What quantity of chemical weapons do we need to find? [Archive]

Troll

11th January 2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
If we are going to stick to semantics, lets stick to semantics. It is a chemical, and it's chemical is intended to cause harm. Sounds like a chemical weapon to me. If we are talking about a weapon that can easily cause mass casualties that would justify something like a pre-emptive invasion of a country on the other side of the world...

See where I'm going with this? Thus my "significantly more" test.

I wasn't aware hairspray was intended for the use of causing harm to other people. I could swear it has other uses, something to do with. I don't know, hair? [/B]

Pepper spray is a chemical irritant. It's not made to cause harm but to temporarily incapacitate. Hairspray can cause more damage than pepper spray. But see you're claiming casualties of pepper spray, I claim inconvienienced by pepper spray. There's very little chance of harm.

But you know what I'm gonna do for you? Today I'll play your silly game and say it is a chemical weapon. Guess what we found in Iraq? a chemical weapon. We listed chemical weapons as wmds. we listed wmds as a reason to go into Iraq. So thank you for saying the war is completely justifiable as we found what we were looking for. Good thing we found something more substantial than pepper spray though.

Do you people ever really take yourselves seriously?

Troll

11th January 2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by ceptimus
As far as the USA administration is concerned, any amount of chemicals found in Iraq, say a teaspoonful, would constitute WMD. They don't even have to find any, just some written plans for making some would be enough.

WMD is a political term. It was used by the USA administration to provide justification for the invasion of Iraq.

If we want a scientific definition, then it would have to be something like, "Any weapon, which when used in a normal city or urban environment, is likely to result in the death of 500 people or more" By this definition, many things would qualify: large conventional high-explosive bombs, nuclear bombs, chemical and biological weapons, however delivered, even an airliner, or a fleet of road gas tankers.

However, I feel confident that many countries have such 'WMD'. I have no proof, but I suspect the USA, the UK, France, China, Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, etc., etc., all possess such weapons. The term, 'WMD' only came into general use recently, when the USA wished to justify an invasion. Like I said, it is a political term.

Dude, we went with chemical weapons in mind as well as other things. We found chemical weapons. I don't care if the US has chemical weapons. Is there anything that says we can't have them? Were you one of those kids that got into trouble and when punished asked about the other kids?

NightG1

11th January 2004, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
We don't need to find so much as one thimbleful of chemical weapons in Iraq. It won't change anyone's mind about the war.
It would change mine.

TillEulenspiegel

11th January 2004, 04:09 PM

"What quantity of chemical weapons do we need to find? "

I will answer Your spurious question with an presice answer.

The exact amount exclaimed by the Bush administration that was a justification to go to war. For a number ask Cheany, Rumsfeild and George II

crackmonkey

11th January 2004, 04:25 PM

I don't recall anyone in the Bush administration giving a precise amount of WMD. I do remember them saying that he had some - which would make them right and you wrong.
In any case, I'm not discussing the justifications of th invasion, merely the quantity (and packaging, apparently) of WMD that would constitute 'possession of WMD' by those who are being precious about such things.
Most of the anti-war people here, apparently, seem to agree that a huge stockpile of chemical weapons can;t be considered WMD unless it is known what shells the chemicals would be loaded into.
I can;t see how anyone of any intellectual sophistication at all can even attempt to defend such drivel.

crackmonkey

11th January 2004, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

That's not the issue. Read my thread, I explain it all as slowly as I can on page 3.

It is absolutely the issue. This is the reason why I started the thread...

Explain as slowly as you want, I guess... your 'explanations' are irrelevant to this topic. What the hell, though, knock yourself out.

corplinx

11th January 2004, 06:24 PM

Any amount of chemical weapons would be a breach of treaty and justify armed response.

However, there are still "tons" (according to Colin Powell) of chemical or biological agents that were unaccounted for. I would expect to at least find a cache of those particular agents.

Tricky

11th January 2004, 06:40 PM

These guys want numbers. Okay, how about between 100 and 500 tons (including 8500 liters of anthrax.) (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm)

(And that's just a conservative estimate).

Suddenly

11th January 2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Pepper spray is a chemical irritant. It's not made to cause harm but to temporarily incapacitate. Hairspray can cause more damage than pepper spray. But see you're claiming casualties of pepper spray, I claim inconvienienced by pepper spray. There's very little chance of harm.

So it doesn't cause harm, but yet it "temporarily incapacitates?"

Funny definition of harm you have there. Causes great pain and makes it very hard to breathe but not harm? How about a punch in the nose? Is that harm?

I never claimed casualties, I claimed it is a weapon, just as a stick can be a weapon.

But you know what I'm gonna do for you? Today I'll play your silly game and say it is a chemical weapon. Guess what we found in Iraq? a chemical weapon. We listed chemical weapons as wmds. we listed wmds as a reason to go into Iraq. So thank you for saying the war is completely justifiable as we found what we were looking for. Good thing we found something more substantial than pepper spray though. Then when do we invade the state police headquarters? Since all chemical weapons equal WMDs worthy of invasion to protect ourself, is there a country on earth we shouldn't be invading right now?

Your above conclusion is exactly the fallacious reasoning I'm trying to point out. The issue is a threat to the U.S. Any WMDs do not constitute an invasion worthy threat, and any chemical weapon is not automatically a WMD. Since you seem to note the above is fallacious, I guess now maybe you are starting to see the farce in claiming that a handful of decade old mortar shells constitute an immediate threat to the American people.

Do you people ever really take yourselves seriously?

Can you argue a position without adding a personal insult or an appeal to your own credulity? Does it make you feel smug adding in a little dig like this, or do you realize it just makes you look too emotionally invested to be taken seriously?

I'm also curious about who "you people" are. I guess it makes it easier to maintain a belief when anyone who argues against it can be dismissed as "one of those people" or some such. A lot easier than actual discourse.

Doubt

11th January 2004, 07:15 PM

If we need a practical definition of WMD then I offer the following:

Any weapon that when used in small numbers or by a few people inflicts damage to civilians on a scale vastly larger than an equivalent conventional weapon.

Let’s say you fire a normal motor shell you may kill a few people. If you fire a chemical mortar shell you may kill a few dozen people since civilians have no practical defense from them. This definition fits in with why the term was created. It sets apart those weapons that are far more deadly to civilians than the military.

All attempts to equivocate with weapons that are not intended to be lethal or are “conventional” are a smoke screen. Even flint lock pistols can be a WMD if have lots of ammo and wish to carry they equivocation far enough.

How many do we need to find? Darn good question.

I would think one order of magnitude lower would be a good rule of thumb for chemical weapons. If the US government says Iraq had 100 tons of chemical weapons, then I would want to see at least 10 tons. Or at least evidence that they recently had at least 10 tons. 1 ton would mean that somebody either is very wrong or a blatant liar.

Have we seen 1 ton yet? I don’t remember how many tons were announced in Colin Powell’s speech, but I am sure we have not found enough to rule that Iraqi WMD’s were a credible threat. Technical violations of a UN resolution do not morally justify a war, but a credible threat would do the job.

Not sure how to classify biological weapons and nukes for evaluation. The total number of those weapons discovered render them moot for the moment.

Edited to add: just saw the post from Tricky.

Troll

11th January 2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly

So it doesn't cause harm, but yet it "temporarily incapacitates?"

Funny definition of harm you have there. Causes great pain and makes it very hard to breathe but not harm? How about a punch in the nose? Is that harm?

I never claimed casualties, I claimed it is a weapon, just as a stick can be a weapon. [/B] Then when do we invade the state police headquarters? Since all chemical weapons equal WMDs worthy of invasion to protect ourself, is there a country on earth we shouldn't be invading right now?

Your above conclusion is exactly the fallacious reasoning I'm trying to point out. The issue is a threat to the U.S. Any WMDs do not constitute an invasion worthy threat, and any chemical weapon is not automatically a WMD. Since you seem to note the above is fallacious, I guess now maybe you are starting to see the farce in claiming that a handful of decade old mortar shells constitute an immediate threat to the American people.

Can you argue a position without adding a personal insult or an appeal to your own credulity? Does it make you feel smug adding in a little dig like this, or do you realize it just makes you look too emotionally invested to be taken seriously?

I'm also curious about who "you people" are. I guess it makes it easier to maintain a belief when anyone who argues against it can be dismissed as "one of those people" or some such. A lot easier than actual discourse.

Dude, you're making your claim and trying to solidify it on just what has been found thus far. I hope we don't find anything fresher for your sake.

An irritant is not meant to cause lasting harm. There's generally no severe side-effects and we use them for their displeasing nature to simply break up crowds. Pepper spray and tear gas fall into that category.

Mustard gas and other blister agents are capable of causing death if not treated and will leave a reminder of the event that is evident to all who look upon you, it leaves scarring and other forms of damage if it doesn't kill you. Nerve agents can kill and are made to do so. Even if you survive you can end up with lasting damage.

Now you and some others, the "you people" seem to be wanting to qualify pepper spray as a wmd like a blister or nerve agent. Again I ask you to tell me of the destuctive nature of pepper spray so that it may find itself justifiably placed in the same category as blister and nerve agents.

I'm sorry if you felt insulted by the one post. apparently you didn't by the others so your own question has been answered before it was asked. But I'm curious if you really believe what you are saying or are you just trying to stay on the side of the issue that you had from the beginning. In short, are you being serious in comparing something as benign as pepper spray to something much more harmful?

Troll

11th January 2004, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
These guys want numbers. Okay, how about between 100 and 500 tons (including 8500 liters of anthrax.) (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm)

(And that's just a conservative estimate).

And to keep it in perspective for some of the folks:

"Iraq declared 8500 liters of anthrax. But UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoonful of this deadly material. And that is my third point. And it is key. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had"

Emphasis is mine, but look who is making the claim. It's Iraq saying they had it.

Tricky

11th January 2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Troll

And to keep it in perspective for some of the folks:

"Iraq declared 8500 liters of anthrax. But UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoonful of this deadly material. And that is my third point. And it is key. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had"

Emphasis is mine, but look who is making the claim. It's Iraq saying they had it.
Could have. Would be. But we've had a long time to look for them, and so far with absolutely no luck.

Iraq said they destroyed the weapons. (You believe them when they said they had them, but not when they said they destroyed them. Odd.)
Rather than continue efforts to verify the destruction, the US decided to invade, only to find that Iraq had told the truth. It is very sad when the US president looks like a bigger liar than Saddam Hussein.

But we have been over this ground many times. Every few weeks, someone will claim they have found WMDs, only to wind up looking like idiots. Heck, you don't even hear the Bush admin. talking about WMDs any more. It's almost as if they wish we would forget they had made such claims. Again and again and again....

Troll

11th January 2004, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Could have. Would be. But we've had a long time to look for them, and so far with absolutely no luck.

Iraq said they destroyed the weapons. (You believe them when they said they had them, but not when they said they destroyed them. Odd.)
Rather than continue efforts to verify the destruction, the US decided to invade, only to find that Iraq had told the truth. It is very sad when the US president looks like a bigger liar than Saddam Hussein.

But we have been over this ground many times. Every few weeks, someone will claim they have found WMDs, only to wind up looking like idiots. Heck, you don't even hear the Bush admin. talking about WMDs any more. It's almost as if they wish we would forget they had made such claims. Again and again and again....

Old or not old, given the fact that some chemicals have been found I think I was right in not trusting the kind of guy that kills over 300,000 of his own people when he says he's gotten rid of them all.

But here's the deal with me (my views and my stance alone, not a political party or what someone else freaking said) and Iraq. We know they had the weapons and the ability to create them. Anyone wanna deny that?

We know he openly stated he'd like to see the destruction of the US and some others. Again, anyone denying that?

We know he openly funded terrorists. Anyone?

He violated several UN resolutions. Anyone?

So to be honest with you, in my very own personal opinion ( yes I know it's redundant, I like having fun) he needed his ass whipped but the UN could never figure out what to do for all the little nasty things. I wanted to see him taken out back in the 90's when I had to freaking be sent there. so to be honest, you could have made up crap about him being a cat killing dog raping thumb sucking pedo and I'd still have said, "It's about freaking time we got rid of the twit"

I'm not buying into anything from anyone. The excuse, whatever it is, for going after him, is, to me, too freaking late, like several hundred thousand dead late.

You can question my motive all you want. Ask me about other countries like Rwanda and if I think we should have gone in there. I'll answer the same. And I don't mean you alone, Tricky. I've a nasty habit of quoting one person's post and addressing my reply to others as well. I try to be a minimalist.

Zero

11th January 2004, 09:34 PM

If the mortar rounds were actually buried during the 1980's(and I'm not saying they were, but a few people on this thread have suggested it), they were very likely written off as 'combat loss', and removed from the documentation before Desert Storm. I'm sure they did the same thing with unaccounted for rifles and the like. Eventually you do an updated inventory, and you simply scratch the stuff you can't find...especially if you are a junior NCO and it is Friday afternoon.:p

Troll

11th January 2004, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Zero
If the mortar rounds were actually buried during the 1980's(and I'm not saying they were, but a few people on this thread have suggested it), they were very likely written off as 'combat loss', and removed from the documentation before Desert Storm. I'm sure they did the same thing with unaccounted for rifles and the like. Eventually you do an updated inventory, and you simply scratch the stuff you can't find...especially if you are a junior NCO and it is Friday afternoon.:p

I'd agree with ya on the burying thing and the date and all, but we can't forget that before this find we found mobile labs. Why keep them if you aren't going to produce? Seems rather cost ineffective to me.

Cain

11th January 2004, 09:59 PM

I think it's worth quoting Bush from his State of the Union speech:

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Okay, that's what Bush said. That's how he scared the nation into invading Iraq. (I suggest others read Bart Gellerman's excellent article in last week's _Washington Post_ for our search on weapons of mass destruction.

Now, the United States possesses chemical weapons. Britain possesses chemical weapons. This is all in far greater quantities. The reason, presumably, as to why we can have them is that we're not going to use them against innocent people. The 36 mortar shells or whatever that were recently discovered, were those going to be used against anyone any time soon? The W.M.D. claim is integral to the White House's case for making war. It's the primary reason for invasion.

The U.S. doubled aid to Iraq after the gassings in 1988, but used those gassings as a justification for invasion. Rumsfeld, I believe, was special ambassador to the middle east at the time, and there's a well-known picture of him shaking hands with the Iraqi dictator on one of his visits.

Troll

11th January 2004, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Cain
I think it's worth quoting Bush from his State of the Union speech:

Okay, that's what Bush said. That's how he scared the nation into invading Iraq. (I suggest others read Bart Gellerman's excellent article in last week's _Washington Post_ for our search on weapons of mass destruction.

Now, the United States possesses chemical weapons. Britain possesses chemical weapons. This is all in far greater quantities. The reason, presumably, as to why we can have them is that we're not going to use them against innocent people. The 36 mortar shells or whatever that were recently discovered, were those going to be used against anyone any time soon? The W.M.D. claim is integral to the White House's case for making war. It's the primary reason for invasion.

The U.S. doubled aid to Iraq after the gassings in 1988, but used those gassings as a justification for invasion. Rumsfeld, I believe, was special ambassador to the middle east at the time, and there's a well-known picture of him shaking hands with the Iraqi dictator on one of his visits.

Odd. Bush quoted the UN in 2002. And you go back to what the US did in 1988, which was before the US took a harder stance against him in 1990.

Dude, I own a gun, several guns. I've never committed a crime with any of them. If you bought one of my guns and killed someone, would you blame me? I ask because that seems to be the sort of connection you are trying to make here.

Hell England sells us harriers, can we therefore blame them anytime a harrier is used by the US in a friendly fire incident?

