Sarah Palin joins Fox News

[Pidesco]

Yeah, but North Korea would give the US actual trouble in a war, and furthermore isn't sitting on a bucket-load of oil, or run by a bunch of Muslims.

[Rostere]

I'd honestly really rather believe that the American leadership knew for sure there were no WMDs in Iraq.

that statement says it all... you'd rather believe, wouldn't you? hmmm, d'ya think maybe that sort of sets a pre-conceived notion in your head that such a thing was true? i'll give you a hint at what that means... no, wait, the direct approach: bias.

 

Like my post stated, my bias is of the nature that if I have to choose between "the US leadership would lie to their people" and "the CIA has no clue about Iraq's weaponry" I'd rather choose the former. Do you feel I'm biased in such a way that I'm wrongly inclined to believe the CIA knows what they're doing?

[Humodour]

Yeah, but North Korea would give the US actual trouble in a war, and furthermore isn't sitting on a bucket-load of oil, or run by a bunch of Muslims.

 

Many North Korean soldiers have fake wooden guns. North Korea wouldn't give America any real trouble in a war (any more than Afghanistan or Iraq at least) - it'd be the massive influx of refugees to surrounding countries which would cause massive trouble (and be massively destabilising). That's not in America's interest, and it certainly isn't in China's, South Korea's, Russia's, or Japan's.

 

I suppose there's the risk that North Korea could get off a single nuke, but from what we've seen so far that risk is low, and they'd probably manage to miss any densely populated areas.

[Lare Kikkeli]

Yeah, but North Korea would give the US actual trouble in a war, and furthermore isn't sitting on a bucket-load of oil, or run by a bunch of Muslims.

 

Many North Korean soldiers have fake wooden guns. North Korea wouldn't give America any real trouble in a war (any more than Afghanistan or Iraq at least) - it'd be the massive influx of refugees to surrounding countries which would cause massive trouble (and be massively destabilising). That's not in America's interest, and it certainly isn't in China's, South Korea's, Russia's, or Japan's.

 

I suppose there's the risk that North Korea could get off a single nuke, but from what we've seen so far that risk is low, and they'd probably manage to miss any densely populated areas.

 

North Korea also has a pretty respectable amount of short range missiles and could potentially bomb the hell out of Seoul.

[Pidesco]

Yeah, but North Korea would give the US actual trouble in a war, and furthermore isn't sitting on a bucket-load of oil, or run by a bunch of Muslims.

 

Many North Korean soldiers have fake wooden guns. North Korea wouldn't give America any real trouble in a war (any more than Afghanistan or Iraq at least) - it'd be the massive influx of refugees to surrounding countries which would cause massive trouble (and be massively destabilising). That's not in America's interest, and it certainly isn't in China's, South Korea's, Russia's, or Japan's.

 

I suppose there's the risk that North Korea could get off a single nuke, but from what we've seen so far that risk is low, and they'd probably manage to miss any densely populated areas.

 

North Korea's relative strenght lies in their missile capabilities and in their intelligence services. Besides, modern conflicts are only rarely decided through conventional warfare.

[Humodour]

North Korea's relative strenght lies in their missile capabilities and in their intelligence services. Besides, modern conflicts are only rarely decided through conventional warfare.

 

THEN WHO WAS PHONE?

[Hurlshort]

North Korea's relative strenght lies in their missile capabilities and in their intelligence services. Besides, modern conflicts are only rarely decided through conventional warfare.

 

THEN WHO WAS PHONE?

 

The calls are coming from inside the house!

[Gfted1]

Yeah, but North Korea would give the US actual trouble in a war, and furthermore isn't sitting on a bucket-load of oil, or run by a bunch of Muslims.

 

Many North Korean soldiers have fake wooden guns. North Korea wouldn't give America any real trouble in a war (any more than Afghanistan or Iraq at least) - it'd be the massive influx of refugees to surrounding countries which would cause massive trouble (and be massively destabilising). That's not in America's interest, and it certainly isn't in China's, South Korea's, Russia's, or Japan's.

 

I suppose there's the risk that North Korea could get off a single nuke, but from what we've seen so far that risk is low, and they'd probably manage to miss any densely populated areas.

