Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 270







Post#6726 at 04-24-2003 10:48 AM by Morir [at joined Feb 2003 #posts 1,407]
---
04-24-2003, 10:48 AM #6726
Join Date
Feb 2003
Posts
1,407

A.Los, Leados,

I have no generational connection. Where do I regularly see my peers where we can someone act one way or another? I live in a multigenerational situation. My generation is obviously X by default due to my birth and my peer group, but still how do we react?

Like I said in other forums it is not the reality but the interpretation of reality. Boomer parents want a Heroic Millennial generation and that is what the press and media will show them. Boomers drive the culture. The culture is manufactured to their liking.
They wanted to shit on Xers because they were going through post-youthitis and they got a whole generation to dismiss as ineffectual and whiny for the rest of their lives. Now they want to see their kids (and I am the child of Boomers but I am not somehow part of "their kids") grow up to be perfect.
Sarah Hughes, Jessica Lynch, from the Baby on Board to the Baby in the well to the heroic fighter against those swarthy Iraqis, that is what they want that is what they will get.
Whatever date is convenient for 4T begining (and I don't feel 4T but maybe because I live in Europe) will be chosen and the cycles pretty much fit. At the speed things are going it may be very likely that a Hero generation is born even in the crisis.
People argue over math and cycles, but the average life span still is about 75 years, and 2003 is 74 years from 1929. I am not sure if we are in a phoney fourth (which it feels like) or a real 4th but i am not troubled by Math.
Bottomline, Bomers want their class of 2000, they want their Millennial heros, and they will get them, one way or another.
That is just how the culture functions. You try to rebel and you wind up a misunderstood anarchist smashing up Starbucks or an "alternative rocker" that doesn't sell records, but is popular amongst youth nontheless.







Post#6727 at 04-24-2003 11:57 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-24-2003, 11:57 AM #6727
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

John:

Hearsay, and not very solid at all. How does that jive with Osama bin Ladin's well-known antipathy toward Saddam Hussein? Even when he called on Arabs to help defend Iraq, he couldn't resist a gratuitous dig at the infidel tyrant. (That's Saddam, btw, not Bush -- get's confusing when you have one infidel tyrant fighting another.)







Post#6728 at 04-24-2003 12:11 PM by Evan Anderson [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 400]
---
04-24-2003, 12:11 PM #6728
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
400

Brian: No surprise to see you erase another dot. Your judgement is impaired by your unwillingness to believe Bush may be right about anything.

Also, you continue to give Al Qaeda more credit for consistency than I. Guys like that are no damn good, and cannot be expected to act consistent with their professed beliefs. History is filled with examples. Al Qaeda would team up with Hare Krishnas if they thought it might help them kill Americans. In the gloating post 9/11 videotape, he joked about the fact that some of his followers didn't know that they were on a suicide mission. He had no scruples; when it comes to killing Americans, he'd do anything and find a Koran passage to support his actions.

Besides, as you yourself just said, a recording professed to represent the words of the late Bin Laden called on Arabs to help Iraq. Since you apparently accept this recording as genuine, you are admitting that Al Qaeda and Iraq had a de facto alliance at that point. Given that, why do you find the claims of the article surprising?







Post#6729 at 04-24-2003 12:33 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-24-2003, 12:33 PM #6729
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

John:

No surprise to see you erase another dot. Your judgement is impaired by your unwillingness to believe Bush may be right about anything.
No surprise to see you using the argumentum ad hominem fallacy yet again. But it's still a poor excuse for an argument. The quote you presented was unsubstantiated and doesn't constitute good evidence. Got anything more solid?

Al Qaeda would team up with Hare Krishnas if they thought it might help them kill Americans.
No doubt, but I'm talking more about Saddam here. One of Bush's arguments in favor of the war involved the alleged danger that Saddam might give WMD to al-Qaeda or other Muslim terrorists. Given al-Qaeda's ambivalent attitude, he'd have to worry that any such weapons might be used against him instead of us.

And of course, during the more than 20 years in which he possessed chemical weapons, no chemical weapon attacks by Muslim terrorists ever occurred.

As for the 9/11 attack, if there was solid evidence this occurred with Saddam's connivance, surely Bush would have made that evidence public by now. But perhaps you have some inside dope the White House missed?