Zero

11th January 2004, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Troll

I'd agree with ya on the burying thing and the date and all, but we can't forget that before this find we found mobile labs. Why keep them if you aren't going to produce? Seems rather cost ineffective to me. No one found mobile labs.

Troll

11th January 2004, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Zero
No one found mobile labs.

No?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/inspectorsscouriraqbio.html

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030529-122922-6267r.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31103

Cain

11th January 2004, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Odd. Bush quoted the UN in 2002. And you go back to what the US did in 1988, which was before the US took a harder stance against him in 1990.

What do you mean took a harder stance against them? In '88 we supported Saddam, even after it was shown he used chemical weapons. Rumsfeld, who as I said was special Ambassador to the Middle East, is now the Secretary of Defense. Do you see even a little hypocrisy here? Wolfowitz played an important role in the Reagan administration's foreign policy.

Dude, I own a gun, several guns. I've never committed a crime with any of them. If you bought one of my guns and killed someone, would you blame me? I ask because that seems to be the sort of connection you are trying to make here.

No, you're missing the point, as usual. The claim was made that Saddam had chemical weapons, AND had the intention of using them. He was alleged to have active programs that threaten the world. When these chemical weapons are buried under ten years of earth, there's no room to say "aha!" It's hollow because who is the Iraqi dictator threatening?

As for your articles on the weapons labs, they're dated.

If you read the column I referred to by Bart Gellerman in the _Washington Post_ he quotes David Kay, head weapons inspector:

By July, with contrary evidence piling up, Kay described the trailer episode as a "fiasco." He told BBC Television, which broadcast the tape Nov. 23: "I think it was premature and embarrassing."

Zero

11th January 2004, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Troll

No?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/inspectorsscouriraqbio.html

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030529-122922-6267r.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31103 Did you check the follow up report?

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.no.labs/

Troll

11th January 2004, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Did you check the follow up report?

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.no.labs/

yes. the purpose of the labs you said were not found are in dispute.

Troll

11th January 2004, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Cain

What do you mean took a harder stance against them? In '88 we supported Saddam, even after it was shown he used chemical weapons. Rumsfeld, who as I said was special Ambassador to the Middle East, is now the Secretary of Defense. Do you see even a little hypocrisy here? Wolfowitz played an important role in the Reagan administration's foreign policy.

No, you're missing the point, as usual. The claim was made that Saddam had chemical weapons, AND had the intention of using them. He was alleged to have active programs that threaten the world. When these chemical weapons are buried under ten years of earth, there's no room to say "aha!" It's hollow because who is the Iraqi dictator threatening?

As for your articles on the weapons labs, they're dated.

If you read the column I referred to by Bart Gellerman in the _Washington Post_ he quotes David Kay, head weapons inspector:

I'd say the 1990's and the Gulf war and the subsequent no=fly zones and sanctions qualifies as taking a harder stance. Yes we supported them at one point. But they showed us their ass and we changed our view. Hey, I loved my ex-wife at one point. Things change. Don't blame me for loving her before I learned she was a cheating slut.

You did the same thing others have done. Mentioned that others have chemical weapons like we need to focus on them or ourselves next as though we may be no better than Iraq because of them. that's where the gun analogy came in.

Your words were :

"Now, the United States possesses chemical weapons. Britain possesses chemical weapons. This is all in far greater quantities. The reason, presumably, as to why we can have them is that we're not going to use them against innocent people. The 36 mortar shells or whatever that were recently discovered, were those going to be used against anyone any time soon? The W.M.D. claim is integral to the White House's case for making war. It's the primary reason for invasion"

That's why I gave you the gun analogy.

Zero

11th January 2004, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Troll

yes. the purpose of the labs you said were not found are in dispute. Did you read the link I posted? They were for conventional weapons, which were allowed by the U.N. No violation.

fishbob

11th January 2004, 10:47 PM

What quantity of chemical weapons do we need to find? Just one shiny new one.

WMDs to date include:
No legit weapons labs
No bio-weapons
No nukes
Some rusty leftover mortar shells.

If every WMD found so far were used against the US, in the most effective manner possible, fewer Americans would be dead than the number of our troops killed so far.

Cain

11th January 2004, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Troll

I'd say the 1990's and the Gulf war and the subsequent no=fly zones and sanctions qualifies as taking a harder stance. Yes we supported them at one point. But they showed us their ass and we changed our view. Hey, I loved my ex-wife at one point. Things change. Don't blame me for loving her before I learned she was a cheating slut.

What part of doubling aid after gassings do you not understand? Saddam's worst atrocities came while we supported him.

You did the same thing others have done. Mentioned that others have chemical weapons like we need to focus on them or ourselves next as though we may be no better than Iraq because of them. that's where the gun analogy came in.

Maybe you should zero in on a specific sentence. I'll put it in bold.

Your words were :

"Now, the United States possesses chemical weapons. Britain possesses chemical weapons. This is all in far greater quantities. The reason, presumably, as to why we can have them is that we're not going to use them against innocent people. The 36 mortar shells or whatever that were recently discovered, were those going to be used against anyone any time soon? The W.M.D. claim is integral to the White House's case for making war. It's the primary reason for invasion"

I hope this requires no further explanation.

Some Friggin Guy

12th January 2004, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I don't recall anyone in the Bush administration giving a precise amount of WMD. I do remember them saying that he had some - which would make them right and you wrong.
In any case, I'm not discussing the justifications of th invasion, merely the quantity (and packaging, apparently) of WMD that would constitute 'possession of WMD' by those who are being precious about such things.
Most of the anti-war people here, apparently, seem to agree that a huge stockpile of chemical weapons can;t be considered WMD unless it is known what shells the chemicals would be loaded into.
I can;t see how anyone of any intellectual sophistication at all can even attempt to defend such drivel.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. GWB - 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address.

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Kenneth Adelman (Defense Policy Board member) 3/23/2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld - 3/30/2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. (emphasis mine) GWB 5/6/2003

I am absolutely convinced, based on the information that’s been given to me, that the weapon of mass destruction which can kill more people than an atomic bomb -- that is, biological weapons -- is in the hands of the leadership of Iraq. Bill Frist (Senate Majority Leader) - 1/10/2003

So we have a pretty good indictation that even the administration would not consider 3 dozen rusted-out morter shells what they were looking for.

And, since as Rumsfeld said, they knew where the weapons were, I think it's pretty sad that they haven't gone right there and showed the world.

crackmonkey

12th January 2004, 01:34 AM

I have to commend Doubt for actually answering the question as opposed to merely regurgitating reasons why Bush was wrong...
I have to disagree, though. I consider any posession of WMD to constitute possession of WMD. I can't see how it could be otherwise, logically speaking...

The Don

12th January 2004, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I have to commend Doubt for actually answering the question as opposed to merely regurgitating reasons why Bush was wrong...
I have to disagree, though. I consider any posession of WMD to constitute possession of WMD. I can't see how it could be otherwise, logically speaking...

How about an analogy based on drugs. A policemen comes to my door and says that he thinks that I have drugs in my house becuase he hase records of me buying drugs (and even using them) and that he'll be sending someone 'round to check on them to make sure I don't have any.

He is concerned that I may be supplying drugs to drug users.

I spend the next few days cleaning my house and destroying whatever drugs I may have (I may not have any of course).

The police invade my house, kill my dog and rip the place to pieces. Eventually they find part of one joint smoked down to the roach in the crack between two floorboards. The roach is dated to 1988 when (for some reason) the police didn't care about me using drugs.

Should I be arrested for supplying drugs and have all my possessions confiscated ?

Some Friggin Guy

12th January 2004, 01:54 AM

Crackmonkey, you seem to have a very reasonable definition. I'm not going to argue that, since, you are correct, logically, any possesion of WMD is still a possesion of WMD.

The problem here (and why I am not going to jump back on the Bush bandwagon) is a question of not only the definition of what the weapons are and the amount, but whether the weapons are viable and whether or not they had been "disposed of" by definition.

I am a little foggy on this point, but I seem to recall the weapons inspectors pre-98 saying that they oversaw the burial of chemical weapons shells in the desert and considered that to be disposal. Whether you agree with that definition or not (or, as I said, I may be mis-remembering.) is not relevent. You cannot use evidence of following the directions of the UN as evidence of NOT following the directions of the UN.

There is also the question of viability. I don't know how old the shells are, but I do know from the reports I've read that they were rusted and leaky. That means they are probably not viable weapons. It's similar to claiming a rusted-out VW bug with a hole in the gas tank is still a car. In both cases, I would classify them as junk.

Suddenly

12th January 2004, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Dude, you're making your claim and trying to solidify it on just what has been found thus far. I hope we don't find anything fresher for your sake. I guess if someone finds bigfoot tommorrow I'm a fool for not believing in its existence all this time? Plus, you are extending my claims again. I said that in order to qualify as having "chemical weapons" in the context of this war is that Iraq would have to have more capability to cause harm with that chemical than does the W.Va State Police trying to stop a riot after a WVU game.

Where does the promise that there will never be relevant WMDs found lie in that statement?

An irritant is not meant to cause lasting harm. There's generally no severe side-effects and we use them for their displeasing nature to simply break up crowds. Pepper spray and tear gas fall into that category. Mortar shells are basically used to break up crowds, albeit with less regard for the safety of the crowd. Your point is one of degree, and once we get into degree the nice little (All chemical weapons) = (WMD) = (justification) equation is no longer valid.

Mustard gas and other blister agents are capable of causing death if not treated and will leave a reminder of the event that is evident to all who look upon you, it leaves scarring and other forms of damage if it doesn't kill you. Nerve agents can kill and are made to do so. Even if you survive you can end up with lasting damage. So, a question of degree.

Now you and some others, the "you people" seem to be wanting to qualify pepper spray as a wmd like a blister or nerve agent. Again I ask you to tell me of the destuctive nature of pepper spray so that it may find itself justifiably placed in the same category as blister and nerve agents. Which is the point. Considering a decade old shell containing a blistering agent (not even a nerve agent) as WMDs creating an immediate inter-continental danger is just as, if not more, silly as my claims.

I'm sorry if you felt insulted by the one post. apparently you didn't by the others so your own question has been answered before it was asked. But I'm curious if you really believe what you are saying or are you just trying to stay on the side of the issue that you had from the beginning. In short, are you being serious in comparing something as benign as pepper spray to something much more harmful?

No insult. Just exasperation, making the point that your being suprised or amazed at a claim does not in and of itself suffice as a rebuttal. The whole reason that fora like this exist is that people disagree with one another, and to portray any disagrement as prima facie absurd with no argument is pretty much worthless. This isn't calculus, and people are going to disagree. If I start telling you that the number 479 and it's representation in the color spectrum prove the non-existence of WMD's, then you can act all amazed and incredulous. Until then, try to keep some perspective on what is reasonable and what is not...

I never claimed that pepper spray is as harmful as a blister agent. What I am illustrating is that distinction is being ignored (or at least selectively applied) to the larger issue. The two can be compared, they are both chemicals intended to be used to cause interpersonal harm. The only difference is the degree of harm.

My serious point is that if we apply a brainless (all chem weapons) = (WMD's) = (Justification) then we are headed for absurdity. It seems apparent that the above simple assertion is being used rather selectively, and my statement regarding the W.Va. State Police is meant to highlight the possible absurd result of that conclusion. Pepper spray is a chemical weapon in the strict use of the term. If we are going to be brainless and mechanical about this, we reach the same conclusion about stocks of fresh pepper spray as we do about 10+ year old mortar shells w/ blister gas, a state of the art WMD... in 1917.

However, once discretion is had w/r/t quantity and type, we then rid ourselves of the absolutist notion present in the intitial post in this thread, allowing the situation to be viewed in a more realistic manner.

Luke T.

12th January 2004, 07:07 AM

Luke T:We don't need to find so much as one thimbleful of chemical weapons in Iraq. It won't change anyone's mind about the war.

NightG1: It would change mine.

Would it change who you vote for in the next election?

rikzilla

12th January 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

and be able to hit western nations in 45 minutes....

Folks, Iraq pre invasion was unable to assemble a truck that did not blow black smoke. The notion that they were a threat to anybody is a farce. The only threat the Iraqi regime of saddam posed was to its own citizens. Now if we are going to invade every tinpot nation that kills its own citizens we had better get more troops because we have a couple of dozen places to go.

I know its difficult for some of you to swallow but there have been NO wmd found.... maybe Crackmonkey could figure a way to classify a sharpened stick as a WMD...well maybe if your enemy agreed to all line up and bend over it would be a usefull weapon....Hmmmm.

Useless rusted remnants of a long past war....simply clutching at straws. What about the box trailers of mass destruction? Surely Crackmonkey deemed them to be WMD, the rest of the true believers went along with that one... so why are you still persuing something you have already convinced yourself of? Unless, of course, a lingering remnant of common sence refuses to be repressed?

Ah,...witness everyone, THE LIBERAL MANTRA(tm)

repeat after me; There are no WMD's, Saddam had no link to terrorism,...rinse and repeat.....

Yet the facts continue to mount....and the lefties continue to spin. If there were no WMD's and Saddam were not linked to terrorism why would they need to spin??

Here are the facts,...hard facts...sourced facts....facts which cannot be refuted becuse they are facts not assumptions:

#1. Saddam gave haven and support to the terrorist Abu Nidal and his organization (before he had him killed recently that is) in violation of 687, paragraph 32 which imposes the obligation under international law to report suspected acts of Iraqi support for international terrorism to the UN secretary general.which also addresses Iraq's support of terrorism.

#2. Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one terrorist not captured from the first WTC bombing is currently living free in Baghdad. The only named conspirator still at large. He was one of the "blind Sheik's" nutty Islamic fundie followers....so why did he run for Iraq...and why did Saddam harbor him in full disregard of UN Security Council Resolution 687? (paragraph 32 again)

#3. Abu Mussab al Zarqawi (al Qaida senior operative) is apparently free to operate in Baghdad as well. (pesky paragraph 32 again)
the link

#4. Ramzi Yusef aka Abdul Basit, the mastermind of WTC bombing #!. Was at the time suspected of being an active Iraqi intelligence agent. Also, when finally captured in the Phillipines, found to be also associated with Abu Sayyef (terrorist group known to be linked with al Qaida)

#5. Dr. Hamza's testimony that Iraq's Mukhabarat (political secret police) are running the concealment mechanism for their ongoing proscribed nuclear program. The Link (http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-19hamza.html)

#6. On August 8, 1995 Hussein Kamil (Saddam's son-in-law) defected to Jordan. He had supervised Iraqi unconventional weapons programs. His information confirmed that Iraq had developed and possesed weaponized biological agents.

#7. Egyptian officials arrested one of the first WTC bombers where he was hiding with family in Cairo. He is Abu Halima. He told them about the involvement of two Iraqi intelligence agents who had managed to flee.

#8. UNSCOM 227 inspection (from Ritter's book Endgame) uncovered Iraqi documents detailing biological and chemical agent testing done on humans. (political prisoners)...Endgame page 180.

#9. Calutrons (magnetic isotope seperators) of the kind used in the Manhattan project were found in the process of being moved around by the Iraqis way back in 1991. (another instance of deception, and active nuclear program)

#10. Mukhabarat terrorism "school" inadvertently found by UNSCOM 150 inspection team in 1996. (not part of UNSCOM mandated mission...not WMD's...just terror/torture etc...the issue of this find was not taken up by the UNSC) page 120 "Endgame.

