I wonder what else Saddam lies about...

[RandFan]

In this interview with Dan Rather Saddam said he would not ignite the oil wells.

Saddam also told the inspectors that he had destroyed all of his scud missles.

Hmmmmm......

To those who have said that Bush has not made the case do you still believe that Saddam has no WOMD?

Of course the wells could have been set on fire by the US. And the footage of the scuds could just be more of Bush's lies.

[My Final Spider]

To those who have said that Bush has not made the case do you still believe that Saddam has no WOMD?

I personally don't. Saddam is certainly a liar, but if he has any sense, I'm certain he deystroyed his WOMD recently to deter the US, since he must know he was in serious trouble of the inspectors found anything.

Of course, I could be wrong, but I suppose we'll find out in any case soon. Since Saddam dosn't hestiate to set the wells on fire, I'm sure if he does still have any WOMD we'll be seeing them used on somebody before this war's over.

[bjornart]

Not that I think Saddam is a particularly truthful person but:


CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/20/sprj.irq.kuwait.rockets/index.html)
U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile.

And the firing of four of five oil wells pales compared to the burning of Kuwait. I think it more likely they are isolated incidents than something ordered by Saddam. If he wanted to accomplish something he'd burn more. Then again that's only my opinion.

[Troll]

Originally posted by bjornart
Not that I think Saddam is a particularly truthful person but:



And the firing of four of five oil wells pales compared to the burning of Kuwait. I think it more likely they are isolated incidents than something ordered by Saddam. If he wanted to accomplish something he'd burn more. Then again that's only my opinion.

So he's a little lower keyed on the burning of his own countries oil fields. He still lied about burning them at all. That's the real and main point here. his lies. Not the degreee of damage he has caused, his lies.

[Troll]

Originally posted by bjornart
Not that I think Saddam is a particularly truthful person but:



And the firing of four of five oil wells pales compared to the burning of Kuwait. I think it more likely they are isolated incidents than something ordered by Saddam. If he wanted to accomplish something he'd burn more. Then again that's only my opinion.

He'd burn more? would that be your tactic to "accomplish something"? Just curious

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Troll

He'd burn more? would that be your tactic to "accomplish something"? Just curious

Why would they be torched at all? My guess would be to piss off and hinder the invaders. Torching the wells means they have to spend resources putting them out.
I'm only defending Saddam because I enjoy annoying you. :) You say this is evidence of Saddam lying, and, although I know as well as you that he's a lying bastard, I say it isn't.

It could be something done under Saddams orders. But it could easily be someone down the chain of command who couldn't think of anything better to do.

And in the end it's pitiful to look for evidence of Saddam being a lying *****. Everyone already knew that. And you have to admit, shouting about Scuds was a bit premature, wasn't it? Everyone is just so used to Iraqi missiles and Scuds being synonyms.

[fsol]

Saddam in not telling the truth shocker! I'd never of guessed.

Incidently, Blair and Bush don't seem to be able to get their stories straight either.

In the parlimentary debate in the UK this week, Blair stated that Iraq had only loose links to terrorists. The night before Bush stated that Iraq had trained, nurtured and given shelter to al-qaeda terrorists.

If they don't agree with each other how is it possible for us to agree with them? Who do we believe? Is that a basis for support for a war?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by RandFan
In this interview with Dan Rather Saddam said he would not ignite the oil wells.

Saddam also told the inspectors that he had destroyed all of his scud missles.

Hmmmmm......

To those who have said that Bush has not made the case do you still believe that Saddam has no WOMD?

Of course the wells could have been set on fire by the US. And the footage of the scuds could just be more of Bush's lies.

The oil wells were torched by US special forces.

By torching these, it means there are lots of contracts for US oil fire fighting companies and a lot more engineering work for US companies after the war.

You see, at every point this war is about oil.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Drooper


The oil wells were torched by US special forces.

By torching these, it means there are lots of contracts for US oil fire fighting companies and a lot more engineering work for US companies after the war.

You see, at every point this war is about oil.

Do you have any proof for that statement?

Anyway, Saddam was also not supposed to have any unmanned drone aircraft. We found one before this war started and another crashed yesterday (no chemical weapons were found.) So he lied about having those.

Also, though it is not too clear right now, I guess he has already fired more missiles than he declared having.

But, like everyone else said, who didn't know he was a liar?

[iain]

Originally posted by Diezel


Do you have any proof for that statement?

Anyway, Saddam was also not supposed to have any unmanned drone aircraft. We found one before this war started and another crashed yesterday (no chemical weapons were found.) So he lied about having those.

Also, though it is not too clear right now, I guess he has already fired more missiles than he declared having.

But, like everyone else said, who didn't know he was a liar? Indeed. What was the point of this thread again? Something to do with stating the obvious.

However, I do find RandFan's logic quite amusing.

Saddam also told the inspectors that he had destroyed all of his scud missles...To those who have said that Bush has not made the case do you still believe that Saddam has no WOMD?So I tell a lie about A, therefore I must be lying about B and C too. There's no possibility that someone could lie about one thing and be honest about something else.

I doubt very much Saddam was being honest about declaring weapons, and I don't think anyone ever thought that : that was the whole point of sending in the weapons inspectors and giving them more time to find the weapons that Saddam was concealing.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by iain
Indeed. What was the point of this thread again? Something to do with stating the obvious.

However, I do find RandFan's logic quite amusing.

So I tell a lie about A, therefore I must be lying about B and C too. There's no possibility that someone could lie about one thing and be honest about something else.

I doubt very much Saddam was being honest about declaring weapons, and I don't think anyone ever thought that : that was the whole point of sending in the weapons inspectors and giving them more time to find the weapons that Saddam was concealing.

Actually, in RandFan's defense, the point of this thread was to refute those people that have said this war is illegal, because Iraq has complied with UN resolutions and sanctions. And there are people out there saying that. With the unmanned drones and the too many missles, Iraq is obviously not in compliance with the original UN resolution, which means nobody can say this is an illegal action by the coalition.

[fsol]

which means nobody can say this is an illegal action by the coalition.

Well it depends who you get your legal advice from. ;)

[OdderMensch]

that was the whole point of sending in the weapons inspectors and giving them more time to find the weapons that Saddam was concealing.

Is the above statment not 100% verifirably untrue?

The inspectors were there to inspect and verify, not seek out hidden ,underground chemical labs.

Saddam was to declare his weapons and destroy the ones banned him by international agreement. He failed to do so, his people and ours are now paying the price of failiure.

As for what else he lies about, well, I bet he darkens his mustache.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by fsol


Well it depends who you get your legal advice from. ;)

:D

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Diezel


Do you have any proof for that statement?


Better turn on your irony detector. ;)

[Always Free]

Saddam who?

Saddam Smith or Jones or Sidebottom or maybe Rumplestiltskin?

Who are you all talking about?:p

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Drooper


Better turn on your irony detector. ;)

Why? I have proof that Iraq was not in compliance with UN sanctions and resolutions and lied about the weapons they were holding. :)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by My Final Spider


I personally don't. Saddam is certainly a liar, but if he has any sense, I'm certain he deystroyed his WOMD recently to deter the US, since he must know he was in serious trouble of the inspectors found anything.

He had enough sense to know that a timid UN would fail to act even when inspectors DID find them- mustard gas shells, Al Samoud missles, chemical munitions and cluster bombs, illegal drones... what difference would a scud have made?

Of course, I could be wrong, but I suppose we'll find out in any case soon. Since Saddam dosn't hestiate to set the wells on fire, I'm sure if he does still have any WOMD we'll be seeing them used on somebody before this war's over.

Fortunately, it looks now like he may not have lived to give that order. ABC news just reported eyewitness accounts of Saddam being carted off on a gurney from the site of the first bombing. Let's all hope he's gone to meet his judgment and no one else is crazy enough to deploy WMDs.

In any event, I am absolutely certain that our troops will find plenty of evidence that the action is justified.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by iain

However, I do find RandFan's logic quite amusing.

So I tell a lie about A, therefore I must be lying about B and C too. There's no possibility that someone could lie about one thing and be honest about something else.


Actually, I think a better analogy would be that he lies about A, B, C, D.... V, W, X and Y, then Z is a safe bet.

It may not be strictly logical, but then again neither are people.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Diezel


Why? I have proof that Iraq was not in compliance with UN sanctions and resolutions and lied about the weapons they were holding. :)

I think Drooper was trying to demonstrate the depths of conspiracy theorists who will perform mental gymnastics to turn this war into an oil issue.

In other words, a joke.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Droop. BTW, you were my favorite Banana Split(tm). Bingo was SO overrated.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Jocko


I think Drooper was trying to demonstrate the depths of conspiracy theorists who will perform mental gymnastics to turn this war into an oil issue.

In other words, a joke.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Droop. BTW, you were my favorite Banana Split(tm). Bingo was SO overrated.

I was pretty sure it was (given the winking smilie), which is why I added my smilie. But you can never be too sure. ;)

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Jocko


I think Drooper was trying to demonstrate the depths of conspiracy theorists who will perform mental gymnastics to turn this war into an oil issue.

In other words, a joke.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Droop. BTW, you were my favorite Banana Split(tm). Bingo was SO overrated.

You are correct. I am the best Banana.

and I was joking about the oil wells also.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
In this interview with Dan Rather Saddam said he would not ignite the oil wells.

Saddam also told the inspectors that he had destroyed all of his scud missles.

Hmmmmm......

To those who have said that Bush has not made the case do you still believe that Saddam has no WOMD?

Scud missles ≠ WMD

Of course the wells could have been set on fire by the US.

There's still the possibility of them being set off by artillery fire. There was reports of artillery just before the fires started. Now, which side's artillery, and what they were intending to do, is still apparently unknown.

[Lothian]

Has it been confirmed that Saddam has lit up any oil fields? The news here this morning suggested that oil fields captured in the south were intact. In the North the BBC correspondent saw flames coming from some fields however he suggested that it was just the normal flares you get. If the oil fields were on fire he would have expected much more fire and smoke.

I am not saying that no oil fields have been set on fire, but the messages are contradictory. They certainly have not all been set on fire which suggests that if some have it may not have been as a result of a central policy decision.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by RandFan
In this interview with Dan Rather Saddam said he would not ignite the oil wells.

Saddam also told the inspectors that he had destroyed all of his scud missles.

Hmmmmm......

To those who have said that Bush has not made the case do you still believe that Saddam has no WOMD?

Of course the wells could have been set on fire by the US. And the footage of the scuds could just be more of Bush's lies.

:D
He might be lying about still being alive! :D :D

Turns out that that first airstrike on Baghdad might well have taken him out! At least old Qusay "Your families will cry tears of blood" Hussein seems to be a confirmed casualty per various reports.

Good riddance

[richardm]

Originally posted by shanek


Scud missles ≠ WMD


No they're not; they are, however, on the list of proscribed items on account of their range. Iraq is currently hotly denying that they've been firing Scuds, because they've previously said that they didn't have any left.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek


Scud missles ≠ WMD

No, but Scud Missles = Violation of UN Sanctions.
And Unmanned drones = Violation of UN Sanctions.
And Not Declaring All Weapons = Violation of UN Sanctions.

There are more, but you get the point.

[richardm]

.. And all this confusion over how many (if any) oil wells have been ignited; the Iraqis have spent a good bit of time lately digging large trenches and filling them with oil as a defensive measure.

Could it be that they've lit these up, rather than the wells themselves, and it's that which is causing the conflicting reports?

[Diezel]

I just had a funny thought for all those that keep claiming we should have had "more weapons inspections": What better way to make them show us what they have than this? :D

Whish.... Yep, there's a Scud they shouldn't have... Whish.... Yep, there is a drone they shouldn't have....

If anything, they are finally complying with UN Sanctions and letting us inspect their weapons. :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by richardm


No they're not; they are, however, on the list of proscribed items on account of their range. Iraq is currently hotly denying that they've been firing Scuds, because they've previously said that they didn't have any left.

Originally posted by Diezel


No, but Scud Missles = Violation of UN Sanctions.
And Unmanned drones = Violation of UN Sanctions.
And Not Declaring All Weapons = Violation of UN Sanctions.

There are more, but you get the point.

This was RandFan's original claim:

Saddam also told the inspectors that he had destroyed all of his scud missles.

Hmmmmm......

To those who have said that Bush has not made the case do you still believe that Saddam has no WOMD?

Besides, as much as everyone's made a big deal out of WMD, if they go through this and the most they find are Scuds I think they'll have lost virtually all credibility. Where's the nukes Bush has been so "concerned" about???

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
If anything, they are finally complying with UN Sanctions and letting us inspect their weapons. :D

LOL! "INSPECT THIS!!!!!" :D

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek
Besides, as much as everyone's made a big deal out of WMD, if they go through this and the most they find are Scuds I think they'll have lost virtually all credibility. Where's the nukes Bush has been so "concerned" about???

Who knows? So what if they don't find them? It is very clear that Iraq is in violation of the UN sanctions, plain and simple. The actions of the US and its allies are justified, under the UN resolution.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by iain
However, I do find RandFan's logic quite amusing.

So I tell a lie about A, therefore I must be lying about B and C too. There's no possibility that someone could lie about one thing and be honest about something else. I never made any such argument. The title of the thread is "I wonder what else Saddam lies about..." If he lies about not having Scuds and makes a big deal about not burning oil wells and then torches several at the beginning of the war then you have to wonder what else the guy lies about.

This raised a couple of questions in my mind, if Saddam lies about the little things like Scuds is it possible that he is lying about the big things? Doesn't recent behavior of Saddam coupled with all of the many times that he has been caught suggest that he is the same old Saddam?

And do those who thought that Saddam did not have WOMD still think he does not have WOMD or would this evidence suggest that maybe his willingness to lie about one group of weapons would indicate that the is willing to lie about another?

Now could you explain how that logic is flawed?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
This was RandFan's original claim:

RandFan
To those who have said that Bush has not made the case do you still believe that Saddam has no WOMD? Come on folks, I did not say that lying about Scuds proves anything. I asked a question. I think Saddam has WOMD but I don't think this "proves" he has WOMD.

The question was not entirely rhetorical. I would like to honestly know if the recent behavior of this prevaricator would be enough to change your mind as to whether or not Saddam is lying when he says he has no WOMD.

It's a simple question. The parsimonious minded out there answered it. Those who make my question into something that it is not are the ones with the faulty logic.

Come on folks, I did not say that lying about Scuds proves anything... {duplication snipped}

Edited to add, I attended the redundant school of redundancy.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Diezel


No, but Scud Missles = Violation of UN Sanctions.
And Unmanned drones = Violation of UN Sanctions.
And Not Declaring All Weapons = Violation of UN Sanctions.

There are more, but you get the point.

I noted in the newspaper -- I think from Tuesday -- that Iraq offered an explanation for why their "mobile chemical laboratories" did not violate the sanctions. While I have not seen any other comments on this, it seems to be pretty significant, as well:

(1) They now admit to having mobile laboratories . . . IIRC, they had denied that any existed before. At the very least, they have not been mentioned in thier declarations.

(2) I sat down and have tried to come up with a list of reasons to have a mobile lab set up . . . . but I can't. Can anyone come up with a good justification for needing mobile laboratories (leaving aside the "conceal it or its work from inspections" reason for a moment)?

NA

[Diezel]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


I noted in the newspaper -- I think from Tuesday -- that Iraq offered an explanation for why their "mobile chemical laboratories" did not violate the sanctions. While I have not seen any other comments on this, it seems to be pretty significant, as well:

(1) They now admit to having mobile laboratories . . . IIRC, they had denied that any existed before. At the very least, they have not been mentioned in thier declarations.

(2) I sat down and have tried to come up with a list of reasons to have a mobile lab set up . . . . but I can't. Can anyone come up with a good justification for needing mobile laboratories (leaving aside the "conceal it or its work from inspections" reason for a moment)?

NA

I haven't seen that, but that's pretty funny:

"Our mobile chem labs are legal!"
"What mobile chem labs? You said you didn't have any."
"Well... Yea.... We do have some, but they are legal."
"Well, you already have broken the resolution by not declaring them. But, ok, I'll bite, why are they legal."
"Well....Umm.... They just are."
"Yea, sure."

The only other people I know that have mobile chem labs are meth dealers. :)

[richardm]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

(2) I sat down and have tried to come up with a list of reasons to have a mobile lab set up . . . . but I can't. Can anyone come up with a good justification for needing mobile laboratories (leaving aside the "conceal it or its work from inspections" reason for a moment)?

NA

I suppose you might want such a thing if you had some specialised equipment that you didn't want to have to duplicate in lots of places.

I've seen something similar in this country; mobile labs to go around schools; mobile operating theatres to go around hospitals.

I suppose it depends on what's inside 'em.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by RandFan
In this interview with Dan Rather Saddam said he would not ignite the oil wells.

Saddam also told the inspectors that he had destroyed all of his scud missles.

Hmmmmm......

