How do you know you're right?

[Gunny]

Ok. I still see self defense as a valid argument for the excersise of violence, but what kind of validation makes believing this perception of future threat meaningful enough to initiate proactive violent action?

That of course would be subjective to what the person perceiving the threat considers "validation." If you are looking for an irrefutable, defining line in the sand, I don't think there is one without obvious, solid evidence that supports the perception, and the validation would be as varying and the perceptions.

For instance (and I am not trying to rehash the WMD argument -- only use it as an illustration) ... Saddam Hussein produced, possessed and used chemical weapons ... lumped into the catch-all "WMDs" by the media.

There are STILL unaccounted for chemical/bio weapons/compounds/percursors on record at the UN as being in his/Iraq's possession.

He led UN Weapons Inspectors around by the nose, allowing them to look only in certain places, kicked them out of the country at times, and generally giving all the appearances of attempting to hide something.

He continually made threats against the US and/or our allies.

On at least two separate occasions, he used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians.

On two separate occasions he initiated military hostilities against neighboring nations.

The perception, using nothing more than logical conclusion, is that he possessed and would use WMDs. A perception held by most intellgence agencies in the world, and most people -- barring the current revisionists who now swear they knew all along something apparently no one else did.

Evidence after the fact has not supported the perception. Either Saddam managed to hide his WMDs, or he disposed of them. Does the Monday morning quarterbacking in any way alter the perception held prior to those weapons not as of yet being found? IMO, no.

[Lightning Waltz]

There are STILL unaccounted for chemical/bio weapons/compounds/percursors on record at the UN as being in his/Iraq's possession.

I'm not sure how that would help you... Are you trying to show the effectiveness of the war?

He led UN Weapons Inspectors around by the nose, allowing them to look only in certain places, kicked them out of the country at times, and generally giving all the appearances of attempting to hide something.

You later talk about historical revisionism. Funny how you don't mention, here, that Bush kicked out the weapons inspectors who were on the ground, who stated they needed more time, but weren't finding a shred of evidence to suggest that the WMDs were there. A fact that was confirmed after the war....no WMDs.

He continually made threats against the US and/or our allies.

Not unique to Saddam, of course.

On at least two separate occasions, he used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians.

And the US didn't care / still supported Saddam and his war against the Soviet backed Iran...

On two separate occasions he initiated military hostilities against neighboring nations.

One was supported by the US, the other, was not. More selective indignation. More historical revisionism.

BTW, how many times has the US "initiated military hostilities against" other nations?

The perception, using nothing more than logical conclusion, is that he possessed and would use WMDs. A perception held by most intellgence agencies in the world, and most people -- barring the current revisionists who now swear they knew all along something apparently no one else did.

Again, your historical revisionism is in the way. You forget that the US claimed to know EXACTLY where the WMDs are, the whole yellow cake fiasco, other false claims with regards to Iraq (like a link to 9/11), etc.

The perception may have been that Iraq had some amount of WMDs (depends on how you define "WMD", btw. For something to be a real WMD, you must have a delievery system. With regards to the US, no...he didn't have any WMDs. He was no threat. He was contained. Could he still attack some folks local to his region? Yes.) but, the perception held by most intelligence agencies around the world is that he wasn't a threat significant enough to merit regime change.

Evidence after the fact has not supported the perception.

Evidence after the fact has supported the perception that he was no threat to the US then, and wouldn't be a threat to the US now, had he been continued to be contained.

[Gunny]

I'm not sure how that would help you... Are you trying to show the effectiveness of the war?



You later talk about historical revisionism. Funny how you don't mention, here, that Bush kicked out the weapons inspectors who were on the ground, who stated they needed more time, but weren't finding a shred of evidence to suggest that the WMDs were there. A fact that was confirmed after the war....no WMDs.



Not unique to Saddam, of course.



And the US didn't care / still supported Saddam and his war against the Soviet backed Iran...



One was supported by the US, the other, was not. More selective indignation. More historical revisionism.

BTW, how many times has the US "initiated military hostilities against" other nations?



Again, your historical revisionism is in the way. You forget that the US claimed to know EXACTLY where the WMDs are, the whole yellow cake fiasco, other false claims with regards to Iraq (like a link to 9/11), etc.

The perception may have been that Iraq had some amount of WMDs (depends on how you define "WMD", btw. For something to be a real WMD, you must have a delievery system. With regards to the US, no...he didn't have any WMDs. He was no threat. He was contained. Could he still attack some folks local to his region? Yes.) but, the perception held by most intelligence agencies around the world is that he wasn't a threat significant enough to merit regime change.