The above was from a thread I started back about this time last year. In the meantime we've learned about the known Al Qaeda terrorist who frequented Iraq. ( Abu Mussab al Zarqawi) He was even treated at a Baghdad hospital. The link (http://www.trackingthethreat.com/db/ENT1319.htm)
The mobile labs captured during the invasion. The botulinum toxin found hidden in the home of an Iraqi scientist tied to Saddam's bio-weapon program. The empty warheads ready for chemical loading. The islamist terrorist camps found in the north.

All these things and more point to the fact that:
#1. Saddam was the leader of a patron state of terrorism.
#2. Saddam was in possesion of WMD's, and has used WMD's.

Yet the Danish find is belittled...just as the botulinum toxin was, just as the mobile labs were,...just as the secret rooms @ Tulwaitha was, just as the proscribed missiles were, just as the terrorist camps were,....etc...etc....ad nauseum.

It's called the "preponderance of evidence"....all things taken together show a preponderance of evidence that Saddam was an eminently dangerous fellow. Now look at The Fool's post very carefully. He tells us in no uncertain terms that unless Saddam had a working ICBM capable of hitting the US in 45 mins, then there was no "imminent threat" of WMD. This is his definition, not anyone else's. What it means is that we could uncover a hollow mountain full of nuclear bombs and chemicals and he would say "so what? where's the imminent threat?"

That is obviously not the Bush admin's definition, nor would anyone reasonable define it as Fool has.

Fact: Saddam was dangerous.
Fact: Saddam is no longer dangerous.

No matter how many times you chant the leftie mantra Fool, it will not change reality. Now put those blinders back on and start chanting.....
:rolleyes:
-z

specious_reasons

12th January 2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

It's called the "preponderance of evidence"....all things taken together show a preponderance of evidence that Saddam was an eminently dangerous fellow.

I'm going to be nit picky here, but isn't a "preponderance of evidence" insufficient to convict in a criminal trial?

rikzilla

12th January 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. GWB - 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address.

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Kenneth Adelman (Defense Policy Board member) 3/23/2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld - 3/30/2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. (emphasis mine) GWB 5/6/2003

I am absolutely convinced, based on the information that’s been given to me, that the weapon of mass destruction which can kill more people than an atomic bomb -- that is, biological weapons -- is in the hands of the leadership of Iraq. Bill Frist (Senate Majority Leader) - 1/10/2003

So we have a pretty good indictation that even the administration would not consider 3 dozen rusted-out morter shells what they were looking for.

And, since as Rumsfeld said, they knew where the weapons were, I think it's pretty sad that they haven't gone right there and showed the world.

Well, that's nice, but current admin officials were not the only ones who "knew" about Saddam's WMD's:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

rikzilla

12th January 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by specious_reasons

I'm going to be nit picky here, but isn't a "preponderance of evidence" insufficient to convict in a criminal trial?

Call me nit picky as well....what mention did I ever make of a "criminal trial?" :hit:

specious_reasons

12th January 2004, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Call me nit picky as well....what mention did I ever make of a "criminal trial?" :hit:

Oh - I don't know - It just seems that the more extreme the action requires a greater burden of proof. That was the point I was making.

Screw you, Rik, at least I try to be calm and rational.

rikzilla

12th January 2004, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by specious_reasons

Oh - I don't know - It just seems that the more extreme the action requires a greater burden of proof. That was the point I was making.

Screw you, Rik, at least I try to be calm and rational.

:D That is the most calm and rational way that I've ever been told "screw you". :D You do realise that you've somehow become a parody of yourself,...don't you? :D

-z

specious_reasons

12th January 2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

:D That is the most calm and rational way that I've ever been told "screw you". :D You do realise that you've somehow become a parody of yourself,...don't you? :D

-z

I maintain the right to retailiate when being mocked. Note that I didn't claim some vast superiority over your histrionic ways, only that I usually try to maintain some decorum. Usually.

DrChinese

12th January 2004, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Why aren't chemical weapons considered chemical weapons?
ANd answer the question - how many?

Easy to answer: Powell said 100-500 tons conservatively. So 100-500 tons is the answer.

Doubt

12th January 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

My serious point is that if we apply a brainless (all chem weapons) = (WMD's) = (Justification) then we are headed for absurdity. It seems apparent that the above simple assertion is being used rather selectively, and my statement regarding the W.Va. State Police is meant to highlight the possible absurd result of that conclusion. Pepper spray is a chemical weapon in the strict use of the term. If we are going to be brainless and mechanical about this, we reach the same conclusion about stocks of fresh pepper spray as we do about 10+ year old mortar shells w/ blister gas, a state of the art WMD... in 1917.

Putting forward the idea that blister agents are something other than weapons of mass destruction is rather stilly. This stuff is only marginally less deadly and nerve agents. Here is a primer on the subject of chemical warfare agents:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/cw-agent.htm

These weapons are designed to kill and maim. They are every bit a weapon of mass destruction. Even if you survive exposure, you will be a mess. Quoting from the above source:

In a single exposure the eyes are more susceptible to mustard than either the respiratory tract or the skin. The effects of mustard on the eyes are very painful. Conjunctivitis follows exposure of about 1 hour to concentrations barely perceptible by odour. This exposure does not effect the respiratory tract significantly. A latent period of 4 to 12 hours follows mild exposure, after which there is lachrymation and a sensation of grit in the eyes. The conjunctival and the lids become red. Heavy exposure irritates the eyes after 1 to 3 hours and produces severe lesions.

SNIP

Mustard attacks all the mucous membranes of the respiratory tract. After a latent period of 4 to 6 hours, it irritates and congests the mucous membranes of the nasal cavity and the throat, as well as the trachea and large bronchi. Symptoms start with burning pain in the throat and hoarseness of the voice. A dry cough gives way to copious expectoration. Airway secretions and fragments of necrotic epitheliums may obstruct the lungs. The damaged lower airways become infected easily, predisposing to pneumonia after approximately 48 hours. If the inhaled dose has been sufficiently high the victim dies in a few days, either from pulmonary oedema or mechanical asphyxia due to fragments of necrotic tissue obstructing the trachea or bronchi, or from superimposed bacterial infection, facilitated by an impaired immune response.

SNIP

The great majority of mustard gas casualties survive. There is no practical drug treatment available for preventing the effects of mustard. Infection is the most important complicating factor in the healing of mustard burns. There is no consensus on the optimum form of treatment.

Of course, you are not likely to survive if you don’t receive medical treatment. Unless the medical people have full chemical warfare suits, civilians are pretty much dead meat. The volume required to kill is greater than a nerve agent, but they do kill quite well by themselves.

Not then Suddenly, why is it that you think blister agents are not WMD? Any source to back you up on that idea?

Zero

12th January 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by DrChinese

Easy to answer: Powell said 100-500 tons conservatively. So 100-500 tons is the answer. In other words, more than 12 quarts in leaking rusted containers from back in 1987?

Hutch

12th January 2004, 11:42 AM

Ummm, to repeat what I put on another thread...Mustard Gas (the most common type is sulfur mustard) is not all that destructive....

From CDC--while sulfur mustard is a powerful irritant and blistering agent that damages the skin, eyes and respiratory tract, it is not usually fatal. when sulfur mustard was used during WWI, it killed fewer than 5% of the people who were exposed and recieved medical care. Sulfur Mustard can damage DNA, However.

So as a weapon that can kill thousands, mustard gas is seriously deficient as a WMD. Weapon, yes. Mass, well, give me a mass. Destruction, a 120mm shell is about 30 lbs total, most of that in propellant and casing, so while it may make a hole in the roof, it isn't likely to cause widespread destruction--and has a range of about 2-5 miles.

The question, like I asked on the other thread, is 36 shells of limited range and limited leathality worth 500+ American Lives, $100B+ costs, destabilization of a nation, with no guarantee of it becoming stable, and cooler relations with many other democracies a fair balance? I have my doubts. We shall see

Suddenly

12th January 2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Doubt

Putting forward the idea that blister agents are something other than weapons of mass destruction is rather stilly. This stuff is only marginally less deadly and nerve agents. Here is a primer on the subject of chemical warfare agents:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/cw-agent.htm

These weapons are designed to kill and maim. They are every bit a weapon of mass destruction. Even if you survive exposure, you will be a mess. Quoting from the above source:

Of course, you are not likely to survive if you don’t receive medical treatment. Unless the medical people have full chemical warfare suits, civilians are pretty much dead meat. The volume required to kill is greater than a nerve agent, but they do kill quite well by themselves.

Not then Suddenly, why is it that you think blister agents are not WMD? Any source to back you up on that idea?

I think "Hutch" has responded to most of this, so I'll just defer to his post as to the mass of your concerns.

One curious thing you say, that "These weapons are designed to kill and maim. They are every bit a weapon of mass destruction. Even if you survive exposure, you will be a mess. " If that is your definition of a WMD, is a grenade a WMD? Seems to satisfy your requirements...

I will say that even water will kill people given sufficient quantities, not to mention that a conventional mortar shell or a simple AK-47.

Blister agents may be agents of destruction, but they are not capable of mass destruction save for unreasonably massive application. We can say the same thing about water. A poorly constructed dam looming over a mining town is a menace and unbelievable danger, while the water cooler out in the hall is only a threat under extreme circumstances.

Again, the point is that quality and quanity factor in to this, and this is not strictly over "brand names" so to speak. An insignificant amount of apparently forgotten shells containing hardly the most lethal type of chemical isn't exactly the menace to the world's security we were promised.

Kodiak

12th January 2004, 12:09 PM

What quantity of chemical weapons do we need to find?

All or none, depending on how you apply the word "need".

As regards the public safety, we need to find all the WMD's in Iraq so that 1.) innocent civilians don't accidentally come across them, and 2.) jihadists, militants and fundamentalists can't use them after a representative Iraqi government has taken power.

If you mean to legitimize Bush's invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam? IMO, none. The possibility that Saddam had or was developing WMD's was only one of a myriad of reasons the Bush administration gave for invasion (and yes, I will concede that many of you disagree with that. Several threads already exist that address this point of contention).

Doubt

12th January 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
[B]
One curious thing you say, that "These weapons are designed to kill and maim. They are every bit a weapon of mass destruction. Even if you survive exposure, you will be a mess. " If that is your definition of a WMD, is a grenade a WMD? Seems to satisfy your requirements...\[b]

Gas drifts, explosions don’t. A "gas grenade". would be a WMD since it has much greater potential to do harm than an explosive device. The above quote you used was directed at your attempt to equivocate pepper spray with lethal agents.

Also mustard gas used today is not always the same as was used in WW I. It can be mixed with other forms of blister agents to improve it’s effects. Also the concentration of blister agents has improved since 1917.

I don’t know how to quote from a pdf file, but here is a link for some of the technical detail on blister agents:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/1997/cwbw/Ch7.pdf

The first 6 pages cover the basics of what they are and how they have changed.

Now if it is something other than your opinion that it is not a WMD, then give me a source that classifies it other wise. I am quite sure that if the US were to use such a weapon, we would be justly condemned for using a WMD.

The fatally rates of soldiers from WW I do not reflect on what happens when this sort of thing is used on civilians.

Civilians are not trained to notice the presence of this gas.
Civilians do not have masks and suit to prevent further exposure.
Civilians doctors are not trained to deal with this sort of causality ahead of time.

The only thing a civilians has going for them is that the over all quality of medical care has improved over time.

demon

12th January 2004, 12:35 PM

"Easy to answer: Powell said 100-500 tons conservatively. So 100-500 tons is the answer."

That paragon of virtue Colin Powell also said: "He (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." February 24, 2001

Suddenly

12th January 2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Doubt

Gas drifts, explosions don’t. A "gas grenade". would be a WMD since it has much greater potential to do harm than an explosive device. The above quote you used was directed at your attempt to equivocate pepper spray with lethal agents. Actually it was in context of others saying that I claimed they were equal with regards to harm. I made no such claim. I brought up the pepper gas as an example that quality of the gas was important within the context of the larger issue. First Troll, then others decided I was saying that "pepper spray is as harmful as blister agents," when it is pretty clear that I am making no such claims. I said that pepper spray is a chemical designed to cause harm. Thus, a chemical weapon. The only difference is one of the degree of harm possible. Why you now are arguing with me that there is a difference in degree I quite frankly find dumbfounding.

Also mustard gas used today is not always the same as was used in WW I. It can be mixed with other forms of blister agents to improve it’s effects. Also the concentration of blister agents has improved since 1917.

I don’t know how to quote from a pdf file, but here is a link for some of the technical detail on blister agents:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/1997/cwbw/Ch7.pdf

The first 6 pages cover the basics of what they are and how they have changed.

Now if it is something other than your opinion that it is not a WMD, then give me a source that classifies it other wise. I am quite sure that if the US were to use such a weapon, we would be justly condemned for using a WMD. We are getting so far away from what my original statement was that it is just getting silly. I am fully aware that even mustard gas causes greater harm than pepper spray. I am fully aware that there are circumstances where mustard-type gasses can be WMDs, which should be obvious considering I implied that water could be a WMD if there is enough of it held suspended over a city... That the distinction is important is my point.

crackmonkey

12th January 2004, 02:22 PM

Once again, I am not attempting to justify anything in this thread, I am merely interested in how people would respond to my question... what quantity of chemical weaponry would be needed to consider Saddam in possession of chemical weapons ?
An interesting response by Dr. Chinese, claiming that any quantity of chemical weaponry less than 100 tons isn't considered to be chemical weapons.

TillEulenspiegel

12th January 2004, 02:48 PM

Well someone said the logic of the statement meant any......
First off, it is not logic but semantics and if that is the case the answer is 2 as the quoted phrase was weapons (plural) of mass destruction. The implication here is that they had a weapon(s) , well altho the original poster claims the difference between a chemical shell and the ability to deliver it is a disingenuous attempt to obscure the issue is under the language of diplomacy not correct . When one examines the path of salt 1 and 2 and start , delivery vehicles were considered part of the equation. A rocket with no payload is no WMD, a shell with no method of delivery is not a weapon. One must have bullets and a gun to make a weapon.

The fact that some aged , leaking shells were found means nothing in the light of proclamations by the Bush administration. They were part of weapons that were declared and not accounted for in the post desert storm action. The other consideration is that they are not viable which makes them ineligible for the classification of weapons.

Bottom line here is that many people seeing that the heralded WMD and "ongoing" WMD programs didn't exist will jump at any chance to say A HA! theres the smoking gun. This gentle people is the tactic of the self convinced , they must justify , by any means, thier figureheads position that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US. This view is false.

specious_reasons

12th January 2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Once again, I am not attempting to justify anything in this thread, I am merely interested in how people would respond to my question... what quantity of chemical weaponry would be needed to consider Saddam in possession of chemical weapons ?

Here's your orginal question, for reference:

I personally think you're setting up a strawman, but I'll answer it.

You make the call. Personally, I can't see how someone could both be in possession of chemical weapons yet not be considered to have chemical weapons.
Iraq had chemical weapons, and we've just found proof.

I'm willing to admit that there were chemical weapons in Iraq. There seems to be proof of that.

Were they in Saddam's "possession?" - I suppose you could make the argument that by the nature of his rule in Iraq they were in his possession.

So, yes Saddam was in "possession" of chemical weapons.

That doesn't answer the big question, which is what everybody in the thread is arguing about: What does that mean?

Mr Manifesto

12th January 2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Would it change who you vote for in the next election?

Yeah, because Bush hasn't done anything else wrong during his time in office.

I'm going to hit 'submit' now, before I use the rolleyes icon...

Luke T.

12th January 2004, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Yeah, because Bush hasn't done anything else wrong during his time in office.

I'm going to hit 'submit' now, before I use the rolleyes icon...

