----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Acts of War
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 9:21 AM > Subject: Re: Acts of War > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 6:24 PM > > Subject: Re: Acts of War > > > > > > > On Dec 24, 2004, at 5:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > >> Kerry didn't have enough principle to clearly vote against *or* > for > > > >> the > > > >> war. That was one of the things Duh-bya harped on: "Flip-flop! > > > >> Flip-flop!" > > > > > > > > Gulf War I, not Gulf War II was being referenced. > > > > > > Oh, *that* "that" war. > > > > > > > Right, since that was the war in which Iraq took territory. > > > > <quote> > > > > >I can only see it as strategic to Iraq if their purpose was to pull > the > > >West into the region in order to touch off a larger conflict. If > it was > > >to actually try to expand their borders, they were nuts, a > possibility > > >that cannot be discounted! > > > > Nuts? > > > > If your man, John Kerry, had been President, the US wouldn't have > even > > attempted to stop him. > > > > <end quote> > > > > In another post you asked: > > > > >Precisely what part of that, Dan, is not conjecture? Or do you > believe > > >"assumption" to be different from "conjecture" in some fundamental > way? > > > > Pure conjecture is totally fabricated. Reasonable assumptions, on > the > > other hand, often involve the use of logic, data, and reason. For > example, > > if someone said they were opposed to a war and, when giving the > chance to > > vote for or against the war, voted against, one it is reasonable to > assume > > that person's actions and words reflecting their belief that the war > was a > > mistake. Given the "lessons of Viet Nam" that were assumed at the > time, > > given Kerry's position on earlier wars, it seems reasonsble to > assume that > > Kerry was being intellectually honest in his opposition to the Gulf > War. > > It's always possible that President Kerry would have a different > view than > > Senator Kerry, but it's not pure conjecture to assume that a > person's > > word's and actions reflect their thoughts. > > > > > > I'm more or less in the impure conjecture camp on this question. > > What one does as a Senator or Congressperson is not identical or even > nearly the same as what one does as President. For one thing the sets > of priorities are differing (Frex: who are your constituents?), and > for another the set of informations you are being fed are often *very* > different. > Regardless of the amounts of fabrication involved, this kind of > conjecture is still pure fiction and that should never be forgotten. So, there is no reason to study history, right? What happened happened. Everything else is fiction. And there is no sense voting for any candidate, because what he did and said has nothing to do with what he will do? I think that a study of history indicates correlations that can be used to gain understanding. For example, For example, voting records and speeches as Senators can be correlated with actions as a president. It's not perfect, where you sit does effect where you stand. Circumstances can also change. But, even a less than perfect correlation is useful in gauging understandings. But, if one wishes to address the question of whether Hussein was nuts to take Kuwait needs to consider whether the US coming in to remove him was a high, low or medium probability. In short, all maybes are not created equal. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
