 sj |
||
|
||
BS: New thread on WMD
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: CarolC Date: 08 Jul 04 - 11:04 AM No nation state should relinquish it's right to act when faced with a potential threat. Judging by it past performance, no nation state should ever relinquish that right to the UN. The US had received information from the Russians regarding Saddam Hussein's intentions post 9/11. The best way to counter those aims was to ensure that Iraq disarm itself and rid itself of all WMD in its possession and to verify that all programmes aimed at acquiring and developing WMD were shut down. This may (or may not) be true. But if this is the case, then the US didn't attack Iraq under the terms of any UN resolutions, because there is no UN resolution that authorizes the US to attack Iraq during the timeframe in question. This means that the US preemptively attacked Iraq in violation of international laws and treaties, and it did so with no authorization other than its own say so. The US can't have it both ways. It's either acting in accordance with UN resolutions, or it's in violation of them. In this case, it's in violation of at least one. Since the US violated a UN resolution when it attacked Iraq, it should stop using UN resolutions as justification for it's war against Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Teribus Date: 08 Jul 04 - 11:12 AM SRS, From my reading of the posts to this thread, BB has presented his points more rationally and a great deal more lucidly than most. By the way, SRS, what UNSC Resolutions did Saddam comply with? and when? The only one I can think of off-hand was the destruction of the missiles he wasn't supposed to have in the first place - they were only destroyed because leads from British intelligence were followed up by UNMOVIC - i.e. Saddam was caught out, he certainly did not volunteer the information that led to their discovery, as he was supposed to do. With regard to my question - You have clearly stated in your post above that he did comply so you must have the details - correct? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Teribus Date: 08 Jul 04 - 11:40 AM CarolC, Your post of, 08 Jul 04 - 11:04 AM, is the most confused, and illogical, piece of writing I think I have ever read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Nerd Date: 08 Jul 04 - 11:53 AM beardedbruce, I apologize that my saying that you were "full of it" came close to an ad hominem attack. I can, of course, qualify this to say that I was really referring to your statements, not you as a person! The point is, I DID treat your specific assertions and show where you were way off the mark, first at 07 Jul 04 - 12:57 AM and then at 07 Jul 04 - 09:12 AM. I showed them to be both factually incorrect [eg. you asserted that there were months between Rumsfeld saying he knew where the weapons were and our attack on Iraq, and that was flat-out false], and logically fallacious [eg. you challenged us to prove a negative]. And yet you ignore this and claim that "none of you need to address anything that I might say." This kind of statement is why people tend to think of you as delusional. Sorry, buddy, I HAVE addressed the things you say, and you ignore it every time, or else claim somehow that I have not even weakened your argument by showing it to be both factually and logically wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: CarolC Date: 08 Jul 04 - 11:56 AM Ok. I'll attempt to bring it down to your level. None of the UN resolutions that you invoke in these threads, or that the government of the US invokes, in order to justify its invasion of Iraq, in any way authorize the US to invade Iraq. The US violated at least one UN resolution when it invaded Iraq. The US is in violation of at least one UN resolution. There is no UN resolution that authorized the US invasion of Iraq. The US invaded Iraq under the authority of no UN resolutions. The US did not have any authority to invade Iraq except for the authority it gave itself to do so. The US acted on its own authority when it invaded Iraq. The US did not act under any authority granted to it by the UN when it invaded Iraq, because the UN did not grant it any authority to do so. The US invaded Iraq because it wanted to for its own reasons. It did not do so in order to uphold any UN resolutions, because the UN did not give it the authority to attack Iraq for the purpose of upholding any resolutions. The US attacked Iraq because it wanted to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: CarolC Date: 08 Jul 04 - 11:58 AM My last is for Teribus who thinks he can substitute editorial comments on the quality of my writing for actual "facts" in order to win an argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Teribus Date: 08 Jul 04 - 01:01 PM Thank you CarolC, for your efforts in bringing your original illogical "jumble" down to my level - greatly appreciated. Now let's take a good look at it: "None