Eggsactly! It won't change people's opinions on how they vote. People aren't going to vote based solely on whether WMDs are found. It will make a nice campaign ad for whoever is the Democratic candidate (it won't be Dean, you heard it here first) if the WMDs are not found, and for Bush if they are, though.

Doubt

12th January 2004, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
I am fully aware that there are circumstances where mustard-type gasses can be WMDs, which should be obvious considering I implied that water could be a WMD if there is enough of it held suspended over a city... That the distinction is important is my point.

My problem with you on this subject is that you don’t want to recognize that blister agent is a weapon of mass destruction regardless of the quantity involved.

Certain types of weapons are WMD and some are not.

http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-May/whatiswmd.html

The legal definition of a ''Weapon of Mass Destruction'' is from Title 18 of the United States Code, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2332 (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title; (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors; (C) any weapon involving a disease organism; or (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.

I could not find a definition for WMD on the UN website, but they also appear to make this sort of distinction:

http://disarmament.un.org:8080/wmd/index.html

Attempts to equivocate with things that don’t meet the known definition of WMD is nothing more than a smoke screen to avoid dealing with what has been found in Iraq.

However, I do not think the quantity discovered justifies the effort, financial cost, or loss of life in this war.

Tricky

12th January 2004, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by specious_reasons
That doesn't answer the big question, which is what everybody in the thread is arguing about: What does that mean?
What it means is that some folks here want to get anti-war folks to say that there were in fact WMDs in Iraq, so they can do a little victory dance, pound their chests and claim they were right.

A better question would be, "If Americans had known in advance how few WMDs would be discovered, would they still have supported the war?" I think you can make a very good argument that a whole lot of them would not, and I think BushCo knew that to be true, which is why they exaggerated them.

fishbob

12th January 2004, 10:22 PM

Once again, I am not attempting to justify anything in this thread, I am merely interested in how people would respond to my question... what quantity of chemical weaponry would be needed to consider Saddam in possession of chemical weapons ? Once again, one shiny new chemical weapon would be enough to convince me. One piece of non-spinnable evidence is all I need.

Nasarius

12th January 2004, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by fishbob
Once again, one shiny new chemical weapon would be enough to convince me. One piece of non-spinnable evidence is all I need.

Yes, one piece of evidence to show that Saddam posed such a significant threat as to justify an invasion.

Some Friggin Guy

12th January 2004, 11:10 PM

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. - As quoted by Rikzilla.

The questioon is: which administration acted, without actual evidence of said weapons, with a full fledged invasion?

Troll

12th January 2004, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Cain

What part of doubling aid after gassings do you not understand? Saddam's worst atrocities came while we supported him.

Maybe you should zero in on a specific sentence. I'll put it in bold.

Your words were :

"Now, the United States possesses chemical weapons. Britain possesses chemical weapons. This is all in far greater quantities. The reason, presumably, as to why we can have them is that we're not going to use them against innocent people. The 36 mortar shells or whatever that were recently discovered, were those going to be used against anyone any time soon? The W.M.D. claim is integral to the White House's case for making war. It's the primary reason for invasion"

I hope this requires no further explanation.

My words? You freaking quote what I was calling you on and attribute the words to me?:confused:

And even if I give you the benefit of the doubt in an honest mistake, you did as I said and used the fact that the US has chemical weapons as a point, yet again.

Cain

12th January 2004, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Troll

My words? You freaking quote what I was calling you on and attribute the words to me?:confused:

And even if I give you the benefit of the doubt in an honest mistake, you did as I said and used the fact that the US has chemical weapons as a point, yet again.

Are you bloody mad?

I quoted your post, and you wrote "your words were". I should've deleted them, but it shouldn't really make much of a difference. I know what I wrote. I know you know that I wrote that. I know that you don't know what it meant.

Oh, but please, be so gracious as to give me the benefit of doubt for an honest mistake. Read the bold text again. This time slowly.

Troll

12th January 2004, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Cain

Are you bloody mad?

I quoted your post, and you wrote "your words were". I should've deleted them, but it shouldn't really make much of a difference. I know what I wrote. I know you know that I wrote that. I know that you don't know what it meant.

Oh, but please, be so gracious as to give me the benefit of doubt for an honest mistake. Read the bold text again. This time slowly.

No I'm not mad. I just got confused by the format you used.

But my point still stands. The US has chemical weapons. We've got nukes as well. we've used the nukes several years ago and the big arms race things showed that "presumably we're not going to use them against innocent people", same as chemical weapons. Saddam is a different story though, isn't he?

so I really don't see your point in mentioning the US having them at all. What threat is there from the US via chemical weapons?

Troll

13th January 2004, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
I guess if someone finds bigfoot tommorrow I'm a fool for not believing in its existence all this time? Plus, you are extending my claims again. I said that in order to qualify as having "chemical weapons" in the context of this war is that Iraq would have to have more capability to cause harm with that chemical than does the W.Va State Police trying to stop a riot after a WVU game.

Where does the promise that there will never be relevant WMDs found lie in that statement? [/B] Mortar shells are basically used to break up crowds, albeit with less regard for the safety of the crowd. Your point is one of degree, and once we get into degree the nice little (All chemical weapons) = (WMD) = (justification) equation is no longer valid. [/B] So, a question of degree. [/B] Which is the point. Considering a decade old shell containing a blistering agent (not even a nerve agent) as WMDs creating an immediate inter-continental danger is just as, if not more, silly as my claims.

No insult. Just exasperation, making the point that your being suprised or amazed at a claim does not in and of itself suffice as a rebuttal. The whole reason that fora like this exist is that people disagree with one another, and to portray any disagrement as prima facie absurd with no argument is pretty much worthless. This isn't calculus, and people are going to disagree. If I start telling you that the number 479 and it's representation in the color spectrum prove the non-existence of WMD's, then you can act all amazed and incredulous. Until then, try to keep some perspective on what is reasonable and what is not...

I never claimed that pepper spray is as harmful as a blister agent. What I am illustrating is that distinction is being ignored (or at least selectively applied) to the larger issue. The two can be compared, they are both chemicals intended to be used to cause interpersonal harm. The only difference is the degree of harm.

My serious point is that if we apply a brainless (all chem weapons) = (WMD's) = (Justification) then we are headed for absurdity. It seems apparent that the above simple assertion is being used rather selectively, and my statement regarding the W.Va. State Police is meant to highlight the possible absurd result of that conclusion. Pepper spray is a chemical weapon in the strict use of the term. If we are going to be brainless and mechanical about this, we reach the same conclusion about stocks of fresh pepper spray as we do about 10+ year old mortar shells w/ blister gas, a state of the art WMD... in 1917.

However, once discretion is had w/r/t quantity and type, we then rid ourselves of the absolutist notion present in the intitial post in this thread, allowing the situation to be viewed in a more realistic manner. [/B]

Dude, Fry and Bender found bigfoot, I saw it on tv so it has to be real.:p

Seriously though, I understand what you're saying. But prior to this I wasn't able to fully understand your stance on the subject.

But to say "If we are going to be brainless and mechanical about this, we reach the same conclusion about stocks of fresh pepper spray as we do about 10+ year old mortar shells w/ blister gas, a state of the art WMD... in 1917", doesn't really help since I've already stated that pepper spray is not a chemical weapon, and if it is, it's no more so than hairspray. But then, maybe you're doing the thing I do and addressing others while quoting one. So I can't fault you on that.

All I am saying is, since the question was asked as to what amount needs to be found to satisfy the requirement, and some has been found and disputed as evidence, then what does need to be found to be considered evidence?

what if the shells were 5 years old and had a fresher stock of mustard gas? See where I'm going with this? so far the thread has had disputes of the find and what makes a wmd. Scratching chemical weapons off the list of wmds altogether we still have the contention that the US made that he has chemical weapons as part of it's reasoning for going in, key phrase there is "part of it's reasoning"

Cain

13th January 2004, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by Troll
But my point still stands. The US has chemical weapons. We've got nukes as well. we've used the nukes several years ago and the big arms race things showed that "presumably we're not going to use them against innocent people", same as chemical weapons. Saddam is a different story though, isn't he?

so I really don't see your point in mentioning the US having them at all. What threat is there from the US via chemical weapons?

I'm not saying the U.S. is going to use them. I'm sayin the US has them and that's not a crime, right? Everyone within the two major parties and the mainstream is unapologetic about the U.S. possessing weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because, presumably, we're not going to use them to threaten and kill innocent people. This is something I would think you'd readily agree with. Now, Iraq is different because the murderous dictator wants to harm others. Right? He threatens our way of life, right? Okay, so how can he be so threatening if these chemical weapons have been buried for ten years? If it's not really usable, is it a weapon of mass destruction?

In the above I'm not saying anything against the US or Britain. I'm not criticizing those countries.

Troll

13th January 2004, 12:18 AM

epepke

13th January 2004, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Cain
I'm not saying the U.S. is going to use them. I'm sayin the US has them and that's not a crime, right? Everyone within the two major parties and the mainstream is unapologetic about the U.S. possessing weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because, presumably, we're not going to use them to threaten and kill innocent people.

You're conflating two largely separate issues. That the US is presumably not going to use chemical weapons to threaten and kill innocent people (whether or not this is true) may have something to do with whether US possession of chemical weapons is objectionable or a big deal or a significant danger.

The reason that the US possession of chemical weapons is not a violation ("crime" is a bit of a strong word to apply to any of these cases) is that the US did not sign a ceasefire agreement, one of the provisions of which was disposing of all chemical weapons. Iraq did. It's really that simple.

Good, bad, or indifferent, this is what happened. One can think that Gulf War Phase II was justified or unjustified or right or wrong, but it doesn't change the history. There are even people who believe that Iraq had a territorial right to invade Kuwait, and even Gulf War Phase I was an unjustifiable act of naked aggression, but that belief still doesn't change what happened.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait happened. The Al Saddam and Al Hussein missiles (inaccurately called SCUD missiles) did get lobbed into other countries. A coalition force did push Iraq out of Kuwait. Saddam Hussein did sign a cease-fire agreement to prevent Iraq from being invaded. He then did violate it by using chemical weapons within Iraq. There was a decade of covert operations and airstrikes in Iraq.

It does no good to act as if this history did not happen, nor to ignore the fact that this history provides the context for judgements today.

Troll

13th January 2004, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by epepke

You're conflating two largely separate issues. That the US is presumably not going to use chemical weapons to threaten and kill innocent people (whether or not this is true) may have something to do with whether US possession of chemical weapons is objectionable or a big deal or a significant danger.

The reason that the US possession of chemical weapons is not a violation ("crime" is a bit of a strong word to apply to any of these cases) is that the US did not sign a ceasefire agreement, one of the provisions of which was disposing of all chemical weapons. Iraq did. It's really that simple.

Good, bad, or indifferent, this is what happened. One can think that Gulf War Phase II was justified or unjustified or right or wrong, but it doesn't change the history. There are even people who believe that Iraq had a territorial right to invade Kuwait, and even Gulf War Phase I was an unjustifiable act of naked aggression, but that belief still doesn't change what happened.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait happened. The Al Saddam and Al Hussein missiles (inaccurately called SCUD missiles) did get lobbed into other countries. A coalition force did push Iraq out of Kuwait. Saddam Hussein did sign a cease-fire agreement to prevent Iraq from being invaded. He then did violate it by using chemical weapons within Iraq. There was a decade of covert operations and airstrikes in Iraq.

It does no good to act as if this history did not happen, nor to ignore the fact that this history provides the context for judgements today.

You know, it's funny in a way. Some people have claimed that because A did or does this does it give us or anyone a right to attack B. And they use this as a defense against the war in Iraq. Yet the point you brought up about the scuds going into other places while they were fighting everyone but one of the countries they sent some scuds into other countries not fighting them at the time, should be enough to answer the questions those people ask. I mean they wonder if it's legit to do so, but never state ( sounds like the UN here) what should be done about it.

Israel did nothing during the first guf war and were attacked. We'd not be discussing a second gulf war if Israel did not show extreme restraint at that time. Saddam would have been gone long ago.

Sorry to hijack your post like this. I'm not sure what side of the whole thing you'd have taken, but itpresented a very clear point for my perspective of the issue so I used it.

Cain

13th January 2004, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by epepke
[quote]You're conflating two largely separate issues. That the US is presumably not going to use chemical weapons to threaten and kill innocent people (whether or not this is true) may have something to do with whether US possession of chemical weapons is objectionable or a big deal or a significant danger.

The reason that the US possession of chemical weapons is not a violation ("crime" is a bit of a strong word to apply to any of these cases) is that the US did not sign a ceasefire agreement, one of the provisions of which was disposing of all chemical weapons. Iraq did. It's really that simple.

No, it's not that simple because the case for invasion rested on the notion that Iraq posed a threat. The above seems to suggest that if the invasion and occupation of Iraq was an unmitigated success, then the Bush administration could not use the same arguments against Iran and Syria (because no ceasefire agreements were signed). Moreover, if you want to appeal to international law, there's the nagging problem of the US's -- I mean coalition of the willing's -- failure to get Security Council authorization.

You're missing the point I'm making. According to policy makers in both of the major parties there's nothing inherently wrong with a nation possessing chemcial weapons. The argument runs that a nation should not be allowed to threaten us with chemical weapons. These buried mortar shells -- they don't pose a threat. Administration apologists cannot claim vindication on the grounds that "Aha! He did have them!" because the recently exhumed weapons present no recognizable danger. (There's the added problem of a retrospective justification).

003998

13th January 2004, 05:18 AM

I`d like to try a purely subjective answer to the original question of this thread.

It essentially boils down to the question: What is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. A Nuke seems to be, a bullet not. Anything in between is open to discussion.

One proposal was this:
Originally posted by Doubt

The legal definition of a ''Weapon of Mass Destruction'' is from Title 18 of the United States Code, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2332 (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title; (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors; (C) any weapon involving a disease organism; or (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.

This definition is not too useful.
Depleted Uranium Rounds create fumes of highly toxic and also radioactive substances on impact and would therefor fall under B and D.
A flu-infected child could fall under category C for spitting at another child in school.
Furthermore, the famous idea of Bunker-Busters seems to imply that even a small enough nuke doesn`t necessarily constitute a WMD, at least as long as it is used in a way approved by the American gouvernment.

Sticking to semantics and some clear thinking, I conclude that Weapons of Mass Destruction should cause destruction, and a considerable amount of that as well.
But where should one draw the line?
My proposal would be this:
I see WMDs as oposed to conventional weapons. So a Weapon of Mass Destruction should at the very least exceed the damage done by the most powerful conventional weapon.

A bit of googling led me here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm
Originally designed to create an instant clearing in the jungle, it has been used in Afghanistan as an anti-personnel weapon and as an intimidation weapon because of its very large lethal radius (variously reported as 300-900 feet) combined with flash and sound visible at long distances. It is the largest conventional bomb in existence but is less than one thousandth the power of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb.

Now, if the lethality of one of these mortar rounds, used to target a marketplace or similar location, is below that of a 300m radius bomb blast, I would conclude that those mortar shells are not Weapons of Mass Destruction, simply because they don`t cause mass destruction.

I propose that a Weapon of Mass Destruction should at least be working or easily be made working in not more than 1 day. A pistol filled up with molten lead is not a weapon any more. The same applies for a mortar shell that can`t be fired. If there were present a device, able to take the gas and deliver it to a target, that`d be another thing.

So my answer to the initial question is this:
The ammount of chemical weapons needed to be found in order to establish that Iraq had WMDs is open to discussion. There are, however some set borders that don`t need discussion.
As an upper limit, I`d say that a single device, capable of causing as much damage as the Hiroshima Bomb would constitute a WMD.
As a lower limit, any single device less lethal than a BLU-82 bomb or not able to be delivered to a target without the work of a day or more in preparation should not be considered a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
- As quoted by Rikzilla.

