Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

halonachos wrote:The Spanish Inquisition's definition on torture was religious, and seeing as though we believe in separation of church and state that means we have different definitions of torture and water boarding is not one of them.

That's entirely false. You, personally, might not believe that waterboarding is torture (you would still be blatantly incorrect) but the issue is, minimally, highly contentious and thus it is wrong to say that our definitions of torture do not include that particular practice. Notably, the State Department, under Bush, filed a public memo indicating that the submersion of the head in water constitutes torture. This is not waterbaording per se, but it is sufficiently close as to be indistinguishable.

Waterboarding is torture, admit it and further admit that you have no personal issue with the use of torture. There is nothing wrong with adopting such a position, but there is something wrong with hiding from it.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:The Spanish Inquisition's definition on torture was religious, and seeing as though we believe in separation of church and state that means we have different definitions of torture and water boarding is not one of them.

That's entirely false. You, personally, might not believe that waterboarding is torture (you would still be blatantly incorrect) but the issue is, minimally, highly contentious and thus it is wrong to say that our definitions of torture do not include that particular practice. Notably, the State Department, under Bush, filed a public memo indicating that the submersion of the head in water constitutes torture. This is not waterbaording per se, but it is sufficiently close as to be indistinguishable.

Waterboarding is torture, admit it and further admit that you have no personal issue with the use of torture. There is nothing wrong with adopting such a position, but there is something wrong with hiding from it.

Did I forget to add the at the end of that part, my bad. I do condone torture as a necessary evil, but the whole "separation of church and state" part should've made you think "wow I hope he's being silly.".

halonachos wrote:The Spanish Inquisition's definition on torture was religious, and seeing as though we believe in separation of church and state that means we have different definitions of torture and water boarding is not one of them.

The point was that there are people who are claiming that waterboarding isn't torture. This is obviously wrong, and one way of establishing that it's obviously wrong is to point out that an organisation that is famous for the cruel and inhumane torture it put people under had waterboarding as one of its three authorised methods.

Because waterboarding is cruel and inhumane.

It'll all change soon I think Sebster, soon the Democrats will claim to be conservative and the Republicans will be liberal and it won't really matter until the right kind of person takes charge.

It doesn't matter who claims to be liberal and who claims to be conservative, as you point out that changes from time to time. What matters is that the ideas embraced by a party make sense and are useful in the real world. Right now, the Republicans as a whole do not have ideas like that.

mattyrm wrote:

Karon wrote:
Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.

I remember 9/11.

I went to Afghanistan right after, twice.

And Iraq, I went there twice too.

I suspect you have never tortured a man before.

Most soldiers serving in elite regiments Ive spoken to are against torture, some aren't of course as its a complex subject and each to their own, but whether for or against, I have never heard anyone speak about it as easily and merrily as you seem to. People that have seen enemy combatants eye to eye are under no illusions as to what is required when torturing another human being, Its only chickenhawks like Bill O who seem to think its all just a big game.

I dont support torture, I like to feel as if we do at least our best to play by the rules, and rather than surrender to my hatred (Its there alright) accept the fact that the people above my pay scale seem to think that its use is overrated anyway.

youbedead wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Karon wrote:
Torture is necessary in times of war when there is the very real threat of attacks on our homeland and our people. You would think the same if you remember 9/11.

I remember 9/11.

I went to Afghanistan right after, twice.

And Iraq, I went there twice too.

I suspect you have never tortured a man before.

Most soldiers serving in elite regiments Ive spoken to are against torture, some aren't of course as its a complex subject and each to their own, but whether for or against, I have never heard anyone speak about it as easily and merrily as you seem to. People that have seen enemy combatants eye to eye are under no illusions as to what is required when torturing another human being, Its only chickenhawks like Bill O who seem to think its all just a big game.

I dont support torture, I like to feel as if we do at least our best to play by the rules, and rather than surrender to my hatred (Its there alright) accept the fact that the people above my pay scale seem to think that its use is overrated anyway.

