My apology to Tim Elhajj

[Rywill]

In light of the Iraq commission's report, I'd like to formally apologize to Tim Elhajj and those who shared his view (he's the most vocal supporter I remember, which is why I'm singling him out). Since shortly after the end of the Iraq war, my position has been that invading Iraq was a mistake in hindsight, but there was no way to know that before we went in (in other words, that it was the right decision when made, based on the information we had at the time). I based this on the theory that the world's intelligence agencies thought, and at the time had good reason to think, that Iraq was within 5 years of developing a nuclear weapon.

Tim's position, as I understand it, was that the world's intelligence agencies might have thought that, but they had no reason to. I still am not sure how Tim came to that conclusion, and it may be that Tim actually had no basis for coming to that conclusion. But whether through luck or skill, it's clear to me at this point that Tim is right in his assessment, and I was wrong. I trusted that the estimates of the CIA and foreign intelligence services were based on reasonable underpinnings. But the CIA's estimates, at least, were not (and I assume the other agencies' weren't, either). It's actually kind of funny: I'm normally Mr. Distrust-The-Government, but in this case trusted them because there's no way for me (or any other citizen without access to classified intelligence) to determine whether the CIA estimates are well-founded or not. Another lesson learned.

I gave up on the P&R forum for good a few weeks ago, because for every person who is willing to engage in a good-faith debate of differing views (Tom, Jason, Desslock), there are five or ten who are only interested in bomb-throwing, lying, sarcasm, and wrenching the debate off track. I assume that's still the case, but I wanted to drop in and admit my mistake, given that there had been lots of debate on the topic.

[Derek Meister]

During the debate leading up to the war, I saw many conflicting reports coming from the intelligence community as to what Iraq had or was capable of doing, which is why I didn't believe the final reports that were promoted by the Administration.

There were a number of dissenting opinions even from within the CIA, which like most intelligence organizations always has several takes on any one subject, coming from multiple groups within analysing the same data in order to provide more than one take.

[Tom Chick]

I can't imagine there are many political forums, online or otherwise, where someone would display as much class as Ryan just did.

Glad to have you back on our side. Now if you really love your country, you'll make amends by moving to Florida and helping secure those 27 electoral college votes! :)

-Tom

[Tim Partlett]

I wouldn't say the world's intelligence agencies supported the theory that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or was a threat of any kind. I remember just prior to the war the BBC interviewed a cross-section of British military intelligence, from the editor of Jane's to members of MI5, and the general attitude was one of scoffing. The UN weapons inspectors were equally unimpressed by the claims, including Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, and the now deceased David Kelly. The British intelligence community has consistently sought to distance itself from the claims made by Bush and Blair, and I think this will be underlined in the Butler report which comes out in the UK this week. I'm not sure what Russian, French and Chinese intelligence thought of Saddam, but I would guess that they were pretty unconvinced by the whole thing as well.

Apart from that, kudos for admitting your mistake. I will always have as much respect for those who can admit they were wrong, as those who can argue convincingly that they were right.

[Jason McCullough]

Intellectually honest! Now if you'd be so kind as to convince Ben to vote for Kerry. :D

[Derek Meister]

So is this were we put a collective apology to Shift6 for thinking he had a full on love affair with all things Bush, when he was just a libertarian caught in the middle of the usual partisan crossfire? ;)

[TimElhajj]

That's pretty classy Ryan. It's true that we hashed this over again and again, but I don't know that you owe me an apology. At least, I'm not holding onto any hard feelings over our Iraq WMD arugments.

Heh, when I clicked on this thread, I suspected you were up to something. At the end of the post I was like, "Oh, wait. It's not sarcasm." :)

[TimElhajj]

I wouldn't say the world's intelligence agencies supported the theory that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or was a threat of any kind. I remember just prior to the war the BBC interviewed a cross-section of British military intelligence, from the editor of Jane's to members of MI5, and the general attitude was one of scoffing. The UN weapons inspectors were equally unimpressed by the claims, including Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, and the now deceased David Kelly.

To be fair, there was also a lot of talk going the other way. There was Pollack and his book, The Threatening Storm. Pollack starts with the assumption that Iraq gets nukes in 5-10 years, but never says how that happens; he wants you to assume it's a given. He never considers any evidence to the contrary.

What was lacking was any hard evidence. In addition, Bush was giving the hard sell, really pandering to American fears from 9/11. To be honest, that was what kept me from buying into the whole thing. The more manipulated I felt, the more skeptical I became.