The questioon is: which administration acted, without actual evidence of said weapons, with a full fledged invasion?

The administration led by a man who used his cojones for a purpose more presidential than sexual harassment.

Obviously the dems thought, just as the current repub admin did, that Saddam's Iraq was a grave danger to the world. I don't really see why the dems should be commended for their own moral cowardice for not going after Saddam back in 1998. As well, I don't see why the repubs should be condemned for correcting that situation. The "evidence" as you call it really just boils down to intelligence. What was "known" before the invasion did not change,...one admin merely had the guts to actually do something about it.

Now, in hindisght, I think Saddam was not nearly as dangerous as everyone thought he was. But hindsight is 20/20....and Saddam was dangerous as per the sourced info I posted earlier to this thread. Two facts are important to remember:

#1. Saddam's Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism.
#2. Saddam's Iraq possessed WMD, and used WMD.

No matter how you spin the amounts found, or the lack of solid links to Al Qaeda, the two facts stated above still stand firm. Some people say this was not enough to justify the invasion, some like myself, do. It's merely a matter of opinion. I am glad we're not still wondering about Saddam. He's history now along with his brutal sons. The people of Iraq have a chance now for a better life. The people of the world can breathe easier and move on to other issues. The Bush admin is an admin of action. I look forward to 5 more years of it.

-z

BTW: I wonder where "The Fool" went? I was hoping he'd challenge the info I posted earlier....but alas, even he knows he must fail. :rolleyes:

specious_reasons

13th January 2004, 05:59 AM

I don't have the source right now, but I heard Madeline Albright give an interview where she stated her opinion on the war was not "Why?" but "Why now?"

Obviously, the Democrats though that Saddam's Iraq was a danger to the region, but did not think that it was the imminent threat that required war.

Originally posted by rikzilla

Obviously the dems thought, just as the current repub admin did, that Saddam's Iraq was a grave danger to the world. I don't really see why the dems should be commended for their own moral cowardice for not going after Saddam back in 1998. As well, I don't see why the repubs should be condemned for correcting that situation. The "evidence" as you call it really just boils down to intelligence. What was "known" before the invasion did not change,...one admin merely had the guts to actually do something about it.

Suddenly

13th January 2004, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Dude, Fry and Bender found bigfoot, I saw it on tv so it has to be real.:p

Seriously though, I understand what you're saying. But prior to this I wasn't able to fully understand your stance on the subject.

But to say "If we are going to be brainless and mechanical about this, we reach the same conclusion about stocks of fresh pepper spray as we do about 10+ year old mortar shells w/ blister gas, a state of the art WMD... in 1917", doesn't really help since I've already stated that pepper spray is not a chemical weapon, and if it is, it's no more so than hairspray. But then, maybe you're doing the thing I do and addressing others while quoting one. So I can't fault you on that. I'd disagree that pepper gas isn't a weapon. It can even be lethal if enough of it is dumped in a closed area. It just isn't as deadly as other "chemical weapons" that we talk about.

The difference with hairspray is that hairspray isn't designed for the purpose of causing harm. Pepper spray is designed and used for that very purpose, ergo it is a weapon.

All I am saying is, since the question was asked as to what amount needs to be found to satisfy the requirement, and some has been found and disputed as evidence, then what does need to be found to be considered evidence? Obviously there is an intent and possession issue here. There seems to be a good chance, given the state of these weapons and their location, that nobody of importance really knew they were there. So, there is a possession problem along with the amount problem. I really don't have an exact suggestion, but the general idea is that the weapons needed to be a serious threat to the world and indicate a continuing program. However my point is that such a determination is necessary, which is my rebuttal of the original post.

what if the shells were 5 years old and had a fresher stock of mustard gas? See where I'm going with this? so far the thread has had disputes of the find and what makes a wmd. This is pretty much my point, that such factors are relevant to the larger context. Placing the age of the weapons before the original Gulf War is very significant w/r/t the question of the existence of a "continuing program." My original post was a semi-absurd proposal for such a minimmum standard, mainly arguing against the implication in the original post that there should be no minimmum standard for what constitutes having chemical weapons in the context of the invasion, etc. We kind of went weird on that point. If the weapons were shown to be 5 years old and not leaking, things would be different, as that would at least indicate a serious production program in the late 90's.

Scratching chemical weapons off the list of wmds altogether we still have the contention that the US made that he has chemical weapons as part of it's reasoning for going in, key phrase there is "part of it's reasoning"

Whole different argument there. Yes, the administration did hedge its bets and did not rely on what appears to be a gamble that they would find something to back up their pre-invasion scare tactics. You may be arguing with the wrong person on this point; as I posted before I wouldn't have a problem if the invasion was predicated on simple humanitarian and realpolitik grounds.

My particular beef has to do with the fact that the present administration got into office largely by running on a platform that they wouldn't act like Clinton, straight talk, not being slippery and all that. When they indicate that there are massive WMD's in Iraq, I think people have a right, based on their implied "we aren't slick like Clinton" pretext to take it at face value. Now that the claims of WMDs are getting more unlikely by the day they aren't exactly reacting with straight talk and candor, but rather spin that would make James Carville nauseous. Other reasons for the invasion are emphesised, and even better, prior comments are scrutinized to either a) make the claims of WMDs seem modest and b) Claim that somehow because a handful of Democrats may have believed it that this absolves the adminstrations mistake or perhaps outright fraudulant scare tactics. Aren't those guys supposedly big on personal responsibility? I'm waiting for someone to get into the definition of "is."

It is becoming clear, absent the discovery of some sort of sooper-seekrit weapons cache, that they were just wrong about the immediate threat. Maybe they will find something, but the current attitiude and attempts to distract from the issue aren't really heartening as to their expectations. "Wait and see" has given way to "Look at the monkey!! Look at the monkey!!" as the response to questions on this issue.

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by 003998
I`d like to try a purely subjective answer to the original question of this thread.

Noted.

It essentially boils down to the question: What is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. A Nuke seems to be, a bullet not. Anything in between is open to discussion.

Not really. Doubt posted the official definition of WMD. If we start redefining WMD, then we are no longer about WMD. We're merely talking about our subjective "feeling" of what WMD means to us.

This definition is not too useful.

That is your opinion. I feel it is not only accurate, but specific. But that's just my opinion. Subjectivity is so wishy-washy isn't it? Which is why definitions need to be as objective and agreed upon as possible. These are WMD's, not modern art after all.

Depleted Uranium Rounds create fumes of highly toxic and also radioactive substances on impact and would therefor fall under B and D.

Perhaps, but I have not seen the science that points to that "fact".

A flu-infected child could fall under category C for spitting at another child in school.

That's quite a reach you have there. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, the famous idea of Bunker-Busters seems to imply that even a small enough nuke doesn`t necessarily constitute a WMD, at least as long as it is used in a way approved by the American gouvernment.

A bunker buster is a bomb that penetrates into the ground and only explodes after it has burrowed into target. It is a very specific type of weapon, and unless your mass is actually in the bunker or standing around nearby, it's not going to be destructed.

Sticking to semantics and some clear thinking, I conclude that Weapons of Mass Destruction should cause destruction, and a considerable amount of that as well.
Again, this is your definition, not the one being used by the government. By your definition a neutron bomb dropped on NYC would not be a WMD because it would not destroy more than a couple blocks of property. Mass casualties = mass destruction.

But where should one draw the line?
The line has been drawn...you merely seek to redefine it to your own liking.

My proposal would be this:
I see WMDs as oposed to conventional weapons. So a Weapon of Mass Destruction should at the very least exceed the damage done by the most powerful conventional weapon.

Again, you speak of property. Is not the loss of a human life also a "destruction"? Again, by your logic, the neutron bomb...or the introduction of a massive plague would not be a WMD.

A bit of googling led me here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm

Now, if the lethality of one of these mortar rounds, used to target a marketplace or similar location, is below that of a 300m radius bomb blast, I would conclude that those mortar shells are not Weapons of Mass Destruction, simply because they don`t cause mass destruction.

Again, your subjective definition is at fault.

I propose that a Weapon of Mass Destruction should at least be working or easily be made working in not more than 1 day. A pistol filled up with molten lead is not a weapon any more. The same applies for a mortar shell that can`t be fired. If there were present a device, able to take the gas and deliver it to a target, that`d be another thing.

Proposal noted, but I don't see how a time limit for delivery makes any difference to the amount of death or destruction caused. Eventually the molten lead becomes a bullet...eventually the bullet is used to kill someone...that someone is eventually just as dead...as long as the molten lead has no other use than to become that bullet and take that life, then it is a weapon.

So my answer to the initial question is this:
The ammount of chemical weapons needed to be found in order to establish that Iraq had WMDs is open to discussion.

No it's not. If I say you have grenades, then tackle you and find two grenades in your pocket then I was right even if I suspected you had 30 grenades. Perhaps I would not have considered you as dangerous with only 2 grenades, and only tackled you because I thought you had 30. But that does not change the fact that you indeed did have grenades.

There are, however some set borders that don`t need discussion.
As an upper limit, I`d say that a single device, capable of causing as much damage as the Hiroshima Bomb would constitute a WMD.
Then again, a neutron bomb capable of killing every last person in NYC is not a WMD.

As a lower limit, any single device less lethal than a BLU-82 bomb or not able to be delivered to a target without the work of a day or more in preparation should not be considered a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Again,..delivery time makes no difference to the amount of destruction. A nuclear bomb on a slow boat is still a WMD. Redefining it does not keep it from causing mass destruction.

-z

Luke T.

13th January 2004, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

What it means is that some folks here want to get anti-war folks to say that there were in fact WMDs in Iraq, so they can do a little victory dance, pound their chests and claim they were right.

A better question would be, "If Americans had known in advance how few WMDs would be discovered, would they still have supported the war?" I think you can make a very good argument that a whole lot of them would not, and I think BushCo knew that to be true, which is why they exaggerated them.

Whenever someone talks about Bush and the claim about WMDs, I think they should put an ellipses after Bush's name to show that he wasn't the only one. So Tricky, your statement would read "I think BushCo...knew that to be true, which is why they exaggerated them."

A more complete statement being, "I think BushCo, Clinton, various Democratic and Republican Congressmen and Senators, Germany, France, England, the United Nations, and many others, knew that to be true, which is why they exaggerated them."

King of the Americas

13th January 2004, 07:30 AM

...but rather about the potential and willingness to inflict harm upon our citizens. Otherwise known as an 'imminent threat'.

Now, Saddam did NOT have the ability to strike us directly, period.

Collin Powel said recently that he never saw any concrete evidence that there was ANY link to those who attacked us on 9-11.

To have an old bullet, with no gun from which to shoot it, nor person willing to fire is NOT an 'imminent threat'.

Even if he DOES have a usable chemical weapon, he had NO delivery system, and now we KNOW that he didn't have any friends willing to delivery it to our shores. Therefore...

To answer your question, Saddam needs just ONE working deployable round...

We haven't found it yet, eve thogh Rumsfeld said over and over that they KNEW where he had them, but they couldn't send the inspectors there because we'd give away some of our intelligence officers locations.

In short, Saddam's Threat, er the Threat Saddam Posed was greatly over-exaggerated in order to justify an invasion and occupation of the Middle East by the U.S. And in doing made Unilaterial Pre-Emptive Attacks against supposed enemies, even without proof of an actual imminency, Our Policy.

:o

clk

13th January 2004, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

The administration led by a man who used his cojones for a purpose more presidential than sexual harassment.

Tell me, Rik, how big were Bush's cojones when he was AWOL in the military, while a Democrat like Clark or Kerry was getting shot at in Vietnam?

I don't really see why the dems should be commended for their own moral cowardice for not going after Saddam back in 1998.

Yes, the Democrats are real cowards, all right. I mean, they didn't even have the balls to go after Hitler! Oh wait, a Democrat got us into WWII and led us to victory, I forgot. And let's not forget about Vietnam. Let's face it, this war was relatively easy...Saddam had no real army, air force, or navy.

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...but rather about the potential and willingness to inflict harm upon our citizens. Otherwise known as an 'imminent threat'.

So you're telling me that Saddam was not "willing" to harm the US? The nation that ousted him from Kuwait, and then spent the next 11 years flying combat aircraft over his lands? Saddam, who rose to the head of the Ba'ath party and the leadership of Iraq by ruthlessly murdering anyone who got in his way?? Sorry, but knowing what a vindictive piece of crap the guy was I sincerely doubt the accuracy of your opinion.

Now, Saddam did NOT have the ability to strike us directly, period.

On Sept 10th one could have said with great confidence that Osama Bin Laden did NOT have the ability to create mass destruction in NYC. One would have been wrong. :rolleyes:

Collin Powel said recently that he never saw any concrete evidence that there was ANY link to those who attacked us on 9-11.

Not even to OBL?? Perhaps we all only imagined 9/11?

To have an old bullet, with no gun from which to shoot it, nor person willing to fire is NOT an 'imminent threat'.

Correct, but that is not an analogy for Iraq prior to the invasion. Saddam had many different delivery choices...as did/does OBL.

Even if he DOES have a usable chemical weapon, he had NO delivery system, and now we KNOW that he didn't have any friends willing to delivery it to our shores. Therefore...

We "know" and "knew" nothing of the kind.

To answer your question, Saddam needs just ONE working deployable round...

Agreed.

We haven't found it yet, eve thogh Rumsfeld said over and over that they KNEW where he had them, but they couldn't send the inspectors there because we'd give away some of our intelligence officers locations.

The botulinum toxin found was easily deployable. The blister agent rounds...also deployable.

In short, Saddam's Threat, er the Threat Saddam Posed was greatly over-exaggerated in order to justify an invasion and occupation of the Middle East by the U.S. And in doing made Unilaterial Pre-Emptive Attacks against supposed enemies, even without proof of an actual imminency, Our Policy.

:o

With hindsight, I agree that the threat was exagerated. Yet the threat DID exist.

#1. Saddam's Iraq was a state that sponsored terrorism.
#2. Saddam did possess WMD's,...and has used (deployed) WMD before against his regimes enemies...at home, and abroad.

Those two things ARE fact KOA. You may say that this (to you) did not justify the invasion,...but you cannot refute thoses facts or spin them away. At the least...the bare bones,...they ARE documented facts.

-z

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by clk
[B]

Tell me, Rik, how big were Bush's cojones when he was AWOL in the military, while a Democrat like Clark or Kerry was getting shot at in Vietnam?

[B]

His past is not at issue. This thread is about justification for the Iraq invasion. If this thread were about Vietnam, and which politician is to be most detested for his failures to serve during 'Nam, then Mr. Clinton would still take the cake. He both dodged, and protested while abroad. Personally I think that's worse than what Bush did.

I dislike GWB's sad 'Nam era record. If that were the only scale by which to judge candidates then I'd have voted for Gore who even though he was a REMF, at least he went. But alas, that is merely one consideration, isn't it? Thankfully we tend to choose our leaders by many and varied criteria.

One more thing,...I have never disparaged the leadership of Roosevelt, or Truman. I have never spoken ill of the democratic party of the distant past. The democratic party of the past had a large and viable conservative element. It no longer does. That is a sad fact....

-z

I was not the one that brought up

Zero

13th January 2004, 08:25 AM

Maybe if you chant '9-11 9-11 9-11' for another couple of weeks, you can create a new reality in which Iraq was responsible for 9-11...maybe if you cross your fingers, and just believe hard enough, you can make Bush's misdirection into the truth.

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Maybe if you chant '9-11 9-11 9-11' for another couple of weeks, you can create a new reality in which Iraq was responsible for 9-11...maybe if you cross your fingers, and just believe hard enough, you can make Bush's misdirection into the truth.

