BS: New thread on WMD

Subject: BS: New thread on WMD
From: GUEST,Louie Roy
Date: 04 Jul 04 - 06:50 PM

On June 23,2004 17 rockets were found in Iraq by the Polish troops filled with cyclosarin gas which is 5 times stronger than sarin gas and they also found 2 mortar rounds containing sarin gas.Maybe this isn't a large find ,but I've always found tht where there is smoke there is fire

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Louie Roy
Date: 04 Jul 04 - 06:56 PM

I am a member of mudcat and have been for several years,but in the last 2 or 3 weeks somebody in charge of mudcat keeps erasing my name who ever it is I wish they would stop Louie Roy

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jul 04 - 07:21 PM

Hi, Louie - I checked out your membership and it's working fine. Usually, the problem is a corrupted or missing cookie on your computer, and all you have to do is log in (reset your cookie) at Mudcat.
As for WMD's, I would bet that almost every state in the U.S. has as many WMD's as they've found in Iraq so far. Maybe somebody should invade us.
All the best to you.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jul 04 - 08:13 PM

Well, Lou, if the Bush administration could both verify and link this find to Saddam, it would be in big tall letters on the front page of every newspaper in the US of A.

Why isn't it?

Heck, Cheney is still going 'round trying to link Saddam with 9/11. Oh sure, Teribus says he ain't and even Bush says he ain't but he is certainly using words that imply that link. So, now if the administartion is so desperate to keep trying that dog to hunt, why would they not be doing so with WMD's?

Nevermind the second question as its the same as the first but I would like a straight answer to the first. That is if anyone has a straight answer...

Yer bound to get a "War and Peace" desertation from the T-Bird but I'll guarentee it won't be a straight answer but the, ahhhh, usual...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Cruiser
Date: 04 Jul 04 - 08:20 PM

I agree Joe.

Part of my stay in the Army was at Edgewood Arsenal, near the Chesapeake Bay, the former Chemical Center and a chemical research and engineering center for the U.S. Army.

I used to run and jog around the base and there many "bunkers" of WMDs. I thought then (in the early 70s) how they were going to get rid of all that chemical junk. It just did not make sense to me that the US would be "storing" all those chemicals. For what, future use?

We are no less guilty than anyone else that has developed chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. Truman used the biggest and baddest WMD, now didn't he! And, we still have it.

Cruiser

I guess it is alright for us to have WMDs because we are a Christian Nation and not some Islamic or other religious based nation.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Jul 04 - 12:00 AM

I've always felt that the test of WMD should be "could they, even theoretically, be used to kill large numbers of peopls?" In this case, the answer is no. There were only two shells that contained the cyclosarin (though the Poles initially claimed 17) and the material itself was at least fifteen years old, beyond its shelf life. The Polish defense minister said right off the bat that the warheads were not usable, but a possible danger to the local environment. The US Army confirmed that they were not usable warheads. We have been over this on another thread already, by the way!

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Jul 04 - 06:42 PM

On NPR the other day they were talking about this find--it seems the Polish government wants to play up the find and the U.S. government wants to downplay it. So perhaps there is something that can be accepted as the "truth" somewhere in the middle. These are apparently old weapons left over from the Iran/Iraq war. Viability (odd term, though, to consider a killing agent "viable," eh?) is a factor. Is it or isn't it [viable]?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 Jul 04 - 07:12 PM

A mortar isn't the least likely measns to convey mass destruction (a slingshot is likely less effective) but it comes close. Get real.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Jul 04 - 07:34 PM

Joe Ofer et al:

You all seem to miss the entire point.

The US acted, after extensive UN resoulutions, because there was reason to believe that Iraq had WMD and other prohibited weapons... NOTE THE PROHIBITED!

The UN had passed resolutions forbidding Iraq to possess WMD- It has not made resolutions against the US, Russia, Israel, China, Korea, Pakistan, India etc... Why is it too much to think that the Left, which complained so much about the US acting "without" UN support, cannot bear to think that the US IS acting under previous UN guidence?

And where were all of you hypocrites between the last UN resolution and the US attack? I saw many protests againat the US- In most of Europe, and throughout the US. NOWHERE did I see a single protester asking that Saddam keep to the terms of the ceasefire, and follow the UN resoulutions that had already been passed- NOWHERE. It seems to me that you are saying that the policeman is not supposed to act, but it is ok for the criminal to continue illegal activites.

I invite sane discussion of this. Try not to just make personal attacks on me for having a different opinion than you. Whenever I ask for facts to base a decision upon, I am told that only the ones from "properly" biased souces are valid- so show me on your choice of sites where my analysis is wrong.

And should anyone mention the UN inspectors, just remember that "and the material itself was at least fifteen years old, beyond its shelf life. " So where were they all this time, if the inspections were so great?