I missed this, but echo the applause.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11" - George W. Bush, Sept. 19, 2003.

No, that's not what Bush said. He said that there was no evidence of a link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, which is not the same as saying that there is no connection. As I said before it wasn't a matter of stating that Iraq and 9/11 were connected, it was a matter of alluding to the fact that they might be, as illustrated by Cheney's statement that the absence of involvement had not been proven (an impossibility).

Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand it. Given that you've displayed good intelligence in the past I'm inclined to think that you didn't actually read my words.

This is simply an attempt to put words into the former President's mouth. He said that there was no evidence of a link, so that means that he really meant that there was a link and tried to get everyone to believe that? Sorry, but no.

During the lead up to the Iraq war there was a lot of information and misinformation being spread by the Iraqi government (and, as we later found out, vengeful former Iraqi citizens). The administration was clear that the purpose of going into Iraq wasn't to get the 9/11 hijackers, nor was it to seek "vengeance" for the attacks on 9/11. They said that they had no evidence of a link because based on the information available, there was no link.

Like I said, the administration didn't make any attempts to link Iraq to 9/11 except through the GWOT. If you think that they did, please provide evidence of your claim. Otherwise, like I said, it's a modern liberal fairy tale that Bush linked Saddam Hussein to 9/11.

Again, I'm referencing the actual act Congress enacted. All the rest is blah blah.

Everyone in the administration put on an extended sales campaign attempting to convince the American public that Iraq represented a direct threat to us. They constantly invoked 9/11 in the same conversations, using it as emotional leverage and implying that they were connected, and that such evidence was just around the corner. That it would inevitably be found. Just as they constantly attempted to convince us that there were WMDs, despite only the sketchiest evidence to suggest any chance of them, and the consistent expert opinions (such as those of the CIA, and the weapons inspectors) that there were none.

Even when they admitted they had not found any evidence yet, they said things like Condi's infamous remark about not wanting to wait to act and have such evidence show up in "the form of a mushroom cloud."

To anyone who actually watched the news from 2001-2003 there were only two possible conclusions one could draw from the administration's statements:

1. Iraq represented a direct threat of terrorist attack on the US, in the form of WMDs- specifically nuclear or biological. They might deploy these threats themselves or by employing Al Qaeda.

2. The administration was attempting to convince us of the above theory.

Many, many Americans fell into group one. The association campaign was extremely successful. Public opinion polls showed clearly that a majority of Americans believed that Iraq and Al Qaeda were associated, and that Saddam and/or Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Fox News viewers, in particular, showed higher percentages of both of those beliefs, but not just them. The Administration successfully created the association and most Americans bought it.

Now, this isn't to say that there weren't other reasons for going in. Some rational people I frequently agree with supported it, on human rights/deposing a dictator grounds.

I'm not universally opposed to that sort of action, but I believe and believed that it was the wrong war, at the wrong time. That Iraq would result in unacceptable losses of life, and distract from the primary mission of fighting terrorism. That it would also be fundamentally counterproductive, in presenting evidence to the world (particularly moderate or nonviolent but Anti-American-leaning Muslims) of us invading a sovereign Arab nation for reasons other than terrorism. Thus aiding Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups' recruitment efforts. The deaths of tens (or hundreds, possibly) of thousands of innocent Iraqis, thousands of Americans and allied personnel, and the incalculable damage resulting to Iraq and its infrastructure seem to have demonstrated that it wasn't really a good idea. Now, I'm still hopeful for a longterm positive outcome in Iraq becoming a functional democracy where its citizens can feel safe, but I don't think invading was the best way to get there.

All that said, I'm not of the more paranoid lefty persuasion that thinks Iraq was really just for oil and for contractor profits. While Halliburton's, Blackwater's, and other contractors' profits and operating parameters are pretty obscene, both in terms of how they gouge the taxpayer and how they abuse Iraqis, I've never bought that this effect was central point of the war. More a nice side-benefit, as far as the Administration was concerned.