To those who have said that Bush has not made the case do you still believe that Saddam has no WOMD?

Of course the wells could have been set on fire by the US. And the footage of the scuds could just be more of Bush's lies.

You know Saddam is lying if his lips are moving. I guess we will now proceed to attack the liars of the world. Or will it be just world leaders who lie? I wonder where that places Bush?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek


Scud missles ≠ WMD

Scud missiles = non-compliance

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Scud missiles = non-compliance

Yep that's right.

Under section 8 of resolution 687 any ballistic missile with a range in excess of 150km is defined as a WMD.

in other words a Scud.

[Diezel]

For those that ask "Yea, but where are the Nukes and Chems?", I ask you:

If you execute a search warrant on a house, looking for Herion and Coke, but all you find is marijuana and speed, should you not arrest the guy? Was your search illegal? Is the guy innocent and should be left alone?

(and please don't turn it into a rant about drugs being illegal, because I agree they shouldn't be)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DrChinese
You know Saddam is lying if his lips are moving. I guess we will now proceed to attack the liars of the world. I am not making an argument that we should attack Saddam because he lied. I don't know of anyone else that has made that argument either.

However others have made the argument that Saddam is cooperating and therefore is in compliance.

[list=1]
Does anyone still want to argue as to whether Saddam is cooperating or whether he is in compliance?
If Saddam is lying about Scuds and oil wells what is the likely hood that he is lying about WOMD?
[/list=1]

I wonder where that places Bush? Well, he hasn't lied under oath yet. DISCLAIMER This is not to be construed to mean that other US presidents HAVE lied under oath...er...well...at least not about important stuff.

You know, come to think of it, has anyone checked to see if George W. knows the many and varied definitions of the word "is"? If the current President of The United States is going to lie and stay out of jail he better read up on "plausible deniability."

But to answer your question DrChinese, NO, we should definitely not attack anyone just because they have lied. Lying about complying with resolution 1441, now that is an entirely different matter.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by RandFan
I am not making an argument that we should attack Saddam because he lied. I don't know of anyone else that has made that argument either.

However others have made the argument that Saddam is cooperating and therefore is in compliance.

[list=1]
Does anyone still want to argue as to whether Saddam is cooperating or whether he is in compliance?
If Saddam is lying about Scuds and oil wells what is the likely hood that he is lying about WOMD?
[/list=1]

Well, he hasn't lied under oath yet. DISCLAIMER This is not to be construed to mean that other US presidents HAVE lied under oath...er...well...at least not about important stuff.

You know, come to think of it, has anyone checked to see if George W. knows the many and varied definitions of the word "is"? If the current President of The United States is going to lie and stay out of jail he better read up on "plausible deniability."

But to answer your question DrChinese, NO, we should definitely not attack anyone just because they have lied. Lying about complying with resolution 1441, now that is an entirely different matter.

It does not logically follow from the statement "Saddam lies" that "Saddam has nuclear weapons". Saddam also says he will repel the US invasion, not a likely outcome. In fact, if Saddam said he did have nukes, I still wouldn't believe him.

Saddam's word is worth nothing, and that is a statement that is generally accepted around the world. So his statements about WMD are not really the issue. Cowboy George would never have accepted Saddam's word on this, and I wouldn't expect him to.

I would say that Saddam is in breach of some terms of UN resolutions, and additionally is only marginally cooperative with the weapons inspections. As a result, I would say that the UN Security Council should consider the matter and determine if further sanctions or other "serious consequences" are warranted. It goes without saying that breach of UNSC resolutions should be solely enforced by the UN.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Kodiak


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke



I note this is from your signature. I might ask:

Who is evil, and who are the good? And how do we know that the implied actions of the good men are themselves good? Who decides this?

Do you think that people could reasonably disagree?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
Who knows? So what if they don't find them?

Bush has been insisting that they're there,a nd has been using that (and the imaginary Al Qaeda link) to gain popular support for the war. It doesn't bother you that the President has been lying to us to get us to get behind this action?

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
I never made any such argument. The title of the thread is "I wonder what else Saddam lies about..." If he lies about not having Scuds and makes a big deal about not burning oil wells and then torches several at the beginning of the war then you have to wonder what else the guy lies about.

I don't think anyone on this forum (least of all me) has ever said that Saddam has any amount of credibility whatsoever. So if the above is really the point you wanted to make, then it's a strawman.

This raised a couple of questions in my mind, if Saddam lies about the little things like Scuds is it possible that he is lying about the big things?

That was very possible even before the launching of the Scuds. So what? Do people get to use that in lieu of evidence supporting their assertions?

And do those who thought that Saddam did not have WOMD still think he does not have WOMD

There's not much if any evidence that he does.

or would this evidence suggest that maybe his willingness to lie about one group of weapons would indicate that the is willing to lie about another?

He would almost certainly be willing to lie about not having WMD if he actually has WMD. That is independent to the question of whether or not he actually has WMD. Clear?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
For those that ask "Yea, but where are the Nukes and Chems?", I ask you:

If you execute a search warrant on a house, looking for Herion and Coke, but all you find is marijuana and speed, should you not arrest the guy?

Not for having heroin and coke, no.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek


Not for having heroin and coke, no.

Again, so what? They are all illegal. Iraq has broken the UN resolution and the sanctions against them. Can you admit that? Sure, they haven't found any Nuke or Chem weapons yet (btw, Scuds ARE WMD, by definition). But you are turning that into a strawman to get away from the fact that they were not in compliance.

Can you admit they were/are not in compliance with International Law, UN Sanctions and the UN Resolution?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek


Bush has been insisting that they're there,a nd has been using that (and the imaginary Al Qaeda link) to gain popular support for the war. It doesn't bother you that the President has been lying to us to get us to get behind this action?

We don't know if Bush lied. It has only been a couple of days and ground forces have not got very far in yet. But they DID admit to having mobile chem labs. Doesn't that count?

And what will you say if they do find WMD, or proof of their attempt to create them? If the proof is there, will you back down from your stance?

I've seen you state in other threads that this is an illegal action. Do you still feel that way? Can you admit that Iraq is in clear violation of the UN mandates? Can you admit that the rules of what can happen if they failed to comply with those mandates are clear?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
Again, so what?

So what??? You have to charge people with what you have the evidence to support.

There's another problem with your analogy: In this case, it's more like the police wanting to wait to get more evidence against the guy so you decide to go in with your guns and take him or even kill him for the drugs you're convinced he has. Now, should you really have the right to do that?

They are all illegal. Iraq has broken the UN resolution and the sanctions against them. Can you admit that?

Yes, but it's not the UN that's taking this action.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek


So what??? You have to charge people with what you have the evidence to support.

There's another problem with your analogy: In this case, it's more like the police wanting to wait to get more evidence against the guy so you decide to go in with your guns and take him or even kill him for the drugs you're convinced he has. Now, should you really have the right to do that?

Except it has always been said that the reason we were going in was that Iraq was not complying with UN sanctions. And it is clear that Iraq is in violation of UN sanctions.

In my analogy, the police were going in because a person was holding drugs. Who cares what drugs they were?

Your analogy fails, because it breaks away from my analogy totally.

Yes, but it's not the UN that's taking this action.

It doesn't matter. Who do you think would be the one to lead the campaign if the UN did give the go ahead? And I really need to read the old sanctions, because I have a suspcion that since the US lead the last coalition, they would be the ones charged with enforcing this one. So they may have every right to go in, based on their last mandate. (again, I don't know this, I would have to read the resolution.)

[Jim Lennox]

Here (http://www.hwcn.org/link/mkg/app_2.html) is a good link Diezel. Haven't had a chance to read it yet though.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
Except it has always been said that the reason we were going in was that Iraq was not complying with UN sanctions. And it is clear that Iraq is in violation of UN sanctions.

But we are not going in under the UN. We're doing this on our own. Just like I said, it's like you taking it upon yourself to raid your neighbor's house for drugs if the police won't take action.

Your analogy fails, because it breaks away from my analogy totally.

Only where your analogy breaks away from the current situation.

It doesn't matter. Who do you think would be the one to lead the campaign if the UN did give the go ahead? And I really need to read the old sanctions, because I have a suspcion that since the US lead the last coalition, they would be the ones charged with enforcing this one.

Doesn't matter; the US would still have to be authorized by the UN to do so.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DrChinese
It does not logically follow from the statement "Saddam lies" that "Saddam has nuclear weapons". NO ONE SAYS THAT IT DOES! Christ, how many times do I have to say this? Bush says Saddam has WOMD, Powell says Saddam has WOMD.

Saddam says that he won't light his oil wells on fire.
Saddam says that he doesn't have scuds.
Saddam says that he doesn't have WOMD.

I wonder what else the guy lies about?

Is there something that you guys don't get about this?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
I don't think anyone on this forum (least of all me) has ever said that Saddam has any amount of credibility whatsoever. So if the above is really the point you wanted to make, then it's a strawman. See above

There's not much if any evidence that he does. I have a choice of believing Bush/Powell or Saddam. You choose who you are going to believe I will choose who I believe. Saddam's track record sucks. Why did he lie about the scuds? I think his motivation for lying directly to the UN and the inspectors is relevant as to whether he is lying about wether he does indeed have WOMD.

He would almost certainly be willing to lie about not having WMD if he actually has WMD. That is independent to the question of whether or not he actually has WMD. Clear? No, not clear at all. That Saddam lied about Scuds is NOT proof that he has WOMD. I NEVER made this claim. However, his willingness to lie to the international community coupled with the report that Saddam gave to the UN that the UN and inspectors claim is missing lots of data on WOMD certainly points to the likelihood that there is a reason why Saddam's report is missing so much information.

It's a pattern Shanek. The US says to the UN that their intelligence shows that Saddam has at least 56 scuds. Saddam says that is a lie. The US says to the world that US intelligence indicates that Saddam will burn his oil wells. Saddam goes on American TV and says directly that he will not burn the wells.

In both instances the US is proven correct and Saddam is proven to be a liar.

Now the US says that their intelligence indicates that Saddam has WOMD. The UN and weapons inspectors say that Saddam's report fails to document what happened to much of his WOMD materials.

So, there is a dichotomy. On the one hand you have Bush, Powell, inspectors, defectors and Saddam's joke of a report.

On the other hand you have Saddam. He says that ALL of the evidence laid out by Powell is not true. Saddam claims that Powell is lying and that the photos and other intelligence are all manufactured. Saddam says that the report he gave to the UN is complete. He says the defectors are all liars.

And why did he not keep his scuds and destroy his WOMD?

I'm not going to side with Saddam on this one. I'm very skeptical that he is telling the truth about WOMD.

No, the question stands. I wonder what else this guy lies about. I wonder if those that don't accept that Saddam has WOMD would be willing to change their minds.

I am not claiming that Saddam's lies are proof that he has WOMD. I am saying that they represent part of a total package and if he is willing to lie directly to the inspectors about his compliance then perhaps the defectors and the inspectors and the evidence given by Powell point to the fact that he does indeed have WOMD. But then maybe they are all wrong and Saddam is telling the truth.

So, to sum up, I don't believe that Saddam's lies are proof that he has WOMD. I do believe that Saddam's predicted behavior and the certainty of the US that Saddam had SCUDs and would use them ad he did. Indicate that Saddam's batting average is 0 while the US is batting 1000 (as it pertains to claims about Saddam's non compliance).

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
I have a choice of believing Bush/Powell or Saddam.

No, you also have the choice of remaining skeptical of any such claim until one side or the other presents evidence. Until then, you place the burden of proof on the person making the claim. As a skeptic, I would hope you would take this third choice.

No, not clear at all. That Saddam lied about Scuds

We don't even know that he lied about scuds! The media has been calling them scuds because they're operating under the "Iraqi missiles=Scuds" equation, but the military has been unable to confirm if any of them are, in fact, Scuds.

However, his willingness to lie to the international community

What about Bush's willingness to lie to the international community and the American people, again and again and again?

In both instances the US is proven correct and Saddam is proven to be a liar.

Neither case has been proven yet. There have been some missiles that the press has been calling Scuds but the military has been quick to correct them, and there are a very few iol well fires which may have been set or may have been caused by artillery fire.

OTOH, in his State of the Union address and almost every other address he's made to the American people, Bush has LIED to the American people about ties between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, and about actions taken against the inspectors which Blix says never happened.

Why should I believe one liar over the other? What's wrong with demanding evidence?

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek


No, you also have the choice of remaining skeptical of any such claim until one side or the other presents evidence. Until then, you place the burden of proof on the person making the claim. As a skeptic, I would hope you would take this third choice.

You must have missed rikzilla's thread "Proof that Iraq is in "material breach" of UNSC resolution 687 since inception."
If you disagreed with his findings, you should have pointed it out to him so far no one has refuted it.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12904



OTOH, in his State of the Union address and almost every other address he's made to the American people, Bush has LIED to the American people about ties between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, and about actions taken against the inspectors which Blix says never happened.

Why should I believe one liar over the other? What's wrong with demanding evidence?

Can you tell me what lies are and how they where proven wrong?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker

You must have missed rikzilla's thread "Proof that Iraq is in "material breach" of UNSC resolution 687 since inception."

Yeah, I missed that one, but I've asked him several times for evidence and he has not brought forth any nor did he refer me to the thread you just mentioned.

Can you tell me what lies are and how they where proven wrong?

How about Bush's lies during the SOTU address and since about what the inspectors "found" which is nowhere in the reports and Blix actually claims otherwise, such as the allegations of Iraq moving weapons around before the inspectors came in, or claiming that the aluminum tubes were for nuclear weapons when they were completely incapable of supporting such? What about justifying the economics of his budget proposal by citing an economic report that didn't exist, and alleging that the IAEA said there was conclusive evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq when they claimed no such thing? What about his campaign promises that he would not engage in nation building? What about repeating the lie that Iraq pulled babies from incubators, a lie first spread by his father? And if his lie about the Iraqi troop deployment in the satellite photos wasn't debunked enough at the time, it certainly is now.

Enough for ya?

And hey, "I wonder what else he's lied about..."

[Jim Lennox]

Bush is lying everytime he tells you what this war is about.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Welcome to the New America.

[Baker]

How about Bush's lies during the SOTU address and since about what the inspectors "found" which is nowhere in the reports and Blix actually claims otherwise, such as the allegations of Iraq moving weapons around before the inspectors came in, or claiming that the aluminum tubes were for nuclear weapons when they were completely incapable of supporting such? What about justifying the economics of his budget proposal by citing an economic report that didn't exist, and alleging that the IAEA said there was conclusive evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq when they claimed no such thing? What about his campaign promises that he would not engage in nation building? What about repeating the lie that Iraq pulled babies from incubators, a lie first spread by his father? And if his lie about the Iraqi troop deployment in the satellite photos wasn't debunked enough at the time, it certainly is now.

We have been through a lot since he made his campaign promises many of your claims are still being debated.
Some of the claims I'm hearing for the first time so all have to do some background checks on.
I can't say he is anymore honest then other politicians.

But ignoring Saddam because of Bush might have lied or did lie is a poor argument.

[Jim Lennox]

But ignoring Saddam because of Bush might have lied or did lie is a poor argument.

Ignoring Bush's lies because you want Saddam isn't a good idea either. Just because you are at war doesn't mean you should stop questioning authority.

Most anti war people see the need to depose Saddam, but it doesn't mean they have to agree with the method.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox


Most anti war people see the need to depose Saddam, but it doesn't mean they have to agree with the method.

Perhaps you could provide a better method?

[Jim Lennox]

Bloodless coup?

Improved sanctions?

UN backed war?

There are many options, but they have been denied to the world because of the action of the coalition.

If Iran had invaded Iraq for the same reasons as the coalition, would you be questioning their motives?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
Bloodless coup?

Since a standard coup failed, I don't see how a Bloodless coup will possibly work.


Improved sanctions?

Years of sanctions have failed already.


UN backed war?

We waited 5 years since the inspectors where kicked out for the UN act why wait any longer?


If Iran had invaded Iraq for the same reasons as the coalition, would you be questioning their motives?

Yes, we would but only because they're human rights issues or just as bad if not worse then Iraq

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker
I can't say he is anymore honest then other politicians.

That still doesn't make it right.

But ignoring Saddam because of Bush might have lied or did lie is a poor argument.

It's also a poor argument to say that we must attack Saddam because he might have lied.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker


Perhaps you could provide a better method?

If you pro war types are so gung ho about getting rid of Saddam and putting a more democratic government in its place, then how much money did you give to the Iraqi National Congress, the strongest freedom fighting organization in Iraq? Moreover, why did Bush actively undermine them?

I asked this in another thread and got nothing but a lot of pathetic excuses and doubletalk.

[Jim Lennox]

Naturally there are pros and cons to every solution. However wasn't war touted as being the last option?

Anyway I would like to hear more comments about this. (http://www.newamericancentury.org)

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek

It's also a poor argument to say that we must attack Saddam because he might have lied.