of the UN resolutions that you invoke in these threads, or that the government of the US invokes, in order to justify its invasion of Iraq, in any way authorize the US to invade Iraq." It is Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions that is invoked to justify action being taken independently. The US from day one was very clear on this to both the United Nations Security Council and to the regime in power at that time in Iraq. "The US violated at least one UN resolution when it invaded Iraq." Which one? "The US is in violation of at least one UN resolution." Regarding Iraq in particular, or in general? "There is no UN resolution that authorized the US invasion of Iraq." Very true, I certainly am not aware of any. "The US invaded Iraq under the authority of no UN resolutions." Again very true, under the circumstances, the US did not require the authority of the United Nations to act. They had previously clearly stated their intentions should Saddam Hussein fail to comply. As far as the US, and their fellow coalition members were concerned, he didn't, and they acted accordingly, just as they said they would. "The US did not have any authority to invade Iraq except for the authority it gave itself to do so." In the circumstances, as seen from the US point of view, that was all the authority they needed. Others agreed with that action. "The US acted on its own authority when it invaded Iraq." Yes it did, but they did not do so in isolation - others felt exactly the same way about the situation. "The US did not act under any authority granted to it by the UN when it invaded Iraq, because the UN did not grant it any authority to do so." Very true, lack of will and lack of resolve on the part of the United Nations prompted the US led coalition to act. "The US invaded Iraq because it wanted to for its own reasons." Correct, those reasons being to ensure, by force, that Iraq would no longer be in a position to threaten the security of the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America, the interests of the United States of America, or its allies. "It did not do so in order to uphold any UN resolutions, because the UN did not give it the authority to attack Iraq for the purpose of upholding any resolutions." The US intervened in Iraq to ensure Iraqi compliance with the umpteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions passed affecting Iraq. After all the UN were showing no signs of being prepared to do anything about it. "The US attacked Iraq because it wanted to." Incorrect, the US attacked Iraq because they felt they had to, they did not believe they had any choice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Stilly River Sage Date: 08 Jul 04 - 01:12 PM Teribus, Saddam clearly doesn't have the massive arsenal of weapons George Bush accused him of having (and no-doubt secretly hoped he still had, in order to justify his attack on Iraq). Saddam had a few dregs of the Iran/Iraq War collection that were forgotten in corners. It doesn't take a lot of deductive reasoning to figure that Saddam didn't want to appear weak to his own people or to the world by capitulating to the U.N. and the U.S. and openly destroying his weapons in the early 1990s, yet his back was to the wall. The weapons were, as it appears from the evidence available so far and discussed on these threads, quietly dismantled, destroyed, scrapped, removed, whatever. That Saddam didn't have his folks keep documents turned out to make life more difficult for all Iraqis, because he couldn't or wouldn't say to Blix et al "here, this shows how we went about destroying our weapons." Is that so difficult to figure out? May we draw no conclusions from the materials we have offered here? I will tell you that with the chaotic nonsense that BB and others come up with on these topics I have little interest in bestirring myself to find any more citations, only to have you folks dismiss them out of hand. The above remarks represent the process of simply thinking about human nature in the context of the power struggle between Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush. I'm with Nerd and Bobert and Don Firth in this--it's frustrating to try to carry on a reasonable discussion when some of the participants don't know shit from shinola when it comes to offering up logical, well-considered rhetorical arguments. Teribus or BB will no doubt come along and snip a few words from this post in an attempt to appropriate my words and use them so as to suggest a weakness in my position. I have no problem in true discussions of issues and I enjoy evaluating new materials and digging into their sources for verification. BB and others take the words of those they would deamonize and try to change the context to support their own meaning while showing purported gaps in the argument they pretend to dismantle. Thus they have littered the field with straw men. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: CarolC Date: 08 Jul 04 - 02:03 PM "None of the UN resolutions that you invoke in these threads, or that the government of the US invokes, in order to justify its invasion of Iraq, in any way authorize the US to invade Iraq." It is Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions that is invoked to justify action being taken independently. The US from day one was very clear on this to both the United Nations Security Council and to the regime in power at that time in Iraq. Possibly so, Teribus. But in your 07 Jul 04 - 04:21 AM post, you said this: The terms of the Safwan ceasefire had been broken, therefore the ceasefire was invalid freeing any coalition member to resume hostilities. This statement is entirely incorrect, and it is this statement that I was responding to in my 07 Jul 04 - 10:53 AM post. "The US violated at least one UN resolution when it invaded Iraq." Which one? UNSC Resolution 1441. "The US is in violation of at least one UN resolution." Regarding Iraq in particular, or in general? UNSC Resolution 1441. "It did not do so in order to uphold any UN resolutions, because the UN did not give it the authority to attack Iraq for the purpose of upholding any resolutions." The US intervened in Iraq to ensure Iraqi compliance with the umpteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions passed affecting Iraq. After all the UN were showing no signs of being prepared to do anything about it. In order to ensure compliance with UNSC Resolution 1441, the US would have had to help the UN maintain its presence in Iraq in the form of the UN inspectors. By attacking Iraq, and thereby forcing the UN inspectors to leave Iraq, the US not only violated UNSC Resolution 1441, it also made Iraq's compliance with UNSC Resolution 1441 an impossibility. "The US attacked Iraq because it wanted to." Incorrect, the US attacked Iraq because they felt they had to, they did not believe they had any choice. This is an unverifiable opinion, not a fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Teribus Date: 08 Jul 04 - 02:42 PM You're right SRS, I most certainly will take you to task on that post. Scholarly, you may, or may not, be, but you do appear to have an incredibly uninquisitive nature, totally at odds with your contention that, "I have no problem in true discussions of issues and I enjoy evaluating new materials and digging into their sources for verification." Specific points: "Saddam clearly doesn't have the massive arsenal of weapons George Bush accused him of having." Two things here: Firstly the arsenal of weapons that Saddam was accused of having was quantified by the United Nations UNSCOM Inspection Team - Not by George Bush. Secondly, you have no grounds whatsoever to state what "clearly" exists in Iraq. "Saddam had a few dregs of the Iran/Iraq War collection that were forgotten in corners." That is all that has been found? What has caused your eagerness to evaluate information dismiss without mention the missile developement programme? What has caused your eagerness to evaluate information dismiss without mention the prohibited import of some 380-odd rocket motors? What has caused your eagerness to evaluate information dismiss the attempts by Iraq in the run up to the war to purchase Atropin in bulk? As for the, "few dregs of the Iran/Iraq War collection". What process of evaluation have you applied to those? The ones found earlier by UNMOVIC were found in a military ordinance storage facility. Where were these ones found? Hidden in the town of Hilla. Now just out of curiosity, did you at any time ask yourself how they came to be there? A 122mm rocket is a tactical battlefield weapon, left over and forgotten about from the Iran/Iraq War, Hilla was nowhere near the battle-zone during the Iran/Iraq War, so what were chemical warheads, two filled, doing hidden in the town of Hilla. These things are dangerous, you don't just leave them lying around. Yet you seem to find nothing strange in this, your eagerness to evaluate information presented to you, for some reason doesn't prompt you to ask the most basic of questions - Why - some bloody scholar. You are not in the least bit curious about the fact that it was a civilian who led the Polish Troops to the hiding place? - I would be - I'm not a scholar, CarolC has to bring things down to my level in order for me to understand her, but I am at least inquisitive enough to want to know what those munitions were doing there and ask why were they hidden. "It doesn't take a lot of deductive reasoning to figure that Saddam didn't want to appear weak to his own people or to the world by capitulating to the U.N. and the U.S. and openly destroying his weapons in the early 1990s, yet his back was to the wall." I would like to point out, SRS, that, dating back to 1991, "deductive reasoning" was not what was required by the United Nations. What was, was full and complete disarmament, that disarmament process to be carried out under the