Glasgow Guide Home

Whats On Glasgow Guide
  Glasgow What's On


    Glasgow Reviews


    Glasgow Gallery


      Glasgow Links
Discuss | Guestbook | Postcard | News | Weather | Feedback | Search | About | What's New
Glasgow Guide Discussion Boards

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )                >> View Today's Topics <<

40 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Chilcot: Iraq War Inquiry, To be held next year
bilbo.s
post 21st Nov 2009, 03:24pm
Post #31


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 10,526
Joined: 9th Apr 2008
From: ALBUŅOL (Granada), Spain
Member No.: 5,582
Some might consider religion a primitive human attribute.


--------------------
Just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't like you, and just because I don't like you doesn't mean I disagree with you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TeeHeeHee
post 21st Nov 2009, 04:47pm
Post #32


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 14,245
Joined: 25th Jan 2009
From: German/French/Swiss border town on the River Rhein
Member No.: 6,448
Among the cave drawings, found in France and dated as 30,000 +/- years old, was there any form of religious depictions?


--------------------
"Destiny is a good thing to accept when it's going your way. When it isn't, don't call it destiny; call it injustice, treachery, or simple bad luck.”
― Joseph Heller, God Knows
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bilbo.s
post 21st Nov 2009, 04:53pm
Post #33


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 10,526
Joined: 9th Apr 2008
From: ALBUŅOL (Granada), Spain
Member No.: 5,582
Who knows, Tomi. We have no idea what they believed in and can therefore not tell if they depicted relevant images. Maybe they had not reached the Age of Wonder and were too busy keeping alive to bother with philosophy. biggrin.gif

Who knows, Tomi. We have no idea what they believed in and can therefore not tell if they depicted relevant images. Maybe they had not reached the Age of Wonder and were too busy keeping alive to bother with philosophy. biggrin.gif


--------------------
Just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't like you, and just because I don't like you doesn't mean I disagree with you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tomtscotland
post 21st Nov 2009, 05:11pm
Post #34


Visitor
***
Posts: 46
Joined: 7th Aug 2008
Member No.: 5,926
QUOTE (Alex MacPhee @ 21st Nov 2009, 01:34pm) *
Can you explain why?


You've asserted that virtually all security services believed there were weapons of mass distruction.
I'm asserting that your argument based on this premise is naive.
Now you're asking me to explain this. Try reading the second part of my previous response.
In addition the credibility of the "intelligence" has been damaged by a whole series of revelations about it's accuracy. Of course there are some who will believe anything. It really does take the biscuit when "trust me - I'm Tony" can have the brass neck to say that he did not realize that the 45' references were to battlefield weapons. So we go to war on the basis of a dodgy dossier and a PM who is either (1) an idiot who cannot establish the facts by asking questions or (2) a conman who thinks he can get away with anything. It seems (2) is the reality.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alex MacPhee
post 21st Nov 2009, 05:13pm
Post #35


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 1,741
Joined: 1st Nov 2008
From: Surrey, UK
Member No.: 6,183
QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 21st Nov 2009, 04:51pm) *
Who knows, Tomi. We have no idea what they believed in and can therefore not tell if they depicted relevant images.

You can tell a surprising amount, even in the absence of drawings and the like. Fossils can tell a lot about the existence of primitive religious belief : for example, burial mounds where the remains have been laid so that they are facing the same direction, say, the east, can be fairly interpreted as indicators of significance to the direction, like sun-god worship ; the existence of familiar objects in the burial mound, such as bowls, or personal objects, indicates the concept of making provision for journey to another world, whether you call that underworld or afterworld. Such arterfacts in mounds are very old indeed, suggesting that religious beliefs are very old, and primitive human attributes.



--------------------
Alex
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
auldbutcher
post 21st Nov 2009, 06:17pm
Post #36

Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 2,269
Joined: 13th Sep 2009
Member No.: 7,459
lotta food fer thought here, thanks fer makin it interestin troops, an you too general wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carmella
post 21st Nov 2009, 07:31pm
Post #37


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 5,004
Joined: 28th Jul 2003
From: South Ayrshire
Member No.: 58
There is indeed a lot of food for thought.

I too, wish to thank every contributor for giving their viewpoints in a clear manner. This is what intelligent debate is all about. We may not always agree with each point raised. I have certainly enjoyed reading through the replies.

