[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]

Winstonm, on Apr 6 2007, 08:21 AM, said:

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]

luke warm, on Apr 6 2007, 03:21 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 6 2007, 08:21 AM, said:

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:

Quote

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!

Quote

"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"

Quote

"(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]

Quote

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]

Winstonm, on Apr 6 2007, 06:55 PM, said:

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

Quote

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]

Quote

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?

Quote

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]

Quote

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]

helene_t, on Apr 7 2007, 07:49 AM, said:

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

winston said:

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

Quote

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?

Quote

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

Quote

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]

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

luke warm, on Apr 7 2007, 04:10 PM, said:

Quote

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]

luke warm, on Apr 7 2007, 05:10 PM, said:

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]

Winstonm, on Apr 7 2007, 09:46 AM, said:

Quote

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

Quote

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

Quote

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

luke warm, on Apr 7 2007, 05:10 PM, said:

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

hrothgar said:

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

Quote

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

Quote

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]

Quote

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]

Quote

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.