Once again, you are welcome to go over rikzilla list and provide an explanation for each one.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12904

If you pro war types are so gung ho about getting rid of Saddam and putting a more democratic government in its place, then how much money did you give to the Iraqi National Congress, the strongest freedom fighting organization in Iraq? Moreover, why did Bush actively undermine them?

This is the first I have heard of this do you have any more info on it?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker
We waited 5 years since the inspectors where kicked out for the UN act why wait any longer?

This is another lie Bush & Co. have perpetuated. The inspectors WERE NOT KICKED OUT OF IRAQ. The US withdrew them. And immediately started bombing them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker
This is the first I have heard of this do you have any more info on it?

Well...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22iraqi+national+congress%22&btnG=Google+Search

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek


This is another lie Bush & Co. have perpetuated. The inspectors WERE NOT KICKED OUT OF IRAQ. The US withdrew them. And immediately started bombing them.

Yes after Saddam’s refusal to allow fervor inspections.
That’s why they launched a military strike against Iraq 98.



The action comes amid reports that the United States was preparing to launch a military strike against Iraq following Baghdad's refusal to allow UNSCOM to conduct inspections.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/11/iraq.02/

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker
Yes after Saddam’s refusal to allow fervor inspections.

Not according to the chief weapons inspector at the time:

In 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, the United Nations set up a special commission to monitor the destruction of Iraq’s missiles and weapons of mass destruction. How effective were the U.N. inspectors?

UNSCOM inspectors were the best forensic investigators in the world. We were pretty good at doing our job. By 1996 we were able to ascertain that 90 to 95 percent of Iraq’s capabilities were destroyed. When Richard Butler came on board in 1997, we had already fundamentally disarmed Iraq.

Then you were kicked out.

Saddam Hussein didn’t kick out the U.N. inspectors. They were ordered out by the U.S. government, which then used information they provided to bomb 100 locations that had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. So the weapons inspectors were used by the United States.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/23/news4.shtml

By the way, this is another lie Bush repeated in his 2002 SOTU address.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
No, you also have the choice of remaining skeptical of any such claim until one side or the other presents evidence. Until then, you place the burden of proof on the person making the claim. As a skeptic, I would hope you would take this third choice. I have heard this argument before...let's see... oh yeah. "Since evolution has not been definitively proven we must be skeptical of the pro and anti evolution arguments."

I think this argument is answered best by "it's ok to have an open mind but not so open that your brains fall out".

What about Bush's willingness to lie to the international community and the American people, again and again and again? Huh? Saddam's lies are demonstrable. I have never known a president not to engage in spin and propaganda. But "Bush's willingness to lie...again and again?"

Now I am going to have to be skeptical. I don't buy that at all. Could you document these many lies?

Neither case has been proven yet. There have been some missiles that the press has been calling Scuds but the military has been quick to correct them, and there are a very few iol well fires which may have been set or may have been caused by artillery fire. You left out aliens and the Jewish conspiracy. Sure they may have been caused by artillery fire. And John Edward might actually talk with the dead.

OTOH, in his State of the Union address and almost every other address he's made to the American people, Bush has LIED to the American people about ties between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, and about actions taken against the inspectors which Blix says never happened. So know you can read Bush's mind. You know what evidence he has and what evidence that he hasn't. We know that Saddam has given money to Palestinian suicide bombers and we know that there is evidence that Saddam may have met with Al-Qaeda operatives. That Bush has given more credence to this evidence then he should for political purposes hardly puts him in the same league as Saddam. The notion is a joke. By your rational ALL past American presidents were "liars". Even Jimmy Carter has spun a tale or two. It is a simple matter of who has more credibility? By your logic such a determination cannot be made.

Why should I believe one liar over the other? What's wrong with demanding evidence? There is ample evidence to suggest that Bush has far more credibility than Saddam and that Saddam does indeed have WOMD. But I am certain that no evidence would convince you. Like most woo-woo's your mind is made up. If the facility that is currently in the news turns out to be used for WOMD then I'm sure that you will have an explanation. A Jewish conspiracy allied with the CIA... Come on admit it, I am right. You will always have a reason why there really is NO WOMD in Iraq.

What's wrong with demanding evidence? You are right, let's demand evidence for evolution. It hasn't been proven yet.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
I have heard this argument before...let's see... oh yeah. "Since evolution has not been definitively proven we must be skeptical of the pro and anti evolution arguments."

What a despicable cheap shot! :mad:

The difference, of course, is that the evidence for evolution is plentiful. We're talking about someone making a claim that there is, as of yet, no evidence for!

Huh? Saddam's lies are demonstrable.

SO FSCKING WHAT??????

Now I am going to have to be skeptical. I don't buy that at all. Could you document these many lies?

I've already pointed out many of them.

You left out aliens and the Jewish conspiracy. Sure they may have been caused by artillery fire. And John Edward might actually talk with the dead.

Our own military has not ruled out the possibility of the fires being started through artillery fire. What is your malfunction today?

So know you can read Bush's mind.

Don't need to. He made a claim about what the inspectors found that wasn't true.

We know that Saddam has given money to Palestinian suicide bombers and we know that there is evidence that Saddam may have met with Al-Qaeda operatives.

No, we don't. And the fact that Saddam is the sworn enemy of Al-Qaeda should certainly make any reasonable person suspicious of any such connection!

By your logic such a determination cannot be made.

Not without evidence, no. You ever heard of evidence?

There is ample evidence to suggest that Bush has far more credibility than Saddam and that Saddam does indeed have WOMD./quote]

Present this evidence.

[quote]You are right, let's demand evidence for evolution. It hasn't been proven yet.

And you accuse me of behaving like a woo-woo! :rolleyes:

[RandFan]

UNSCOM inspectors were the best forensic investigators in the world. We were pretty good at doing our job. By 1996 we were able to ascertain that 90 to 95 percent of Iraq’s capabilities were destroyed. When Richard Butler came on board in 1997, we had already fundamentally disarmed Iraq. Laughable. 90 - 95% of what they BELIEVED were Iraq's capabilities. Had the Antharx never come to light they would have still said 90 - 95% and they would have been wrong.

My figures put it at 2 - 3%. Since we are estimating what wedon't know then my figures are just as accurate.

Saddam Hussein didn’t kick out the U.N. inspectors. Intellectually dishonest. Saddam did not order the inspectors out. However he would not let them do their job.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler has ordered all non-essential staff out of Iraq as a precautionary measure in case of U.S. military action.

More than 100 personnel were told to withdraw on Wednesday after talks between U.S. officials and Butler, the executive chairman of the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) in charge of Iraqi disarmament.

"Based upon his discussions with U.S. officials, the executive chairman has decided, as a precautionary measure, to withdraw all UNSCOM personnel from Iraq," said Butler's spokesman Ewen Buchanan.

The action comes amid reports that the United States was preparing to launch a military strike against Iraq following Baghdad's refusal to allow UNSCOM to conduct inspections.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
The difference, of course, is that the evidence for evolution is plentiful. We're talking about someone making a claim that there is, as of yet, no evidence for! Again, woo-woo's claim there is no such evidence. I can't make you see what you don't want to. For proof of my last statement I only need quote you. "...no evidence for" If you choose to characterize the evidence put forth by Powell as NO evidence then it is clear that there is nothing I can do or say. I might as well argue evolution at a creationist site.

SO FSCKING WHAT?????? There is a huge difference between what Bush has said and what Saddam has said. It is obvious that you are looking for ANY excuses not to accept the evidence that Powell has laid out. So any "spin" by Bush meets your criteria.

[qute] I've already pointed out many of them. [/quote] No you haven't. You have shown where Bush has exaggerated the importance of certain information for political purposes. Hardly equivalent to Saddam saying categorical that he does not have Anthrax and then having Anthrax show up.

Our own military has not ruled out the possibility of the fires being started through artillery fire. What is your malfunction today? "Hasn't ruled out" Are you missing the significance of that statement? Ask the military if they are "ruling out" the possibility of a Jewish conspiracy? "We are not ruling anything out yet."

Haven't ruled it out. That is a joke.

Don't need to. He made a claim about what the inspectors found that wasn't true. Fallacious, does not prove that Bush is not in possession of evidence that he has not shared.

No, we don't. Yes we do.

And the fact that Saddam is the sworn enemy of Al-Qaeda should certainly make any reasonable person suspicious of any such connection! Not at all. By your logic Nixon did not make a deal with China.

You might want to do some research on common enemies.

Not without evidence, no. You ever heard of evidence? You missed the point of my argument.

But, FWIW. I honestly don't think that there is any evidence that would convince you.

And you accuse me of behaving like a woo-woo! :rolleyes: When you characterize the evidence presented by Powell as "NO evidence" then damn straight you are behaving like a woo-woo. You know that you are right and that Bush is a "liar" because he has acted like every other president and exploited and slanted evidence for political reasons. This gives you the out to dismiss everything that Bush says. This in your mind makes him equivalent to Saddam. If Bush announces today that the chemical plant was used for WOMD then it will be just another example of the "Bush lies."

Yeah, that is woo-woo behavior.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Laughable. 90 - 95% of what they BELIEVED were Iraq's capabilities. Had the Antharx never come to light they would have still said 90 - 95% and they would have been wrong.

My figures put it at 2 - 3%. Since we are estimating what wedon't know then my figures are just as accurate.

Bullsh!t. You weren't there, you didn't measure *****. He was there. He saw what they had, he saw it destroyed. He estimated they had gotten rid of 90-95% of Iraq's weapons capabilities, AND THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE REFUTING THIS.

Intellectually dishonest. Saddam did not order the inspectors out.

You say I'm intellecutally dishonest and then you confirm what I just said??? Saddam did not kick the inspectors out!

However he would not let them do their job.

Not what Ritter says.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Again, woo-woo's claim there is no such evidence. I can't make you see what you don't want to.

For crying out loud....

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/082/wash/Search_for_Scuds_chemical_and_%3A.shtml
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6174674%255E25778,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11856-2003Mar22.html
http://www.etaiwannews.com/World/2003/03/24/1048488448.htm

There is as of yet NO EVIDENCE of Scud missiles or WMD. According to our own military.

"Hasn't ruled out" Are you missing the significance of that statement?

Yes...it means that it's POSSIBLE. So your insane blathering about "Jewish conspiracies" was nothing more than an attempt by you to dismiss that possibility because it doesn't fit in with what you wish to be true.

Ask the military if they are "ruling out" the possibility of a Jewish conspiracy?

Have they SAID they haven't ruled out the possibility of a Jewish conspiracy? They specifically said they hadn't ruled out artillery fire. Where did they say they hadn't ruled out a Jewish conspiracy?

Fallacious, does not prove that Bush is not in possession of evidence that he has not shared.

In other words, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Where have we heard that before? :rolleyes:

Yes we do.

Point to it.

Not at all. By your logic Nixon did not make a deal with China.

There is ample evidence that Nixon made a deal with China. Where is the evidence that Saddam made a deal with Al-Qaeda?

You missed the point of my argument.

The point of your argument is that we should believe one person because he's less of a liar than another, even in the absence of evidence.

But, FWIW. I honestly don't think that there is any evidence that would convince you.

How about just SOME?

Yeah, that is woo-woo behavior.

Reread your post sometime when you're in a more objective frame of mind.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
For crying out loud.... I should say for crying out loud. You don't bother reading your own links.

"A Kuwaiti defence ministry spokesman said yesterday that two of six Iraqi missiles fired at Kuwait on Thursday were Scuds. "

Shanek translation, "no evidence" Hmmmm....

There is as of yet NO EVIDENCE of Scud missiles or WMD. I know, I know, Powell and the Kuwaitis are part of a conspiracy.

Yes...it means that it's POSSIBLE. And so are Jewish conspiracies and lightning. HOW LIKELY IS IT?

In other words, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Where have we heard that before? Sorry shanek, this is YOUR argument. absent evidence that the oil wells were not started by artillery fire" :rolleyes: For christ sake.

Point to it. I can no more prove it to you than evolution to a creationist. Powell has laid out most of the facts. You characterize those facts as "no evidence". There is nothing more that I can do. I can't force you or creationists to consider evidence.

There is ample evidence that Nixon made a deal with China. Where is the evidence that Saddam made a deal with Al-Qaeda? Boy, you sure know how to misconstrue an argument.

The point of your argument is that we should believe one person because he's less of a liar than another, even in the absence of evidence. "Absent" according to you. If you refuse to accept the information given by Powell as evidence then there is nothing that anyone can do to convince you otherwise. Creationists simply dismiss all of the data by scientists. There is "no evidence" they say. Sound familiar?

How about just SOME? That is up to you. I can't force you to consider the data that Powell gave as evidence. If you choose to dismiss it as "NO" evidence then there is nothing that I can do. I can lead you to the water but I can't make you drink it. If all of the data is "NO" evidence in your opinion then nothing will change your mind.

Nothing that will be found in the coming days will change your mind. It will all be "NO" evidence because it threatens your world view.

Reread your post sometime when you're in a more objective frame of mind. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. Everything presented by the administration to date is "NO" evidence to you. And I am the one that is not objective. Right!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Bullsh!t. You weren't there, you didn't measure *****. He was there. He saw what they had, he saw it destroyed. He estimated they had gotten rid of 90-95% of Iraq's weapons capabilities,... Riiiiiiight! Hey, I can measure what I can't see or know as well as anyone. Remember, if they had not gotten lucky when a defector clued them in on the anthrax they would have said 90 - 95% and the would have been WRONG!. It raises the question, how much else did they miss?

So where is the skepticism shanek, how do you measure what you don't know? (not rhetorical, I want an answer).

AND THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE REFUTING THIS. Of course not, amazing what closing your eyes can do.

You say I'm intellectually dishonest and then you confirm what I just said??? What you just said is MISLEADING.

Saddam's actions had the same net effect. So what if Saddam would allow the inspectors to scratch their nut all they wanted to in Iraq the just could not do their job.

To ignore this fact IS intellectually dishonest.

Saddam did not kick the inspectors out! So what? He would not let them do their job. He made the whole thing a joke. You are playing into his strategy. By not kicking out the inspectors but not letting them do their job Saddam knew that there would people who would say "he did not kick them out". Good job shanek, you played right into his hands.

Not what Ritter says. Oh yeah, Scott Ritter. Richard Butler, the other inspectors, the UN, the US, defectors, CNN, New York Times, ABC, CBS, etc, all conflict with Ritter, but Ritter's claims fit with your world view so why listen to anyone but Ritter.

Yeah, that is objective thought.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
So where is the skepticism shanek,

Skepticism is based on the evidence. EVIDENCE. EV-I-DENCE. What about that don't you get?

Of course not, amazing what closing your eyes can do.

All you have to do is present evidence to the contrary.

What you just said is MISLEADING.

No, it isn't. Saddam did not kick the inspectors out. That was the misleading statement.

So what? He would not let them do their job.

He didn't make it easy for them, but Ritter said that they did end up getting full access eventually.

Why don't you look at the evidence?

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
I should say for crying out loud. You don't bother reading your own links.

"A Kuwaiti defence ministry spokesman said yesterday that two of six Iraqi missiles fired at Kuwait on Thursday were Scuds. "

Geez! And you accuse ME of being dishonest!!! In every single article, McChrystal stated plainly that there were no scud missiles launched.

I know, I know, Powell and the Kuwaitis are part of a conspiracy.

And I suppose McChrystal is? :rolleyes:

Sorry shanek, this is YOUR argument.

No, it isn't. It's YOURS; YOU were the one who said the fires proved Saddam was lying, and I'm providing a refuation. You have done NOTHING to back up YOUR ARGUMENT.

I can no more prove it to you than evolution to a creationist.

Evolution is quite demonstrable. It is pathetic of you to keep up this ad hominem.

(more blathering and not giving evidence excised)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Skepticism is based on the evidence. EVIDENCE. EV-I-DENCE. What about that don't you get? Powell has presented EVIDENCE. What is it about that, that you do not get?

All you have to do is present evidence to the contrary. [/qute] Been there done that. You simply say the evidence is "no" evidence. The information provided by Powell and others is evidence to the contrary. You just choose to ignore it.

[quote] No, it isn't. Saddam did not kick the inspectors out. That was the misleading statement. Saddam actions had the net effect of kicking them out. That you refuse to acknowledge that fact is intellectually dishonest. So what if he didn't tell them to get out. He wouldn't let them do their job.

He didn't make it easy for them, but Ritter said that they did end up getting full access eventually. Demonstrably false, why don't you read the link I provided. As of the time when the inspectors left they were not receiving cooperation.

Why don't you look at the evidence? Oh, right, it's me! You are the one who chooses to accept Ritters claim even though all of the other inspectors refute it. Even if Butler refutes it, even if all of the news outlets refute it.