I do not consider these shells to be WMD, but that does not mean they were not prohibited. Why is it that you all consider lack of evidence to be evidence of lack? It has not been proven, to some of you at least, that there are WMD in Iraq- fine, but how does that PROVE that there are not??? I think that there are some indications that would lead a careful person to believe that the WMD exist, or are unaccounted for. Just because it does not fit your preconcieved political views does not mean that you can just dismiss this additional proof that Iraq had prohibited material, cannot account for known stocksof WMD, and was in substantial violation of the UN resolutions.

Get real!

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jul 04 - 07:52 PM

Should we (or anyone) invade all countries that are in violation of UN resolutions, beardedbruce?

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 05 Jul 04 - 07:58 PM

Do 19 prohibited but non-WMD shells justify all the killing and mutilation on both sides?

Are you and/or your children going over there to do or die for 19 shells past their shelf life?

Forget the legal technicalities and

"Get real!" to quote someone or other.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jul 04 - 08:18 PM

Well, 89 cents and a UN resolution will get you a 12 ounce cup of coffee in downtown Charles Town, WV... Danged things ain't worth tha paper they're written on...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Jul 04 - 09:21 PM

From ABC News:

In Baghdad, the U.S. military issued a statement saying that two 122 mm rockets found by Polish forces had tested positive for sarin gas and confirmed that they were left over from the Iran-Iraq war, but said they posed little danger.

The statement said an Iraqi civilian had led the soldiers to the rockets in the town of Hilla, 62 miles south of Baghdad on June 16.

"Due to the deteriorated state of the rounds and small quantity of remaining agent, these rounds were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against Coalition Forces," the statement said.

The Iraqi showed the Polish troops 16 more 122 mm rockets from June 23 to 26, which were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals, the U.S. statement said.

So we're talking about two rounds with little agent.

Beardedbruce, no one is saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. But Rumsfeld said he knew just where the WMD were, too. THAT we know was wrong.

We could invade every country in the world on the premise that "you can't prove that they DON'T have stuff that violates their treaties." That's madness.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jul 04 - 09:45 PM

Reminds me, Nerd, of the run up to war. Remember Bush telling Saddam to prove he didn't have this stuff or Iraq would be invaded> I'm with you, how do you prove you don't have anything?

This would make a good essay question for an advanced philosophy class, don't ya' think (pun intended)...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Naemanson
Date: 05 Jul 04 - 10:04 PM

Who hired us to be "the policeman"?

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.
Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 12:47 AM

I'm still waiting for bb to answer me.

You talk a good war, bruce.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 05:41 PM

CarolC:

"Should we (or anyone) invade all countries that are in violation of UN resolutions, beardedbruce? "

In the case where there are other circumstances, such as violations of ceasefire, and over 12 years of non-compliance, I think that we might consider it, on a case by case basis.


Clint:

"Do 19 prohibited but non-WMD shells justify all the killing and mutilation on both sides? "

NO, but how about the ttens of thousands in the mass graves, or the risk poesed by the other WMD and prohibited weapons that Saddam would not account for? I think your question is not fair- Does your right to drink justify the 30,000 plus killed in achohol related accidents each year? Answer me that.


Nerd,

"But Rumsfeld said he knew just where the WMD were, too. THAT we know was wrong."

No, we only know that by the time we did invade, MONTHS later, after trying to get a UN consensus, they were not there. You do not know whether they were where Rumsfeld knew at the time he said he knew.


"We could invade every country in the world on the premise that "you can't prove that they DON'T have stuff that violates their treaties." That's madness. "

When the country is in violation of a ceasefire, the war continues. Are you saying that the US does not have the right to invade a country that the UN and the US are at war with? THAT is madness.


Naemanson:

The US has, and should, act in the manner that it considers in its own best interest. Just like every other country.

The responsibility for the war lies directly on Saddam. If he had kept the terms of the ceasefire, there would have been no need to invade Iraq. Why don't I ever hear any of you asking why he did not comply?

If the US is to blame for "giving a green light" on the invasion of Kuwait, then surely the protestors demanding the US not attack Iraq, without asking Saddam to comply wit the UN, gave a "green light " for his continued non-compliance, and thus for the war.
Thanks a lot, you all.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 07:25 PM

"This [absence of evidence] would make a good essay question for an advanced philosophy class. . . ."

Actually, it already is discussed in philosophy classes, because it is an established principle of logic (at the University of Washington, it comes up first in Philosophy 115 [Basic Logic], a freshman level course), and it does appear on exams, usually as an essay question.

If a person makes an assertion, that person is required to provide the proof—to supply the evidence for the assertion. If someone disagrees and the person making the assertion tries to claim it is true "because you can't prove it is not true," he or she is guilty of the Fallacy of Relevance, specifically the

Appeal to Ignorance (Proving a Negative):   an argument that asserts a claim is true because no one can prove it is wrong; this shifts the burden of proof to the audience or opponent rather than the claimant.