Besides, as you yourself just said, a recording professed to represent the words of the late Bin Laden called on Arabs to help Iraq. Since you apparently accept this recording as genuine, you are admitting that Al Qaeda and Iraq had a de facto alliance at that point. Given that, why do you find the claims of the article surprising?
Oh, so now he's "the late" bin Ladin, is he? I suppose you have something to support this contention?

Anyway -- I find the claims of the article suspicious (not "surprising") because a "de facto" alliance is not the same as a working one. I also think bin Ladin (late or not) had little choice politically but to support an Arab leader, however distasteful, under attack by the Great Satan.

I'm not saying a working partnership between Saddam and bin Ladin in some very limited capacity is absurd, just that I've seen no good evidence for it and you've presented none. I also think that such a limited working arrangement would not prove either of the contentions Bush needed to justify the war: Saddam Hussein's complicity in the 9/11 attack, or his intent to grant bin Ladin use of chemical or biological weapons.







Post#6730 at 04-24-2003 01:01 PM by Evan Anderson [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 400]
---
04-24-2003, 01:01 PM #6730
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
400

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
I've seen no good evidence for it and you've presented none
"I've presented none", that is, except for the evidence I've presented.

Look, Brian, given that neither of us is actually in Iraq, what could I possibly give you that you would consider "good evidence".

You have already over time blithely dismissed several articles by leading publications quoting actual Iraqis, intelligence experts of multiple nations, NGO's, UN officials like Hans Blix, etc. Many of the evidence I've drawn attention to during my time on this board has been verified by multiple sources.

No matter what, you always disbelieve.

As for your irrelevant point that terrorists haven't used chemical weapons (which I only stipulate, by the way), who cares? The point is to prevent a terrorist WMD attack in the future. The effort is essentially identical to the nuclear non-prolieferation movement, except that it is a special case: it is an effort to prevent WMD from falling into the hands of those most likely to actually use them; terrorist organizations. As all significant terrorist organizations have government ties, the effort inevitably involves pressuring those governments.

As you are aware, WMD are going to get easier and easier to obtain with time. We are involved in an effort to find the best stratagies to prevent terrorist WMD attacks in the future. So far, our policy of not distinguishing between the terrorists and the governments that support them have been successful.

You continued insistence that we target ONLY Al Qaeda fall on deaf ears. Al Qaeda is just one example of a class of organizations, and it is the class of organizations that must be dealt with to prevent another 9/11.

Apparently, you accept that Iraq recruits, trains, and arms terrorists. What more do you want?

Here's another dot for you to erase. I usually don't even bring this stuff up, as it shouldn't even be neccessary:

'Iraq Linked to 9-11 and Oklahoma City Bombing'


The Wall Street Journal has added its voice to those - in and out of government - who have concluded the circumstantial evidence linking Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 first World Trade Center bombing, as well as the 9-11 attacks, is overwhelming...

That the Wall Street Journal is taking a serious look at the "Iraq connection” is significant if for no other reason than the fact that this Dow Jones icon of business journalism is not noted for an addiction to wild conspiracy theories.

But the WSJ is by no means alone. Other mainstream publications have recently weighed in with similar observations.

"Our position is: Congress should hold hearings on evidence of previous Iraqi connections to terror,” editorialized the Indianapolis Star Sept. 7.

"In the Oklahoma City case,” the paper added, "[Jayna] Davis painstakingly reviewed telephone records that indicate Terry Nichols contacted Iraqi intelligence in the Philippines to acquire bomb-making expertise.”

Two weeks earlier, Star editorial writer James Patterson wrote that Indiana Rep. Dan Burton’s House Government Reform Committee had spent some of the August congressional recess "sniffing around” Oklahoma City looking for reasons to believe that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols had help.

"They found plenty,” Patterson reported.

Committee staff interviewed at least six people who claimed they saw McVeigh keeping company with "foreign-looking men” in the days, "even minutes” prior to the blast at the Murrah federal building that killed 168 innocents on April 19, 1995.