Let's say that we have documents, photos, and witnesses that show Saddam to be utterly unaware, and incapable of, involvement in 9/11. This does not change the fact that:

#1: Saddam's Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism.
#2: Saddam had, and used WMD's.

Now, I am not chanting anything but those two items...and those two items are IRREFUTABLE.

The chanting of mantras I leave to the left. Their mantra is:
"There are NO WMD's" and "Saddam has NO link to 9/11"

Their mantra is wishfull thinking at best. Mine is fact.

-z

crackmonkey

13th January 2004, 08:46 AM

Some definitions would be helpful here...

The NATO definition of a chemical agent is: "A chemical substance which is intended for use in military operations to kill, seriously injure or incapacitate people because of its physiological effects. Excluded from this definition are riot control agents, herbicides, smoke and flame.
The commonly used definition of WMD is 'nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon'.

Zero

13th January 2004, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Let's say that we have documents, photos, and witnesses that show Saddam to be utterly unaware, and incapable of, involvement in 9/11. This does not change the fact that:

#1: Saddam's Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism.
#2: Saddam had, and used WMD's.

Now, I am not chanting anything but those two items...and those two items are IRREFUTABLE.

The chanting of mantras I leave to the left. Their mantra is:
"There are NO WMD's" and "Saddam has NO link to 9/11"

Their mantra is wishfull thinking at best. Mine is fact.

-z Next, you'll be telling us that this was a humanitarian mission, and WMD and links to terrorism don't matter anyways...

Zero

13th January 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Some definitions would be helpful here...

The NATO definition of a chemical agent is: "A chemical substance which is intended for use in military operations to kill, seriously injure or incapacitate people because of its physiological effects. Excluded from this definition are riot control agents, herbicides, smoke and flame.
The commonly used definition of WMD is 'nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon'. So?

epepke

13th January 2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Troll
Sorry to hijack your post like this.[/b]

No problem. You did it respectfully, which is probably more than I deserved, because I was being a wise-ass, as usual.

I'm not sure what side of the whole thing you'd have taken, but itpresented a very clear point for my perspective of the issue so I used it.

I'm not sure what side I would have taken either. I've always thought that the issue of taking sides, while sometimes necessary, is secondary to the issue of understanding what happens.

When one has a side that is primary, then it seems automatically to prevent one from understanding. It edits the information coming in. I am both amused and appalled at people who carry around virtual magic-markered histories. People who cannot remember that Saddam Hussein lobbed missiles into Israel for no good reason always seem to be able to get right to the page about Nicaragua.

This kind of stupefaction frightens me, and I try to avoid it when possible, because what is the point of being on a side if the cost is effectively a functional psychosis?

DrChinese

13th January 2004, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Once again, I am not attempting to justify anything in this thread, I am merely interested in how people would respond to my question... what quantity of chemical weaponry would be needed to consider Saddam in possession of chemical weapons ?
An interesting response by Dr. Chinese, claiming that any quantity of chemical weaponry less than 100 tons isn't considered to be chemical weapons.

No, that is not what I said. I said that to justify the invasion of Iraq on the basis of WMDs, the administration needs to present evidence that its claims in this regards were correct. The administration asserted a specific fact - that Saddam was an immediate (not future) threat to the US and the world due to the possession of WMDs. If there was no threat, then the invasion on such grounds was not justified.

There was never any question in most minds that Saddam violated the letter of UN resolutions in some manner or another. The question was whether there was any point to doing something about it. Other countries did not see the point, and frankly, neither did the American public until 2002. The threat angle was a new item thrown in the mix by the Bush administration at that time, and it is clear (to me) that it was entirely fabricated. The failure to find the stated WMDs is proof of this.

epepke

13th January 2004, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Cain

No, it's not that simple because the case for invasion rested on the notion that Iraq posed a threat.

That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is this:

Iraq was in violation of an agreement because their legal representatives signed an agreement and violated it, because that's what the word "violation" means.

"Crime" describes a subset of the set described by "violation." That is, not all violations are crimes, but all crimes are violations. I have already stated in plain English said I think "crime" a bit too strong to apply here. If that isn't clear enough, it's because "crime" implies the existence of a criminal court, which I don't think exists at an international level.

"Threat" and "violation" are different words. You can tell them apart with the naked eye.

If that still isn't clear,

1) Not all violations or crimes are threats. Bathing a mule in Vermont is a crime, but it is probably not a threat.

2) Not all threats are crimes or violations. Pointing a weapon at a perpetrator of a forcible felony in Florida is a threat but not a crime or violation.

The US possession of chemical weapons is not a violation, because there is no agreement that it violates. Whether it is a threat or not is a separate issue. The Iraqi possession of chemical weapons is a violation because there is a ceasefire agreement that it violates. Whether that is a threat or not is again a separate issue. It really is that simple.

How many times do I have to write this before I see evidence of a neuron firing? There exists history, according to which, possession of chemical weapons by Iraq is a violation. There does not exist such history according to which possession of chemical weapons by the US is a violation. Whether buried weapons are classifiable as being active or disposed of is again a separate issue.

If this is still unclear, I have to resort to suggesting that you call your local public library and ask about literacy programs.

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by DrChinese

No, that is not what I said. I said that to justify the invasion of Iraq on the basis of WMDs, the administration needs to present evidence that its claims in this regards were correct.

Weirdly enough, I agree with you.

But let's remember that WMD was not an existential issue. There were many more and varied reasons to invade Iraq, whether or not the administration chose to list them in public.

Let's just say for fun's sake, that we're the police. We have a complaint from various children of sexual abuse at the hands of Micheal Jackson. We take this seriously enough to get a warrant to search Jackson's house for evidence. We find no evidence of child sexual abuse, but we do find several mutilated bodies in his own private torture chamber.

Now, since we "invaded" his house expressly because of the first allegations, it is still true "That to justify the invasion of Mr. Jackson's house on the basis of child sexual abuse the police need(s) to present evidence that its claims in this regards were correct. "

However, this "truth" will not stop us from prosecuting him for his other crimes. In fact, the "invasion" was justified by the fact that a murderer was stopped and jailed.

Not a perfect analogy, I admit....but apt. (Most police/military analogies don't really work because of a vast difference in their respective rules...but bear with me) If the invasion were truly unjustified, we should give Mr. Hussein a haircut and new suit, and put him back on his throne with a hearty apology and a vast amount of reparations money. This won't happen, so don't hold your breath. Almost everyone in the world is thankful he's gone....even those who think the invasion was "unjust".

-z

Leroy

13th January 2004, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Whether the war was justified or not is another question. I just want to make sure everyone is in agreement that those who ridiculed the idea of Saddam hiding chemical weapons were wrong. He had them, a few of which have been found. Time will tell how many have been hidden, and how significant of a threat they were.

:D So, the U.S. has chemical weapons. The question is, Was Saddam a threat to the U.S?

Suddenly

13th January 2004, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Weirdly enough, I agree with you.

But let's remember that WMD was not an existential issue. There were many more and varied reasons to invade Iraq, whether or not the administration chose to list them in public.

Let's just say for fun's sake, that we're the police. We have a complaint from various children of sexual abuse at the hands of Micheal Jackson. We take this seriously enough to get a warrant to search Jackson's house for evidence. We find no evidence of child sexual abuse, but we do find several mutilated bodies in his own private torture chamber.

Now, since we "invaded" his house expressly because of the first allegations, it is still true "That to justify the invasion of Mr. Jackson's house on the basis of child sexual abusethe police need(s) to present evidence that its claims in this regards were correct. "

However, this "truth" will not stop us from prosecuting him for his other crimes. In fact, the "invasion" was justified by the fact that a murderer was stopped and jailed.

Not a perfect analogy, I admit....but apt. If the invasion were truly unjustified, we should give Mr. Hussein a haircut and new suit, and put him back on his throne with a hearty apology and a vast amount of reparations money. This won't happen, so don't hold your breath. Almost everyone in the world is thankful he's gone....even those who think the invasion was "unjust".

-z

This analogy fails on one material fact. We and everyone else were aware of Saddam's regimes treatment of his own people, and the world, while not approving of this, did not find the sufficient reason to invade.

The criminal investigation analogy breaks down on this point, in that in this scenerio our invasion was based on self defense, not law enforcement. Your argument seems to be, if you factor in the above that:

1) Everyone knows X is going on, and would like to stop it.
2) Most agree the cost of invading to stop X is not worth it, and other means are preferred.

-- This seems the state we inherited, you (or I) may disagree with #2, but that is the general sense --

3) Most agree an invasion is worth it to stop Y.
4) So, the U.S. claims Y is going on, so lets stop X and Y.
5) U.S. invades
6) Whoops!! There is no Y. Sorry about that!!
7) You have no right to complain unless you liked X, because we got rid of that as well.

Now, this is where the relative culpability w/r/t the lack of Y comes in. If it is an honest mistake, then examine and correct the cause of the error, and accept responsibility. It becomes a mitigating factor.

If it turns out that Y was a pretext, this is fraud pure and simple.

However, to claim that there is no harm because we got rid of X ignores the fraud induced consent. The ends do not justify the means.

Nasarius

13th January 2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Whenever someone talks about Bush and the claim about WMDs, I think they should put an ellipses after Bush's name to show that he wasn't the only one. So Tricky, your statement would read "I think BushCo...knew that to be true, which is why they exaggerated them."

A more complete statement being, "I think BushCo, Clinton, various Democratic and Republican Congressmen and Senators, Germany, France, England, the United Nations, and many others, knew that to be true, which is why they exaggerated them."

Why are Germany, France, and the UN on that list?

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

This analogy fails on one material fact. We and everyone else were aware of Saddam's regimes treatment of his own people, and the world, while not approving of this, did not find the sufficient reason to invade.

The criminal investigation analogy breaks down on this point, in that in this scenerio our invasion was based on self defense, not law enforcement. Your argument seems to be, if you factor in the above that:

1) Everyone knows X is going on, and would like to stop it.
2) Most agree the cost of invading to stop X is not worth it, and other means are preferred.

-- This seems the state we inherited, you (or I) may disagree with #2, but that is the general sense --

3) Most agree an invasion is worth it to stop Y.
4) So, the U.S. claims Y is going on, so lets stop X and Y.
5) U.S. invades
6) Whoops!! There is no Y. Sorry about that!!
7) You have no right to complain unless you liked X, because we got rid of that as well.

Now, this is where the relative culpability w/r/t the lack of Y comes in. If it is an honest mistake, then examine and correct the cause of the error, and accept responsibility. It becomes a mitigating factor.

If it turns out that Y was a pretext, this is fraud pure and simple.

However, to claim that there is no harm because we got rid of X ignores the fraud induced consent. The ends do not justify the means.

I agree with almost everything you said. With one very large exception.

If the ends are to successfully thwart the use of a WMD to cause mass casualties in the thousands, (best case)...to possibly the hundreds of thousands. (worst case) Then the means fraud or mistake is indeed justified.

Now the only reason I say this is because the stakes are so high. Lower the stakes and I agree with you 100%.

There are many courageous people who would rather die than subvert their principles even once. While this is honorable, it's also short-sighted and suicidal. On a national scale such self-sacrifice on the altar of our principles would be insanity.

So at worst GWB and company perpetrated a fraud upon the American people (and the world at large) in order to get support for removing a regime that:

#1. Sponsored Terrorism.
and
#2. Has possessed and used WMD's.

You and I may not like it, but I can live with it. Here's how I live with it; I have no illusions that government will always tell the truth. I have no illusions that wars are fought like crime, with enemies endowed with "rights". I have no illusions that the ends never justify the means.

-z

Luke T.

13th January 2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Nasarius

Why are Germany, France, and the UN on that list?

Because I did not feel like listing all the countries that signed Resolution 1441. (http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement)

clk

13th January 2004, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

His past is not at issue.

Well, you called the democrats cowards, which is an assault on their character. I provided you with an example of why that was a false assessment by appraising Bush's character. You cannot fully judge someone's character if you do not know their past, so who's to say that the past isn't the issue? But that is a minor point and this topic is tangent to the original debate.

To get back to the WMD issue...
I think there are basically two viewpoints on this: there are those that believe that Bush knew there were no WMDs but went to war anyways, and there are those that think Bush sincerely believed Iraq had WMDs and that is one reason he went to war. Now, regardless of what you believe, you have to agree that we have not found any substantial caches of these WMDs, despite all of the intelligence that suggested otherwise. WMDs were the main reason we went to war, and 8000 Iraqi lives, over 450 American lives, and billions upon billions of dollars were lost in the search of WMDs. Now I consider this to be the largest intelligence failure in the history of the country (besides 9/11). So why doesn't Bush want to reform the entire intelligence platform, seeing that it has failed us monumentally in the past few years? If there is another large scale attack on the US, it may be because Bush has failed to reform the intelligence community, even though he knew it was in serious need of repair.

Suddenly

13th January 2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

You and I may not like it, but I can live with it. Here's how I live with it; I have no illusions that government will always tell the truth. I have no illusions that wars are fought like crime, with enemies endowed with "rights". I have no illusions that the ends never justify the means.

-z

I guess that is the core "opinion gulf" in this whole thing.

If one believes (pre-invasion) Iraq to be a danger, then your position seems reasonable, if not necessary.

If you do not believe Iraq a danger, then it seems a bit scary.

Since the core question is pretty much mooted by the invasion, there really can never be a conclusive answer. However, that presuppostition is going to affect all further positions taken on the subject, as you reflect above.

I agree with the last thing you said, as far as it is a reflection of practical reality.

However, it would be a lousy statement of principle. Government should not lie to it's people to sway opinion, and we should be very suspicious of such activity.

I have no idea how the rights of the enemy enters into it. Any objection I have to the war does not include concern for any "rights" of Saddam, in any way shape or form. I'm not sure anyone that is concerned for Saddam's "rights" is being reasonable. I fear you may be projecting that position a bit. There may be the occasional loony that actually thinks Saddam got a raw deal, but you may be equating dislike for U.S. action to support for the object of that action, and in this case that doesn't necessarily follow.

The "ends justifying the means" thing was a bit loose of me. A better way of putting it would be that: "It is not a good idea to focus solely on the ends and ignore the direct and collateral consequences of the means." Or, in redneckspeak: "Don't burn down the barn to roast the pig."

Cain

13th January 2004, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by epepke
That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is this:

Iraq was in violation of an agreement because their legal representatives signed an agreement and violated it, because that's what the word "violation" means.

I've said that doesn't matter. If you want, look at the original paragraph, where you won't see the word "crime". The paragraph you refer to was a glib clarification, and if you object to the use of that solitary word, fine, becasue it's not critical to what I'm establishing.

The US possession of chemical weapons is not a violation, because there is no agreement that it violates. Whether it is a threat or not is a separate issue. The Iraqi possession of chemical weapons is a violation because there is a ceasefire agreement that it violates. Whether that is a threat or not is again a separate issue. It really is that simple.

Great. And I'm discussing the administration's reasons for going to war.

How many times do I have to write this before I see evidence of a neuron firing? There exists history, according to which, possession of chemical weapons by Iraq is a violation. There does not exist such history according to which possession of chemical weapons by the US is a violation. Whether buried weapons are classifiable as being active or disposed of is again a separate issue. If this is still unclear, I have to resort to suggesting that you call your local public library and ask about literacy programs.

Look into buying a clue. Instead of addressing anything I've said, because it's rather plain and obvious, you choose to dwell on the sentence where I explain, so as to be as obvious as possible toward the larger point: "I'm sayin the US has them and that's not a crime, right?" A person nods yes and we move on. Not too difficult.