 

North Korea's relative strenght lies in their missile capabilities and in their intelligence services. Besides, modern conflicts are only rarely decided through conventional warfare.

 

 

The only real threat from NK lies not in their capabilities but in their allies, namely China. A war would go exactly like the last one, we would push them all the way to Chinese territory and then get hit by a human tidal wave.

[Gorgon]

I don't know if we should assume China would intervene. North Korea is a trainwreck, maybe they have had enough.

[taks]

Like my post stated, my bias is of the nature that if I have to choose between "the US leadership would lie to their people" and "the CIA has no clue about Iraq's weaponry" I'd rather choose the former. Do you feel I'm biased in such a way that I'm wrongly inclined to believe the CIA knows what they're doing?

bias is bias - you'd rather believe the US leadership would lie because you are ideologically opposed to them.

 

there's a major problem with your explanation, too: you've set up a bifurcation, i.e., you've given yourself only two options. both of these options express contempt for the US and demonstrate your bias in the matter. these are not the only two choices, there are many others. you do not see other choices because you do not want to.

 

and, lare, you've posted so many factual errors over the last few pages it isn't even worth discussing. do some investigation - as you said, stuff that can be easily found with a simple google search. if you're honest, not just to us but yourself, you'll look at all evidence, not just that which supports your pre-conceived viewpoint.

 

taks

[Lare Kikkeli]

Like my post stated, my bias is of the nature that if I have to choose between "the US leadership would lie to their people" and "the CIA has no clue about Iraq's weaponry" I'd rather choose the former. Do you feel I'm biased in such a way that I'm wrongly inclined to believe the CIA knows what they're doing?

bias is bias - you'd rather believe the US leadership would lie because you are ideologically opposed to them.

 

there's a major problem with your explanation, too: you've set up a bifurcation, i.e., you've given yourself only two options. both of these options express contempt for the US and demonstrate your bias in the matter. these are not the only two choices, there are many others. you do not see other choices because you do not want to.

what other options are there? either saddam had wmd's or he didn't. bush himself has admitted that most of the intelligence regarding wmd's was false. rostere said he'd rather believe a superpower such as the usa would lie instead of being so grossly incompetent to start a war based on false intelligence. i do, too. thats a pretty damn big mistake to make.

 

and, lare, you've posted so many factual errors over the last few pages it isn't even worth discussing. do some investigation - as you said, stuff that can be easily found with a simple google search. if you're honest, not just to us but yourself, you'll look at all evidence, not just that which supports your pre-conceived viewpoint.

 

taks

 

i've posted sources, most from the us goverment themselves on every one of my claims. i've yet to see any of you do the same.

 

seriously, prove me wrong. any proof, no matter if its a right wing blog. anything to disprove what i've posted in the past few pages.

 

also i'm sorry for hurting your feelings wrath of dagon, i didn't know you'd be so sensitive. i'll refrain from such things from now on, feel safe to keep posting.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Tigranes
Keep ze peace

[Rostere]

Like my post stated, my bias is of the nature that if I have to choose between "the US leadership would lie to their people" and "the CIA has no clue about Iraq's weaponry" I'd rather choose the former. Do you feel I'm biased in such a way that I'm wrongly inclined to believe the CIA knows what they're doing?

bias is bias - you'd rather believe the US leadership would lie because you are ideologically opposed to them.

 

I must confess in all honesty that I can not see your line of thought here. Why would I believe that a person would be inclined to lie if that was not specifically a part of their ideology? Do you believe that people whose political views does not agree with your own are lying all the time? Duh!

 

there's a major problem with your explanation, too: you've set up a bifurcation, i.e., you've given yourself only two options. both of these options express contempt for the US and demonstrate your bias in the matter. these are not the only two choices, there are many others. you do not see other choices because you do not want to.

 

Then show these "other choices" for me so that I may compare them to those I have already proposed myself.

[taks]

Why would I believe that a person would be inclined to lie if that was not specifically a part of their ideology?

i don't know, you'll have to answer that for yourself. however, you made it pretty clear that you believe the US leadership would lie, and that you would prefer that such a belief is true. you also have made it pretty clear (over time) that you do not agree with their ideology. two plus two.