Example:   I assert that "there is an invisible gremlin in this room." You say, "The hell, you say! Prove it!" and I say "You prove there isn't!" Fallacy. You can write me off as spouting, literally, nonsense.

This is also discussed quite extensively in law classes, specifically in regard to rules of evidence. Our system of jurisprudence is based on this principle. If you are accused of a crime, it is up to the accuser to prove that the accusation is true. You are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

It would be nice if those who want to engage in rational debate would print this off, then read it and heed it:

THIMK!!
But I dream forlorn dreams. That would be far too much to hope for.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: michaelr
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 07:34 PM

beardedbruce wrote:
Where were all you hypocrites...?

And then:
Try not to just make personal attacks on me for having a different opinion than you.

Why don't you take your own advice, bb?

BTW, we know why Saddam didn't comply with the UN resolutions. It's because he thought he could get away with it. Israel has been subject to dozens of UN resolutions, and has flouted them with impunity. I bet Saddam never thought Bush would make good on his insane threats.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Naemanson
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 08:39 PM

"The US has, and should, act in the manner that it considers in its own best interest. Just like every other country."

I agree. But another act would have been to withdraw those "interests" from the threatened areas. The act that was chosen was based on false pretenses and a poorly thought out policy of pre-emptive war.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 08:41 PM

' "Do 19 prohibited but non-WMD shells justify all the killing and mutilation on both sides? "

NO, but how about the ttens of thousands in the mass graves, or the risk poesed by the other WMD and prohibited weapons that Saddam would not account for?"

Well, that was a bit overstated, if you take it literally. What I meant was, 'Do you think that possession of ineffective though prohibited weapons, (or the assumed but not proven possession of effective weapons) is grounds for a declaration of pre-emptive war?' You hadn't brought up the 'ttens of thousands in the mass graves,' but I'll include that in the question. Do you think we should declare war on every nation where there are 'tens of thousands in the mass graves'? Like the USSR; should we have declared war on them?

'I think your question is not fair-.Does your right to drink justify the 30,000 plus killed in achohol related accidents each year? Answer me that.'

No, but we've seen that Prohibition is worse.

And I think your question has no bearing on the subject. Does your right to drive justify the 30,000 plus killed in automobile related accidents each year? Answer me that. Does your right to go out in winter weather without warm clothing justify the 30,000 plus killed by respiratory diseases each year? Answer me that.

Absense of proof is not proof of absence, but it's even less proof of existence.

And getting back to my bottom line; if you think this is a just war why aren't you and/or your children over there helping fight it?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 09:12 PM

I didn't give a very good answer to the drinking question.

A better answer is: I drink rarely and don't drive. This does not justify those who drink, get drunk, and do drive.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: GUEST,freda
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 11:01 PM

CIA 'did not tell Bush of WMD finding'; Gary Younge in New York
Wednesday July 7, 2004; The Guardian

The US intelligence services withheld information from George Bush that Iraqi WMD programmes had been abandoned, to justify their prewar contention that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons, according to the New York Times. A highly critical report due to be released later this week by the Senate select committee on intelligence is expected to lambast the intelligence community for doing a poor job of collecting information about Iraqi weapons programmes and for failing to pass on what information it did have. The committee is expected to single out the outgoing CIA director, George Tenet, and his deputy, John McLaughlin, for particular criticism, according to the New York Times....

The report reveals that relatives of Iraqi scientists told the CIA that Saddam had abandoned attempts to develop unconventional weapons, but the CIA failed pass these statements on to Mr Bush, even as he made public claims to the contrary. One CIA spokesman told the New York Times that the families' statements were ignored because they were "not at all convincing". The committee found that one Iraqi defector, whose testimony had been used as evidence of a biological weapons programme, had actually said he had no knowledge of it. They did not unearth the contradiction until they read original reports of his debriefings before the war.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 12:57 AM

bruce, bruce, bruce, you are so damn full of it!

take this one:

No, we only know that by the time we did invade, MONTHS later, after trying to get a UN consensus, they were not there. You do not know whether they were where Rumsfeld knew at the time he said he knew.

The problem, Bruce, is that Rumsfeld said he knew where the weapons were nine days before the fall of Baghdad, well AFTER we invaded. No months went by. No Iraqi troops had any time to hide stocks of weapons after he said this, because they were engaged in active combat against US forces in that region until their defeat only days later. If Rumsfeld had been right, he'd have captured vast stockpiles of weapons...except that they weren't there.

In fact, even Rumsfeld has admitted he was wrong and that he should not have said he knew where the weapons were.

In September, he finally said, essentially, "I should have said I believed they were there, not I knew they were there," which is just a cowardly way to say "I was wrong."

Also, Bruce, you love to spout the deluded bullshit that we were still at war all along because all there was was a ceasefire. If that were the case, why did President Bush ask Congress to authorize the use of force? Surely if he was commander in chief of a force that Congress considered to be STILL AT WAR, he would not have to ask Congress for this.