[Tim Partlett]

Pollack is an American... most of the world's intelligence didn't support the American position.

Today's Butler report unsurprisingly concluded that the British government was innocent of twisting the facts, but it is possible to read between the lines and see that this is obviously what they were doing. Some key points included criticism of the goverment for stretching the facts to breaking point ("more weight was placed on the intelligence than it could bear"), using weak ("insufficiently robust") evidence to support the case for war, and the "serious failing" of not bothering to include the warnings and caveats about the strength of the evidence in the dossier that was presented to Parliament. He also believed Blair presented the intelligence as being "fuller and firmer" than it actually was, and the dossier went to the "outer limits" of available intelligence. However, despite that he amazingly concluded that there was "no deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to mislead".

Michael Herman, former secretary to the Joint Intelligence Committee that created the intelligence dossier that Blair used to support the war, said "interested policy makers quickly learn that intelligence can be used the way a drunk uses a lamp post - for support rather than illumination". John Ware, reporter for the BBC's Panorama show, quipped that with the Iraq dossier we have "Blair as the drunk, and the JIC as his lamp post."

"We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years-contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence-Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd." - Tony Blair, 18th March 2003

[Dirt]

I find it difficult to take a conversation at the P&R forums seriously anymore. While sometimes informative, has anyone's minds really been changed from these boards? Sure, Rywill has had a change of heart, but it was after more info came out from the commission and not from anything anyone said here.

[Nick Walter]

I find it difficult to take a conversation at the P&R forums seriously anymore. While sometimes informative, has anyone's minds really been changed from these boards? Sure, Rywill has had a change of heart, but it was after more info came out from the commission and not from anything anyone said here.

I think P&R changes minds, but it's a tricky phenomenon to measure. I've changed my mind or opinion on issues based on posts on P&R, but never ever based on a post in a thread I've posted in. If I'm posting in a thread, I already know how I think how about issue X and I'm not likely to change my mind. The threads where I lurk and hear about things I don't have fully or strongly formed opinions about are the ones that change my mind.

Interestingly, the strongly liberal slant of the P&R majority voice has made me become more conservative overall. The nauseatingly smug and superior tone of the liberal P&R mafia is repellent and I find myself wanting to distance myself mentally from certain posters in this board even if I have extremely similar political beliefs.

[Midnight Son]

:lol:

[steve]

Interestingly, the strongly liberal slant of the P&R majority voice has made me become more conservative overall. The nauseatingly smug and superior tone of the liberal P&R mafia is repellent and I find myself wanting to distance myself mentally from certain posters in this board even if I have extremely similar political beliefs.

I'm not sure how strong your convictions are if the tone of a few posters could change your overall viewpoint. Besides, both sides, when they believe they're right, are smug and superior. And in this forum, both sides have posters who are more annoying than helpful.

I suppose I could say I've become more liberal because of Bob Cherub's approved talking points posts, but c'mon, that would be giving the guy too much credit.

[Anders Hallin]

I think arguments on political philosophy is a lot more likely to change people's minds, otherwise it's just a matter of information.

[Derek Meister]

Personally, I don't come here expecting to have my mind changed in every debate, and if no one had it happened to them, it wouldn't mark a failure in this forum for me.

I come to forums like this to educate myself on where all the different sides are coming from, how they attack a particular issue as well as making myself think more critically about why I believe in whatever it is I'm argueing about.

Even the worst debate in forums like these help me to go from just being "I believe X" to "I believe X because of A, B and C." Even when my opinion is merely about something I might hate generally, at least I come away having looked at what people are argueing about, no matter how many talking points and thinly veiled propaganda come from both sides, and leave with more specific reasons for those strong feelings than when I arrived.

YMMV, but an example of this that occurred personally was this thread on SUVs, where by having to debate against others, I was able to better develop my reasons to myself for feeling as I do.

[quatoria]

Interestingly, the strongly liberal slant of the P&R majority voice has made me become more conservative overall. The nauseatingly smug and superior tone of the liberal P&R mafia is repellent and I find myself wanting to distance myself mentally from certain posters in this board even if I have extremely similar political beliefs.

