What A Tangled Web We Weave...

[pbleighton]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/...ists/index.html

 

"An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, despite being considered terrorists by the United States, continues to receive protection from the American military in the face of Iraqi pressure to leave the country."

 

The so-called "war on terror" is now over, I guess :)

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

So I guess now we are part of the axil of evil and will have to impose sanctions on ourselves?

[luke warm]

So I guess now we are part of the axil of evil and will have to impose sanctions on ourselves?

a lot of americans hold the view that we are wrong and everyone else is right... they do so without access to all the data, usually based on likes and dislikes of the visible leaders, and i suspect that most who hold those views (just like those who hold opponsing views) would be very poor leaders of a community, much less of a country

[Winstonm]

So I guess now we are part of the axil of evil and will have to impose sanctions on ourselves?

a lot of americans hold the view that we are wrong and everyone else is right... they do so without access to all the data, usually based on likes and dislikes of the visible leaders, and i suspect that most who hold those views (just like those who hold opponsing views) would be very poor leaders of a community, much less of a country

Are you suggesting that there may be some valid reason for a leader to support an organization that has been branded a terrorist organization by the leader's country itself?

 

Here is more of the article:

 

The U.S. State Department considers the MEK a terrorist organization -- meaning no American can deal with it; U.S. banks must freeze its assets; and any American giving support to its members is committing a crime.

 

The U.S. military, though, regularly escorts MEK supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf.

 

"The trips for procurement of logistical needs also take place under the control and protection of the MPs," said Mojgan Parsaii, vice president of MEK and leader of Camp Ashraf.

 

 

If you or I gave money to this group, we could be considered enemy combattants, arrested by the military, and hauled off to Guantanemo for the next 100 years with no rights of appeal.

 

Yet our military gives escorts to this group - when I thought we were in a "global war on terroristm".

 

Can you explain this paradox?

[Winstonm]

Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes!

 

"By R. Jeffrey Smith

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, April 6, 2007; A01

 

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday"

 

 

 

"(04-06) 10:58 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

 

Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group"

[pbleighton]

"Truth is the first casualty of war" is old hat, but the consistent contempt this administration displays for the truth is far more typical of a dictatorship than of a democracy. It's positively Orwellian.

 

I really don't know why this is true. It's terrible. This country deserves so much better.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Truth is the first casualty of war" is old hat, but the consistent contempt this administration displays for the truth is far more typical of a dictatorship than of a democracy. It's positively Orwellian.

 

I know and it's weird. Bush and Cheney are to the point of brazen defiance, almost as if they consider themselves "untouchables".

[luke warm]

Are you suggesting that there may be some valid reason for a leader to support an organization that has been branded a terrorist organization by the leader's country itself?

no, i'm suggesting that a lot of americans hold the view that we are wrong and everyone else is right... they do so without access to all the data, usually based on likes and dislikes of the visible leaders, and i suspect that most who hold those views (just like those who hold opponsing views) would be very poor leaders of a community, much less of a country

Can you explain this paradox?

no - and neither can you... i can be for or against any number of things on principle... i can also be for or against any number of things based on the personality of others for or against... but there's a difference between the two

[Winstonm]

no, i'm suggesting that a lot of americans hold the view that we are wrong and everyone else is right... they do so without access to all the data, usually based on likes and dislikes of the visible leaders, and i suspect that most who hold those views (just like those who hold opponsing views) would be very poor leaders of a community, much less of a country

 

So you are saying that personality likes and dislikes are the predominant reasons a lot of Americans hold views of such things as Iraq and supporting terrorism? So as a given that this group has been classified as a terrorist organization, yet our own military aids their movement, to question this as absurd is because someone either doesn't have all the facts or dislikes Bush?

 

Can you explain this paradox?

 

 

no - and neither can you...

 

You are right that I can't explan it; however, I can use my own power of reasoning on the known facts. The group has been classified as a terrorist group by the U.S.A. Our president declares we are in a global war on terrorism. Yet our military aids this group's movements.