I think (a word since I started this thread), a word from me seems in order.

Since the war in Iraq has been going on for some time, yet no-one has discovered any further weapons of mass destruction, bearing in mind that Saddam Hussein is no longer there, or his government to hinder, or impede any searches, this further convinces me that there were none to begin with, other than those previously discovered between 1990 and 1991.

We already knew he had a track record with his use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish people, during the Iran-Iraq war when thousands were killed. We knew he was intent on pursuing a biological programme as well as a nuclear weapons programme - this much is documented.

More equipment was discovered during the '90s which could be used in the production of WMD by the UNSCOM. But, no weapons of mass destruction were found. I feel, therefore, that the war is illegal, on the premise that it was because we were told there were still WMD there, which remained hidden, and that it was right we go to War for that reason. The British public was deceived and lied to.

In September 2002, Tony Blair told the Commons that "Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing", a stance with which he persisted, until he left office. Tony Blair has also stated (I can't recall the date) that these WMD might never be found. Well the latter is certainly true, as none have been!

As for his religion, he has been married to a practicing Catholic for many years. It always amazed me, why if he had a genuine wish to convert, he did not do so sooner. Instead, he waited until he was out of office. Perhaps others can understand and/or explain his reasons better than I.


--------------------
Silence is a true friend who never betrays.

Confucius - Chinese Philosopher - [551bc-479bc]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alex MacPhee
post 21st Nov 2009, 07:37pm
Post #38


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 1,741
Joined: 1st Nov 2008
From: Surrey, UK
Member No.: 6,183
QUOTE (tomtscotland @ 21st Nov 2009, 05:09pm) *
You've asserted that virtually all security services believed there were weapons of mass distruction.
I'm asserting that your argument based on this premise is naive.

Naive means lacking in sophistication, simplistic, childlike. I think it is a fact that most intelligence agencies considered that Saddam had prohibited weapons. That I should report this fact is hardly naive. It was what the security services were reporting, and therefore is hardly unsophisticated or childlike or uneducated to point this out. Saddam had already used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Hans Blix, then weapons inspector, admonished Saddam for playing cat and mouse games over weapons inspections. If it was not believed that Saddam could be harbouring prohibited weapons, there would have been no need for a Security Council Resolution on disarming Iraq and compelling it to admit the weapons inspection team. It is hardly 'unsophisticated' or 'childlike' to draw attention to this, unless you have a peculiar definition of 'naive' in mind.

QUOTE
Now you're asking me to explain this. Try reading the second part of my previous response.

If you are referring to the so-called 'dodgy dossier', this had no bearing on the decision to pursue military action against Saddam. It's function was to persuade the public of the justification for it, but the military action had as its rationale the refusal of Saddam Hussein's government to comply with a series of existing and ignored Security Council Resolutions.

QUOTE
In addition the credibility of the "intelligence" has been damaged by a whole series of revelations about it's accuracy.

It is the fate of all intelligence to risk being inaccurate. That is why it is intelligence, and not knowledge.

QUOTE
PM who is either (1) an idiot who cannot establish the facts by asking questions or (2) a conman who thinks he can get away with anything. It seems (2) is the reality.

I don't believe Tony Blair is an idiot -- far from it, he is highly intelligent. I suppose you could label all politicians as con-men, and not expect too much in the way of adverse reaction ; indeed, most would nod sagely and agree. Oddly enough, whilst I consider Mr Blair to have betrayed so many electoral and manifesto promises that I could not, in all conscience, vote for him without there being a prior threat of harm to my person if I refused, I think his reasons for pursuing the military course against Saddam were reasoned and in good faith.


--------------------
Alex
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tomtscotland
post 21st Nov 2009, 08:39pm
Post #39


Visitor
***
Posts: 46
Joined: 7th Aug 2008
Member No.: 5,926
QUOTE (Alex MacPhee @ 21st Nov 2009, 07:35pm) *
Naive means lacking in sophistication, simplistic, childlike. I think it is a fact that most intelligence agencies considered that Saddam had prohibited weapons. That I should report this fact is hardly naive. It was what the security services were reporting, and therefore is hardly unsophisticated or childlike or uneducated to point this out. Saddam had already used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Hans Blix, then weapons inspector, admonished Saddam for playing cat and mouse games over weapons inspections. If it was not believed that Saddam could be harbouring prohibited weapons, there would have been no need for a Security Council Resolution on disarming Iraq and compelling it to admit the weapons inspection team. It is hardly 'unsophisticated' or 'childlike' to draw attention to this, unless you have a peculiar definition of 'naive' in mind.


