Logic Times

Comments

Page Four

Where are the WMD?

7: Trekram

October 18, 2004 09:00pm EST

{Aslan: In response to Jonathan's comments here, Trekram posts...}

Jonathan, I'm by no means a logic expert as it appears you are, however let me offer a couple of comments in response to your well reasoned, but missing-the-point argument:

First - To quote Elbert Hubbard: "Logic is one thing and common sense another." In my humble opinion, logic goes out the window when you're dealing with madmen, and I think we can all agree that Saddam and his boys were certifiable.  You can base your life decisions entirely on logic and I respect that, but I'll take common sense everyday of the week, especially when it comes to national security risks whether real or perceived, speculative or proven, past, present or future.  Logic is a wonderful gift and to be respected but it is as flawed as the human condition and often blinding, as I will address in the second point.  Since you're big on logic, you must be a Mr. Spock fan.  As you may recall, Captain Kirk's gut always out did Mr. Spock's logic. LOL.

{Aslan: In defense of Jonathan, this site is named Logic Times and not Common Sense Times.  LOL.}

Second - Let’s get back to logic. You seem to practice logic like hindsight –  always 20/20 and with prejudice.  Is it not the case that a seemingly logical and true sequence of premises and conclusions can be found to be in error after more data is collected? Would not sound logical protocol re-address the original premise and conclusions to include the additional information and then restate the case?  True, we should go back and criticize the argument in hindsight; however, to ignore the additional data in restating the premise and conclusion would be, well, illogical. I fear your bias and politics has resulted in your obsession with the former and your disinterest in the later.  Think about it.

Taking out Saddam was the right thing to do, WMD or not.  Perhaps you can logically explain to me why it would be better if Saddam were still in power.  I would really like to hear it.

8: Anders Adlercreutz

October 17, 2004 09:50am EST

Your are arguing about the exceptionally high moral standards of the present No1, the US, as compared the the Birtish Empire in the centurys before. While the BE was busy slaughtering insurgents in South Africa. for example, the US was very much into the same business on its hometurf. Well, times have changed, and so have the view we have on different cultures, as well as the view of what we see as fit conduct against our enemies. Treaties like the Geneva convention have helped to set the standards for what is seen as proper and humane conduct in times of war. The US is also very much alone in its category as a global force, which gives it more freedom. I'm primarily comparing it to the situation in the 50-80s when it had the Soviet Union as a counterpart. In those circumstances the US in many instances chose to reverse the course of democracy when it saw fit. (Allende, Marcos, the Shah of Iran etc). In that context the focus on democracy is a welcome novelty.

I think that you can expect more from the sole superpower. These are some excerpts from GWB's track record on the some of the real moral issues:

• He effectively squashed the Kyoto agreement, the first, albeit in some ways flawed, step towards tackling the global warming issue. This si something that most industrial nations had agreed upon, something that a majority of climatology experts see as necessary. The rest of the world is trying to go on on its own, the US prefers to selfishly continue its unprecedented waste of natural resources.

• The Geneva convention. The US sees itself fit to reinterpret an absolutely central document on how we treat our enemies in case of war. I haven't heard of any legal expert outside the US that would agree on this interpertetion and, as bad as it is for the prisoners in Guantanamo, as bad will it be for any American soldier that gets caught by the enemy in the future. The end doesn't justify the means. We have to have some set of rules. And if the US doesn't comply to them, what can we expect from Russia, Israel et al?

• The International War Crimes Tribunal. The world needs it, but the Christian right doesn't. So get rid of it. I'm speechless.

Democracy can't be built with military power. It takes diplomacy, aid, diplomacy, incentives, and a long perspective. And diplomacy. The tactics used by the US are totally opposite. Its foreign aid, for example, is the lowest as a percentage of GNP of any industrial nation. Denmark uses 8 times the amount the US does. The US could be a frormidable player on the Global area. Now it is turning into a formidable bully, trashing the rules of play, losing the respect it once enjoyed. This will eventually lead to a backlash against US companies as well, even though you aren't as reliant on exports as many other countries. Who would by an American car, anyway ;-)

But the american voters don't care. You can be as wrong as you like as long as you show Resolve. That's all it takes.