 

My reasoning tells me one of two things: one, we are not in a global war on terror else these terrorists would be captured instead of escorted or two, this group has been misclassified by the U.S and they are not terrorists. (Which is odd in that they admit using terrorist tactics inside Iran.)

 

That conclusion has nothing to do with peronalities.

 

What you seem to be suggesting is that if all the facts were known there could be some CIA-like triple cross where to make them look like bad guys we had to place them on the list but in realitiy they are the good guys, and it is not really them but another group blowing up schoolchildren in Iran but we have to blame them in order to confuse the Iranians.

 

Seems to me that "wishful thinking" that "all the facts" would somehow justify this paradox is more tied to personlality likes and dislikes than simply applying reason to an unreasonable situation.

[helene_t]

I don't see the problem. It's in the US military's/government's perceived interest to support those groups. So they do. Like earlier U.S. governments supported terrorists in Nicaragua. Why shouldn't they? Just because Bush makes some stupid statement like "we're at war against terrorism"? Bush (like most other politicians) made so many stupid statements. If all of them were to be taken as gospel, U.S. politics would be even weirder than it already is.

[pbleighton]

"I don't see the problem. It's in the US military's/government's perceived interest to support those groups. So they do. Like earlier U.S. governments supported terrorists in Nicaragua. Why shouldn't they? Just because Bush makes some stupid statement like "we're at war against terrorism"?"

 

If all he had done was make the stupid statement, it wouldn't be a big problem. Politicians do lie, after all.

 

The much bigger problem is that he used that stupid statement to get us into a disastrous war. We are (theoretically) at war against a technique. That lowers the bar for the proof needed to go to war.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

With the new Democratic Congress, more and more information is becoming public that strongly suggests that Cheney and Rumsfeld ignored contradictory intelligence while placing pressure to find supporting evidence for the Iraq/al-Qaeda link and the Nigerian yellocake hoax - so much so that one Senator has called the information "fabricated".

 

Senators and Congressman say they are receiving more and more telephone calls urging impeachment, yet the Democrats remain firmly against impeachment due to the timing - the last 2 years of this administration.

 

This, to me, is political crap. If there is proof that the President and Vice-President committed "high crimes and misdemeanors", then it is the duty of Congress to remove those offficials regardless of timing.

 

The real issue is at this point there are not enough votes for a Senate conviction, and Congress does not want to waste its time without such assurity - IMHO.

[Winstonm]

I don't see the problem. It's in the US military's/government's perceived interest to support those groups. So they do. Like earlier U.S. governments supported terrorists in Nicaragua. Why shouldn't they? Just because Bush makes some stupid statement like "we're at war against terrorism"?

 

A couple of points, Helene. First, Nicaragua was prior 9-11. Post 9-11, the President declared war against terrorism - and not just wordsmithings as the juduciary has supported the President on some issues due to the President's "rights" during war.

 

Secondly, there were no laws during Nicaragua that prevented U.S. banks, businesses, and persons from doing business with terrorist organizations. Now, if a group is on the official terror organization list, doing business with them is verboten.

 

So, by supporting a group on the official terror organization list, the U.S. military is contradicting laws that must be adhered to by non-military personel and organizations.

[luke warm]

I don't see the problem. It's in the US military's/government's perceived interest to support those groups. So they do. Like earlier U.S. governments supported terrorists in Nicaragua. Why shouldn't they? Just because Bush makes some stupid statement like "we're at war against terrorism"? Bush (like most other politicians) made so many stupid statements. If all of them were to be taken as gospel, U.S. politics would be even weirder than it already is.

and here you have it, it's just this simple... my statements earlier were meant to show that there is a segment of our population who thinks that self-interest either plays no role or is a bad thing... it's these people who i am glad aren't in leadership roles

So you are saying that personality likes and dislikes are the predominant reasons a lot of Americans hold views of such things as Iraq and supporting terrorism

i'm saying that personality likes and dislikes are the predominant reasons a lot of americans hold *all* of their views

So as a given that this group has been classified as a terrorist organization, yet our own military aids their movement, to question this as absurd is because someone either doesn't have all the facts or dislikes Bush?

do you dislike bush? do you have all the facts? do you think that whatever actions have been taken in this case have been done out of (perceived) self-interest? what would *you* do? and finally, are you fit to lead this country if its self-interests hold secondary roles in your decisions?

