OK where has Iraq hidden em?

[Reginald]

My first topic. Ive been reading for a wee while but well now I wonder......

Any ideas where Iraq has hidden all these nasty pointy weapons they have?

[Darat]

I've wondered about sending an email to Messrs Bush & Blair and suggesting that if they want to know what weapons Saddam has they look at the export licenses the US & UK issued to allow arms manufacturers to sell arms to him a few years ago! Or ask the UK & US labs that supplied him with the ingredients he used to make the gas he then used against the Kurds and Iranians etc. for a full disclosure.

I’ve made it in a flippant way but this is a serious point and the old proverb comes to mind “you shall reap what you sow” .

[Reginald]

That is always countered by "Well if we didnt sell them..someone else will, at least this way we know what he's got"..

Ah ha! So that's how we know what he's got!:D

[King of the Americas]

"Pardon me, but I thought I'd let you in on a little secret... This is a rouse, we already have plans to claim they have the ability to put these things on trucks and slip out the back of buildings. Straw Man Fallacy, but still you can't prove it isn't happeneing!"

[corplinx]

Inside the homes of the people who work on them, deep down in Saddam's underground bunkers, and possibly in his palaces. What the inspectors are trying to do (as I understand it) is to visit the places where they suspect they were built to try to find clues about where they moved to.

If these weapons did exist, I would be sure there would be satellite photos of trucks leaving places and going other places. Blix outright asked for any such photographic evidence and it was not provided. Hmmmmmm.............

[Questioninggeller]

Up Bush's ass... Not to be rude, but this thing just pisses me off so much. Bush wants war, Saddam wants to retain power. This is a CCN rerun from 1990 of the Gulf War. It is the same players and oppnents. It is not just about dictators, not just about oil... this is about power. It was in Zimbawua that the President of that country accounced his country would be better without 6 million people (the people who voted aganist him). Now let's see that threat of (publicly) killing six million or the threat to Saddam's few thousand. Or the any of the third world countires without oil, whatever happen to that. Or even better Russia (quoted by bush as an "evil") now they are not evil and the U.S. needs help from those guys. Once again another WAR the public buys into... let's see the BUSH daugthers' join the Army... I'm tried of my friends going over sees let's see the people whose parents make six figures plus go to war to defend oil... I mean freedom.

[corplinx]

Iraq sits on a ton of oil. Unfortunately if a republic is installed there, economics (which is a science) says that the price of their oil will most likely go up in a free society as wages increase. Most likely, we will install a goverment that will not colude with the OPEC cartel, so at least the price per barrel will not be artificially picked by them.

What I say to the "THIS IS ALL BOUT OIL" people is, get a clue, get a life. Stop believing everything you see on the Daily Show. Jon Stewart says "we make this stuff up" for a reason.

Once again, there won't be a chance for peace in the middle east until Saddam is gone.

Here is an article I recommend you read by Arnold Beichman http://www.kuwait-info.org/News/why_just_kuwait.html

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
Up Bush's ass... Not to be rude, but this thing just pisses me off so much. Bush wants war, Saddam wants to retain power. This is a CCN rerun from 1990 of the Gulf War. It is the same players and oppnents. It is not just about dictators, not just about oil... this is about power. It was in Zimbawua that the President of that country accounced his country would be better without 6 million people (the people who voted aganist him). Now let's see that threat of (publicly) killing six million or the threat to Saddam's few thousand. Or the any of the third world countires without oil, whatever happen to that. Or even better Russia (quoted by bush as an "evil") now they are not evil and the U.S. needs help from those guys. Once again another WAR the public buys into... let's see the BUSH daugthers' join the Army... I'm tried of my friends going over sees let's see the people whose parents make six figures plus go to war to defend oil... I mean freedom.
This person has a way with words, and the truth.
;)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
Up Bush's ass... Not to be rude, but this thing just pisses me off so much. Bush wants war, Saddam wants to retain power. This is a CCN rerun from 1990 of the Gulf War. It is the same players and oppnents. It is not just about dictators, not just about oil... this is about power. It was in Zimbawua that the President of that country accounced his country would be better without 6 million people (the people who voted aganist him). Now let's see that threat of (publicly) killing six million or the threat to Saddam's few thousand. Or the any of the third world countires without oil, whatever happen to that. Or even better Russia (quoted by bush as an "evil") now they are not evil and the U.S. needs help from those guys. Once again another WAR the public buys into... let's see the BUSH daugthers' join the Army... I'm tried of my friends going over sees let's see the people whose parents make six figures plus go to war to defend oil... I mean freedom.

Run for elected office and change the world. I don't think the Islamofascists will listen to your appeasement. When they don't, men will still go over there to fight.

BTW, why aren't you joining the service to go fight? The country needs you.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius

This person has a way with words, and the truth.
;)

Maybe as an entry into the appeasement hall of fame.

JK

[corplinx]

Myself, Sub, and JK are up late once again posting, maybe we should start our own internet radio show: "The Lawyer, the Tech, and Dark Lord of the Sith Hour"

[Jon_in_london]

Look in his trousers!
-Monty Python 'meaning of life'

[King of the Americas]

...COULD be used to test biological weapons.", says U.S. State Department official.

:rolleyes:

Also found were rolling papers that could be used to smoke marijuana...:D

*NOTE- neither biological weapons or marijuana were found at the scene:eek:

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Look in his trousers!
-Monty Python 'meaning of life'

Along those same lines, there's this....... (http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/archive.html)

bwahahahahah!

