Posted by: Imran Aziz on May 15, 2005 12:16 AM

Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on May 15, 2005 11:10 AM

Posted by: Imran Aziz on May 15, 2005 04:06 PM

For example, look at this chart, detailing who supplied Iraq's weaspons systems: USSR 57%, France 13%, China 12%, Czech 7% ... USA 1% -- the same as Denmark and half as much as Brazil.

Another way to verify this, should you think I'm being dishonest or deceived, is just to look at what weapons systems Saddam was using: Almost all that equipment was of French or Russian/Soviet origin. "Scud", for example, is a Soviet missle. Saddam's tanks were Soviet, he used French and Soviet aircraft, Chinese military electronics, etc.

So I can understand not liking the idea that someone sold him some weapons -- I agree -- but I tend to believe in what I call "proportionate concern": If I'm X amount unhappy the US helped him, then I'm many more times as concerned or unhappy that China, France, and Russia supplied him with much more significant military hardware: major weapons systems.

Back in the Reagan era, during the Iran/Iraq war, some in the administration wanted to explore closer ties to Saddam, or aiding him against Iran, and sent Donald Rumsfeld over for diplomatic talks.

At the time, I was young and didn't know much, politically, and Saddam came across as a moderate, modern, progressive autocrat who built hospitals, schools, and universities and allowed his people considerable freedoms -- an image he'd carefully crafted. I didn't know then that he tortured people -- none of us did.

Given that Iran's goal in the war was to gain control of Iraq, and that Saddam seemed like a reasonable guy -- or minimally, the lesser of two evils -- it seemed like it might not be a bad idea to explore, since (a) it might help ensure Ayatollah Khomeni, who had declared war on the US, wouldn't gain control of Iraq and its wealth, and (b) it might be a chance to get what we thought was progressive leader to stop cozying up the USSR.

I remember, not long after that, perhaps, seeing an ABC 20/20 report from Iraq, in which the reporter alleged, based on second-hand reports, that the Baathist Party's security appartus tortured people. It was still rumor at the time. I was concerned, wasn't sure if the rumors were true or not, but was glad when the Reagan administration backed off, as the evidence mounted. They did exactly what I'd hoped they would at that time. (And I was no fan of Reagan at that time.)

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/506/506p12.htm

As I said above, thanks for bringing this to my attention.

There's this belief called "realpolitik", where the idea is that you can do a lot of bad stuff, and support, long-term, a lot of very unsavory people, in the name of doing something "good".

While I'm enough of a pragmatist to admit that there are times when there is a genuine need to "hold your nose" for a moment -- such as when the allies worked with Stalin during WWII -- I generally hate "realpolitik". And it was the left who taught me to do so.

Too bad they don't generally believe it.

I never much liked George H.W. Bush -- even after I came to grudgingly admire Reagan, I always felt (and still believe) there was something unwholesome and unsavory about GHWB. Even though he was elected on the strengths of Reagan's policies, he reversed many of them. And I often suspected he was doing bad things in secret, behind the scenes, and not telling us

I'm not saying he wasn't a nice guy: I think he probably is. And, who knows, perhaps his intentions were good once. But as with Quixtar, even people who start with good intentions can end up doing a lot of harmful things.

George Bush, Sr. (GWHB) was "realpolitik", embodied. He left Saddam in power because it would make allies happy -- and keep the ever-important "regional stability". He told the Kurds to rise up, claiming he would help them, but then allowed them to be slaughtered, when he was then afraid following through might annoy some ally. When we'd achieved our goals in Afghanistan, he pulled out, and did nothing to help the people we'd left in that situation. He did many, many things like this.

Imran, I spoke out against these things at the time, and throughout the 1990s. I don't believe any differently now. I agrued, even back then, that such immoral actions, in the cause of good, always had "blowback". I predicted the recent situation in Afghanistan more than a decade ago, for example.

But here's an important point about 'Iraqgate' you're apparently missing: Just because a US (or Canadian, or French) leader does bad things doesn't instantly prove the whole country is complicit. Many of the things I'm reading about now in 'Iraqgate' -- if true -- were things we, the people never supported, and never would have, had we known! And, of course, if the stories about the document shredders are true, it means GHWB knew that full well, too.

