Do Nukes Count as WMD?
I think that the NY Times has made a tactical mistake in their latest attempt to nail Bush.
Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war….But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. A spokesman for John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, said access to the site had been suspended “pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing.
Check out the full article: Web Archive is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer.
OK, what’s so ironic and funny about this story, at least to me? The NY Times has been slamming Bush for months claiming that he lied or misled the public as to whether Iraq under Saddam had WMD. Now they are assaulting Bush for putting up Iraqi documents on a public web site that they claim is too dangerous and too close to the full blueprints of a nuclear bomb. I’m uncertain how close the blueprints put Saddam to actually building a nuke, but from what I understand about the level of detail and understanding that existed in those blueprints, they were close enough to justify our aggressive military attention. So by trying to nail Bush today for “carelessly” publishing nuclear secrets on the web, the NY Times inadvertently undercut their primary argument against Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Hilarious.
And besides, since when has the NY Times been all about secrecy and maintaining the confidentiality of government documents?
I also have the feeling that this story should be bigger than what the MSM is currently making it, but ya know, there’s no liberal media bias, so I must be mistaken, right?
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 3 November 2006 at 8:29 pm:
I’m uncertain how close the blueprints put Saddam to actually building a nuke, but from what I understand about the level of detail and understanding that existed in those blueprints, they were close enough to justify our aggressive military attention.
Not being nuclear weapon – um… builder? – I can’t say for sure either, but I have read and heard that it the documents indicate Saddam was one year away from having the bomb.
Comment by illinikc33 on 3 November 2006 at 9:58 pm:
How awesome…nice job BJM, I actually applaud you for this one!
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 4 November 2006 at 3:58 pm:
Kofi,
Thanks for that link. I’ve also heard the one year timeline for Saddam’s nuclear program, but I’ve only heard it from conservative sources, like the one you listed. I haven’t seen it in any neutral sources, but I also haven’t had time to investigate this thoroughly.
But I also find it interesting that all you anti-Iraq War folks out there are usually very quick to jump on any post that I make about the Iraq War, but that you’re completely silent this time. This isn’t the first time a news story has come out about Saddam’s pre-war WMD capabilities which hasn’t been utterly damning to the anti-war position, but is another brick in the wall. I still suspect that many of the WMD’s were sent over to Syria, in fact, a high ranking, former Iraqi general wrote an entire book a few months ago describing how he personally engineered the WMD shipments to Syria. You’d think that these types of revelations would be top news stories, but once again, there’s no liberal media bias, right? Not even the subtle kind that will push a story to the 4th page when it favors Republicans and will put a story on the front page 4 days in a row when it disfavors Republicans, right?
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 5 November 2006 at 3:02 am:
Let me emphasize something that I just said, “But I also find it interesting that all you anti-Iraq War folks out there are usually very quick to jump on any post that I make about the Iraq War, but that you’re completely silent this time.”
Yes, that’s a direct challenge.
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 5 November 2006 at 10:48 am:
I haven’t seen it in any neutral sources, but I also haven’t had time to investigate this thoroughly.
Is the NYT neutral enough? From the article that kicked this all off (U.S. Web Archive Is Said To Reveal Nuclear Primer The New York Times November 3, 2006 Friday – available for free on Lexis):
“Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.”
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 5 November 2006 at 11:02 am:
Sweet, thanks…I read the article quickly and I missed that.
My challenge still stands to Erik, TC, Allan, Jon…anyone???
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 5 November 2006 at 7:28 pm:
I’m unimpressed by this story. It doesn’t seem to reveal anything new about the Saddam regime, nor do I think there is any serious possibility that there was sufficient information in these documents to an aspiring terrorists to build a nuke.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I thought it was a well-documented fact that Saddam had all the necessary plans to build a nuke. Merely having the plans says nothing about Saddam’s ability to build the nuke. I’m not well read on what Saddam had or didn’t have, but the one year prediction sounds just plain wrong. Look at the North Korean test, it was mostly a dud. This suggests that their tech is crude or that they are still relatively short on nuclear materials, and is further evidence of the difficulty of building nukes. Of course, it also suggests that we picked the wrong target. Compared to the Iranians or Kim Jong-il, Saddam was a reasonable man. He lacked the extremist ideology of Iran and the wackiness of the North Korean regime. So, as far as I’m concerned these documents are no smoking gun, and the Iraq war still seems to be a mistake.
But for the mistake of posting these documents, I’m giving the Bush Administration a pass. As a general rule, I’d prefer the government err on the side of openness and I see real value in allowing the public to comb through documents. So, as far as I’m concerned there’s no need to dwell on this mistake now that it is corrected.