-z

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
Up Bush's ass... Not to be rude, but this thing just pisses me off so much. Bush wants war, Saddam wants to retain power. This is a CCN rerun from 1990 of the Gulf War. It is the same players and oppnents. It is not just about dictators, not just about oil... this is about power. It was in Zimbawua that the President of that country accounced his country would be better without 6 million people (the people who voted aganist him). Now let's see that threat of (publicly) killing six million or the threat to Saddam's few thousand. Or the any of the third world countires without oil, whatever happen to that. Or even better Russia (quoted by bush as an "evil") now they are not evil and the U.S. needs help from those guys. Once again another WAR the public buys into... let's see the BUSH daugthers' join the Army... I'm tried of my friends going over sees let's see the people whose parents make six figures plus go to war to defend oil... I mean freedom. Up yours. You just piss me off. Are your friends in the military? If not don't worry about it. If they are then why the hell did they join? (Hey, here is a little tip for you, your Einstein friends and those that haven't figured it out yet: if you volunteer for military service you just might HAVE TO GO TO WAR). Got it? And if you DIDN'T know that already here is some more advice, don't engage in unprotected sex, don't take the toaster into the shower, ...

Oh, and by the way Mr. history buff, George H. W. Bush was Reagan's vice president when he (that's Regan not Bush) called the SOVIET UNION the "evil empire". You may have missed it but the Soviet Union fell not long after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1988. Or are you talking about George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil"? Well, if so, you are still wrong. Bush identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the axis of evil. I'm sure we will all look forward to your future words of wisdom on geo-political history.

Look, just because you don't think the threat is real doesn't mean that it is not. The world is a dangerous place and Bush is working to make it safer. Perhaps we shouldn't have war with Iraq, maybe Bush is wrong in the way he is going about stopping terrorism (you do agree that there is a real problem with terrorism) but there is no evidence that Bush's only agenda is war. You're post is cynical and presumptuous, nothing more than your opinion. Now, I would be willing to respect your opinion but when you make unsubstantiated claims then I have to call 'em as I see 'em. Your opinion is just unadulterated ********. And your likening Bush to a dictator is unfounded and uncalled for. It stinks of the “Clinton ordered the assassination of Vince Foster conspiracy” tripe. Just because Foster was handling white water and just because he could have embarrassing information coupled with the fact that funds from White Water were illegally funneled into Clinton’s campaign does NOT justify such *********.

Yeah, Bush has ties to oil, so f***ing what? I used to ask my Clinton conspirator friends, "Do you have any evidence that Clinton had Foster killed?" Now I have to ask you the same, do you have any evidence that Bush is doing this for oil? Or do you just connect imaginary dots? If so then Clinton had Foster killed and the Jews run the world and a dozen other conspiracies are true. Rememember the following facts, Clinton recieved illegal contributions from the Chinese, JFK had ties to the mob and Geller has been tested by scientists. By your logic Clinton sold national secrets to communists, Kennedy had Marylin Monroe killed and Geller can bends spoons. If you leave your critical thinking at the door anything is possible.

Or the any of the third world countries without oil, whatever happen to that. I don't have a clue as to what the hell it is that you are talking about here. Could you clarify? Happened to what?

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by corplinx
Myself, Sub, and JK are up late once again posting, maybe we should start our own internet radio show: "The Lawyer, the Tech, and Dark Lord of the Sith Hour"

Hey, can I make a cameo?

I say, Saddam has been hiding them wherever he wants to. He's got a couple dozen really terrible stockpiles to hide in a country the size of Texas. He can threaten his people with death if they don't hide his stuff. He fooled Blix for almost 6 years before a deserter revealed the stuff Saddam was hiding all that time. THE SAME BLIX!

Blix who is pretending to be the Tazmanian Devil out there running around and turning up random rocks under palaces.

In a country that large, he can hide his stockpile indefinately unless someone from that weapons program tells us where they are. I bet America, with all our missiles, could hide them from inspectors in our country with about 2 or 3 dozen inspecters running around even longer than Saddam could. The inspections are a joke BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE SADDAM'S COOPERATION!

-Ben

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


The inspections are a joke BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE SADDAM'S COOPERATION!

-Ben
the inspectors have been quoted as saying they are recieving full co-operation..... Saddam is going to give them the written lists they asked for.....Hmmmmm, what next? bomb him for over doing the co-operation?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Fool

the inspectors have been quoted as saying they are recieving full co-operation..... Saddam is going to give them the written lists they asked for.....Hmmmmm, what next? bomb him for over doing the co-operation?

What do you expect them say? "Saddam is a dirty weasal who bugged our rooms during the old inspections, now pardon me while I ask him to open his palace to us"

Is the naivete intentional or do people not understand diplomatic answers to questions?

