Premier Rock Forum

galanter wrote:

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.

I actually do understand your point. The underlying theme I am talking about here is that the difference between your two perspectives doesn't matter in the least. What Bush and Co. believe or don't believe isn't important at all. Not in the least. The results of their actions are what matters. Please explain how 'intent' matters in the context of the actual actions taken to support their public intentions... This is a difficult task indeed. And, I would argue that the results of their actions are the actual goal, as opposed to all the chaff about 'democracy' and 'values' and 'security'. These people are much too smart to use the methods they do to pursue the goals they typically provide to the public. Everyone, including my cats, understands on some fundamental level that using aggression to quell aggression usually makes a bad situation worse, unless you are planning to end the aggression by destroying both sides almost completely. Everyone also knows the difference between a defensive posture and active aggression.

I do understand your point. In this case it is irrelevent.

galanter wrote:Vockins, I'd say that at most you could argue that missiles in Cuba shouldn't have been viewed as destabilizing. They obviously were in a functional sense. The situation became much less stable. If you want to argue some 45 years later that the whole thing was, as usual, all the US's fault so be it. The USSR is dead, and communist Cuba will follow as soon as they run out of countries willing to prop them up.

That the USSR putting nuclear missiles in Cuba was destabilizing and aggressive may be one of those things that is obvious to some, and obviously false to others.

Here are four indisputable facts about the Cuban Missile Crisis:

1. The United States was the first to construct nuclear launch sites in foreign countries that were capable of destroying every major city in the western USSR. Which, for all intents and purposes, might as well be the whole country. There were sites in the UK, Turkey, and one other place I can't recall that were constructed before the Cuban Missile Crisis. The United States had deployed more warheads to other countries before the Cuban Missile Crisis than the Soviets even had in their entire arsenal.

2. The United States had over 300 ICBMs at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviet Union had no more than ten.

3. The United States had a fleet of Polaris equipped nuclear powered submarines that could fire submerged up to 150 meters. The USSR had subs with lousy range that could only fire V1esque missiles at the surface that had a notoriously high failure rate.

4. The primary reason everyone went batshit in the Kennedy Administration was because they were too fucking retarded to consider orienting any launch detection systems at Cuba. That probably would have been a good idea on, oh, I don't know, January 2nd, 1959.

Considering the Soviets were not the first to deploy weapons, and considering that their arsenal was dwarfed by the United States, and that mutually assured destruction was a pipe dream for the Soviets in October of 1962, I'd say you're wrong, again.

galanter wrote:Individual countries still have to protect themselves. And of all countries on the planet Israel is going to be one of the last to depend on others for defense. After the Holocaust who can blame them for DIY defense?

Maybe we can not blame them for DIY defence, but what about all the DIY attack they seem to like so much?

galanter wrote:Lars, it's not surprising that attitudes changed after 9/11. It's not that Saddam's boys flew the planes. They didn't. But the general lesson was that previous reactive approaches to terrorism were inadequate.

Ignoring that Iraqi people are probably dying at a faster rate than before the invasion, do you really, really believe you are safer and better off because America invaded a country with no links to 9/11? And can you really believe it was even about terrorism when the excuse given appeared to be about WMD's? America has created more problems for itself and the rest of the world thanks to the invasion, and does itself little favours regarding credibility when the 'target' is always moving. Get Saddam out (because he's got WMD's) or...get him out (because he is evil!) or get him out...(because he might try and attack America!)

lars wrote:

galanter wrote:But it's not surprising that attitudes changed after 9/11. They had to.

Just to be absolutely clear:

You think the Bush administration believed Saddam possessed large stockpiles of readily deployable bio/chemical/nuclear WMD in early 2001, but they didn't think it was necessary to say or do anything about it until they had a collective attitude adjustment after 9/11.

Doesn't it seem much more likely that the attitude change you mention prompted them to remove Saddam at all costs -- whether he had WMD or not?

