So Far, Iraq Worse Than 'Nam

[Yonivore]

Let's try logic then.

I will present a logical arugment and you try to refute it.

A--detaining people forever without trials is bad.

Unless releasing them is worse.

B--Saddam detains people forever without trials.

Not anymore.

C--The USA detains people forever without trials.

If they are enemy combatants.

(1) If Saddam detains people forever without trials, then Saddam is bad.

(2) If the US detains people forever without trials, then the US is bad.

This is very simple logic. You admitted that you agreed with premises A, B, and C. So therefore both conclusions 1 and 2 must be logically correct.

No, it's very simplistic logic...there's a difference, and you should learn it.

[RandomGuy]

US government report on Libya

Oil export revenues, which account for over 95% of Libya's hard currency earnings (and 75% of government receipts), were hurt severely by... reduced oil exports and production -- in part as a result of US and UN sanctions. With higher oil prices since 1999, however, Libyan oil export revenues have increased sharply, to $18.1 billion in 2004 and a forecast $19.4 billion in 2005, up from only $5.9 billion in 1998. Even with increased oil export revenues, Libya's budget remains highly vulnerable to fluctuations in oil prices.

Overall, Libya would like foreign company help to increase the country's oil production capacity from 1.60 million bbl/d at present to 2 million bbl/d by 2008-2010, and to 3 million bbl/d by 2015. In order to achieve this goal, and also to upgrade its oil infrastructure in general, Libya is seeking as much as $30 billion in foreign investment over that period.

The lifting of U.N. and U.S. sanctions, along with possible changes to Libya's 1955 hydrocarbons legislation (the country is drafting a new hydrocarbons law to cover all types of contracts), is likely to prove extremely helpful in boosting the country's oil output. Sanctions had caused delays in a number of field development and Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects, and had deterred foreign capital investment to a significant extent. Also the full lifting of sanctions is important for Libya's oil industry since U.S. companies are leaders in advanced oil and gas technologies, many of which they have under patent.

[RandomGuy]

[Detaining people forever is bad] Unless releasing them is worse.

So you don't think that Premise A was a valid one.

Ok, you set up a logical agument then.

[RandomGuy]

oooh here's another good one from the same report:

Libya's refining sector reportedly was hard hit by UN sanctions, specifically UN Resolution 883 of November 11, 1993, which banned Libya from importing refinery equipment. Libya is seeking a comprehensive upgrade to its entire refining system, with a particular aim of increasing output of gasoline and other light products (i.e. jet fuel). Possible projects include a new 20,000-bbl/d refinery in Sebha (for which Libya is seeking foreign investment), which would process crude from the nearby Murzuq field, and a 200,000-bbl/d export refinery in Misurata.

[RandomGuy]

I will await your proof that invading Iraq caused the Libyan leadership to magically rethink their 20 some odd years of defiance.

[RandomGuy]

This is where the threads usually die off.

Conservatives are horrible at critical thinking and logic, and about the time they realize they have to put up or shut up they simply stop replying...

At the very least this is where RG shuts up on his own and writes the paper on the Sarbanes/Oxley Act for his audit class tomorrow.

Y'all don't go getting wiggedy-whack. Yo.

[Yonivore]

What did Saddam's imprisoned do to get detained without a trial? Compare that to what the U.S. detainees are accused.

There's your difference.

[gtownspur]

I was willing to die for the cons ution as a member of the armed forces and still am.

It doesn't make us any less strong to give even those who want to kill us trials. It is the moral thing to do.

If you lack enough moral sense to realize that, I geniunely feel sorry for you. It always saddens me to see spiritually stunted people screaming for blood, and denying God-given humanity to people.

Men like Ghandi, Jesus, or Martin Luther King Jr. were no less "strong" because they chose a higher path. On the contrary, it made the force of their arguments and causes much stronger, and they eventually won over physically more powerful foes.

THAT is the power of moral authority.

It is also a "long run" solution. Our culture tends to focus on the short term too much, and that focus costs us more in the long run sometimes, as does some of our current policies.

