From: matus (matus@snet.net)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 16:27:57 MDT
Samantha Atkins:
> > Cant you at least rejoice in the fact that 20 million people who were
> > previously living under the horrific oppression of a murderous
> tyrant are
> > now (or soon will be) free?
>
> I am sorry but we keep talking at cross purposes. You seem to
> miss my point I probably seem to you to miss yours. I care and
> very much what our motivations were and are as that is what will
> leat to future actions and is the predictor of them.
We do seem to be encountering some communication issues. First off, let me
clarify what I was referring to when I was talking about motivations. Refer
back to a previous post by Lee Corbin
http://forum.javien.com/XMLmessage.php?id=id::cWpQYksG-fnBh-WUYt-M1Ik-UH9MX1
ZUA0Z8
He illustrates a general complaint that those supportive of this effort, and
other efforts including Vietnam, Korea, etc. often make. He says of those
who might support efforts in Ruwands but not in Iraq "Because taking over
Ruwanda to suppress genocide would not in any way advance the interests of
the U.S. in the world situation." It is this manner I am speaking of. If
the motivation of the US's action include *anything* that can be interpreted
as benefiting the US, then it is heavily criticized, it is *only* purely
altrustic actions that are every applauded, even if they are miserable
failures, and especially if they end up making things worse for the US. I
find true altruism to be dispicable, deplorable, and anti-extropic (as it
requires the sacrficing of self for others) Yet altruism is touted as a
high moral goal by collectivists and statists.
It seems that in the case, the fact that it wasnt the primary motivation of
the US to free the Iraqi people is cited as a reason to not be joyous in
their freedom. But since WWII ended, the US has done a lot of things that
were in its own self interest, (primarily stopping the spread of communism)
and as a result many nations are now democracies that would have not until
1989 otherwise. As MaxPlumm pointed out, not a single country that become
communist post WWII turned into anything other than communist before the
fall of the soviet union. However, many of the countries that we intervened
in eventually become democracies *way* before 1989. The fact that making
these countries democracies was not our primary motivation in no way makes
our actions immoral, as the fate of the continued existence of the United
States (and freedom, progress, technological advnace and extropian memes)
depended on containing communism.
This is obviously a statement that on many points you might disagree, as you
have noted your objection to the 'we were containing communism' line, but I
would be willing to investigate the US actions, incidence by incidence, post
WWII and then we can determine what choices the US had available to them, if
indeed they were forced to choose between a thug and a communist despot. I
believe the place to start would be greece.
I also
> care because I do not believe the utilitarian viewpoint that if
> things work out reasonably well then what we did along the way
> was automatically right.
Nor do I, but in this case I obviously disagree with you that what we did to
get their was wrong.
>
> But I brought this up in this circumstance because I am
> astonished that a few Iraqis dancing in the street seems to be
> enough for some people to drop questions about what we did and
> why and what's next and believe it to be evidence that we
> obviously did the Right Thing (tm).
Yes, it is a piece of the evidence suggesting we did the 'Right Thing' Would
you consider it evidence suggesting we did the 'Wrong Thing'? If All Iraqis
were dancing in the street, would you still not consider it evidence that we
did the 'Right Thing' What portion of the Iraqi populace would be required
to have given their approval of the coalitions actions before,
hypothetically *you* conceeded that it was the right thing.
This question, of course, ignores the motivation we had that were self
interest based, such as preventing the proliferation of WMD to terrorist
organizations, removing the worlds second largest energy supply out of the
hands of a murderous tyrant, etc. Reasons I have gone over before in
previous posts, which have yet to be addressed on a point to point basis.
>
> The actions you want to judge instead of motivations? The
> actions were repellent.
I disagree, of course, given the extraordinary restraint to avoid civilian
causalties. I believe you were predicting civilian causalties in the
100,000's range. In three weeks one of the worst tyrannical governments on
this planet was removed from power with fewer than 1,000 civilian deaths and
~100 (?) coalition deaths. From these figures the actions were ones
deserving of praise. Of course, you disagree with the action in the first
place, so you would find it repellent no matter its manifestation.
We just invaded a foreign country not
> at war with us and did so against UN and other international
> opinion.