The idea that Bush had a change of heart after 9/11 and decided, "You know, we better do something about those WMD" is complete revisionism. I believe his actual line was "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."

I'm sorry if it seems like we're all ganging up on you here.

My apologies for leading this thread astray.

On the contrary. I think you've pinpointed the reason why this poll is so lopsided.

Lars and tremendous, this is all largely a repeat of various threads that have gone on for a couple or more months now. I can't give this the time it requires to reiterate what is a complicated position. Sorry about that.

I'll just summarize by saying that the decision to take out Saddam is justifiable in *my* mind due to a number of motivations that, taken individually, might not justify military action. These included the threat of WMD development/use/distribution, a history of attacking 3 neighboring countries, funding Hammas suicide bombers, using chemical weapons against his own people and others, daily attacks on aircraft enforcing the no fly zones protecting those in the north and the south who had already been the victims of mass slaughter, and ultimately being responsible for the deaths of more Moslems than anyone in the history of the world...estimates hover around 1 million.

For reasons of international law the UN debates centered on the WMD question, and that became highlighted in the days before the war. But all of these wrongs were in the air as well. After 9/11 it became clear that waiting for the next atrocity was not good enough anymore, and it was time to remove Saddam from the scene and give the Iraqis a chance to democratically sort themselves out.

For every suicide bomber in Iraq there are 1000's of people who believed enough in democracy to vote. Ultimately it is for the Iraqi people to decide whether the hopes of the many will again be crushed by the cynical greed of the few. But at least they now have a chance. Under Saddam there was no hope of a chance.

rayj wrote:

galanter wrote:

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.

I actually do understand your point. The underlying theme I am talking about here is that the difference between your two perspectives doesn't matter in the least. What Bush and Co. believe or don't believe isn't important at all. Not in the least. The results of their actions are what matters. Please explain how 'intent' matters in the context of the actual actions taken to support their public intentions... This is a difficult task indeed. And, I would argue that the results of their actions are the actual goal, as opposed to all the chaff about 'democracy' and 'values' and 'security'. These people are much too smart to use the methods they do to pursue the goals they typically provide to the public. Everyone, including my cats, understands on some fundamental level that using aggression to quell aggression usually makes a bad situation worse, unless you are planning to end the aggression by destroying both sides almost completely. Everyone also knows the difference between a defensive posture and active aggression.

I do understand your point. In this case it is irrelevent.

If you would keep your eye on the ball (i.e. the topic) you would see why it matters.

To return to the topic at hand...

I was noting that people keep saying things like "the government is banning liquids on flights to keep us in a state of fear so they can control us".

Such statements are statements about intent. As in the government intends to control us by making us afraid. And I disagree that this is the intent.

It matters because the attribution of such an intent paints a picture of a government of 1984 (the book) proportions. And it's a false picture that leads to gross exaggerations of the US as a fascist state and so on.

If you want to make the case that the government is spreading fears to maintain control by referencing threats that they *know* are *false*...that they do this not because they believe the threats are real, but rather because it's a form of mind control by telling lies...that's fine. You just have to show some evidence.

vockins wrote:

galanter wrote:Vockins, I'd say that at most you could argue that missiles in Cuba shouldn't have been viewed as destabilizing. They obviously were in a functional sense. The situation became much less stable. If you want to argue some 45 years later that the whole thing was, as usual, all the US's fault so be it. The USSR is dead, and communist Cuba will follow as soon as they run out of countries willing to prop them up.

That the USSR putting nuclear missiles in Cuba was destabilizing and aggressive may be one of those things that is obvious to some, and obviously false to others.

Here are four indisputable facts about the Cuban Missile Crisis:

1. The United States was the first to construct nuclear launch sites in foreign countries that were capable of destroying every major city in the western USSR. Which, for all intents and purposes, might as well be the whole country. There were sites in the UK, Turkey, and one other place I can't recall that were constructed before the Cuban Missile Crisis. The United States had deployed more warheads to other countries before the Cuban Missile Crisis than the Soviets even had in their entire arsenal.