[subgenius]

One of Saddam's wives told him recently, "Let them inspect the weapons, after all they gave them to you.":eek:

[corplinx]

It is sad how decisions that seemed good at the time go poof later.

idea1: allow the exiled Shah to come to the US for medical treatment
effect: Iran takes american hostages for 444 days

idea2: greenlight a war on Iran by the new leader of Iraq who is facing a kashmir-like situation in northern iraq with the kurds and iranis, give him some help too to really teach those Iranis a lesson
effect: the policy of supplying Saddam continues in the next administration, Iraq becomes a military power in the region, 10 years after the beginning of the iran-iraq border war, iraq decides to expand in the opposition direction

idea3: instead of actively changing Saddam's regime, leave him weak and let the northern kurds and the southern iraqis overthrow him, they are sick of western intervention over there
effect: a treaty whose terms were never complied with and leaves egg all over the face of the UN, Saddam builds palaces while his people starve and blames the UN, Saddam arms and gives money to palestinian militants futher destabilizing the region, the region which is usually anti-intervention plays the blame game on the UN for not removing Saddam after the liberation of Kuwait

The scary thing is the guy who came up with idea number 2 just got a nobel peace prize. He is also partially responsible for a new nuclear power in southeast asia.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by subgenius
One of Saddam's wives told him recently, "Let them inspect the weapons, after all they gave them to you.":eek:

So, you admit he has weapons? I don't understand. Am I missing something?

We gave him some anti-Anthrax vaccine. He needed it against Iran. But then he weaponized it, or not? If not, then where is the anti-Anthrax we gave him? Incinerated? Does he have records of this? Can we see those records?

If he did weaponize it, is it the same type that turned up in Washington DC and New Jersey recently? Is that important to you, to find out?

-Ben

[subgenius]

At the end of Bush I Persian Gulf War I, when we WON (remember that?) Schwartskopf turned to his aides and asked, "Anyone know how to draw up a surrender treaty?"
Unbelievably, no one did!
Instead of looking up the word "unconditional" in the dictionary, Iraq was allowed to insert what they wanted!
Imagine winning a war, after jeopardizing, and losing, lives, winning, and then negotiating? War represents the failure of negotiation. You don't fight one, prevail, and then negotiate with the defeated.
Although the scenario above did in fact happen (per "Frontline"), its really hard to imagine anyone this stupid. There is no acceptable explanation for why we didn't finish him off the first time (after creating him in the first place).
Clowntime is over.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


So, you admit he has weapons? I don't understand. Am I missing something?

We gave him some anti-Anthrax vaccine. He needed it against Iran. But then he weaponized it, or not? If not, then where is the anti-Anthrax we gave him? Incinerated? Does he have records of this? Can we see those records?

If he did weaponize it, is it the same type that turned up in Washington DC and New Jersey recently? Is that important to you, to find out?

-Ben
We didn't just give him vaccine, we gave him WMDs. Various biologicals directly from the CDC.
http://www.nbc6.net/ikeseamans/1684326/detail.html
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021001-8211716.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2002/nf20020920_3025.htm
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/west-nile-pr.cfm
He used to be our "friend".
The anthrax here was not his.
Don't understand the concept of weaponizing vaccine, but then I don't claim to be a genius.
;)

edited to add:
P.S. Including West Nile Virus.
P.P.S. Know what Dubya's gonna do about West Nile Virus?



Bomb the West Nile!:D

[corplinx]

Did you borrow that zinger from the onion ? I remember hearing it before.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx
Did you borrow that zinger from the onion ? I remember hearing it before.
I forget where I put my memory. I must have Waldhiemer's disease....where you forget you were a Nazi.:D

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


We gave him some anti-Anthrax vaccine. He needed it against Iran. But then he weaponized it, or not? If not, then where is the anti-Anthrax we gave him? Incinerated? Does he have records of this? Can we see those records?

If he did weaponize it, is it the same type that turned up in Washington DC and New Jersey recently? Is that important to you, to find out?

-Ben

Anthrax vaccine is now a WMD? oh my god! great ormond street hospital is a terrorist orgainsation!! arghh..................

My god! garghhh..... not the vaccine! please PLEASE not the vaccine NAAAARGGGHHHHH :D

[King of the Americas]

...period, end of sentence, beginning of a HUGE event in the Middle East.

Anyone pay attention to the Pentagon Briefing with Donald Rumsfeld, yesterday?

Question to Rumsfeld: "If the inspectors fail to find the evidence of WMD, are YOU ready to present the evidence that the U.S. has to prove he is in violation?"

(This posed after Rumsfeld re-announced with ferver that "We KNOW they have these weapons! Everyone KNOWS this.")

Rumsfeld responds: "According to the UN resolution, it is not up to the weapons inspectors, or us to prove anything. It is up to Saddam to fully disclose all of his WMD programs, and to provide proof that he is complying with all UN resolutions."

After Kofi and Powell say the inspections are going well, Bush announces just the opposite...

Okay, so the Bush Administration is unwilling to provide the evidence that leads them to KNOW of Saddam's WMD, and the inspection team's results are moot, and it is up to Saddam to prove he doesn't have something...*cough*strawmanfallacy*cough

{Historical Note: The last UN weapons inspectors say that they found and DESTROYED some 90% of Saddam's 'weapons programs', and that what he had left had a limited shelf life.}

The next step is for Saddam to announce that he DOES have these weapons programs up and running, or...well there is no or. That's it. No other response is going to be accepted, and even this one is filled with danger. If he DOES have these weapons, then he LIED and he is going to get slapped.

---

Disarmament or Regiem Change...?

Rumsfeld says that the policy of Congress HAS BEEN 'Regiem Change' for a LONG time, and that this hasn't changed. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder..." He says, "It depends on who you talk to when, upon which answer you are going to get. The UN wants complete compliance, and wants disarmament. And the President supported this issue, but that doesn't mean that we aren't still actively pursueing our main objective, regiem change."

It is all a part of the dance, and this Administration of Tangoing us into a big f*cking War in the Middle East frought with 'unintended consequences'.