That might be something a US president would do, but it's not something most of us would justify. Heads would have rolled, had we known.

But what I find galling is the way the left -- who first fed me the arguments which taught me how to hate "realpolitik" -- was/is apparently utterly insincere about that ideal. Look at the way prominent leftists such as Michael Moore, John Kerry, and several other US congressmen have gone on record as saying what great guy GHWB was.

His son, GWB, like him or not, is more often the opposite of "realpolitik". Part of the reason that GHWB was able to build such a wide coalition is that he was willing to go along with some very bad things, and would deal with evil in order to get things done, and not call it evil. Part of the reason the French and Russians liked GHWB was that he'd play their games. GHB, as far as I can see, generally doesn't. Hence the hatred.

They hated Reagan, too. But they never hated Bush Sr. much.

There's a final point being missed here. If Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, the policies of "Iraqgate", if continued, could have produced a far worse situation than we faced. But as it was, it was more a moral failing -- evidence of the immorality and evil of GHWB's way of doing business.

For example, it is alleged that the US shipped arms to Saddam. As far as I know, the only thing we gave him directly were trucks. But it also alleges we encouraged allies to make shipments. How signficant was that, in terms of the picture of "creating the monster" that was Saddam?

Here's a detailed breakdown [pdf] of amounts of military equipment sent to Saddam. Take the amounts for the US and all their allies and add it up, and you get, still 2-3% or so -- still no-where near what France, China and the USSR supplied. (82% of Saddam's arms when combined, or 93% if you count Czech and Poland as acting under Soviet direction.)

The international left was and is, of course, livid about the idea that the US helped Iraq. Ballistic. But were was the proportional condemnation for the USSR? No, many leftists were active supporters of that nation, and still defend it. (I was just corresponding with one a few months ago, who still couldn't bring himself to issue even a single word of condemnation for anything the USSR did.) Where is the proportional condemnation of France and China? Unlike the US -- where we didn't know it was happening -- France's support had been overt and visible. Yet the French people, who knew all that, rail against the Americans exclusively? And my left-leaning friends in the US still cite French governmental opinions and statements (against the US) as a moral authority??? On what basis?

And read the article above again: it's another complaint about lack of "proportionate concern" in Germany hatred for the US or Bush, or both. It suggests that war deaths aren't really a problem -- or the same protests would be waged against Putin's actions.

And again, look at Michael Moore: He argues that the US built up Saddam. If so, then how can he speak glowingly of GHWB, the principal architect of that policy, and say how he admires and likes him? Again, the principle is apparently just that he hates Bush, Jr, and both arguments "work" for him -- who cares if the two arguments directly contradict each other?

So all those deaths were OK in 80s and 90's...

Huh? I thought they were horrible, and was glad Reagan backed off as soon as we learned about them. And, as noted above, the US populace didn't really even know what GHWB was doing to attempt to help Iraq, years later.

So to argue, somehow, that it these deaths were "okay" with us, or even just me, strikes me as dishonest, or at least unfair. They weren't okay, and public response was enough to curtail Reagan's brief initiative, and to ensure GHWB did what he did in secret.

Again, we're not perfect, and I have plenty of criticisms myself, but that's hardly an honest argument.

And to imply -- as you seem to be doing here -- that the US "looked the other way" about Iraq during the 1990's would a historical mistake as large as placing WWII in the 1950's, or saying that Japan and US were allies in the war. During the 1990's, the US was continually militarily engaged against Iraq, keeping him from using air power to massacre the Kurds.

In fact, part of the reason I grew to dislike Clinton -- was that I was still aware those things were going on, and regularly argued (to anyone who would listen) (a) that it would have been much better for Iraqis had we all removed him at end of the Gulf War, and (b) that a conflict over WMD would bring his predation to and end. Many of those who were politically liberal (my mom is a card-carrying Democrat, for example) blithely ignored my arugments, and the problem, perhaps since "their guy" was in power.

So there was no gear-shift or about-face for me at all when Bush started repeating the same arguments. They'd seemed obvious all along, and even some prominent Democrats -- who were now repudating the same ideas -- had said the same countless times.

... now they must be stopped.