 

Do you believe that people whose political views does not agree with your own are lying all the time?

where did i say that? i am basing my statements purely on what you have said.

 

Duh!

indeed.

 

Then show these "other choices" for me so that I may compare them to those I have already proposed myself.

i don't know, maybe that there were indeed WMDs in iraq and they got either hidden, or removed, without the CIA knowing? maybe after being decimated by the cliinton presidency, the CIA simply did not have the human presence in iraq necessary to hear about what he was doing and when? it doesn't require any incompetence for this to be true, nor lies, just an effort by saddam beyond their ability to obtain information. it does not take much effort to come up with such other options, either, unless one is ideologically inclined to ignore them (or dishonest, which i doubt you are).

 

the point is that you picked two options, both of which suit your belief system, and chose not to even entertain that there could be other options. you picked a particular bifurcation that allowed you to rationalize your belief system and label those you are opposed to as liars. not dishonest, no, but disingenuous.

 

taks

[Lare Kikkeli]

i don't know, maybe that there were indeed WMDs in iraq and they got either hidden, or removed, without the CIA knowing? maybe after being decimated by the cliinton presidency, the CIA simply did not have the human presence in iraq necessary to hear about what he was doing and when? it doesn't require any incompetence for this to be true, nor lies, just an effort by saddam beyond their ability to obtain information. it does not take much effort to come up with such other options, either, unless one is ideologically inclined to ignore them (or dishonest, which i doubt you are).

 

the point is that you picked two options, both of which suit your belief system, and chose not to even entertain that there could be other options. you picked a particular bifurcation that allowed you to rationalize your belief system and label those you are opposed to as liars. not dishonest, no, but disingenuous.

 

taks

 

yet the bush regime claimed they had intelligence that proved saddam had WMD's. if the cia have the manpower in iraq to get trustworthy intelligence why did the us goverment base their whole attack on it? maybe they overestimated cia's ability to collect information? that sounds pretty damn incompetent to me. maybe the cia just got lied to, maybe it wasn't their fault, maybe saddam was smarter than them (i don't get this, how was he smarter than them? there was no wmd's). again, that's incompetence.

 

or maybe you're saying that saddam did have wmd's just like cia said and that bush admitting the cia was wrong was just one of his many embarrassing moments in front of the camera. why would saddam have hid the wmds instead of using them? to make a fool out of the usa, sacrificing his life in doing so? possibly, but thats pretty damn far fetched.

 

it all comes to this: either the bush regime knew the intelligence was false or they didn't. either they lied about it because it gave them a pretty damn good excuse to attack iraq, or they trusted the false intelligence and started a war based on false info. "uh, sorry guys we bombed your village with napalm. you see this guy told us you had a missile but turns out he was wrong...real sorry dudes".

Edited January 14, 2010 by Lare Kikkeli

[taks]

he descents from his high horse now and then and points out where we are wrong,

that would be descends.

 

yet vanishes the same moment when we ask for evidence or question his reasoning.

not true. you are a google scholar, nothing more, and simple link fighting is nonsensical to the point of stupidity. it is also, not surprisingly, nothing more than anecdotal evidence that you post regularly, and i explain why. you can never really reach the point of your claims of "widespread" anything. you post polls as "proof" of something, erect strawmen as evidence, and regularly ignore facts that you disagree with (an honest search for the truth leads one to examine all evidence, not just that which supports his views). heck, once you even argued with me regarding several points in which i was correct, inconvtrovertibly so, just because you can't stand for me to be right. you even argued a point that i agreed with you on, and claimed that somehow made me wrong! your excuse? you couldn't find evidence to counter a different claim i had made (which i honestly corrected btw, since that IS what i do) and openly admitted it! you admitted to lying! wow.

 

yeah, we sure know how YOU work.

 

taks

[Pidesco]

I've cleaned the thread a little bit, and I've reopened it. I've done this mostly because I find that expecting people not to append their arguments in a debate with useless insults is not entirely unreasonable. So don't do it.