In the United States, it is Congress, not the president, and not some document signed two administrations ago with Iraq, that decides whether we are at war.

In this case, Congress passed this authority to the executive, but Congress never claimed that the Gulf War had never ended. That bizarre contention just shows your desperation, buddy.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 02:19 AM

Beardedbruce's opener was a real corker! I've seldom seen so many straws being clutched at all in one diatribe. And he invites "sane discussion" with us "Hypocrites" ---and with no "personal attacks", mind you. Beardedbruce----you must be giving even Teribus and Doug R, the "heebi-geebies". We won't tell you to "get real"; I suspect this would be an impossible feat.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 04:21 AM

"The US intelligence services withheld information from George Bush that Iraqi WMD programmes had been abandoned, to justify their prewar contention that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons, according to the New York Times."

Only one thing wrong with the above, it wasn't the CIA's contention that Iraq possessed WMD and was continuing programmes aimed at further developing their capability - it was the UN.

On revelations by relatives, I believe it was a son-in-law of Saddam Hussein who defected and told the world about an ongoing Iraqi chemical/biological development programme in, I think it was 1995. Acting on that information UNSCOM inspectors found that what was stated was true. That was one programme, is it possible, even probable, that there were others, British intelligence evaluation and UNMOVIC discovered the missile developement programme that, although prohibited and not mentioned in Iraq's declaration of December 2002, had been run in spite of UN sanctions.

Regarding the munitions found recently - it doesn't matter a jot when they were "left over from", it doesn't matter what their condition was. In December 2002 Iraq was required to make a declaration to the UNSC regarding what WMD it possessed and report the status of previously known WMD development programmes. The baseline for comparison for this declaration was the 1999 UNSCOM and IAEA reports to the UNSC, those reports having been compiled based on the inspectors findings and on information supplied by Iraq. In the December 2002 declaration the Iraqi authorities stated that they did not possess ANY WMD, munitions and that all developement programmes had been halted. Dr. Hans Blix expressed his disappointment with the content of the declaration as it did not in any way attempt to explain what had happened to the items, identified by UNSCOM, that remained unaccounted for. The appearance of those munitions is an indication that Iraq's declaration of December 2002 was indeed false and that the UNSCOM report of 1999 was correct.

The "hiding" of the weapons. Russia, France, Germany and China bought Saddam Hussein more than sufficient time for him to conceal whatever he wanted to. Remembering that 1441 required full pro-active co-operation on the part of the Iraqi authorities, I certainly would like to know the reason that the required surveillance flights by U2 aircraft were denied by Iraq. The Iraqi's could not guarantee getting anything out to the North, they most certainly would not send anything East into Iran, or South into Saudi Arabia. That only leaves the route West into Syria and Jordan, over flight by U2 aircraft would have been able to monitor that traffic - I believe that is why those flights were refused permission.

Was anything smuggled out through Syria in the run up to March 2003 - according to A.Q. Khan there was. On his instruction a Pakistani Air Force transport aircraft was diverted on it's return journey and ordered to fly to Damascus take on Iraqi cargo and return to Pakistan. There has never been any disclosure as to what that cargo was and I don't know whether there ever will be - my guess, and it is purely that, based on the parties involved and their area of expertise, is that what was smuggled out was evidence that Iraq was in the process of re-activating it's nuclear programme.

Nerd, to commit US ground forces, yes the President would have to go to Congress, as he did indeed do. The terms of the Safwan ceasefire had been broken, therefore the ceasefire was invalid freeing any coalition member to resume hostilities. By the way did Bill Clinton go to Congress to get their sanction to launch "Desert Fox"? Did he go to Congress to get their sanction to intervene in Kosovo? The difference between those and Iraq 2003 was that in the latter US ground troops were involved. Off-hand I cannot remember any great debate in Congress being reported with regard to "Desert Fox" or Kosovo - could well be wrong on that as I am based on the wrong side of the pond.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 06:19 AM

Don:

I note a lot of attacks on the Bush administration without evidence- I have been told many times that I should provide the evidence that the attacks are not true. I merely am using the same logic that those I disagree with use.


michaelr:

"Why don't you take your own advice, bb?"

How is it a personal attack if it is a fact- those who demanded the US not attack, while not even asking Saddam to comply with the terms of the ceasefire he signed, or at least the UN resolutions, ARE hypocrites. I looked back on Mudcat- there are no threads that I could find about how Saddam should comply to prevent the war- just protests that the US might do something. Please correct me on this, if I am wrong.


BTW, we know why Saddam didn't comply with the UN resolutions. It's because he thought he could get away with it. Israel has been subject to dozens of UN resolutions, and has flouted them with impunity. I bet Saddam never thought Bush would make good on his insane threats.

And why is that? You have just supported my point that those who protested the US attack, and not Saddam's non-compliance, are in part responsible for the war.