As mentioned, I wanted "robust" (e.g. backed by threat of military strike, should Saddam even twitch) weapons inspections immediately at the end of the Gulf War, and onward, and was quite unhappy at Clinton for dropping the ball, though he kept telling us contiuously that Iraq most likely had WMD, and that he would use them, given the chance.

Then the US congress, led by Democrats and supported by Clinton, agreed on a policy of removing Saddam from power. Again, Clinton warned of the threat Saddam was. At the time, the UK and French were saying the same thing, as was UNSCOM, the UN weapons inspectors. This was near the end of Clinton's term.

I personally wasn't sure Saddam did or didn't have WMD (the more he resisted inspections, the more suspicious it looked), but I was relatively certain he had at least "mothballed" his technology, and felt absolutely sure, should sanctions be dropped, that he would move quick to reconstitute such capabilities. Again, I am speaking of the thoughts I had throughout the 1990s.

Shortly after Bush took office, 9/11 occured. Bush repeated the exact same arguments that Clinton and other prominent Democrats (and a few Republicans) had repeated throughout the 1990s.

And an amazing thing happened: The political left started telling us that Bush had manufactured the idea that Saddam had WMD, or might pose a current or future threat.

But I'd been alive through the 1990s. I had not been convinced Iraq posed a threat by Bush (who was a mere state governor, no different from Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin), but rather by Tony Blair, William Clinton, various French leaders, the Italians, and the UN inspectors, and even Putin.

Again, I'm not saying I believed for sure that Iraq had WMD, I didn't know -- but I was convinced he would attempt to obtain WMD if sanctions were dropped. (I'd aruge I was indeed dead right on that count, and would be happy to point you to the evidence, if you wished.)

Would Saddam have been a threat without sanctions? Why not? He was a threat at the end of the 1980s -- though we didn't know it. Give me a coherant reason for thinking otherwise.

So no, none of my arguments (and I wasn't the only one who felt this way, by far) changed when a new president took office -- not concerns about the deaths and tortures, nor concern about a future war, nor the need to enforce the policies spelled out in the UN resolutions, nor the benefit of removing Saddam from office.

But the left tells people that, so they buy it, apparently. The left loves the easily-fooled.

Killing any one who is not a threat to you and not raising arm against you is a murder.

Yes: the contemporary political left likes to convince people that the US simply one day decided Saddam was a threat, and made a big something out of nothing.

Yet again, my "memory" causes me not to buy into this recently-manufactured narrative. I was alive and remember the first Gulf War well. Again, hostilies temporarily ceased when the US and other allies overcame Saddam's troops.

Many of us thought it might simply be safer to remove Saddam from power, or even kill him, if necessary, but Bush decided it might scare some of the Muslim leaders in the coalition -- and the Russians and Chinese (and French), who were still basicly Saddam's patron (or "buddy" as you say) -- so instead, we (all) put Saddam on "probation" -- he would have to meet a host of conditions (including, but not limited to, weapons inspections) correctly or hostilities would immediately resume.

To that end, the UN passed a series resolutions -- including UNR 1441 and (I'm quoting from memory, so don't kill me if I get this wrong) 667, and a few others which authorized ANY ally who had been in the Gulf war, and working with Kuwait's agreement (and no mention whatsoever of needing another security council resolution), to immediately resume hostilities if Saddam failed to comply.

Saddam failed to comply. Not just with weapons inspections -- but with many of the other points, including not firing on the allied flyovers, etc. I was continually annoyed that Clinton was putting off dealing with this problem. I didn't think Saddam would be a problem while we had him "bottled up", but I'm not an idiot, and knew that couldn't last forever.

So the left is able to convince some people that this is like a man striking a first blow against someone who has never hurt anyone at all, and posed no major threat.

But to many of us who lived through these events, and have a memory, what we see is an internationally convincted killer and aggressor -- who attacked quite a number of his neighbors, attempted to draw the whole region into a massive war by lobbing missles at Israel, and attempted to assassinate a US president -- who strangely was given parole rather than jail time.

It would seem odd to put a innocent person in jail for merely leaving town, or going to a bar and drinking, or even allowing a government official into his house, wouldn't it? We'd decry it as a gross injustice -- and correctly so.

But the rules are different for a parolee -- what's fine behavior for a free man is enough to lead to re-arrest of the man on parole.