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by clk

Well, you called the democrats cowards, which is an assault on their character.
Sure I did, and it was substantiated by their own words. If they were in power (they were) and if they believed what they said themselves about Saddam and WMD's (one would hope that they did) then why did they not act??

I guess they did wipe out Osama's sinister asprin factory eh? Maybe their plan was that Osama would suffer debilitating headaches, and that would protect us??

I assaulted their character over the issue of Iraq. I did not, nor would I use Iraq to assail the memory of Roosevelt, and other past dems. (that would be a little insane wouldn't it?)

You then brought up GWB's shameful 'Nam record. I agree, it's shameful. Now, I must ask you (and did) what the heck that has to do with the dems and their failure to do anything about a danger in Iraq that they acknowledged!!?

To get back to the WMD issue...
I think there are basically two viewpoints on this: there are those that believe that Bush knew there were no WMDs but went to war anyways, and there are those that think Bush sincerely believed Iraq had WMDs and that is one reason he went to war. Now, regardless of what you believe, you have to agree that we have not found any substantial caches of these WMDs, despite all of the intelligence that suggested otherwise. WMDs were the main reason we went to war, and 8000 Iraqi lives, over 450 American lives, and billions upon billions of dollars were lost in the search of WMDs. Now I consider this to be the largest intelligence failure in the history of the country (besides 9/11). So why doesn't Bush want to reform the entire intelligence platform, seeing that it has failed us monumentally in the past few years? If there is another large scale attack on the US, it may be because Bush has failed to reform the intelligence community, even though he knew it was in serious need of repair.

You are talking about subjective beliefs. You don't know that Bush lied....You don't know that he didn't. You "believe". Well, I and others can "believe" as well....we just choose to believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified on many different levels. In the absence of further hard evidence my belief is just as valid as anyone elses, and there's even more evidence to support it (see my earlier posts for the two undisputable facts that leftists want to forget.)
As for your idea that our intel apparatus must be reformed; isn't it just possible that we'd be better served by tweaking the system instead of wholesale slaughter of scapegoats??
-z

rikzilla

13th January 2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly

I guess that is the core "opinion gulf" in this whole thing.

If one believes (pre-invasion) Iraq to be a danger, then your position seems reasonable, if not necessary.

If you do not believe Iraq a danger, then it seems a bit scary.

Since the core question is pretty much mooted by the invasion, there really can never be a conclusive answer. However, that presuppostition is going to affect all further positions taken on the subject, as you reflect above.

I agree with the last thing you said, as far as it is a reflection of practical reality.

However, it would be a lousy statement of principle. Government should not lie to it's people to sway opinion, and we should be very suspicious of such activity.

I have no idea how the rights of the enemy enters into it. Any objection I have to the war does not include concern for any "rights" of Saddam, in any way shape or form. I'm not sure anyone that is concerned for Saddam's "rights" is being reasonable. I fear you may be projecting that position a bit. There may be the occasional loony that actually thinks Saddam got a raw deal, but you may be equating dislike for U.S. action to support for the object of that action, and in this case that doesn't necessarily follow.

The "ends justifying the means" thing was a bit loose of me. A better way of putting it would be that: "It is not a good idea to focus solely on the ends and ignore the direct and collateral consequences of the means." Or, in redneckspeak: "Don't burn down the barn to roast the pig."

great post my friend. :)

We may not agree, but I think we understand each other as perfectly as this medium will allow.

-z

epepke

13th January 2004, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Cain

I've said that doesn't matter. If you want, look at the original paragraph, where you won't see the word "crime". The paragraph you refer to was a glib clarification, and if you object to the use of that solitary word, fine, becasue it's not critical to what I'm establishing.

Look, here is the original paragraph, which I responded to:

I'm not saying the U.S. is going to use them. I'm sayin the US has them and that's not a crime, right? Everyone within the two major parties and the mainstream is unapologetic about the U.S. possessing weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because, presumably, we're not going to use them to threaten and kill innocent people. This is something I would think you'd readily agree with. Now, Iraq is different because the murderous dictator wants to harm others. Right? He threatens our way of life, right? Okay, so how can he be so threatening if these chemical weapons have been buried for ten years? If it's not really usable, is it a weapon of mass destruction?

I am not making this up; it is a strict copy-and-paste job without editing. This really is how the paragraph I responded to appeared in my browser.

Would it, like, give you an embolism or something to admit that you mistyped "crime" when you really meant "threat"? I'm sure it was an honest mistake. I'm not trying to nail you to a cross. I make mistakes while writing postings all the time, and I always cheerfully admit it when caught.

If "crime" was not what you were trying to say, then just say so!

But if you want to insist once again that the word "crime" does not appear in that paragraph, when even the grep utility can find it and it's right in front of your nose, then how the hell do you expect anyone to take any of your perceptions seriously?

I think this is worthwhile for me to follow up on, because, in my experience, few people make as many errors as those who can't stand to admit having made errors.

If you don't like being the target of sarcasm, then don't get all shirty about it in the first place. Just correct and clarify the damn mistake and move on! Or not. Whatever you like.

Cain

13th January 2004, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by epepke
Would it, like, give you an embolism or something to admit that you mistyped "crime" when you really meant "threat"? I'm sure it was an honest mistake. I'm not trying to nail you to a cross. I make mistakes while writing postings all the time, and I always cheerfully admit it when caught.

If "crime" was not what you were trying to say, then just say so!

But if you want to insist once again that the word "crime" does not appear in that paragraph, when even the grep utility can find it and it's right in front of your nose, then how the hell do you expect anyone to take any of your perceptions seriously?

No, I was referring to the original paragraph, the one that came before that. The one that Troll first took issue with..

It's been quoted several times, and if you look, spawned this uninteresting digression:

"Now, the United States possesses chemical weapons. Britain possesses chemical weapons. This is all in far greater quantities. The reason, presumably, as to why we can have them is that we're not going to use them against innocent people. The 36 mortar shells or whatever that were recently discovered, were those going to be used against anyone any time soon? The W.M.D. claim is integral to the White House's case for making war. It's the primary reason for invasion"

The paragraph you quote -- the one containing the word "crime" -- is an explanation that came afterward. It's a subsequent paragraph.

I think this is worthwhile for me to follow up on, because, in my experience, few people make as many errors as those who can't stand to admit having made errors.

If you don't like being the target of sarcasm, then don't get all shirty about it in the first place. Just correct and clarify the damn mistake and move on! Or not. Whatever you like.

Finally, crime has many different meanings in different contexts. In that sentence it's not difficult to understand what I meant.

These simple confusions can be prevented if you just read the text. Look at the first paragraph. Note the informal langauge "I'm not sayin..."

LFTKBS

14th January 2004, 11:43 AM

Tests on Iraqi Shells Find No Chemical Agent (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108390,00.html)

From the ultra-liberal Fox News. This is not a conclusive finding, but something for rik and crackmonkey to think about.

rikzilla

14th January 2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Tests on Iraqi Shells Find No Chemical Agent (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108390,00.html)

From the ultra-liberal Fox News. This is not a conclusive finding, but something for rik and crackmonkey to think about.

Well,

There was an infamous story from WWII that the Nazis were creating mass amounts of bar-soap from the charred remains of Jews. The story was a horrible, yet believable anecdote from the extermination camps. It was also untrue.

The fact that the Jew-soap story was untrue was used by deniers, aka "historical revisionists" to bolster their wild claims that the entire Holocaust was a fabrication as well. It wasn't.

Therefore we know that one or two items or instances will neither prove nor disprove the WMD case in Iraq.

The thousands of dead Kurdish people who's bloated bodies were seen by the entire world on tv go much farther toward showing what evil Saddam's regime was capable of. Just as the heaps of bodies in the extermination camps belie the claims of Nazi apologists and deniers.

Did Saddam possess WMD? He not only possessed these weapons, he used them. Did he possess them still prior to the invasion? That's the million dollar question. I don't know. I do know that there was a very large consensus in America and around the world that thought he did. After 9/11 did we want to play "wait and see" with terrorists who have begun to think way outside the box? I think we know the answer to that question.

Of course we still have not heard the last word on this issue. From the link you provided:
Preliminary tests on the plastic-wrapped but damaged shells showed they contained a liquid blister agent. But initial tests by field troops are designed to favor a positive reading, erring on the side of caution to protect soldiers. More sophisticated tests are often necessary.

Some Iraqis have told Danish soldiers that other mortar shells were buried in the area, including a stockpile dumped in the Tigris River that could contain as many as 400 rounds, Gruenberger said.

Danish engineers will start investigating those sites after they are done with the present case, he said.

My mind remains open on the issue as long as work is still on-going. As I stated in my thread on UNSC res 687, my own opinion on justification for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam was based on his refusal to honor the terms of Gulf War 1's cease fire. Personally I think GWB should have put forth a wider base of justification including, but not relying upon WMD presence. There were alot of good reasons to go get this guy. WMD was just one.

If it turns out his WMD stockpiles were a "jewish-soap" story, I'll be concerned about our ability to generate good intel. I won't, however, be concerned that the US did any disservice to the Iraqi people or the world at large.

-z

LFTKBS

14th January 2004, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla There was an infamous story from WWII that the Nazis were creating mass amounts of bar-soap from the charred remains of Jews. The story was a horrible, yet believable anecdote from the extermination camps. It was also untrue.

The fact that the Jew-soap story was untrue was used by deniers, aka "historical revisionists" to bolster their wild claims that the entire Holocaust was a fabrication as well. It wasn't.

Therefore we know that one or two items or instances will neither prove nor disprove the WMD case in Iraq.

I'm not sure that I follow the comparision. The making of bar soap was not the only evidence that Nazi Germany was as close to pure evil as it gets, whereas the presence or absence of weapons of mass destruction will be the only evidence we have as to, well, whether or not Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The thousands of dead Kurdish people who's bloated bodies were seen by the entire world on tv go much farther toward showing what evil Saddam's regime was capable of. Just as the heaps of bodies in the extermination camps belie the claims of Nazi apologists and deniers.

The war was never about liberating the Iraqi people. It was only presented that way after the fact. Look, I know Hussein was a bad man. You know he was a bad man. But you don't kill thousands of people - one's servicepeople and innocent "enemy" civilians - to end the rule of a bad man. I know this because Karimov is in power and is touchy-feely with the Bush Administration while he boils people to death. (http://www.abc.net.au/am/s661687.htm)

Did Saddam possess WMD? He not only possessed these weapons, he used them.

Chemical weapons, while illegal and horrible, are not necessarily weapons of mass destruction. Dead is dead. You don't get more dead when you're killed with nerve gas instead of a bullet to the temple.

If Hussein truly had weapons of mass destruction, like nuclear weapons aimed at Washington, D.C., I guarantee you there would have been no second Gulf War. We crippled his ability to develop these weapons.

Did he possess them still prior to the invasion? That's the million dollar question.

If he had them, why didn't he use them? If he didn't have them, then this war was predicated on lies. If he did, and didn't use them even as Baghdad fell, they weren't much of a threat.

I don't know. I do know that there was a very large consensus in America and around the world that thought he did. After 9/11 did we want to play "wait and see" with terrorists who have begun to think way outside the box? I think we know the answer to that question.

You're conflating The War on Terror with the Gulf War again. In addition, this "very large consensus" you refer to must be the "Coalition of the Willing," comprised of 34/197 of the world's countries. That's a little over 17%. The total populations of the CotW comprise about 10% of the world's population.

Of course we still have not heard the last word on this issue. From the link you provided:

I know. But I'm a little tired of these "WMD FOUND!!!1" stories when it turns out that it was just a half-empty bottle of Prell that was thrown out of Saddam's Mercedes.

My mind remains open on the issue as long as work is still on-going. As I stated in my thread on UNSC res 687, my own opinion on justification for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam was based on his refusal to honor the terms of Gulf War 1's cease fire. Personally I think GWB should have put forth a wider base of justification including, but not relying upon WMD presence. There were alot of good reasons to go get this guy. WMD was just one.

There were a lot of reasons that Hussein should not have been in power. There are far fewer reasons for subverting democratic principles, alienating one's allies, wasting international goodwill, and killing innocent people to do so.

If it turns out his WMD stockpiles were a "jewish-soap" story, I'll be concerned about our ability to generate good intel. I won't, however, be concerned that the US did any disservice to the Iraqi people or the world at large.

This should concern you. (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/lewis1.jpg)

So should this. (http://www.teshreen.com/daily/images%5Cth04-03/fi002-1.jpg)

peptoabysmal

14th January 2004, 09:58 PM

Cain

14th January 2004, 10:18 PM

I've been reading and re-reading the Bush administration's justifications for the war on Iraq, up to and including that infamous State of the Union address. I am becoming convinced that the language used in those speeches and releases were a build-up to a pre-emptive strike. If this is indeed the case, then it is a moot point whether or not WMD were, are or will be found. It's pre-emptive, duh.

As I may have explained earlier in this very thread, the Bush administration confused preemption with prevention.

Conservative and neo-realist Kenneth N. Waltz explains:

In the first case, in the first instance, one wants to point out that the word "preemption" here is entirely misleading. "Preemption" by its dictionary usage, by its common usage among people who think about military strategy, is what occurs when you have good and very strong reasons for believing that the adversary is just about to strike. And you strike. This would make sense if you knew that, and knew it pretty much for sure, to strike first.

He adds:

Now, we have no reason to think that Saddam Hussein is about to strike anybody -- not anybody in the region, let alone Europe or the United States. I mean, that's entirely fanciful. So it's not a case for preemption. The question is, is it a case for prevention? The rationale of prevention is that over time, the adversary will become so strong that you'd better fight him earlier while he's relatively weak and you can win easily, instead of waiting until he becomes strong, and then you would have a more difficult war. Well, Iraq is so weak! Its gross domestic [product] is $15 billion. We're spending almost $400 billion on our military alone. I mean, it's a pitifully weak country. Much weaker than it was in 1991, when we fought the Gulf War. And we know that. American military estimates bear that out.

peptoabysmal

14th January 2004, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Cain

As I may have explained earlier in this very thread, the Bush administration confused preemption with prevention.

Conservative and neo-realist Kenneth N. Waltz explains:

He adds:

I've never heard of a preventive strike, unless it's on tooth decay. IIRC, it means the same thing. My military lingo may be a bit out of date, though. Iraq may have not been currently a threat, because the US and the UN were keeping an eye on Saddam. How long should we have kept monitoring Saddam, doing fly-overs and strategic missile attacks? How long do you keep a rabid dog caged before you do the humane thing and perform euthanasia?

The Fool

14th January 2004, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I've been reading and re-reading the Bush administration's justifications for the war on Iraq, up to and including that infamous State of the Union address. I am becoming convinced that the language used in those speeches and releases were a build-up to a pre-emptive strike. If this is indeed the case, then it is a moot point whether or not WMD were, are or will be found. It's pre-emptive, duh.

Then the argument becomes whether or not a pre-emptive strike was justified, not whether or not WMD are found. Also, in the case of a pre-emptive strike, obviously the UN could not be enlisted to join the cause. The UN doesn't do pre-emptive strikes.

Any thoughts?
Quick! PM rik all your thoughts on this...he needs a new position asap. The persistant lack of WMD is slowly driving him mad.

fishbob

14th January 2004, 11:39 PM

peptoabysmal: Then the argument becomes whether or not a pre-emptive strike was justified, not whether or not WMD are found. Also, in the case of a pre-emptive strike, obviously the UN could not be enlisted to join the cause. The UN doesn't do pre-emptive strikes. I think you have boiled the whole issue down to a simple and easy to assess problem.