---

"Bring forth your sons, the Tree of Liberty calls for another sacrifice of their blood...the interesting thing is that her roots demand it be spilt across an ocean in a region where war is everlasting."

[corplinx]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

Rumsfeld responds: "According to the UN resolution, it is not up to the weapons inspectors, or us to prove anything. It is up to Saddam to fully disclose all of his WMD programs, and to provide proof that he is complying with all UN resolutions."


Actually, they are supposed to reveal evidence after Saddam turns in his blank WMD report that is required under the current agreement. The whole process of sending inspectors in was just to appease the idiots at the UN.

The last time inspectors were in Iraq, Saddam had their rooms bugged and they were heavily spied on so that anywhere they went was not a surprise. Even with these inspections, they have seen evidence of advance tipoffs.

Yes, weapon inspections are a farce and if Bush is really the guy Bob Woodward makes him out to be, then the whole "disclosure" clause makes a lot more sense. I think the evidence is there and they are waiting to lay it down like a trump card.

Of course, this is mostly speculation on my part.

[King of the Americas]

Even WITH the bugged rooms, the pervious UN weapons inspectors were able to find, and even destroy some 90% of Saddam's 'weapons programs', so one begs the question "What does he have left, and or what has he reconstituted?"

Rumsfeld says "We KNOW he has WMD.", but is unwilling to present the evidence that leads to this KNOWLEDGE, and when asked if he is ready and or ablet o provide such evidence he says itis not up to the U.S. or the inspectors to provide ANY evidence of anything, and that it is up to Saddam to prove that he doesn't...

AHHH HAAA!

Herein lies the "Strawman Fallacy"...!

No evidence, no ability to provide evidence, and an unwillingness to accept absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

In the end, this means a no way out of War/Regiem Change for Saddam.

[Bob Klase]

It was in Zimbawua that the President of that country accounced his country would be better without 6 million people (the people who voted aganist him). Now let's see that threat of (publicly) killing six million or the threat to Saddam's few thousand.

You've left out a small fact- the President of Zimbawua didn't actually kill 6 million people who voted against him. Saddam has killed (at least) a few thousand. So your comparision is only valid if you equate saying someone should be dead to actually killing them.

let's see the BUSH daugthers' join the Army... I'm tried of my friends going over sees let's see the people whose parents make six figures plus go to war to defend oil... I mean freedom.

Sorry, but there's no draft. Your friends volunteered. And there are people in the Army/military whose parents make six figures.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
At the end of Bush I Persian Gulf War I, when we WON (remember that?) Schwartskopf turned to his aides and asked, "Anyone know how to draw up a surrender treaty?"
Unbelievably, no one did!
Instead of looking up the word "unconditional" in the dictionary, Iraq was allowed to insert what they wanted!
Imagine winning a war, after jeopardizing, and losing, lives, winning, and then negotiating? War represents the failure of negotiation. You don't fight one, prevail, and then negotiate with the defeated.
Although the scenario above did in fact happen (per "Frontline"), its really hard to imagine anyone this stupid. There is no acceptable explanation for why we didn't finish him off the first time (after creating him in the first place).
Clowntime is over. Have to admit as much as I don't want to that you are right when it came to the surrender. The mucked that up about as bad as they could have.

We could have and should have gone into Baghdad. We didn't and I understand why. We told the UN and the world that our stated goal was to get Saddam out of Kuwait. Bush felt it was the honest thing to do. I think he could have found some justification but in any event we screwed the pooch. I'm a huge fan of Schwartskopf (sp?). He is a brilliant military tactician. He is damn lousy at negotiating surrender.

[Crossbow]

Come on now guys, some of you need to focus!

Am I the only one around here who watches TV?

On the day the shooting started during the Gulf War, Pres. Bush made an Oval Office speech where he flat out said that the goal of the campaign (he deliberately avoided the "W" word) was to get Iraq out of Kuwait and that this action is not an invasion of Iraq.

From the start and from the top the intentions and goals were very clear.

Now another question.

Does anyone remember where Pres. Bush called for a revolt to overthrow Hussien? Then when the revolt actually occurred, Bush recoiled from helping since there was a good chance that the wrong side might succeed?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Come on now guys, some of you need to focus!

Am I the only one around here who watches TV?

On the day the shooting started during the Gulf War, Pres. Bush made an Oval Office speech where he flat out said that the goal of the campaign (he deliberately avoided the "W" word) was to get Iraq out of Kuwait and that this action is not an invasion of Iraq.

From the start and from the top the intentions and goals were very clear.

Now another question.

Does anyone remember where Pres. Bush called for a revolt to overthrow Hussien? Then when the revolt actually occurred, Bush recoiled from helping since there was a good chance that the wrong side might succeed?
A treacherous betrayal that cost many lives.:(

I am not so sure the U.N. inpsection team is trying very hard to find WMD. They remind me of someone looking for a gun in the refrigerator and under the couch cushions, and then sayin, "Gee! We can't find a gun in this house anywhere!"

[DaChew]

Where they're hidden? Hmmmmmmm... Has anyone else noticed that Saddam walks kind of funny? Is that new?

[corplinx]

Someone alert the UK Ministry of Funny Walks!

[Reginald]

Is that a Scud in your pocket?......oh fill in the rest!:D

Getting a distinct impression that this administration is looking for the flimsiest excuse to get a war started... also that no amount of cooperation from Iraq will be satisfactory... we'll see... maybe they'll find evidence of chem weapons or something...