Saddam, to those of us who remember, is a parolee. Hostilities never ceased (and indeed, they didn't, a hot war continued thoroughout the 1990's, and the UN decladed itself "siezed of the matter" -- legally meaning the issue was considered continually ongoing until otherwise stated). Saddam has a history of acquiring banned weapons and attacking his neighbors. The left's narrative is only made plausable by erasing this fact, and ignoring the distinction between the way we treat and think of people presumed innocent, and people on parole, who have already been convicted of multiple offenses.

Beside, those people are better off dead any way since they were living under Saddam, right?

In an ideal imagined world, Imran, we could all have our cake and eat it too. Nobody wants those people dead -- I sure don't. But we don't get to choose a reality where things are perfect. People die either way.

The left typically looks at a few visible victims, makes noises about them, and imagines there are no other effects should they have their way. The left always imagines it will be a perfect "utopia" if only everyone did what they said. They can't seem to understand that the alternate reality" has dead people, possibly more of them, in it too.

But we don't get to choose a reality where everyone lives. People were dying before, people are dying now. In the other reality, where Saddam is still in power now, he is still killing his own people at a reasonable clip -- more than would have died if we wouldn't have been there. If we'd dropped sanctions, he'd be using his nation's free, unfettered commerce to rebuild his fortures, re-acquire dual-use technology, and rearm. And I expect, as Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Jaques Chirac and George Bush all have said they believed as well, that he'd try to use them again. If I'm wrong in thinking this, I have a lot of international and bipartisan company.

As if all that weren't enough...

Let me give you an analogy regarding "hidden victims": Look at Vietnam. A terrible war, poorly fought by the Americans. 50,000 US soldiers died, and who knows how many Vietnamese. People could see those victims on TV every night. The left picked up their signs, and waged battle, claiming things would be better for those people without the US involved there.

But there were other people, claiming that if we didn't contain communism, country after country, with Soviet backing, would fall under communist dictatorships -- something called the "Domino theory", a theory dismissed by the left.

In this case, the left got their way: the US didn't simply declare a stalemate, or pull out, but keep supplying the South Vietnamese with arms. Instead they pulled out entirely. Those Dominos, which we all told never even existed -- fell. It's estimated 500,000 Vietnamese were killed when the Viet Cong gained total control, and their power, and American absense, allowed the Khmer Rogue to gain power in Cambodia, where they slaughtered about 1.7 million Cambodians.

Either of these numbers -- much less both -- makes the death toll of the Vietnam war look small in comparison.

The left was silent. Noam Chomsky said it wasn't even happening. Nobody spoke about it. The UN did nothing. The media was largely silent. The victims remained hidden, their suffering, and it's tragic lesson for us, unlearned.

The best we can do, Imran, is try our best, as imperfect and short-sighted as we all are, to look at all the factors, and do the best we can to choose the scenrios in which, again, as best as we can guess, the fewest number of people will be hurt or killed.

It's inevitable that there will be differences of opinion -- but that doesn't excuse outright lies or reworking history. And each must account to God for having chosen his own path, or for what he did or didn't try to learn before charging ahead -- or standing back and doing and saying nothing.

It doesn't mean we write off the dead who appear under those scenarios -- it's a sad, sad thing to see a child -- or even a thousand innocent children -- die from a US bomb. As an American supporter, it hurts me even more, because I agree with it, it's my country, and I'm responsible.

But we also remember the tens of thousands of children who, we are told, would continue to die each year under sanctions. And the hundreds or even thousands who were tortured in Saddam's children's prisons (the very concept boggles the mind) -- even though there are no cameras on them, little news coverage, if any, and no cries of leftist outrage about them -- these children's deaths are just as real, and just as tragic.

And that's what so deeply bothers me about today's political left. From my direct personal experience with my left-leaning associates, I've concluded, many don't give a hoot about death unless it's convenient to today's political project of theirs.

They'll march and hold a sign. If you point out they're on the wrong side of the issue, they don't shift gears, or change sides, even just ask for more information: Once you give them good evidence, in my experience, they suddenly drop the topic and disappear. Making it look to me as if their purported concern never was one in the first place.

