Viewing Thread:
"Osama Bin Laden has been Captured"

According to early reports...

http://www.iii.co.uk/shares/ ?type=news&articleid=4599675&action=article

Heh. And to think Goatboy; we used to believe that a certain australian couldn't be a real person as *no-one* could be that brutish and dumb.

Almost does one good to see proof that we were wrong...

Garin wrote:

>
> Of course it needs to be proved, but this isn't really in the context
> of what we both said. I suggested you couldn't prove your oil theory,
> to which you replied well can you prove the "Iraq is a legitimate
> threat" theory. It was basically semantics anyway and not really
> important.

Semantics? It's the whole basis of the war. Or are you talking about the semantics of our argument rather than that of the "legitimate threat"?
>
>
>
> Thats the point isn't it? You can always find motives, and certainly
> so in a situation like this. And inevitably you'll end up with
> negative motives. Seems to be a rare event these days when people
> question others motives and come to a positive conclusion. :)

True, but by the same token it is almost always possible to present the information in a such a way that its initial impact convinces people on a 'gut' level. The overwhelming opposition to the war coupled with the utter contempt shown for the US;s 'evidence of Al-Quaida links', further coupled with reports from government intelligence agencies stating that there are no such links sorta blows that argument clean away.




>
> Well yes, because why is Iraq more of a threat than North Korea?
> Which
> country has threatened to nuke the US and Japan? Which country has
> threatened war in the last couple of months? Which country has
> admitted developing weapons of mass destruction?
>
>
> North Korea is an excellent example of my point about the futility of
> getting into the motives debate on a subject like this. This whole
> thing started with the US complaining that N. Korea admitted to have a
> secret nuclear weapons program which N. Korea subsequently denied.
> Well of course, if we accept that the US is really willing to invade a
> country to get it hands on oil, then what should we conclude about N.
> Korea? A false accusation to give them a pre-text to stop oil
> shipments maybe? I should remind you that most of what we know about
> N. Korea in terms of its military and its threat potential is provided
> by US intelligence.

Not true I'm afraid; numerous missile tests have been conducted. If NK develop nukes, we know they have missiles capable of delivering their payload at least as far as Japan.

This is what I'm talking about; if you use this line of logic to say "NK probably isn't that much of a threat either" then you are forced into applying the same arguments to Iraq, and I'm afraid you'll come up with much the same conclusion.

> Once you start on the road of focusing on
> ulterior motives where do you draw the line?

Clearly a long time before you do...sorry, that was a cheap shot!

The fact remains: there are a veritable sh!tstorm of reasons why this war is not needed, or why it is not in the interests of world stability for Dubya to blunder in cack handed. Are you going to ignore all of them? You say you've brought that line of argument to it's logical conclusion. You've certainly brought it to *A* conclusion, but it's not the only one, and to say that "I can conclude this, ergo the whole argument is nonsense from start to finish" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.



> I don't think I am. What I am asking is people try to deal with whats
> in front of them rather than shadowy motives which may or may not
> exist. And either way cannot be proved, I hope you'd agree its
> ridiculous that we condemn people based upon things which amount to
> nothing more than speculation. I'd suggest thats equally applicable
> to governments as well as individuals. And yes that can be equally
> applicable to Iraq, as well as the US/UK.

But what is in front of them? If you're saying it's "They are a threat to world peace" that is unproven. If it's "They are in breach of UN resolution", so are Israel. If it's "They support terrorism", so does the US, UK, France, Russia, China...every nation in the world pretty much. If it's "Weapons of mass destruction" then what about NK, Pakistan, and India?

As to condemning Dubya, in the main I condemn him for being an utter simpleton who is willing to destabilise world stability for the sake of propping up the economy with cheaper oil/winning votes/revenge for daddy (delete as applicable). Equally, I'm angry as hell that Mitterand seems to be willing to do the same thing. After all, France already has favourable oil deals with Iraq. These will be in jeapardy if Saddam is replaced.

As to "It cannot be proved", not conclusively, no. But courts routinely reach judgements in favour of one party or another on 'the balance of probability after taking into account all the available evidence'. And that is what I have done. The only argument remaining that has not been stripped of it's legitimacy is the oil. That'


>
>
> Actually if you want to get technical about it, I think the US already
> believe they have a mandate for war under the UN charter, irrespective
> of individual UN resolutions.

Nope, 'fraid not. Because if that WERE the case, every Arab nation in the world would have a mandate for war with Israel due to its non compliance.

> But I've been trying to stay away from my opinion about whether there
> really should be a war or not. I don't think I ever said we don't
> need proof. I'd almost suggest proof is irrelevant, as you said
> yourself whoever provides proof you'll just question their motives.
> And as I said already, finding positive motives isn't likely. :) This
> almost about faith really, most people have a gut reaction to this and
> then pick and choose the "facts" which fit their belief and
> in the process dismiss the other "facts" as irrelevant
> and/or false/unproven.

