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

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.

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."

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