I wasn't a conservative once. (I was centrist, with many more liberal beliefs than I had now.) But when the data apparently showed I was wrong on an issue, I would change my views. When I'd show the same data to my liberal friends, they'd get mad, or suddenly drop the topic, rather than correcting me, or providing better data.

I suspect, as with Quixtar, it's all about pride, and feeling that you're a good person -- not about whatever topic is at hand. The same flaw which causes some conservatives to endlessly defend Quixtar, and be utterly uninterested in the truth, and run away when you show them wrong, also produces the exact same behavior on the political left. It's the same flaw, plugging the same psychological "hole", I suspect, just using two different mechanisms.

My two cents.

Thanks for the info, and asking such interesting questions.

Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on May 16, 2005 11:52 AM

Posted by: Imran Aziz on May 16, 2005 10:44 PM

Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on May 16, 2005 11:14 PM

Take a look at the "media bias" complaints on this blog. (One example.) I don't usually just assert, wildly, that the media is biased -- not merely because it disagrees with my cherished worldview. Instead, I compare one media source against another, or my own memory and experience, in order to show somebody is cooking the books.

In my experience -- which grows longer all the time -- such "errors" almost always lean left. So I find it almost humorous to read narratives like the one quoted above which portray the mainstream media as complicit conservative lap-dogs, supporters of Bush or conservative views.

Such people, in my experience, only say so on the grounds that they don't find the media what I'd consider "biased enough" in their direction. If the NY Times won't claim capitalism is the greatest evil ever, well, by gosh, that proves they're a bunch of right-wingers.

(d) As far as the specific charges being made, they're mostly absurd (not untrue, but morally absurd as an argument), and I'd personally be embarrassed to even level them. "Ecological devastation?" Yeah, blowing up bombs can do that. Even in the desert. Of course, most of the ecological devastation came from oil fires. Odd that's omitted, until you remember who set them. Again, where's the proportionality here?

And yes, much of Iraq's infrastructure was damaged. So?

Imagine a kidnapper and killer, holding hostages, were holed up in a house somewhere, resisting hostage-rescue and arrest with weapons. In an attempt to free the hostages, the police shoot the place to hell: They destroy valuable furniture, the family's freezer and microwave oven, the TV set -- and grandmother's precious family heirlooms. The hot water-heater gets it too.

Some of us say it's very sad that the damage happened. We don't like to see valuable treasures destroyed for all time, or a family's house wrecked by gunfire. (I sure wouldn't want that to happen to me or my house!)

But we wouldn't suddenly put the would-be rescuers in the same moral category as the hostage takers, as the narrative you quote seem to be saying. Again, to me that appears to be a sign of profound moral disorientation.

If a Quixtar IBO tried an analogous stream of reasoning, I can't help but think you'd be all over him or her in a moment.

I have some great discussion with a "leftist" online friend of mine. I'll invite him here.

You're welcomed to. I generally value the open exchange of ideas, as long as some simple rules are followed. "Iron sharpens iron."

But it's only productive, of course, if open minds are involved. Otherwise, we're all just wasting our time, and annoying each other, for no purpose.

He is nothing like that. Not all leftists are morons, neither are all right wings nut jobs. And I don't hate American public.

I didn't say leftists were all morons -- many are quite intelligent. And -- unlike some of my readers, apparently -- I number many among my friends, family, and acquaintences.

Yet there's something in the left which leads people to sell out even a good and powerful intellect, and an otherwise-intact and well-functioning sense of morality, to make some really strange factual mistakes, and/or accept moral positions they'd never accept if their pet issues weren't involved.

Of course, I'm describing humanity as a whole, but I find the problem particularly virulent on the left.

(Again, that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. I just haven't had the luck of having any extended conservations with such a one yet. And I say this as someone who was started out by simply trying to get my own leftist ideas reconfirmed.)

When you allege many right-wingers are "nuts", there's no specific content to that allegation. Regardless of what's in your head, to the reader, it's pure vitriol, untestable, unmeasurable, and -- of course -- irrefutable. But I try not to level such charges back, but instead try to limit to charges of specific behavior patterns.

And yes, sometimes I fail to live by that too, I'm ashamed to admit.

I agree with you here quite well. Iraq, or Vietnam is played as a card against a political party mostly.