supervision of the appointed United Nations Inspectors, carried out in such a manner that it could be fully verified - that is what was required, not "deductive reasoning" some 13 years down the track. What evidence is available that causes you to state that the weapons mentioned in the UNSCOM Report of January 1999, "..were, quietly dismantled, destroyed, scrapped, removed, whatever." I certainly haven't seen any such evidence to support that conclusion. What I have seen is clear evidence that material, Iraq declared it did not have, is being discovered, and being discovered in hidden locations. Again, where is your natural inquisitiveness, at what point does it kick in, and prompt you to question? The Ba'athists, like most totallitarian regimes, were fanatical about keeping records. That is how UNSCOM discovered the unaccounted for WMD agents and munitions. Your enquiring mind, doesn't ask itself the question, "Why was this trait suddenly reversed, why were well established bureaucratic procedures just dispensed with?" I'd want to know why. You ask, "May we draw no conclusions from the materials we have offered here?" Of course, but one thing that becomes pattently clear is that your conclusions are drawn from one perspective and one perspective only. You do not think round things, your conclusions are solely arrived at to bolster your own preconceived notions. By all means, attack and question my point of view, but please don't come out with such absolute crap as: "I'm with Nerd and Bobert and Don Firth in this--it's frustrating to try to carry on a reasonable discussion when some of the participants don't know shit from shinola when it comes to offering up logical, well-considered rhetorical arguments." So far, when it comes to demonstrating who doesn't know shit from shinola, you clearly show that you sure as eggs are eggs don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Don Firth Date: 08 Jul 04 - 03:06 PM In the words of Teribus, "No nation state should relinquish it's right to act when faced with a potential threat." Any country could be a "potential threat" depending on how you want to define it. If one had a pre-existing agenda, looked hard enough, drew all kinds of inferences, and successfully propagandized the rest of the country into panic mode, it might be quite possible to come to the conclusion that Luxembourg is a potential threat and that an invasion is necessary for the continued safety of the world. Luxembourg manufactures and exports machinery and equipment, steel products, chemicals, rubber products, and glass products, proving that they have the capacity to manufacture weapons of mass destruction and are thereby a threat to the world. And there is a strong suspicion that a group of young men from the Middle East held a meeting in a hotel there sometime during the 1990s and they could very well have been plotting the 9/11 attack, which means that Luxembourg is a country that harbors terrorists. I'm sure someone could come up with some "evidence" if they looked hard enough (especially Teribus and BB). I say "Let's invaded Luxembourg!!" (Oh! Forget it! Of no great geopolitical importance—and no oil.) Don Firth P.S.: Where the hell does Teribus get the time to do all this? And if we're all a bunch or dithering nincompoops as he seems to think we are, why does he bother? Just wondering. . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Teribus Date: 08 Jul 04 - 03:31 PM CarolC, Regarding your post, 08 Jul 04 - 02:03 PM, "It is Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions that is invoked to justify action being taken independently. The US from day one was very clear on this to both the United Nations Security Council and to the regime in power at that time in Iraq." (Teribus) Possibly so, Teribus. But in your 07 Jul 04 - 04:21 AM post, you said this: "The terms of the Safwan ceasefire had been broken, therefore the ceasefire was invalid freeing any coalition member to resume hostilities." (Teribus) That statement is quite correct correct CarolC, what is incorrect in your understanding is what you stated in your 07 Jul 04 - 10:53 AM post. My reason for stating so comes directly from the preample to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441: "Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein," From your post 07 Jul - 10:53 "This (UNSC Resolution 687) is the ceasefire agreement that Iraq would have had to be in violation of since the Safwan ceasefire had become obsolete many years before the timeframe in question." Now as 687 was based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations contained therein, and Iraq clearly had not, in the opinion of the UN, abided by the provisions and obligations required by 687, evidenced by the following passages from the preamble to 1441: "Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material, Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998," I would say that the terms and