Why is it evidence only when you want it to be evidence.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Geez! And you accuse ME of being dishonest!!! In every single article, McChrystal stated plainly that there were no scud missiles launched. What the hell does this have to do with the Kuwaiti Minister? Again, you simply choose to ignore the evidence that you don't like.

No, it isn't. It's YOURS; YOU were the one who said the fires proved Saddam was lying,.. [/b] I never said any such thing. Since I don't buy the alien, Jewish conspiracies, etc. I believe it more likely than not that Saddam started the fires. That said, I wonder what else the guy lies about.

I'll wait patiently for you to post the quote where I said "the fires proved Saddam was lying".

...and I'm providing a refuation. No, you are providing some alternative plausible scenario. However Jewish operatives are also an alternative plausible scenario.

You have done NOTHING to back up YOUR ARGUMENT. I BELIEVE that Saddam is lying. I have not said that the fires prove he has lied. It is however, very good evidence. Since the Military was not firing at the oil fields and there is no evidence that it was artillery fire and since Saddam has a history of lighting fires and since there are several different wells separated by significant distances and since the military was not firing at the oil wells the likely hood of all of the well being struck by artillery in such a way as to cause the fires decreases and the likely hood of Iraqis lighting the oil fields as a result of orders by Saddam increase. But why would YOU consider such evidence. You simply state "no evidence". Your refrain is quite familiar to me. It is oft repeated by those who wish to avoid evidence that conflicts with their world view.

You can call it ad hominem all you want but it wont change the facts.

Evolution is quite demonstrable. And Powell has demonstrated why Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. You characterize such information as "no evidence."

If you simply disagreed with the interpretation or importance of that evidence then I would not stick you with the woo-woos. However you dogmatically refuse to even acknowledge that Powell presented "evidence". I have mentioned Powell's evidence on a number of occasions and you can only rejoin with "NO" evidence.

Sorry, but your reposes are very woo-woo like. You have shown that you are unwilling to even consider evidence that is contrary to your world view. You don't even try to argue or rebut it. You simply state ad nauseam "no" evidence. And then characterize the fact that you behave like woo-woos as ad hominem.

If the shoe fits.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Powell has presented EVIDENCE.

When? If you're talking about his speech to the UN back in February, that was just loads of assertion with no real evidence at all presented.

And in case you haven't noticed, you seem to be the only one left who's insisting that there's evidence of Scuds and WMD. Even most of the other pro-war posters on this board have acknowledged that.

Saddam actions had the net effect of kicking them out.

I have already picked this piece of absurd logic to shreds.

Demonstrably false, why don't you read the link I provided.

I did. It didn't refute any of Ritter's claims.

Oh, right, it's me! You are the one who chooses to accept Ritters claim even though all of the other inspectors refute it. Even if Butler refutes it, even if all of the news outlets refute it.

Why is it evidence only when you want it to be evidence.

Evidence is not refutred by argumentum ad populum.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
I believe it more likely than not that Saddam started the fires.

That wasn't what you said above. You said it was PROOF that he was lying, not "more likely than not."

I'll wait patiently for you to post the quote where I said "the fires proved Saddam was lying".

It's a pattern Shanek. The US says to the UN that their intelligence shows that Saddam has at least 56 scuds. Saddam says that is a lie. The US says to the world that US intelligence indicates that Saddam will burn his oil wells. Saddam goes on American TV and says directly that he will not burn the wells.

In both instances the US is proven correct and Saddam is proven to be a liar.

Well?

No, you are providing some alternative plausible scenario. However Jewish operatives are also an alternative plausible scenario.

They may be an alternative scenario, but I don't know how plausable it is. OTOH, the military certainly seems to feel that artillery fire is a plausible scenario, otherwise why would they have brought it up?

I BELIEVE that Saddam is lying.

Bully for you.

I have not said that the fires prove he has lied.

Funny; I quoted you above saying just that.

It is however, very good evidence.

No, it isn't. Just because someone is lying about one thing doesn't mean they're lying about something else. And just because Saddam would lie about having WMD if he had them does not mean that he actually has them.

You can call it ad hominem all you want but it wont change the facts.

The facts are, the military has not determined the cause of the oil well fires.

You have shown that you are unwilling to even consider evidence that is contrary to your world view.

Odd conclusion, since you haven't presented any, only asserted its existence.

You don't even try to argue or rebut it.

I suppose showing article after article how our military is saying there were no Scuds fired nor any evidence of any WMDs found thus far is not rebutting it? Strange world you live in...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
When? If you're talking about his speech to the UN back in February, that was just loads of assertion with no real evidence at all presented. Thank you for making my case so eloquently

And in case you haven't noticed, you seem to be the only one left who's insisting that there's evidence of Scuds In case you haven't noticed I'm quoting from your source

I have already picked this piece of absurd logic to shreds. ********. Saddam would not comply. In the face of such non compliance there was nothing for the inspectors to do.

How on earth have you rebutted those facts?

I did. It didn't refute any of Ritter's claims. Well, let's see.

According to you "He didn't make it easy for them, but Ritter said that they did end up getting full access eventually."

According to CNN

The action comes amid reports that the United States was preparing to launch a military strike against Iraq following Baghdad's refusal to allow UNSCOM to conduct inspections. It looks like a contradiction to me. But not in your world. I'm sure there is no refutation. Like I have said over and over, there is nothing that you will accept that is against your world view.

Evidence is not refutred by argumentum ad populum. [/B] "It goes to credibility your honor."

Let me give you a little bit of information Einstein. The word of one man can be refuted by the words of others who are reputable and are familiar with the facts.

In other words shanek, I am only refuting Ritter's claim. Argumentum ad populem is not ever relevant in this specific instance.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
That wasn't what you said above. You said it was PROOF that he was lying, not "more likely than not." The Kuwaiti minister has confirmed that fact but you won't even respond to that evidence from your own link.

Ok, I said that the fires proved Saddam was lying. I believe that it is unlikely that the fires were set off by artillary but if shown that they were not will you admit that Saddam lied?

If the Kuwaiti ministers claim is coroborated by the military will you admit that Saddam lied?

They may be an alternative scenario, but I don't know how plausable it is. OTOH, the military certainly seems to feel that artillery fire is a plausible scenario, otherwise why would they have brought it up?

[quote][b] No, it isn't. Just because someone is lying about one thing doesn't mean they're lying about something else. You quote me out of context.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
According to CNN

It looks like a contradiction to me.

So, a report (with no source) cited by the same news company that said that the shuttle Columbia was going 18 times the speed of light is enough to trump the word of someone who was actually there?

Argumentum ad populem is not ever relevant in this specific instance.

You're saying that Ritter's wrong because so many people disagree with him, not by refuting his data. That's argumentum ad populum.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
So, a report (with no source) cited by the same news company that said that the shuttle Columbia was going 18 times the speed of light is enough to trump the word of someone who was actually there? What on earth does this have to do with anything.

Butler, the UN, the US, etc. said that Saddam would not cooperate. That the inspectors could not do their job. News agencies reproted this and you say.... what?

You're saying that Ritter's wrong because so many people disagree with him, not by refuting his data. That's argumentum ad populum. Data? What data?

Again your qoute

Shanek
"He didn't make it easy for them, but Ritter said that they did end up getting full access eventually." Would point out the "data" in this statement.

The statement is demonstrably wrong. I have shown that it is wrong. I have documented that it is wrong. Funny your articles carry weight but mine are wrong because of some article about the space shuttle????

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
The Kuwaiti minister has confirmed that fact

The source said nothing about confirmation.

Ok, I said that the fires proved Saddam was lying.

Thank you for finally acknowledging that.

I believe that it is unlikely that the fires were set off by artillary but if shown that they were not will you admit that Saddam lied?

I fully "admit" that Saddam has lied in the past; and I "admit" that Saddam is probably lying about the oil fires. But I'm putting the word "admit" in quotes because I never said otherwise, as your use of the word implies, apparently to try and score some kind of point.

If the Kuwaiti ministers claim is coroborated by the military will you admit that Saddam lied?

Of course. But right now, the military is contradicting them.

You quote me out of context.

I don't see how. Did you or did you not compare the rationality of the possibility of artillery fire causing the oil fires, mentioned as a possibility by the military, to that of a Jewish conspiracy?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
I don't see how. Did you or did you not compare the rationality of the possibility of artillery fire causing the oil fires, mentioned as a possibility by the military, to that of a Jewish conspiracy? Jewish conspiracy had nothing to do with the quote in question.

RandFan
It is however, very good evidence. Since the Military was not firing at the oil fields and there is no evidence that it was artillery fire and since Saddam has a history of lighting fires and since there are several different wells separated by significant distances and since the military was not firing at the oil wells the likely hood of all of the wells being struck by artillery in such a way as to cause the fires decreases and the likely hood of Iraqis lighting the oil fields as a result of orders by Saddam increase

shanek
No, it isn't. Just because someone is lying about one thing doesn't mean they're lying about something else. My argument here was that it is very good evidence that he lied when he said that he would not torch his oil wells. Not that one lie proves another. I'm sorry if that was not clear but it was and is my contention. Confirmation not withstanding.

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek


Not according to the chief weapons inspector at the time:


No Saddam refused to allow any more inspections didn’t you even bother reading the link?
Here is more.


October 31, 1998
Iraq announced it is halting all dealings with U.N. arms inspectors, who are charged with investigating the country’s weapons of mass destruction.


December 15, 1998
Butler says in his report that Iraq has not met promises made a month ago to fully cooperate with U.N. inspectors and has imposed new restrictions on their work.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/wld/iframes/iraq_us.asp

The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes.

--AP, 12/16/98


The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes.

--Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98
http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Jewish conspiracy had nothing to do with the quote in question.

You brought it up...

My argument here was that it is very good evidence that he lied when he said that he would not torch his oil wells.

No, you said it was PROOF. If you had just said "good evidence," we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker
No Saddam refused to allow any more inspections didn’t you even bother reading the link?

I'm not arguing that. I'm refuting the lie that Saddam kicked them out.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
You brought it up... Yes I did. But what does that have to do with the quote in question? Nothing.

No, you said it was PROOF. If you had just said "good evidence," we wouldn't be having this conversation. Again, it has nothing to do with the relevence of the point in question. You don't really get to use that as a catch phrase for every argument.

And I said "proof" long after we started having this discussion so I really doubt that .

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
I'm not arguing that. I'm refuting the lie that Saddam kicked them out. Entirely irrelevent. It is demonstrable that Saddam would not cooperate. What is the net difference between kicking them out and not letting them do their job?

Answer: None, nada, zip. So he didn't kick them out. We will all stipulate to that. BIG DEAL. His behavior led to them leaving. It's like telling your friend he doesn't have to go home but he can't watch tv or sit on the couch or stand in the living room or go in the kitchen or use the bathroom or... well you get the idea. Next day he says "I didn't kick you out". shanek, the inspectors where there to inspect. If they can't inspect then what are they supposed to do?

It reminds me of an old poem.

Mother may I go out to swim?
Yes my darling daughter.
Hang your clothes on a hickory stick--
But don't go near the water.

Bartender Saddam: You don't have to go home but you can't inspect here.

But I'm sure that there is a very important reason why this bit of trivia is so salient.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yes I did. But what does that have to do with the quote in question? Nothing.

No, it has everything to do with the quote because you equated the consideration of artillery fire as a possible cause of the fires with a Jewish conspiracy.

Again, it has nothing to do with the relevence of the point in question.

The point was and is that you asserted that the oil fires proved Saddam a liar when they aren't conclusive of anything of the kind.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Entirely irrelevent.

Why is it irrelevant to refute that Saddam kicked the inspectors out but not irrelevant to have stated that he did so in the first place?

It is demonstrable that Saddam would not cooperate. What is the net difference between kicking them out and not letting them do their job?

There is an incredible difference! And if you can't see it you're so closed-minded that it's not worth trying to discuss it with you!

Answer straight: How can the one possibly be tantamount to the other?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it has everything to do with the quote because you equated the consideration of artillery fire as a possible cause of the fires with a Jewish conspiracy. The quote in question had nothing to do with Jewish cosnpiracies. I have shown you that. I have reposted the dialog that led to the quote. You ignore that though don't you? Why let the truth invade on your little fantasy. Like most discussions ours have branched in different directions. Are you capable of undertanding that? Can you use my words to show how the quote in question has anything to do with a Jewish Conspiracy? Or do you just lump everything together because it is to difficult mentally to seperate everyghing

The point was and is that you asserted that the oil fires proved Saddam a liar when they aren't conclusive of anything of the kind. One point? Is that all you are capable of following? Did it ever occur to you that most intellegent people are capable of talking about more than one point?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Why is it irrelevant to refute that Saddam kicked the inspectors out but not irrelevant to have stated that he did so in the first place? Because the assertion is misleading. It suggests something that is untrue. That somehow Saddam was cooperating when he wasn't. Whether he kicked the inspectors out or not does not change the fact that they could not do their job.

A: If kicked out the inspectors would have been unable to perform their duties.

B: Saddam did not let the inspectors perform their duties.

A = B

There is an incredible difference! And if you can't see it you're so closed-minded that it's not worth trying to discuss it with you! Oh, now there is logic for you.

Answer straight: How can the one possibly be tantamount to the other? {sigh} Ok, one more time.

If Saddam had kicked out the inspectors it would have prevented them from performing their jobs.

Saddam, without kicking out the inspectors prevented them from performing their jobs.

Just in case you didn't know, the inspectors where there to inspect. They were not diplomats and they were not there to tour the country or observe conditions generally. The inspectors were there for one reason and one reason only, to inspect. Not to attend school or visit relatives they were there to inspect. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. A = B.

A = No inspections.

B = No inspections.

If they had been kicked out they would not have been able to do their jobs (inspecting).

As it were Saddam would let them stay but he would not let them do their jobs (inspecting).

Answer straight: If they could not inspect then of what value was it for them to be there?

I don't know what else to say shanek. The inspectors were there for only one purpose and that was to inspect. Kicking out the inspectors would have prevented them from doing their job. Saddam prevented the inspectors from doing their job.

Since the inspectors where there to inspect and since the result of kicking out the inspectors would have been the same as leaving them there but not letting them do their jobs then preventing the inspectors from inspecting is tantamount to kicking them out since it has the same net effect.

4 entries found for tantamount.
tan·ta·mount ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tnt-mount)
adj.
Equivalent in effect or value: a request tantamount to a demand.

A = No inspections.

B = No inspections.

I can safely say that not letting the inspectors perform their duties which was to inspect is tantamount to kicking them out.

If you still don't understand then let me know.

Edited to add,

Let's say someone comes by my house to clean my carpets. And I don't want the guy to clean my carpets. But being the nice guy that I am I tell him that he doesn't have to leave but he can't clean my carpets. What the hell is this guy going to do?

Come on, answer honestly. Is he going to stick arround or leave?

He is going to leave which would have the same net effect as kicking him out.

So.

1. Inspectors are in Iraq to inspect.

2. If the inspectors can't inspect then there is no reason for them to be in Iraq.

3. Saddam won't let them inspect.

4. This has the net effect of kicking them out since the only purpose for the inspectos to be there in the fist place is to inspect.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
The quote in question had nothing to do with Jewish cosnpiracies. I have shown you that. I have reposted the dialog that led to the quote.

When I said:

Neither case has been proven yet. There have been some missiles that the press has been calling Scuds but the military has been quick to correct them, and there are a very few iol well fires which may have been set or may have been caused by artillery fire.

You replied:

You left out aliens and the Jewish conspiracy.

And you've repeated it several times since then.

And speaking of ignoring things, I notice you're still ignoring McChrystal's determination that no Scud missiles were fired and that there was no evidence of banned weapons in Iraq. But that's all right; you have your unnamed and unconfirmed Kuwaiti source. :rolleyes:

One point? Is that all you are capable of following?

That's the point we were discussing. I know you might like to obfuscate but really, even though discussions may cover several different points, you really have to cover them one at a time to avoid confusion.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Because the assertion is misleading. It suggests something that is untrue.

No, it doesn't. It suggests that Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out, and that is 100% true.

The assertion that Saddam kicked the inspectors out suggests something that is untrue: that Saddam kicked the inspectors out, when he didn't.

Hand-wave all you like, but that's the truth. If the claim had been, "Saddam's refusal to cooperate made the inspector's presence moot and so they were pulled out," then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

A: If kicked out the inspectors would have been unable to perform their duties.

B: Saddam did not let the inspectors perform their duties.

A = B

Oh, now there is logic for you.

Logic riddled with fallacies. B contains many situations other than A, therefore A ≠ B.

Let's look at this "logic" another way:

P1: One way of getting somewhere without a car is by bicycle.

P2: Harry got somewhere without a car.

C: Harry got there by bicycle.

It's invalid because it improperly rules out the possibiliy of Harry walking, taking the bus, etc.

And no matter how many times you repeat this logic ad nauseum, it's still fundamentally flawed. Even though the end result may be the same (Harry got there), it is completely false to state that he got there by bicycle when he actually took the bus.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it doesn't. It suggests that Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out, and that is 100% true.