I think the real reasoning behind Iraq is pretty obvious and a matter of public record. A specific Neoconservative agenda of interventionism in the Middle East, both to secure oil access/pricing, and to attempt to spread Democracy and American hegemony. There are other factors tied into this, of course. Bush having a personal dislike for Saddam and probably a desire to "finish what his father started", for example. As well as he and Rove having a clear conviction that being a wartime president of a successful war would represent a permanent political legacy, ensure reelection in 2004 and give a massive bump to the political futures of everyone involved.

Undoubtedly much of the decisionmaking surrounding the war, the leadup to it, the preparation, and the execution, was made in sincere ignorance. Chickenhawks like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, Bush and Rove, who had no direct experience of war and thought it would be easy. Thought we would need far fewer men, far less money, and far less time to execute it than would actually be the case. These are the guys who thought (or claimed) that the war would be paying for itself in oil in less than a year. The guys who felt okay putting "Mission Accomplished" on an aircraft carrier a couple of months in. Experienced hands like Cheney (who knew, and made clear public statements after Desert Storm that Iraq would be a quagmire) and especially Powell, knew better. But either chose not to say so or allowed themselves to be overruled and kept working for the war-bent Administration.

Either way, for a combination of noble and ignoble motives, informed and based on ignorance and dire misconceptions, we went to war with a country which was absolutely no threat to us. We (and particularly the Bush Administration) are responsible for everything which has happened in that war. It wasn't forced on us. It was a war of choice. Everyone who supported it bears a share of responsibility for it. Those who engineered it have its weight on their souls.

Fully agreed with everything Mannahnin has said, and at a loss as to how anyone at this point in time could see things so drastically differently.

biccat wrote:
This is simply an attempt to put words into the former President's mouth. He said that there was no evidence of a link, so that means that he really meant that there was a link and tried to get everyone to believe that? Sorry, but no.

Is that what I said? That doesn't look like what I said.

If you want to argue that I'm putting words into the mouth of another, then perhaps you should observe your own criticism.

What I said was that Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials argued that there was no evidence of a link, but they also went out of their way to state that there was no evidence supporting the absence of a link. This second statement, when made by officials accustomed to speaking in calculated phrase, is not necessary except to invite public speculation.

It may strike you as odd, but I'm well aware of the uses of rhetoric, and so are other well educated people.

Manstein wrote:
Like I said, the administration didn't make any attempts to link Iraq to 9/11 except through the GWOT. If you think that they did, please provide evidence of your claim. Otherwise, like I said, it's a modern liberal fairy tale that Bush linked Saddam Hussein to 9/11.

I already did, and you either didn't bother to read it, or made an incompetent attempt at disputing the relevant argument.

It takes a significant leap of logic to go from this:

Mannahnin wrote:1. Iraq represented a direct threat of terrorist attack on the US, in the form of WMDs- specifically nuclear or biological. They might deploy these threats themselves or by employing Al Qaeda.

to this:

Mannahnin wrote:Saddam and/or Iraq had something to do with 9/11

Simply because some people believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 doesn't mean that the administration encouraged that view. In fact, every time administration officials were asked about a link between Saddam and 9/11, they denied it.

VP Cheney: "again, I want to separate out 9/11, from the other relationships between Iraq and the al-Qaeda organization. But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years."

The argument "it was implied" or "they wanted people to think there was a connection" is unprovable, and there is sufficient evidence to rebut the argument.

"But there is a pattern of relationships going back many years" is a direct and successful attempt to undercut the meaning of the previous disclaimer; to open the possibilty that such a connection exists, and to establish that in the listener's mind. He has put 9/11, Iraq, and Al Qaeda in the same sentence. He has said that there is a relationship; implying clearly that they work together. Even if the listener accepts that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (which many Americans obviously did not fully believe), he thinks Iraq bears some responsibility and might well cooperate with Al Qaeda on a future, similar attack.

