Prove it
Related Topics
Charles Riggs chriggsXS...@eircom.net
In the news, today: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell had this response to Saddam Hussein's claims that he has no weapons of m*** destruction: "Prove it." I can see how one could go about proving he has something, but how do you prove you don't have something? I thought Colin (invariably mispronounced, here, as Colon) was brighter, or was this just war rhetoric?
--
Charles Riggs chriggs |at| eircom |dot| com
"Linz" s...@lindsayendell.org.uk
This is something that has been under discussion quite a lot here in the UK.
You can't prove a negative, and that is what Saddam Hussein is being expected to do. Heck, /I/ can't prove that I have no weapons of m*** destruction, so I fully expect to be next on Bush's list.
sand jan_s...@hotmail.com
Logically, of course, you are correct. But the problem is more in other directions. Undoubtedly Saddam deserves to be removed from power. Considering the actions of Bush on the economy, his war on the poor and deprived, his incompetence in seeing to it that the wealth of the USA is used for the benefit of the nation as a whole, the quality of his judicial appointments, his treatment of the environment, Bush also deserves to be removed from power. Fat chance.
But the question really is: Is Saddam really a threat or a potential threat that the rest of the world can't control without a very nasty war and a very expensive army of occupation? I doubt it.
Jan Sand
sa ...@non.com
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 11:49:43 +0000, Charles Riggs Just rhetoric, I would think.
But does he not pronounce his name 'colon'? If I had only read it, I would have pronounced it 'caw-lin'.
Larry
Joona I Palaste pala...@cc.helsinki.fi
IMCO the Bush administration has started with the decision that Iraq is guilty, and is now trying to find a suitable charge.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pala...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\ | Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++| | http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ | \----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/ "Life without ostriches is like coffee with milk." - Mika P. Nieminen
Martin Ambuhl mamb...@earthlink.net
The Bush position has always been that the accused had to prove a negative; the accuser never had to make a case. It is enough that Bush or his representatives ***erted something. Colin Powell used a new form of the "This is really true; I'm not making it up" argument: "These are backed by sources -- solid sources -- and are not just ***ertions." This is followed by a series of ***ertions (including CIA artwork drawn from scratch) without substantiation. We all should know to recognize "I'm *not* making it up" for what it is.
Joona I Palaste pala...@cc.helsinki.fi
When dealing with e-mail, "This is legal!" means "This is illegal!", "This really works!" means "This doesn't really work!" and "This is not spam!" means "This is not spam!". These truths are 100% universal.
I believe the same principle can be applied to Bush and Powell.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pala...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\ | Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++| | http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ | \----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/ "Show me a good mouser and I'll show you a cat with bad breath." - Garfield
Joona I Palaste pala...@cc.helsinki.fi
Typo. I meant "This is not spam!" means "This is spam!".
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pala...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\ | Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++| | http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ | \----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/ "I am lying." - Anon
mike_lyle ...@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle)
You really are the most exasperating devil, Charles, a chara! A few months ago I was trying to convince you that one couldn't prove a negative. Does your posting indicate that I was eventually successful?
or that you were taking the piss at the time?
Mike.
Padraig Breathnach padra...@iol.ie
The issue is not logic or honest enquiry; it is legitimation of a decision apparently already made in the US to go to war with Iraq.
To subject Powell's challenge to critical scrutiny seems to me to be anti-American. Anybody who is so anti-American should, like me, be consigned to Charles' killfile.
PB
R Fontana rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu
I think in some contexts you can prove a negative, though it's not clear whether this is one of them. This is so as long as the standard of proof of that negative isn't placed too high. I think the earlier discussion of the subject of proving a negative confused proof in the forensic sense with proof in the logical sense. Iraq probably feels that it already *has* proved the negative.
Simon R. Hughes shug...@tromso.online.no
Thus Spake Linz: I ate lentil soup today. Come and get me!
--
Simon R. Hughes "I often think there should exist a special typographical sign for a smile -- some sort of concave mark, a supine round bracket" -- Vladimir Nabokov, _Strong Opinions_.
Hedberg hhedb...@swbell.net
[...] It's not as though the United States has randomly selected Iraq and asked them to prove a negative. It's known and acknowledged by all parties (at least I presume that it is) that Iraq used to have weapons development programs designed to develop nuclear and chemical weapons.
It's acknowledged by all parties that Iraq used to have a sizeable chemical weapons stockpile and used to have the delivery systems necessary to use those weapons. Iraq has agreed to eliminate the programs and the stockpiles and demonstrate that they have been eliminated. It is the position of the U.S. government that Iraq has not provided the evidence that they are obligated to provide --
evidence that the weapons development programs have been stopped and that previously developed agents and delivery systems have been destroyed. It is my understanding that that is what Powell says Iraq needs to prove -- provide the evidence that they have promised to provide.
It's one thing to pick you at random and demand that you prove that you no longer beat your wife -- it's quite another to ask a convicted wife beater to provide evidence that he has changed his ways.
I doubt that. I think it's possible for a serious person to argue that Iraq's intransigence is not sufficient cause to bomb them (or whatever) but I don't think a serious person can claim that they have complied with their obligations or that they believe they have complied.
Harold
Robert Lieblich Robert.Liebl...@Verizon.net
It's pronounced as "Colon" by Colin himself. News stories have been written about that. I don't remember what they said, but I'm sure some are available on the Web for anyone curious.
As for proving the negative, Powell would not insist on complete compliance, which probably is impossible. But records exist showing that Iraq had huge stocks of chemical and biological weapons back in 1991 when the Gulf War ended, and he has made no attempt to show that he has destroyed this stuff. I don't think he has even bothered forging some documents purporting to show such destruction.