This is a primary gripe I have with the left's narrative: They often/always seem to be making/implying several assumptions which I find wrong or at least unhelpful: (a) That there is no "truth" of the matter, and (b) that motives trump all, and (c) that non-elites are fundamentally stupid and easily controlled.

You say, for example "Vietnam is played as a card" against some political party. When? In the past (which I was speaking of) or in the present (a change of topic).

What is the relevance of making such a statement? Of course some might use some issue for their party. So what? How is that relevant to discussing whether the thing itself is right or wrong? Does someone's movitives, or how they use it, affect the morality of the action being discussed?

I think the left is far too fixated on their supposed enemies' motives. (I suspect it is a form of projection.) In a just analysis, first we figure out if someone is factually or logically right or wrong, then, only when they've been shown to be in clear error, we ask why. If the situation is ambiguous, or even just were lacking data, then no motive-probing needs to occur.

(And even if a person does what I consider the right thing, purportedly from a bad motive: again, why should I care? I don't care if a man saves my life because he's an altruist, or just because he wants fame. There are all kinds of reasons -- many of them entirely selfish -- for doing helpful things. That's for God to sort out, not me.)

But so often, in my discussions with leftists, they circumvent discussions of fact with charges of bad morals. Cart first, horse second. I'm supporting the Bush administration, I hate the poor, I'm a bad person, blah, blah, blah... who cares about the ideas, eh?

So I don't understand why someone's "use" of Vietnam is important. Unless some clear error is present, the charitable assumption is that we assume they're just honestly concerned, and judging as best as they can from the data they have.

Finally, I find it annoying to hear how Bush "brainwashed" everyone into this or that. Rightly or wrongly, on Iraq, I supported the exact same positions I supported in the 1990s. The same is true of virtually every conservative I know, as well as many prominent Democrats, and international figures. I sometimes think the left does this simply because it's a bit too uncomfortable to consider whether there might be, you know, a valid argument behind that position.

Does any leftist politician actually really cared? Did he have any alternative plan to help these people with less causalities? I didn't hear any.

Those were my thoughts, exactly, too, Imran. It's not just enough to say "No" to one reality. You have to spell out another -- details and all -- and explain why yours is plausably better. And even be willing to own up to the results of it, should it go awry, and the costs it will take.

I still might disagree, but there are some I disagree with whom I have respect for, and some positions which don't leave me that option. A willingness to think through those details is part of what makes that difference.

Yes, abu ghareeb was a shame. So were many bombings. Even the regime was extremely cruel. So....How would you (Liberals) have done better?

I'm not sure who you're addressing this question to. Is this just thinking aloud? Or is there something specific here I'm supposed to be answering?

...how shelters is Iraq were targeted by US bombing.

I can believe that buildings, in which civilians were hiding and/or placed, were targeted by US troops. But the idea they did so knowingly -- as a part of some policy? Absurd.

First, even if you're a complete cynic, think: The US had to win this war on two fronts, both hearts'-n'-minds, and militarily. From a military point of view, it would make no sense at all to expend ammo on a known civilian target, which posed no threat whatsoever. It offers absolutely no advantange whatsoever. As far as trying to get the Iraqis to support what you're doing, killing the civilians would have the exact opposite effect -- as indeed, your citing such claims shows.

So I can't even think of a sensible motive for doing that, unless you are willing believe American people -- including our soldiers and brass, drawn from all walks of life -- just have a deep Nazi-style hatred of innocent men, women, and children.

Next, regarding this, look at the building itself. Mentally airbrush out the artwork added to the front of the building. What does it look like to you? Looks to me like a hardened bunker.

Finally, how could the US possibly have even known it was otherwise? What possible chain of events could have given them that knowledge? Did Saddam just hand over all his plans, with no deception, showing what was a civilian shelter and what was reserved for military use? Was Saddam the kind of guy who even respected such distinctions?

I can't even conceive of the logical sequence of arguments which would be necessary to even make such an argument. Are you really saying you find this particular article persuasive?

The other link appeared to be down when I tried it.

Honestly: With all links I am giving and you are giving, it's hard to find what ACTUALLY happened. I don't know.