conditions of the Safwan cease-fire and 687 had been broken - wouldn't you? The UN certainly thought so. That cease-fire being broken the wording of Resolution 678 with regard to authorisation applies: "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area," That the US violated UN resolution 1441 when it invaded Iraq - is your opinion, shared by others and stated as their opinions by others The US and it's coalition partners made it perfectly clear that any material breach of 1441 on the part of Iraq would require action by the UN. If the UN refused to act, the US and its coalition partners would act independently. During the UNMOVIC/IAEA inspection period there were five material breaches noted, the UN prevaricated so the US held true to its word and attacked, giving due notice to all. "The US attacked Iraq because it wanted to." (CarolC's opinion) "Incorrect, the US attacked Iraq because they felt they had to, they did not believe they had any choice." (Teribus's opinion) - I never said it was anything other, I certainly did not state it was a fact - don't put words in my mouth CarolC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Bobert Date: 08 Jul 04 - 03:52 PM Don: Teribus is on the Bush payroll... If not, he ougtta be... Of all the Bush apologists I have ever read or heard, he is as died-in-the-wool true believer as any... T-Bird: You keep wanting to dismiss one major arguemnt that has been made several times about the empty cannisters and traces of possibly sarin. Now I know yer down in Oz or somewhere other than the US so maybe you are missing the *fact*, yes fact, that yer guy Bush is struggling here in the US with major crdibility issues and could certainly use a breakthru, and fast... Now if he had credible evidence of WMD, why aren't his people coming forward with it? Heck, they still got Dick Cheney running all over the country giving his patent speech about how Saddam was linked to 9/11. No, you can say that isn't exactly what he's saying but if you took 100 aliens who just dropped in from space and let them listen to one of these speeches, 100 aliens would have the impression that Saddam was in cohooyts with bin Laden on the 9// attacks. I mean, do you get the speeches down there, T? Well, we sho nuff do and a lot of folks in the US think that Saddam was in on 9/11 because of these carefully crafted PR speeches. But my point is, T-zer, and this doesn't involve a lot of reseacr on yer part or even another "War and Peace" lenght rebuttal, but just a little common sense. Wouldn't you think that an administration so hard up to be right on any of the Big Three would jump all over WMD if they had some danged evidence and give poor ol'Cheney's song and dance routine a breather? Hey, this is a pure and simple logic question. You don't even have to do no new-math to figgure this one out... But like Bush, we know that you never admit that you might be incorrect on an issue for fear that if you do the "House of Cards" will come down... But, hark, pal... I gotta respect yer loyalty. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: CarolC Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:10 PM I would say that the terms and conditions of the Safwan cease-fire and 687 had been broken - wouldn't you? The UN certainly thought so. Teribus, the Safwan ceasefire became an obsolete agreement once the UNSC Resolution 687 was put into effect. The terms of the Safwan ceasefire made it so. The Safwan ceasefire is completely irrelevant to this discussion. That the US violated UN resolution 1441 when it invaded Iraq - is your opinion, shared by others and stated as their opinions by others No, this is not my opinion. It is clearly stated in the wording of UNSC Resolution 1441: "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States..." -and- "10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates..." ...and then it says that it: "14. Decides to remain seized of the matter." The US violated the terms of this resolution by not keeping it's commitment to honor the territorial integrity of Iraq, and by interfering in the inspection process by UNMOVIC and the IAEA by attacking Iraq, and thus ending the ability of the inspectors to continue to do their job. don't put words in my mouth CarolC Looks like you can dish it out, but you can't take it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: CarolC Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:17 PM Correction. This statement by me... The US violated the terms of this resolution by not keeping it's commitment to honor the territorial integrity of Iraq ...should read: The US violated the terms of this resolution by not keeping its commitment to honor the sovereignty and territorial integrity, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:49 PM bb I'm not "making that the issue." but it does tell me something about a person's character. I tend to accept the sincerity of a person who risks losing something if