>
This point has been addressed at length, the previous Gulf War never ended,
and Iraq, the losing country and initator of aggression, violated the terms
of the cease fire, broke UN resolutions, which unaminously called for
complete disarmement with the threat of serious consequences, and did
everything it could to delay weapons inspections. The United States,
additionally, does not require Internal agreement to defend itself, and the
UN is a body meant to help nations solve disagreements, it is not a world
governing body. And in this particular case it failed to help the nations
involved solve their disagreement.
Now, we keep repeating these two lines to one another, and getting nowhere.
We have a few options presented to us, 1) continue to repeat the same thing
to one another, getting nowhere 2) stop discussing this and 'agree to
disagree' 3) attempt to resolve this. 3) has been addressed a lot in the
past few days with a lot of good suggestions, including sperating values
from facts, agreeing on established facts, agreeing on deductions, and thus
agreeing on conclusions. (as any good debate should) We can attempt this,
but it would probably require a lot of time and effort, but no doubt in my
mind both of our opinions will end up being changed in some manner.
> It is much, much too early to claim the Iraqi people will be
> free. The most certainly are not free today. They are under
> foreign occupation.
>
A foreign occupier that treets them with more freedom and respect than their
own government, by that definition, they are 'freer' and will continue to be
more and more so with each passing day.
> I can't rejoice over something I do not yet know to be a better
> situation. Sorry.
>
Well, I dont see how you could consider the oppression and torture they
lived under *not* better than a coalition 'occupation' considering they
will not be getting raped, gassed, tongues cut out, etc. etc, it will no
doubt be better.
> >
> > And yes, I believe a primary motivation was WMD, and the fact that a
> > despotic west hating racist tyrant hadem and wanted more and
> wanted to use
> > them.
>
>
> Then you believe things regardless of evidence.
And of course I could say them same of you. And we could keep going back
and forth with these comments, or attempt to resolve the disagreement. As
mentioned above, this will also require a significant amount of time and
effort, I am sure, on both our parts.
There are a few facts that would be considered and be conceeded or rejected
upon investigation.
1)Does (did) Saddam have any WMD?
1a) Define WMD
2)Would Saddam use them aginst the US or allies if he could
3)Is he a murderous west or US hating racist tyrant?
etc. etc.
>
> When you say "We found none" I can only laugh. As others have
> > pointed out how silly this statment is, I wont simply repeat them.
>
>
> No, they did not point out any such thing. If you are going to
> be dishonest then this conversation is over.
And I would say you are being dishonest. But let me re-iterate the
responses you got to this statment, a statement I found absurd even to be
coming from someone I am in such utter idealogical disagreement.
This started out with your statement
"You have seemed to believe the motive was WMD. We found none."
And
"Where is the WMD? Show it to me. We control the land. Where's the beef?
Why was it necessary to invade to find any if there was some to be found?
Are you claiming after all the inspections and all this effort coming up
empty handed that WMD really was a true reason we went in? The most likely
explanation for not finding it was that the
claims that these volumes of WMD existed were bogus to start with."
1st, Ron H responded
"We have had less than a month to search an area that I am told is the size
of California and all while a war is going on."
2nd, Mike Lorrey responded
"We are finding evidence every day, much of which is reported in the US
media. The defense department is taking samples and waiting for lab
confirmations before making any declarations, but finding a warehouse full
of barrels labeled "Mustard" and "Tabun" is a slight smoking gun. Finding an
underground lab on the same site that UN inspectors had 'inspected' that has
weapons grade plutonium in it, and finding a military transport with a
hermetic room for loading bio/chem payloads into artillery shells is a bit
of a smoking gun...I suggest you wait for a
comprehensive report from the DoD."
Interjecting, I note that various news reports have indicated that the
United States and Coalition forces are taking great care in documenting a
'chain of ownership' or soemthing to that effect, including making sure
embedded reporters are present when things are found, internation labs test
anything found, etc. etc, the coalition forces are very aware that everyone
will suspect them of planting the evidence, as I am sure you are. However,
I would note that not more than a week or so ago, the first pretty solid
evidence was found, ironically, by an NPR correspondent (whos interview I
heard) detailing the finding or wooden crates full of vials of verious
chemical and agents in an alleged Al Queda training camp, the very same camp
that Colin Powell was suggesting as evidence of a link between Saddam and Al
Queda. Though I am not familiar with more recent news on this.