What I find most strange is this need amongst some supporters of the war to continue to search for justification for the war. What is so hard about saying, without admiting, that the war was a mistake, but hey, we are there and we need to find a solution. Even the Bush Admnistration seems to have done as much.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 5 November 2006 at 8:56 pm:
Allan,
This story doesn’t say that Saddam had the plans to build a bomb, it says that he was about one year away from actually building an a-bomb:
“Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.”
Again, I’m not claiming these documents are a smoking gun, but simply another brick in the argument, one that has been building quietly.
And yes, I still stand by this war.
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 5 November 2006 at 9:05 pm:
re: Allan
The Bush administration did not plaster every document recovered on the website. Intelligence services analyzed the documents and only posted doucments after it was determined they didn’t reveal anything too important. Acknoweldge that there may be more damning, more explicit documents recovered. Also acknowledge that screened documents indicate “Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb.”
Merely having the plans says nothing about Saddam’s ability to build the nuke. I’m not well read on what Saddam had or didn’t have, but the one year prediction sounds just plain wrong.
I respect your opinion. I also respect the “[e]xperts [who] say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.”
This document didn’t indicated they had the plans to build a nuke. This document indicated they were within one year of building a nuke.
Finally…
What I find most strange is this need amongst some supporters of the war to continue to search for justification for the war. What is so hard about saying, without admiting, that the war was a mistake, but hey, we are there and we need to find a solution.
Because the war wasn’t wrong. Invading Iraq was right. Deposing Hussein was right. Establishing a government of the peoeple in Iraq is right. Those reasons alone justify the war for me. Pointing to evidence of WMDs is justification for the rest of you. For the ‘he lied, he lied’ liberals who claim the WMD threat was fabricated by Rove. Here is your evidence (again). We’ve shown you evidence of chemical weapons – you scoffed. We’ve shown you evidence of collaboration with terrorists – you scoffed. Here’s evidence of the ultimate WMD – I dare you to scoff again.
And as BJM has pointed out – there is no scoff. There is silence. Meak silence accompanied by the desperate hopes that, one again, the MSM will be able to sweep an aspect of reality under the rug. To “cut and run” is not wrong because “we went in there and now we need to fix it before we leave.” To “cut and run” is wrong because the war was justified; the war was right; the war is right.
I’m Kofi Anonymous, and I approve this message.
Comment by erik on 5 November 2006 at 10:35 pm:
first off, billy, since an argument we were having earlier ended with me making a point that you answered only with “bye bye bye bye bye bye” revolved around the justification for wasting hiroshima and nagasaki, i’d just like to predicate this whole thing by saying that i’m still against nuclear weapons today. and i understand that iraq was not a sovereign state and had no “right” to be manufacturing WMDs… even so i don’t see this as any justification for executing a war against iraq. not even on GWOT grounds. youre the realist, aren’t you? even though saddam hated HATED the muslimo-facists and made a regular habit of massacring them whenever he could, he was also one of the major anti-us powers in the region, the subject of periodic bombings from the us and israel, had recently come out of war with iran and kuwait… he could have rationally and completely madlessly wanted to pursue some kind of cheap deterrent, ie WMDs on the downlow, and maybe he did–or didn’t, predicting that it would be used as a pretext for an invasion that wanted to topple one of the largest threats to US dominance in the area. so, yeah, wmds to be used as a deterrent, maybe for some massacres, but i doubt that.
so i still have this lingering question that i think you should devote a few posts to answering: since when does the united states care so much about wiping the earth clean of
-dictators
-massacres
-weapons proliferation
… since always, of course! aren’t these the reasons we go into every war? why yes, if you believe the liberal MSM… and why doesn’t anyone even bother questioning this? i’m sure no one in the white house is outwardly in favor of any of them, anyways, but our choices for who to invade seem to revolve much more consistently around maintaining regional hegemony, securing access to precious resources, etc, than anything remotely related to freedom or security. Chavez, for example, is not the most democratic ruler latin america has ever seen… but he is far from the worst, even the worst sitting leader. look at uribe… but colombia is our ally and he is our regional counterweight.
i don’t see why any of this should surprise or upset you… aren’t you all about america unapologetically dryhumping anything that cathes our eye until everyone else gives up and pretends they are enjoying it? why wax on about these silly excuses designed for the masses? youre far too smart and realistic; an aspiring architect, not a pundit.