his advice is followed, and I feel that he likely has given some thought to the subject. Note I did not say a person who risks nothing is thoughtless and insincere, but the thoughtless and insincere are more apt to be in the no-risk group. I respect the Vietnam protesters who avoided fighting the war by what ever means they could; I respect those who believed in the war and fought; I have no respect for those who favored the war but had "other priorities." "Now, if it please you, answer my question: Where were all of you hypocrites between the last UN resolution and the US attack?" I don't know where the hypocrites were, but my objections to the present war with Iraq have nothing to do with any UN resolutions. I protest the actions of the US more than those of other countries because it's my country; I vote here, I live here, I love my country and I want to see my country doing right. Same way as I concern myself with what's wrong with my house rather than someone else's. They can burn holes in their roof if they want; I don't want anyone burning holes in mine. Thanks, Teribus. I still don't agree with you, of course, but if you have a son at risk I see you're not just a soapbox orator. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Stilly River Sage Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:51 PM Teribus, the length to which you go to make your point derails the very point you're trying to make. You offer up a page when a paragraph would do.
This is more of the tactic both you and BB use; attack the individual to confuse issues before moving to the topic at hand. Do you know the saying about not suffering fools gladly? That applies to the two of you. Having taken your measure, why should I waste my time reading the tripe you dish out? I scan it quickly, but I'm not going to address every non-issue you think keeps the world hanging in the balance. Clearly what I consider a small number, in relation to the weapons Iraq had on hand 10 and 15 years ago (or the obscene arsenal held by the U.S.), seems to you to be an immense number. Anything more than zero is too many weapons for you. I have some tolerance in that when cleaning up a country one is bound to miss a few towns or a county or two* and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt until proof appears that they planned to do anything with them. Iraq and Iran beat up on each other with those weapons, but since Bush attacked Iraq and not the other way around, there is no proof that Saddam had plans to use them against us or anyone. That's pure fiction from George W. Bush, who attacked Iraq simply because he COULD. I'm not going to waste any more time with this thread. Those folks I enjoy reading and talking with are clearly as frustrated as I--there is no way to discuss this amongst ourselves without all of your pseudo-intellectual hyperbole washing over the conversation. SRS * :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Bobert Date: 08 Jul 04 - 06:51 PM Well, sure, SRS... When yer playin' a bad hand ya gotta use every trick in the book to stay in the game... The T-Bird is famous fir trying to keep the discussion square in the middle of T's magnifying glass. When you try to budge him he just pours on more and more verbage to try to trick you back where he wants you... But I know you have figured that out. As have others... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Nerd Date: 08 Jul 04 - 07:10 PM Teribus, Just to take one of your many vulnerable points Firstly the arsenal of weapons that Saddam was accused of having was quantified by the United Nations UNSCOM Inspection Team - Not by George Bush. This is quite wrong. The UN quantified material that was "unaccounted for." The inspectors did not accuse Iraq of having the materials, it simply noted that Iraq had not yet PROVEN that the materials had been destroyed. Most of the inspectors felt that a lot more time would be needed before any accusation should be made, and Blix frankly felt that much of the material WOULD be accounted for and that other of it would NOT be, and that no one, including probably the Iraqis, had a good idea of what remained. On the basis of this, he wanted to keep looking because he felt war was not yet necessary, and he could still do some good. What Bush did was to ignore Blix's recommendations and his stated beliefs about was and was not in Iraq, and accuse Iraq of having a stockpile consisting of all the materials it could not prove had been destroyed. For good measure he accused them of possibly having mythical imported items (yellowcake from Niger, etc) that the UN had never listed, and had his cronies like Condoleeza Rice tell us that mushroom cloud was a likely possibility--none of which was remotely credible to the UN inspectors. So the accusation was quantified by Bush, not the UN. He used some UN data, but ignored the UN's interpretation of what those data meant. Just like he used the UN resolution as an excuse, but