Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Connecting the Dots...
Hi Eric! (01)
Eric Armstrong wrote:
> The *real* case has yet to be made in public, at
> least in any totally convincingly fashion. It
> suddenly occurs to me that I may be able to do so
> here. (02)
Not sure what the formalism you use is. Is this somehow related to IBIS'
question-idea-argument system? I'll try to reply that way (the
discussion seems hard to keep track of already). (03)
If people agree, we could try to keep the numbering across emails, so
that it's easier to refer to the different issues raised? (04)
> Subject: Saddam Hussein
>
> Item: If he has used biological and chemical weapons
> on the Kurds, why would he care if someone used
> them on us? (It's hard to see why he would.) (05)
1. Question: Is Hussein likely to support/be indifferent about/be
opposed to biological or chemical weapons being used on the US? (06)
1.1. Idea: He is not likely to be opposed to it. (07)
1.1.1. Pro-Argument [Eric's]: He has used biological and chemical
weapons on the Kurds. It is hard to see why he would care about them
being used on the United States. (08)
This argument makes sense to me. (09)
> Item: Since he has given $5,000 to the families of
> Palestinian suicide bombers, he obviously has no
> ethical or moral objections to activities of that
> kind. (010)
2. Question: Is Hussein likely to support/be indifferent about/be
opposed to suicide attacks? (011)
2.1. Idea: He will not have ethical or moral objections to that. (012)
2.1.1. Pro-Argument [Eric's]: He has given $5,000 to the families of
Palestinian suicide bombers. He would not have done that if he had
ethical or moral objections to this kind of activity. (013)
> Item: The blockade and limits on oil sales have left
> him impoverished, on a "tight budget".
>
> Item: Al Queda, though impaired, most likely still has
> somewhere between hundreds of millions and billions
> to spend.
>
> Item: Given that combination of circumstances, would
> Hussein be reluctant to sell chemical or biological
> weapons to Al Queda. (Why would he?) (014)
3. Question: Would Hussein sell chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda? (015)
3.1. Idea: No, he would have moral objections to the use of these kinds
of weapons on Americans. (016)
3.1.1. Con-Argument [Eric's]: He has used them on the Kurds, why would
he have a problem with using them on Americans? (See Question 1.) (017)
3.1.2. Con-Argument [Benja's]: He has produced them before. Why produce
them if he has moral objections to them being used? (018)
3.2. Idea: No, he would have moral objections about al-Qaeda using them
in suicide attacks. (019)
3.2.1. Con-Argument [Eric's]: He has given $5,000 to the families of
Palestinian suicide bombers. (See Question 2.) (020)
3.3. Idea: Yes, he would. (021)
3.3.1. Pro-Argument [Eric's]: After the blockade and limits on oil
sales, he is impoverished, on a "tight budget." He could use the money. (022)
3.4. Idea: No, he would not work together with al-Qaeda. (023)
3.4.1. Pro-Argument [Benja's]: He does not like al-Qaeda any more than
al-Qaeda likes him. (024)
3.4.2. Pro-Argument [Benja's]: There is no proof that Hussein has or has
had contacts to al-Qaeda. (There was a report of a meeting between an
al-Qaeda and an Iraqui agent in Prague, but this has since found to be
fake.) (025)
3.4.3. Pro-Argument [Benja's]: He is slowly taking steps towards
fulfilling the international demands. (His government is granting the UN
inspectors more rights than in 1998, and he has started destroying the
missiles the inspectors found.) He most likely does this in the hope to
evade a war against the US. Why would he make war almost inevitable by
selling weapons to al-Qaeda? (026)
3.4.4. Pro-Argument [Benja's]: Strengthening al-Qaeda would endanger his
own position as a secular ruler. What guarantee does he have that
al-Qaeda does not use the weapons against *him*? (027)
3.5. Idea: The situation would not arise because al-Qaeda would not work
together with Hussein. (028)
3.5.1. Pro-Argument [Benja's]: Bin Laden has personally attacked Hussein
before. He has a great dislike for the secular leader. Why support him
with money? (029)
3.5.2. Pro-Argument [Benja's]: Given that al-Qaeda is opposed to the
Iraqi regime, why not buy weapons from someone else? (Atomic weapons
from North Korea, say?) (030)
3.6. Idea: The situation would not arise because al-Qaeda does not have
the money. (031)
3.6.1. Con-Argument [Eric's]: Al Queda, though impaired, most likely
still has somewhere between hundreds of millions and billions to spend. (032)
4. Question (challenges 3.6.1): Does al-Qaeda still have enough money to
spend to buy Iraqi weapons? (033)
4.1. Most likely. (034)
(Eric, can you please back this up with arguments?) (035)
> Item: If Al Queda had them, would they be reluctant to use
> them? (Experience suggests the answer is "No".) (036)
Should we put this into a question? I don't think there's disagreement
on this. (037)
> If so, then what is the proper and/or viable U.S. response?
> There are several possibilities: (038)
5. Question: How should the USA respond to the threat of Saddam Hussein
selling B or C weapons to al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda using them against the US? (039)
> 1) Maintain the status quo, and simply hope that it never
> happens. Try to plug that sieve that is our open
> borders (which we would ideally like to *leave* open,
> and attempt to put a cordon around every possible target,
> for an indefinite period of time.
>
> Feasibility: Unlikely. While it is relatively plausible
> to contain a geo-political entity, it is virtually
> impossible to contain an organization that is not
> geographically-limited. (040)
5.1. Idea: Do nothing. Maintain the status quo, and simply hope that it
never happens. (041)
5.2. Idea: Try to plug its open borders, and attempt to put a cordon
around every possible target, for an indefinite period of time. (042)
5.2.1. Con-Argument [Eric's]: Unlikely to work. While it is relatively
plausible to contain a geo-political entity, it is virtually impossible
to contain an organization that is not geographically-limited. (043)
> 2) Relax the economic sanctions, back away, and remove the
> pressure to sell such weapons.
>
> Feasibility: Unlikely. Kuwait becomes an Iraqi province.
> In all probability, the strategy of appeasement will work
> no better than it did prior to WWII. (044)
5.3. Idea: Relax the economic sanctions to remove the pressure to sell
such weapons. (045)
5.3.1. Con-Argument [Eric's]: Unlikely to work. Kuwait ['is now
becoming' or 'would be becoming'? -b] an Iraqi province. In all
probability, the strategy of appeasement will work no better than it did
prior to WWII. (046)
> 3) Change the game.
> Achieve regime change.
>
> Feasibility: Doable. Likely to stabilize the middle east. (047)
5.4. Idea: Archieve regime change by going to war. (048)
5.4.1. Pro-Argument [Eric's]: Doable. (049)
5.4.2. Pro-Argument [Eric's]: Likely to stabilize the middle east. (050)
5.4.3. Con-Argument [John Sechrest's]: The US is not the policeman of
the world. They do not have the right to attack Iraq. (051)
Follow-up coming, so much for now. I'm new to IBIS, so please point out
my mistakes :) (052)
- Benja (053)