Post#6731 at 04-24-2003 01:28 PM by elilevin [at Red Hill, New Mexico joined Jan 2002 #posts 452]
---
04-24-2003, 01:28 PM #6731
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
Red Hill, New Mexico
Posts
452

Terrorists

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Regardless of what Bush does or does not maintain, al-Qaeda attacked us, not "terrorists" in general. I'm sure Bush would, if he could, maintain that this was a war against anyone he wants to go to war with. But that doesn't make it so.
This depends on what outcome is desired. If we want to make it clear that we will not tolerate terrorism, Realpolitik would require that we go after any and all terrorists and the nations that protect them because many terrorist organizations are loosely connected with other terrorist organizations, failed states and nation-states such as Iraq.

Actually, Syria has a much documented record of harboring and supporting terrorists and Bush would have had less difficulty making the case for attacking Syria. However, I think we invaded Iraq because it was an easier target and would send a strong message to Syria, among others.
Elisheva Levin

"It is not up to us to complete the task,
but neither are we free to desist from it."
--Pirkei Avot







Post#6732 at 04-24-2003 01:37 PM by Evan Anderson [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 400]
---
04-24-2003, 01:37 PM #6732
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
400

I am also very doubtful that we will attack Syria, barring some huge new event. Without Iraq's help, Syria's threat could rapidly diminish, and there is clearly a willingness to use multiple tools to deal with terrorism, not just all-out military invasions.

We are more likely to attack North Korea then Syria, but even that seems unlikely, with the possible exception of simply destroying a reactor site, (and even that would generate friction with China).

Especially if Iran's current regime falls by internal opposition, the impression that the tide of history has turned could even shift us into 3T mode again.

However, history is rarely that nice.







Post#6733 at 04-24-2003 02:29 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-24-2003, 02:29 PM #6733
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

John:

Look, Brian, given that neither of us is actually in Iraq, what could I possibly give you that you would consider "good evidence".
Good question. Life's not fair. If you can't access good evidence, then you can't -- but don't expect me to be convinced by an excuse, even if it's a good excuse.

As for your irrelevant point that terrorists haven't used chemical weapons (which I only stipulate, by the way), who cares? The point is to prevent a terrorist WMD attack in the future.
All right, but since we can't wipe out everybody and everything, that only begs the question of what would constitute a real risk of such an event. And my point isn't the least irrelevant. It has been argued that Saddam Hussein represented a real risk of terrorists acquiring WMD. That he's had over 20 years of opportunity and hasn't done it yet is pretty good refutation of the case that he's planning to. If he were planning to, he'd have already done it.

Apparently, you accept that Iraq recruits, trains, and arms terrorists. What more do you want?
Well, no, I don't accept that, because I don't know it. Though I don't think it's out of character. For that matter, the U.S. has also been known to recruit, train, and arm terrorists. Including at one time Osama bin Ladin. The Soviet Union used to, as well. And I expect there are a lot of other governments that do. So it's not exactly out of the ordinary, and it wouldn't surprise me if Iraq did the same sort of thing. Since most governments do it, the fact that Iraq did (if it did) would not constitute casus belli all by itself.

What more do I want? Evidence that Iraq either had already attacked us (by complicity in 9/11) or was about to. I've seen none that would stand up to examination.

In that last article you quoted, aside from speculation and vague references to a "foreign-looking man," we find this, and only this, of substance:

"In the Oklahoma City case,? the paper added, "[Jayna] Davis painstakingly reviewed telephone records that indicate Terry Nichols contacted Iraqi intelligence in the Philippines to acquire bomb-making expertise.?
So, one of Terry Nichols' technical contacts from whom he learned how to make bombs may have been Iraqi intelligence. Shame on them. But from this, the Journal concludes that "the circumstantial evidence linking Saddam Hussein?s Iraq to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 first World Trade Center bombing, as well as the 9-11 attacks, is overwhelming"?

First of all, and once again, let's avoid vague language that can be stretched to fit any desired purpose. What does "linking" mean? If one of the perpetrators of the OKC bomb sought out Iraqi intelligence in the Philippines as at least one of the technical consultants on how to make bombs, that's a "link." Does it mean Iraqi intelligence acted irresponsibly? If the information is true, yes, it does. But does it mean that Iraqi intelligence planned the whole thing, that Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh worked for Iraqi intelligence, and that the OKC bombing was an Iraqi terrorist attack. No, it doesn't. But that hypothetical could also be described by the word "link," and those who aren't particular about logical validity might use the word to fuzz over the difference between the two.