"If the US is to blame for "giving a green light" on the invasion of Kuwait, then surely the protestors demanding the US not attack Iraq, without asking Saddam to comply wit the UN, gave a "green light " for his continued non-compliance, and thus for the war."

Again, thanks a lot, you all.


Naemanson:

""The US has, and should, act in the manner that it considers in its own best interest. Just like every other country."

I agree. But another act would have been to withdraw those "interests" from the threatened areas. The act that was chosen was based on false pretenses and a poorly thought out policy of pre-emptive war. "

I would rather say that the act was based on the information that was know at the time, which may have been false.


GUEST,freda:

Thank you- I had seen that.

So now all of you will stop attacking the Bush administration, since they WERE acting on the best information that they had, and instead complain about the CIA? WHy do I think not?


Nerd:


I do not see that you have even weakened my statement.

"No Iraqi troops had any time to hide stocks of weapons after he said this, because they were engaged in active combat against US forces in that region until their defeat only days later. "

I do not know when the intelligence Rumsfeld was using had been gathered, nor do you. I do not know exactly how long the Iraqis had to relocate material, nor do you. Your statement is a blank assertion that I would like to see some evidence of.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 06:35 AM

Don,

Have you looked at the link you mentioned, and the "logic" of those protesting the US attack? Are you sure that you want ALL of us to be held to the rules you insist on? I have found all of the following:

Fallacies of Relevance

Personal Attack (Ad Hominem): an attempt to divert attention away from the evidence in favor of an attack on the person stating the premise

Appeal to Audience Bias (Ad Populem): an emotional appeal to the presumed attitudes or beliefs of an audience, under the assumption that the need for evidence is irrelevant

Red Herring: an attempt to avoid the central issue of an argument by sidetracking, that is, changing the subject or digressing onto a tangential point

Appeal to Authority: an argument based on the assumption that an authority outside a particular field is a qualified expert on the matters in question

Appeal to Ignorance (Proving a Negative): an argument that asserts a claim is true because no one can prove it is wrong; this shifts the burden of proof to the audience or opponent rather than the claimant

Sentimental Appeal: a faulty emotional appeal, often using pity or fear, designed to provoke an audience to divert attention or in lieu of evidence

Non-Sequitur: an argument in which a conclusion fails to follow logically or coherently from the given premises

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 07:08 AM

Clint:

'Do you think that possession of ineffective though prohibited weapons, (or the assumed but not proven possession of effective weapons) is grounds for a declaration of pre-emptive war?'

Under the circumstances surrounding Iraq, based on the last 12+ years of actual events, if the best information that I had lead me to believe the weapons existed, it WOULD be grounds for a declaration of pre-emptive war.


"And I think your question has no bearing on the subject."

I agree entirely- as did your question. That was the point I was trying to make. I had NEVER stated that I thought the 19 items found by the Ploes was reason to attack Iraq- The lack of compliance with the terms of the ceasefire, and the UN resoulutions was.

Is your statement

"Do 19 prohibited but non-WMD shells justify all the killing and mutilation on both sides? "


a Red herring, Sentimental Appeal, or Non-Sequitur?
I guess you hit all three...

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 09:12 AM

Beardedbruce

if you don't see how I have even weakened your statement then you need to go back and read again.

Your statement:

No, we only know that by the time we did invade, MONTHS later, after trying to get a UN consensus, they were not there. You do not know whether they were where Rumsfeld knew at the time he said he knew.

(Note you did NOT say "at the time the intelligence was gathered," but "at the time he said he knew.")

So your statement was that he said he knew where the weapons were, then, months later, we invaded.   The implication was that Saddam had had time to move them all.

The fact is, he said it AFTER we had invaded, (on March 30, to be precise) and NINE DAYS before the region was conquered. It is impossible that the weapons were where Rumsfeld said, when Rumsfeld said, and even he has admitted that. He never even tried to claim that the materiel had been moved out of the area during the nine days after he made the statement because that would have been preposterous. he simply said, "I should NOT have said I knew where the weapons were, because I didn't know."

One of the things that puzzles me is the way you will support every halfassed statement made by the administration, even after the people who made the statement have given up, performed damage control, and moved on. You have to give up SOME of your fantasies of their infallibility.

As to your claiming I make "blank assertion[s] that you would like to see evidence of (sic)," how about your post claiming to have found a host of logical fallacies in the arguments of "those protesting the US attack?" Not only do you yourself give no evidence for this blank assertion (who used these fallacies, and when?), this in itself is a logical fallacy, suggesting among other things that

(1) just because SOME people who disagree with you have made mistakes, EVERYONE who disagrees with you is wrong

and

(2) just because some people who disagree with you have made mistakes, your own logical fallacies do not render YOUR arguments invalid.

After all, I could say "Oh, I used a fallacious argument? So what? SOME people on the right are stupid and have lied repeatedly."