This kind of statement in isolation might have meant little. As a consistent, pervasive, and multi-year campaign, it became evident as a clear message.

The Bush Administration successfully associated Iraq with terrorism in general, with terrorism toward us more specifically, and with Al Qaeda more specifically. They let Americans fill in the blanks; they didn't even need to use direct falsehoods. False implications worked very well.

Mannahnin wrote:The Bush Administration successfully associated Iraq with terrorism in general, with terrorism toward us more specifically, and with Al Qaeda more specifically. They let Americans fill in the blanks; they didn't even need to use direct falsehoods. False implications worked very well.

The irony of the War of Terrorism eventually leading to the Iraq invasion is that the intervention of American troops has led to terrorist groups being founded in Iraq.

Which is something Richard Clarke and many other people predicted prior to the invasion.

Mannahnin wrote:They let Americans fill in the blanks; they didn't even need to use direct falsehoods. False implications worked very well.

So we can agree that the Bush Administration never falsely claimed there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

And we can agree that the Bush Administration specifically disclaimed any association between Iraq and the 9/11 operation.

And we can agree that the Bush Administration clearly and unequivocally, when asked, stated that there was no evidence of a connection.

We can therefore conclude that any connection between 9/11 and Iraq was therefore in direct contradicition to the facts and statements provided by the Bush Administration, and simply in the minds of the American public.

So the only thing you're left with it that Bush insinuated and suggested the connection by false implications. And somehow he did this while saying that there was no evidence of a connection.

If that's a reliable standard of proof (people believe something and the administration denies it), do you also accept that the moon landing was faked?

biccat wrote:So the only thing you're left with it that Bush insinuated and suggested the connection by false implications. And somehow he did this while saying that there was no evidence of a connection.

No, this is a falsehood.

They insinuated the connection to 9/11, and suggested that evidence might yet come to light.
They directly claimed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had a relationship, going back years.
They directly claimed that Iraq supported terrorism (which was to a limited extent true, like Saddam's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers).
They strongly suggested that Iraq supported terrorism against us (which they had not done in any material way in ~ a decade, IIRC).
They stated that Iraq represented a direct threat to us via WMDs, delivered by terrorists, Al Qaeda or otherwise. There was NEVER any good evidence of the latter claim.

They successfully (in the sense that they achieved their goal of starting a war) made their argument, convincing the American people that there was sufficient reason for war. When Iraq was no direct threat to us, and never cooperated with Al Qaeda, nor was there any good reason to believe that they would.

Mannahnin wrote:

biccat wrote:So the only thing you're left with it that Bush insinuated and suggested the connection by false implications. And somehow he did this while saying that there was no evidence of a connection.

No, this is a falsehood.

No, it's not.

Mannahnin wrote:They insinuated the connection to 9/11, and suggested that evidence might yet come to light.

They said that there was no evidence linking the two. Given that there was no evidence linking the two, I think this was a sound judgment call. YMMV.

Mannahnin wrote:They directly claimed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had a relationship, going back years.

Which has since been shown to be true. And substantiated with evidence at the time.

Mannahnin wrote:They directly claimed that Iraq supported terrorism (which was to a limited extent true, like Saddam's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers).

Which is true. Because Iraq had been on the list of state sponsors of terrorism since the '90s.

Mannahnin wrote:They strongly suggested that Iraq supported terrorism against us (which they had not done in any material way in ~ a decade, IIRC).

Which you appear to agree with.

Mannahnin wrote:They stated that Iraq represented a direct threat to us via WMDs, delivered by terrorists, Al Qaeda or otherwise. There was NEVER any good evidence of the latter claim.

The administration made their case at the time, and the evidence was accepted by Congress and the American people. Sounds like sufficient evidence to me.