You are right that I can't explan it; however, I can use my own power of reasoning on the known facts

so can i... unfortunately, "known" facts in our case leaves a whole universe of facts unknown

My reasoning tells me one of two things: one, we are not in a global war on terror else these terrorists would be captured instead of escorted or two, this group has been misclassified by the U.S and they are not terrorists

then your reasoning is faulty... all i have to do to show the truth of my assertion is offer a 3rd possiblity, yes? three: we are in a war on global terrorism and the pursuit of that war involves strategies and tactics that i am incompetent to understand, much less pursue

That conclusion has nothing to do with peronalities

or logic... since your conclusion isn't logically defensible, there are other reasons for your reaching it

What you seem to be suggesting is that if all the facts were known there could be some CIA-like triple cross where to make them look like bad guys we had to place them on the list but in realitiy they are the good guys, and it is not really them but another group blowing up schoolchildren in Iran but we have to blame them in order to confuse the Iranians.

no, i'm suggesting that there are things in life called "bigger pictures" and that neither you nor i are in possession of enough facts to see that picture... notice that i'm not saying the u.s. is right to do what they're doing, i'm only saying that it's my view that your objection to it is based on my earlier comments... you have to ask yourself, being as honest as possible, whether or not you are one who quite often holds views "... that we are wrong and everyone else is right..." and that you do so "...without access to all the data, usually based on likes and dislikes of the visible leaders..."

[Winstonm]

then your reasoning is faulty... all i have to do to show the truth of my assertion is offer a 3rd possiblity, yes? three: we are in a war on global terrorism and the pursuit of that war involves strategies and tactics that i am incompetent to understand, much less pursue

 

It sounds to me like you are saying there are areas of "gray" instead of simply black and white, that if there are "unknown" reasons it can be reasonable to utilize terrorists for the "greater good".

 

The ends justify the means?

 

do you dislike bush? do you have all the facts? do you think that whatever actions have been taken in this case have been done out of (perceived) self-interest? what would *you* do? and finally, are you fit to lead this country if its self-interests hold secondary roles in your decisions?

 

I have never met the man so I can't say I either like or dislike him. You are quite right that I dislike what Bush has done - but that dislike has grown from a basis of neutrality toward Bush when he was first elected. It is not the man I dislike but his actions that have caused my views towards his presidency to change.

 

No, I do not have all the facts; with this administration's propensity for secretiveness, I doubt anyone will ever know all the facts.

 

What motivates this administration is an enigma; public statements are often contradicted by actions and documents; a big part of this administration's problems stem from the seeming arrogance and brazen defiance of any other viewpoint.

 

Any self-interest has to be put aside by a leader if that leader is truly a caretaker for all instead of a few.

 

i'm saying that personality likes and dislikes are the predominant reasons a lot of americans hold *all* of their views

 

I will respectfully disagree here, Jimmy. Personality like and dislikes are in the province of immediacy and cognitive processes; the far deeper-reaching catalysts of views is based on psychology, things such as rightful authoritarian roles, fear of the unknown, religious indoctrination....these are much more powerful motivators on the psyche than casual likes or dislikes. Like and dislikes can be changed rather simply; deep-seated core values are near impossible to change.

[helene_t]

My reasoning tells me one of two things: one, we are not in a global war on terror else these terrorists would be captured instead of escorted or two, this group has been misclassified by the U.S and they are not terrorists

then your reasoning is faulty... all i have to do to show the truth of my assertion is offer a 3rd possiblity, yes? three: we are in a war on global terrorism and the pursuit of that war involves strategies and tactics that i am incompetent to understand, much less pursue

To resolve the paradox you'd have to assume that someone in the U.S. military thinks that supporting a little bit of terrorism now may lead to less terrorism in the long run. That could theoretically be the case.