Evidence after the fact has supported the perception that he was no threat to the US then, and wouldn't be a threat to the US now, had he been continued to be contained.

There is no historical revisionism on my part. You however has introduced a bunch of irrelevant, after-the-fact trivialities that have NOTHING to do with the point of my statement.

Further, I will be more than delighted to spank you around on the topic if you are feeling all masochistic and chipper. Feel free to start ANOTHER THREAD addressing the specific topic instead of derailing the discussion in this one.

[Lightning Waltz]

There is no historical revisionism on my part. You however has introduced a bunch of irrelevant, after-the-fact trivialities that have NOTHING to do with the point of my statement.

Further, I will be more than delighted to spank you around on the topic if you are feeling all masochistic and chipper. Feel free to start ANOTHER THREAD addressing the specific topic instead of derailing the discussion in this one.

"after-the-fact"?

And you brought it up. I just responded.

[Gunny]

"after-the-fact"?

And you brought it up. I just responded.

So what part of THIS did you NOT get?

(and I am not trying to rehash the WMD argument -- only use it as an illustration)

You responded to an illustration, not the point. Good job. Put yourself in for a medal.

[glockmail]

So what part of THIS did you NOT get?



You responded to an illustration, not the point. Good job. Put yourself in for a medal.

Put himself up for at least two phoneys like Kerry did.

[Lightning Waltz]

You responded to an illustration, not the point. Good job. Put yourself in for a medal.

I just pointed out that your "illustration", was piss poor.

[Lightning Waltz]

Put himself up for at least two phoneys like Kerry did.

This is how republicans "support the troops".

BTW, how many medals did Bush get for desertion?

[Gunny]

I just pointed out that your "illustration", was piss poor.

It is a perfect illustration of the point I was making. Now if I was to try to illustrate my point using that pile of manure YOU posted, it would definitely be piss-poor.

You really should attempt at least to educated yourself on a topic prior to letting your mouth flat outrun your mind.

[Gunny]

This is how republicans "support the troops".


BTW, how many medals did Bush get for desertion?

[glockmail]

This is how republicans "support the troops".

BTW, how many medals did Bush get for desertion?

Perhaps you could provide eveidence of said desertion.

Kerry, on tye other hand, deserted the Navy by getting at least two fake Purple Hearts, than once he had three filed to get out only 4 months into his 12 month service. Where are the records backing up thiose Purple Hearts? Why did his commanding officer not recomend him for these medals?

[LOki]

That of course would be subjective to what the person perceiving the threat considers "validation." If you are looking for an irrefutable, defining line in the sand, I don't think there is one without obvious, solid evidence that supports the perception, and the validation would be as varying and the perceptions.

For instance ... [EDIT: Because I think I get your point and I don't want to continue to distract those who don't] ...

I think the point you're asserting, and I think I am ready to agree with, is that "evidence," objective and verifiable, would be the kind of validation required of a belief in order for that belief to be meaningful enough to kill someone over.

Despite the evidence in the example you presented being faulty**, it lends far greater meaning to the belief that a violent regime change in Iraq, was necessary for US security, than the superstitious beliefs (for example) some 20 guys had, that flying planes into buildings was necessary to please God.

It is not nearly enough to merely have conviction of right in one's beliefs to take the step over the line into killing people--it's "solid evidence," objective and verifiable evidence, that someone else's belief has lethal intent to one's self; that that makes one's belief meaningful enough to use deadly force in self defense.

Yes?

**BTW: The use of that particular example and you analysis was perfectly appropriate, as it illustrates that faulty evidence is still more validating of beliefs than no evidence.

[Gunny]

I think the point you're asserting, and I think I am ready to agree with, is that "evidence," objective and verifiable, would be the kind of validation required of a belief in order for that belief to be meaningful enough to kill someone over.
Despite the evidence in the example you presented being faulty**, it lends far greater meaning to the belief that a violent regime change in Iraq, was necessary for US security, than the superstitious beliefs (for example) some 20 guys had, that flying planes into buildings was necessary to please God.

It is not nearly enough to merely have conviction of right in one's beliefs to take the step over the line into killing people--it's "solid evidence," objective and verifiable evidence, that someone else's belief has lethal intent to one's self; that that makes one's belief meaningful enough to use deadly force in self defense.

Yes?

**BTW: The use of that particular example and you analysis was perfectly appropriate, as it illustrates that faulty evidence is still more validating of beliefs than no evidence.

That would be my point. That and to point out that oftentimes, perception completely distorts reality in that regard, and at times dictates actions otherwise not warranted by factual evidence.