Nobody ever knows anything, Imran. The book I tend to look to, the bible, teaches that we'll be judged by our own standards, the one's we've clearly shown we understood by using them elsewhere, in life, aside from our special areas of interest (politics, Quixtar, etc.).

We never know perfect data. All we can do is make judgements in a consistent manner, using the same rules for our friends as for our enemies.

My rules are pretty simple:

(a) I believe the best evidence I can find until someone presents a better one.

(b) I try (or should try) to grant the benefit of the doubt: I assume people/sources have good motives until I have a reasonable body of data indicating otherwise.

(c) I try to use the same rules of evidence for one source as for another -- again, until I have good reason otherwise. I don't try to just pick the bits which agree with me, and ignore the ones who don't.

And another trick is to take one side's best argument and see if the other side can refute it. If it's an obvious, common argument, and the other side ignores it, chances are good that you've scored a valid point.

(For example, I used to think gun control reduced crime, until I was reading a (Canadian) pro-gun-control web site, and noticed they were very careful to avoid making that specific claim. I then realized I'd been wrong the whole time: even gun control proponents wouldn't go there.)

And, here's another rule:

(d) If I catch someone/some source lying or deceiving -- not merely being wrong factually, as happens all the time, but saying things I'm fairly sure they know were wrong -- they get a little distrust-mark next to their name. One each time.

Reason (d) is one reason I don't tend to trust many leftist sources -- like Howard Zinn (zmag). Part of my disenfranchisement with the left, for example, is the number of times their authors are dishonest, or hide clear disproof I know they had to have seen, in order to make their case.

For example, I used to be a fan of Michael Moore. I enjoyed "Roger & Me" quite a lot, and watched it several times. Only later did I discover that he'd switched around several facts in the movie, to create an entirely different, and untrue, impression. Things he had to have known, since it was about his own home town. And I've seen him do this repeatedly.

So that's why I became disgusted with Michael Moore. Not because he hates Bush or something. Because he's a shameless deceiver.

Going back to rules a-c: Like you seem to be doing here, I have a long history of trying to find my ideological opponents, ask them for their best evidences, and then trying to see if what they say makes more sense than what I'm thinking.

That's basicly how I became a conservative. Not because I'm rich -- you know, from your own similar situation, I'm not -- or because I was raised to be a conservative (I wasn't -- I was raised as a Democrat), but because, as best as I can tell, most conservative positions seem in fact to be correct, or at least have better supporting evidence than liberal ones.

Once I came to that conviction, on topic after topic -- taking over a decade (honestly, I was suprised -- and initially sometimes annoyed -- that the "right" answer kept appearing on one particular side -- I initially assumed correct positions be distributed randomly), then I started to wonder why liberals are so often wrong. And that's been the more recent hobby.

Regarding the chart you gave, 1% of weapons:
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0103/012803gsn.htm

(a) This doesn't relate to the chart at all, which starts in the mid-70s. The article is the late 50's and early 60's -- ancient history.

(b) As the article admits, the vast majority training was purely defensive in nature. And even for defensive training, you have to have some understanding of how the stuff is going to be used offensively.

(c) If you read carefully, you'll notice nothing in the article even suggests that the technology or knowledge to create the chemicals was transferred. Without that, a description of how a chem-loaded shells might be prepared or fired is absolutely meaningless.

(d) And, even ignoring all that, and even if they had transferred technology (which I don't see), it's still worth nothing that such wasn't banned until many years later -- in 1971.

So mostly this seems to be a bit of innuendo about ancient history. And I don't think it's wrong at all to provide 90-95% defensive, 5-10% offensive training in dealing with battlefield use of chem weapons. Sounds like a rather sound precaution to me, if you have some remote chance of encountering them on the battlefield.

http://www.firethistime.org/weaponsofdeception.htm

This also seems utterly unrelated to the who-supplied-what numbers I pointed you to. The main claim seems to be that UNSCOM was being used for gathering US intelligence.

Well, DUH. So what? That was supposed to be it's whole purpose -- to expose every weapon Saddam had in his arsenal. I would expect they would have been -- and should have been -- working with any and every intel service available among the original set of allies.

