# Bushbots, since I can't ask for your brains, get yer asses in here... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 14, 2005, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669 "2005-01-14T05:24:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/241 "2005-01-18T09:26:40Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > So you think it was about protecting Israel. Why don’t you just shut the fuck up. You’ve done enough harm as it is. What do you want to do, make people hate Jews? You’re a racist? No no no sevasty, people think **you’re** a racist. I could see how you’d get confused though. Oh, but, I’m sorry, you didn’t give a cite. You gave an unatributed quote. How quaint. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > I thought you said “factual and logical.” That is neither. How is it not? You’ve just said that the war is a sucess since Sadaam is gone. Thus, it remains a sucess regardless of the death toll as long as Sadaam is gone. Unless you mean to say that certain failures in the war will make the entire war a failure? If that is the case, what are those failures? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Well, that may be what the question becomes to you, but for myself, I’ve never commented on “winning the peace.” Personally, such Kerryesque notions aren’t part of my phrasing vocabulary. Such notions as not having a perpetual war aren’t part of your vocabulary? “Major combat operations” have been concluded, so it now behoves you to set a standard of sucess for whatever this period shall be semantically minced as. Reconstruction? Rebuilding? Restoration? Liberation? Whatever, when does it become a sucess, and when a failure? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > But of course it’s a serious issue. However, in times of war, you take the action necessary to protect yourself win the war, and then try to deal with the conditions that remain to whatever degree you can. Agreed. Now can you please comment on what would count as sucess for ‘dealing with the conditions’ and would would count as failure? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Should we not have invaded Europe and taken on Hitler because the Soviet Union might become a superpower and run roughshod over and absorb countless other countries and ultimately bring us to the brink of nuclear war? No. We did what we had to do and then dealt with the consequences as they played out. Ahem. Godwin? Sadaam wasn’t “a Hitler” either. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Not having a crystal ball, that’s all any country can do. Aww, come on. Surely a modern country can assume that, oh, if they blow up generators, they’ll need to get new ones? That people like having running water? Surely even without a crystal ball you can post troops outside the ministry of intelligence so it doesn’t get looted? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/242 "2005-01-18T09:28:22Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > …But the war itself is already a success. Hussein is out of power; his shithead sons will never be in power; Israel and the entire region are more safe and stable; other countries who might be inclined to test our resolve and willingness to protect ourselves now know our resolve is both strong and supported by a majority within our own country; and there is absolutely no threat of WMD from Iraq causing harm to the U.S. or any other country. Heavens, don’t forget that desperately dangerous 14-year-old grandson of his! That pimply faced threat to world peace was also taken out. And all that proud moment took was…what, about a division of Marines. When we say we mean to end juvinile delinquency, you better believe we mean business! As to our willingness and resolve, I rather imagine those uncounted thousands of 30 megaton thermonuclear bombs are more of a deterrent force than our resolute character. What do you call a sniveling wussy with a nuke. I suggestYes, indeed, GeeDubya is a firm and decisive leader. So was Custer. “…supported by a majority…” You haven’t been keeping up, have you? “…absolutely no threat of WMD from Iraq…” Uh, right. True. Nor was there. Because he didn’t have any. You might just as well suggest that we are free from attacks by his voodoo trained necromancers, and their zombie armies. We are, of course, so I guess you might as well, certainly no sillier than any other argument you’ve plopped onto the table. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/243 "2005-01-18T09:34:38Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You might just as well suggest that we are free from attacks by his voodoo trained necromancers, and their zombie armies. Well, he would have a point. You haven’t seen any necromancers or zombie hordes showing up, have you? There, that’s proof right there: we got 'em in time. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/244 "2005-01-18T09:37:55Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Are you insane? I do admit to reacting strongly to signs of racism. However **SA** please don’t consider anything I post as an invitation to query or debate with you. Juan Cole Tues Jan 18 2005 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/245 "2005-01-18T09:46:15Z")
For Goddess’ sake! Do you _ever_ shut up or get tired of putting out falsehoods? [You’re a fucking idiot, shut your mouth already](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5658304&postcount=53) Or do I really need to bring up how you’ve said that pumping round after round into the bodies of a pregnant woman and her children at point blank range is okay as long as it’s an Israeli settler being shot? In other words, shut up you damn contemptible piece of filth. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/246 "2005-01-18T09:53:26Z")