[Crossbow]

There was an article in Time magazine recently that said Saddam H. may be hiding chemical and biological weapons in RV's that are constantly rolling around the highways of Iraq.

These machines are mobile, have their own power supply, and when inspectors are near, they just drive away!

I would not be surprised to hear George W. make a similar claim in the near future if the inspectors do not find anything worthwhile.

[King of the Americas]

...'I' heard that Saddam made a pact with the Devil, and as a result Lucifer gave Saddam 'transporter' technology, so that he could just beam his entire WMD Program anywhere he wanted, whenever he wanted so that the weapons inspectors could never find them.
:rolleyes:

Why isn't anyone screaming "Strawman Fallacy" here, with all of these speculations that Saddam has the abolsute ability to hide everything he has???:confused:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...'I' heard that Saddam made a pact with the Devil, and as a result Lucifer gave Saddam 'transporter' technology, so that he could just beam his entire WMD Program anywhere he wanted, whenever he wanted so that the weapons inspectors could never find them.
:rolleyes:

Why isn't anyone screaming "Strawman Fallacy" here, with all of these speculations that Saddam has the abolsute ability to hide everything he has???:confused: I'm not sure of your point, who made the strawman, you? And what is the strawman?

I don't think we are as close to war with Iraq as some others might think.

Keep your eye on the Iraqi expatriot/exile sideshow. That's where the action is. Right now, they can't form a solid coalition, due to ethnic and religious differences. Once they hammer out a federation/republic plan, watch out.

[King of the Americas]

Rumsfeld & the Bush Administration made Saddam 's ability to hide everything the 'Strawman'.

Did you manage to catch my previous responses in this thread?

How can Saddam 'prove' he doesn't have something, if they are constantly saying he is a liar, and that he can manuver around the inspectors with absolute ananiminity.

It seems that no amount of proof from the UN inspectors or Saddam's admittions will do, AND Rumsfeld says it isn't up to the U.S. to prove anything!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Rumsfeld & the Bush Administration made Saddam 's ability to hide everything the 'Strawman'.

Did you manage to catch my previous responses in this thread?

How can Saddam 'prove' he doesn't have something, if they are constantly saying he is a liar, and that he can manuver around the inspectors with absolute ananiminity.

It seems that no amount of proof from the UN inspectors or Saddam's admittions will do, AND Rumsfeld says it isn't up to the U.S. to prove anything! I think I understand your point now. Previously Saddam said explicitly that he did not have weapons of mass destruction. After 6 years IIRC defectors told the inspectors where they could find large stores of chemical weapons. Low and behold there they were.

It is not a strawman to assume that Saddam is lying again. You are right that Saddam can't prove a negative but history is not on his side and it reasonable to assume that if he lied before he will lie again. It is up to the inspectors ulitmately to find the weapons.

Now if Bush says, we know he has them and we are going to war then he (Bush) has not proven his case. I don't think it qualifies as a strawman but he would not have the proof.

[Bjorn]

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer is quoted today as saying that GWB would not have claimed that Iraq has WMD if he didn't have solid facts to back it up.

According to Fleischer, there is intelligence information proving that Iraq has a program for WMD.

If that is true, can we expect to see the proof on Monday?

[Crossbow]

The White House and 10 Downing Street have been saying for months that they know Saddam has WMD and that they can prove it!

However, they have never shared this proof with anyone (except each other apparently) and what proof they have released deals with things that have happened years before.

Now the current thing is for the White House to say they know Saddam is lying about the WMD issue, and they can prove he is lying about the WMD issue. But note that they will not share this data with the UN Inspection Team, Members of Congress, the US public, or anyone else (except Tony Blair).

I for one doubt that this proof exists.

[Reginald]

If I had such a proof, I think I might get the WI to inspect a few of those areas first. I would swing puplic opinion very quickly if, early on in the inspections something were found. A simple case of "we have found this in the first few days...what will we find in a few more!".

That would give the US/UK some real backbone for their arguement.

Maybe there is some cunning plan, maybe the US/UK know where the sites are, but are just allowing time to pass in order to better prepare?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Crossbow
The White House and 10 Downing Street have been saying for months that they know Saddam has WMD and that they can prove it!

However, they have never shared this proof with anyone (except each other apparently) and what proof they have released deals with things that have happened years before.

Now the current thing is for the White House to say they know Saddam is lying about the WMD issue, and they can prove he is lying about the WMD issue. But note that they will not share this data with the UN Inspection Team, Members of Congress, the US public, or anyone else (except Tony Blair).

I for one doubt that this proof exists.

I think that the administration was waiting for the December deadline to pass. I bet they do have proof -- probably satellite photos and expatriot information -- but know that they do not know about all of the Iraqi programs.

Prior to the deadline, it is useful to let Iraq know that we have such information, but definitely not useful to let them know precisely which of the Iraqi programs that we have information on.

This gives Saddam something to think about -- he must choose what kind of information to disclose or withhold about his programs. He now knows that we know something about some of his programs, but not how much we know. He will therefore have to disclose more information than he may otherwise be inclined to do so.

If he fails to list facilities that we have hard data about, then the U.S. is in a position to prove him a liar, and will have also gathered even more data through his 13,000 page 'disclosure.'

I think it was a smart play. I think they have data.

If, after havingt time to look over this disclosure, the U.S. still does not produce any further proof, then I will be more inclined to listen to doubts.

NA

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Reginald
If I had such a proof, I think I might get the WI to inspect a few of those areas first. I would swing puplic opinion very quickly if, early on in the inspections something were found. A simple case of "we have found this in the first few days...what will we find in a few more!".



