, but he's not stupid: if so he wouldn't have remained President of Iraq for 23 odd years. Why has he deliberately declared absolutely NOTHING??
Since the Gulf War (after Bush Sr. let him off the hook twice, then 8 years of Clinton and 2 of Bush Jr.), US and Coalition forces already stationed in the region, which have complete air superiority, could have taken him out on numerous occasions. But we haven't even tried....apparently.
Rumsfeld even talked about "offering Saddam Hussein immunity" one week ago, if he went into exile.
Saddam was our ally in the 1980s, when his military gassed the Kurds and executed hundreds of potential opponents, and whole bunch of other atrocities. Tnat was all fine n dandy re. Reagan and Bush 1...no problem with that stuff. Then he was cornered with his back to the wall by the Coalition, and shortly afterwards threatened by a mass revolt by his own people and a large section of his army after the Gulf war... but he never used any of his (alleged) WMD. Why not?
There are inconsistencies. The signals coming from both sides are weird, and despite the US rhetoric it almost looks as if Hussein ain't quite the 'enemy' he's made out to be.
a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,883756,00.html"; target="_blank">fair and balanced</a> review of everything that's happened in Iraq and what it likely means.
you can decide for yourself what it's worth.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
<strong>
I think this is why you're not in charge. How could you even consider giving a grade, much less one that's supposed to be taken more seriously than the inspector's grade, when you're not even there?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't give a grade. WTF are you talking about? I thought this was a grade for Iraq's compliance, not the inspector's performance.
<strong>
I didn't give a grade. WTF are you talking about? I thought this was a grade for Iraq's compliance, not the inspector's performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You question why Iraq wasn't given an "F". That implies that you disagree with a "B", and most likely you don't think that "B" should be an "A".
Your position could easily be reversed into "What the hell is wrong with Blix? Obviously he's on crack because the other U.N. inspectors are giving Iraq a "B". America has obviously paid him off so we have a reason to go to war."
You're grading Iraq's compliance based off of what? The opinions of one of the two inspectors? Why not weigh both instead of agreeing with the side you already agreed with and ignore the side that disagrees with your preconceived notions?