And of course, there is no known connection between the OKC bombing and either of the WTC attacks.

Even assuming these facts are correct, what is it that you think this proves? It certainly doesn't prove what the author is trying to suggest.







Post#6734 at 04-24-2003 02:38 PM by Evan Anderson [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 400]
---
04-24-2003, 02:38 PM #6734
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
400

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
John:

Look, Brian, given that neither of us is actually in Iraq, what could I possibly give you that you would consider "good evidence".
Good question. Life's not fair. If you can't access good evidence, then you can't -- but don't expect me to be convinced by an excuse, even if it's a good excuse.
You didn't answer the question, unless your answer is "nothing". And if no evidence I could conceivably give you would be considered good, how do you interact with the world beyond your senses? Do you doubt the existence of Guam? Or is your standard of proof so high only on issues that make Bush look good?







Post#6735 at 04-24-2003 02:43 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
04-24-2003, 02:43 PM #6735
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Look, Brian, given that neither of us is actually in Iraq, what could I possibly give you that you would consider "good evidence".
Good question. Life's not fair. If you can't access good evidence, then you can't -- but don't expect me to be convinced by an excuse, even if it's a good excuse.
Meaningless argument, at this point.

Bush and Powell laid out their case before the U.N., Congress and the American people. At the end of the day, if no WMD are found in Iraq and it appears Bush and Powell lied, or greatly exaggerated the threat, in making their case, guess what will happen?

Well, at least the Iraqis, save the Baathists of course, will be happy.

Funny how the liberals were so patient to allow the U.N. inspections all the time they needed, but now... golly, we've barely secured the place and already we're hearing catcalls of 'blah blah, no weapons found yet?'







Post#6736 at 04-24-2003 02:48 PM by Evan Anderson [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 400]
---
04-24-2003, 02:48 PM #6736
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
400

Is it the C.S. Monitor you don't like? You still haven't commented on this:

Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War


...the scientist led Americans to a supply of material that proved to be the building blocks of illegal weapons, which he claimed to have buried as evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs.

The scientist also told American weapons experts that Iraq had secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria, starting in the mid-1990's, and that more recently Iraq was cooperating with Al Qaeda...

...the scientist told them that President Saddam Hussein's government had destroyed some stockpiles of deadly agents as early as the mid-1990's, transferred others to Syria, and had recently focused its efforts instead on research and development projects that are virtually impervious to detection by international inspectors, and even American forces on the ground combing through Iraq's giant weapons plants.

...the material unearthed over the last three days at sites to which he led them had proved to be precursors for a toxic agent that is banned by chemical weapons treaties.

The officials' account of the scientist's assertions and the discovery of the buried material, which they described as the most important discovery to date in the hunt for illegal weapons, supports the Bush administration's charges that Iraq continued to develop those weapons and lied to the United Nations about it.


Sure. More "unsubstanciated" stuff, huh? Ask yourself honestly: are your standards of evidence so high concerning things that make Bush look bad?







Post#6737 at 04-24-2003 02:56 PM by zilch [at joined Nov 2001 #posts 3,491]
---
04-24-2003, 02:56 PM #6737
Join Date
Nov 2001
Posts
3,491

Quote Originally Posted by John Wayne
Sure. More "unsubstanciated" stuff, huh? Ask yourself honestly: are your standards of evidence so high concerning things that make Bush look bad?
I did fail to mention that we could actually find a mountain of stuff, WMD included, but still fail to meet the "standards of evidence" set by some. But then, even Stalin's pact with Hitler failed to convince many a commie believer, too! :wink:







Post#6738 at 04-24-2003 02:57 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-24-2003, 02:57 PM #6738
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

John:

You didn't answer the question, unless your answer is "nothing".
I didn't say that, you did. You offered the excuse that you're not in Iraq and not part of the intelligence network, and thus don't have access to hard evidence that would meet a reasonable test. Fine, I can understand that. But still, the fact that you can't reasonably be expected to prove something doesn't make it true.