Well, it looks like they had found some.... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_weapons_inspectors_228 (Look at about the 4th or 5th paragraph down...) A dozen or so artillery shells with mustard gas which Iraq has had since the last round of inspections but had not destroyed. Not sure if its enough to count as 'mass destruction', but hey, chemical weapons are chemical weapons.

Looks like our King is once again finding fault with all things American and sympathizing with terrorists! Quick, call me IGNORant!

[Jon_in_london]

The dozen or so gas shells had just been lying there, neglected and unloved since the inspectors left, last time. This is hardly convincing proof. I just want to know what happens if they actually dont find anything.

[King of the Americas]

"I think I understand your point now. Previously Saddam said explicitly that he did not have weapons of mass destruction. After 6 years IIRC defectors told the inspectors where they could find large stores of chemical weapons. Low and behold there they were. "

*I don't dispute this

"It is not a strawman to assume that Saddam is lying again. You are right that Saddam can't prove a negative but history is not on his side and it reasonable to assume that if he lied before he will lie again. It is up to the inspectors ulitmately to find the weapons."

*If Saddam IS lying, then we SHOULD be willing and able to prove it. If we are NOT willing to provide the proof that we have that leads us to our 'KNOWledge', and we claim that he can avoid the 100% of the weapons' inspections, then claim "It is ONLY up to Saddam to prove he is meeting with UN Resolutions", then this all amount to a 'Strawman Fallacy'. Assuming Saddam is a liar is not the fallacy. The refusal to provide any evidence that he is NOW lying, saying no one else CAN do so, and then saying ONLY Saddam can prove he doesn't have something IS at its most basic level a 'Strawman Fallacy'.

"Now if Bush says, we know he has them and we are going to war then he (Bush) has not proven his case. I don't think it qualifies as a strawman but he would not have the proof."

*Rumsfeld says it is NOT up to the U.S. to prove anything, and when asked, "If the weapons inspectors come up with nothing, are YOU (Donald Rumsfeld) prepared to offer evidence that he is lying?"

If we have proof, then why AREN'T we using it? Why aren't the inspectors using it to find conclusively the evidence we seek?? Why isn't it OUR responsibility to prove that Saddam has something, isntead of putting it on him to prove he doesn't???

[King of the Americas]

That was pretty good speculating...

IF we have the evidence (as your speculation suggests), then why didn't we give it to the weapons' inspectors, so that they could just jump right into the deep end, and give the World justification to remove Saddam with force and malice???

-For more time to stage his removal...?

I guess that might be it...but as long as we are speculating why not go all the way?

-Maybe we actually have someone IN Saddam's cabinate, and HE is the one giving us all this information, but we don't want to give it up because then Saddam will know who he is, and wipe him out. Our informant is the dude we hired to kill him, when we do decide to take him down.

-Maybe we want the weapons inspectors to stumble upon them because if Saddam admits he has them, or we tell everyone he does, then we'll be int he same boat that we are now with North Korea.

-Maybe the U.S. actually LIKES to play these hide and seek game, and using the evidence we have would be cheating.

---

Instead of ASS-U-M-ing that we are telling the truth, and then speculating upon that assumption, why don't we just demand to see this proof, and THEN decide how to proceed???

[Rollerball37]

Originally posted by BUZZ
Looks like our King is once again finding fault with all things American and sympathizing with terrorists! Quick, call me IGNORant!
The little duck hasn't changed his tune at all has he.

Remember on Sept. 12th 2001 when he was claiming that all the terrorist responsible for the attack on New York and DC died in the attack and we (the U.S.) cannot hold anyone else responsible.

It must be sweet to never have to back up your random thoughts with evidence or have to defend them later when they've been proven idiotic .

[King of the Americas]

...my own peraonal 'follower'/stalker, ladies and gentlemen!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
If Saddam IS lying, then we SHOULD be willing and able to prove it. If we are NOT willing to provide the proof that we have that leads us to our 'KNOWledge', and we claim that he can avoid the 100% of the weapons' inspections, then claim "It is ONLY up to Saddam to prove he is meeting with UN Resolutions", then this all amount to a 'Strawman Fallacy'. Assuming Saddam is a liar is not the fallacy. [B] The refusal to provide any evidence that he is NOW lying, saying no one else CAN do so, and then saying ONLY Saddam can prove he doesn't have something IS at its most basic level a 'Strawman Fallacy'. I'm confused, a straw man is a misrepresention of someone elses position in order to attack that incorrect position. What is the misrepresentation and how are we attacking that misrepresentation.

We do have a different position than he does. Our position is that he has weapons of mass destruction. His position is that he doesn't. That is called a disagreement and not a strawman.

While it is true that making a claim of proof on another’s inability to prove a negative is fallacious it is not a straw man. A straw man is to misrepresent someone’s position so that you can attack that position. We are not claiming that Saddam's position is that he does have weapons so that we can attack that position. His position is that he doesn't have them and ours is that he does. We are just calling him a liar. Disagreements are not straw men.

RandFan
"Now if Bush says, we know he has them and we are going to war then he (Bush) has not proven his case. I don't think it qualifies as a straw man but he would not have the proof."

KOA
Rumsfeld says it is NOT up to the U.S. to prove anything, and when asked, "If the weapons inspectors come up with nothing, are YOU (Donald Rumsfeld) prepared to offer evidence that he is lying?" Well that is his opinion. It's not a straw man. However I do think that the administration could be hurt politically if they act without evidence.