Again, Saddam was supposed to be sumitting to an extended body-search, like a man just told to "spread 'em" by a cop. Normally, it would be wrong to do such things, but this wasn't a "normal" situation -- this was a guy who'd just gotten done raping Kuwait (both literally and figuratively) and trying to touch off a major regional war.

Most the rest of the article seems to be a study in deception. I tire of dissecting arguments from the endless flow of dishonesy from the left, but I'll do it again for you, in hopes you'll learn how to do it yourself...

Having spent twelve years demanding that Iraq comply with weapons inspectors before any sanctions can be lifted, Iraq finally capitulated under a new threat of force. Literally, within hours of their announcement the US declared that it would not accept their offer. "Our policy is regime change, with our without inspectors," said Whitehouse spokesman Ari Fleischer.

Appears to be a dishonest misquote. According to this source, the actual quote is: "Our policy is regime change, and the president said war is our last resort." Kind of a huge difference, isn't that? The difference between night and day, I'd say. Pretty shameless lie, no?

Again, note that the source I just gave you looks fairly neutral, note also how the article you quoted also deceives its readers about Saddam's level of "cooperation". From the same article I just quoted...

He said that 11 empty chemical warheads found on Thursday did not appear on the list of weapons Iraq had submitted to the United Nations. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said on Friday he was seeking "more explanations" from Baghdad about the empty warheads found in an arms depot.

And here's another news source, in case you don't buy that first one.

Now, normally, that would be enough for me. One lie, and I know where they're coming from, and what to expect in the rest. But for you...

Next paragraph...

Barely a single newspaper called this stand into question...

That's because the quote was faked. Of course they never questioned it. It was never said. In real life, Blix had just found some more banned weapons, and Iraqi's weren't explaining where they came from, and most of us were wondering if this wasn't just another tip of an iceberg.

Much of the rest of the article goes on a tangent, complaining about GHWB's 1990-1991 policies about Saddam -- which I already agree were stupid, and complaining about the kind of "realpolitik" from that era that I already disagree with. Of course it was stupid to leave Saddam in power. You won't get any disagreement from me, and I thought it might be a mistake even back then.

But once again, let's remember that it was international pressure which shaped the US policy at that point -- a huge consideration for GWB's not taking Saddam out was the international demand for regional "stability", and demand that Saddam be left alive. If that was awful, then let's look to Muslim and European leaders as well, who were prime protestors against any attempt to go further.

To attribute that stance solely to the US strikes me as dishonest revisionism. It was a large coalition, and actions taken involved many players, and pleasing the lowest common denominator.

Another deception:

On April 6th, Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Myers, speaking at a Department of Defence press conference, followed that with: "The goal has never been to get bin Laden." Surely, wasn't the whole point of the Afghanistan war to get bin Laden and those who supported him?

Again, the quote is removed from context to deceive the reader, apparently, into thinking Myers had just admitted we did not, in fact go into Afghanistan "to get bin Laden and those who supported him".

In context, we find Myers is saying just the opposite (emph added):

Question: The big question for General Myers. One embarrassment for the U.S. is that in almost seven months after 9-11 we still haven't captured Osama bin Laden. With the apprehension this week of one of his top lieutenants have we gotten enough information to being any closer to maybe finally getting bin Laden?

General Myers: If you remember, if we go back to the beginning of the segment the goal has never been to get bin Laden. Obviously that's desirable. I just read a piece by some analysts who said you may not want to go after the top people in these organizations. You might be more effective going after the middle managers because they're harder to replace. I don't know if that's true or not, and clearly we would like to eventually get bin Laden.

But I think the fact that we've been able to disrupt operations, get a lot of the people just under him...

Again, Imran, what does this say about the author? This was easy to find, in context (quick Google), and, by reading it that way (in context), you'd never be confused about whether Myers was or was not trying to get "bin Laden and those who supported him."

So, once again, thanks for giving me another chance to demonstrate how the left will frequently lie in order to deceive it's readers. It's been my experience you can do this almost by picking their stuff at random. And the longer you look, the more problems you find.

Now my big question is why people keep listening to them? I'll do this trick over and over for a friend, and still, in some cases, they'll keep falling for the same tricks, and keep going back for more.

Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on May 23, 2005 05:12 AM

Posted by: Imran on May 23, 2005 05:23 PM