Primarily, the War is not even over yet, its hardly reasonable to start
running around shouting 'see, they didnt find anything!!!' when most of the
forces are busy dodging bullets. I understand your skepticism at finding
WMD (even if I disagree) but I think that your assistance that they should
have been found *all ready* is a bit absurd.
Additionally...
>
> I will
> > repeat something I said to you a while back on this very same
> point, we all
> > ready have found WMD, in the 1998 inspections. Thousands upon
> thousands of
> > warheads, growth media, delivery systems, etc. etc. etc. I believe your
> > response to that was 'where did you hear that from' to which I (and I
> > believe Mike Lorrey) noted it came from Hans Blixs speech.
>
> No, I don't think we did find those, certainly not today where
> it actually counts.
>
You dont think we did find those? Let me re-iterate that list again.
- Iraq has failed to account for 26,500 artillery rockets used for
delivering nerve gas.
- Iraq has failed to account for 5,000 artillery shells filled with mustard
gas.
- Iraq has failed to account for more than 3,000 tons of chemicals used for
weapons.
- Iraq has failed to account for all of its weapons in its recent
declaration to the United Nations Security Council. Omissions from the
declaration include:
-Iraq did not account for, at a minimum, 216kg of biological agent growth
media- enough to produce:
-26,000 liters of anthrax- 3 times the amount declared.
-1200 liters of botulinum toxin.
-5500 liters of clostridium perfrigens- 16 times the amount declared.
-Iraq has disclosed manufacturing new energetic fuels suited only to a
class of missile that it does not admit to having.
-Iraq failed to respond to UN Special Commission requests for more,
credible, information about VX (nerve gas) production.
-Iraq has never adequately accounted for hundreds, possibly thousands of
tons of chemical precursors.
-Iraq has failed to account for nearly 30,000 empty munitions that could be
filled with chemical agents.
-Iraq provides no information about its mobile biological weapon agent
facilities. Instead it calls them "refrigeration vehicles and food testing
laboratories".
-Iraq has upgraded chemical reactors and production equipment at Falluja
II, one of Baghdad's principal production plants for chemical weapons prior
to the Gulf War. Falluja II and other facilities now produce more chlorine
than is necessary for water treatment- evidence that chlorine is being
diverted for military purposes.
-Iraq has started building a new test stand facility clearly intended to
test long-range missile engines.
-Iraq has rebuilt a production facility for long-range solid fuel missiles
that was dismantled by the UN.
So when you say "I dont think we found those" are you saying that you dont
think this list of items was ever found *in the first place* at the
inspections 10 years ago?
When this List was referenced, you responded with
"Where precisely did you get this information?"
Which I noted at the time seemed to suggest you were ignorant of that
information at that time, which present doubts in my mind that you had come
to what (at least I) would consider an 'informed' decision. Mike Lorrey
responded to you:
"Where millions of other informed citizens get it: cable news, the
newspapers, and the internet. Hans Blix stated these facts before the
Security Council (as did the US administration) after Iraq released its
Declaration to the UNSCOM. There is in fact evidence of concealment in that
significant quantities of chemical and biotoxins known to be in inventory in
1998 are not accounted for in Iraq's most recent Declaration to the Security
Council. They have disappeared from the tally, and Iraq refuses to disclose
what happened to them. Just because someone hides something very well from
you does not mean it doesn't exist. Iraq submitted to U.N. inspections in
February of 1991, after the Persian Gulf War. In doing so, they agreed to
end all weapons of mass destruction programs, however; in 1997, American
members of the U.N. Special Commision (UNSCOM) were expelled from Iraq. In
1998 Iraq temporarily withdrew cooperation, on grounds of their complaint
that the Inspection Teams were comprised of an unfair proportion of U.S. and
British members. In December, 1998, U.N. Special Commision determined that
Iraq was not fully complying, and removed all inspectors and officials from
Iraq. Iraq continued to reject new weapon inspections programs. In September
of 2002, on threat of "dire consequences", Iraq unconditionally accepted the
return of U.N. weapons inspectors"
A few weeks later, I posted all of this to you, again, asking for comment.
Neither time this information was pointed out did it garner comment from you
beyond your initial "Where precisely did you get this information?"