[random thought-there is a short book called EMPIRE OF CAPITAL that you should read if you have time because i would like to hear your take on it]
as for the 1 year figure, i would GUESS that these are based on the long-discredited and in some cases knowingly falsified reports about Iraq trying to buy uranium or some kind of bomb shit from niger. there was a scandal some 7 years ago about nuclear bomb plans being posted on the internet, too. some college kid did it. even if these were perhaps a bit more advanced, let me quote the liberal new york times who point out that we are talking about “detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war.” unless these were plans for nuclear bombs disguised to look like nuclear bomb plans, i don’t know if saving your work for later counts as building a bomb, but like i say, who cares?
do you think anyone could even read these plans? probably not. they were written in english and all smudged up with the blood of the orphan child that donald rumsfeld had microwaved for supper before rushing out the door to fedex them in time for overnight shipping. he didn’t make it, of course, and the plans were late, so saddam got his 25% discount… and thats how i became the first person to call donald rumsfeld a fuckup and demand his resignation.
this is probably full of typos and run-on sentences. in conclusion SADDAM HUSSEIN RULES ALL HAIL SADDAM HUSSEIN FUCK BILLY JOE MILLS HE LOOKS GOOFY
Comment by Andrew Mason on 5 November 2006 at 10:58 pm:
To erik:
Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
To BJM:
If this is the smoking gun that hawks have been waiting for all these years, it would seem odd it isn’t getting a lot of play anywhere. Limbaugh’s running with it but a quick glance of NRO’s front page has nothing. Drudge has dropped it all together. I don’t see conservatives pushing this nearly as hard as they need to if this is what a November surprise was. The administration’s line has shifted away from WMDs to bringing democracy and all that, but back in the spring when these documents were released don’t you think the White House would pounce on it immediately if they thought suddenly their search was vindicated? Nothing smells right about this story at all. Doesn’t make it irrelevant though. If (when?) the GOP loses Congress perhaps we’ll start to hear more about this from sore losers.
What we’ll also start to hear if this gains more traction is that even if there were WMDs, nothing excuses the poor execution and planning by the administration in almost all areas of foreign policy including Iraq and Afghanistan, save for Libya. But we’ll see.
Comment by erik on 5 November 2006 at 11:24 pm:
andrew:
aside from the libel, please explain what problem you have with anything i said–namely that our motives were something a few notches skepticaller than suspect. i know i talk in circles, but i don’t care because no one bothers making a real refutation anyways.
Comment by Andrew Mason on 6 November 2006 at 12:03 am:
and i understand that iraq was not a sovereign state and had no “right” to be manufacturing WMDs
Iraq was a sovereign state. It was a signatory to NPT, but not to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention or the Chemical Weapons conventions. Iraq was ordered to destroy its WMDs after the Gulf War but technically before that it had as much “right” as we did to produce such weapons (which we did as well)
wmds to be used as a deterrent, maybe for some massacres, but i doubt that.
Saddam is documented to have used sarin and mustard gas on Kurds in Iraq to put down rebellions. Yes, massacres. If I’m not mistaken, he was scheduled to be tried in court for that as well, but he’ll be executed before that.
I don’t disagree with your assertion that most American-led wars start with a threat to our dominance and end in a quest for whatever idealism
fits the situation. But I don’t think ranting in absence of concrete understanding (which nobody really has at this point, or would agree on anyway) serves any purpose other than to stir the political soup. I’d be totally fine with some silence on this from liberals and conservatives
for a little while if it means that some more informed argument could take place later.
After all, we’re in Iraq whether it’s true or not. We still need to figure out how to make it work or get out without losing face.
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 6 November 2006 at 12:11 am:
i know i talk in circles, but i don’t care because no one bothers making a real refutation anyways.
be fair. it’s hard to logically refute that which didn’t make any gawd damn sense in the first place.
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 6 November 2006 at 12:12 am:
Kofi,Billy
I don’t have any reason to doubt that the documents say that the scientists were within one year of developing the bomb. I just don’t find it believable. The scientists knew that Saddam was a ruthless murderer and have every incentive to tell him they were really close. They had every incentive to fabricate and invent. Therefore, I don’t find internal documents all that convincing. Absent physical proof- a device, prepared nuclear materials, test site preparations- I’m disinclined to believe it existed. I acknowledge that it is feasible that he made weapons and trucked them to Syria, but, such extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Maybe it will be found, but I don’t think this is it.
Moreover, if the WMDs were shipped to Syria, then the whole logic behind the war – that is, to prevent WMDs from falling into the wrong hands – is clearly erroneous. If the bombs will just be passed off to other, perhaps more dangerous persons, we are worse off then we were before! Of course, we should never be afraid to defend ourselves, but also, we shouldn’t delude ourselves to think that we can replace complicated diplomacy and non-military consequences with quick-and-easy wars. It just simply doesn’t work that way.
