Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Blixy Sticks · 05-04-2003, 08:58 AM

I have noted on more than one occasion on this forum, certain individuals resorting to the "prove it" defense when in disagreement about another individual's opinion.

It appears to me that this ploy is a "topic stopper" tactic.

For example, George W. Bush has claimed that his intent on waging war on Iraq, or at least part of his intent, is/was to liberate the Iraqi people. Many here have asserted that Bush's claim is hog wash, and don't buy it.

Where is the proof that Bush could care less about the liberation of the Iraqi people? Where is the proof that Bush's intent is the cheap procurement of Iraq's oil reserves?

Don't get me wrong. I do not buy Bush's publicized intent, either, but short of proving that it is not his intent, it must truly be his intent. End of discussion, right?

Zar · 05-04-2003, 10:03 AM

No. It is nearly impossible to have perfect knowledge of someone's intent and to finally "prove" it. It is only possible to show why the stated intent is unlikely, incompatible with action, or impossible. You can make a good guess at the real intent, but mostly all you can do is refute the claimed intent or call it into deep question.

If I say I do not intend to hurt you, and then haul off and punch you in the nose, I'm probably not telling the truth. At least you'd be justified in douting me. But then comes the search for a reason, and unless you have exquisite knowledge of me and what I know, it is an uphill battle to figure it out. But them the more a person says about their intent, the fewer options seem possible.

First of all, it is difficult to know what exactly Bush intends, because his intentions have been nebulous at best. They shifted in emphasis from WMDs to regime change to liberation variously over time. If nothing else, this shows a somewhat confused state in the White House as to their own thinking, which is a concern. However, it seems that the idea of "regime change" is immediately regarded widely as an invalid doctrine along with pre-emptive warfare. So, right away, without a lot of digging, we have a big conflict. Not much more "proof" is needed for this. It is a very simple precept akin to "innocent until proven guilty" and naturally people resist breaking it. When you couple this with analysis by even the U.S.'s own intelligence (CIA) that Saddam doesn't pose the threat that is claimed either militarily or in connection with terrorists, you not only have a moral rift opening but a factual one. Then, one starts to thinking about why the superpower is being so rash all of a sudden.

Some say it is simply a reaction to 9/11. Some "average Joes" even go further and say the world is lucky the U.S. hasn't hauled off and attacked even more nations in a blind fury, possibly with nukes. That might work for simple people who have a very hard time controlling their thoughts and emotions, but it is not a good excuse for a presidential administration. They are supposed to have foresight, wisdom and forebearance that is greater than some reactive, emotionally immature "man on the street". So, this is why it is demanded that they be as rational and as prudent as possible, even under stress, given the immense power to inflict harm they possess. It doesn't do the world any good to return one injustice for another and since the U.S. Government is not, ostensibly, an insane terrorist organization, it behooves them not to operate on the same level as terrorists and to select their targets carefully.

When one looks at these incongruencies, one gets the idea that the U.S. is falling off the track of the "War on Terror". While "cooperating" with the likes of Pakistan -- probably the East's worst exporter of terrorism and founding patron to al-Qaeda and the Taliban -- we bomb a nation into disarray that has scarcely anything to do with the "War on Terror" despite the loud claims. And if we're going to put our attentions on a nation that has hardly anything to do with the War on Terror, it is hard to explain why the North Korea problem got ignored for so long and allowed to fester while actually doing things that gave N. Korea and other nations even more reason not to negotiate. As far as international policy is concerned, many people throw their hands up in dismay over what seems like a totally confused policy.

Some people then struggle to find a reasonable explanation. They say there must be a damn good reason for the emphasis placed where it has been. The easiest answers are oil, strategic positioning in the Middle East and propping up dollar hegemony. Indeed, the extensive analysis given to these reasons shows they do make sense and are very serious issues facing the United States. But does this "prove" they are the reasons? You can also see that Israel is sccreaming endlessly for the U.S. to take the fight to other ME nations. To not see this is to be willfully blind. And to not see the potential ties to Israel in the administration is to be similarly irrational. But does this prove that this is indeed the driving force? Perhaps its just "finishing daddy's work" despite all these interest groups who want Iraq flattened for other reasons. The real story may be more complicated, or -- frignteningly -- much less complicated than we think.