2. The United States had over 300 ICBMs at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviet Union had no more than ten.

3. The United States had a fleet of Polaris equipped nuclear powered submarines that could fire submerged up to 150 meters. The USSR had subs with lousy range that could only fire V1esque missiles at the surface that had a notoriously high failure rate.

4. The primary reason everyone went batshit in the Kennedy Administration was because they were too fucking retarded to consider orienting any launch detection systems at Cuba. That probably would have been a good idea on, oh, I don't know, January 2nd, 1959.

Considering the Soviets were not the first to deploy weapons, and considering that their arsenal was dwarfed by the United States, and that mutually assured destruction was a pipe dream for the Soviets in October of 1962, I'd say you're wrong, again.

But isn't this largely based on what we know now, decades later, rather than what was known then?

galanter wrote:Lars, this is all largely a repeat of various threads that have gone on for a couple or more months now. I can't give this the time it requires to reiterate what is a complicated position. Sorry about that.

I've read the threads. I can't help but notice that the "I've said this before, I don't have time to get into it" line is your preferred tactic for not answering a direct question. That's okay.

I'll just summarize by saying that the decision to take out Saddam is justifiable in *my* mind due to a number of motivations that, taken individually, might not justify military action.

I get it. I acknowledge this. They had a variety of justifications for ousting Saddam. Some were based on verifiable events (gassing the Kurds). Some were based on hearsay from unreliable sources (mobile weapons labs). Others were cobbled-together bullshit produced by the White House exerting intense pressure on the intelligence community.

The intent was to oust Saddam, weapons or no. To create public support for this goal, they focused on WMD. They could have focused on other aspects -- liberating Iraqis, or spreading democracy, for example -- but they didn't. They focused on creating widespread fear that Saddam had bio/chemical/nuclear weapons and that he was a "grave and imminent threat" to our safety.

This is a perfect example of what you defined as (B) -- a dishonest campaign designed to scare the public into submission. It in no way resembles (A) -- an honest campaign to generate support for removing WMD that the administration was absolutely certain were there.

This administration consistently uses fear-based talking points to generate support for its agenda. EA posters are more than justified in accusing the administration of (B) all the time, about any issue.

galanter wrote:

vockins wrote:

galanter wrote:Vockins, I'd say that at most you could argue that missiles in Cuba shouldn't have been viewed as destabilizing. They obviously were in a functional sense. The situation became much less stable. If you want to argue some 45 years later that the whole thing was, as usual, all the US's fault so be it. The USSR is dead, and communist Cuba will follow as soon as they run out of countries willing to prop them up.

That the USSR putting nuclear missiles in Cuba was destabilizing and aggressive may be one of those things that is obvious to some, and obviously false to others.

Here are four indisputable facts about the Cuban Missile Crisis:

1. The United States was the first to construct nuclear launch sites in foreign countries that were capable of destroying every major city in the western USSR. Which, for all intents and purposes, might as well be the whole country. There were sites in the UK, Turkey, and one other place I can't recall that were constructed before the Cuban Missile Crisis. The United States had deployed more warheads to other countries before the Cuban Missile Crisis than the Soviets even had in their entire arsenal.

2. The United States had over 300 ICBMs at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviet Union had no more than ten.

3. The United States had a fleet of Polaris equipped nuclear powered submarines that could fire submerged up to 150 meters. The USSR had subs with lousy range that could only fire V1esque missiles at the surface that had a notoriously high failure rate.

4. The primary reason everyone went batshit in the Kennedy Administration was because they were too fucking retarded to consider orienting any launch detection systems at Cuba. That probably would have been a good idea on, oh, I don't know, January 2nd, 1959.

Considering the Soviets were not the first to deploy weapons, and considering that their arsenal was dwarfed by the United States, and that mutually assured destruction was a pipe dream for the Soviets in October of 1962, I'd say you're wrong, again.

But isn't this largely based on what we know now, decades later, rather than what was known then?