This, as you can see, is a fallacy. Obviously SOME people on the right are stupid, and obviously SOME have lied (the same would be true of the left, BTW). But this statement has no bearing on the argument. It is a Red Herring, and a Non-Sequitur, just as your attack on "people who protested the US attack" is.

(Just to remind folks, the discussion of logic was brought up because beardedbruce made the following fallacious statement:

It has not been proven, to some of you at least, that there are WMD in Iraq- fine, but how does that PROVE that there are not???

When it was pointed out that this was fallacious, beardedbruce made the following fallacious argument in its defense:

"Have you looked at...the "logic" of those protesting the US attack? I have found all of the following: Fallacies of Relevance, etc..."

Delicious!

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 09:13 AM

What is a UN resolution worth-   If the paper is soft it might be suitable as toilet paper.   Otherwise, completely useless.   Kind of like the nerdy guys in the movie.   "If you don't honor this resolution, we are going to write another resolution"   Wow- I'm scared.

Did we find WMD's- yes. Not the stockpile that Clinton, Kerry, Bush, Liebeman, Gore, France, Germany, Russia thought.   We found labs, warheads, plans, a little saran, a little mustard gas, and a few other biological weapons.   The kind of stuff you keep in your basement.   Every weekend I have to yell at the kids "where did you hide the saran?"    But these WMD"S don't count until we find the big stockpile we were promised.

The real question is whether Iraq was in violation of the UN agreement.   David Kay says yes.   Hans Blix says yes.   And sane person has to says yes.    I would expect that most mudcatters say no.

The real difference between conservative and liberals on this issue.   Liberals say we must have proof on WMD's and wait for a WMD attack to kill thousands or millions before we can act.   And than blame the president for not having the intelligence to protect us. (like the 9/11 hearings)   Conservatives think we shoud take preemtive strikes to prevent WMD attacks here.

What are the consequences of being wrong.   If conservatives are wrong, we look foolish to the world, but have removed a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of people and gave 25 million Iraqis a chance of freedom at a cost of 1,000 american lives and lots of money.    If liberals are wrong millions of americans die, and an economic depression on the entire world.   (look at the effect on the economy from 9/11.   Now imagine the effect of a WMD attack that killed thousands/millions)

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 09:23 AM

LarryK,

I have made the point you bring up in your last paragraph before- but it does not matter. Kangaroos are allowed to defend themselves, but not the US. ( see thread on "Does this need a song")

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 09:30 AM

OR:

If conservatives are wrong, we destablilize Iraq, make it a haven for terrorists, divide our resources so that we spend billions less on eliminating Al Qaeda, and we suffer a WMD attack from Al Qaeda. Millions of Americans die, and an economic depression on the entire world.

If Liberals are wrong, the same dictator we funded and supported for years before we slapped him on the wrist remains in power and does essentially nothing to us because he has a weak military. The WMD remain exactly where they were, rotting in Iraq. But we rout out global terrorism where it REALLY existed prior to this wrongheaded war.

See, LarryK, it's easy to make phony predictions about what would happen. In fact, it's just another damn logical fallacy.

Beyond this, your claim that "Liberals say we must...wait for a WMD attack to kill thousands or millions before we can act." is a false premise. Liberals do NOT say that.

SO you have made a logically fallacious argument beginning with a false premise, and have ended up with a grumus merdae. Good work!

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 10:53 AM

Teribus, under the terms of the temporary Safwan ceasefire, it (the Safwan ceasefire) became null and void as soon as UNSC Resolution 687 established a permanent ceasefire. 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.

Since it was a UN Resolution that was being violated, it was the perogative of the UNSC to determine what the consequences should be, not the perogative of only one UN member nation..

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 11:37 AM

Yes, CarolC, the logical fallacy there is this:

Using UN resolutions being violated as a reason for attack presupposes that the UN's wishes are to be respected.

BUT the UN decided NOT to attack Iraq. Why not respect THAT wish too? Or else respect neither wish, and then give up the resolution as a pretext for invasion?

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: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 12:43 PM

Beardedbruce said

Joe Ofer et al:

You all seem to miss the entire point.

Just because they don't take YOUR point doesn't mean they missed THE point. That has always been the sticking point when you participate in these threads. As soon as I see you're wading in, I know the thread is lost. If you truly invite "sane" discussion then you must recuse yourself from this thread now.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 01:07 PM

"Are you sure that you want ALL of us to be held to the rules you insist on?"

BB, I am not insisting that anybody be held to these rules (the rules of logic), but I am suggesting that if you want to participate in rational discourse and have people take you seriously, it would be a good idea. If, however, all you want to do is rant and rave, then I don't think there are any specific rules for that. Just let 'er rip!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 01:55 PM

Don,

I just wanted to point out that there are faults of logic on both sides of the issue.

SRS,

If by sane discussion you mean that no source I present will be looked at, and I am required to concede you are right before I even start, with no evidence, than I suppose I do not want sane discussion at all. If you care to present your viewpoint, and listen to the viewpoint of others, perhaps both of us might learn something.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 02:16 PM

Don,

beardedbruce was merely pointing out that there have been logical fallacies on both sides.