It will take some time to unravel all of this. But the fact remains that we do not have unlimited time to debate. Action has already been taken, in fact. This is what makes things like this so disturbing. The "rush to war" allows people to speculate all they want, but they will not catch up to you until after you have already accomplished your goal. And if you can keep throwing people curve balls, they may never catch up. This is why, in my mind, people ought to be concerned the minute something doesn't seem right. They ought to demand that Congress take back the reigns here, because this war has shown what an executive branch can do when given all the power to circumvent deliberation. You get stampeded into war. And this "stampeding" is the central aspect of pushing a country into conflict. You need to press people fast to prevent them from seeing alternatives. You must create the atmosphere of "time running out" to leverage emotions like fear over analysis.

So, I don't think, when the clock ticks and war is approaching, any of this is a matter of absolute "proof" of knoweldge of any particular motive, but a demonstration of the fact that serious problems exist in the casus belli. And that ought to be enough to give us pause if we take war seriously.

Sojourner553 · 05-04-2003, 11:00 AM

First and foremost to remember:

ACTIONS DO SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS....

Where do I begin....

Let's start with Afghanistan as a comparison. Do you know how much the Bush Administration requested for humanitarian aid to Afghanistan in this year's Congressional Budget?

Answer: $0. [Congress was ashamed and put in a few million despite the Bush Administration's recommendation.]

Regarding the "humanitarian" reason to invade Iraq:

(1) Bush has been saying with the other side of his mouth that we are going into Iraq because of proof of weapons of mass destruction, we are going after the terrorists, etc.

-- Need examples of where the Bush administration flat out lied about there being proof of WMD even after important information came out that this proof were forgeries/false/

(2) Why is it that the US has insisted that it retain complete control of political power in Iraq, for example with no sharing of power with even the UN?

Here is a recent link how relief agencies in Iraq are saying this is hurting their efforts in Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...948621,00.html

(4) Why is it the Iraqi oil ministries were protected from looting, even after it had been identified BEFORE the occupation that the Baghdad Antiquities Museum should be one of the first areas protected?

(5) Why did the US arrest an Arab man in Baghdad, for claiming he had "authority" in the city. What happened to freedom of speech/liberty???

(6) Why are US troops shooting Iraqi demonstrators with live (not rubber) bullets since this is killing children/innocent people. Back to the freedom of speech/liberty issue....

Duh?

Loren Pechtel · 05-04-2003, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553

ACTIONS DO SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS....

Where do I begin....

Let's start with Afghanistan as a comparison. Do you know how much the Bush Administration requested for humanitarian aid to Afghanistan in this year's Congressional Budget?

Answer: $0. [Congress was ashamed and put in a few million despite the Bush Administration's recommendation.] [/B]

Unfortunately, I don't think this brush is useful for tarring Bush. One of the budget games has been to make things emergency expenses rather than normal expenses so the budget numbers look better than they really are. Thus things are sometimes not funded as part of the normal operations even though there is no intent not to fund them.

After all, the 2000 census was an "emergency"!

Ion · 05-04-2003, 06:12 PM

Nonsense, below:

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

...
Thus things are sometimes not funded as part of the normal operations even though there is no intent not to fund them.
...

$0 by Bush, is:

$0.

A few millions by the Congress (instead of $0 by Bush), is:

a few millions.

admice · 05-05-2003, 02:00 PM

And why will they not let UN inspectors back in when they are very qualified to help look for the reputed WMD??? Couldn't be because the US military plans on planting them if they don't find any, could it?

Loren Pechtel · 05-05-2003, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by admice
And why will they not let UN inspectors back in when they are very qualified to help look for the reputed WMD??? Couldn't be because the US military plans on planting them if they don't find any, could it?

The inspectors weren't exactly neutral. They were downplaying the evidence they found. No surprise Bush doesn't want them.