I have no problem with the Christian Science Monitor as a source. It's one of the most reputable media outlets around. But regardless of the source, the material you quoted proves nothing.

Neither does this latest quote. How is that scientist supposed to know that Iraq "cooperated with" al-Qaeda -- setting aside the fact that, once again, we're being presented with vague terms that can be stretched to fit any desired meaning. After all, the people who jumped out of the WTC "cooperated with" al-Qaeda, which wanted them dead. But anyway, however much this scientist might have knowledge about Iraqi weapons programs, where is he getting this al-Qaeda stuff?

I never entertained serious doubts about Iraq's continued WMD research and development until recently, when we failed to turn any of them up. I always assumed they were there. And since we haven't finished looking yet, maybe they are, though our failure to date is pretty surprising. But that's not sufficient cause for war, anyway.

So this article presents some less-than-ironclad, but not immediately dismissable, evidence about something I assumed true anyway, together with off-the-cuff speculation on another subject about which its author is in no position to know anything.







Post#6739 at 04-24-2003 03:03 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
04-24-2003, 03:03 PM #6739
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

I wonder how many of us ordinary Americans have "building blocks of illegal weapons" and "precursors to toxic agents" stored in our own basements and garages and don't even realize it.

Chlorine, ammonia, gasoline, lye -- all sorts of good stuff like that.







Post#6740 at 04-24-2003 03:13 PM by Max [at Left Coast joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,038]
---
04-24-2003, 03:13 PM #6740
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Left Coast
Posts
1,038

Quote Originally Posted by John Wayne
Here's a bit of news concerning the Iranian pro-democracy movement:

General Strike Set in Iran In Bid To Topple Mullahs: Date of July 9 Puts U.S. on the Spot


Mark the date: July 9. That?s when op-ponents

of the Iranian regime have called a general strike that they hope will expand to topple the government there and bring freedom and democracy to the Iranian people.

The strike is being organized by profreedom student groups to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the last student uprising in Iran that saw thousands of students take to the streets against the Islamic Republic?s ruling mullahs.
Dang! Mr. Wayne, You beat me to it! Good Job!
...."um...(obvious confusion)...what?"
"Max"
(silence)
"It's short for Maxine"
" *brightens*....oh!"
"But nobody calls me that"







Post#6741 at 04-24-2003 03:14 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
04-24-2003, 03:14 PM #6741
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
I wonder how many of us ordinary Americans have "building blocks of illegal weapons" and "precursors to toxic agents" stored in our own basements and garages and don't even realize it.

Chlorine, ammonia, gasoline, lye -- all sorts of good stuff like that.
The real question is: how many of us, as kids, actually manufactured "illegal weapons" and/or "toxic agents" in our own homes? Not to mention a corollary, how many actually used said weapons?

If five guns are an arsenal, do five peanut-butter-jar 'grenades' consistute mass-production?
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#6742 at 04-24-2003 03:26 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
04-24-2003, 03:26 PM #6742
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff '61
I wonder how many of us ordinary Americans have "building blocks of illegal weapons" and "precursors to toxic agents" stored in our own basements and garages and don't even realize it.

Chlorine, ammonia, gasoline, lye -- all sorts of good stuff like that.
The real question is: how many of us, as kids, actually manufactured "illegal weapons" and/or "toxic agents" in our own homes? Not to mention a corollary, how many actually used said weapons?

If five guns are an arsenal, do five peanut-butter-jar 'grenades' consistute mass-production?
Good question.

Can't say I ever tried to make a bomb myself. I had vague notions once of trying to make a Molotov cocktail, but never followed through on it.

Naahh. No thanks, I'll stick to gassing myself with rust remover and oven cleaner. :wink:







Post#6743 at 04-24-2003 03:27 PM by Evan Anderson [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 400]
---
04-24-2003, 03:27 PM #6743
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
400

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
John:

You didn't answer the question, unless your answer is "nothing".
I didn't say that, you did. You offered the excuse that you're not in Iraq and not part of the intelligence network, and thus don't have access to hard evidence that would meet a reasonable test. Fine, I can understand that.
You are misrepresenting what I said, which was this:

Quote Originally Posted by John Wayne
Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
I've seen no good evidence for it and you've presented none
"I've presented none", that is, except for the evidence I've presented.

