Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to "I have answered this specifically on several occasions" Yeah, I nailed you on it too.

Your criticisms of this position slice both ways
D — (archived)

"For example, what would you accept as "irrefutable" CIA intelligence on ANYTHING? For that matter, how the hell could any intelligence information be defined as "irrefutable"

Umm, lets see... Stuff that you CANT derive a Mac Truck through from day one? (Like many of the various and sudry claims of the Admin)

"Even now, a lot of things are still fuzzy about Iraq."

Hehehehe! So thats what you call it! Fuzzy! LOL!

"You see, you can toss words in like "unequivocable" and "irrefutable," but it's hard to nail things down this tight in the real world."

No, its not. I can't define every scenario of unequivocable or irrefutable ahead of time. You want bedtime stories? Okay: heres one-

Suppose we catch agents of a foreign government suspected of dealing with terrorists purchasing a nuclear weapon- suppose we also raid a terrorist traing camp in said country and find manuals for detonating that bomb as well as maps of New York and casualty estimates for various points of detonation. Thats irrefutable. Send in the boys in camo.

Suppose we locate a lab inside some country and trace shipments of huge amounts of growth medium and supplies consistent with biowarfare. Suppose UAVs pick up traces of BioAgent. Suppose further that we have infiltrated their intelligence service, and locate document detailing the time table of and strategy for a Ricin/anthrax/retrovirus attack on a US city. Invade the idiots. No problem

Suppose we trace back the masterminds of a massive terorist attack to some third world despotic pseudo-ally. Suppose that country refuses to surrender those masterminds, and further we know they are collaborating (by the admission of ALL parties!). Sound familiar?

Stuff that is HOTLY contested from day one by numerous sources accross the planet is hardly irrefutable, Tom. And indeed! Look how much of that intelligence has turned out to be true?? Eh?

and here is where it cuts both ways: So what exactly do YOU define as just cause for war, and HOW ON EARTH do you get around my point that, as it stands, your bar is nothing better than a "because I say so". That, even if this president didn't , all the next president has to do is lean on the intel sources a little hard, maybe do an end-run through the pentegon (cough cough), maybe fudge a little on whats known to be true, be a little selective on sources and PRESTO! Were at war. And what if the next President does exactly that for a reason you don't endorse?

You have to define this Bar- if your crticism is that its too high, you just can't remove it... You HAVE to answer the type of question you always ask of robert and me: if not this, then what? what SHOULD we do?

Afterall, your the one who called for and endorsed war...

Davin L.

Davin L.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (91 posts)