 

But I think one has to be rather naive to take this whole "war on terrorism" cliche that serious. At best, Bush and some other politicians actually believe that their mission in Iraq is to reduce terrorism against U.S. and close allies, which does not preclude using terrorism as a weapon against non-allies. Even that, I find very hard to believe. Bush may be delusioned, but hardly that delusioned.

[hrothgar]

then your reasoning is faulty... all i have to do to show the truth of my assertion is offer a 3rd possiblity, yes? three: we are in a war on global terrorism and the pursuit of that war involves strategies and tactics that i am incompetent to understand, much less pursue

Unfortunately, your third possibility strikes me as flawed.

 

The "global war of terror" is not going to be won by military force. To pull out a cliched example from Vietnam, we're fighting for hearts and minds. We are trying to demonstrate that the values of the Enlightment offer a more compelling world view and the best hope for a more positive future.

 

I would argue that this requires the application of strategies and tactics that are

 

1. Consistant with these values

2. Comprehensible to a wide audience

 

These means that you don't torture people in the name of "freedom". You don't lie about the casus belli because its politically convenient. And you don't sponsor domestic insurgency as a means of nation building.

 

If the US was simply trying to demonstrate that "Might makes Right" we could do whatever we damn well please. However, my impression was that we stood for something better than than.

[luke warm]

then your reasoning is faulty... all i have to do to show the truth of my assertion is offer a 3rd possiblity, yes? three: we are in a war on global terrorism and the pursuit of that war involves strategies and tactics that i am incompetent to understand, much less pursue

It sounds to me like you are saying there are areas of "gray" instead of simply black and white, that if there are "unknown" reasons it can be reasonable to utilize terrorists for the "greater good".

no winston, i've said it the best i know how - you offered two choices and only two as reasons for actions... i offered a third, just to show that your reasoning was faulty

The ends justify the means?

the end is to stop the war in the pacific... the means was to use atomic weapons... justifiable?

 

the end is to prevent the south from seceeding, were the means justifiable?

 

the end is to hasten germany's surrender.. the means was to utterly destroy certain cities and their populations.. justifiable?

 

the ends justify the means for different people in different ways, for you and for me... as a matter of philosophy, i can argue either way... my personal beliefs are often different from arguments i may form, but i've made that clear in the past

Any self-interest has to be put aside by a leader if that leader is truly a caretaker for all instead of a few.

i was speaking of self-interest as it applies to the country, not as it applies to bush

then your reasoning is faulty... all i have to do to show the truth of my assertion is offer a 3rd possiblity, yes? three: we are in a war on global terrorism and the pursuit of that war involves strategies and tactics that i am incompetent to understand, much less pursue

Unfortunately, your third possibility strikes me as flawed.

 

The "global war of terror" is not going to be won by military force.  To pull out a cliched example from Vietnam, we're fighting for hearts and minds.  We are trying to demonstrate that the values of the Enlightment offer a more compelling world view and the best hope for a more positive future.

whether or not it's won by force, or even won at all, has nothing to do with my argument

I would argue that this requires the application of strategies and tactics that are

 

1.  Consistant with these values

2.  Comprehensible to a wide audience

 

These means that you don't torture people in the name of "freedom".  You don't lie about the casus belli because its politically convenient.  And you don't sponsor domestic insurgency as a means of nation building.

while this might be true, it's not what we were talking about... i might even agree with you, but that agreement wouldn't mean that what i said earlier is incorrect

If the US was simply trying to demonstrate that "Might makes Right" we could do whatever we damn well please.  However, my impression was that we stood for something better than than.

that's my hope, but not necessarily my impression...

[Winstonm]

But I think one has to be rather naive to take this whole "war on terrorism" cliche that serious. At best, Bush and some other politicians actually believe that their mission in Iraq is to reduce terrorism against U.S. and close allies, which does not preclude using terrorism as a weapon against non-allies. Even that, I find very hard to believe. Bush may be delusioned, but hardly that delusioned.

 

It is difficult to understand this administration's motivations - last night in a speech Bush pulled out the "terrorst follow us home" theme again, and Cheney on Limbaugh's show repeated the "Saddam-al-Qaeda" conncection as gospel.