This, in legal circles, is known as the "I know you are but what am I" defense.

It is itself, as I have pointed out above, a fallacious argument.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 08:14 PM

Beardedbruce, you have a track record of disregarding the copious evidence presented by many of our scholarly Mudcatters, myself included. You've managed to tangle with and insult quite a fine collection of folks here--many whom I hold in high esteem. I am at least in very good company (yourself excluded, of course). It's your own smoke and mirrors that you're fooling yourself with as you proceed down the blind alley you have stubbornly opened. Now go ahead and say something really nasty about me personally like you usually do when someone questions your lack of critical thinking skills when it comes to these arguments.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 10:08 PM

'Is your statement "Do 19 prohibited but non-WMD shells justify all the killing and mutilation on both sides? " a Red herring, Sentimental Appeal, or Non-Sequitur? I guess you hit all three..."

Well, b bruce, words are not my medium, but I tried to explain what I meant by "Do 19 prohibited but non-WMD shells justify all the killing and mutilation on both sides?" I admitted it was not to be taken literally. Go back and read the explanation. [06 Jul 04 - 08:41 PM ]

I didn't think it was a Red herring or a Non-Sequitur, but I intended it to be a Sentimental Appeal. "Stop the car, you're about to run over the baby!" is a sentimental appeal, and I believe it's worth saying in some circumstances.

Now, if it please you, answer my other sentimental question: if you think this is a just war why aren't you and/or your children over there helping fight it?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 11:25 PM

My turn to return the "Amen", SRS.

The guy is not worth the time discussing anything with since he is dillusional. He proclaims, proclaims and proclaims, offers no credible evidence yet, when presented with credible eveidence from his adversaries proclaims (yet again) that evidence is wrong...

He missed his calling: dictator.

Oh, not enough jobs to go around? Gee, times tough all over...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:49 AM

CarolC,

I think that the current US Administration made it abundantly clear to everyone exactly what line they would take if Saddam Hussein did not fully comply with the stipulations required of it under the terms of UNSC 1441.

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.

The US did go to the UN to try and accomplish that. After five months, in which time, not once did either Blix, or AlBaradei, report that they were receiving the full, pro-active co-operation on the part of the Iraq regime (required from day 1 in accordance with 1441), all the indications were that Saddam fully believed that he could hinder the UNMOVIC inspections as successfully as he had previously thwarted the efforts of UNSCOM.

1441 gave Saddam one last chance that is what was declared by the UN. The UN however showed that it lacked the will and resolve to enforce what was required under the terms of 1441 and the US along with it's coalition partners acted as they said they would do. IMO, they were fully justified and right to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Metchosin
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 06:39 AM

Teribus, it's interesting that you seem to ascribe a lot of credibility to Putin's assertions, regarding Russian Intelligence, purportedly passed on to the US. At the same time, you also seem to easily dismiss Putin's stated belief that "the US-led invasion of Iraq violated international legislation on procedures of the use of force in international affairs" (RIA Novosti, Agence France-Presse, June 18; Moscow Times, June 21).

IMO, Putin is just throwing Bush a much needed bone. Having criticized the Republican regime, Putin would still probably much prefer to see Bush "re-elected" than any Democrat. Democrats generally tend to be very critical of Russian abuse of civil and human rights.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 08:13 AM

Joe said

"As for WMD's, I would bet that almost every state in the U.S. has as many WMD's as they've found in Iraq so far. Maybe somebody should invade us."

I said

"You all seem to miss the entire point.

The US acted, after extensive UN resoulutions, because there was reason to believe that Iraq had WMD and other prohibited weapons... NOTE THE PROHIBITED!

The UN had passed resolutions forbidding Iraq to possess WMD- It has not made resolutions against the US, Russia, Israel, China, Korea, Pakistan, India etc... Why is it too much to think that the Left, which complained so much about the US acting "without" UN support, cannot bear to think that the US IS acting under previous UN guidence?

And where were all of you hypocrites between the last UN resolution and the US attack? I saw many protests againat the US- In most of Europe, and throughout the US. NOWHERE did I see a single protester asking that Saddam keep to the terms of the ceasefire, and follow the UN resoulutions that had already been passed- NOWHERE. It seems to me that you are saying that the policeman is not supposed to act, but it is ok for the criminal to continue illegal activites. "


Those who did not protest Saddam not complying with the UN resolutions ARE hypocrites- Not even a proclaimation by SRS, or Bobert, can make it any different. Someone who claims to want to prevent war who does not take the steps that would keep the war from happening, when they have the chance, is a hypocrite.



But of course, I am "dillusional" and "so damn full of it!", so none of you need to address anything that I might say. Fine. Go off and pat yourselves on the back for your vastly superior comprehension of the world.