Furthermore, claiming that there are mountains of proof being hid by the “liberal” media is a ridiculous claim. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Documents here and there aren’t hidden centrifuges; they aren’t they complicated explosives needed to start the reaction; they aren’t huge hidden stockpiles of plutonium. They are paper – not verifiable proof.
Regardless, this whole Iraq mess seems to be heading for its final chapter. I think the administration is tired of carrying this unpopular war around its neck. Whatever the outcome of this election, afterwards the Bush administration will be soon announcing a “new direction”, probably based on the Baker Report. The Bush administration will give the Iraqis an ultimatum: Make a Sunni-Shia compromise or we leave. What happens after that is anyone’s guess.
Erik,
Your post is completely unacceptable. Speak civilly or leave. There is plenty of internet for you to write rants where you can ramble incoherently till your head falls off. This is not one of them.
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 6 November 2006 at 12:29 am:
The scientists knew that Saddam was a ruthless murderer and have every incentive to tell him they were really close.
Granted it is based on context clues, but I read the NYT sentence as referring to “experts” they had consulted (as opposed to puppet-scientists of the Hussein regime).
Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Documents here and there aren’t hidden centrifuges; they aren’t they complicated explosives needed to start the reaction; they aren’t huge hidden stockpiles of plutonium.
As always, this where people lose me: I don’t care about the WMDs. Whether they exist or not, I do not care – the war is justified. The WMDs and such are the evidence I peddle to placate you, the anti-war crowd. If you don’t accept this newest, latest, one in a line of many bits of evidence regarding the actual immediate threat of Saddam Hussein – fine. We were still right to go in there to remove a warlord, to introduce freedom to the Middle East, to take the first step towards erasing the roots of radical Islamic terrorism.
To give you a peak into my world: I was pissed off with Dubya when he made this war all about WMDs. To do so weakened the principles and reason for going in. I wanted to go in to establish democracy in the Middle East; to get rid of a mass murdering dictator. I accepted the WMD argument as a necessary evil to get enough of the legislature on board – but it was never about the WMDs.
Comment by Andrew Mason on 6 November 2006 at 12:50 am:
Kofi-
The WMDs pale in importance for me compared to the underhanded (possibly illegal) conduct that the Bush administration engaged in to advance the war cause. Of course, the idealism wins out. Saddam=bad, therefore Saddam Gone=good. The problem I have with this entire mess is that the Neocon idealism (that you apparently subscribe to) came before any thought to the prosecution of the war. That Neocon philosophy was enough justification in itself to subvert the system, break rules, ignore the world community, gut the constitution and disconnect with a harsh reality.
That’s what really pisses me off. Your argument is that nothing else matters because we got rid of Saddam. Nothing else is important enough for anyone to even think of using it to be against the war, much less being in favor of troop withdrawal. Neoconservative philospohy can’t be completely discredited no matter what because we achieved the nominal goal of removing Saddam from power.
Comment by illinikc33 on 6 November 2006 at 9:37 am:
God Bless America!
Comment by erik on 6 November 2006 at 11:37 am:
could someone please explain to me how i’m not being civil? billy joe mills asked me for a response to his post, which i found rather meaningless and irrelevant, as i do pretty much 100 percent of the debate over iraq. sorry if i find it hard to focus an argument over what i view as silly talking points–to me this whole exercise in semantics and speculation strikes me as completely absurd, so let’s just call my nonsensical ramblings a combination of dada and trying to think too close to my bedtime.
Iraq was forced to agree, whether it complied or not, to a weakened military after 1991. it was not a sovereign state. if i’m wrong and there was no such agreement, the threat of invasion from the greatest military power in the history of anything certainly constitutes a de facto infringement on its sovereignty. i don’t even remember why i was talking about this in the first place and it probably had no point in my argument, so why are you nitpicking, anyways?
BJM would have us believe that this war, which has been more deadly to the people of iraq than the sanctions or saddam hussein himself (#2 and #3, respectively) is somehow going to transpire into a domino- fantasy of love for the US and flourishing democracy and capitalism. i never believed any of this and i get bored when 4 years later the smart ones are still trying to work with the same tired old talking points.
how do you debate someone whose criteria for winning doesn’t hinge on earthly logic? people talk about how my off-the-cuff rambles on BLOGSPOT are inappropriate while they make clear, well-articulated arguments in favor of a bombing campaigns named “shock and awe.” the ultimate goal of this opener? less terrorism. except now they say the terrorists weren’t there, something every non-government-affiliated expert on the region was saying before this thing started. but now they are there. curious. and the massacres! the massacres! …didn’t they all happen back when we were allies with Iraq? this is a point that no one ever touches on, and i personally don’t trust change-of-heart arguments nearly so much as the same old story of power politics. and then theres the wmds, which any leader might rationally want in a country that is regularly threatened by relative military titans, a country so poor that raising a whole army is much too expensive and conspicuous. I think that tet has already made a pretty good argument as for how even nukes would have posed no threat to the us, but sadly he will have to do it again for iran and possibly again next week when billy/kofi/whoever else makes this same argument again. Sorry if this all seems frustratingly absurd, if this argument seems nonsensical to me. But it goes on.