Zar · 05-05-2003, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
The inspectors weren't exactly neutral. They were downplaying the evidence they found. No surprise Bush doesn't want them.

What evidence? And are you under the impression that the United States genuinely seeks neutrality? A nation that has attacked another on thin pretexts or even on good pretexts can hardly be seen as disinterested.

John Hancock · 05-05-2003, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
The inspectors weren't exactly neutral. They were downplaying the evidence they found. No surprise Bush doesn't want them.

This is a joke right? No they could not have been honest assessments because honest George said so.

Martin Buber

Sojourner553 · 05-06-2003, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Unfortunately, I don't think this brush is useful for tarring Bush. One of the budget games has been to make things emergency expenses rather than normal expenses so the budget numbers look better than they really are. Thus things are sometimes not funded as part of the normal operations even though there is no intent not to fund them.

After all, the 2000 census was an "emergency"!

If so, why did Congress act embarass and add a hundred million to this oversight. And why didn't the Bush admin use YOUR explanation for this, so they could cut the money back out????

Plus, if this were a point -- WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER POINTS!

No cherry pick'in please. Tackle them all together.

05-04-2003, 08:58 AM	#1
Blixy Sticks Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Until recently, Baghdad Posts: 1,365	Prove It I have noted on more than one occasion on this forum, certain individuals resorting to the "prove it" defense when in disagreement about another individual's opinion. It appears to me that this ploy is a "topic stopper" tactic. For example, George W. Bush has claimed that his intent on waging war on Iraq, or at least part of his intent, is/was to liberate the Iraqi people. Many here have asserted that Bush's claim is hog wash, and don't buy it. Where is the proof that Bush could care less about the liberation of the Iraqi people? Where is the proof that Bush's intent is the cheap procurement of Iraq's oil reserves? Don't get me wrong. I do not buy Bush's publicized intent, either, but short of proving that it is not his intent, it must truly be his intent. End of discussion, right?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-04-2003, 10:03 AM	#2
Zar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posts: 3,477	No. It is nearly impossible to have perfect knowledge of someone's intent and to finally "prove" it. It is only possible to show why the stated intent is unlikely, incompatible with action, or impossible. You can make a good guess at the real intent, but mostly all you can do is refute the claimed intent or call it into deep question. If I say I do not intend to hurt you, and then haul off and punch you in the nose, I'm probably not telling the truth. At least you'd be justified in douting me. But then comes the search for a reason, and unless you have exquisite knowledge of me and what I know, it is an uphill battle to figure it out. But them the more a person says about their intent, the fewer options seem possible. First of all, it is difficult to know what exactly Bush intends, because his intentions have been nebulous at best. They shifted in emphasis from WMDs to regime change to liberation variously over time. If nothing else, this shows a somewhat confused state in the White House as to their own thinking, which is a concern. However, it seems that the idea of "regime change" is immediately regarded widely as an invalid doctrine along with pre-emptive warfare. So, right away, without a lot of digging, we have a big conflict. Not much more "proof" is needed for this. It is a very simple precept akin to "innocent until proven guilty" and naturally people resist breaking it. When you couple this with analysis by even the U.S.'s own intelligence (CIA) that Saddam doesn't pose the threat that is claimed either militarily or in connection with terrorists, you not only have a moral rift opening but a factual one. Then, one starts to thinking about why the superpower is being so rash all of a sudden. Some say it is simply a reaction to 9/11. Some "average Joes" even go further and say the world is lucky the U.S. hasn't hauled off and attacked even more nations in a blind fury, possibly with nukes. That might work for simple people who have a very hard time controlling their thoughts and emotions, but it is not a good excuse for a presidential administration. They are supposed to have foresight, wisdom and forebearance that is greater than some reactive, emotionally immature "man on the street". So, this is why it is demanded that they be as rational and as prudent as possible, even under stress, given the immense power to inflict harm they possess. It doesn't do the world any good to return one injustice for another and since the U.S. Government is not, ostensibly, an insane terrorist organization, it behooves them not to operate on the same level as terrorists and to select their targets carefully. When one looks at these incongruencies, one gets the idea that the U.S. is falling off the track of the "War on Terror". While "cooperating" with the likes of Pakistan -- probably the East's worst exporter of terrorism and founding patron to al-Qaeda and the Taliban -- we bomb a nation into disarray that has scarcely anything to do with the "War on Terror" despite the loud claims. And if we're going to put our attentions on a nation that has hardly anything to do with the War on Terror, it is hard to explain why the North Korea problem got ignored for so long and allowed to fester while actually doing things that gave N. Korea and other nations even more reason not to negotiate. As far as international policy is concerned, many people throw their hands up in dismay over what seems like a totally confused policy. Some people then struggle to find a reasonable explanation. They say there must be a damn good reason for the emphasis placed where it has been. The easiest answers are oil, strategic positioning in the Middle East and propping up dollar hegemony. Indeed, the extensive analysis given to these reasons shows they do make sense and are very serious issues facing the United States. But does this "prove" they are the reasons? You can also see that Israel is sccreaming endlessly for the U.S. to take the fight to other ME nations. To not see this is to be willfully blind. And to not see the potential ties to Israel in the administration is to be similarly irrational. But does this prove that this is indeed the driving force? Perhaps its just "finishing daddy's work" despite all these interest groups who want Iraq flattened for other reasons. The real story may be more complicated, or -- frignteningly -- much less complicated than we think. It will take some time to unravel all of this. But the fact remains that we do not have unlimited time to debate. Action has already been taken, in fact. This is what makes things like this so disturbing. The "rush to war" allows people to speculate all they want, but they will not catch up to you until after you have already accomplished your goal. And if you can keep throwing people curve balls, they may never catch up. This is why, in my mind, people ought to be concerned the minute something doesn't seem right. They ought to demand that Congress take back the reigns here, because this war has shown what an executive branch can do when given all the power to circumvent deliberation. You get stampeded into war. And this "stampeding" is the central aspect of pushing a country into conflict. You need to press people fast to prevent them from seeing alternatives. You must create the atmosphere of "time running out" to leverage emotions like fear over analysis. So, I don't think, when the clock ticks and war is approaching, any of this is a matter of absolute "proof" of knoweldge of any particular motive, but a demonstration of the fact that serious problems exist in the casus belli. And that ought to be enough to give us pause if we take war seriously.