Proof is definitely NOT irrelevant. Because when it is, you'll just have wars being started for rapaciousness. The evidence will be manufactured afterwards, and it will be the will of strong that dictates world events. The last time that happened was when Hitler claimed Polish soldiers had attacked the German border (this was after a few years of the League of Nations steadily declining in influence). We all know how that ended...

Plus, as I've said earlier, most people's 'gut' reaction is that Dubya is blundering into a situation that he doesn't understand nor care about, and that the war will create far more problems than it will solve.

Star Fury wrote:

>
> Resistence, to me, crosses the line of free speech when people begin
> to break the law in using their freedom - like those who attempted to
> break into RAF Fairford last weekend. People have the right to
> protest, but that is allowed within the law, where as they do not have
> sanction to break the law simply because they disagree with something,
> an idea which a minority of peace protestors have difficulty with.
>
Right...in that case, going back to our earlier argument about prostitution, it's legalisation is not meeting with any resistance as those opposed to it are not breaking the law, correct?

>
> I respect the fact that many do not see the need for a war, but I also
> recognise that Saddam must go, and he will not do so any other way
> than by force, and I think anyone who believes otherwise if
> shortsighted. In that respect, despite thinking Bush has this wrong, I
> cannot support the call for no war at all if Saddam does not comply,
> which he is not fully doing.

I agree. France's "No war at all" is just as stupid as Dubya's "I wanna win my war for daddy" tantrums. Basically, I'm in favour of keeping the UN's legitimacy intact. And if anyone thinks I'm stupid for doing so, read the history of the League of Nations.




>
> You mean like your ideas of the Nazi's and human rights, in the POW
> topic, which you've never replied to eh ? And you ignored the equally
> valid point that, though on dodgy international grounds, a nato
> assault on the Balkans worked, and ended that conflict. You're
> focusing on what you perceive as the flaws in my argument, but not
> addressing any of yours.

Maybe so, but it doesn't make your point any less ludicrous ;-)

Okay...I'm guilty of not defining what I meant re: the POW topic. Any captured Free French or British, non-Jewish soldier could actually look forward to being treated according to the Geneva convention by the nazi's. As a matter of fact, more German soldiers died in Allied internment camps than UK soldiers in Nazi ones.

The Balkans thing: You're absolutely right. For what it's worth, that was an intervention that I was behind from the word go. But those set of circumstances are not these ones. That was a reaction to fairly brutal ethnic cleansing on Europe's doorstep, and generally speaking the public were in favour of that war. In this case, the public are against the war (sorry; using their freedom of speech to say that they may perhaps not agree with it but at the same time are not offering any resistance). NATO is empowered to act to guarantee European security. As the former Yugoslavia is part of Europe, it doesn't take a leap of the imagination to see that to allow the situation to continue could have allowed the destabilisation of ethnic groups in Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Bulgaria. NATO has no such mandate for Iraq. And not one UN security council permanent member used their veto, or even threatened its use (apart from Russia, who backed down fairly quickly in the face of bribery...sorry, diplomacy).

Light wrote:
> Yes, it does need to be proved. One cannot just say "This is
> so" and expect to be dazzled by the self evident truth in the
> statement. Proof is required, or are you saying we should start wars
> on a whim>
>
Of course it needs to be proved, but this isn't really in the context of what we both said. I suggested you couldn't prove your oil theory, to which you replied well can you prove the "Iraq is a legitimate threat" theory. It was basically semantics anyway and not really important.

> I would certainly look for the motives behind who provided the
> evidence, but the fact remains that no hard proof has been
> forthcoming, and saying "You wouldn't accept it anyway" does
> not change the fact that teh proof is not there,
>

Thats the point isn't it? You can always find motives, and certainly so in a situation like this. And inevitably you'll end up with negative motives. Seems to be a rare event these days when people question others motives and come to a positive conclusion. :)

> I can never prove it either way, and even
> if you could prove the oil theory, does it really negate the
> validity
> of war if removal of a legitimate threat to world peace was a
> primary
> goal too?
>
> Well yes, because why is Iraq more of a threat than North Korea? Which
> country has threatened to nuke the US and Japan? Which country has
> threatened war in the last couple of months? Which country has
> admitted developing weapons of mass destruction?
>