However, as Kenneth N. Waltz explained: Now, we have no reason to think that Saddam Hussein is about to strike anybody -- not anybody in the region, let alone Europe or the United States. I mean, that's entirely fanciful. So it's not a case for preemption. The question is, is it a case for prevention? The rationale of prevention is that over time, the adversary will become so strong that you'd better fight him earlier while he's relatively weak and you can win easily, instead of waiting until he becomes strong, and then you would have a more difficult war. Well, Iraq is so weak! Given that Waltz analysis is correct, pre-emptive vs preventive matters very little. What matters is that there was no real threat.

If Waltz is not correct, and there were real threats, I want to see the evidence. If the evidence is convincing, I will change my sig.

rikzilla

15th January 2004, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Quick! PM rik all your thoughts on this...he needs a new position asap. The persistant lack of WMD is slowly driving him mad.

The only thing driving me crazy are people obsessed with a single issue. Okay, so far WMD in massive quantaties have not been found. So what? Are you really so myopic as to think that there existed no other reason? Perhaps the other reasons were not as sexy as WMD, but they are there regardless. Perhaps you think we'd all have been better served if Saddam was left alone to do his thing, whatever that thing was?

For instance; Do you believe the Israeli airstrike against the Iraqi breeder-reactor at Tulwaitha back in the 80's was justified at the time? The UNSC (including the US) deplored the pre-emptive strike....yet who can now argue that the Israelis did not do themselves and the world a huge favor that day?

Personally I shudder to think what the world would be like today were there not brave people willing to do what must be done regardless of the political fallout.

-z

DrChinese

15th January 2004, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

The only thing driving me crazy are people obsessed with a single issue. Okay, so far WMD in massive quantaties have not been found. So what? Are you really so myopic as to think that there existed no other reason? Perhaps the other reasons were not as sexy as WMD, but they are there regardless. Perhaps you think we'd all have been better served if Saddam was left alone to do his thing, whatever that thing was?

How can we go to war and not know the central issue? Just try to explain today why we went to war in Vietnam and make it make sense. You can't.

The fact is, supporters of the war may have had different reasons for going to war, I agree with that. But when each is examined individually in detail, THEY FAIL. If these reasons for the Iraq invasion are eliminated:

a) Saddam has WMDs which he plans to use against the US in the immediate future (which we know is false);
b) Iraq supports Al-Qaeda's terrorism (which even Bush denies);
c) Iraq violated UNSC mandates (which the UNSC did not want the US to enforce);

...then all you have left really is that Saddam is a dictator who violates the basic human rights of some of his people. You and I agree on this point. But you cannot justify war on this basis, or we will be at war with most of the world.

Mr Manifesto

15th January 2004, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

The only thing driving me crazy are people obsessed with a single issue. Okay, so far WMD in massive quantaties have not been found. So what? Are you really so myopic as to think that there existed no other reason? Perhaps the other reasons were not as sexy as WMD, but they are there regardless. Perhaps you think we'd all have been better served if Saddam was left alone to do his thing, whatever that thing was?

For instance; Do you believe the Israeli airstrike against the Iraqi breeder-reactor at Tulwaitha back in the 80's was justified at the time? The UNSC (including the US) deplored the pre-emptive strike....yet who can now argue that the Israelis did not do themselves and the world a huge favor that day?

Personally I shudder to think what the world would be like today were there not brave people willing to do what must be done regardless of the political fallout.

-z

What you seem to be saying is that it's the US's job to decide who runs what country. But, guess what? It isn't. No-one asked you to be the world's policemen before 18 March 2003, and no-one's asking now.

If "Taking down Saddam" was all the reason Bush needed, why didn't he concentrate on that instead of crapping on about WMD's that weren't and invoking images of 9/11?

Andonyx

15th January 2004, 07:55 AM

Just to point this out as a sidenote:

It appears for the time being that the shells found in Iraq contained no chemical agents designed for weapons purposes after all:

CAMP EDEN, Iraq - Tests by Danish and American experts indicate there is no chemical warfare agent in mortar shells unearthed in southern Iraq, but conclusive word will only come from a lab in Idaho. Earlier examinations had indicated a blister agent was in the shells, which apparently date to the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/world/7708636.htm

Odd source I know, but I imagine it's only a matter of time until it's AP.

Ah, here's an at least more mainstream source:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108390,00.html

rikzilla

15th January 2004, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

What you seem to be saying is that it's the US's job to decide who runs what country. But, guess what? It isn't. No-one asked you to be the world's policemen before 18 March 2003, and no-one's asking now.

If "Taking down Saddam" was all the reason Bush needed, why didn't he concentrate on that instead of crapping on about WMD's that weren't and invoking images of 9/11?

For the same reason I lost alot of money on Worldcom stock. Intel showed one thing, reality showed another. He bet on what he thought was the strongest horse issue. Guess what, that horse was not alone on the racetrack.

Life is regularly a bit of a gamble, more than a bit actually. Do you disagree? Why did Bret Favre throw that interception in overtime last weekend? I suppose you think he planned it that way? Have you seen that master card commercial starring Bret? Where he walks around saying "I'd have done it this way" and I'd have double-bagged that" ??...and the tag line is "Monday Morning Quarterbacks.. priceless."

That's what you guys are. Second guessers, backseat drivers, ankle-biters, gadflies. You still have not been able to do the one thing that would win me over to your position. Show me that the invasion of Iraq was a bad thing to do to the world in general, and the Iraqi people in particular.

Good luck. :rolleyes:
-z

pgwenthold

15th January 2004, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Andonyx
Just to point this out as a sidenote:

It appears for the time being that the shells found in Iraq contained no chemical agents designed for weapons purposes after all:

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/world/7708636.htm

Odd source I know, but I imagine it's only a matter of time until it's AP.

Ah, here's an at least more mainstream source:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108390,00.html [/B]

Apparently the 48 hour rule has to be extended a little bit.

I have been waiting for confirmation since the first announcement. Once again, much hulabaloo about nothing.

Mr Manifesto

15th January 2004, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

For the same reason I lost alot of money on Worldcom stock. Intel showed one thing, reality showed another. He bet on what he thought was the strongest horse issue. Guess what, that horse was not alone on the racetrack.

Life is regularly a bit of a gamble, more than a bit actually. Do you disagree? Why did Bret Favre throw that interception in overtime last weekend? I suppose you think he planned it that way? Have you seen that master card commercial starring Bret? Where he walks around saying "I'd have done it this way" and I'd have double-bagged that" ??...and the tag line is "Monday Morning Quarterbacks.. priceless."

That's what you guys are. Second guessers, backseat drivers, ankle-biters, gadflies. You still have not been able to do the one thing that would win me over to your position. Show me that the invasion of Iraq was a bad thing to do to the world in general, and the Iraqi people in particular.

Good luck. :rolleyes:
-z

Oh, really? Why don't you look at the posts on this board (but not mine because I wasn't posting then. You'll have to take my word on my opinions of the war) prior to the Iraqi war. Or, look at what Scott Ritter was saying well before the war. There were many, including myself, who said that if Saddam had WMD's, they did not pose an immediate threat to anyone. We also said there were no ties to Al-Qaeda. Therefore, there was no justification for unilateral action.

For my part, this wasn't merely voiced through blogs or BB postings. I went to as many protests as I was able to, in order to show my opposition to the war. Unfortunately, that's all I was legally able to do. I only wish I could have done more.

But guess what? We "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" were right, and you were wrong. Saddam was not an immediate threat. He did not support Al-Qaeda (Sasquatch findings notwithstanding).

Another funny thing. I laughed as a friend of mine dropped ten thou on a dotcom. I said at the time, "You're putting money into something that has no liquid assets". He lost the lot. The company was called LibertyOne, if you're intrested. Another example of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking". Either that, or just simple commonsense.

rikzilla

15th January 2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Oh, really? Why don't you look at the posts on this board (but not mine because I wasn't posting then. You'll have to take my word on my opinions of the war) prior to the Iraqi war. Or, look at what Scott Ritter was saying well before the war. There were many, including myself, who said that if Saddam had WMD's, they did not pose an immediate threat to anyone. We also said there were no ties to Al-Qaeda. Therefore, there was no justification for unilateral action.

Was that before or after Scott Ritter was arrested for luring children across state linefor the purpose of sex? It may make no difference to anything, but it's interesting how he was singing a different tune prior to his arrest:
From Scott Ritter's book, "EndGame":
#8. UNSCOM 227 inspection (from Ritter's book Endgame) uncovered Iraqi documents detailing biological and chemical agent testing done on humans. (political prisoners)...Endgame page 180.

#10. Mukhabarat terrorism "school" inadvertently found by UNSCOM 150 inspection team in 1996. (not part of UNSCOM mandated mission...not WMD's...just terror/torture etc...the issue of this find was not taken up by the UNSC) page 120 "Endgame.

...the above cut and pasted here from my post on ]UNSC Resolution 687. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12904&highlight=since+inception)

For my part, this wasn't merely voiced through blogs or BB postings. I went to as many protests as I was able to, in order to show my opposition to the war. Unfortunately, that's all I was legally able to do. I only wish I could have done more.

Nor was I, I read books, one of which was Mr. Ritter's. I did not learn from street protest, I learned from the public library. Not as sexy, I know. :rolleyes:

But guess what? We "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" were right, and you were wrong. Saddam was not an immediate threat. He did not support Al-Qaeda (Sasquatch findings notwithstanding).
Guess what? Monday morning quarterbacks are always right. Aren't they? :rolleyes:

Another funny thing. I laughed as a friend of mine dropped ten thou on a dotcom. I said at the time, "You're putting money into something that has no liquid assets". He lost the lot. The company was called LibertyOne, if you're intrested. Another example of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking". Either that, or just simple commonsense.

I'm sure you find it funny that some people gambled and lost on dotcoms. That's the breaks, and a fair response. However, I am a 20 year employee of the former Worldcom. My 401(k) was tied into it's stock in a too-large way. MCI/Worldcom, as you must be aware, was not a dotcom, it was the second largest Telecom company in the world. Brick and mortar all the way. I lost a large hunk of my retirement fund due to criminal malfeasence. A bit different from betting one's money on a darkhorse and losing. The deck was stacked against me, and all other stockholders. No matter how you cut it MM, that sucks. I'm not going to cry about it, but I'm not going to let you go uncorrected either.

-z

specious_reasons

15th January 2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

For the same reason I lost alot of money on Worldcom stock. Intel showed one thing, reality showed another. He bet on what he thought was the strongest horse issue. Guess what, that horse was not alone on the racetrack.

That's an odd example - Aren't most of the Worldcom execs during that period under investigation for various frauds?

rikzilla

15th January 2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by specious_reasons

That's an odd example - Aren't most of the Worldcom execs during that period under investigation for various frauds?

Nope, Worldcom stock performed at about the same rate as did Microsoft in the 90's. The fraud was going on all through that time. Only when the stock started to tank and Mr. Ebbers started taking hundreds of millions in "loans" did the spotlight start to shine on WCOM. By then though, it was too late for the stockholders.

-z

specious_reasons

15th January 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Nope, Worldcom stock performed at about the same rate as did Microsoft in the 90's. The fraud was going on all through that time. Only when the stock started to tank and Mr. Ebbers started taking hundreds of millions in "loans" did the spotlight start to shine on WCOM. By then though, it was too late for the stockholders.

-z

I understand, your analogy is
Bush:Iraq :: stockholders:Worldcom

My first thought was:
US public:Bush Admin :: stockholders: Worldcom

Based on your positions, that would be a very ironic analogy coming from you:

http://www.securitiesfraudfyi.com/worldcom_fraud.html

Evidence shows that the accounting fraud was discovered as early as June 2001, when several former employees gave statements alleging instances of hiding bad debt, understating costs, and backdating contracts. However, WorldCom's board of directors did not investigate these claims. In June 2001, a shareholder lawsuit was filed against WorldCom, but it was thrown out of court due to lack of evidence.

When the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched its own investigation in March 2002, it was discovered that the prior claims were valid. As a result, the SEC filed a civil fraud lawsuit against WorldCom and federal charges were filed against several executives.
[...]
# Bernard Ebbers – former CEO of WorldCom. Ebbers is suspected in the accounting fraud but no charges have been filed against him.
# Scott Sullivan – former CFO of WorldCom. Sullivan was indicted on charges of securities fraud, conspiracy, and false statements to the SEC.
# David Myers – former controller of WorldCom. Myers is charged with securities fraud, conspiracy, and false statements to the SEC.
# Buford Yates Jr. – former director of general accounting. Yates pled guilty to charges of securities fraud and conspiracy.
# Betty Vinson – former director of management reporting. Vinson pled guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit securities fraud.
# Troy Normand – director of legal entity accounting. Normand pled guilty to securities fraud and conspiracy charges.

Mr Manifesto

15th January 2004, 09:54 AM

EJ Armstrong- Monday Morning Quarterback who called the game on Saturday (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12284)

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong 11 Jan 2003
1/ Is it because he has WOMD. Apparently not because the UN inspectors haven't found any yet. If he really has any why won't the US and the UK supply the details of the location of his WOMD to Hans Blix? And what about all those other countries which actually have WOMD? they don't seem to be military targets at the moment

I doubt he's the only one. You can do a search based on "Scott Ritter" to find those who didn't believe in the WMD tooth fairy before the war.

To summarise; you've lost the 'Monday Morning Quarterback' argument, rik. Time to change the goalposts.

DrChinese

15th January 2004, 10:45 AM

rikzilla

15th January 2004, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by specious_reasons

I understand, your analogy is
Bush:Iraq :: stockholders:Worldcom

My first thought was:
US public:Bush Admin :: stockholders: Worldcom

Based on your positions, that would be a very ironic analogy coming from you:

http://www.securitiesfraudfyi.com/worldcom_fraud.html

That isn't what I meant, but you know that. Irony, my friend, is in the eye of the beholder.

I can have a laugh at my own expense once in awhile, (and this is one topic that REALLY is at my expense), my hat is off to you for you adept mockery of my ill-concieved analogy. :th:

-z

Kodiak

15th January 2004, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Well,

There was an infamous story from WWII that the Nazis were creating mass amounts of bar-soap from the charred remains of Jews. The story was a horrible, yet believable anecdote from the extermination camps. It was also untrue.

The fact that the Jew-soap story was untrue was used by deniers, aka "historical revisionists" to bolster their wild claims that the entire Holocaust was a fabrication as well. It wasn't.

Therefore we know that one or two items or instances will neither prove nor disprove the WMD case in Iraq.

The thousands of dead Kurdish people who's bloated bodies were seen by the entire world on tv go much farther toward showing what evil Saddam's regime was capable of. Just as the heaps of bodies in the extermination camps belie the claims of Nazi apologists and deniers.

Did Saddam possess WMD? He not only possessed these weapons, he used them. Did he possess them still prior to the invasion? That's the million dollar question. I don't know. I do know that there was a very large consensus in America and around the world that thought he did. After 9/11 did we want to play "wait and see" with terrorists who have begun to think way outside the box? I think we know the answer to that question.

Of course we still have not heard the last word on this issue. From the link you provided:

My mind remains open on the issue as long as work is still on-going. As I stated in my thread on UNSC res 687, my own opinion on justification for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam was based on his refusal to honor the terms of Gulf War 1's cease fire. Personally I think GWB should have put forth a wider base of justification including, but not relying upon WMD presence. There were alot of good reasons to go get this guy. WMD was just one.

If it turns out his WMD stockpiles were a "jewish-soap" story, I'll be concerned about our ability to generate good intel. I won't, however, be concerned that the US did any disservice to the Iraqi people or the world at large.

-z

Brilliant!!! ;)