galanter wrote:"Our fault"? What the hell are you talking about?

We used nuclear bombs first, on civilian populations. Remember that one?

Lazybones wrote:

galanter wrote:"Our fault"? What the hell are you talking about?

We used nuclear bombs first, on civilian populations. Remember that one?

That has nothing to do with Cuba being given nuclear weapons by the USSR.

That move was very destabilizing in the context of the paradigm of that time...mutually assured destruction. The short and low fly time meant that in case of an apparent attack the time to decide on a counter-strike was reduced to almost zero.

Do you honestly think that Cuba would have launched nukes against the US? Honestly?

rayj wrote:Urgh. OK, since the idea of the government, say, using PR to support the need for wildly unpopular invasions can be a difficult concept to grasp, I'll post a more domestic example to illustrate.

I understand PR. You are missing my point entirely.

In the form of an example...

There is a difference between (A) someone who *actually believes* that Iraq has WMDs, and then designs a PR campaign to sell that idea in order to get support to do something about it and (B) someone who *doesn't believe* that Iraq has WMD's, but dishonestly designs a PR campaign in a cynical attempt to scare the public into submission.

I hear accusations like (B) with some frequency here. I think most cases if not all are more like (A).

It's one thing to say you disagree with someone. It's quite another to say that you not only disagree with what they say, but to accuse them of not even believing what they say themselves, and that they are knowingly telling lies to manipulate the mood and morale of the country.

For example, in the case of WMDs in Iraq I think the administration definitely had a PR campaign to convince people of their case, and they presented the facts they had in a way to make as convincing case as possible. But I also think that, bottom line, they sincerely believed that WMD's in Iraq were a real threat...not a lie they could tell to make people afraid.

I know of no evidence that Bush & Co. didn't believe what they were saying. And intent matters.

rayj wrote:Do you honestly think that Cuba would have launched nukes against the US? Honestly?

My understanding is that at the time Cuba was prepared to use *tactical* nuclear weapons, likely against ships, if attacked by the US. Such first use could have easily cascaded into a broader nuclear exchange. I'm pretty sure this is a matter of public historical record now.

galanter wrote:I know of no evidence that Bush & Co. didn't believe what they were saying. And intent matters.

So they're guilty of incompetence and not deception?

galanter wrote:That move was very destabilizing in the context of the paradigm of that time...mutually assured destruction. The short and low fly time meant that in case of an apparent attack the time to decide on a counter-strike was reduced to almost zero.

The United States had cruise missle equipped submarines in 1959 and IRBMs throughout Europe well before the USSR attempted to construct the launch site in Cuba.

DrAwkward wrote:

galanter wrote:I know of no evidence that Bush & Co. didn't believe what they were saying. And intent matters.

So they're guilty of incompetence and not deception?

I think the former is much more likely than the latter, but I'm not sure the case for the former can be made either.

After all, we now know that Saddam lied when he said all the WMDs were destroyed because 100's have been found. They were found in a degraded state, but nevertheless they were hidden and not destroyed. Further we now know the UN was clueless in finding them. And we also know Saddam fully intended to reconstruct his chemical weapon capability, and development programs for bio and nuclear weapons.

Finally, those 17-some resolutions show that the US wasn't alone in suspecting Iraq was up to no good WMD-wise. The only difference between the US coalition and the others was that the coalition was willing to put force behind their beliefs, and France and Germany and others were not.

It wasn't a difference of opinion about the reality of the WMD problem, and so if that's incompetence, it's a widely shared incompetence.

vockins wrote:

galanter wrote:That move was very destabilizing in the context of the paradigm of that time...mutually assured destruction. The short and low fly time meant that in case of an apparent attack the time to decide on a counter-strike was reduced to almost zero.

The United States had cruise missle equipped submarines in 1959 and IRBMs throughout Europe well before the USSR attempted to construct the launch site in Cuba.

That might, in your mind, justify the USSR's actions. It doesn't make it any less destabilizing.

(Are you sure about the cruise missle part? I don't think the advanced navigation systems required go back that far. I'm pretty sure they were regular missles)

galanter wrote:After all, we now know that Saddam lied when he said all the WMDs were destroyed because 100's have been found. They were found in a degraded state, but nevertheless they were hidden and not destroyed.

Dude, come on. That's like me shooting someone dead in the street with a handgun, and then justifying it by saying that the other guy had a bazooka, and then, when the authorities find a slingshot in the dude's pocket, me saying "see? He had a weapon!"