No end in sight

[Macabee]

[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]@ Al : Yes, in 1941 the U.S. military was woefully underequipped. The Depression wrought havoc on the economy and military spending plunged throughout the 1930s. It was so bad that American troops did not even have guns to train with in 1940-1941; they used cardboard cutouts and sticks. That all changed after Pearl Harbor, of course.[/quote]

I've concluded that The US was not quite so ill prepared, particularly if preparedness is measured as a relative thing. This as an American equivalent of the "stab in the back theory" used by American militarists to hoist blame away from themselves.

The US employed War Plan Orange pretty much as planned in the Pacific. The US navy defeated the Japanese at Midway with equipment produced before the war started. In addition to the embargo, a reason Japan attacked the US was that the US was building capital ships at twice rate of the Japanese, Japan was already maxed out. The clock was ticking and time was running out.

Mac

[IndyBrit]

@Macabee:
My point about which topic of yours I was debating was this:

1) I noted that you utilized the same faulty decision engine that Bush uses (i.e. you ignore data supporting what Bush says and emphasize data supporting the idea that he lies)

2) Therefore, you are guilty of the same behavior that he is clearly responsible for (i.e. he ignored data counter to Iraq having weapons and complying with the resolutions, and emphasized data supporting the idea that Saddam had weapons and complied to some extent) and that you emphatically criticize him about.

Your response to the above was that your predictions about Iraq WMDs were better than Bush's. That point is irrelevant to our discussion, because you can see in (1) above that that prediction of yours was not the point of comparison I was making between you and Bush. I.e. you were shifting the topic of discussion. Here is the logical description of our discussion:

Indy: Bush exhibited behavior A, and therefore made a questionable decison about B. Mac exhibited behavior A, and therefore made a questionable decision about C.
Mac: My decision about B is better than Bush's was, so in your strange world Bush is better than me.

Of course I said nothing of the sort. Your prediction on B is admirable, but irrelevant.

[jonesk]

As I mentioned before, your evidence relies on the assumption that when Bush said "he wouldn't let inspectors in" he really meant "he fiddled around on a few weapons sites before the inspectors arrived".

I have no reason to believe that this assumption is correct, so I have no reason to consider any evidence based on it.

[Macabee]

[quote=""IndyBrit""]@Macabee:
My point about which topic of yours I was debating was this:

1) I noted that you utilized the same faulty decision engine that Bush uses (i.e. you ignore data supporting what Bush says and emphasize data supporting the idea that he lies)

2) Therefore, you are guilty of the same behavior that he is clearly responsible for (i.e. he ignored data counter to Iraq having weapons and complying with the resolutions, and emphasized data supporting the idea that Saddam had weapons and complied to some extent) and that you emphatically criticize him about.[/quote]

You seem to be misrepresenting what I've said. If you go back and check, you will see that I said that questions regarding wmd in Iraq were legitimate. I'm typing slowly here ... that means that questioning and investigating was ok with me. There was a lot of information contradicting elements of the Iraq wmd argument as well. A lot of this information was floating about, so that a lot of people knew about it. Having inspectors in Iraq was one way to gather information (shocking I know) on the ground.

Bush stopped efforts to gather this information. I'm ok with information gathering. Somehow though, you equate Bush's rejection of fully gathering hard evidence/information/data, with my advocacy of it. Gathering information/proof is not the same thing as not gathering information/proof. How are these the same "engine"?

Bush and others in his admin talked about "knowing" what Saddam Hussein had. Leading up to the invasion I said that I had doubts and questions and wanted answers (though I did lean toward him not having them given the progress of the inspections and other information widely available). But you say that makes me just like Bush! That's absurd.

Bush and people around him have mentioned on several occasions that Bush is an intuitive decision maker. This seems to be true. On the Myers-Briggs (for example) that makes him like my complete opposite! And yet you insist I'm "guilty of the same behavior" or that I "utilized the same faulty decision engine that Bush uses". Simply not true.

A central problem to how Bush got the US into Iraq is the so called "Bush Doctrine". Though preemptive attacks are generally considered a valid form of self defense by the UN charter (like when an attack against you is imminent), the "Bush Doctrine" is a much more aggressive and reckless stance that should be rejected because it asserts that if one day a president thinks a potential adversary may pose a threat though none exists yet, the US will attack. That's a pretty dangerous doctrine for the US, even as strong as it is. I think the neo-conservatives believed that attacking Iraq would shock and awe our potential adversaries, but instead they watched the US get bogged down.

Mac

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

[quote=""jonesk""]As I mentioned before, your evidence relies on the assumption that when Bush said "he wouldn't let inspectors in" he really meant "he fiddled around on a few weapons sites before the inspectors arrived".

I have no reason to believe that this assumption is correct, so I have no reason to consider any evidence based on it.[/quote]

Spoken like a true trial judge

[IndyBrit]

There was a lot of evidence contradicting the notion that Bush "lied," but you feel free to ignore that. I've enjoyed the discussion, but I've think we've wrung all the juice out of this orange.

Cheers