If you are referring to the so-called 'dodgy dossier', this had no bearing on the decision to pursue military action against Saddam. It's function was to persuade the public of the justification for it, but the military action had as its rationale the refusal of Saddam Hussein's government to comply with a series of existing and ignored Security Council Resolutions.


It is the fate of all intelligence to risk being inaccurate. That is why it is intelligence, and not knowledge.


I don't believe Tony Blair is an idiot -- far from it, he is highly intelligent. I suppose you could label all politicians as con-men, and not expect too much in the way of adverse reaction ; indeed, most would nod sagely and agree. Oddly enough, whilst I consider Mr Blair to have betrayed so many electoral and mandate promises that I could not, in all conscience, vote for him without there being a prior threat of harm to my person if I refused, I think his reasons for pursuing the military course against Saddam were reasoned and in good faith.

My bold above.
I think your definition of naive is somewhat lacking and narrowly defined to suit your argument - "naive means lacking in sophistication, simplistic, childlike". I'm sure that most posters will recognize that in this context it meant "lacking critical judgement" - your acceptance as truth the word of security services when it could quite possibly be no more than trumped up propaganda - as with the dodgy dossier.

I'm not going thru' every point of your reply because I don't believe in debating a point with someone who twists and changes their own point and argues black is white. Besides that this forum restricts the amount of emoticons I can put laugh.gif

However here are just a couple -

"If you are referring to the so-called 'dodgy dossier', this had no bearing on the decision to pursue military action against Saddam."

Wrong - it was quoted in Parliament to win a vote supporting war. Blair misled parliament with the 45' minute claim.

"It is the fate of all intelligence to risk being inaccurate. That is why it is intelligence, and not knowledge. "

Difference here is being deliberately wrong for propaganda purposes. We need to use our intelligence to make a value judgement and not naively believe everything we are told.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tommy Kennedy
post 21st Nov 2009, 09:00pm
Post #40

Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 3,510
Joined: 28th Jul 2003
Member No.: 54
The U.S. Neo- Cons made it quite clear in their Documents of 'America in the 21st. Century' & ''Full Spectrum Dominence' - beore 9/11 - their intention to invade Iraq.

With the Object of: To Control Iraqs Oil:, privatise Iraq's Utilities, have them run by U.S. companies
From their to do dominate the Midlle East. With 'Shock & Awe' they were - they thought - going to, with such a display of military might, put the frighteners on other nations. This had the opposite effect, other nations realising they would only be safe from U.S. if they had a strong army and chase nuclear capability........

'The best laid schemes o' mice and men gang aft aglay'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alex MacPhee
post 21st Nov 2009, 09:20pm
Post #41


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 1,741
Joined: 1st Nov 2008
From: Surrey, UK
Member No.: 6,183
QUOTE (tomtscotland @ 21st Nov 2009, 08:37pm) *
My bold above.
I think your definition of naive is somewhat lacking and narrowly defined to suit your argument. I'm sure that most posters will recognize that in this context it meant "lacking critical judgement" - your acceptance as truth the word of security services

This last statement is genuinely naive. I don't accept as "truth" the word of the security services. I report that the intelligence services say there was enough evidence to believe Saddam had prohibited weapons or had a prohibited weapons programme. I think there was enough to persuade me that Saddam either had prohibited weapons, or wished others to believe he had prohibited weapons, since he had already been found to have them, and refused to co-operate with weapons inspections to demonstrate that he no longer had them. Brinkmanship was Saddam's speciality.

QUOTE
I'm not going thru' every point of your reply because I don't believe in debating a point with someone who twists and changes their own point and argues black is white.

That's naive. I don't argue black is white, nor "change my point". I have enough confidence in my dialectical skills to be able to defend any argument I make. Constructive debate is much more engaging if you can forego the temptation to engage in the ad hominem.