 

Carry on, and we'll be watching.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Like my post stated, my bias is of the nature that if I have to choose between "the US leadership would lie to their people" and "the CIA has no clue about Iraq's weaponry" I'd rather choose the former. Do you feel I'm biased in such a way that I'm wrongly inclined to believe the CIA knows what they're doing?

bias is bias - you'd rather believe the US leadership would lie because you are ideologically opposed to them.

 

there's a major problem with your explanation, too: you've set up a bifurcation, i.e., you've given yourself only two options. both of these options express contempt for the US and demonstrate your bias in the matter. these are not the only two choices, there are many others. you do not see other choices because you do not want to.

 

 

It also could be the case that either or both options are true.

 

Then show these "other choices" for me so that I may compare them to those I have already proposed myself.

i don't know...

 

maybe that there were indeed WMDs in iraq and they got either hidden, or removed, without the CIA knowing?

 

maybe after being decimated by the cliinton presidency, the CIA simply did not have the human presence in iraq necessary to hear about what he was doing and when?

 

Doesn't that go back to what Rostere said about "the CIA has no clue about Iraq's weaponry"? You really haven't shown any other choices.

[Wrath of Dagon]

CIA also missed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Indian nuclear program, and was just recently claiming Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons. CIA is occassionally right, but I wouldn't bet a house on their conclusions.

[Rostere]

Then show these "other choices" for me so that I may compare them to those I have already proposed myself.

i don't know...

 

maybe that there were indeed WMDs in iraq and they got either hidden, or removed, without the CIA knowing?

 

maybe after being decimated by the cliinton presidency, the CIA simply did not have the human presence in iraq necessary to hear about what he was doing and when?

 

Doesn't that go back to what Rostere said about "the CIA has no clue about Iraq's weaponry"? You really haven't shown any other choices.

 

This.

 

Why would I believe that a person would be inclined to lie if that was not specifically a part of their ideology?

i don't know, you'll have to answer that for yourself. however, you made it pretty clear that you believe the US leadership would lie, and that you would prefer that such a belief is true. you also have made it pretty clear (over time) that you do not agree with their ideology. two plus two.

 

Do you believe that people whose political views does not agree with your own are lying all the time?

where did i say that? i am basing my statements purely on what you have said.

 

Obviously I would not "prefer" that the the US leadership is lying. Why would I want them to lie? That could potentially lead to a lot of very bad things.

 

Also, you did not write anywhere that you believe that people whose political views does not agree with your own are lying. I merely thought that since that was what you thought I did, you were applying your own thinking patterns on me. That is a most common way of thinking and one of the tools that facilitates understanding other people. For example, if you see someone crying, you often come the conclusion that they're sad, because you cry when you are sad.

 

This has piqued my interest from a psychological point of view, I'm really rather curious as to how you thought when you came up with that argument. (The argument that I would believe people to be liars because our political views were not the same. Also, if that was true that would infer that I think most of you guys in here pull a lie every once in a while, when your opinions differ from mine! )

[taks]

It also could be the case that either or both options are true.

which sort of rules out his bifurcation by default.

 

Doesn't that go back to what Rostere said about "the CIA has no clue about Iraq's weaponry"? You really haven't shown any other choices.

yes and no. part of my point was what they did know vs. what went on before we acted.

 

taks

[taks]

Obviously I would not "prefer" that the the US leadership is lying.

you said you'd prefer to believe that they'd lie, actually, which is what i replied to.

 

Why would I want them to lie?

dunno. ask yourself.

 

Also, you did not write anywhere that you believe that people whose political views does not agree with your own are lying. I merely thought that since that was what you thought I did, you were applying your own thinking patterns on me.

no, i was simply reading what you said, that you'd prefer to believe that they would lie. why? my assumption, which i noted as such, was that they are of an opposite (of sorts) ideology to yours, and as such, it is much easier for you to believe they are simply lying than to entertain other possibilities than your bifurcation.

