Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
Well you did make the claim that he failed to address a single point. Should I start keeping score?
Pangur 1, Commodore 0?
If you are debating intervention in Syria ...
- Thread starter Pangur Bán
- Start date
Pangur 1, Commodore 0?
Too bad the US wastes $52 billion a year on intelligence programs. They don't even use any of their spies, missions, or information! They'll just say intelligence is whatever they want it to be. Maybe we can make a case in congress to reduce the intelligence spending then?
No one is saying the US don't have or use intelligence assets. What is in question is the honesty of the US administration about what those assets are telling them. Can you honestly state that you trust the US government to tell the truth regarding the collection of intelligence, foreign or domestic?
Also, please stop with the strawmen. It's pathetic, not to mention transparent.
When it's put in public like they did, yes.
So we all agree then that there's no doubt that US intelligence is rock-solid? If they've got intelligence that the Asaad regime used chemical weapons, then they're correct*? So then, the intelligence report is either pure rock-solid truth, or pure fabricated lies, yes?
So then, we have to assess the likelihood that the US would fabricate pure lies to serve its agenda. And then blast them out in the open to the international community, at the risk of being find out. There's no need to assess the risk that the intelligence may be too shoddy.
* - Either correct or pure lies
I'm done with this debate. It is impossible to argue with a person who has made up their mind before the evidence is presented and who refuses to acknowledge arguments to the contrary, especially when that person resorts to strawmen and false dichotomies immediately after being called out for using such debating tactics previously. Enjoy the ignore list.
I thought I was outlining the basis of my argument?
The US has a strong intelligence network. Therefore, it can definitely obtain the intelligence it claims to have gotten. The only question is whether it actually does have the intelligence, or whether it's lying.
Others have made claims that the intel is too inaccurate or too shoddy. I apologize if I made it seem like you were one of them if you in fact weren't. The intel cannot be too inaccurate or too shoddy, since the US has claimed it to be strong. So either the US is lying, or the intel is indeed accurate.
I just saved us and anyone else from debating how accurate the intel is, and wasting our time on that. This was achieved to prevent misunderstandings, where one person is arguing for one thing, while another person is arguing another. Something that happens often when there are differing reasons for supporting or opposing an issue.
Thus we break down our discussion into this: is the US lying, or not? And now we don't need to waste time discussing how accurate or valid the intel is. Please feel free to disagree with any of my analysis.
One potential part you could disagree with (and I was kind of anticipating to be honest) is that the US might actually have shoddy intel, but still claim it to be strong. Then the argument still boils down to whether the US is lying. There is a distinct difference between 1. "We have reason to believe Asaad used sarin gas" and 2. "We know for sure Asaad used sarin gas - here's the declassified intelligence report".
Under 1, if the population doesn't call "bull****", then the government can always fall back and say "turns out the intelligence didn't build enough of a case". But under 2, it does build a strong case for the world to see; the government cannot fall back, since the only way #2 works is if the government put blatant lies out.
Perhaps the US government is indeed capable of making some blatant lies to suit its agenda. But for us to discuss the issue, we have to be on the same page on what we're actually discussing. The discussion is not "the intelligence might be poor". The discussion is "the US might be lying".
I am of the opinion that, before they released the declassified intelligence reports, the government very well could have been lying, since they could "fall back" similar to the Iraq fiasco. I called bull**** on Kerry's speech immediately. But now to release the intelligence to the world; that's a ballsy move that I think would pose too great a risk to be fabricated. And since I've already boiled down the issue to "either the US is lying or the intelligence is accurate" based on my previous analysis, I can now conclude that Asaad did indeed use chemical weapons.
Any part of my analysis that is flawed? Feel free to point it out. That's an honest invitation, not a goading.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
For those who believe the chemical-weapons-use-dangerous-precedent-that-should-be punished line currently fed to the media by the US et al, the story of how the US knowingly helped Saddam gas Iranians might be worth reading:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran (report)
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/26/320538/cia-involved-in-iraq-gas-attack-on-iran/ (summary)
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articl...prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran (report)
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/26/320538/cia-involved-in-iraq-gas-attack-on-iran/ (summary)
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
"You would make a ship sail against the winds and currents by lighting a bonfire under her decks? I have no time for such nonsense." - Napoleon Bonaparte
Alternatively, Defiant's version: "To sail from England to Canada, we need to set fire to the bottom of our ship. Makes perfect sense!" lol
Point: anything can be oversimplified so that it supports either side
Does that make the use of chemical weapons right? Just because the US does something, that action is automatically the moral right of the world?
The US government has done some heinous things in the past. Such as the botched invasion of Iraq. The question is whether this applies to today.
Alternatively, Defiant's version: "To sail from England to Canada, we need to set fire to the bottom of our ship. Makes perfect sense!" lol
Point: anything can be oversimplified so that it supports either side
Pangur Bán;12760377 said:
Does that make the use of chemical weapons right? Just because the US does something, that action is automatically the moral right of the world?
The US government has done some heinous things in the past. Such as the botched invasion of Iraq. The question is whether this applies to today.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Macdonalds told you their food was nutritious in the 80s, they tell you that now, but they don't care any more now about that than they ever did, they are a corporation whose raison d'etre is profit. The rest is for the scum like you and me whose dollars they want.
There is no question about whether it applies to day or not. The moral stuff is for pleb consumption. It matters a lot to us, little to them--it never has done, it almost certainly never will do.
So then I'd like to point you to my poll here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=508653
If intervention were approved by the UN, if intervention saved many Syrian lives, if the intel were correct that the Asaad regime carried out chemical attacks, and so on... but the US had no intention to intervene for humanitarian reasons, they're just saying those things for us "plebians" to "consume". But it just so turns out that it is going to save lives anyways. Should we still not intervene?
If intervention were approved by the UN, if intervention saved many Syrian lives, if the intel were correct that the Asaad regime carried out chemical attacks, and so on... but the US had no intention to intervene for humanitarian reasons, they're just saying those things for us "plebians" to "consume". But it just so turns out that it is going to save lives anyways. Should we still not intervene?
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
I voted on that poll, as you might be able to see.
But anyway, who'ever thinks they are wise enough to apply some sort of definitive utilitarian calculus to predict outcomes in a complex political situation like this, is a fool. You are a smart guy, so I know you'll agree with me on that one.No, not defend in military sense. Help with weapons and humanitarian aid.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
I don't think Putin is dumb enough ever to commit himself to war with the USA in that sort of context. A good thing too!
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
So, the question could be: did the US lose too much credibility over Iraq (intelligence-wise and winning-the-peace-wise) for its concern on credibility over Syria to be worthwhile?
That money is not wasted on the assets because we actually do use the assets. The problem comes from Congress and the administration. They cherry-pick the intelligence we report to suit whatever agenda they are pushing and disregard any intelligence that contradicts what they want the people to believe.
I could go on and on about all those problems but I don't want to junk up this thread with talk about the problems of the intelligence community. I'll start a thread on the subject if there is any interest in it.
You mean, in 2003.
Similar threads