ignored the UN's determination of how that resolution was to be enforced. It all goes back to what I said at 07 Jul 04 - 11:37 AM: Anyone using UN violations as a reason to attack is having his cake and eating it, saying that we should listen to the UN only when they say what we want to hear, and otherwise ignore them. Thus, what the UN said becomes a red herring. Same with the weapons inspectors. People use the content of their reports as a reason to ignore their recommendations. But if their recommendations are wrong, why assume the other parts of the reports are right? In both cases, the administration took the outcome they wanted (which we know the neocons had wanted for a long time), looked for any statement made by anyone that could support their position, and ignored any statement made by anyone that did NOT support their position; often, this entailed accepting the validity of a person's opinion about one thing, and rejecting the validity of the same person's opinion about something else, with no justification beyond "it gives us the result we want." You would never get away with this kind of reasoning in science, but in the "art of war" it appears that no-one looks too closely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: dick greenhaus Date: 08 Jul 04 - 10:29 PM So, as some would have us understand, the Bush administration unilaterally declared war on Iraq to help out the UN. I repeat, get real. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Bobert Date: 08 Jul 04 - 11:18 PM Nerd, Seems every has the same memories of these events except T and T-Lite. They must think that the rest of us think of these things happening a couple hundred years ago rather within the last two years. Anyone bothering to keep up had (and has)a purdy good handle on what went down in terms of the Bush administration's selling of the invasion of Iraq. What we are seeing is a massive attempt to revise very recent history in order to keep the current crooks in power. These crooks are unAmerican and after they are removed all of them should be charged criminally. And I would hope the US remembers what has occured here for a very, very long time. Now if we can just get Diebold charged criminally after they attempt and may suceed in stealing yet another federal election... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Jul 04 - 12:50 AM T and T-Lite. Hahahaha! I can see it now: "Who's calling me a tea light?" I am planning to spend some time over the weekend researching and reading recent accounts of events in Iraq and elsewhere. It's time to reload the quiver with some fresh arrows, and to find out how many "wars" are being fought around the world. But that accomplished, it doesn't mean that I'm going to wade back into the quagmire that these guys have created by peeing in their own pen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: GUEST,shitstirrer Date: 09 Jul 04 - 04:25 PM So, no response to Nerd and Bobert, T-bird? Buhbruce? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Bobert Date: 09 Jul 04 - 04:39 PM Don't concern yerself, GUEST... The T0Bird and his new sidekick, T-Lite are just waiting for their interneal memos from the Bush PR folks and soon as threy have the new and improved spins, we'll get 'um... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Nerd Date: 09 Jul 04 - 09:39 PM Yeah, Guest SS, they'll respond. Or they won't. They'd probably rather begin a new thread, where their poor logic and false assumptions won't be exposed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: DougR Date: 09 Jul 04 - 09:51 PM Anybody here, besides me, ever wondered ...why didn't Saddam simply allow the U. N. Inspectors to inspect whatever they wanted to, when they wanted to, in unfettered fashion? If he had, there would have been no Iraq war, he would still have been in power, his people would still be subjugated, the mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would not have been discovered, the U. N. officials in charge would still be stealing Iraqi oil, France's JS would still LOVE George Bush, and a lot of Mudcatters would be very happy people. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Nerd Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:11 PM DougR, Your logical fallacy is pretending you know what "would have" happened. The Neocons have wanted to oust Saddam and take over Iraq for years, and Bush used 9/11 as an opportunity. I strongly suspect we'd have gone in anyway, no matter what Saddam's attitudes to the inspectors had been. The claim that Saddam had large stockpiles of WMD was never supported by the UN inspectors anyway, so their reports were essentially irrelevant. They just had some convenient numbers of "unaccounted for" weapons that became grist for the Bushmills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Bobert Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:25 PM ...and furhter more, in the weeks leading up to the invasion, Saddam was allowing the inspectors to go purdy much where they wanted to go. It's just that, inspite of the US claiming to have good intellegence on WMD, the inspectors were running out of places to look... It's amazing how quickly the neocons who have stolen out governemnt are revising history. I mean, ahhhh, this ain't ancient history we're talking about here but events that have occured quite recently. Hanz Bliz even stated stated in the last report before the invasion that the Iraqi's "got it" and were cooperating. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: GUEST Date: 10 Jul 04 - 12:17 AM Thats because he had sold them and moved them to Syria Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 10 Jul 04 - 01:04 AM "Thats because he had sold them and moved them to Syria" Well, then he didn't have them, did he? And he couldn't have attacked us with them, could he? So he wasn't a threat to the US, was he? What makes a country a threat is not the *possession* of WMDs, it's what they *do* with them. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: DougR Date: 10 Jul 04 - 06:13 PM But you REALLY don't know that, Nerd. IF Saddam had allowed the inspections to continue uninhindered, and abided by the UN Resolutions, I don't believe there is a chance in hell Iraq would have been invaded. So while all you Bush haters LOVE to blame him for the invasion of Iraq, there is no doubt that the real fault lies with Saddam. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Nerd Date: 10 Jul 04 - 06:38 PM DougR, Frankly, this whole line of argument is beneath you intellectually. I don't know and you don't know what would have happened, that was my point. You pretend to know, while I say that I suspect. Then you snidely snipe at me as though I were the one who claimed to know what WOULD have happened. Then, after one uncharacteristically honest sentence where you say that you do not BELIEVE Iraq would have been invaded, you go back to pretending to know, with "there is no doubt that." There IS doubt, and in any case your argument is based on a guess about hypothetical situations that did not happen. It is not logically derived from any facts, but from your own fantasies. Finally, even if you are right, and Bush only invaded because Saddam violated UN resolutions, Bush's actions are like getting in an argument, murdering your opponent, and then saying "he was to blame because he argued with me." It's like the rapist who blames the revealing clothes of his victim. There's a grain of truth to it, in that the rape might not have occurred if not for those factors, but the person who kills/rapes/invades is the one primarily to blame for a killing/rape/invasion. No doubt Saddam's actions contributed to his downfall, DougR. He was partly to blame. However you like to distort our positions, there are few people on the left who do not admit that. But the "real fault" is his, and not to admit that Bush bears ANY of the blame is ludicrous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Nerd Date: 10 Jul 04 - 06:55 PM Last sentence above should read But to claim the "real fault" is his, and not to admit that Bush bears ANY of the blame is ludicrous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: GUEST,Tom Date: 10 Jul 04 - 07:13 PM Just want to throw this in for whatever relevance it amy have: http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?ArticleID=2153 Tom A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: GUEST Date: 11 Jul 04 - 06:46 PM Doug, I hate both Bush AND Hussein. It's not a "one or the other" proposition. They are both assholes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: CarolC Date: 11 Jul 04 - 07:06 PM Here's what Human Rights Watch has to say about whether or not the US led invasion of Iraq was justified on humanitarian grounds: War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Bobert Date: 11 Jul 04 - 07:53 PM Thanks for rerunning that article, Carol. I ran it off on my printer last night and it is one well writtrn article. Unfortunately, Dougie won't read it because it won't fit on a bumper sticker.... Awww, jus messin' wid you, Big Guy. Come on over here and get a hug... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD From: Wolfgang Date: 12 Jul 04 - 09:07 AM I did love to read the link by Carol. Reading Human Rights Watch stance on wars was refreshingly different from a completely pacifist stance. War often carries enormous human costs, but we recognize that the imperative of stopping or preventing genocide or other systematic slaughter can sometimes justify the use of military force. For that reason, Human Rights Watch has on rare occasion advocated humanitarian intervention With such a (general) position they would have been in a minority in the discussions here before the last wars we have discussed. With their position regarding this particular war they would have been with the majority here, and deservedly so. Wolfgang |