I remain very uneasy about war, but to the extent that the UN told Saddam what he had to do to avoid war, my impression is that he has not even tried to comply.
--
Bob Lieblich Very, very uneasy
Tony Cooper tony_cooper...@yahoo.com
On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:28:11 +0000, Padraig Breathnach So you *did* read the Brer Rabbit story about the briar patch! Be prepared for a flood of anti-Americanisms.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_cooper...@yahoo.com Provider of Jots, Tittles, and Oy!s
javn ...@earthlink.net (John Varela)
That's incorrect. After the Gulf War, Iraq was required to demonstrate that they had destroyed their weapons of m*** destruction. The expectation was that they would lead UN representatives to their arsenals and let them witness the destruction. That never happened and they have been playing games for over a decade.
The burden of proof has always been on Iraq.
--
John Varela Thank God for the French!
They're always there when they need us.
javn ...@earthlink.net (John Varela)
His parents, from the West Indies, named him Colin pronounced Collin, but all the Americans pronounced it Colon and eventually he gave up and adopted the mispronunciation.
--
John Varela Thank God for the French!
They're always there when they need us.
javn ...@earthlink.net (John Varela)
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 22:47:51 UTC, Robert Lieblich Quite the opposite...
--
John Varela Thank God for the French!
They're always there when they need us.
John Davies j...@redwoods.demon.co.uk
>I remain very uneasy about war, but to the extent that the UN told >Saddam what he had to do to avoid war, my impression is that he has >not even tried to comply.
I too am uneasy about the war. I cannot help observing that another Middle Eastern state has weapons of m*** destruction; denies basic democratic rights to significant sections of its population; illegally occupies territory that it has conquered by force; routinely kills civilians living within those territories; and has consistently defied, for nearly forty years, UN Security Council resolutions requiring it to desist from such behaviour.
No signs yet of the Bush seeking to make war against that particular state, of course: it's Israel.
--
John Davies (j...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
sa ...@non.com
That's exceedingly strange! His was the first 'Colin' I've heard of who pronounces it that way. The only other one I know of is Colin Campbell, the (perhaps former) NHL Commisioner.
Is 'colon' a common pronunciation of the name in the US?
Larry
"Maria Conlon" mconlo...@sprynet.com
Agreed. Powell does indeed pronounce his first name the same way we pronounce the : (colon). And I've seen the news stories, too.
Next time there's a similar need to prove that things were destroyed, the agreement should include a requirement that it all be done on live TV or be made otherwise visible to many people at once. (If it's feasible.) Of course, possible future agreements can't solve today's problem. Question: What is left when these weapons are destroyed? A pile of junk? Ashes? A pit full of fluids? Whatever, that's what the UN inspectors need to see and examine. Looking in the front room while stuff is carried out the back door is stupid and futile. Or is the whole exercise only meant to be a dog and pony show?
Why should he? Why would he? All he has to do is let the UN members use the issue to get back at each other for past real or perceived wrongs.
And all he needs is a sufficient number of members sticking up for his "rights." After all, if the US can have weapons, why can't Iraq? (Do I see people nodding their heads in agreement? If so, I would not be surprised. I would be, instead, aghast.) I am not in favor of a war. Nor am I in favor of Saddam Hussein thumbing his nose at the world and getting away with it. For those who think the US (and their allies) ought to back off, and say "Okay, we can't prove that you still have the weapons you agreed to destroy; we'll just toddle along now. Bye-bye!" -- for those people, I suggest you ask yourselves this: If Hussein is successful at this ruse, and ends up attacking the US in a show of power, who will be next, and where? You? Your own back yard? And who would jump to your aid?
The only thing about this whole situation that is easy to answer is how Mr. Powell pronounces his first name.
Maria
Robert Lieblich Robert.Liebl...@Verizon.net
Oh, great. Another thread destined to last till the end of time.
--
Bob Lieblich Who asks that this time we leave it alone
Robert Bannister rob...@it.net.au
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:34:33 -0000, "Linz" <s...@lindsayendell.org.uk> > > >> Charles Riggs wrote: >> >>> In the news, today: >>> >>> U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell had this response to Saddam >>> Hussein's claims that he has no weapons of m*** destruction: >>> "Prove it." >>> >>> I can see how one could go about proving he has something, but >>> how do you prove you don't have something? I thought Colin >>> (invariably mispronounced, here, as Colon) was brighter, or was >>> this just war rhetoric?
>> >> This is something that has been under discussion quite a lot here >> in the UK. You can't prove a negative, and that is what Saddam >> Hussein is being expected to do. Heck, /I/ can't prove that I have >> no weapons of m*** destruction, so I fully expect to be next on >> Bush's list.
>> > > Logically, of course, you are correct. But the problem is more in > other directions. Undoubtedly Saddam deserves to be removed from > power. Considering the actions of Bush on the economy, his war on > the poor and deprived, his incompetence in seeing to it that the > wealth of the USA is used for the benefit of the nation as a whole, > the quality of his judicial appointments, his treatment of the > environment, Bush also deserves to be removed from power. Fat chance.
> But the question really is: Is Saddam really a threat or a > potential threat that the rest of the world can't control without a > very nasty war and a very expensive army of occupation? I doubt it.
Although I agree Saddam should go, is it really the responsibility or even the right of a foreign power (or powers) to do this? I find it hard to believe that he is a threat to anyone apart from his close neighbours. What happened to bin Laden?
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister rob...@it.net.au
We had some ex-CIA person on TV last night - can't remember his name; the surname looked vaguely French - he claimed that if he had received photographs or tape recordings like the ones presented by Powell, he would have considered them highly suspect.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister rob...@it.net.au
Indeed, it would seem that he has been to great pains to disguise his non-compliance, but I too remain very uneasy about the war.
--
Rob Bannister
| To Top |