The assertion that Saddam kicked the inspectors out suggests something that is untrue: that Saddam kicked the inspectors out, when he didn't. Since the inspections were more important than the inspectors being there then the point is moot. Actually it is ridiculous. The inspectors couldn't do their jobs so being there served no purpose.

Hand-wave all you like, but that's the truth. If the claim had been, "Saddam's refusal to cooperate made the inspector's presence moot and so they were pulled out," then we wouldn't be having this discussion. We are having this discussion because you don't understand the definition of tantamount even though I posted the definition. It was the same net effect as kicking them out. Since inspections was far more important than just being there the fact that Saddam did not kick them out is a distinction without a difference.

Logic riddled with fallacies. B contains many situations other than A, therefore A ≠ B. You are joking. There are no more situations.

Shanek, are you pulling my chain? Is there a bet to see how long I will engage you?

Logic riddled with fallacies. B contains many situations other than A, therefore A ? B.

Let's look at this "logic" another way:

P1: One way of getting somewhere without a car is by bicycle.

P2: Harry got somewhere without a car.

C: Harry got there by bicycle.

It's invalid because it improperly rules out the possibility of Harry walking, taking the bus, etc It's invalid because it improperly rules out the possibility of Harry walking, taking the bus, etc. You poorly misconstrue my argument. This does not follow my logic at all. You screw up on "C". I will restate it so it is clearer for you.

P1: One way of getting somewhere without a car is by bicycle.

P2: Harry got somewhere without a car.

C: Harry's arrival at "somewhere" was tantamount to getting there by a bicycle.

BIG difference.

I am saying that the net effect is the same. Please read the definition again?

P1: One way of keeping the inspectors from inspecting is to kick them out of the country.

P2: Saddam prevented the inspectors from inspecting.

C: Saddam's actions were tantamount to kicking the inspectors out of the country.

NO WHERE DO I SAY THAT THEY ARE THE SAME!

I have said over and over that it had the same NET EFFECT.

Getting to work by bus has the same NET EFFECT as taking a bicycle.

And no matter how many times you repeat this logic ad nauseum, it's still fundamentally flawed. And you are blind if you can't see that I am saying that kicking the inspectors out and not letting them inspect has the same net effect.

Even though the end result may be the same (Harry got there), it is completely false to state that he got there by bicycle when he actually took the bus. But I did not state that he got there by bicycle. I said that I would stipulate that he didn't. However his arrival had the same NET EFFECT of using a bicycle.

You are now being obtuse. The logic is quite simple and I am quite certain that I have never ever stated that kicking the inspectors out was the same. I know that I have said MANY, MANY times that it is the same net effect.

And arriving by bus or bicycle the same net effect. Your attempt at logic is sad and pathetic.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Since the inspections were more important than the inspectors being there then the point is moot. Actually it is ridiculous. The inspectors couldn't do their jobs so being there served no purpose.

Why isn't that what's said, then? Why is there this insistence that Saddam kicked out the inspectors when he didn't?

We are having this discussion because you don't understand blah blah blah

No, we are having this discussion because you are stubbornly bent on supporting a lie.

You are joking. There are no more situations.

You've already given the other situation!

Situation #1: Saddam kicked out the inspectors
Situation #2: The UN pulled out the inspectors because they concluded they weren't getting enough cooperation from Saddam.

You poorly misconstrue my argument. This does not follow my logic at all.

That is EXACTLY your logic! Here's what you said again:

A: If kicked out the inspectors would have been unable to perform their duties.

B: Saddam did not let the inspectors perform their duties.

A = B

You used this to justify the claim that Saddam kicked out the inspectors when he didn't.

P1: One way of getting somewhere without a car is by bicycle.

P2: Harry got somewhere without a car.

C: Harry's arrival at "somewhere" was tantamount to getting there by a bicycle.

BIG difference.

But it's still a lie to say he got there by bicycle.

I am saying that the net effect is the same.

It's still a lie to claim that Saddam kicked out the inspectors.

NO WHERE DO I SAY THAT THEY ARE THE SAME!

YES, YOU DO!!! THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS YOU SUPPORTING THE LIE THAT SADDAM KICKED OUT THE INSPECTORS!!!!!

I have said over and over that it had the same NET EFFECT.

That doesn't mean he kicked them out. It's a pathetic excuse to prop up a lie.

Getting to work by bus has the same NET EFFECT as taking a bicycle.

But it's still a lie to say he took a bicycle when he got there by bus! Why can't you understand that?

But I did not state that he got there by bicycle.

Yes, you did. This whole conversation is about you supporting the lie that Saddam kicked out the inspectors. I said:

Saddam Hussein didn't kick out the U.N. inspectors.

Whereupon you accused me of being "intellectually dishonest."

[jj]

I propose that a reasonable response to the question that started this thread is "approximately everything".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Why isn't that what's said, then? Why is there this insistence that Saddam kicked out the inspectors when he didn't? Because people are human. They tend to talk in sound bites. Why do people use the phrases "Play it again Sam" and "Alas poor Yorick I knew him well"? When the phrases were never uttered by the characters that they are attributed to? Is it part of some great big "lie?"

No, it is just human nature.

People have said that Saddam kicked out the inspectors because his actions had the net same effect. It would sure be nice if you could at least admit that the net effect was the same.

No, we are having this discussion because you are stubbornly bent on supporting a lie. ********. I have said over and over that such a statement is wrong. It is effectively the same. We are having this discussion because you are being pedantic and intellectually dishonest. You know that not letting the inspectors do their job is effectively the same as kicking them out.

How many times do I have to ask what the hell are they supposed to do if they can't inspect? Why will you not answer my questions?

Situation #1: Saddam kicked out the inspectors
Situation #2: The UN pulled out the inspectors because they concluded they weren't getting enough cooperation from Saddam. And both have the same net effect NO INSPECTIONS!!!!!!

Situation #1 is tantamount to situation # 2.

Your cluster f**k is not admitting to the fact that just BEING THERE is not the purpose for them being there.

Such a dogmatic refusal is in my opinion intellectual dishonesty, you are being obtuse. I have no respect for such ********.

But it's still a lie to say he got there by bicycle. And this is where you are being pigheaded. This is a canard. I have said that I am willing to stipulate that they were not kicked out of Iraq. This is smoke and mirrors. Johnny Cochran ********. That they were not kicked out is meaningless to the fact that Saddam would not let them do their job. And it is the meaning of those that say Saddam kicked them out.

But getting there by any means is tantamount to getting their by bicycle.

Have you figured out the definition of tantamount yet?

It's still a lie to claim that Saddam kicked out the inspectors. I make no such claim. I am saying that it is a distinction without a difference and that Saddam would not let the inspectors is far more important and focusing on this Johnny Cochran the glove doesn't fit ******** does not take the stink of the fact that it does not change the NET EFFECT.

YES, YOU DO!!! THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS YOU SUPPORTING THE LIE THAT SADDAM KICKED OUT THE INSPECTORS!!!!! Straw man. Your statement is demonstrably false.

Let's look at the record.

RandFan 03-24-2003 08:19 PM
So he didn't kick them out. We will all stipulate to that. BIG DEAL. I do not now nor have I ever claimed in this thread (not sure about the past) that Saddam kicked out the inspectors.

First, since I can't read the minds of those that have said this I don't know if it is a lie. I don't think it is. I know that it is factually incorrect. So, for arguments sake, how I can't perpetrate a lie when I stipulate that the statement in question is wrong? (This is not rhetorical, I expect an answer).

In truth, I am arguing that your point is a distinction without a difference. Do you understand that phrase?

Do you understand the word "tantamount"?

Do you agree that the inspectors where there to inspect?

Do you agree that if they can't inspect then it is effectively the same as kicking them out?

If not then why?

You are focusing on the most benign part of this. In fact Saddam had stopped the inspectors. Who gives a **** whether or not they were kicked out or not?

They couldn't do their job any less than if they were kicked out.

THAT IS THE POINT! THEY WERE THERE TO INSPECT!

As I have said before they were not there to go to school or be diplomats. They were there to inspect.

That doesn't mean he kicked them out. It's a pathetic excuse to prop up a lie. I'm not propping up a lie.

Again,

RandFan 03-24-2003 08:19 PM
So he didn't kick them out. We will all stipulate to that. BIG DEAL. I do not now nor have I ever claimed in this thread (not sure about the past) that Saddam kicked out the inspectors.

{sigh} Will you ever admit when you are wrong?

I have shown you in black and white that I agree that the statement is wrong. If you continue to assert that I am perpetrating a lie when I have said over and over that the statement in question is wrong then you are lying.

I have not in this thread or in recent times tried to suggest that the Saddam kicked out the inspectors. You know this because I have said it over and over. Yet you continue in YOUR lie.

How can I prop up a lie when I stipulate that it is wrong?

Answer I CAN'T.

My argument is not whether the statement is technically, pedantically accurate but whether the net effect of the incorrect statement is tantamount to the reality.

YES! The incorrect statement "Saddam kicked the inspectors" out is tantamount to not letting the inspectors do their job.

$10.00 says you ignore the fact that I have said that the statement is wrong. And that you continue to lie about what I said.

Prove me right. Ignore the many times that I have admitted to the fact that the statement is factually wrong.

You are the one perpetrating a lie. Your canard is intellectually dishonest. The inspectors were not there to be there. They were there to inspect.

But it's still a lie to say he took a bicycle when he got there by bus! Why can't you understand that? Actually it is factually wrong and unimportant to the fact that he got there without a car.

"Without a car" is the salient point. Why can't you understand that?

The statement about the "bicycle" is factually wrong. Since I can't read the minds of those who made the statement and I don't know their motivations and since I didn't make the statement then I can only deduce that it is factually wrong.

Since the important point is that Harry got to work with out a car, I can honestly say that how he got to work is tantamount to riding a bicycle.

That is a factually correct statement.

If I agree that "he took a bicycle" is factually wrong but effectively the same as getting there by bus (as opposed to getting there by car) then that is not a lie.

RandFan
But I did not state that he got there by bicycle.

shanek
Yes, you did. This whole conversation is about you supporting the lie that Saddam kicked out the inspectors. This is not true and I have said over and over that Saddam did not kick out the inspectors.

RandFan 03-24-2003 08:19 PM
So he didn't kick them out. We will all stipulate to that. BIG DEAL.

shanek
I said:
Saddam Hussein didn't kick out the U.N. inspectors.

Whereupon you accused me of being "intellectually dishonest." Since you are being so pedantic let's look at what I really said.

RandFan
[b]Intellectually dishonest. Saddam did not order the inspectors out. However he would not let them do their job. [b] 03-24-2003 07:25 AM

Well, well, well, would you look at that? In the very FIRST sentence I said SADDAM DID NOT ORDER THE INSPECTORS OUT.

Did you get that? Do I need to repeat it?

Ok, just for you. "Saddam did not order the inspectors out."

Hmmmm.... a rather odd way to perpetrate a lie by saying over and over and over that "it" (Saddam kicked the inspectors out) was wrong. And from the very beginning I said that.

Perhaps you can explain how stating that something is wrong is perpetrating a lie?

On the other hand. You continue to advance the idea that this incorrect statement is somehow important. Even more important than the reality of not letting the inspectors do their jobs.

It is not more important. And it is the message that is meant to be conveyed when people say "Saddam kicked the inspectors out". What they mean is that Saddam made it impossible for them to do their job and that is far more important than any "supposed" lie. The lie is unfortunate but not necessary since the actions that Saddam took had the exact same effect, it stopped the inspectors.

But you and those like you don't want to focus on this fact. Like Johnny Cochran in the O.J. trial you want us to look at everything but the important facts of the case.

For the last time, Saddam did not let the inspectors do their job.

Your insistence that this supposed "lie" is important is intellectually dishonest. And I can say that without any reservation. If I'm shown to be wrong I will admit it. I know few, very few on this forum that have the backbone to admit when they are wrong.

I proudly am not one of them. If I were wrong here I would admit it like I have done many times on this forum. But I have been honest and admirable. I stated from the start that the statement was wrong. I only meant to point out what heaping pile of smelling dog **** canard it was to focus on the misstatement (could be lie but I really doubt it) and ignoring the fact that not letting the inspectors do their job was in effect the same as kicking the inspectors out.

Well you at least have the integrity to admit that I said from the start that the statement "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" was wrong? And that I have said on more than one occasion that the statement was wrong? In fact I said that I would stipulate to it.

Summary:

[list=1]
The statement "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" is wrong.
I have said from the very beginning that it is wrong.
I have never wavered from the fact that the statement is wrong.
The complaint that "the statement is a lie" is a canard.
To claim that it is a "lie" is wrong if you are unable to read the mind of those who make the claim. There is the very real possibility that those who say this don't know the truth. It is only perpetrating a lie if the continue to insist that it is true after learning the truth.
Saddam did not let the inspectors do their job.
The fact that he did not let the inspectors do their job had the net effect of kicking the inspectors out of the country.
To dogmatically insist that "the statement" is a lie is pedantic.
To insist that I am perpetrating a lie when I have said over and over that the statement is wrong is in itself a lie.
To act as you do not understand my argument is at best obtuse.
To accuse me of doing something that I am demonstrably not doing is pathetic and sad.
[/list=1]

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Because people are human. They tend to talk in sound bites. Why do people use the phrases "Play it again Sam" and "Alas poor Yorick I knew him well"? When the phrases were never uttered by the characters that they are attributed to? Is it part of some great big "lie?"

No, it is just human nature.

But we're not talking about people who are just misremembering something. We are talking about PEOPLE WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER. How many times has Bush repeated the very lie we're talking about?

People have said that Saddam kicked out the inspectors because his actions had the net same effect. It would sure be nice if you could at least admit that the net effect was the same.

I have admitted that the net effect is the same. I also maintain it's irrelevant to the fact that the phrase "Saddam kicked out the inspectors" isn untrue.

We are having this discussion because you are being pedantic and intellectually dishonest.

No, we are having this discussion because you are defenind people who are making a statement you have already acknowledged is false.

I do not now nor have I ever claimed in this thread (not sure about the past) that Saddam kicked out the inspectors.

You did that very thing when you accused me of dishonesty for pointing out that Saddam didn't actually kick out the inspectors.

I'm not propping up a lie.

You're effectively saying that a lie is okay as long as the "net result" is the same. I strongly disagree.

{sigh} Will you ever admit when you are wrong?

Why should I, when you've already acknowledged that I'm right?

I have shown you in black and white that I agree that the statement is wrong.

Then why did you accuse me of being dishonest for pointing out that very same thing?

"Without a car" is the salient point. Why can't you understand that?

Becuase "without a car" and "with a bicycle" are two entirely different things.

Since the important point is that Harry got to work with out a car, I can honestly say that how he got to work is tantamount to riding a bicycle.

That is such a stretch I really have to wonder about your thought processes. Not taking a car is tantamount to riding a bicycle? Walking is tantamount to riding a bicycle? Taking a bus is tantamount to riding a bicycle? But taking a car wouldn't be? Very strained thinking there.

If I agree that "he took a bicycle" is factually wrong but effectively the same as getting there by bus (as opposed to getting there by car) then that is not a lie.

Even if one could reasonably argue that getting their by bus is more like getting there by car than by getting there by bicycle?

Ok, just for you. "Saddam did not order the inspectors out."

Okay, fine. OS why did you accuse me of being dishonest?

Perhaps you can explain how stating that something is wrong is perpetrating a lie?

Because you're defending those who are telling the lie!

On the other hand. You continue to advance the idea that this incorrect statement is somehow important.

It is very important. The statement that Saddam kicked them out is much more inflammatory than saying that they left because they weren't happy with the level of cooperation they were getting. It's meant to inflame the public opinion against Saddam by getting them to believe something that just isn't true!

The lie is unfortunate but not necessary[/qoute]

See? Right there, you're supportiung something that you KNOW to be a lie!

[quote]I proudly am not one of them. If I were wrong here I would admit it like I have done many times on this forum.

As have I. But I keep wanting to know how you can call me dishonest for making a true statement and why you are not perpetuating a lie for supporting statements you know to be false!

Well you at least have the integrity to admit that I said from the start that the statement "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" was wrong?

There's that word "admit" again—that's precisely the reason you're perpetrating a lie! It's because you KNOW it to be false!

How can supporting a statement you know to be false, and defending those who continually make the false statement, not be a lie?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
But we're not talking about people who are just misremembering something. We are talking about PEOPLE WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER. How many times has Bush repeated the very lie we're talking about? Should have, would have , could have. Ok they should know better. I can't read their mind so I don't honestly know if they are perpetrating a lie. I am not now nor have I in this thread defended such people.

I have admitted that the net effect is the same. Thank you. Perhaps we can move on.


No, we are having this discussion because you are defenind people who are making a statement you have already acknowledged is false. Two points.