If we have proof, then why AREN'T we using it? Why aren't the inspectors using it to find conclusively the evidence we seek?? Why isn't it OUR responsibility to prove that Saddam has something, instead of putting it on him to prove he doesn't??? Maybe the evidence isn't a location. Maybe they have shared what they know. And maybe we ARE using it. You assume allot that you do not know.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
The dozen or so gas shells had just been lying there, neglected and unloved since the inspectors left, last time. This is hardly convincing proof. I just want to know what happens if they actually dont find anything.

Actually, you're right... I found out today that Iraq WASN'T supposed to destroy these shells... they were tagged by the inspectors during visits last time, but the inspectors pulled out before they were destroyed. Iraq was supposed to keep them until they could be 'officially' destroyed.

[King of the Americas]

"I'm confused, a straw man is a misrepresention of someone elses position in order to attack that incorrect position. What is the misrepresentation and how are we attacking that misrepresentation. "

*The misrepresentation is saying he is lying about having WMD. And we are attacking him by saying we have PROOF that he is lying.

"We do have a different position than he does. Our position is that he has weapons of mass destruction."

*Then prove it.

"His position is that he doesn't. That is called a disagreement and not a strawman."

*Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Saddam says he has no WMD
We say he DOES have WMD
We say we have proof (but won't yeild it) that he has WMD
Therefore Saddam is wrong in saying he has no WMD

Where did I error?

"While it is true that making a claim of proof on another s inability to prove a negative is fallacious it is not a straw man. A straw man is to misrepresent someone s position so that you can attack that position. We are not claiming that Saddam's position is that he does have weapons so that we can attack that
position."

*Actually we ARE saying that he DOES have WMD, so that we can attack him, and his false position on his ownership of WMD.

"His position is that he doesn't have them and ours is that he does."

*And thus OUR "distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position".

"We are just calling him a liar. Disagreements are not straw men."

*I have demonstrated that Saddam holds one stance on his owning WMD, then that we have distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented his stance, so that we could attack him.

Moreover, we aren't willing to provide the evidence that leads us to or stance, and have said it isn't up to us to prove our misrepresentation nor is it up to the weapons' inspectors to do so, and that only Saddam can prove this negative...which is impossible.

When I made my arguments about the Government hiding evidence of UFO's, but I had no evidence of this and further stated that it was up to you guys or the government to prove there were no UFO's in existance...these arguments were tagged 'Strawman Fallacy'. I KNOW UFO's/piloted by E.T's exist because 'I' have seen them...but I don't have evidene I can show you here and now. The Government is LYING. I am right, unless they can prove to me that E.T's don't exist. What kind of 'fallacy' is this?

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Saddam says he has no WMD
We say he DOES have WMD
We say we have proof (but won't yeild it) that he has WMD
Therefore Saddam is wrong in saying he has no WMD

Where did I error?
To word it more accurately, A strawman looks more like this:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y as if it was person A's argument
Person B attacks position Y.

Note that 'we' never suggest that Saddams stated postion is anything other than what he said. It is only said that he is lying.

The actual argument is
Saddam says "I have no WMD"
Bush argument "Saddam is lying when he says he has no WMD"

Bush never misrepresents Saddam's position so it is not a Strawman fallacy.

Walt

[King of the Americas]

It sounds like the same thing, to me. The 'position' being argued over is whether or not Iraq has WMD. The POSITION held by Saddam is that Iraq does NOT have them. The postion we hold is that Iraq DOES have them.

Moreover, how is Saddam supposed to prove a negative?

We've put Saddam in a no win situation, wherein it isn't up to US to prove anything nor is it up to the weapons' inspectors, and that Saddam must prove a negative.

---

If I am wrong in stating this was a strawman fallacy, then were those who characterize MY arguments about E.T.'s also wrong in doing so???

[Rollerball37]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
It sounds like the same thing, to me. The 'position' being argued over is whether or not Iraq has WMD. The POSITION held by Saddam is that Iraq does NOT have them. The postion we hold is that Iraq DOES have them.

Moreover, how is Saddam supposed to prove a negative?

We've put Saddam in a no win situation, wherein it isn't up to US to prove anything nor is it up to the weapons' inspectors, and that Saddam must prove a negative.

---

If I am wrong in stating this was a strawman fallacy, then were those who characterize MY arguments about E.T.'s also wrong in doing so???

You just don't get it do you?

I don't suppose you ever heard the saying that it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're an idiot than to open it and prove that you are.

[BillyTK]

The Bush administration will ask for the UN inspection teams to be reinforced with scores of new investigators who would be "refocused" on seizing documents and questioning Iraqi officials, spiriting some of them out of the country with their families for in-depth interviews, according to officials in Washington.

However, Washington's demands are likely to bring to a head a simmering quarrel with the UN weapons inspectors over how they should do their job, in what will be seen by US critics as an attempt to hijack the inspections process.


source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,855650,00.html)

!warning!--the source is from one of those infamous leftist european newspapers. prolonged exposure may lead to a skin rash recognisable by its distrinctive pinkish hue. in the event of such an occurence, regularly apply liberal doses of rush limbaugh.

[Dr. Popalot]

I think everyone is missing the point about Sadams decelerations of not having any weapons of MASS destruction. He is telling the truth! Weapons like small pox don't destroy mass, one may get sick and die, but the mass of the body is constant: posion gas dosn't destroy mass, it may dispalce other air molecules, but it dosn't mass: atomic bombs actuall do destrpy mass - which is converted into energy, but the amount is insignifant. Therefore, he is telling the truth.