i don’t remember who said it, but i do remember a phrase pre-war about how an occupation of iraq would be like a “gaza strip the size of california.” someone actually said that, mind you, while dick cheney promised candy showers for every soldier–a fantasy billy still clings to, which i would call ethnocentric lunacy at this stage. and yet these same experts who have so far been more right than any neocon in their predictions, sadly. after major combat operations were hilariously declared over these people were making more recommendations to aid in the process of reconciliation; namely a promise to guarantee iraqi ownership and control of the country’s resources (which would greatly undercut the populist rhetoric of al quaeda et al), opening up reconstruction contracts, especially to iraqi companies rather than awarding no-bid contracts to bechtel, kbr, etc… of course these reconstruction contracts were part of the plan for how we would pay for the war, and none of this had anything to do with saving face– but maybe when you do something WRONG you have to stop worrying so much about saving face and start worrying about how easy it can be for one pissed off person to hurt lots of other people. Maybe it still isn’t too late.
Of course this will never happen. Would you rather be considered absurd or racist? I’m afraid its both. The closest thing to true reconciliation that Millsites would ever allow is the reconcilliation we’ve already offered for putting hussein in power and then keeping him there as long as we did. That reconciliation was bombing iraq into hell, placing them under a sanctions regime to hell for 12 years, then bombing them into hell again. “Just give it ten years,” BJM tells me, “and Iraq will be a flourishing democracy.” How am i supposed to respond to this? How am i supposed to take such an argument seriously? How can billy, for that matter? Only someone who recognizes that losing face, that admitting some flaw in such hocus pocus might ultimately threaten his own comfortable life. Sadly this most sanest part of his entire argument is left unsaid.
IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO HAVE A REAL “CIVIL” DEBATE WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH A SCHIZOPHRENIC.
Pardon me for referring to donald rumsfeld as a baby eater and a bad planner. Some day i hope i’m allowed as much outrage at him for selling saddam all those weapons of mass destruction.
Sorry in advance for my lack of civility… you may now continue with your backslapping “debate” over how many more bombs the united states will have to exercise its assumed inherent, inerrant right to drop on iraq in order to pacify its people. civility indeed!
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 6 November 2006 at 11:45 am:
Tom raises a fantastic point. Nukes are the closest thing to a guarantee that the U.S. won’t invade you. This is obviously why after the U.S. invaded Iraq, Iran and North Korea have become so hell-bent on obtaining nukes. Their goal seems to be to obtain nukes before the U.S. can get use military pressure to stop them. And with the U.S. being tied down in Iraq, now is the perfect time.
Tom also suggests that Islamic terrorists already have the means of bringing a nuke to U.S. or Israel. I don’t agree with that assessment, but I do agree that they even if they did have a nuke they still have very strong reasons to not actually use it. Simply put, when America uses force, it does so extremely disproportionately(and correctly so). We overwhelm the enemy with “shock and awe.” Generally, though, we try to avoid civilian casualties, but, I think that if America was nuked, I think we’d more or less stop worrying about that too. Seeing the prospect of such a response, I think potential nuke terrorists would think again.
Again, terrorists are more rational than they are given credit for. They likely understand that full out war is not in their interest. They want to sow just enough chaos to get their message out, to affect the political process, and to wield influence, but not to create such instability that the destruction also engulfs them. True, there are some that are so crazy, so irrational, so evil that they will get onto jets and fly them into buildings, but so far, those are not the people pulling the strings. You won’t see Osama bin Laden wearing a suicide vest anytime soon.
Comment by tet on 6 November 2006 at 12:23 pm:
Allan, rereading the letter from the boss of Iran to GW, I’ll have to say that the Islamic world has another reason to not nuke the US and Israel:
You don’t destroy real-estate you intend to own.
My guess is that the long-term view in Iran is that Western Europe (followed at a later date by the United States) is RIPE for conversion.
The birth rates among the European nations’ non-immigrant population has plummeted, the culture is suffering from the kind of amorality that only a forcibly secular state can produce. In America, one-third of Generation X was aborted (actually, it’s 30 million between 75 and 95, I’m interpolating) and the additional demographic boost from those children lost forever. The youth of both are hungry for someone to tell them what to do.
Enter Islam, promising a structured world, life in the hands of G-d, and peace.