[list=1]
My point is and has been to point out that the "saddam kicked the inspectors out" is a canard because it substantially distracts from a very important point

I don't defend anyone who uses that statement when they know it is wrong (Since I am not a mindreader how could I possibly know that they know? I only know that they should know)
[/list=1]

You did that very thing when you accused me of dishonesty for pointing out that Saddam didn't actually kick out the inspectors. No I didn't. The point is a rhetorical device to confuse the issue. I am attacking those (unfortunately, you included) who focus on this point when it is functionally unimportant. There is a much more important point IMO. If anyone is stupid enough to "perpetrate" this lie then they do not understand that it is entirely unnecessary. So perhaps they do not know that it is a lie.

That is why I have some reservations as to whether or not anyone is actually "perpetrating" a lie since it is completely unnecessary. All they need to say is that Saddam refused to cooperate and that led to the inspectors leaving. It has the same ramifications.

You're effectively saying that a lie is okay as long as the "net result" is the same. I strongly disagree. This is wrong and a straw man. I never made any such assertion. I have said that the statement is factually wrong. And that the statement, though it is false, is functionally the same as the true net effect.

I have some serious doubts as to whether anyone knew it was wrong and thus perpetrated a lie.

RandFan
Will you ever admit when you are wrong?

shanek
Why should I, when you've already acknowledged that I'm right? I have done no such thing. Your point is a red herring. IMO It seeks to distract from the true and important point.

RandFan
I have shown you in black and white that I agree that the statement is wrong.

shanek
Then why did you accuse me of being dishonest for pointing out that very same thing? Let me be absolutely clear. The fact that Saddam did not kick out the inspectors in light of those who claim otherwise is a distraction. To pedantically cling to this fact and make much ado about it when the truth is just as bad as the "falsehood" is disingenuous. Maybe you don't see it that way. Maybe you are not being dishonest.

Up to this point I have felt that you should have known that it is disingenuous. However, if I say that I don't know whether or not people are lying when they continue to use a false statement then I should cut you the same slack.

Becuase "without a car" and "with a bicycle" are two entirely different things. But arriving with out a car is "tantamount" to arriving with a bicycle.

Let's go back.

RandFan
[quote]It is demonstrable that Saddam would not cooperate. What is the net difference between kicking them out and not letting them do their job?

shanek
How can the one possibly be tantamount to the other? [/b]You are the one who asked how can it be tantamount.

And now you have said that they have the same net effect.

That is such a stretch I really have to wonder about your thought processes. Not taking a car is tantamount to riding a bicycle? Walking is tantamount to riding a bicycle? Taking a bus is tantamount to riding a bicycle? But taking a car wouldn't be? Very strained thinking there. shanek,

Please look closely at the above statement. You are making a straw man. I never said that "taking a car wouldn't be".

At the risk of being patronizing (I don't me to be right now) let's look at what I am saying.

"Taking a bus" is to "not arriving by car" as "walking" is to "not arriving by car".

Taking a bus = not arriving by car.

Riding a bicycle = not arriving by car.

So, in this instance taking a bus is tantamount to riding a bicycle in that they have the net effect of "arriving" but "not arriving by car."

Even if one could reasonably argue that getting their by bus is more like getting there by car than by getting there by bicycle? No, this is not the argument. It has nothing to do with your argument or my clarification of your argument.


P1: One way of getting somewhere without a car is by bicycle.

P2: Harry got somewhere without a car.

C: Harry got there by bicycle. Ok, P1 = arriving without a car by using a bicycle. Would you agree?

P2 = arriving without a car. This is the "net effect", again would you agree?

P3 = arriving without a car by riding the bus. Ok?

Ok, the net effect of P1 = the net effect of P3. In other words both P1 (using a bicycle) and P3 have the same net effect the both produce the same results which is to say that the both allow henry to "arrive without a car."

Now, if you change your argument to exclude the "net effect" and it does not matter how Harry "arrives" then yes, arriving by car is tantamount to bicycle or walking or bus.

RandFan
Ok, just for you. "Saddam did not order the inspectors out."

shanek
Okay, fine. OS why did you accuse me of being dishonest? As I said before, not letting the inspectors do their job was a very serious thing. Just as serious as kicking the inspectors out. To focus on the statement and not on the truth of what Saddam actually did is misleading. It focuses on the wrong thing. Saddam was wrong to stop the inspectors. That is the salient point.

RandFan
Perhaps you can explain how stating that something is wrong is perpetrating a lie?

shanek
Because you're defending those who are telling the lie! [list=1]
I don't know that they are lying anymore than I know that you are lying. I have suspected you and you have suspected them.
I am not defending the perpetration of falsehood. I am pointing out that to focus on this "wrong" statement significantly misses the point
[/list=1] I will stipulate that I don't know that you are being intellectually dishonest.

The statement that Saddam kicked them out is much more inflammatory than saying that they left because they weren't happy with the level of cooperation they were getting.[quote] Thank you. While I disagree with the significance of this statement it helps me to understand your point of view. You see it as inflammatory when I see the truth just as inflammatory. So I don't see the importance of calling attention to this when Saddam refused to allow the inspectors to do their job.

I at least understand your perspective a little better.

[quote] It's meant to inflame the public opinion against Saddam by getting them to believe something that just isn't true! You are attaching meaning and intent. Whatever the truth is it is not any worse than the reality in my mind.

RandFan
The lie is unfortunate but not necessary

shanek
See? Right there, you're supportiung something that you KNOW to be a lie![/b] Hang on shanek, please don't attribute meaning where there is none. Let's get my quote in context ok?

RandFan
What they mean is that Saddam made it impossible for them [the inspectors] to do their job and that is far more important than any "supposed" lie. The lie is unfortunate but not necessary since the actions that Saddam took had the exact same effect, it stopped the inspectors. Please note the quoted word "supposed". I do not necessarily believe that it is a lie.

My argument was a hypothetical and should not be used to prove that I "know" that it is a lie. I know that the statement is factually incorrect, ok?

My argument is that there is no need for anyone to perpetrate a lie since the truth is as inflammatory as the false statement.

As have I. But I keep wanting to know how you can call me dishonest for making a true statement and why you are not perpetuating a lie for supporting statements you know to be false! (see above, if you still do not understand I will try and explain it again) I will withdraw the accusation that you are dishonest. You have at least indicated that you understand my argument at least in part. That means allot to me. I did not find this post obtuse. Please believe that I am not being patronizing.

There's that word "admit" again—that's precisely the reason you're perpetrating a lie! It's because you KNOW it to be false!

How can supporting a statement you know to be false, and defending those who continually make the false statement, not be a lie? I do not support anyone in perpetrating a lie.

[list=1]
I do not support anyone in perpetrating a lie
I believe the truth to be just as inflammatory as the "false statement."
I see it unnecessary to lie and therefore wonder if anyone is lying
I find that focusing on this "lie" is a distraction, a rhetorical ploy to avoid the far more important truth that Saddam would not let the inspectors do their job.
[/list=1]

FWIW, thanks for your responding to some of my points. It means allot to me. It is tough when other refuse to acknowledge arguments. I don't have to be right but I would like to be understood. I know that my patronizing manner and incoherent get in the way of that. I am really trying.

Thanks again and please forgive any offense. I withdraw any accusation directed at your character.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't defend anyone who uses that statement when they know it is wrong (Since I am not a mindreader how could I possibly know that they know? I only know that they should know)

But how can you defend the statement when you know it to be wrong?

No I didn't. The point is a rhetorical device to confuse the issue. I am attacking those (unfortunately, you included) who focus on this point when it is functionally unimportant. There is a much more important point IMO. If anyone is stupid enough to "perpetrate" this lie then they do not understand that it is entirely unnecessary. So perhaps they do not know that it is a lie.

Or perhaps they realize the inflammatory nature of the comment. Or is it your contention that "The inspectors left after they weren't getting the cooperation they wanted" is as inflammatory as "Saddam kicked the inspectors out"?

All they need to say is that Saddam refused to cooperate and that led to the inspectors leaving. It has the same ramifications.

No, it doesn't. Bush et al say Saddam kicked out the inspectors to portray him as a monster and get the American people that much more riled up against him. "He didn't cooperate so we left" doesn't have anywhere near the same effect.

This is wrong and a straw man. I never made any such assertion. I have said that the statement is factually wrong. And that the statement, though it is false, is functionally the same as the true net effect.

You're still saying that it's more honest to make a false statement that is "functionally the same as the true net effect" than it is to point out that the statement is false; otherwise, you would not have called me dishonest.

I have some serious doubts as to whether anyone knew it was wrong and thus perpetrated a lie.

Oh, give me a break! We're talking about Bush, Powell, and others who most certainly know the truth behind what happened to the inspectors in 1998!

I have done no such thing. Your point is a red herring. IMO It seeks to distract from the true and important point.

Which is?

Let me be absolutely clear. The fact that Saddam did not kick out the inspectors in light of those who claim otherwise is a distraction.

Correcting a false statement is a distraction?

To pedantically cling to this fact and make much ado about it

You're the one going on about it and calling me dishonest. I made one statement correcting him. After that I've just been defending myself from you.

Please look closely at the above statement. You are making a straw man. I never said that "taking a car wouldn't be".

That is the logical implication of your argument.

At the risk of being patronizing (I don't me to be right now) let's look at what I am saying.

"Taking a bus" is to "not arriving by car" as "walking" is to "not arriving by car".

Taking a bus = not arriving by car.

Riding a bicycle = not arriving by car.[/b]

Conversely:

"Taking a bus" is to "not walking" as "arriving by car" is to "not walking."

Taking a bus = not walking.

Arriving by car = not walking.

I can also turn it around the other way. So what's so special about whether or not he drives a car compared to whether or not he takes the bus or walks?

In fact, I can make a better case that riding a bicycle is more unique, since both the bus and the car can go faster and use combustion engines. Or, I can say that taking the bus is unique because in the case of both the car and the bike the driver is in control.

No, this is not the argument. It has nothing to do with your argument or my clarification of your argument.

Yes, it is! You're arguing that "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" is as valid as "the inspectors left because Saddam wasn't cooperating" when, aside from the fact that one statement is true and the other isn't, there are vast differences in the reactions people have to the two statements!

Hang on shanek, please don't attribute meaning where there is none. Let's get my quote in context ok?

Well, you did say the lie was necessary. And the curious thing is that just above you said the lie was not necessary (thus somehow "proving" that they don't know they're lying).

The only thing the lie is "necessary" for is inflaming the American people.

My argument is that there is no need for anyone to perpetrate a lie since the truth is as inflammatory as the false statement.

Do you really think people would have the same negative reation as they do to "Saddam kicked the inspectors out"?

I will withdraw the accusation that you are dishonest.

Okay, thanks.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
But how can you defend the statement when you know it to be wrong? I'm not defending the statement. I'm attacking those who focus on it because it is a canard.

Or perhaps they realize the inflammatory nature of the comment. Or is it your contention that "The inspectors left after they weren't getting the cooperation they wanted" is as inflammatory as "Saddam kicked the inspectors out"? I think you can make the argument that one is more than the other. Though I do not necessarily subscribe to that argument.

No, it doesn't. Bush et al say Saddam kicked out the inspectors to portray him as a monster and get the American people that much more riled up against him. "He didn't cooperate so we left" doesn't have anywhere near the same effect. I will allow that there is a bit of truth there. However to focus on this misses the more important point. Saddam would not let the inspectors do their jobs. I can say with all honesty that for all intents and purposes Saddam kicked the inspectors out.

You're still saying that it's more honest to make a false statement that is "functionally the same as the true net effect" NO, that is NOT what I am saying. Please do not put words in my mouth. I'm saying that the fact that Saddam would not let the inspectors do their job is MUCH more important than a false statement. And to focus on the false statement is to miss a very important point.

...than it is to point out that the statement is false; otherwise, you would not have called me dishonest. At the risk of becoming trite. The false statement is a canard. It distracts from the truth. Canards are the tools of politicians and lawyers. Oooh, oooh, look over here, NO don't look at the important fact that Saddam would not cooperate. Look at this supposed "lie". I find such tactics dishonest. And to use such tactics is as least as bad as telling this supposed "lie". But I honestly don't know if it is a lie since the truth is functionally the same.

Oh, give me a break! We're talking about Bush, Powell, and others who most certainly know the truth behind what happened to the inspectors in 1998! This is easily one of those instances when people honestly misconstrue the event. Since the truth has just as much impact as the truth I find it hard to imagine that they would be lying in this instance.

And since the net effect is virtually the same I can see how they might "spin" it a certain way. If that is the case I don't defend it. I am saying the sin of the canard is much worse than the sin of the spin.

RandFan
I have done no such thing. Your point is a red herring. IMO It seeks to distract from the true and important point.

shanek
Which is? Sorry shanek but this is frustrating. I have said a number of times what the "true and important point" is. But ok, Saddam would not allow the inspectors to do their job. The inspectors where in Iraq to inspect and for no other reason. To focus on the false statement is to miss this very important point. And those who are ideologically opposed to Bush have a political motivation to misdirect.

Correcting a false statement is a distraction? Oh hell yes! Have you ever watched a trial.

Attorney: So what time did you see the defendant shoot the victim?

Witness: 10:15

Attorney: 10:15? Are you sure?

Witness: Yes.

Attorney: According to the police report you said 10:14!

Witness: well yes, you see I was...

Attorney: wait, just a moment, how can we trust you when you can't get your story straight?!

It happens all of the time shanek and it is happening in this instance. People are using this incident as a rhetorical device to distract from the salient point, the inspectors were not allowed to do their job. And since that is the only reason they were there whether or not Saddam "kicked" them out is besides the point.

You're the one going on about it and calling me dishonest. I made one statement correcting him. After that I've just been defending myself from you. The statement is a canard. I stand by that. I have withdrawn my accusation as to your character. I could have handled the situation better. However, I find the "correcting" to be political ploy and I would be dishonest if I did not say so.

RandFan
Please look closely at the above statement. You are making a straw man. I never said that "taking a car wouldn't be".

That is the logical implication of your argument. Oh shanek, no it's not. I don't know how I can make it any more clearer. But ok, let's look at it.

I said,
"Taking a bus" is to "not arriving by car" as "walking" is to "not arriving by car".

Taking a bus = not arriving by car.

Riding a bicycle = not arriving by car. You said,

Conversely:

"Taking a bus" is to "not walking" as "arriving by car" is to "not walking."

Taking a bus = not walking.

Arriving by car = not walking. YES! AGREED!, sorry but this just proves my point. That you turn it around only proves my point.

Not taking a car is tantamount to riding a bicycle? Walking is tantamount to riding a bicycle? Taking a bus is tantamount to riding a bicycle? But taking a car wouldn't be?Please look closely at this question. "taking a car wouldn't be?"

To answer the question we need to understand exactly what it is we are talking about. So, lets look at your original argument again.

P1: One way of getting somewhere without a car is by bicycle.

P2: Harry got somewhere without a car.

C: Harry got there by bicycle. Shanek, I direct your attention to the bold text. "getting somewhere without a car".

STOP, think about that, "getting somewhere without a car".

I will point out that you said it twice.

Getting "somewhere without a car". These are your words. Please keep in mind that my argument takes into account this statement.

Now let's put your question side by side with your argument.

The first statement of your argument
P1: One way of getting somewhere without a car is by bicycle. Now compare that to your question.

Not taking a car is tantamount to riding a bicycle? Walking is tantamount to riding a bicycle? Taking a bus is tantamount to riding a bicycle? But taking a car wouldn't be? Now compare the two and pay close attention to the bold text.

Now, the answer to your question. "...but taking a car wouldn't be?"

No shanek, "taking a car" would not be tantamount to "getting somewhere with out a car".

I can also turn it around the other way. So what's so special about whether or not he drives a car compared to whether or not he takes the bus or walks? Well, you are the one who said that "Harry got somewhere without a car." It's special because if he drives a car then you cannot say "Harry got somewhere without a car."

In fact, I can make a better case that riding a bicycle is more unique,... The original argument about Harry was yours and you did not say anything about unique did you?

The crux of the your argument is that he "got somewhere without a car. Changing the pivotal point of the argument to "unique" does nothing to resolve the fact that "Harry got somewhere without a car."

Or am I missing something? Did you not say "Harry got somewhere without a car?"

...since both the bus and the car can go faster and use combustion engines. Or, I can say that taking the bus is unique because in the case of both the car and the bike the driver is in control. But these distinctions are not germane to your argument.

shanek's argument
P1: One way of getting somewhere without a car is by bicycle.

P2: Harry got somewhere without a car. Again, not arriving by car is central to your argument. What does the fact that both bus and car have combustible engines have to do with your argument?

How is the fact that both the car and bike driver are in control have any relevancy of Harry not arriving by car?

shanek
Even if one could reasonably argue that getting their by bus is more like getting there by car than by getting there by bicycle?

RandFan
No, this is not the argument. It has nothing to do with your argument or my clarification of your argument.

shanek
Yes, it is! You're arguing that ... Hold on, wait a minute, you are getting way ahead of yourself. Back up.