That's some of it, got to stop, the train is arriving at my station,

Anders from Helsinki

{Aslan: Getting back to you on the points above.  

• The Kyoto Agreement is a bad agreement, and, at its heart, anti-capitalist.  It is a drastic step with staggering economic consequences for the United States and the world.  The required 30% reduction in energy use by 2012 would send the world into an economic depression.  Obligations and restrictions are not well distributed amongst member nations.  And the agreement is based in part on faulty science, as was recently learned here.  Bottom line, it makes no sense to sign onto a project that makes bad assumptions and imposes draconian measures all because some people think greenhouse gases are a problem.  Sending the U.S. back to the Dark Ages is not the solution to a possible environmental crisis; embracing technology and efficiency is the solution.

• As for the Geneva Convention, why is it that you view underwear on the head of a prisoner as worse than beheading a prisoner?

• And finally, the War Crimes tribunal is a farce.  With the rampant anti-US sentiment raging in Europe, Bush would be on trial with protected a Saddam as a witness for the prosecution.

In the end, Anders, our nation distinguishes itself through its devotion to freedom and its restraint.  Do we have blemishes?  Of course.  But because we are a nation under God you can count on us, even if you do not join NATO, to come to your aid should you need it.  And all we will ask for is a little ground in which to bury our dead.}

9: William

October 17, 2004 09:21pm EST

Question: If someone has WMD and you get mad at them for having it, what's to stop them from using it on you?  Wouldn't you be relieved in stopping them in time?

10: Anders Adlercreutz

October 27, 2004 08:46am EST

You say, "The Kyoto Agreement is a bad agreement, and, at its heart, anti-capitalist." Where did you get that from? How can ensuring the premises under which you can practice capitalism be anti-capitalist?

You also say, "It is a drastic step with staggering economic consequences for the United States and the world. The required 30% reduction in energy use by 2012 would send the world into an economic depression. Obligations and restrictions are not well distributed amongst member nations. And the agreement is based in part on faulty science, as was recently learned here."  Well, most scientists agree upon the global warming theory. And yes, it is a theory, but a highly probable one. The price we will have to pay unless we adhere to cutting down on the exhaust of greenhouse gases will make the short-time side-effects of cutting down now look ridiculous.

Further, you say, "Bottom line, it makes no sense to sign onto a project that makes bad assumptions and imposes draconian measures all because some people think greenhouse gases are a problem. Sending the U.S. back to the Dark Ages is not the solution to a possible environmental crisis; embracing technology and efficiency is the solution."  And that is exactly what the Kyoto agreement asks for. It wants to limit exhausts of greenhouse gases, ie old technology.

As for this comment of yours: "As for the Geneva Convention, why is it that you view underwear on the head of a prisoner as worse than beheading a prisoner?"  Who is beheading prisoners?  It is not about putting underwear on the heads of prisoners, it is about hiding them from the Red Cross, about allowing torture, about transporting them to 3rd countries where torture is practised, about keeping them captive without trial. And much more.

"And finally, the War Crimes tribunal is a farce. With the rampant anti-US sentiment raging in Europe, Bush would be on trial with protected a Saddam as a witness for the prosecution."  That is a ridiculous, populist, statement.

You finish by saying, "In the end, Anders, our nation distinguishes itself through its devotion to freedom and its restraint. Do we have blemishes? Of course. But because we are a nation under God you can count on us, even if you do not join NATO, to come to your aid should you need it. And all we will ask for is a little ground in which to bury our dead."  I thank you for that, even though you didn't come the last time we would've needed it. But that's another, totally OT, story...

On the train again,

Anders from Helsinki

{Aslan: You should get a nice gas-guzzling SUV and skip all that train stuff!  LOL.  Anders, as we wind down to our election, this issue - the Bush Administration assessment of global strategies - pulls me away from the hot topic.   I am going to extract this after the election and make this it's own thread.}

11: Cath46man

October 29, 2004 06:06pm EST

You tell that Finnish candyass that he's lucky; if there was any oil up there, he'd be speaking Texan.