The Moslems intend, with G-d’s help, to win.
Think to yourself, oh DI intellectuals….”how many children am I intending to have?”
If you’re not part of any kind of religion, what are you doing to provide moral guidance to the upcoming generation?
I hear dhimmitude’s not that bad–taxes are high, but I wouldn’t have to listen to people whining about lack of direction.
Tom
Comment by erik on 6 November 2006 at 12:25 pm:
sorry, i shouldn’t have put the word “inerrant” in the last paragraph just because it sounded cool if i’m saying that it was what we were debating. my point was that this right is assumed and only its application is up for debate when it never would be so for any other country, save perhaps for australia and england. now i know bjm well enough to know that he is a strong proponent of this might makes right mentality. even coming from that angle, though, i would argue that the stakes today are high enough and the ratio of [(effort+resources required to stage a terrorist attack)-best efforts at preventing an attack]:[potential for lives lost] is such that, even if you only care about American lives, which billy will sometimes say he does and sometimes claim a more worldly attitude depending on what suits him, might makes right is no longer a rational decision, whether you have might or not. this is an argument that you can make without having a shred of sympathy in your wooden heart for anyone but yourself and the abstract land mass, flag, etc with which you inexplicably associate yourself.
it is time to start the process of true, face-losing reconciliation and recognition of the supposed sovereignty of the iraqi people–why in all these debates do i never ever see someone mention an iraqi opinion poll?
i also forgot a sentence back around my talking about massacres about this whole schizophrenia thing with the pro-war types, rearranging and willfully ignoring timelines like how the current war cabinet was smiling and nodding and looking the other way when the kurds were getting gassed. that seems problematic to me. the only person i’ve ever heard seriously try to address it was condi rice shortly after she had taken over powell’s job, telling some meaningless arabs somewhere how we were wrong in the past, but now we’re trying to fix things. Given who these fixers are and the fact that i watched csi once, i find the more evil motives of greed and hegemonic belligerence far more credible, but it is entirely possible and even likely that through some absurd, delusional fantasy the neocons, pnacs and bush Admin. criminals actually do want the best for the people of iraq and the poor an oppressed everywhere. then the schizophrenia of power sets in and suddenly black is white, up is down and everything good for bechtel is somehow conflated with whats good for joe everyiraqi. unlike donald dumbsfeld (that came right off the top of my head!) billy joe mills is relatively powerless and doesn’t have that excuse for his own delusions.
Comment by tet on 6 November 2006 at 12:30 pm:
Erik, I published an Iraqi opinion poll in one of these blogs a while back.
If I remember correctly, 75% of the polled population wanted Americans gone, and 65% said it was all right to kill them to make sure that this happened.
Ah, democracy.
Tom
Comment by tet on 6 November 2006 at 12:32 pm:
Sorry about that, guys, damn blogspot. Can you remove one of those, Billy Joe.
Tom
Comment by erik on 6 November 2006 at 12:59 pm:
thanks, tet. it IS alright to kill them as far as international law is concerned. civillians and sectarian violence, not so much.
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 6 November 2006 at 4:07 pm:
Tom, you make an interesting point about demographics. Its true that Europe, and to a lesser extent the US, have low birth rates. In Europe that is combining with high rates of immigration from Muslim countries and the future of Europe appears to be in the hands of Mohammed.
However, that ignores the rapid secularization of Muslims. As a natural response to moving to those countries, muslims begin to adopt attitudes similiar to their hosts, just like immigrants do the world over. Furthermore, due to the proliferation of television and the internet, most of those Mulims have already learned much about Western culture.
In fact, I believe that radical Islam is much more a response to the Westernisation of the Islamic world than it is to the West itself. The bin Ladens of the world are more scared of rapidly dissapearing hajibs than of a US attack on the Mecca. It seems unthinkable to these radical Islamicts that the appeal lies in the value and appeal of western culture itself and instead believe that there is some evil being spread by the US.
I think that the US will be demographically unaffected by muslim immigration here. First of all, Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal, dominate our immigration numbers. Additionally, muslims who move here tend to become relatively affluent and less easily enchanted by radical Islam.
Europe, however, is in trouble. The Islamic immigration to Europe is much more significant. Worse, Europe’s highly regulated economies and slow growth(which is a consequence of that regulation, but I digress), has created a huge pool of unemployed immigrants who are ripe for the picking of radical Immans. The future of radical Islam in Europe is undoubtedly bright.
Comment by JayBandit on 6 November 2006 at 6:17 pm:
I haven’t read all of this posting yet, but I noticed Billy said “a-bomb” and I’d like to clear up a common mistake made while refering to these types of weapons. An Atom Bomb is one where there is a nuclear FISSION, and a Hydrogen Bomb is one in which there is a nuclear FUSION. A Fusion bomb is much more powerful, and only the world’s super-powers have them.