[Nasarius]

From the latest article on CNN:
But U.S. intelligence officials expressed deep skepticism about the Iraqi weapons declaration, saying the United States has its own "clear evidence" that Iraq has an extensive weapons program.

Right. Such as?
If there was "clear evidence", Bush wouldn't be messing around.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Nasarius
From the latest article on CNN:


Right. Such as?
If there was "clear evidence", Bush wouldn't be messing around.
Yeah, this is getting really stupid. Why not give that evidence to the inspectors, or anyone else and go on in and whup ass? (If you got it?)
And if you have "clear evidence" then isn't it "imprudent" not to take action immediately. What is the hold-up? (not referring to the theft of the election, bill of rights or economy)

[Reginald]

A Bar in Turkey, about a year ago, a British Secret service agent and a US agent sit drinking...

BSS: I say old chap (stereotype) Looks a bit nasty over there in Iraq.

US Agent: Yep.

BSS: I have this idea, let's not take any silly chances......

US Agent: And?

BSS: Lets stay here and just make up the reports of all the nasty weapons we have "seen" and then I can finish this shaken martini in peace.....

US Agent: And??

BSS :You send yours in, I send mine in and we agree fairly closely and no one will be any the wiser, no harm done!

US Agent: So Bush and Blair stay happy? is that it? What if for some strange reason....I don't know...completely out of the blue, somone actually goes back to Iraq to check up?

BSS: Dont be daft!!! Another drink???


(Please dont for one moment think that I am jabbing at such guys, I just had this vision of two chaps sitting in some bar tonight and saying "ooops!")

[RandFan]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Saddam says he has no WMD
We say he DOES have WMD
We say we have proof (but won't yeild it) that he has WMD
Therefore Saddam is wrong in saying he has no WMD

Where did I error?

Simple, we do not claim that he has a position that he does not have.

We claim that his position is wrong.

Person A has position X.
Perspon B has position Y.
Person B claims person A is lying about position X.

NO STRAWMAN.

When I made my arguments about the Government hiding evidence of UFO's, but I had no evidence of this and further stated that it was up to you guys or the government to prove there were no UFO's in existance...these arguments were tagged 'Strawman Fallacy'. I KNOW UFO's/piloted by E.T's exist because 'I' have seen them...but I don't have evidene I can show you here and now. The Government is LYING. I am right, unless they can prove to me that E.T's don't exist. What kind of 'fallacy' is this? Who ever tagged them as such is wrong. You simply can't prove a negative. This is not a strawman. It is not up to "us guys" or anyone to prove that there are no UFO's. It is up to those who make the claim to prove the positive.

The only way that it could be labled a strawman is if you claimed that the government held a position that they do not hold. They hold that there are no UFOs there fore you haven't mirepresented their view. NO STRAW MAN.

It will be up to Bush to prove that Iraq has weapons if he is going to make the claim but it is not a straw man.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by wwayne
To word it more accurately, A strawman looks more like this:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y as if it was person A's argument
Person B attacks position Y.

Note that 'we' never suggest that Saddams stated postion is anything other than what he said. It is only said that he is lying.

The actual argument is
Saddam says "I have no WMD"
Bush argument "Saddam is lying when he says he has no WMD"

Bush never misrepresents Saddam's position so it is not a Strawman fallacy.

Walt Attack "as if it was". You are simply wrong on this KOA. It is not a Straw Man.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius

Yeah, this is getting really stupid. Why not give that evidence to the inspectors, or anyone else and go on in and whup ass? (If you got it?)
And if you have "clear evidence" then isn't it "imprudent" not to take action immediately. What is the hold-up? (not referring to the theft of the election, bill of rights or economy) Bush might have political reasons but I don't think that they are. Everyone wanted the Gulf war fought in a certain way and in a certain time. It's easy to be a Monday night quarterback but a war is serious business and shouldn't be fought to "prove" something to critics.

[King of the Americas]

Thank you for your correction.

Indeed, I used the term as it was used against me.

---

;)

Where would I be intellectually without your guidence?

YOU are a big reason why I really love this place. Almost each day, I can be assured to learn some new fact, figure, or argument of reason.

In conclusion, I conceed the point that the stance I issued is NOT a "Strawman Fallacy".

[RandFan]

My avatar

[King of the Americas]

RandFan.

Good thread.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Reginald
My first topic. Ive been reading for a wee while but well now I wonder......

Any ideas where Iraq has hidden all these nasty pointy weapons they have?

Where we haven't yet looked? ;)

[King of the Americas]

Can you prove that?

I mean, where is all this 'proof' that they DID have WMD's. They KNEW where they were, let's just go get them?

We have satelites and LOTS of overflights, you mean to tell me that the stuff just vanished like a fart in the wind?

MAYBE, you just can't find something that doesn't exist...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Can you prove that?

Only after you prove that unicorns don't exist. :D


Originally posted by King of the Americas
I mean, where is all this 'proof' that they DID have WMD's. They KNEW where they were, let's just go get them?

I don't know. Just because they knew where they were, doesn't mean they are still there.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
We have satelites and LOTS of overflights, you mean to tell me that the stuff just vanished like a fart in the wind?

It could be buried or submerged...

Originally posted by King of the Americas
MAYBE, you just can't find something that doesn't exist...

Maybe...time will tell.