05-04-2003, 11:00 AM	#3
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	First and foremost to remember: ACTIONS DO SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.... Where do I begin.... Let's start with Afghanistan as a comparison. Do you know how much the Bush Administration requested for humanitarian aid to Afghanistan in this year's Congressional Budget? Answer: $0. [Congress was ashamed and put in a few million despite the Bush Administration's recommendation.] Regarding the "humanitarian" reason to invade Iraq: (1) Bush has been saying with the other side of his mouth that we are going into Iraq because of proof of weapons of mass destruction, we are going after the terrorists, etc. -- Need examples of where the Bush administration flat out lied about there being proof of WMD even after important information came out that this proof were forgeries/false/ (2) Why is it that the US has insisted that it retain complete control of political power in Iraq, for example with no sharing of power with even the UN? Here is a recent link how relief agencies in Iraq are saying this is hurting their efforts in Iraq. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...948621,00.html (4) Why is it the Iraqi oil ministries were protected from looting, even after it had been identified BEFORE the occupation that the Baghdad Antiquities Museum should be one of the first areas protected? (5) Why did the US arrest an Arab man in Baghdad, for claiming he had "authority" in the city. What happened to freedom of speech/liberty??? (6) Why are US troops shooting Iraqi demonstrators with live (not rubber) bullets since this is killing children/innocent people. Back to the freedom of speech/liberty issue.... Duh?

05-05-2003, 02:00 PM	#6
admice Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: S Cal Posts: 327	And why will they not let UN inspectors back in when they are very qualified to help look for the reputed WMD??? Couldn't be because the US military plans on planting them if they don't find any, could it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.