Black Dog

Bush's Iran intelligence "weak": report Good intel? Bad intel? Does it matter?

That's a good idea. The current education system is based on little mor ethan rote repetition of "facts" and figures. Dialogue and critical thinking is not required and is often discouraged. I firmly believe this is no accident. I think people are quite capable of spotting bias when it runs contrary to their own beliefs. That's why some who slag the CBC off as Pravda will completely miss the obvious slants in FoxNews and vice versa.

What I'm curious about, AG is why, despite the abscence of any evidence showing he had WMD or WMD programs since 1991, are you so very coninced he did. You don't come off as a rigid idealogue, so I'm wondering what you're basing your opinion on.

The U.S's nuclear arsenal and conventional military might means they will retain the upper hand. What do you suppose the U.S.'s response would be. I reckon it would be something along the lines of "Tough titty. Sorry you're downwind, but stay out of our business." Regardless, even a conventional response by the U.S. would enable them to wipe out Norh korea, bringing us right back to the core, which is whether any one belives North Korea would committ suicide just to inflict some damage on the U.S.A. I think you're exagerating the degree of response. I doubt we'd see a wholesale blanketing oft he North with nukes. What would probably happen would be the U.S. would use small tactical nukes to target military facilities, and othe rhigh value targets. Frankly, there's also too many "if's" in your scenario. If forced to choose between its largest economic trading partner (which also happens to have the largest military force in the world, as well as the backing of most other western nations) and a pissant, third-world despot, who would China (rationally) side with, especially in the face of North Korean aggression? AntiAmerican bluster plays well with the home crowd. Tet they've avoided war for 50 years and, prior to Bush's "Axis of Evil" bullshit, were moving towards normalized relations. What kind of "sign of weakness"?

AG:

Ah yes, the Russian-built super bunker. Another fabrication, along with the 30,000 liters of anthrax, the thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX, the yellowcake, the aluminum tubes, the mobile bioweapons labs, and the infamous people shredder.

Once you recognize that all media is biased, you can understand how those structural biases influence the news. For instance, the CBC is a public (that is, government-owned) broadcaster: as such, it will tilt towards the ruling party (IIRC, there were similar allegations of toadying up to the Mulroney Tories in the '80s). FoxNews, CBS, etc. are corporate entities. They will tilt towards big money advertisers and the ruling elite (who are generally associated with the "conservative" side of the spectrum) in order to maintain revenues and access to information. Basically, the overall maxim that guides the modern mainstream media is "don't sh*t in your own nest".

That's right: the sam emedia that brethlessly echoed every pre-war WMD allegation the administration made is now covering up evidence. In fact, this conspiracy even touches those charged with hunting for weapons in Iraq. It would surprise me if this bid to keep the overwhelming evidence of Iraq's WMD's (I hear they were also working on experimental giant robots and flying monkey suicide bombers) reaches all the way to the POTUS. You got it: pride and stupidity. The Duelfer report includes a comprehensive analyisis of Saddam's regime and his intentions re: WMD. Among the findings were: It's a interesting look at the regime and its WMD aspirations, but its inescapable conclusion is that Sadam did not possess WMD.

But what good would it do the North Korean regime if the price of causing this power shift is its own destruction? But the U.S's nuclear capability far outstrips that of North Kopea. It outstrips that of China, Russia, India and Pakistan. If any of those nations chose to step in to a U.S./N.K nuclear exchange, they would themselves be wiped out. International law recognizes a nation's right to act in self-defence and I don't think a limited nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Niorth Korea, with NK playing the aggressor, would be enough to draw any other nation in. Why any of these states would ally themselves (posthumously) with a rouge regime is also a mystery to me. Here's the thing about dictators, especially ones that build their regimes around cults of personality: they are obsessed with survival. They want to keep power and maintaining it. Saddam Hussein erred in Kuwait and in the last war because he underestimated the U.S's stomach for war, but he never acted directly against the U.S.A. because he knew that any attack against U.S. forces would definitely result in his end. He gambled, but lost. However, there's no reason to think a power-mad megalomaniac like Korea's Dear leader would take a step, such as launching a nuclear attack, that would guarantee his destruction.

Who killed Hariri, anyway? Apparently, it was a suicide bomber. It seems the likely perpatrator may have had ties to Al Qaeda. Strange that a conecton to Al Qaeda and the War on Terror would be overlooked by the war's proponents. But then, we've always been at war with Oceana. Meanwhile, half a million rally to Assad. This article contains today's Unintentional Irony award-winning statement, courtesy Gee Dubya.

That's kind of a non sequiter. It was the job of those organizations to dig deep and find weapons. In the case of the U.S.'s Iraq Survey Group, they had a case to prove. they found nothing. Thing is, we know he had WMD back in 1991. The question is, did his capabilities survive more than a decade of war, sanctions, bombings, inspections and scrutiny? the evidence says no. So its not a matte rof giving them away, but a matter of not having had them at all.