Look, Brian, given that neither of us is actually in Iraq, what could I possibly give you that you would consider "good evidence".

You have already over time blithely dismissed several articles by leading publications quoting actual Iraqis, intelligence experts of multiple nations, NGO's, UN officials like Hans Blix, etc. Many of the evidence I've drawn attention to during my time on this board has been verified by multiple sources.

No matter what, you always disbelieve.
What I am saying is that your standards of proof have been consistently higher than a reasonable person would require, as you reject the usual public media sources. I am NOT saying that I cannot prove it; I am saying I can prove it to the level of proof that a reasonable person would accept, but not you.







Post#6744 at 04-24-2003 03:34 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-24-2003, 03:34 PM #6744
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

No, John, I haven't misrepresented what you said. The gist of what you said is in the first sentence. Given that neither of us is in Iraq, what could you possibly present me that I would consider "good evidence"? The answer is, nothing that I don't have access to already. Fine, I won't get you fired from the CIA for being an incompetent spy -- since you don't work for the CIA to begin with AFAIK. You're blameless. But you still haven't proven anything.

Yes, I've already dismissed articles from "leading publications" quoting "actual Iraqis, intelligence experts of multiple nations, NGO's, UN officials like Hans Blix, etc." because none of those pieces said what you said it said. At best, it said something vaguely related to it that can be stretched to fit if one is so inclined and not picky about details like logic and proof.

The second cousin twice removed of your contention is still not your contention.

See Justin's post for another example of the use of vague terms to imply something not clearly stated. That's essentially what you're using your quoted sources to do. And I am not demanding proof beyond what a "reasonable" person would ask -- just proof of what you are saying, rather than of something else vaguely related to it.







Post#6745 at 04-24-2003 03:40 PM by Evan Anderson [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 400]
---
04-24-2003, 03:40 PM #6745
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
400

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
How is that scientist supposed to know that Iraq "cooperated with" al-Qaeda
Perhaps because he's an Iraqi scientist privy to what was going on, like Oppenheimer knowing that the A-Bomb was aboard the U.S.S. Indianapolis.

Look, Brian, I'll do your job for a change. This is the better argument you could use, if you were smart:

"Of course Al Qaeda and Iraq were cooperating recently (and the article specifies "recently"). By March 2003, it was clear that there was going to be an invasion, and Al Qaeda had reported called on its supporters to help Iraq repel the invasion. But that doesn't prove that Al Qaeda has been cooperating with Iraq until our invasion threat forced them together."

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
-- setting aside the fact that, once again, we're being presented with vague terms that can be stretched to fit any desired meaning.
How Clintonesque of you. When a person says "Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda", you think there's a possibility that he means something other than the obvious interpretation, eh?







Post#6746 at 04-24-2003 03:42 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
04-24-2003, 03:42 PM #6746
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by Clark W. Griswold
A.Los, Leados,

I have no generational connection. Where do I regularly see my peers where we can someone act one way or another? I live in a multigenerational situation. My generation is obviously X by default due to my birth and my peer group, but still how do we react?

Like I said in other forums it is not the reality but the interpretation of reality. Boomer parents want a Heroic Millennial generation and that is what the press and media will show them. Boomers drive the culture. The culture is manufactured to their liking.
They wanted to shit on Xers because they were going through post-youthitis and they got a whole generation to dismiss as ineffectual and whiny for the rest of their lives. Now they want to see their kids (and I am the child of Boomers but I am not somehow part of "their kids") grow up to be perfect.
Sarah Hughes, Jessica Lynch, from the Baby on Board to the Baby in the well to the heroic fighter against those swarthy Iraqis, that is what they want that is what they will get.
maybe... but considering that they STILL find ways to blast the young adults' intelligence (e.g. geography survey) that would imply that the youngest adults are MORE intrinsically Xish!
Whatever date is convenient for 4T begining (and I don't feel 4T but maybe because I live in Europe) will be chosen and the cycles pretty much fit. At the speed things are going it may be very likely that a Hero generation is born even in the crisis.
yeah... if so that will make the 'first impressions' theory even more ludicrous
People argue over math and cycles, but the average life span still is about 75 years, and 2003 is 74 years from 1929.
I thought it was a little longer (only 75 for us males)... 2003 is the earliest I can imagine a 4T beginning
I am not sure if we are in a phoney fourth (which it feels like) or a real 4th but i am not troubled by Math.
Bottomline, Bomers want their class of 2000, they want their Millennial heros, and they will get them, one way or another.
Even if they have to give up on my cohorts (with a few prominent exceptions) and look at those born around 1990 to do so! :-)