 

Yet this group is becoming more and more isolated, losing even now core supporters and the support of many within their party. It is almost as if they are reveling in their diminishing support as that will be that many more to disdain when they are ultimately proven right.

 

Nixon, at his lowest, had a choice - continue his Presidency with a coup or resign; fortunately, for all his flaws Nixon placed country above peronality.

 

With the evidence suggested by the defiance of current administration, I'm not so sure a similar outcome could be expected if a similar situation were to occur.

[Winstonm]

no winston, i've said it the best i know how - you offered two choices and only two as reasons for actions... i offered a third, just to show that your reasoning was faulty

 

 

My reasoning is based upon two known facts: A) The group is on the U.S. terror list. B) The U.S. military is aiding this group.

 

Your argument seems to be that there is a C) that cannot be known.

 

To me, this is like reasoning that if there were two crates, A) filled with apples and B) filled with oranges that the conclusion that if blindfolded you reached into A) and withdrew a fruit it would be an apple is a faulty conclusion based purely on speculation that there may be a crate C) with a mixture of both apples and oranges.

[hrothgar]

the end is to stop the war in the pacific... the means was to use atomic weapons... justifiable?

 

the end is to prevent the south from seceeding, were the means justifiable?

 

the end is to hasten germany's surrender.. the means was to utterly destroy certain cities and their populations.. justifiable?

Comment 1:

 

I don't believe that comparison's between the Second World War and the global war on terror are remotely comporable. During the Second World War, the western democracies were facing an extistential threat from other nation states. Germany, Japan, and Italy built up large armies which were actively used to attack other countries. More over, very large portions of the populace of these countries were unifed behind this military expansion.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I believe that the primary challenge that we're faced with at the moment is to promote our way of life. We aren't faced with any credible military threat. We do face some profound security issues, but I don't believe that these can be dealt with by force.

 

BTW Jimmy. I'm sure that you've heard the old saying "The beating will continue until morale improves".

 

This is intendeded as a joke. Its mocking something that doesn't work. Its not a viable philosophy towards governing.

 

Comment 2:

 

Moving on to your specific questions

 

A. I believe that the use of atomic weapons versus Japan was justified. While these attacks were horrific, I believe that (ultimately) they saved many more lives than they attacks cost. Moreover, the atomic attacks brought the war to a much quick conclusion and saved hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people from a slow death by starvation. Finally, I believe that the Japanese response to the atomic attacks could be predicted with a responsible degree of accuracy. Truman was able to guess correctly that the attacks would break the back of the Japanese will to resist.

 

B. It may surprise some people, but I'm far from certain that the US was justified in preventing the South from seceeding. Modern day propaganda aside, I don't believe that Lincoln was concerned about slavery. His goal was the preservation of the United States of America and he was willing to permit the South to keep their "peculiar institution" if it meant preserving the Union.

 

From my own perspective, I think that one of the most valuable lessons of the Civil War is financial. At the start of the Civil War, the plantation economy used in the old South had become unprofitable. However, the South had enormous amounts of capital tied up in breeding stock. (I recently saw estimates that the amount of capital locked up in Slaves exceeded the value of the vaunted Northern rail system) Emanicipating the slaves without any comprensation would have bankrupted this society. I think that a financial compensation scheme would have gone an awful long way towards eliminating the root cause of the conflict. It might have seemed painful at the time, however, it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper than what eventually happened.

 

C. There is still enormous debate about whether Allied strategic bombing campaigns against Germany were justified. In general, the Allies claimed that the bombing campaigns were strategic in nature. Bombing attacks were launched against military targets, however, targetting was very imprecise and there was enormous amounts of collateral damage. There are some exceptions (Dresden is the obvious example). My impression is that most people differentiated between the bombing raids directed against rail centers the Koln and Hamburg and the Dresden firebombings.

[Winstonm]

I probably over-generlized by utilizing the phrase "the ends justifies the means", as your examples point out that a case-by-case examination can alter the perception of justifiable.

 

Some points of contention among your examples and current thread debate:

 

The U.S. did not support an outlaw third party to drop the bombs on Japan.