I find that a bit unfair, but only a bit. There are a few very obnoxious liberal posters, but there are almost as many very obnoxious conservative ones. I think the main difference is that the liberal ones post more often, and the worst of them, Midnight Son, is often the thread starter. Midnight Son probably does more to make the tone of Politics and Religion combatitive and unpleasant than any other single poster. I wish he'd take a minute to consider the fact that starting threads in snide, obnoxious, mocking tones is virtually guaranteed to make the thread itself useless for any sort of discussion. IE - it makes it useless for changing minds, meaning that Midnight Son, through his obnoxiously smug advocacy of liberal positions, actually does more harm to those positions than someone like Bob Cherub could ever do.

[Ben]

Time for some Koontzian forum analysis, matching rough "same kind of poster":
Cherub- MS
Chet- CindySue(? I guess)
Rywill- Elhajj
Desslock- McCullough
Falgoust- Partlett
eh, I run out of steam. Who else is left? Rucker, quatoria, Walter, Erickson, shift6, Anaxagoras, me...

Hmm, why does there seem to be such a left-leaning slant here? Seems relatively even from a "FFS! TEAMS!" standpoint.

[Bub, Andrew]

Hmm, why does there seem to be such a left-leaning slant here? Seems relatively even from a "FFS! TEAMS!" standpoint.

I think it's because this year the Right has lost a lot of the moderates. I mean, when self-described Republicans like Tom Chick are actively, and humorously, campaigning against Bush every chance they get, they're probably not interested in getting into threads where they might have to defend the Prez.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Desslock is willing to engage in a good-faith debate of differing views?

Hmm, why does there seem to be such a left-leaning slant here? Seems relatively even from a "FFS! TEAMS!" standpoint.

Because you're pretty far to the right and you have a victim complex, and your side is losing right now. Also, the smarter/moderate conservatives are starting to sound more and more centrist in comparison to the people trying to keep up with the Bush administration, which is drifting further to the crazy side of the right. Smarties tend to shy away from defending them, leaving only a minority of frothy-mouthed nutcases like Cherub and CindySue. And sometimes you, but not always.

Edit: Bah, beaten to it. Except for the invective.

[Nick Walter]

Desslock is willing to engage in a good-faith debate of differing views?

Hmm, why does there seem to be such a left-leaning slant here? Seems relatively even from a "FFS! TEAMS!" standpoint.

Because you're pretty far to the right and you have a victim complex, and your side is losing right now. Also, the smarter/moderate conservatives are starting to sound more and more centrist in comparison to the people trying to keep up with the Bush administration, which is drifting further to the crazy side of the right. Smarties tend to shy away from defending them, leaving only a minority of frothy-mouthed nutcases like Cherub and CindySue. And sometimes you, but not always.

Edit: Bah, beaten to it. Except for the invective.

You'd do well over at NMA.

[Theodore Rex DX]

What's NMA? Did I just get insulted?

[Guido Jones]

What's NMA? Did I just get insulted?

Go read the Fallout 3 thread.

And besides Cherub and Cindy Sue, who are the obnoxious conservatives Q? Just color me curious.

[Anaxagoras]

People expect, or even hope, to change minds in this forum? Really? In order to change minds, people must be willing to admit they're wrong, and almost no one who posts here will do so. There's been a mere handful of people who have said "I'm wrong". Usually when someone is proven wrong (either because of evidence presented or having their arguments picked apart) they just clam up and act in later threads as if nothing had happened.

Anders is right when he said that in order to change someone's mind either new information must be presented or the discussion must evolve into a discussion of political philosophy. That is to say, the discussion needs to evolve into a discussion of the underlying issues involved. However, such discussions are often dismissed as "talking out your ass", "making shit up", or similar terms. In short, some people think that if you can't produce a link, or if much of you argument rests on reason rather than evidence, then it's worthless.

Between those who always demand evidence, and those who are unable to follow arguments, (or don't feel like putting in the effort to do so) "useful" discussion is nearly impossible, as long as you define "useful" as "changing someone's mind". But as Derek said, it can be "useful" even if you run up against a brick wall because it helps sharpen your thoughts and your justifications, even if the other person doesn't get it. And if they don't get it... why not? Are they stupid? Are they lazy? Or are you just not communicating the idea well? To be honest, if the other person doesn't get it I assume it's my fault, unless they a) become defensvie and/or verbally abusive or b) aren't even making an effort to understand.