Please shanek, look again at my statement. I said "your argument" This has nothing to do with "your" argument. Let's look at your argument

P1: One way of getting somewhere without a car is by bicycle.

P2: Harry got somewhere without a car. Ok, now let's look again at the statement in question.

shanek
Even if one could reasonably argue that getting their by bus is more like getting there by car than by getting there by bicycle? Shanek, getting the fact that "getting their by bus is more like getting there by car than by getting there by bicycle." has NOTHING to do with YOUR argument. Your argument is about Harry, and how "Harry got somewhere without a car."

Please stop and think about this for a second. It is awfully frustrating when you make an argument and then change that argument mid course. It's like playing poker with someone who changes the rules to after the game starts to suit their purposes(pun intended).

Can we stick with the argument (your argument) that "Harry got somewhere without a car?" If so then what is "more like getting there by car" is relevant. Do you understand that?

We are talking about getting somewhere without a car.

You're arguing that "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" is as valid as "the inspectors left because Saddam wasn't cooperating" Hmmmm.... I would have to disagree but I will keep an open mind. I object at this time to the word "valid". It does not fit here with my understanding of the word. Could we use "tantamount"?

I am arguing that "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" is tantamount to "the inspectors left because Saddam wasn't cooperating".

Statement #1 Saddam kicked the inspectors out.

Statement #2 The inspectors left because Saddam wasn't cooperating.

Statement #1 is factually incorrect. However, statement #1 is tantamount to statement #2

...when, aside from the fact that one statement is true and the other isn't,... And 10:15 is not true and 10:14 is true.

The spirit of statement #1 is the same as the spirit of statement #2. But of far more importance is the fact that Saddam would not let the inspectors do there job. It eclipses any discrepancy between the two statements.

...there are vast differences in the reactions people have to the two statements! This is arguable and I disagree very much.

Well, you did say the lie was necessary. Boy, what can I say? How can I express the level of my frustration? Shanek, I went to a lot of effort to post my quote. It is obvious that you did not take the time to read it.

Shanek, please pay close attention the bolded text.

What they mean is that Saddam made it impossible for them [the inspectors] to do their job and that is far more important than any "supposed" lie. The lie is unfortunate but not necessary since the actions that Saddam took had the exact same effect, it stopped the inspectors. Ok, the important words are "supposed" and "not necessary".

Well, you did say the lie was necessary. No, no I did not. I said the [supposed] lie was NOT necessary. Trust me on this one, there is a big difference between "being necessary" and "being NOT necessary."

And the curious thing is that just above you said the lie was not necessary (thus somehow "proving" that they don't know they're lying). Maybe I am just missing something. Could you quote me where I say that the lie IS necessary? I would appreciate the time of the quote. I have used the "find" feature of my browser but am unable to find where I said that "IS necessary". And to be sure I have not said that it IS a lie. In fact my argument is that it arguably not a lie because "the lie is unnecessary."

The only thing the lie is "necessary" for is inflaming the American people. 1. I do not concede that it is a lie.

2. I don't use the words "is necessary".

[b]3. Focusing on this aspect is a canard. A political or legal tactic to take attention away from the important point.

4. Saddam refused to cooperate.

5. Without Saddam's cooperation the inspectors were left with nothing to do.

6. Saddam's actions caused the inspectors to leave.

[b] Do you really think people would have the same negative reaction as they do to "Saddam kicked the inspectors out"? There is an argument that one statement could have more effect than another. It is commonly called spin. I don't know if I agree but I will concede that the point can be argued. The problem I have is that argument pales in comparison to the truth. That truth is that Saddam refused to cooperate. It is an important point and far more important than what you call a "lie".

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DrChinese
I note this is from your signature. I might ask:

Who is evil, and who are the good?

In this instance, the Iraqi Regime and Baath Party are evil, while the US-led coalition is good.


Originally posted by DrChinese
And how do we know that the implied actions of the good men are themselves good? Who decides this?

History will judge us...


Originally posted by DrChinese
Do you think that people could reasonably disagree?

Not about a regime led by a guy who gases Kurdish Iraqis, oppresses and terrorizes Shiite Iraqis, violates terms of surrender, fails to comply with multiple UN resolutions, funds terrorist organizations, and allows some of those terrorist organizations to train within his country.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm not defending the statement. I'm attacking those who focus on it because it is a canard.

And who here has been focusing on it besides you?

I will allow that there is a bit of truth there. However to focus on this misses the more important point. Saddam would not let the inspectors do their jobs.

I guess it depends on what's more important to you, then. I guess our own political leaders lying to us isn't important at all, huh?

At the risk of becoming trite. The false statement is a canard. It distracts from the truth. Canards are the tools of politicians and lawyers.

The statement "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" is a blatant canard! It's being used to dishonestly inflame the people against Saddam based on something that just isn't true!

This is easily one of those instances when people honestly misconstrue the event.

How can the leader of the free world and his administration possibly have misconstrued the event???

Since the truth has just as much impact as the truth I find it hard to imagine that they would be lying in this instance.

But as I have pointed out, the lie has a much greater impact on people than the truth. Every time I have brought that point up to someone, they have either expressed extreme indignation at having been played, or they get all defensive like you have done.

I am saying the sin of the canard is much worse than the sin of the spin.

Why? What's so terrible about pointing out the truth? And would you really be defending this if it were Gore in the White House and he had been saying the exact same thing? Somehow, I doubt it. You're defending it because it's your guy in there; not because it's right, because it clearly isn't.

Sorry shanek but this is frustrating. I have said a number of times what the "true and important point" is.

Your "true and important point" is bubkes! George W. Bush, the man we are entrusting our security to, the man who has led us into this war with Saddam, has lied to us about him! But I guess it's all okay, because he's not as big a liar as Saddam, right? :rolleyes:

Oh hell yes! Have you ever watched a trial.

Attorney: So what time did you see the defendant shoot the victim?

Witness: 10:15

Attorney: 10:15? Are you sure?

Witness: Yes.

Attorney: According to the police report you said 10:14!

Witness: well yes, you see I was...

Attorney: wait, just a moment, how can we trust you when you can't get your story straight?!

Are you really equating a BLATANTLY FALSE statement like Saddam kicking out the inspectors with someone being off by the time by one minute??? You're just showing how closed your mind is to this discussion.

The statement is a canard. I stand by that.

No, the original claim is the canard, and I stand by that. It is a lie intended to inflame the American people to gain more support for the Iraq war. Period.

The American Heritage dictionary defines canard as "An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story." Webster's Revised Unabridged defines it as "a fabricated sensational report or statement; esp. one set afloat in the newspapers to hoax the public." Neither of those definitions apply to the claim "Saddam did not kick the inspectors out" because that claim is neither false, nor misleading, nor fabricated. The original claim that Saddam did kick out the inspectors is all three, it's "sensational," done to "hoax the public."

However, I find the "correcting" to be political ploy and I would be dishonest if I did not say so.

How is it even as much a political ploy as making the false statement in the first place?

STOP, think about that, "getting somewhere without a car".

Okay, how about something a little more cogent to this discussion: He didn't go by car, so he hijacked a bus? The net result is still the same, isn't it?

But these distinctions are not germane to your argument.

Yes, they are. I'm refuting your assertion that as long as the "net result" is the same the means are unimportant.

]quote]Shanek, getting the fact that "getting their by bus is more like getting there by car than by getting there by bicycle." has NOTHING to do with YOUR argument. Your argument is about Harry, and how "Harry got somewhere without a car."[/quote]

In response to your assertion that means are unimportant as long as net result is the same. But there is a vast difference between taking the bus and riding a bicycle, and a huge difference between both of those and hijacking a bus.

We are talking about getting somewhere without a car.

No, we aren't. We're using that to examine your logic: That means are unimportant as long as net result is the same. I'm making the argument that riding a bike or taking a bus may have the same "net result" in getting Harry to his destination without a car, but are vastly different in other consequences, such as the time it takes for him to get there, the amount of pollution generated, etc., and that there are considerations where either taking a bus or riding a bike is more like taking a car than it is to the other. Clear?

I am arguing that "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" is tantamount to "the inspectors left because Saddam wasn't cooperating".

Statement #1 Saddam kicked the inspectors out.

Statement #2 The inspectors left because Saddam wasn't cooperating.

Statement #1 is factually incorrect. However, statement #1 is tantamount to statement #2

Only with regard to your assertion that the inspectors could no longer do any inspecting. But Statement #1 describes a forceful act not covered under Statement #2, which as I have repeatedly stated, is being used to inflame public opinion against Saddam.

And 10:15 is not true and 10:14 is true.

Most people would not consider that such an important distinction, at least not to someone recounting an event without the benefit of detailed notes, as they would be on the witness stand. In your absurd example, that badgering of the witness would not go unobjected, and any judge would sustain that objection. In fact, the lawyer in question would probably never even think of trying it because he would come off to the jury as appearing desperate.

The spirit of statement #1 is the same as the spirit of statement #2. But of far more importance is the fact that Saddam would not let the inspectors do there job. It eclipses any discrepancy between the two statements.

I strongly disagree. The statement of a forceful act against the UN inspectors is an egrigious accusation.

This is arguable and I disagree very much.

Go to some people at random and tell some, "Saddam kicked the inspectors out," and tell others, "The inspectors left because they weren't satisfied with the level of cooperation Saddam was giving them." See which one they react to more strongly. If you honestly think they'll react the same to both of those, then I really have to wonder what color the sky is in your world.

Boy, what can I say? How can I express the level of my frustration?

Okay, you are correct. I got confused, and I apologize.

4. Saddam refused to cooperate.

That's a lot different than kicking the inspectors out, though. Or do you contend that not complying with a police warrant to search your home is "tantamount" to firing on them or otherwise using force against them?

[pgwenthold]

The other day I walked into a furniture store. Unfortunately, all the furniture there was priced higher than I wanted to pay. So I left.

Did the owner kick me out?

"For all intents and purposes"?

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek

Besides, as much as everyone's made a big deal out of WMD, if they go through this and the most they find are Scuds I think they'll have lost virtually all credibility. Where's the nukes Bush has been so "concerned" about???

If he doesn't can you guaranty that he will never produce them?
Saddam has already admitted that he supporting Terrorist in Israel.
In addition to the points rikzilla showed on his thread.



But we are not going in under the UN. We're doing this on our own. Just like I said, it's like you taking it upon yourself to raid your neighbor's house for drugs if the police won't take action.

Do you assume the UN is always correct?
If the police tell you not to defend your self, will comply?


I don't think anyone on this forum (least of all me) has ever said that Saddam has any amount of credibility whatsoever.

And that is one of the main reason of the war.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
And who here has been focusing on it besides you? You made a statement to correct something and I made a statement to correct you. You took issue with my correction and corrected me, I disagreed with your correction so I... well you get the point. It is important for me to make certain that the important point get out.

I guess it depends on what's more important to you, then. I guess our own political leaders lying to us isn't important at all, huh? Begging the question and a straw man. Not bad shanek.

No that is not true. I don't hold those sentiments. At the worst Bush is guilty of spin. Since not allowing the inspectors to do their job is tantamount to kicking them out then it is not a "blatant lie". It is spin. Welcome to the real world.

The statement "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" is a blatant canard! No it is not. It is not a canard because it is functionally the same as the truth. 10:15 vs 10:14. It can't be a canard since it does not distract from the most important point and that is that Saddam would not let the inspectors do their job.

It's being used to dishonestly inflame the people against Saddam based on something that just isn't true! It is effectively true. You keep forgetting that.

How can the leader of the free world and his administration possibly have misconstrued the event??? Do you mean, how did the administration get something wrong? :D That is rich. I don't know shanek, how do they get so much other stuff wrong?

But as I have pointed out, the lie has a much greater impact on people than the truth. Maybe, arguably, but it is minor to the most important point and it is functionally the same. Your protest becomes the focus and thus distracts from the truth that Saddam would not allow the inspectors to do their job.

Every time I have brought that point up to someone, they have either expressed extreme indignation at having been played, or they get all defensive like you have done. I don't get defensive, I just get mad because the "truth" is being obscured. I get just about as mad as when I see a defense attorney focus on some minutiae to distract from the facts that the defendant is a murderer.

To me you are that attorney, and Saddam is the defendant and you are doing everything in your power to take the focus off of Saddam and put it on Bush. At worst, Bush, (if he even said it) was guilty of hyperbole. I can say that because functionally one is but an exaggeration.

BTW, I know that Blair said this but do you have evidence of Bush or the administration saying this. It wouldn't surprise me but I'm not going to concede to something that I don't know is true.

Every time I have brought that point up to someone, they have either expressed extreme indignation at having been played, or they get all defensive like you have done. I notice that your "truth" isn't the WHOLE truth, now is it?

When you bring up your "point" why don't you add, "by the way, Saddam refused to let the inspectors do their job and with out anything to do the inspectors left?"

Is it because you didn't know because some other person omited that fact or is it because you want to effect "indignation" and telling the "whole" truth would not be as effictive.

Would the people that you tell this to express "extreme indignation" if they new that the inspectors left because Saddam refused to cooperate and the inspectors could not do their job?

Why? What's so terrible about pointing out the truth? Because it is not the "whole" truth. It is selective and leaves out important information.

Why? Why would those who repeat this "truth" leave out key information?

Maybe it's because the "whole" truth would not have as much impact. Maybe if they told the "whole" truth it would not inflame people.

Telling just part of the truth is also known as propaganda. It's spin shanek, common, everyday, political spin. And IMO it is a much worse sin than the sin of saying "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" when in truth Saddam created a situation where the inspectors had no choice but to leave.

Compare and contrast,

A. Saddam created a situation where the inspectors had little choice but to leave.

B. Saddam kicked the inspectors out.

I'm sorry shanek but there really is little difference. I will grant you that there is some difference and it is arguable that the difference is spin however it is the mole hill and not the mountain. The more egregious propaganda is telling only part of the truth.

And would you really be defending this if it were Gore in the White House and he had been saying the exact same thing? Damn Straight. The Republicans have used such tactics against democrats many times and I have often pointed out these tactics.

Wired Article (http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39301,00.html)
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." This is factually wrong.

From his defender Declan McCullagh
But it's also difficult to argue with a straight face that the Internet we know today would not exist if Gore had decided to practice the piano instead of politics. So this is factually wrong. "Blatant lie" say Gore's opponents. He did not create the Internet, and WE (the Republicans) are telling the truth. We are just correcting a falsehood.

But Gore's statement while not factually correct is not entirely wrong either.

In January 1994, Gore gave a landmark speech at UCLA about the "information superhighway."

Many portions -- discussions of universal service, wiring classrooms to the Net, and antitrust actions -- are surprisingly relevant even today. (That's an impressive enough feat that we might even forgive Gore his tortured metaphors such as "road kill on the information superhighway" and "parked at the curb" on the information superhighway.)

Gore's speech reverberated around Democratic political circles in Washington. Other Clinton administration officials began citing it in their own remarks, and the combined effort helped to grab the media's attention.

Their timing was impeccable: In July 1993, according to Network Wizards' survey, there were 1.8 million computers connected to the Internet. By July 1994, the figure had nearly doubled to 3.2 million, a trend that continued through January 2000, when about 72 million computers had permanent network addresses. Of course the Republicans didn't go out of their way to tell anyone this. They were only focused on the "truth" or on the part of the truth that suited their agenda.

In fact Gore has said a number of things that were factually incorrect but were substantively true. I have come to Gore's defense a number of times and have referred people to a web site that corrects all of the distortions that the Republicans have said about Gore.

This is the problem I have with your "point". You leave out part of the "truth" because it would not serve your ends.

Somehow, I doubt it. You're defending it because it's your guy in there; not because it's right, because it clearly isn't. For the umpteenth time, I am not defending it. My argument is with those who use the canard to distract from a very important fact. Just like the Cochran did just like the Republican did to Al Gore.

The canard is used on NPR and by opponents of Bush. They never tell the whole truth but only that part that will inflame people. It is very misleading. People think (in fact IIRC you thought) that the inspectors just left while Saddam was cooperating.

THAT IS MY PROBLEM WITH IT! It intimates a lie. It suggests something that simply isn't true.

Your "true and important point" is bubkes! Now I am confused, you are saying that the fact that Saddam would not let the inspectors do their job is "bubkes"?

George W. Bush, the man we are entrusting our security to, the man who has led us into this war with Saddam, has lied to us about him! Not materially, no he has not. He might be guilty of spin but he not lied about the germane point of the issue. Saddam would not let the inspectors do their job. He in effect kicked the inspectors out.

Saddam would not let the inspectors do their job so they had no other choice but to leave. A reasonable person could construe that as to kicking the inspectors out.

But I guess it's all okay, because he's not as big a liar as Saddam, right? Straw man. I have never said this is just not the case. You are putting words in my mouth, again.