Did I assert it was true? Not at all, twas an elementary exercise in empirical reasoning, which you might care to undertake too. Professor Cole asserts a number of factual propositions: evidence based reasoning should be able to disprove these if they are not true: Try these: - for a while the Pentagon brass was refusing to share classified documents with Feith’s office. - One of feith’s subordinates is under investigation by the FBI for turning confidential Pentagon policy documents over to an official in the Israeli embassy via the pro-Israeli lobbying group, AIPAC. - Feith had signed on to a 1996 policy paper for Likud party politician Benyamin Netanyahu that called for a war against Iraq for Israeli security purposes - Feith openly opposed the Oslo peace process, - Feith’s Office of Special Plans, its personnel drawn in part from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, cherry-picked intelligence on Saddam’s Iraq to make an exaggerated and unfounded case for Iraq having weapons of mass destruction programs and an operational link to al-Qaeda. Now these are all large targets. Should be easy to disprove one or all of them in no time. Starts now. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/247 "2005-01-18T10:22:53Z")
> [@edwino](#): > > The UN was reasonably satisfied with Saddam’s negotiations with Blix and ElBaradei, and last time I checked, it was up to the UN to enforce their own resolutions. France and Germany may have agreed that Saddam had WMDs, but when push came to shove, they didn’t believe he was a big enough threat to go to war. Which can be explained by the fact that France and Germany (as well as Kofi Annan’s own son) were accepting kickbacks from the Oil For Food program. Combine that with Iraq’s outstanding debt to Russia and arms deals with China and you can begin to see why none of the resolutions were enforced. If you read through the list of resolutions, many of them begin with a clause that states that the resolution was in response to Iraq’s flagrant disregard for a previous resolution. > [@](#): > > So that’s not really an argument for war either. You still base your arguments on a hypothetical, and IMHO that is a very dangerous thing to start tagging as imminent threat. A hypothetical is an imaginary situation given a set of imaginary conditions. This was quite a different thing, a very real situation in very real conditions where the only variable was time. High-ranking Baathist officials and WMD scientists have verified that all orders given by Saddam were to preserve all knowlege of WMD for the purpose of re-constituting the program. A declared intention is a very different thing from a hypothesis. There is no conjecture or supposition on this point; it was an inevitability. > [@](#): > > . If you believe that invasion, regime change, and occupation was justified on the basis of a few SAMs, none of which IIRC actually did any harm to any Americans, then that is your prerogative. I just think the amount of blood and treasure expended on SAM firings is a bit excessive. De facto war or not, the US took the most extreme measures possible with regime change and occupation, and you still need to be able to justify that level of response. What should be more visible than any single incident is that Iraq’s failure to disarm or comply with a cease-fire necessitated a complex, expensive, and ultimately unsustainable system of containment and inspection. The sanctions regime was the real failure here. The educated Iraqi middle class showed great promise and amenability to the prospect of regime change and democratic principles. Unfortunately, the Iraqi middle class was laid waste by 10 years of UN sanctions, leaving no fertile ground in Iraq for the seeds of democratic reform today. The sanctions were an expensive lose-lose situation for all parties involved (except for the recipients of oil-for-food kickbackks). When you put all these pieces together, you see a security risk in an unsustainable, expensive containment system. After 9/11 (the cliche must be repeated because it is true) it became clear that this fiasco simply had to end, whatever the immediate cost. I am open to having my mind changed… I do not relish either war or the Bush administration… but having given a lot of thought to the security question, I see no other way the inevitable threat of Iraqi WMD’s could have been removed other than military action. It could have been done at a different time, in a different way, and the follow-through has been miserable. But it had to be done. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/248 "2005-01-18T10:28:51Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > How is it not? Do you realize what you’re asking? It’s neither factual nor logical to pose a scenario such as you described in which every U.S. serviceman in Iraq were to be slaughtered tomorrow. Your words, not mine. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > You’ve just said that the war is a sucess since Sadaam is gone. Thus, it remains a sucess regardless of the death toll as long as Sadaam is gone. In the words of one of my favorite people, Eric Cartman: “Yeah, pretty much.” > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Unless you mean to say that certain failures in the war will make the entire war a failure? If that is the case, what are those failures? Careful, you’re going to get a hernia from the strain of these extrapolations. For the record, I know of no “failure” that could reasonably be expected to occur that would cause me to regard the war as a failure. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Such notions as not having a perpetual war aren’t part of your vocabulary? I see…we either “win the peace” or we have a perpetual war. Okay, let me see if I can come up with a suitable rejoinder. How about if peace just happens once the fighting is over, like in every other war? It isn’t “won,” it happens all by itself. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > “Major combat operations” have been concluded, so it now behoves you to set a standard of sucess for whatever this period shall be semantically minced as. Reconstruction? Rebuilding? Restoration? Liberation? Whatever, when does it become a sucess, and when a failure? Calling Stephen Hawking, calling Stephen Hawking… There are some things, **Finn** , that are just beyond ordinary human understanding (such as **elucidator’s** last post 😃 ). There _is_ no point at which it becomes a success or failure. It is already a success. And even if it weren’t, it wouldn’t be up to me to delineate the boundries. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Agreed. > Now can you please comment on what would count as sucess for ‘dealing with the conditions’ and would would count as failure? Again you are presupposing that I have some sort of supernatural knowledge of all that comes to bear on the situation, and that I could therefore tell you precisely what should be done to correct whatever problems may be involved. And you are again looking to me to set the boundries of success or failure. While I appreciate the high esteem in which you appear to hold me, I would have to defer to those who are in a position to see what problems need to be addressed (i.e., the war’s administrators on the ground in Iraq and in the Pentagon) and who have an understanding of what should be needed in order to address them. I’m sure many things will need to be dealt with that haven’t even arisen yet. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Ahem. Godwin? > Sadaam wasn’t “a Hitler” either. The purpose of my comment was to illustrate that lack of foreknowledge of future events is not sufficient grounds to avoid going to war when necessary. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Aww, come on. > Surely a modern country can assume that, oh, if they blow up generators, they’ll need to get new ones? That people like having running water? Surely even without a crystal ball you can post troops outside the ministry of intelligence so it doesn’t get looted? Now we’re back to war being messy. I don’t mean to be flippant, but you know, shit happens when you’re at war. Things don’t just fall into place seamlessly when such a huge and complex undertaking is going on. Hell, I sometimes have trouble finding suitable toilets at arts festivals or state fairs. I don’t expect everything to function flawlessly at these venues, so I sure as hell don’t expect them to function flawless when nations are at war. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/249 "2005-01-18T10:29:55Z")
Nonsense outright. Have you caught something from SA? Any WMD threat was contained indefinitely. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/250 "2005-01-18T10:31:48Z")
**Natto** , that is. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/251 "2005-01-18T10:33:41Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > Did I assert it was true? Not at all… Well, see, if you weren’t asserting that something was true, one might say you were putting out a false position with the intent of reeling in people to talk with you about it. > [@](#): > > - for a while the Pentagon brass was refusing to share classified documents with Feith’s office. ( **Not proof that they viewed him an Israeli spy. Even if they did view him that way, not proof that he was a spy** ) > - One of feith’s subordinates is under investigation by the FBI for turning confidential Pentagon policy documents over to an official in the Israeli embassy via the pro-Israeli lobbying group, AIPAC. (**Not proof that Feith authorized it. Not proof, even if it occured (he’s under investigation, not convicted) that the war was based on Zionist concerns.