That is just how the culture functions. You try to rebel and you wind up a misunderstood anarchist smashing up Starbucks or an "alternative rocker" that doesn't sell records, but is popular amongst youth nontheless.







Post#6747 at 04-24-2003 03:53 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
04-24-2003, 03:53 PM #6747
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
No, John, I haven't misrepresented what you said. The gist of what you said is in the first sentence. Given that neither of us is in Iraq, what could you possibly present me that I would consider "good evidence"? The answer is, nothing that I don't have access to already. Fine, I won't get you fired from the CIA for being an incompetent spy -- since you don't work for the CIA to begin with AFAIK. You're blameless. But you still haven't proven anything.

Yes, I've already dismissed articles from "leading publications" quoting "actual Iraqis, intelligence experts of multiple nations, NGO's, UN officials like Hans Blix, etc." because none of those pieces said what you said it said. At best, it said something vaguely related to it that can be stretched to fit if one is so inclined and not picky about details like logic and proof.

The second cousin twice removed of your contention is still not your contention.

See Justin's post for another example of the use of vague terms to imply something not clearly stated. That's essentially what you're using your quoted sources to do. And I am not demanding proof beyond what a "reasonable" person would ask -- just proof of what you are saying, rather than of something else vaguely related to it.
Brian, in your estimation, how does the question of 3T or 4T turn on the presence or absence of actual WMDs in Iraq? Normally, I would consider this discussion one of our typical harmless digressions except for the fact that an actual thread was started with the following title: "Iraqi WMD: The new inspections." What am I missing here? Does all this have anything to do with locating where we are in the saeculum or is freerepublic.com now being mirrored here? :lol:







Post#6748 at 04-24-2003 06:37 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-24-2003, 06:37 PM #6748
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

John:

Perhaps because he's an Iraqi scientist privy to what was going on
Another vague and plastic phrase: "what was going on." Why would an Iraqi scientist, even one working on weapons projects, know about the Iraqi government's dealings with a secret terrorist organization any more than he'd be an authority on what Saddam had for breakfast?

I'm sure he was privy to certain specific things that were going on -- but surely not all things.

Look, Brian, I'll do your job for a change. This is the better argument you could use
Thanks, but I don't agree. To argue chronology is to concede, in effect, that Iraq and al-Qaeda ever "cooperated" in the way that matters.

Although I suppose the chronology argument could be made, I consider it weaker.

How Clintonesque of you.
Another fallacy, of course. You seem thick with them.

When a person says "Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda", you think there's a possibility that he means something other than the obvious interpretation, eh?
Since there isn't any "obvious interpretation," he has to. Whatever he meant isn't at all clear from that vague and plastic phrase.







Post#6749 at 04-24-2003 06:38 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-24-2003, 06:38 PM #6749
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Stonewall:

Brian, in your estimation, how does the question of 3T or 4T turn on the presence or absence of actual WMDs in Iraq?
It doesn't. Not in the least. Are you suggesting that we ought to stay on topic?







Post#6750 at 04-24-2003 06:49 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
04-24-2003, 06:49 PM #6750
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush
Stonewall:

Brian, in your estimation, how does the question of 3T or 4T turn on the presence or absence of actual WMDs in Iraq?
It doesn't. Not in the least. Are you suggesting that we ought to stay on topic?
:lol: No, I'd be the last guy to be able to suggest such a thing with a straight face! I was just cracking up because, looking at this discussion and some new thread titles, it was not clear to me whether I was at fourthturning.com or freerepublic.com. I feel like I'm at one of Ari Fleischer's daily disinformation conferences. :wink: But carry on!
-----------------------------------------