With Desslock, he went into arguments assuming he was fundamentally right. It wasn't a working theory... it was an unshakeable axiom. You might be able to wear him down on a minor point, or a particular point of doctrine, but he thought his underlying thought structure was perfectly sound. And it wasn't. Which is why I was so savage with him. The only way to get him to declare fundamental axioms was to rile him up, to anger him. Even though the rest of us could see the axioms, even if we could explicitly name them, he would deny them. And it got tiresome to have to read the posts of a man that was actively lying both to us and to himself concerning his motives and beliefs.

Anyways, I only explicitly mentioned Desslock because Rywill singled him out as one of the few people in this forum that tried to have a good-faith debate of differing views. I think honesty (including self-honesty) is necessary to have a good-faith debate, and I never saw evidence of intellectual honesty from that man. However, I will definitely agree that Jason and Tom try to have a good-faith debates.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Go read the Fallout 3 thread.

And besides Cherub and Cindy Sue, who are the obnoxious conservatives Q? Just color me curious.

IMO? Just them, really. A couple others who are inflexible and persistently annoying, but nothing I consider offensive enough for me to single out. I guess I sort of implied Ben and Desslock, though.

I'm going to go read the Fallout 3 thread now. I wish you could have just told me.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Oh, I see - No Mutants Allowed. Well fuck you, then. Also: What the hell?

[Anaxagoras]

What's NMA? Did I just get insulted?

Yes, you were just insulted. Apparently providing your opinion to an asked question is ranting and raving. (The people over at NMA are truly fucking insane. Oh... NMA stands for No Mutants Allowed) Nick, you think Theodore's analysis is incorrect? How so? I ask this not as a baited question, but in all seriousness. It didn't even have much invective or viciousness in it. It just seemed like an honest answer to Ben's question.

And to answer Guido's question, the annoying conservatives besides Cherub and CindySue are Ben and Desslock. (I don't know if Desslock still posts here any more.. haven't heard a peep from him in a while.)
Although maybe classifying Ben as a Conservative might be a mistake.

[Midnight Son]

Mr. Qatloo, you are on my official "Enemy of the State" list. Your poster is in the mail! :lol:

You know, way too many people on the In-ternet take themselves WAY too seriously. Some were already mentioned by others in this thread, others contributed to it. My slant, my angle, is the Michael Moore one. I use humor, innuendo, moronic jokes and so on to make my point. I'm gonna piss off the stuffed shirts now and then. Now back to the serious tone of this discussion.

[quatoria]

But that's just it, Midnight. Nobody finds you funny. You don't just piss off "stuffed shirts", you piss off everybody who reads Politics and Religion. You have valuable insights and opinions to contribute, but you don't do that - you make quips, and unfunny jokes, and generally just piss people off and make reasoned discource an impossibility. Furthermore, even if you did it well, there's no need for the sort of style you advocate on this particular forum. Would it really be so difficult to just try behaving in a civil manner, and advocating your point of view without attacking the people who hold a different one? I genuinely believe that if you did so, some of the other posters on this forum might follow suit.

[Tim Partlett]

I debate mostly to learn. Even if I only learn how to defend my position better, I am learning something. I wouldn't want to change the position of the person I am engaging. If everyone had the same opinion as me the world would be very boring. It could possibly be disasterous too, as many of my opinions are probably very wrong. I do change my opinions sometimes, though, although at best they are usually just moderated by others. P.J. O'Rourke, for example, convinced me that left-wing economic policies were flawed, and that laissez-faire was the way forward.

[Midnight Son]

But that's just it, Midnight. Nobody finds you funny. You don't just piss off "stuffed shirts", you piss off everybody who reads Politics and Religion. You have valuable insights and opinions to contribute, but you don't do that - you make quips, and unfunny jokes, and generally just piss people off and make reasoned discource an impossibility. Furthermore, even if you did it well, there's no need for the sort of style you advocate on this particular forum. Would it really be so difficult to just try behaving in a civil manner, and advocating your point of view without attacking the people who hold a different one? I genuinely believe that if you did so, some of the other posters on this forum might follow suit.

I suppose we could get someone like Koontz to look up whether I attacked someone first or was the recipient because of my "style." I've had plenty of threads where I behaved quite decorously while smoking a cigar and sipping some brandy. Obviously, I never shied away from attacking those attacking me, either in the past or now. But it's not really why I'm here. It's fun and enjoyable to annoy the right wingers but their numbers are obviously dwindling. I'll just post items that might be of interest to most. Perhaps, I can save my soul!