Since I do not agree with the bigoted ( that means pre-determined, not based on evidence) opinions of SRS, I "must recuse (my)self from this thread now." Heaven forbid that anyone hear what I might have to say- you all know what you want to believe, and certainly want nothing to do with anything that might put your opinions in any risk of change. I certainly am glad that there exists such an open-minded group.

And SRS, you and Bobert "proclaims, proclaims and proclaims, offers no credible evidence yet, when presented with credible eveidence from his adversaries proclaims (yet again) that evidence is wrong..."

You have stated that I have been "disregarding the copious evidence presented by many of our scholarly Mudcatters, myself included.". Well, you yourself stated that any information from any source that a person disagrees with is not even worth looking at- so what evidence have you ever presented that meets your own standard? Feel free to be "scholarly"- but you might want to look for facts instead of opinion to base your comments on.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 08:20 AM

Clint,

"Now, if it please you, answer my other sentimental question: if you think this is a just war why aren't you and/or your children over there helping fight it?"



Some of us are too old to serve in this conflict. I have no children, and my adult realatives are entitled to make there own decisions on this matter. If you want to make that the issue, then only those who are of an age to serve should be entitled to a voice here. And how many of our vast group of scholars would then be able to pontificate on how the world should run?

Now, if it please you, answer my question: Where were all of you hypocrites between the last UN resolution and the US attack?

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 08:33 AM

The disclosure that Russian intelligence services passed on information, relating to Saddam Hussein's intentions, to their counterparts in the US is the only "new" information that has come to light in months. It helps explain a great deal.

I most certainly do not dismiss President Putin's belief and view of the US led invasion of Iraq. I might not agree with it, but I don't dismiss it. In regard to the stance taken by Russia, some sort of evaluation of motive for adopting that stance is required. Possible motives are:

1. Interest in upholding the values of international law.

2. Humanitarian concern.

3. National self-interest.

The former Soviet Union and the Confederation of Russia States that suceeded it have never been ardent champions of either 1 or 2 above, so my money would be on number 3 above.

On reviewing the stance taken by Russia since the summer of 2002 a number of compelling arguements can be put forward to support a claim that Russia was looking after her own interests throughout.

The US-led coalition's invasion of Iraq and its aims ran counter to what Russia saw as her best interests, therefore politically in international forums Russia was opposed to the US/coalition action.

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 08:44 AM

Clint,

To answer your question:

"Now, if it please you, answer my other sentimental question: if you think this is a just war why aren't you and/or your children over there helping fight it?"

As for myself - too old - were I not, I'd have no hesitation in serving in Iraq, or Afghanistan, although my previous service would indicate that it would more likely be in Iraq. I had no qualms about serving previously in Borneo, or in Northern Ireland.

As for my children - my son is currently serving in the Royal Marines.

Good enough?

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 08:45 AM

Hey Teribus,

Don't you realize that you are not allowed to present anything that they don't want to hear ( ie, that does not agree with their preconcieved opinions) ? They might have to actually justify what they believe! What an unscholarly thing to inflict upon them!

Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 09:50 AM

Those who did not protest Saddam not complying with the UN resolutions ARE hypocrites- Not even a proclaimation by SRS, or Bobert, can make it any different. Someone who claims to want to prevent war who does not take the steps that would keep the war from happening, when they have the chance, is a hypocrite.

But of course, I am "dillusional" and "so damn full of it!", so none of you need to address anything that I might say. Fine. Go off and pat yourselves on the back for your vastly superior comprehension of the world.

Look who is talking about making proclamations! If he can't argue lucidly on a topic, he accuses others of making proclaimations--a royal prerogative to be dismissed, though I think you would do well to consider Canute. (Standing in for Canute this year are France and the U.N.)

The block quote above is BB's argument in a nutshell, Bobert. He doesn't read all that we've sent, he starts name-calling, then challenges us to wade through this shit of his and apparently find some kernel of logic to address. It ain't there.

There were a whole bunch of UN resolutions--and the ones that Bush used to justify war Saddam DID comply with. Go figure. Most of what BB is calling Weapons of Mass Destruction are gone, and the broken or elderly bits and shards that are turning up are so clearly in the category of "oops, missed them" that they simply don't carry any clout when trying to justify war. The fact that nasty ol' Saddam wanted to save face so concealed from the world the fact that he had to back down and destroy his weapons is now staring Dubya (and BB) in the face. BB wants his cake and wants to eat it, too. He wants war in Iraq and he wants to justify it with the scraps that are dribbling out of Iraq now. Bush took that gamble and lost, and now is prevaricating as fast as his feet can backpedal to try to distract people from the truth. BB hasn't figured this out.

Bobert, you're right. BB's an ideologue, he's not rational, and there is simply no point in trying to make any points with this guy, because he just throws around more nonsense (of his own creation) and expects hopes people will jump through his hoops. If they play his game his way, then he apparently thinks he gains credibility.

SRS