North Korea is an excellent example of my point about the futility of getting into the motives debate on a subject like this. This whole thing started with the US complaining that N. Korea admitted to have a secret nuclear weapons program which N. Korea subsequently denied. Well of course, if we accept that the US is really willing to invade a country to get it hands on oil, then what should we conclude about N. Korea? A false accusation to give them a pre-text to stop oil shipments maybe? I should remind you that most of what we know about N. Korea in terms of its military and its threat potential is provided by US intelligence. Once you start on the road of focusing on ulterior motives where do you draw the line? For example, I'll take the oil theory to a "logical" conclusion. If the US is really primarily interested in oil, can we really believe that the entire situation thats developed over the last 18 months hasn't been engineered to give them a pre-text to take the oil? Convenient those terrorists happened to be in Afghanistan wasn't it? American companies were having such difficulity deciding where to build oil pipelines given the political climate and/or relationship with various countries in that region. Afghanistan was the perfect choice but it was so unstable but now its suddenly become liberated. Hmm.. so then should we conclude that either that the terrorist attack didn't really come from that region. After all, we only have the US' word on it, and hey if they'll lie to us about what they're doing in Iraq, why not everything else. Maybe 9/11 was really a CIA plot to give the US a pre-text to seize oil assets. Afghanistan helps provide the infrastructure for transporting oil, and Iraq provides the actual oil. Working out quite nicely isn't it? Probably could produce some compelling evidence too with a few hours research on the net.
Its never ending, and all you end up doing is losing sight of the issues at hand and creating alot of bitterness and resentment towards people who may or may not deserve.

> Well, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But you're
> also (it seems) trying to say that no-one else should question their
> motives, and it further seems that when the many and varied alternate
> reasons for the war are mooted you'd prefer them to be ignored.
>

I don't think I am. What I am asking is people try to deal with whats in front of them rather than shadowy motives which may or may not exist. And either way cannot be proved, I hope you'd agree its ridiculous that we condemn people based upon things which amount to nothing more than speculation. I'd suggest thats equally applicable to governments as well as individuals. And yes that can be equally applicable to Iraq, as well as the US/UK.

> Plus, you are assuming that Iraq are a threat to world peace; where is
> the proof? And if you say "We don't need proof" then isn't
> that a mandate for the US, or indeed anyone, to declare war on
> whomever they desire? Because if you are, then welcome to the WWIII:
> The Early years.
>

Actually if you want to get technical about it, I think the US already believe they have a mandate for war under the UN charter, irrespective of individual UN resolutions.
But I've been trying to stay away from my opinion about whether there really should be a war or not. I don't think I ever said we don't need proof. I'd almost suggest proof is irrelevant, as you said yourself whoever provides proof you'll just question their motives. And as I said already, finding positive motives isn't likely. :) This almost about faith really, most people have a gut reaction to this and then pick and choose the "facts" which fit their belief and in the process dismiss the other "facts" as irrelevant and/or false/unproven.

The sagacious one wrote:
> He had the temerity to ask "how come his people
> are starving yet he's so fat?".

Could be glandular?

Star Fury wrote:

We give food aid to Iraq,
> N.Korea, and that's shown little difference in people's thinking

The problem is that we have to give them aid to survive, the distribution of which is limited and still dependant upon the regime in place in the aforementioned countries. A few bowls of rice a week is not enough to make someone grateful, especially when they are still subjected to "brainwashing".

Incidentally an American tourist to North Korea was recently thrown in prison for a week, as a result of a flippant remark about their beloved leader. He had the temerity to ask "how come his people are starving yet he's so fat?".

So I agree that the regimes need to change, as well as economic/food aid being supplied, or at the very least some allowance of fair trade.

Might be.

*nervous shuffle*

Goatboy wrote:
> US bombers, with UK fighter support, to begin attacks Monday
> morning.
> Ministers briefed yesterday.
>
> *whoops*
> Ah well, his email didn't say I couldnt mention it.

?? Is this your mate in the press again, he was right about the Finsbury mosque thing a while back, even if it didn't get much coverage....

The sagacious one wrote:
> The American defence budget is $340 billion. Imagine what they could
> achieve if they plied it into resolving world poverty and social
> discrimination. Less, envious and desperate, people would consider the
> "rich" West as the route of their plight and this would
> lessen the threat to American/Western security via acts of terrorism.
> Leaders of such organisations wouldn't be able to use a ready supply
> of broken people, who are simply manipulated by promises of eternal
> wealth in heaven and legendary status on Earth as a Martyr, to carry
> out such artocities the world has witnessed in recent decades.

Bad argument, in a bizarre twist we've actually educated most of the world's dictators and terrorist leaders in the West, and that didn't exactly make them love us any more did it ? We give food aid to Iraq, N.Korea, and that's shown little difference in people's thinking, possibly because if they did change how they felt they'd find themselves in prison, or worse. Remove the world's dictators, and the key terrorists and it's a start, but not the whole solution.

You won't find a solution to the world's problems by looking solely towards America.

Goatboy wrote:
> You communist.
>
> Why dont you just parade around with a big sign saying "I want to
> touch Saddamn's bottom"

Comrade, touch my bum, I am a commie boy, we are the commie boys!

*Does that crouching leg kicking dance*