 

This has piqued my interest from a psychological point of view, I'm really rather curious as to how you thought when you came up with that argument.

because that's what you said, and i see no other reason for you to prefer to believe someone is lying other than the fact that you disagree with them ideologically. that's pretty much what this whole thread is about, actually - sarah palin is stupid working for that PR firm calling itself a news program. this also seems to be part and parcel with the liberal position in general, for whatever reason. we (everyone not left-leaning) are all morally bankrupt, greedy, "right wing" (the hoi polloi don't seem to understand what that means, btw) nut jobs according to the hypocrites.

 

perhaps if you had recognized the clear bifurcation, or had you originally phrased it differently...

 

as to the rest... why do people regularly put forth such bad arguments as seen in here? sometimes because they simply don't know, sometimes because they do know, and assume their audience doesn't, other times because they are really trying to rationalize their own belief systems (the latter of which is really what i said you were doing). that's what is interesting to me, actually. why would people fool themselves into believing anything without looking for all of the evidence, rather than just that which supports their existing belief? that's akin to running a drug trial and throwing out all the tests in which the drug didn't work. amazing, 100% success!

 

taks

[taks]

It also could be the case that either or both options are true.

if we want to get into specifics, since i never really put forth my own, i think the problem is waaaay more complex than anything discussed in here. i'm quite certain our leadership fooled themselves into believing what was offered as proof, i.e., the third condition i listed for why people make such bad arguments (rationalizing). i think the CIA/intelligence agency work was less than stellar to begin with, but eroded over time. rather, they probably had up to date information in the beginning, but the time to market (so to speak), coupled with their declining numbers, caught up to them so at the very end, when we did invade, they did not have up to date information. so saying "the CIA had no clue" isn't entirely accurate. keep in mind, they were working with other intelligence agencies that all agreed with them, too.

 

we were also intentionally relying on the weapons inspectors, which was foolish. every time they showed up somewhere, it was as if they were expected - there were no surprise inspections, and thus, it was very easy for saddam to obfuscate their efforts. relying on anything they claim is really silly - yeah, the 1% of the desert they actually got to look at didn't have any indications of weapons programs.

 

so far, what i've seen, is that people need a scapegoat, and the CIA fits the bill along with bush lying. we'll never really know what was known, when, and by whom, since that information is, and always will be, classified. after 50 years or so, history will be rewritten to the point that no truth will ever be recoverable.

 

oh, and for the record, if the last actual evidence we had was that WMDs were there, which was documented after the first gulf war, then in absence of clear indication of said WMDs' destruction, it is a logical thing to assume they still existed. in fact, it is the only reasonable assumption. epic logic fail, lare: argumentum ad ignorantium. particularly epic since you chose to snark about how bad the logic was. classic.

 

taks

[Zoraptor]

Obviously I would not "prefer" that the the US leadership is lying.

you said you'd prefer to believe that they'd lie, actually, which is what i replied to.

I'd prefer to have a finger cut off than a hand.

 

Having a finger or a hand cut off are not necessarily the only options.

 

I wouldn't like to have a finger cut off either.

 

Yes?

 

In any case it is patently obvious that they did lie, (eg "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction", "We know for a fact that there are weapons there", "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat" ) even if they thought that while they were lying about the details they would be right on the larger scale.

[taks]

I'd prefer to have a finger cut off than a hand.

what a bad analogy. really, really bad. besides that, you completely missed the point.

 

In any case it is patently obvious that they did lie, (eg "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction", "We know for a fact that there are weapons there", "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat" ) even if they thought that while they were lying about the details they would be right on the larger scale.

not one of those is patently obvious as a lie, unless you already believe they were lying. sorry, but you saying so don't make it true.

 

besides the fact that you have no idea what they were thinking, there is no way of knowing whether their intel at the time was correct or not. it may have been. it's also a big desert.

 

as i've already pointed out, they probably were adding to the problem by rationalizing marginal evidence as proof because they wanted it to be true. they were willing to view opinion as fact, overlook contrary evidence (or ignore it) as unreliable. just as you have done yourself - you so badly want them to be liars because it fits your ideological belief of what they are: corrupt, greedy, right-wing nutjobs. what a convenient example for my point, and you didn't even realize it. i should thank you.

 

taks

[Humodour]

you completely missed the point.

 

Kind of rich coming from you.