**) > - Feith had signed on to a 1996 policy paper for Likud party politician Benyamin Netanyahu that called for a war against Iraq for Israeli security purposes ( **Not proof that Feith’s vision of a war for Israeli security’s sake drove Bush** ) > - Feith openly opposed the Oslo peace process, (\*\* So did Arafat. He wasn’t a Zionist, was he? \*\*) > - Feith’s Office of Special Plans, its personnel drawn in part from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, cherry-picked intelligence on Saddam’s Iraq to make an exaggerated and unfounded case for Iraq having weapons of mass destruction programs and an operational link to al-Qaeda.( **This is, unfortunately, cherry picking the facts to support his conclusion.** [feel familiar sevasty?]) I didn’t want to post this before becaus I thought you might slither away into the darkness, but here goes. [Some facts that you’re ‘inconveniently’ leaving out](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html) > [@](#): > > The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, **Donald Rumsfeld** Wow, it was the project of Rummy? He must be a big Zionist? Right Sevasty? You wouldn’t steer us wrong, wouldja? > [@](#): > > The president’s most trusted adviser, Mr Cheney, was at the shadow network’s sharp end. He made several trips to the CIA in Langley, Virginia, to demand a more “forward-leaning” interpretation of the threat posed by Saddam. When he was not there to make his influence felt, his chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was. Cheney and Libby! Surely **they** are Zionists? You’re not spewing crap, are you Sevasty? > [@](#): > > Another frequent visitor was Newt Gingrich, the former Republican party leader who resurfaced after September 11 as a Pentagon “consultant” and a member of its unpaid defence advisory board, with influence far beyond his official title. Ah… Newt! He’s a Secret Zionist Operative, right Sevasty? > [@](#): > > In the days after September 11, Mr Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, mounted an attempt to include Iraq in the war against terror Well, we all know that deputies set policy for their superiors. Right? Rummy is a pawn in the Zionist Scheme, right? > [@](#): > > Under pressure from the hawks such as Mr Cheney and Mr Gingrich, those officers became reluctant to discard anything, no matter how far-fetched Don’t worry Sevasty, I’m sure your worldview is correct. The author misspelled “The Zionists” as “Mr Cheney and Mr Gingrich.” I’m sure that happens all the time. > [@](#): > > The administration wanted to use the momentum gained in Afghanistan to deal with Iraq once and for all. The administration! Why, they are of course Zionists or controlled by Zionists? Right? > [@](#): > > The OSP itself had less than 10 full-time staff, so to help deal with the load, the office hired scores of temporary “consultants”. They included lawyers, congressional staffers, and policy wonks from the numerous rightwing thinktanks in Washington. Few had experience in intelligence. Wow, less than ten staffers. And " its personnel drawn in part from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs" So, in part? We talking like, three staffers? Four? Moreoever, I’m sure that all the lawyers, staffers, and right wingers were Zionists. Right? But wait! Here’s a tidbit that just might support your position, let’s take a look. > [@](#): > > It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon’s office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam’s Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise. Notice, if Israeli security was the issue, they would’ve gone to Mossad to get the, ahem, straight dope. They didn’t want that, they wanted intel from Sharon’s clique that could be used to sell the war (eg. more alarmist reports). You will also note that they went to Sharon, not vice versa. Had Irsael wanted to manipulate our government, do you think they’d wait to be asked? Wait, here’s another! > [@](#): > > The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel’s Likud party. Wow, an exhange of information. That implies like, a working relationship with one of our allies. That is surely a sign that we are in their pocket, or they’re in ours. Or one of the two. There is no possible reason to share intel other than if we were doing their bidding. You’ll also notice that the relationship was with Likud, not with Israel as a whole. They’ve got a political alliance with one faction in Israeli politics. This does not translate into a secret desire to conqueror countries on Israel’s behalf. ~yawn~ I suppose the question becomes “Cui bono?” From the cite that Juan Cole ripped off his out of context quotations, Zinni says that not one single nation in the region felt threatened by Sadaam. As such, the Israelis couldn’t have felt he was a threat. As such, the elimination of Sadaam couldn’t be for Israeli security. Or, let me make this painfully obvious, even to you. Are there many christians in the government? Yeep. Is it valid to state the christian theology drove the Iraq war? Nope. Not without proof. Simply showing how many christians there are, or how many people like christians, does not show how the war was developed. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/252 "2005-01-18T10:34:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Heavens, don’t forget that desperately dangerous 14-year-old grandson of his! That pimply faced threat to world peace was also taken out. And all that proud moment took was…what, about a division of Marines. When we say we mean to end juvinile delinquency, you better believe we mean business! > > As to our willingness and resolve, I rather imagine those uncounted thousands of 30 megaton thermonuclear bombs are more of a deterrent force than our resolute character. What do you call a sniveling wussy with a nuke. I suggestYes, indeed, GeeDubya is a firm and decisive leader. So was Custer. > > “…supported by a majority…” You haven’t been keeping up, have you? > > “…absolutely no threat of WMD from Iraq…” Uh, right. True. Nor was there. Because he didn’t have any. You might just as well suggest that we are free from attacks by his voodoo trained necromancers, and their zombie armies. We are, of course, so I guess you might as well, certainly no sillier than any other argument you’ve plopped onto the table. **luci** , **luci** , **luci** …this whole thing is just not worthy of you. A few too many brewskys perhaps, or maybe just too damn late at night? Either way, I’ll look forward to you being more lucid ( 😃 ) next time. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/253 "2005-01-18T10:38:42Z")
Good night, all (except for **Sevastopol** , who doesn’t want me to talk to him). I’m outta here. Regards. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/254 "2005-01-18T10:49:20Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Do you realize what you’re asking? It’s neither factual nor logical to pose a scenario such as you described in which every U.S. serviceman in Iraq were to be slaughtered tomorrow. Your words, not mine. Erunh? How on earth is it not factual to posit a hypothetical scenario? Would the death toll matter? Is it more ‘logical’ (you mean reasonable?) to posit a scenario in which, say, 10,000 troops get wiped out with a nuke tomorrow? Okay… Whatever the case may be, if the war was ‘won’ with the capture of Sadaam and his sons, even being nuked and having to pull out of the country wouldn’t mean we lost the war. At least under your definition, since the war was already won. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > For the record, I know of no “failure” that could reasonably be expected to occur that would cause me to regard the war as a failure. So, in other words. no matter what happens the war is a sucess because we got Sadaam, right? I’m not putting words in your mouth? And **you do realize that if that’s the case, whatever happens now doesn’t matter as you’ve already said it’s a sucess?** And, I don’t care about what you view as resonable to occur. I’m taking hypotheticals. What **hypothetical if however unlikely** scenario would you say is justification for calling the war a failure? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > I see…we either “win the peace” or we have a perpetual war. Okay, let me see if I can come up with a suitable rejoinder. How about if peace just happens once the fighting is over, like in every other war? It isn’t “won,” it happens all by itself. Calling Stephen Hawking, calling Stephen Hawking… I don’t know if you want to call Hawking, his chair can’t roll that fast and he might miss the phone. However, do **you** see any sign of the fighting being over any time soon? Or that, once a winner is declared and someone owns the country, it’ll be us? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > There are some things, **Finn** , that are just beyond ordinary human understanding (such as **elucidator’s** last post 😃 ). There _is_ no point at which it becomes a success or failure. It is already a success. So, you’re saying it can’t be a failure since it’s ‘already’ a sucess. Thus, any tragedy, horror, blunder to come is not to be counted. Right? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Again you are presupposing that I have some sort of supernatural knowledge of all that comes to bear on the situation, and that I could therefore tell you precisely what should be done to correct whatever problems may be involved. Yes, I want you to ask your HGA some questions. ~sighs~ Maybe I wasn’t asking you for solutions? Maybe I was only asking if you’re capable of seeing faults and realizing when mistakes are made. Maybe I was only asking how many mistakes and of what sort would qualify failure in your book. But then again, maybe I was asking for supernatural knowledge. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > And you are again looking to me to set the boundries of success or failure. While I appreciate the high esteem in which you appear to hold me, I would have to defer to those who are in a position to see what problems need to be addressed (i.e., the war’s administrators on the ground in Iraq and in the Pentagon) and who have an understanding of what should be needed in order to address them. Why? Vietnam was a failure no matter what the planning was. Should we not be able to say that because military folk planned it? Come on, as an American you have the ability to speak your mind, and you don’t have to be in the military to relaize when your nation has lost a war. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > I’m sure many things will need to be dealt with that haven’t even arisen yet. Any of them potential failures for our occupation of Iraq? What if, for instance, there’s a civil war we can’t contain? Victory, or defeat for us? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > The purpose of my comment was to illustrate that lack of foreknowledge of future events is not sufficient grounds to avoid going to war when necessary. Which is fine… but I’m not debating that point. When I still believed Powel at the UN, I supported this war. Now I do not becuase the evidence does not match the rosy predictions. I think those with rosy perceptions of the war now are having a serious pipe dream, and I want some of whatever they’re smoking. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Now we’re back to war being messy. I don’t mean to be flippant, but you know, shit happens when you’re at war. Things don’t just fall into place seamlessly when such a huge and complex undertaking is going on. Understood. Now how many mistakes, and of what caliber, would constitute failure? At what point does ‘mess’ equal 'too much damn mess, oops, we lost the war."? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Hell, I sometimes have trouble finding suitable toilets at arts festivals or state fairs. I don’t expect everything to function flawlessly at these venues, so I sure as hell don’t expect them to function flawless when nations are at war. I don’t expect it to function flawlessly either. But if at that state fair there were only two toilets, could you say that someone made a mistake in planning? (I can’t believe that my analogies have come to this) ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/255 "2005-01-18T10:56:15Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > Nonsense outright. Have you caught something from SA? > > Any WMD threat was contained indefinitely. So the inspection regime, no-fly zone, military presence and prepositioned equipment in Kuwait was to remain in place forever, then? Assuming infinite funds and resources, sure, infinite containment was an option. We don’t live in that world, I’m afraid. The system was unsustainable at its best, and known to be corrupt and undermined in reality. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/256 "2005-01-18T11:09:14Z")
Now observe, just as **SA** has a difficulty overcoming prejudice concerning a recent war, **FA** is unable to escape prejudice regarding a particular nation state. The fallacies: 1. The straw man, or representing a proposition as something other than it is, in order to more easily rebut: - number of times Professor Cole referred to “Zionism” - nil - number of times **FA’s** reply referred to “Zionism” - eight 1. The non sequitur, or a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises. > [@](#): > > Zinni says that not one single nation in the region felt threatened by Sadaam. As such, the Israelis couldn’t have felt he was a threat. As such, the elimination of Sadaam couldn’t be for Israeli security. 1. Biased representation of evidence: Omitted from **FA’s** source: > [@](#): > > “None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels,” said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith’s authority without having to fill in the usual forms. > > [The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel’s Likud party.] > > In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe. > > The Israeli influence was revealed most clearly by a story floated by unnamed senior US officials in the American press, suggesting the reason that no banned weapons had been found in Iraq was that they had been smuggled into Syria. Intelligence sources say that the story came from the office of the Israeli prime minister. So alas, be aware apparently normal, functioning members of society are easy prey for prejudice, fallacy and hence, diminished reasoning. I trust the exercise has been instructive on the beauty of empiricism, the gift of enabling the conquest over one’s own prejudices. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/257 "2005-01-18T11:13:55Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Erunh? How on earth is it not factual to posit a hypothetical scenario? Would the death toll matter? Is it more ‘logical’ (you mean reasonable?) to posit a scenario in which, say, 10,000 troops get wiped out with a nuke tomorrow? Okay… > > Whatever the case may be, if the war was ‘won’ with the capture of Sadaam and his sons, even being nuked and having to pull out of the country wouldn’t mean we lost the war. At least under your definition, since the war was already won. > > So, in other words. no matter what happens the war is a sucess because we got Sadaam, right? I’m not putting words in your mouth? And **you do realize that if that’s the case, whatever happens now doesn’t matter as you’ve already said it’s a sucess?** > > And, I don’t care about what you view as resonable to occur. I’m taking hypotheticals. What **hypothetical if however unlikely** scenario would you say is justification for calling the war a failure? Dammit! As I said to luci the other night, let me outta here! But first, what is it with you and hypotheticals? You can’t get me to say what you want using reality so you want to try to pin me down with hypotheticals? Hypotheticals are worthless. Anything and everything can be encompassed in hypotheticals. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > However, do **you** see any sign of the fighting being over any time soon? Or that, once a winner is declared and someone owns the country, it’ll be us? I have no idea, just as those at war in Europe in WWII had no idea of events to follow. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > So, you’re saying it can’t be a failure since it’s ‘already’ a sucess. Thus, any tragedy, horror, blunder to come is not to be counted. Right? You’re an extrapolating fool, aren’t you? Kindly point to where I said any such thing. But just so’s you’ll know, that’s right. The war happened. We won. Hussein is gone. Future events will play out as they will…just as in the aftermath of every war. Such as you mention would be counted, but not in terms of winning or losing the war. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yes, I want you to ask your HGA some questions. ~sighs~ > Maybe I wasn’t asking you for solutions? Maybe I was only asking if you’re capable of seeing faults and realizing when mistakes are made. That’s so kind of you. If only you could just try a little harder…you know how it is with us conservatives. We just don’t have enough information! We all need more education in order to see the light. And it’s happening all over the country. All of us, everywhere, just need more info from lefties and we’ll surely see the error of our ways and begin to think correctly for a change. Puh-fucking-leeese!!! > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Maybe I was only asking how many mistakes and of what sort would qualify failure in your book. > But then again, maybe I was asking for supernatural knowledge. > > Why? > Vietnam was a failure no matter what the planning was. Should we not be able to say that because military folk planned it? Come on, as an American you have the ability to speak your mind, and you don’t have to be in the military to relaize when your nation has lost a war. Yes, I realized it…and I was ashamed of my country and horrified at what became of the people of South Vietnam when Carter turned tail and ran. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Any of them potential failures for our occupation of Iraq? What if, for instance, there’s a civil war we can’t contain? Victory, or defeat for us? Neither. I’m not being flippant either. The Iraqi people will have the opportunity to govern themselves. If it goes south, it will be of their own volition (both voluntary and involuntary) as a country. The alternative would be for us to take over the governing of Iraq, which I’m sure would have you and your cohorts screaming bloody murder even more than now. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Now how many mistakes, and of what caliber, would constitute failure? At what point does ‘mess’ equal 'too much damn mess, oops, we lost the war."? I’ve answered this already. “Failure” does not compute. Only varying degrees of andvantageous or disadvantageous happenings. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > I don’t expect it to function flawlessly either. > But if at that state fair there were only two toilets, could you say that someone made a mistake in planning? (I can’t believe that my analogies have come to this) Your analogies have pretty much always belonged in the toilet, IMHO that is. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/258 "2005-01-18T11:15:53Z")
> [@NattoGuy](#): > > So the inspection regime, no-fly zone, military presence and prepositioned equipment in Kuwait was to remain in place forever, then? Had the expense being ongoing for 50 years it would not approach the war’s cost. > [@NattoGuy](#): > > The system was unsustainable at its best, and known to be corrupt and undermined in reality. There is no evidence for either: unsustainable; or undermined. On the contrary, the evidence is otherwise. How many WMD were created during the ‘undermined’ containment regime? An approximate figure will do. I advise you to gather evidence before forming conclusions. You may consider speeches by General Zinni, the US military officer in charge of the sanctions regime. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/259 "2005-01-18T11:17:26Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > Now observe, just as **SA** has a difficulty overcoming prejudice concerning a recent war… I’m going to have to ask that if you want me to continue to respect your request that I not engage you in discussion, that you stop mentioning me in a derogatory way. I honored your request; kindly honor mine. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669/260 "2005-01-18T11:23:21Z")
How odd that we might have common ground. I simply believe that the ways we approach debate are irreconcilable and hence engagement would be futile. While I do believe you to be gripped by prejudice I shall honour your request and no longer refer to you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushbots-since-i-cant-ask-for-your-brains-get-yer-asses-in-here/284669.md?page=14)