Reply #147: You alter my reasons for not supporting Clark [View All]

[chknltl]

I hear what you are saying... You feel I should be fair across the board with my support and non-support. I agree, fair is fair after all. IF the reason I choose NOT to support Clark was because he voted for the funding of these munitions then you are right in thinking me hypocritical should I support another candidate who performed the same way.

My issue with Clark has nothing to do with voting to fund a munition. When this interview occurred he was being asked this question because then and even earlier there were enough doubts and enough science to support that this material could very well be an environmental hazard, one which could cause considerable harm to the users, as well as innocent victims. That in itself is a big enough red flag to know that a lot more than "something is up" with this material.

Clark knew it back then too...he knew it enough to do his own research...he had access to BOTH sides of this issue! There were two sides then as there are now. If Clark had just stated in the interview that he was only using the weapons he was given and that he had no choices here I could have accepted this. He did not say that, instead he chose to do the research...I commend him here but he chose to support the research which SUPPORTS the use of this material...THAT is where he looses me.

The research which counters the use of this material easily places it in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions on WMD (Is America allowed to use WMD in the areas Clark authorized the use of this material? Could he have dropped mustard gas there? Of course not!) So Clark faced this thinking process: Should I authorize the use of a weapon which is considered by some experts as a WMD and by others as not being a WMD. What would YOU do my fellow DUer? Would you flip a coin here? Would you err on the side of caution or would you take a "damn the torpedoes full speed ahead" attitude and to hell with what the future may bring?

Place yourself in a hypothetical future where you are the General faced with a similar decision to make on a future weapon. You have access to data which claims it has horrible adverse affects above and beyond it's potential as a weapon, one which could persist LOOOOOOOONG after the battle was over potentially rendering the area of it's use poison to living breathing creatures. Yet the manufacturers claim this is all nonsense and they have the science to prove their points. Would you take the risks? Especially when those who advocate against the use are gaining nothing from speaking out but are trying to prevent catastrophe. What would you do? What did Clark do and say he would do again in similar circumstance?

I see it as a no brainer: NO this material has too much of a potential for being a WMD, I'll not risk the safety of the future of my troops or the civilian non combatants. Either find me another weapon or find yourself another General! (I admire Clark's words that he strongly supports his troops here...except he took the risk KNOWINGLY so I am not sure if his words factually represent his actions!)

Let me bring this back to Global Warming again...The science has been developing of course and will continue to develop. Back in the '70s there was enough of the science available to understand that human kind was having an impact on our planet and it was NOT a good one. So our choices THEN were the same as NOW. Do we choose to support the science which claims that mankind is NOT having an impact and continue to march as if everything is just fine OR do support the science which claims we ARE having an impact and so we march on from that point. The third alternative: Let's err on the side of caution. So looking back who was right and who is STILL attempting to persuade us that the science is wrong? One group wanted us to ignore the warning signs, they did NOT want us to err on the side of caution. They CHOSE to advocate the very talking points and "sciences" which favored those who were profiting from the very items which were causing this adverse impact on the planet.

There is nothing new here, I suppose the best I can do is say that when there are two opposing views stemming from science I feel better delving further into it by looking at the potential gains vs the potential losses. If the potential gains far exceed the potential losses then I suppose it is worth the risk. On the other hand if the potential gains are far overshadowed by the potential losses then I do not support this fools risk. When those particular potential losses include the health and welfare of my troops and the health and welfare of all who may be exposed in the future from my actions...well I'll easily choose to err on the side of caution. By choosing the safe course little is lost. By choosing the reckless course......well I suppose the science is still out here for some. I am not one of them.

Another important point to consider is what are those who profit from a product saying about it. I am betting we could easily find tons of glowing things to say about the YUGO...if we were the manufacturers. So what about all those who bought the YUGO...yep they made their choice...many likely still spout off with the very talking points made by the manufacturerers...but I sincerely doubt many are on the road. So when I hear someone talking the company line about a product I will hardly be convinced to buy into it. Which side of the science do you suppose those who profit from DU support?... A distinct reason to question that particular science right there.

This then is why I do not support Clark. It had nothing to do with how he voted, it had EVERYTHING to do with how he acted AFTER weighing both sides of the issue.

btw: I never said the science was as settled on Global Warming as on the DU issue, I used it as a comparison model. I could have used a similar model with the diminishing resources available to the Japanese Fishing fleet as opposed to the science which says there is really nothing wrong with those resources so let's just shut the hell up and let them fish!

I do feel that as time goes on, DU will be viewed as another outlawed WMD, one which civilized humanity is equally revolted by and at that time there will be precious few who support it's manufacture and use outside of those who would profit by it. In the meanwhile all this foot-dragging and counter arguments is slowing the day that arrives...and at what POTENTIAL cost? You do the research and report back that the POTENTIAL cost for massive serious human suffering is not there. By erring on the side of caution the only ones in misery here aqre those who profit from this material.

Lastly, this is not a partisan issue. nuff said