Mannahnin wrote:They successfully (in the sense that they achieved their goal of starting a war) made their argument, convincing the American people that there was sufficient reason for war. When Iraq was no direct threat to us, and never cooperated with Al Qaeda, nor was there any good reason to believe that they would.

The threat of a foreign country to the US is a judgment call made by the President and Congress (with a presumption of approval by the populace). Using an ex post facto analysis to condemn a President for his decisions made at the time on the intelligence available at the time is disingenuous, at best.

Presumably you also oppose the operation in Libya.

I, among many other informed citizens, disagreed strongly with the evidence and reasoning presented at the time. Not just after the fact. Some of us were more or less open to the possibility that there really was more evidence out there of a threat to us, or of WMDs.

No evidence has come to light of WMDs, or of any threat to us from Iraq, or of any association with Al Qaeda or other terrorism directed towards us.

More evidence has surfaced to suggest that there never was any, and that the spurious and sketchy evidence they misrepretended and exaggerated had been known to be unreliable and unsubstantiated before the American people and the Congress were sold in the war. Downing Street Memo, Valerie Plame affair, etc.

I think our arguments and the evidence history stand very clearly at this point. You are engaging in historical revisionism, apparently to whitewash a monstrous error, dishonest actions and words which sold that error to the American people through fear and manipulation, and decisions which damaged and continue to damage our nation, our allies, and Iraq.

Mannahnin wrote:More evidence has surfaced to suggest that there never was any, and that the spurious and sketchy evidence they misrepretended and exaggerated had been known to be unreliable and unsubstantiated before the American people and the Congress were sold in the war. Downing Street Memo, Valerie Plame affair, etc.

You should have mentioned that you consider these reliable stories at the start, we could have avoided the tedium of the last page or so.

Ah. Number four.

Mannahnin wrote:Ah. Number four.

I assume you mean "doesn't believe crackpot theories that presume President Bush was both an evil genius and dumber than a sack of rocks."

So yes.

biccat wrote:
Which has since been shown to be true. And substantiated with evidence at the time.

Well, yeah, mutual hostility is a form of relationship. But if that's important to this sort of conversation, then we should have spent the duration of the Cold War beating on France and Great Britain for their communist ties.

biccat wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Ah. Number four.

I assume you mean "doesn't believe crackpot theories that presume President Bush was both an evil genius and dumber than a sack of rocks."

biccat wrote:
The administration made their case at the time, and the evidence was accepted by Congress and the American people. Sounds like sufficient evidence to me.

The sufficiency of evidence has no bearing on its quality. Enough evidence was presented to convince the public, and Congress in the context of contemporary events. That doesn't mean the evidence was good, it means it was merely enough.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
The administration made their case at the time, and the evidence was accepted by Congress and the American people. Sounds like sufficient evidence to me.

The sufficiency of evidence has no bearing on its quality. Enough evidence was presented to convince the public, and Congress in the context of contemporary events. That doesn't mean the evidence was good, it means it was merely enough.

If it is sufficient to satisfy the decision makers, then it is objectively "good" evidence. Your (or Mannahnin's) personal standards may not have been met, but 70+ percent of the population supported the war at the time. That's enough for a "mandate," if modern standards are to be applied.

The evidence provided was the best available, subsequent events do not change the standard of evidence that was available at the time.

Also, Mannahnin, you forgot "Loose Change" in your list.

biccat wrote:
If it is sufficient to satisfy the decision makers, then it is objectively "good" evidence.

Well, no, not really. You've already framed the issue as a subjective one when you invoked decision makers.

biccat wrote:
Your (or Mannahnin's) personal standards may not have been met, but 70+ percent of the population supported the war at the time. That's enough for a "mandate," if modern standards are to be applied.

Sure, but arguing that something is good because everyone says so is just an ad popullum fallacy where quality is substituted for truth value.

biccat wrote:
The evidence provided was the best available, subsequent events do not change the standard of evidence that was available at the time.