Billy is not wrong in saying “a-bomb”; however, I know people often use all this terminology interchangibly. Therefore, I thought I’d educate the masses.
SPREAD THE TRUTH!
Comment by S&D on 6 November 2006 at 7:50 pm:
Now I realize this is totally off the original topic, but it was lost a long time ago, so I’ll just run with it.
My guess is that the long-term view in Iran is that Western Europe (followed at a later date by the United States) is RIPE for conversion.
The birth rates among the European nations’ non-immigrant population has plummeted, the culture is suffering from the kind of amorality that only a forcibly secular state can produce. In America, one-third of Generation X was aborted (actually, it’s 30 million between 75 and 95, I’m interpolating) and the additional demographic boost from those children lost forever. The youth of both are hungry for someone to tell them what to do.
Enter Islam, promising a structured world, life in the hands of G-d, and peace.
The Moslems intend, with G-d’s help, to win.
Think to yourself, oh DI intellectuals….”how many children am I intending to have?”
If you’re not part of any kind of religion, what are you doing to provide moral guidance to the upcoming generation?
Tom
While I can agree with the general spirit of the population thing in Europe, I’m not sure I agree about the states for the same reasons as Allan. Additionally, Tom, you assume that population growth rates will essentially stay the same which is highly improbable. Population growth is expected to stabilize and level off within 50 or so years at around 9-12 billion. Sure some groups would have lower than popoulation replacement levels and others higher, but it won’t be the demographic tsunami you seem to be expecting.
In other news, your moral tirades are a bit disconcerting and while at times I find you completely lucid and reasonable, when it comes to religion you get a bit…shall we say zealous. As an atheist I’ve got to say that it’s exactly that type of moralizing that turned me off to religion in the first place. I have morals, I just prefer to call them ethics. In fact, I probably lead a much cleaner and “moral” life than the majority of religious people who look at me in shock when I explain that I’m not interested because I am an apostate.
I don’t have any children yet, but as the second youngest of five (the older siblings all have children) I can say with great confidence that raisling children in non-religious households seems perfectly fine. The oldest of my nephews is nineteen and he’s about as squeaky clean as they come. I fully intend to raise my children as I see fit which would involve not forcing any religious beliefs upon them before they are conscious individuals. When they’re old enough to think for themselves and have bullshit detectors (maybe 13) I’ll encourage them to peruse my library of religious books and decide if they would like to participate in any sort of religion. Should they choose, on their own, to do so, that’s fine and I’d support them in doing so to the best of my ability.
That probably got waaay off topic and I probably missed my original point by a mile, but ah well.
Comment by Andrew Mason on 6 November 2006 at 10:35 pm:
Still waiting Kofi, still waiting.
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 6 November 2006 at 11:21 pm:
andrew,
i just reread what (i think) is your last post and didn’t notice a question. you more or less summed up the fact that we agree to disagree on fundamental grounds. was i supposed to respond with a “my fundamentals are better than yours!” or was something specific you wanted me to answer?
Comment by Andrew Mason on 6 November 2006 at 11:25 pm:
Well, if you feel I misrepresented your position than feel free to correct me. Otherwise, I’m ok with agreeing to disagree.
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 6 November 2006 at 11:53 pm:
well i think your characterization of bush’s actions as particularly illegal or unconstitutional are wrong. you’d be naive to actually believe that he has done anything more sweeping than any of the other presidents we’ve had. every president has bent the rules – the great ones simply bent them in ways that were justified by the greater goods. lincoln bent the rules to save the union – hero. fdr bent the rules to fix an economy and win a world war- hero. clinton bent the rules to get his peter slimed by an intern – not a hero. the fact is, nothing bush has done is really that bad. you describe it as if it was the end of the world, but it’s really just business as usual. if bussiness as usual offends you, then i encourage you to exercise your second amendment right to bear arms and overthrow the government. i, on the otherhand, realize that bush will be judged by his longterm impact on history. mounting the first true defense to the radical islamsic war on the west, a war we will win if men like him are kept at the helm, is heroic and history books will treat him appropriately. as machiavelli taught and history has shown, the ends justify the means. my grandchildren will learn about washington, lincoln, roosevelt, reagan, and bush – these are the men who defended the ideals of nation; who made the world secure for freedom; who persevered in the face of foreign threats and domestic unrest. the johnsons, fords, and clintons will be mere footnotes.
so in a way, you did misrepresent my opinion. my argument isn’t about WMDs. it isn’t about saddam. it is about the middle east. it is about what the brutal dictators of the region represent. but in another way you represented my opinion just fine: the ends justify the means.
