03-21-2003, 12:05 AM
Hi,
I agree with Occhi about Colin Powell, he is IMO (uninformed, again) by far the most competent and, for lack of a better word on my behalf, reasonable member of the Bush administration (I hope you understand what I mean).
Indeed I do, too. He has always struck me as an intelligent, and more importantly, honest man. I was surprised that he was asked to join this administration and even more surprised that he accepted. I suspect that he did so because he saw it as another duty he could perform. That his, IMO, sane and rational analysis has lost him the ear of the president is nothing that surprises me in light of what this administration did about science advisers. Basically, the truth is of little value to ignorant bigots, and I consider most of the administration to fall into that group.
However I see no reason to mistrust Blix and El (Al?) Baradei either and they stated on numerous occasions that no evidence of weapons of mass destrucion had been found in Iraq.
That is not entirely true. It is a known and established fact that Iraq had capabilities for the development of both chemical and biological weapons and the manufacture of at least the chemical weapons. It is also a know fact that, at least at one time, Iraq had a nuclear weapons development program running and at least a few of the ultracentrifuges used in diffusion separation of weapons grade uranium. Part of the inspector's task was to determine what had happened to these capabilities. No information on this issue has been forthcoming, and if Saddam had indeed been disarming as the 1991 agreement required, I suspect he would have been more than happy to offer proof.
So, neither strong proof of armament nor of disarmament has been generated by the inspectors. If Saddam was arming, it would be easy enough to hide the facilities in a place as large as Iraq. If he was disarming, then it seems strange that he would not have offered proof, indeed have used any proof he could generate to make the USA look bad. So, while I don't deny the possibility that the evidence presented by the USA could be false, I do not consider the (mostly) lack of evidence from the inspectors to be of much use except to cast doubt on the usefulness of the inspection process.
Then again I have no illusions about the public (you, me) knowing even remotely what is going on behind the scenes.
While I have little doubt of the ability of governments to get away with lies for a time, and while I have little respect for the intelligence, honesty, or integrity of the media, in the long run I think the media's ability to dig is greater than the government's ability to cover. Eventually, I suspect that in almost all cases "the truth will out."
As for the coalition, I am pretty sure that at least some of the countries like Kamerun etc, were pressured into "joining". IMO they don't "take a stand for the justice of the war" as you put it but do what is best for them. Sad but probably true nonetheless.
Well, looking into the motives of these countries is difficult. However, I don't see what is sad about countries doing what is best for them. I think that that is what governments are supposed to do, look after the well being of the countries.
I'm afraid I won't be able to post again until about tomorrow evening.
Nice thing about a forum as opposed to a chat room, the discussion will still be here tomorrow ;)
--Pete
I agree with Occhi about Colin Powell, he is IMO (uninformed, again) by far the most competent and, for lack of a better word on my behalf, reasonable member of the Bush administration (I hope you understand what I mean).
Indeed I do, too. He has always struck me as an intelligent, and more importantly, honest man. I was surprised that he was asked to join this administration and even more surprised that he accepted. I suspect that he did so because he saw it as another duty he could perform. That his, IMO, sane and rational analysis has lost him the ear of the president is nothing that surprises me in light of what this administration did about science advisers. Basically, the truth is of little value to ignorant bigots, and I consider most of the administration to fall into that group.
However I see no reason to mistrust Blix and El (Al?) Baradei either and they stated on numerous occasions that no evidence of weapons of mass destrucion had been found in Iraq.
That is not entirely true. It is a known and established fact that Iraq had capabilities for the development of both chemical and biological weapons and the manufacture of at least the chemical weapons. It is also a know fact that, at least at one time, Iraq had a nuclear weapons development program running and at least a few of the ultracentrifuges used in diffusion separation of weapons grade uranium. Part of the inspector's task was to determine what had happened to these capabilities. No information on this issue has been forthcoming, and if Saddam had indeed been disarming as the 1991 agreement required, I suspect he would have been more than happy to offer proof.
So, neither strong proof of armament nor of disarmament has been generated by the inspectors. If Saddam was arming, it would be easy enough to hide the facilities in a place as large as Iraq. If he was disarming, then it seems strange that he would not have offered proof, indeed have used any proof he could generate to make the USA look bad. So, while I don't deny the possibility that the evidence presented by the USA could be false, I do not consider the (mostly) lack of evidence from the inspectors to be of much use except to cast doubt on the usefulness of the inspection process.
Then again I have no illusions about the public (you, me) knowing even remotely what is going on behind the scenes.
While I have little doubt of the ability of governments to get away with lies for a time, and while I have little respect for the intelligence, honesty, or integrity of the media, in the long run I think the media's ability to dig is greater than the government's ability to cover. Eventually, I suspect that in almost all cases "the truth will out."
As for the coalition, I am pretty sure that at least some of the countries like Kamerun etc, were pressured into "joining". IMO they don't "take a stand for the justice of the war" as you put it but do what is best for them. Sad but probably true nonetheless.
Well, looking into the motives of these countries is difficult. However, I don't see what is sad about countries doing what is best for them. I think that that is what governments are supposed to do, look after the well being of the countries.
I'm afraid I won't be able to post again until about tomorrow evening.
Nice thing about a forum as opposed to a chat room, the discussion will still be here tomorrow ;)
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?