It was the best available, but it was still bad.

If 70% of Americans believed Iraq had something to do with 9/11, does that make it true?

if 70% of American congressional representatives were convinced that Iraq was a threat to us, does that make it true?

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
If it is sufficient to satisfy the decision makers, then it is objectively "good" evidence.

Well, no, not really. You've already framed the issue as a subjective one when you invoked decision makers.

The only value of evidence in the current system is its persuasive value in convincing those who make a decision to support you. If the evidence is therefore sufficient to satisfy the decision makers, it is objectively "good," or at least, "good enough."

dogma wrote:Sure, but arguing that something is good because everyone says so is just an ad popullum fallacy where quality is substituted for truth value.

It's not a fallacy where the value of the evidence is its persuasiveness to the people. And in politics, it's all about getting enough people to support your idea.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:The evidence provided was the best available, subsequent events do not change the standard of evidence that was available at the time.

It was the best available, but it was still bad.

Then you're not disputing the validity of the war, you're engaging in a post hoc (see, I can use latin words too, even if they're small ones) analysis to support opposition to the war.

You can oppose the war as it is currently being executed, but unless you opposed the war at the time, then arguing that it was wrong based on evidence available today is not being fair to those who made the decisions.

biccat wrote:
The only value of evidence in the current system is its persuasive value in convincing those who make a decision to support you.

I disagree. Evidence carries intrinsic value relative to any person who might be swayed one way or another. Their importance to a given decision is not relevant.

Additionally, if we are to consider popular assent tacit to the quality of evidence, then we have to further consider whether the evidence in question was actually the compelling force, or if other factors were important; such as popular support, or emotional bias.

biccat wrote:
If the evidence is therefore sufficient to satisfy the decision makers, it is objectively "good," or at least, "good enough."

You'll note that I distinguished between sufficiency and quality earlier.

biccat wrote:
It's not a fallacy where the value of the evidence is its persuasiveness to the people. And in politics, it's all about getting enough people to support your idea.

You're deflecting. The argument here is that the evidence was bad because it was of poor quality. You originally contended that it was good, and that your position was vitiated by popular approval. This is an ad populum fallacy no matter how you slice it.

biccat wrote:
Then you're not disputing the validity of the war, you're engaging in a post hoc (see, I can use latin words too, even if they're small ones) analysis to support opposition to the war.

No, nothing of the sort. The evidence which was presented publicly was bad (again, there may have been better classified data), it did not support the argument which the Administration made, and was quickly shown as such by the press. I'll have to look around for it, but I recall some news agency or another doing a point-by-point breakdown of the Powell Presentation within a year or two of the invasion; showing it to be complete nonsense.

biccat wrote:
You can oppose the war as it is currently being executed, but unless you opposed the war at the time, then arguing that it was wrong based on evidence available today is not being fair to those who made the decisions.

I did oppose the war at the time. I also opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, as I expected its costs to be far in excess of the value of 3300 lives. In general I thought the Bush Administration's approach to foreign policy was obnoxiously stupid, and reflective of a terrible theoretical school (democratic peace theory) and poor appraisals of America's relative military capacity.

If I haven't said it before, I'll say it now: Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are incompetent, though not for the reasons often given by the left.

dogma wrote:If I haven't said it before, I'll say it now: Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are incompetent, though not for the reasons often given by the left.

Now this is just a silly comment. If you accuse the Bush administration of having a democratic peace theory of governance (which presumably is the rationale for military actions), then you can't call Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz incompetent.

While I have (and had at the time) some misgivings about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they aren't based on the idea that Bush Lied or any such nonsense. But I accept the fact that we live in a democratic republic and the elected representatives are authorized to make decisions on behalf of the people, even when I don't fully agree with those decisions.

I have similar issues with the operation in Libya, although in that case, the interest of the United States in the operation are even more tenuous than those argued by the left re: Afghanistan and Iraq.