Comment by Andrew Mason on 7 November 2006 at 12:39 am:
You’re entitled to your Kool-Aid about Machiavelli and grouping Bush in with the great presidents you mentioned. Yes, they broke the rules and the country ended up being better for it. But you know the difference between them and Bush? They accomplished something with their transgressions. Bush can point to Saddam. Reports out of Afghanistan show that the Taliban is reforming, Iraq is collapsing, Iran is going nuclear, North Korea already is and that report that the neocons seem to ignore saying overall terrorism has increased as a result of Iraq. We can go back and forth forever about whether it was the “right” thing to do going into Iraq, but I fail to see how people like yourself can continue to put your faith in an administration that has shown its utter incompetence at implementing their grand vision. Nothing indicates to me that they are going to change their operating procedure.
If you’re for neoconservatism, I can accept that. But blindly supporting someone who is clearly damaging it with each passing day strikes me as counterproductive. But I’ll ask a question. Since Bush has said that we won’t withdraw while he’s in office, what happens if a Republican candidate for President calls for the end to the Iraq war? What happens to neoconservatism if it becomes relegated to the fringe right? At what point do the true believers finally realize that they are in the minority for a reason?
Comment by tet on 7 November 2006 at 10:04 am:
Actually, S&D, I’d be willing to buy you lunch if you can guess my religion.
The only reason secular society is surviving at all is because it is continuing to use the morals and “ethics” that it has borrowed from 3000 years of religious philosophy.
Part of the reason that the West has so much trouble understanding Islam and why on earth democratization isn’t working in the Middle East is that they’re coming from a secular standpoint. I hold that it is near-impossible to understand the current situation there without a firm foundation in religious history and thought.
Allan, the rapid secularization of Muslims is NOT happening in Europe. Actually, the European bombers are from the immigrants’ children, who are considerably less secular than their parents.
When I am launching a tirade against the moral failings of this society, I do not do it in hope of converting you to my beliefs, S&D. I do it because the failings are detrimental to the continued existance of this society, and someone has to say so.
It may as well be me, I’ve been a radical for 40 years now, I’m not about to change, and after my recent brush with death, I feel I have nothing to lose by speaking up. I am not aiming at an emotional response, but to raise logical questions (beyond Pascal’s wager) in your mind.
Question for you: Has a successful society ever evolved that based itself on ethics that were not derived from a religious foundation?
Tom
Comment by erik on 7 November 2006 at 5:27 pm:
jesus, reading the post i just made makes me look like a dyslexic or something. as a disclaimer i was typing in secret at work, so sometimes i’m rushed and can’t proofread everything.
if i were a wobbly i could call this a monkeywrench.
Comment by Kofi Anonymous on 7 November 2006 at 7:00 pm:
jesus, reading the post i just made makes me look like a dyslexic or something.
now you know why we’re so confused with the previous posts
Comment by S&D on 8 November 2006 at 2:35 pm:
Tet-
I’d guess that you’re some sort of new-age religion. Perhaps a wiccan or something of that sort judging by the plural marriage, etc. I could be wrong. You’re right. There has never been a society that evolved based on ethics not derived from religious bases. Borrowing some of the good points from religion doesn’t bother me very much. I was once a Catholic and I took something away from it, sure. I think that the pitfalls and negatives of organized religion make it problematic at best and perhaps outweighed at worst. Religion shaped societies historically and most early complex societies evolved around religion and to enhance religion. I simply think that we can move beyond religion as an underlying basis for society. This doesn’t mean complete abandonment as I have done, simply secularization.
On the middle east thing. I have no problem understanding how important religion is in many societies which is why I find a lot of U.S. foreign ventures to be naive and amusing.
…So do I get lunch? I’m partial to Indian and Thai.
Comment by tet on 8 November 2006 at 3:04 pm:
S&D
Sure thing. There’s the Thai restaurant over SE of Krannert. My lunch hour’s generally 11:30 to 12:30 during the week. Say when and it’s a date.
I have to be a bit careful where and what I eat, since after my heart attack and surgery I’m a bit more fragile than I appear at first glance.
Tom
Comment by tet on 8 November 2006 at 3:05 pm:
Oh, and my email is tcgtrf@gmail.com to set up the time and place.
Tom
Comment by Adriana Kirkland on 23 July 2011 at 10:43 pm:
Aloha neat text.
Is anyone aware if there R cheaper text message marketing services 4 shops&stores @ California than 12stores.com? They only cost $9 / a month which is not much, nonetheless my fellow worker Marco said me there is, unfortunately he could not recall its name. i completely start to get suspicion that he recalled wrongly.