You make a good point Random Guy. i will concede that you are good with your facts. But you are dead wrong. First the people being detained are not uniformed soldiers of a nation or a formal army. The geneva conv, does not apply to them. Maybe the spirit of the law and not the letter does, but nevertheless you can not make a case for these prisoners at all through the geneva convention, they are not considered POW's by its legal def. Second the cons ution which you have vowed to protect allows the detainment and tribunal courts for these people in times of war. Third many of these detainees are not american citizens and thus do not recieve cons utional protection(case in point is Elian gonzalez).

4th had these detainees been only un willing soldiers of a recognized state who play by the geneva rules and warfare youd have a point. But theyre not. they are dangerous individuals seeking destruction on all civilization who hold valuable info that might help save the lives of many of our citizens you have vowed to protect.

5th, torture done for gratification or vengeance is wrong. Torture done to extract info that will save lives is logical and sound policy because it does work and is done in our best interest. Not many people can pass through torture.

6th, your failed attempt to make it a moral issue to not use effective tools to save lifes and protect our children is absurd. Due process courts will only convict the detainees, it will not help in gathering info. Your attempts to deal with detainees might sound altruistic but it doesnt cons ute morality. and last but not least, Jesus instructed christians to live by a moral way in which was to further the Kingdom of God. Jesus did not give instructions for nations on how to conduct their affairs. However the Father has given authority to the nations to restore order by the sword as implied in the book of romans.

[RandomGuy]

What did Saddam's imprisoned do to get detained without a trial? Compare that to what the U.S. detainees are accused.

There's your difference.

I am gonna have to wear out that spinning smiley face...

Both sets of prisoners were/are considered a direct threat to the state.

I noticed that you dodged the other question when I asked you to find *any* proof of your assertion that the invasion of Iraq played any part in Libya's decision to rid itself of WMD's.

Dodge and spin, because you know you are wrong. Try answering a direct question for once, politician.

[gtownspur]

well while your celebrating awnser my post.

[RandomGuy]

Some interesting stuff.

I will get back to you later this week/weekend.

There are some very important philosophical concepts here that need exploring.

....and you are still wrong.


(RG has a paper to write on Section 404 of the Sarbanes/Oxley act and how that relates the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB, or "Peekaboo" as it is affectionately [or not] known) Statement of Auditing Standard #2.)

My apologies, but you will have to wait for the brilliance that is my intellect, as my audit professor has first claim on it at this particlular moment.

[gtownspur]

i will gladly refute anything wrong you will post.

[Yonivore]

I am gonna have to wear out that spinning smiley face...

Okay, whatever you choose to subs ute for rational, reasoned argument is fine by me.

Both sets of prisoners were/are considered a direct threat to the state.

Well, I can't speak for the cir stances under which Saddam Hussein's untried detainees were taken into custody and imprisoned -- although, much of what has been reported by the media, human rights groups, and victims tends to indicate they were pretty much picked up and thrown into prison because they disagreed politically with Saddam Hussein. But, again, you obviously have a better understanding of his rationale than do I.

U.S. detainees, on the other hand, we all taken into custody in the field of battle and are declared as enemy combatants. Do you know of any of the Guantanamo detainees that are there under different cir stances?

I noticed that you dodged the other question when I asked you to find *any* proof of your assertion that the invasion of Iraq played any part in Libya's decision to rid itself of WMD's.

The timing and the assertion by those with whom he spoke that the imminent invasion of Iraq had him frightened of losing power in Libya.

It is likely that Libya would not have acquiesced if there was no danger of a pre-emptive strike. But, you're right in the sense that months of negotiations between Britain, the U.S. and Libya culminated in Libya giving up its program. It wasn't like we said give up your program or we'll invade...but, your an idiot if you don't believe the specter of the Iraqi invasion had any impact. In fact, it's was probably the clincher in the deal.

But, it's nice to see you acknowledge the Bush foreign policy initiative in a positive light for a change.

Dodge and spin, because you know you are wrong. Try answering a direct question for once, politician.

Ask a direct question for once.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, whatever you choose to subs ute for rational, reasoned argument is fine by me.

You keep saying that, and yet when I point out the moral inconsistencies in your argument you pooh-pooh them or ignore them completely.

Well, I can't speak for the cir stances under which Saddam Hussein's untried detainees were taken into custody and imprisoned -- although, much of what has been reported by the media, human rights groups, and victims tends to indicate they were pretty much picked up and thrown into prison because they disagreed politically with Saddam Hussein. But, again, you obviously have a better understanding of his rationale than do I.