Regardless, a North Korean strike on the U.S. would ineveitably result in that regime's destruction. SO WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM? And the U.S would retain the capability to destroy whoever attacked them. Which brings us back to M.A.D Because he miscalculated. However, it's hard to miscalculate what the reponse to a nuclear attack would be.

No the premise is that "no matter how much we may try to ignore it, human communication always takes place in a context, through a medium, and among individuals and groups who are situated historically, politically, economically, and socially. This state of affairs is neither bad nor good. It simply is. Bias is a small word that identifies the collective influences of the entire context of a message."

Weapons programs would have left some trace. Documents, physical evidence etc. The UN, the U.S. the International Atomic Energy Agency have scoured the country from top to bottom and have come up with zilch. What I'm wondering about is what evidence was there that he had WMD at the time of the war? We hd the "mobile bioweapons labs" which were never found, the aluminum tubes, which were another dead end, the Niger yellowcake, which was a hoax and so on. All evidence points to the conclusion that Iraq did not have any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons stocks, the facilities to produce them or the means to develop them. Yes, there was intent to do so at some undetermined point in the future, but this war was not prosecuted on those grounds. I recomend this comprehensive overview: Iraq WMD: evidence and implicatons Bear in mind too, that while the above pre-dates the Iraq Surevey Group's final report, the latter validates the former's findings. An apology? How about an investigation? Where did the U.S. get its intel? How did the U.S. intelligence apparatus get conned into thinking Iraq had WMD stockpiles? How did a small element within the government (the Office of Special Plans) become the sole clearinghouse for Iraq inteligence, and what were their interests? (If you want to read up on the OSP, try here, here, and here.)

Bias.

So you're saying the United States would be unable to mount a nuclear retaliation in the event of a first strike? I don't buy that, simply because such an event would be an act of aggression and I'd wager most nations nearby would step aside. And even if they wanted to get involved, the threat of thier own annihalation at the hands of the U.S. would be enough to stay their hand. Remember: the U.S. has enough nukes to destroy the world several times over. The key point is that a North Korean strike on the U.S. would ineveitably result in that regime's destruction by whatever means. And last I checked, power-obsessed dictators are seldom interested in committing suicide.

No kidding? However, the point stands: society and the state cannot be responsible for each individual's behavior. If that individual is a minor, that responsibility falls on the parents or guardians. So on the one hand the Liberals are evil becaus ethey don't interfere enough (through increased ages of consent), while on the other, they ar eevil becaus ethey are interfering too much. With such mixed meassages, no wonder they dither! Preciesly. Laws need to be enforable to be any good. Raising the age of consent wouldn't change any behaviours. Besides, it's not as though the government is forcing kids to have sex at the age of 14. They are making the choice to do so.

I'm confused. Are you suggessting the U.S. would be the first to launch a nuclear attack? I'd still like to know why the treid-and-true concept of nuclear deterrence has suddenly become obsolete. What greater threat is posed by North Korean than was posed by the Soviet Union for almost 60 years that necessitates this sudden change?

There's no law compelling kids to eat their vegetables either. Do parents need the corecive power of the state behind their every action? Or is all this talk of them evil Liberals an excuse for poor parenting?

The age of consent was set at 14 in 1890. There are many other prohibitons since, but a complete ban on sexual intercourse never did apply to anyone over 14. What happened to discipline and parental control?

Farther than they were but not nearly far enough.

From the link above: I guess in a world where the Iraqi lockdown elections are hailed as a democratic coup, then a vague promise of small elections for some of the population of an absolute monarchy are a big deal. The problem the right seems to have is equating the singular act of holding an election with genuine reform. What the hell good is a election in a society with no free press, no equality guarantees, no free expression? If elections alone are the benchmark for democracy, then Lebanon was already way ahead of the rest of the region. In fact, Lebanon, despite the influence of Syria, still puts most U.S. allies in the region to shame. I'd like to see how mass demonstrations like the kind going on in Beirut would go over in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Palestine or occupied Iraq.

Outrage as US soldiers kill hostage rescue hero Sgrena, you'll recall, was kidnapped from Fallujah, where she was interviewing refugees from the American assault on the city.

Interesting angle to this story: Italy is in national mourning over the death of Nicola Calipari. His body lay in state at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Rome, where thousands of visitors paid their respects, and he was buried in astate funeral on Monday. President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi said he would award Calipari, a married father of two, the gold medal of valor for his heroism. Contrast that with the total silence from the American media and politial establishment on the thousands of Americans killed or maimed in Iraq, including the Pentagon ban on photos of coffins coming home. Bush can't even be bothered to attend any of the funerals.

Yeah, just what the U.S. would want: another 30 million Democrats.