Certainly the Kennedy Administration in 1962 was absolutely aware of our advantage in points 1, 2, and 3. Public records abound that prove their knowledge. Certainly the general public was aware that there were missile sites in Turkey after Khrushchev made his complaint. Whether or not they believed him is practically irrelevant.

It also important to recall that a U.S. trained and supported army had invaded at the Bay of Pigs the year before, the US had escalated its nuclear weapons testing programs, and multiple attempts had been made on Castro's life.

I can't confirm or deny it, but I wouldn't doubt it in the least if the United States, not the Soviets, were the first to bring nuclear devices to Cuba.

The most reckless aspect of the Cuban Missile Crisis is that the Turkish missile sites were completely redundant because of the capability of the Polaris equipped subs in the Mediterranean. The missile sites in Turkey had no benefits at all.

lars wrote:

galanter wrote:Lars, this is all largely a repeat of various threads that have gone on for a couple or more months now. I can't give this the time it requires to reiterate what is a complicated position. Sorry about that.

I've read the threads. I can't help but notice that the "I've said this before, I don't have time to get into it" line is your preferred tactic for not answering a direct question. That's okay.

I'll just summarize by saying that the decision to take out Saddam is justifiable in *my* mind due to a number of motivations that, taken individually, might not justify military action.

I get it. I acknowledge this. They had a variety of justifications for ousting Saddam. Some were based on verifiable events (gassing the Kurds). Some were based on hearsay from unreliable sources (mobile weapons labs). Others were cobbled-together bullshit produced by the White House exerting intense pressure on the intelligence community.

The intent was to oust Saddam, weapons or no. To create public support for this goal, they focused on WMD. They could have focused on other aspects -- liberating Iraqis, or spreading democracy, for example -- but they didn't. They focused on creating widespread fear that Saddam had bio/chemical/nuclear weapons and that he was a "grave and imminent threat" to our safety.

This is a perfect example of what you defined as (B) -- a dishonest campaign designed to scare the public into submission. It in no way resembles (A) -- an honest campaign to generate support for removing WMD that the administration was absolutely certain were there.

This administration consistently uses fear-based talking points to generate support for its agenda. EA posters are more than justified in accusing the administration of (B) all the time, about any issue.

You are contorting what I said. For example, your restatement above includes the phrase "that the administration was absolutely certain were there". I never said that.

This is a simple notion. Either the administration believes what they say or they don't. Some feel the administration doesn't believe what they say, and they knowingly tell lies to scare the populace. i.e. "They are just banning liquids from airplanes to scare us". Others feel the administration actually believes what they say.

I'm pointing out that there is a difference between saying:

"The administration is trying to manipulate us with fear by banning liquids on airplanes when they know such a move is unnesessary"

and

"The administration is being ineffective by banning liquids on airplanes. They think such a move will improve safety, but they are mistaken".

In the case of WMD's I think those in the administration viewed it as being probable enough that erring on the side of caution called for ousting Saddam.

I don't think they didn't believe the arguments they were putting forth. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether their interpretation was reasonable, but I do think the interpretation they put forward was done in good faith.

Vockins,

Well that's why the US bartered away (secretly) the Turkish sites, right?

But I may be learning something here, which is good. I'll have to look into this more, but I have the strong impression that the US at the time had a sincere (but mistaken) overestimation of the USSR's nuclear capability.

Also, if (3) is true and the USSR subs were bad platforms for launching nuclear missiles, then wouldn't that mean that land based missiles in Cuba were indeed a significant improvement for the USSR in terms of close placement? And thus destabilizing?

But I'd agree, obviously, that there was US aggression towards Cuba, just as Cuba sponsored revolutionary movements elsewhere. It was more than a cold war. A sort of lukewarm war I guess.

And getting back to the original point, don't you think that during the Cuban Missile Crisis that things got very close to a nuclear exchange? That was my main point, although I did try to say it wasn't entirely our fault. I guess I should alter that and say it was half our fault.