You want to basically say that "sometimes keeping people without trials forever, like when the US does it, is ok".

So being unethical SOMETIMES is ok. "It is ok to steal if the "victim" is a billion dollar corporation."

This is simple rationalization.

Asserting what you are trying to assert means that we can rationalize unethical behavior when it suits us. In the end rationalization of unethical behavior diminishes us all.

You would HATE it if somebody who was on "welfare" traded that money for drugs. This is a rationalization on that persons part. "It is my money, I can do what I want with it, the big ol' government won't miss it."

Yet when it comes to basic human rights this same process of rationalization is ok.

[RandomGuy]

The timing and the assertion by those with whom he spoke that the imminent invasion of Iraq had him frightened of losing power in Libya.

It is likely that Libya would not have acquiesced if there was no danger of a pre-emptive strike. But, you're right in the sense that months of negotiations between Britain, the U.S. and Libya culminated in Libya giving up its program. It wasn't like we said give up your program or we'll invade...but, your an idiot if you don't believe the specter of the Iraqi invasion had any impact. In fact, it's was probably the clincher in the deal.

I simply ask for some proof of this statement and am still waiting.

All you have offered is the fact that it happened after the US invaded Iraq.

I say it was simply the fact that his oil producing infrastructure was badly in need of upgrading and maintenance, and offer in support of this a candid US government assessment.

I offer proof, you offer fallacious logic. This is pretty standard for conservatives in general.

Step up to the plate and prove it to me. I promise if you can find some good evidence to support your thesis that I will give it due consideration.

Please try to do better than "I read it in some conservative column" somewhere.

[RandomGuy]

Ask a direct question for once.

What proof can you show me that proves Libya's decision to give up their WMD's was connected to the invasion of Iraq?

[boutons]

When Libya came in from the cold, the Repugs claimed credit for all bogus reasons, but US and EU had been talking to Libya for years about how to do it.

Another angle is that Khadaffi was under pressure from Islamic fundamentalists agitating with the poor. He needed foreign exchange, an upgrade of quality of life from international acceptance and trade, and to bolster himself with his middle classes against the fundamentalists.

dubya and his posse lied if/when they claimed any responsibility for Libya, yawn.

[RandomGuy]

When Libya came in from the cold, the Repugs claimed credit for all bogus reasons, but US and EU had been talking to Libya for years about how to do it.

Another angle is that Khadaffi was under pressure from Islamic fundamentalists agitating with the poor. He needed foreign exchange, an upgrade of quality of life from international acceptance and trade, and to bolster himself with his middle classes against the fundamentalists.

dubya and his posse lied if/when they claimed any responsibility for Libya, yawn.

Exactly. More half-truths for the faithful.

The lies this administration will stoop to would make Goebbels blush...

[Dos]

When Libya came in from the cold, the Repugs claimed credit for all bogus reasons, but US and EU had been talking to Libya for years about how to do it.

So this US of which you speak is control by what kind of adminstration.... lol

[Dos]

no we should be giving back these detainees to the countries from which they came from.. I am sure a nice egyptian or pakastini torture chamber is alot better than club gitmo.... these cowards have it easy at gitmo compared to what they would be getting under islamic justice..... just a thought...

[boutons]

"is control by what kind of adminstration"

... the Libya reconciliation was in 2003. The "years" of groundwork for that reconciliation went back well into the Clintion years.

The Repubs claimed their "BIG STICK" on Iraq is what caused Libya to move, not any Repub "SOFT TALKING" with Libya.

[Dos]

Yeah Hans Blix is in the Bush camp... lol....

Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, said Saturday Libya's decision to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, is "welcome" and surmised the action might have been spurred by Gadhafi's fear over "what he saw happen in Iraq." (Full story)




Bush, Blair: Libya to dismantle WMD programs
Gadhafi vows 'transparent and verifiable' process, Blair says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Libya has tried to develop weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles in the past, but has agreed to dismantle the programs, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday in simultaneous televised speeches.

Bush said Libya's leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, had "agreed to immediately and unconditionally allow inspectors from international organizations to enter Libya.