Now, it is clear that these weapons existed. Where are they now is the
question? It is a question that Saddam refused to answer. Why might he
refuse to answer that? Any ideas? It would be pretty easy for him to show
they were destroyed if that actually had been destroyed, but that is not
what he did. So either you believe that he did destroy them (given your
insistence that we will find no WMD) since that decleration, or they were
lost or destroyed at some other time. Yet the simple fact remains, they
*were* there, and *now* are unnaccounted for. Given the consistent behavior
of his regime, it seems the most likely explanation is that he was hiding
these from inspectors or international notice. What do *you* think happened
to these items?
> > A significant
> > majority of these weapon systems and delivery systems were not
> accounted for
> > in that novel Saddam produced, which meant he still had them.
>
> No, it does not. Where exactly are they? Are they right there
> and we still haven't found them?
Again, its absurd, the war isnt even over yet, and we are only three weeks
into it. Give it a little bit of time.
>
> > I hope from
> > now on you will cease to say comments alluding to our lack of ability to
> > find WMD, when we all ready found them nearly ten years ago.
>
>
> We are concerned with today. Is that so bloody difficult for
> you to understand?
I certainly understand it, but you cant be so concerned with today that you
forget yesterday existed. WMD were found, and now they are unaccounted for.
If they are NOT found now, that could be a pretty scary development, as it
could mean they were all-ready distributed amongst terrorist organizations.
Is it so 'bloody difficult' for you to acknowledge reality, the reality that
the previous inspections found a LOT of WMD, which are now entirely
unnaccounted for?
If we found them rather than just hearing
> they were there ten years ago then we had inspectors there
> before we would have taken care of them, yes? I cannot believe
> that you believe this huge stockpile was there, was proved
> conclusively to be there and we just let them sit on it for 10
> years.
Hello, he kicked inspectors out. It took the quick moving and quick
thinking UN TEN YEARS to actually do something about it, and that was
passing a resolution threatening serious consequences, 10 YEARS later!!!,
and then you and they condemn the coalition forces for actually following
through on UN threats, and, ironically, claiming they are going against the
UN. I note this resolution was Unanimous by the security council.
I can't believe you believe they have it and that they
> did not use so much as one chemical weapon one time during this
> occupation of the country.
I believe that is certainly possible, given the announcement of their only
ally, france, that they would join the coalition forces if any chemical
weapons were used. Some Iraqi soldiers were donning gas masks for some time
as well, the US lead an intensive information campaign informing Iraqi
soldiers and commanders that if their unit took part in any chemical weapons
attacks they would be held accountable for crimes against humanity, they
also urged unit commanders and leaders to refrain from using such weapons
and threating them that they know who they are and what units they command.
But regardless, the fact that none were used does not prove they had none.
>
>
> > We are
> > attempting to figure out what happened to them now. This is
> why Saddam's
> > 'cooperation' was completely absurd, he could have simply put
> everything out
> > in a parking lot and said 'here it is'. Yet the media kept
> parroting the
> > whole 'we have yet to find any WMD' line, which as I have tried to make
> > clear, is a gross mis-representation, they should have been
> saying 'We still
> > dont know what happened to the missing WMD' Had they been found in the
> > first place, the war may have been averted entirely.
> >
>
> Is there any point where you will simply concede that there
> wasn't any of any significance? What would it take for you to
> do that?
>
> - samantha
Certainly none of the statements you have presented. If, after years of
searching, nothing is ever found, I may concede that Iraq did not have any
WMD, but it is possible they could have been funneled to terrorist
organisations. Additionaly, stopping hussein before he developed nuclear
capabilities was of prime importance, as that WMD could kill far more
people. Furthermore, the biggest threat is the growing animosity in the
Middle East against the post-industrialized west, that must be abatted, and
the best way to do that is creating a wealthy arab democracy in that sea of
tyranny and oppression.
Is there any point in which you would concede there was WMD? What would it
take for you to do that?
Ok, now given the time I have put into the post and the fact that we dont
seem to be getting anywhere, and the fact that neither of us have any say in
this Iraq issue *anyway* I think we could use our time more valuable by
picking a particular point of contention, and examing it. I dont think we
should do this with Iraq, as, again, the war is all-ready occuring and
nearly over, and time will prove it just or unjust. Perhaps examing the
history of US foriegn policy would be a more valuable effort.
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 16:20:21 MDT