QUOTE
"If you are referring to the so-called 'dodgy dossier', this had no bearing on the decision to pursue military action against Saddam."[/b]
Wrong - it was quoted in Parliament to win a vote supporting war. Blair misled parliament with the 45' minute claim.

I am not wrong. The Prime Minister may have put the question to parliament, but did not require a vote to go to war. Constitutionally, he can on behalf of the sovereign declare a state of war without reference to parliament. The case for the war rests solely with the response of Saddam's government to refuse to comply with a series of UN Security Council Resolutions, including failure to supply full and final reckoning of weapons stocks, and continued breach of SCR687, among others. Everything else was window-dressing.



--------------------
Alex
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alex MacPhee
post 21st Nov 2009, 09:24pm
Post #42


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 1,741
Joined: 1st Nov 2008
From: Surrey, UK
Member No.: 6,183
QUOTE (Tommy Kennedy @ 21st Nov 2009, 08:58pm) *
With the Object of: To Control Iraqs Oil:, privatise Iraq's Utilities, have them run by U.S. companies

Who owns Iraq's oil?


--------------------
Alex
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
auldbutcher
post 21st Nov 2009, 09:47pm
Post #43

Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 2,269
Joined: 13th Sep 2009
Member No.: 7,459
alex lay oots reminds me o some wan, the cherry picked quotes ,an then his answer tae them. but fer the life o me i canny remember who. laugh.gif rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tomtscotland
post 21st Nov 2009, 10:13pm
Post #44


Visitor
***
Posts: 46
Joined: 7th Aug 2008
Member No.: 5,926
QUOTE (Alex MacPhee @ 21st Nov 2009, 09:18pm) *
This last statement is genuinely naive. I don't accept as "truth" the word of the security services. I report that the intelligence services say there was enough evidence to believe Saddam had prohibited weapons or had a prohibited weapons programme. I think there was enough to persuade me that Saddam either had prohibited weapons, or wished others to believe he had prohibited weapons, since he had already been found to have them, and refused to co-operate with weapons inspections to demonstrate that he no longer had them. Brinkmanship was Saddam's speciality.


That's naive. I don't argue black is white, nor "change my point". I have enough confidence in my dialectical skills to be able to defend any argument I make. Constructive debate is much more engaging if you can forego the temptation to engage in the ad hominem.


I am not wrong. The Prime Minister may have put the question to parliament, but did not require a vote to go to war. Constitutionally, he can on behalf of the sovereign declare a state of war without reference to parliament. The case for the war rests solely with the response of Saddam's government to refuse to comply with a series of UN Security Council Resolutions, including failure to supply full and final reckoning of weapons stocks, and continued breach of SCR687, among others. Everything else was window-dressing.


Crivvens - here we go with the circular arguments.
You say you don't change your point or argue black is white - well quite simply that is what you continue to do.
My original comment referred to your assertion "Virtually all intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction."
I said that was naive - you replied with a nonsensical (in this context) definition of naive.
You have now changed the argument from "weapons of mass destruction" to "prohibited weapons / programme"
You are now arguing that you "don't accept as "truth" the word of the security services". Unfortunately that is a contradictory position to your assertion that "all intelligence agencies believed" which you used without qualification as a point of argument - and this prompted my "naive" comment.
I made the point that the dodgy dossier was used to win support in parliament - the government won the vote. This was in response to your previous assertion that the dossier was only needed to get public support. So now you are asserting "I am not wrong" because Blair did not require a vote to go to war. Did I say he did? However - you were wrong - because the dossier influenced parliament as well as the public.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tommy Kennedy
post 21st Nov 2009, 10:30pm
Post #45

Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 3,510
Joined: 28th Jul 2003
Member No.: 54
QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 21st Nov 2009, 03:22pm) *
Some might consider religion a primitive human attribute.



YES ,There is overwhelming evidence that humans practiced various forms of worhsip centuries before to-days leading religions.....the Druids here. Humans are a superstious species

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

40 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th Nov 2017

All material in the site Glasgow Guide is copyright of the Glasgow Guide Organisation. This material is for your own private use only, and no part of the site may be reproduced, amended, modified, copied, or transmitted to third parties, by any means whatsoever without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. All rights reserved.

Glasgow Hotels: book cheap hotels in Glasgow online now.