"These inspectors will render an accounting of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and will help oversee their elimination," Bush said.

Libya's nuclear weapons program was "much further advanced" than U.S. and British intelligence had thought, and included centrifuges and a uranium enrichment program, all necessary components in making a nuclear bomb, a senior administration official said Friday. (Full story)

Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, said Saturday Libya's decision to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, is "welcome" and surmised the action might have been spurred by Gadhafi's fear over "what he saw happen in Iraq." (Full story)

"I think we have to learn what did they (Libya) have. They say that they will adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty for nuclear weapons. They are already party to that treaty and they have had inspections for years," said Blix, interviewed in Sweden.

In a televised address from London, England, Blair said Gadhafi had approached British and U.S. officials in March to see if they could resolve the issue of its weapons programs.

"Libya has stated that weapons of mass destruction are not the answer for Libya's defense," Blair said. "Libya's actions en le it to rejoin the international community.

"Libya has declared its intention to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and to limit the range of Libyan missiles to no greater than 300 kilometers," Blair said, adding that the Libyan leader has agreed "that this process will be transparent and verifiable."

Libya also agreed to adhere to international agreements on chemical weapons and sign an additional protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear watchdog group.

"This decision by Colonel Gadhafi is an historic one and a courageous one, and I applaud it," Blair said. "It will make the region and the world more secure."

He added, "It demonstrates, too, that countries can abandon programs voluntarily and peacefully."

CIA and British intelligence officials met with Gadhafi and other senior Libyan officials as the three governments negotiated the deal under which the Libyan government would give up its weapons of mass destruction programs, U.S. officials said. CIA officials also visited key sites in Libya during a nine-month period of negotiations that started with meetings in various European capitals.

U.S. officials say Libya has a program to develop a nuclear weapon, including facilities to process and enrich uranium. It has a stockpile of chemical weapons and dual-use facilities that could be used to create biological weapons. The Libyans say they no longer have programs to produce chemical or biological weapons. They have a largely dormant program to develop medium-range missiles based on Scud technology.

According to Jane's, a defense publication based in London, U.S. intelligence officials believed China was helping Libya develop its existing Al-Fatah missile program and that the Libyans were also seeking North Korean long-range missile technology.

"Opposing proliferation is one of the highest targets of the war on terror," Bush said. "The attacks of September 11th, 2001 brought tragedy to the United States and revealed a future threat of even greater magnitude. Terrorists who kill thousands of innocent people would, if they ever gained weapons of mass destruction, kill hundreds of thousands, without hesitation and without mercy."

He added: "Colonel Gadhafi's commitment, once it is fulfilled, will make our country more safe and the world more peaceful."

Bush said U.S. pressure on North Korea and Iran and the war in Iraq "have sent an unmistakable message to regimes that seek or possess weapons of mass destruction: Those weapons do not bring influence or prestige. They bring isolation and otherwise unwelcome consequences.

"Another message should be equally clear: Leaders who abandon the pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them will find an open path to better relations with the United States and other free nations."

International isolation

He said Libya's decision would help lift it out of its isolation.

"With today's announcement by its leader, Libya has begun the process of rejoining the community of nations," Bush said. "Colonel Gadhafi knows the way forward: Libya should carry out the commitments announced today. Libya should also fully engage in the war against terror."

This summer, Libya took responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, which killed 259 people aboard the plane and 11 on the ground.

As part of that deal, Libya agreed to pay each family as much as $10 million -- $4 million when the United Nations lifted sanctions. The U.N. Security Council voted in September to remove the sanctions. U.S. sanctions have remained in place.

Bush also urged Libya to pursue internal reform. However, he warned that "because Libya has a troubled history with America and Britain, we'll be vigilant in assuring its government lives up to all its responsibilities.

"Yet ... old hostilities do not need to go on forever," Bush said. "I hope that other leaders will find an example in Libya's announcement today."

[RandomGuy]

Heh, I would give Mr. Blix the nod when it comes to WMD issues, but not economic ones.

My doctor might have an opinion as to the appropriate capital structure of a soap manufacturer, but I would trust a fianancial analyst more...

[RandomGuy]

Looks like Yoni gave up on this one too...

I guess when you ain't got anything to back up yer bull ...