The North did not support an outlaw third party to war with the South.

The U.S. did not support an outlaw third party to bomb German cities.

 

Maybe a better perspective is to ask: at what point do the ends no longer support the means?

[luke warm]

My reasoning is based upon two known facts: 1) The group is on the U.S. terror list.  2) The U.S. military is aiding this group.

ok, i'll try to do this one more time... here is the original quote from your post

My reasoning tells me one of two things: one, we are not in a global war on terror else these terrorists would be captured instead of escorted or two, this group has been misclassified by the U.S and they are not terrorists

i read that as you saying that you have reached conclusions based on your reasoning, to wit:

we are not in a global war on terror; or

this group has been misclassified by the U.S and they are not terrorists

 

those are the conclusions to which your reasoning led, correct? and now you say you based those conclusions on two premises:

1) The group is on the U.S. terror list

2) The U.S. military is aiding this group

 

all i have tried to show is that, logically, you have offered a false dilemma... i showed that by offering a third option which can be true, "we are in a war on global terrorism and the pursuit of that war involves strategies and tactics that i am incompetent to understand, much less pursue"

 

in addition, your argument begs the question and also seems to confuse cause and effect

Your argument seems to be that there is a 3) that cannot be known. To me, this is like reasoning that if there were two crates, 1) filled with apples and 2) filled with oranges that the conclusion that if blindfolded you reached into A) and withdrew a fruit it would be an apple is a faulty conclusion based purely on speculation that there may be a crate 3) with a mixture of both apples and oranges.

sorry winston, your analogy compares (forgive me) apples and oranges... in your analogy, the crate of apples and the crate of oranges both exist, no other crates exsist, as a prerequisite... in the question we're discussing, you have not and probably can not prove that only those two "crates" (1. we are not in a global war on terror or 2. this group has been misclassified by the U.S and they are not terrorists) are the only two (the false dilemma)

I don't believe that comparison's between the Second World War and the global war on terror are remotely comporable.

i never even attempted to compare them... the discussion concerned ends and means... aside from that, the rest of your post seems to affirm what i said - that "the ends justify the means for different people in different ways"

The U.S. did not support an outlaw third party to drop the bombs on Japan.

The North did not support an outlaw third party to war with the South.

The U.S. did not support an outlaw third party to bomb German cities

and if they had that would prove what, exactly? again winston, you are begging the very question

Maybe a better perspective is to ask: at what point do the ends no longer support the means?

i will give my personal view, not the view i'd hold as an elected official - the ends never justify the means

But I think one has to be rather naive to take this whole "war on terrorism" cliche that serious. At best, Bush and some other politicians actually believe that their mission in Iraq is to reduce terrorism against U.S. and close allies, which does not preclude using terrorism as a weapon against non-allies. Even that, I find very hard to believe. Bush may be delusioned, but hardly that delusioned.

yes, even if hard to believe it is still an option, and that's all i was saying

[Winstonm]

sorry winston, your analogy compares (forgive me) apples and oranges... in your analogy, the crate of apples and the crate of oranges both exist, no other crates exsist, as a prerequisite... in the question we're discussing, you have not and probably can not prove that only those two "crates" (1. we are not in a global war on terror or 2. this group has been misclassified by the U.S and they are not terrorists) are the only two (the false dilemma

 

Of course, Jimmy, but we only know of two facts: A) Terrorist group B) Supported.

"Based on the two known facts" is my assertion - that there might be another unknown fact is possible, but isn't it also possible that there are no other facts to be known? Also, does not reasoning change based on available information?

 

My current reasoning based on current information is as shown - but this reasoning can be adjusted when and if further facts come to light. Is that unreasonable?

 

and if they had that would prove what, exactly? again winston, you are begging the very question

 

It proves nothing other than the situations when the U.S. acted directly cannot be compared to times the U.S. acts through surrogates - apples and oranges IMO.

[luke warm]

My current reasoning based on current information is as shown - but this reasoning can be adjusted when and if further facts come to light. Is that unreasonable?

no it's not unreasonable, it just can't be used to support your conclusions... that doesn't mean you're wrong, you understand