I am saying that to focus on just the "spin" or mistake makes people think that it is not functionally the same as the actual events. It is functionally the same and therefore to focus on the "spin" is perpetrating a deception. Just like the Republicans did against Gore.

Saddam would not let the inspectors inspect and the inspectors had no real choice but to leave.

Saddam created a situation where the inspectors would all but have to leave.

That is the important point. You are making a distinction with little difference.

Are you really equating a BLATANTLY FALSE statement like Saddam kicking out the inspectors with someone being off by the time by one minute??? You're just showing how closed your mind is to this discussion. [ No, you are showing how closed you are to the discussion.

You won't let yourself see the very simple and important fact that the salient point is that the inspectors couldn't do their job. But like Johny Cochran or the Republicans you don't want to focus on that fact. It does not fit with your agenda.

No, the original claim is the canard, and I stand by that. It is a lie intended to inflame the American people to gain more support for the Iraq war. Period. So, to you there is NO truth whatsoever? If so then there is NO truth that Al Gore "took the initiate to create the Internet"

The American Heritage dictionary defines canard as "An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story." Webster's Revised Unabridged defines it as "a fabricated sensational report or statement; esp. one set afloat in the newspapers to hoax the public." Neither of those definitions apply to the claim "Saddam did not kick the inspectors out" because that claim is neither false, nor misleading,... Very, very, very misleading. It is so effectively misleading that it is repeated constantly to keep people from looking at the truth that Saddam would not let the inspectors inspect.

It is VERY misleading. In obscures the most important part of the entire issue. It makes people think "oh, Saddam was cooperating when he demonstrably wasn't.

Important - Important - Important - Important - Important - Important

Shanek, the "truth" can be used to mislead. Attorneys do it all of the time. I have come to believe that you are not doing it on purpose but you are falling into the trap.

Pease pay close attention to the following. It is a classic case of propaganda using the truth.

John and Bob were both drivers in a race.

Bob finished behind the person in first place while John finished in front of the person in last place.

By focusing on these "facts" the propagandist can make most people think that Bob did better than John. The propagandist never tells the important point. There were only "2" drivers.

This is the same problem with this "supposed" lie. If those spouting the "propaganda" included the dirty little secret that Saddam would not let the inspectors do their job then I would not pay any attention to it.

I notice that you did not disseminate this fact when you told others about the "lie".

If the "truth" is so important to you then why don't you tell others the WHOLE truth.

Important - Important - Important - Important - Important - Important

The original claim that Saddam did kick out the inspectors is all three, it's "sensational," done to "hoax the public." But since the important message is that Saddam would not let the inspectors do their job then it doesn't really qualify IMO.

How is it even as much a political ploy as making the false statement in the first place? (see above)

Okay, how about something a little more cogent to this discussion: He didn't go by car, so he hijacked a bus? The net result is still the same, isn't it? Hijacking a bus = not arriving by car. So? What is your point?

RandFan
But these distinctions are not germane to your argument.

shanek
Yes, they are. I'm refuting your assertion that as long as the "net result" is the same the means are unimportant. It's not my argument. In any event your argument does not do what you want.

Not letting the inspectors do their job is tantamount to kicking them out.

Hijacking a bus is tantamount to Riding a bicycle AS IT IS CONCERNED WITH "not arriving by car."

All you are proving is that these things are "the same difference".

You are proving my point. Thank you.

"Not letting the inspectors do their job" is functionally the same as "kicking the inspectors out."

Hijacking a bus is functionally the same as Riding a bicycle BECAUSE both effectively allow you to "not arrive by car".

In response to your assertion that means are unimportant as long as net result is the same. But there is a vast difference between taking the bus and riding a bicycle, and a huge difference between both of those and hijacking a bus. BUT THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME IN THAT THEY ALLOW YOU TO ARRIVE "NOT BY CAR"

No, we aren't. We're using that to examine your logic: That means are unimportant as long as net result is the same. Then use another line of argument because you are proving my point.

I'm making the argument that riding a bike or taking a bus may have the same "net result" in getting Harry to his destination without a car,... Thank you thank you thank you.

I'm making the argument that riding a bike or taking a bus may have the same "net result" in getting Harry to his destination without a car,... This has nothing whatsoever to do with your original argument. But ok, I will listen to you.

...but are vastly different in other consequences, such as the time it takes for him to get there, the amount of pollution generated, etc., and that there are considerations where either taking a bus or riding a bike is more like taking a car than it is to the other. Agreed.

Clear? [quote] The substance of your argument has changed but please, that is fine, let's move on.

[quote] Only with regard to your assertion that the inspectors could no longer do any inspecting. But Statement #1 describes a forceful act not covered under Statement #2, which as I have repeatedly stated, is being used to inflame public opinion against Saddam. Can we agree to disagree here?

I will stipulate that the above statement is a coherent argument. And to be sure this is not to say that you have not made other coherent arguments.

Most people would not consider that such an important distinction, at least not to someone recounting an event without the benefit of detailed notes, as they would be on the witness stand. In your absurd example, that badgering of the witness would not go unobjected,... The example was used to make a valid point. That such tactics are common and often successful in court (OJ Simpson) and Politics (Al Gore).

I strongly disagree. The statement of a forceful act against the UN inspectors is an egrigious accusation. Fine, can we agree to strongly disagree with each other?

Go to some people at random and tell some, "Saddam kicked the inspectors out," and tell others, "The inspectors left because they weren't satisfied with the level of cooperation Saddam was giving them." See which one they react to more strongly. Good job, I like that line of reasoning.

Ok, I have in the past but I will do it again. I grant that you have an argument that one might be more inflammatory than the other.

If you want me to accept that line of argument then will you accept the following?

Requested Stipulation (see below)

Statement #1 Bush is lying when he tells you that Saddam kicked the inspectors out.

Statement #2 Bush is lying when he tells you that Saddam kicked the inspectors out. The truth is, Saddam would not let the inspectors do their job and since the inspectors only reason for being there was to inspect they had no choice but to leave.

Ok shanek, which would inflame the people more against Bush?

If you honestly think they'll react the same to both of those, then I really have to wonder what color the sky is in your world. I will admit that this "argument" of yours seems right.

There is just one problem shanek, that something seems right does not make it right. The argument may very well be specious.

To the vast majority of people the The Monty Hall Problem (http://www.io.com/~kmellis/monty.html) "seems" like a 50-50 proposition. However.

This problem [Month Hall Problem] is quite interesting, because the answer is felt by most people - including mathematicians - to be counter-intuitive. For most, the "solution" is immediately obvious (they believe); and that is the end of it. But it's not. Because most of the time, that "obvious" solution is incorrect. The correct solution is not obvious. This is why critical thinking should avoid the temptation to accept that which "seems" right.

If you honestly think they'll react the same to both of those, then I really have to wonder what color the sky is in your world. Fallacious (http://www.cs.colorado.edu/%7Elindsay/skeptic/arguments.html#emotive). I think you know better.

[/b] That's a lot different than kicking the inspectors out, though. Or do you contend that not complying with a police warrant to search your home is "tantamount" to firing on them or otherwise using force against them? [/B] This is not even in the ballpark shanek. Can I skip this one?

Shanek,

If you will stipulate that an argument can be made that statement #1 would inflame people more than statement #2 then I will let you have the last word.

I am really tired of this.

"Help, I'm arguing and I can't shut up" You see I have this ego problem. If I honestly believe that I am right then I won't give up. If I am wrong that is another mater and shanek I am one of the few that you will ever meet on this forum that will admit to being wrong. Since I am wrong frequently I have to admit to that fact frequently.

However I don't want you to stipulate to it if you don't honestly believe it. I will hang in there if needs be. If you won't stipulate that the argument is rational then will you help find a way to shorten this? I promise to never say anything pejorative about you or your character. Ok I promise to do that no matter what.

Think about it,

RandFan.

Edited to clean up, it was a real mess. Sorry.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker
If he doesn't can you guaranty that he will never produce them?

All I can say to that is: :rolleyes:

If the police tell you not to defend your self, will comply?

How are we defending ourselves? If one thing is blatantly clear at this point, it is that Saddam's "war machine" has absolutely no chance against us. He never had the ability to do anything against us.

And that is one of the main reason of the war.

What, we get to attack people just because they have no credibility? I have to do it again: :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
You made a statement to correct something and I made a statement to correct you. You took issue with my correction and corrected me, I disagreed with your correction so I... well you get the point.

That wasn't how it went down. You put me on the defensive by calling me dishonest. By the time you retracted that, we were already in the thick of it.

At the worst Bush is guilty of spin.

No, I'm sorry, there's a difference between "spin" and "lies." At least "spin" attempts to work within the facts and doesn't make blatantly false statements.

It is effectively true. You keep forgetting that.

No, I keep disputing that.

Maybe, arguably, but it is minor to the most important point and it is functionally the same.

How is it "functionally the same" when people have such a drastically different reaction to the two statements?

Your protest becomes the focus and thus distracts from the truth that Saddam would not allow the inspectors to do their job.

No, it's your reaction distracts from the truth that Bush is lying to inflame the American people.

I don't get defensive, I just get mad because the "truth" is being obscured.

Yeah, right; I'm the one who told the truth here, and you even acknowleged that.

[qutoe]I get just about as mad as when I see a defense attorney focus on some minutiae[/quote]

This is not minutiae! Kicking the inspectors out is a very serious charge! That level of force would be considered an act of war! Why don't you get that?

To me you are that attorney, and Saddam is the defendant and you are doing everything in your power to take the focus off of Saddam and put it on Bush.

Oh, here it comes! I knew it would sooner or later...I'm just a Saddam-loving, anti-American propagandist! Why don't you just call me a "traitor" and then you'll pretty much run the full gamut of the excuses the pro-war side uses to avoid considering points which contradict their pre-conceived delusions?

BTW, I know that Blair said this but do you have evidence of Bush or the administration saying this.

He said it in the SOTU address, and he repeated it in his speech last week.

When you bring up your "point" why don't you add, "by the way, Saddam refused to let the inspectors do their job and with out anything to do the inspectors left?"

I do acknowledge it, as I acknowledged it here. You can't weasel out of it that way. Reread the statements and you'll see that it's clear.

Why? Why would those who repeat this "truth" leave out key information?

I haven't left out any information. You can assert all you want, but the fact remains that people just aren't as impressed with the true statement ("The Inspectors were pulled out because they weren't satisfied with the level of cooperation Saddam was giving them") as they are with the lie ("Saddam kicked out the inspectors").

For the umpteenth time, I am not defending it.

Yes, you are! When you talk about it being "functionally equivalent" or having the same "net effect" as the truth you are defending the lie!

My argument is with those who use the canard to distract from a very important fact.

You still have yet to found that assertion. I think I have demonstrated quite clearly that it makes a very important point clear: Our government is lying to us to inflame the people and gain undeserved support for the war.

THAT IS MY PROBLEM WITH IT! It intimates a lie. It suggests something that simply isn't true.

What? What does the statement, "Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out, we pulled them out because we weren't satisfied with the level of cooperation we were getting from Saddam" leave out?

Now I am confused, you are saying that the fact that Saddam would not let the inspectors do their job is "bubkes"?

Yes, because that's my point all along!

Straw man. I have never said this is just not the case. You are putting words in my mouth, again.

Again, it's the logical conclusion of your position. Bush's lie doesn't matter because it's "functionally equivalent" to the truth and the "net result" is the same. You've said it several times in the very post I'm replying to! That's your main point!

Very, very, very misleading. It is so effectively misleading that it is repeated constantly to keep people from looking at the truth that Saddam would not let the inspectors inspect.

The only time I've ever heard it, and the only time I've ever used it, is when people claim that Saddam kicked the inspectors out. And since that statement just isn't true, I am completely at a loss to see why it's a lie to point that out.

It is VERY misleading. In obscures the most important part of the entire issue. It makes people think "oh, Saddam was cooperating when he demonstrably wasn't.

No, it doesn't. You're grasping for excuses.

John and Bob were both drivers in a race.

Bob finished behind the person in first place while John finished in front of the person in last place.

By focusing on these "facts" the propagandist can make most people think that Bob did better than John. The propagandist never tells the important point. There were only "2" drivers.

Okay; now all you have to do is point out how I've done that.

This is the same problem with this "supposed" lie. If those spouting the "propaganda" included the dirty little secret that Saddam would not let the inspectors do their job then I would not pay any attention to it.

What "dirty little secrey"? How can it possibly be a "dirty little secret" when I've stated it flat out several times????

"Not letting the inspectors do their job" is functionally the same as "kicking the inspectors out."

No, it isn't. One implies the use of force, the other one doesn't. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this shows your bias.

I will stipulate that the above statement is a coherent argument.

Okay...so, now that you've agreed that it's a coherent argument, and since that's the crux of my point, how about responding to it?

The example was used to make a valid point. That such tactics are common and often successful in court (OJ Simpson) and Politics (Al Gore).

I would submit that it is Bush who is guilty of using the tactics you accuse me of.

If you want me to accept that line of argument then will you accept the following?

Requested Stipulation (see below)

Statement #1 Bush is lying when he tells you that Saddam kicked the inspectors out.

Statement #2 Bush is lying when he tells you that Saddam kicked the inspectors out. The truth is, Saddam would not let the inspectors do their job and since the inspectors only reason for being there was to inspect they had no choice but to leave.

Ok shanek, which would inflame the people more against Bush?

Personally, both sentences would inflame me. There probably are people who would be more inflamed by #1 than by #2, but I dispute that people who are making this point are leaving out that bit of data. I just did a Google search and here are some examples:

http://www.nicedoggie.net/archives/000563.html

Saddam did not "kick out" the inspectors. They were removed by the Clinton Administration because they were basically confined to their base of operations.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

That whole page is filled with acknowledgements.

This is not even in the ballpark shanek. Can I skip this one?

That is exactly the same thing! "The police left because you wouldn't let them search your house" is to "The inspectors left after Clinton pulled them out becuase Saddam wasn't complying" as "The police left after you forceably threw them out" is to "Saddam kicked the inspectors out."

So no, you can't skip it, because it describes the distinction perfectly.

[qoute]You see I have this ego problem. If I honestly believe that I am right then I won't give up.[/quote]

Well, maybe this means I have an ego problem, too, but I find that to be an admirable trait.

However I don't want you to stipulate to it if you don't honestly believe it.

I'm not denying it, but I won't stipulate because I just don't see it making much of a difference to people; certainly not the difference that "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" makes.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
The other day I walked into a furniture store. Unfortunately, all the furniture there was priced higher than I wanted to pay. So I left.

Did the owner kick me out?

"For all intents and purposes"? Poorly drawn analogy. All options were taken from the inspectors except to stay or leave.

In your analogy you have the choice to pay the extra price. If you want you can look around and fantasize about owning the furniture or getting interior design ideas.

Since the inspectors were only there to inspect they had no such opportunity.

Let's correct your analogy.

The other day I walked into a furniture store. Unfortunately the owner would not let me "inspect" the furniture, furthermore he said I could not buy anything. He did say I could hang around though.

Did the owner kick me out?

YES! For all intents and purposes he kicked me out!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by RandFan
Poorly drawn analogy. All options were taken from the inspectors except to stay or leave.

In your analogy you have the choice to pay the extra price. If you want you can look around and fantasize about owning the furniture or getting interior design ideas.

Since the inspectors were only there to inspect they had no such opportunity.

Let's correct your analogy.

The other day I walked into a furniture store. Unfortunately the owner would not let me "inspect" the furniture, furthermore he said I could not buy anything. [b]He did say I could hang around though.

Did the owner kick me out?

Odd that you can write those two sentances right next to each other.

He did not say you had to leave. In fact, he told you that you could stay. This is what you call "kicking you out."


YES! For all intents and purposes he kicked me out!

No. He did not force you to leave. He gave you no reason to stay, but he did not force you to leave.

Now, let's make it more realistic. He didn't let you do what you wanted, but said you could hang around. But instead, you called your wife and told her that the SOB wouldn't let you look at furniture, and she told you that you should get out because she was going to crash the car through the front window. So you hauled butt out of the store so that you wouldn't get hurt when your wife crashed the car through the front window.

The inspectors did not leave because he wouldn't allow full access. They were told to leave by the UN because Iraq was going to be bombed. Hence, although the bombing was the response to the lack of access, it was the choice of the UN to use that approach. Had they not, the inspectors could have stayed.

Being kicked out means they were forced to leave. If they had the option of staying, then it is wrong to say they were kicked out.

[RandFan]

RandFan
[/b]If you will stipulate that an argument can be made... [/b] Please note that I did not ask for you to stipulate that the argument was correct. I did not ask you to agree. I did not ask you to even say that it is a good argument. Only that an argument can be made. In return I promised to not say another word. You could have said anything you wanted and I would not have responded. I only made one small reasonable request.

Your response...


... but I won't stipulate because I just don't see it making much of a difference to people; certainly not the difference that "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" makes. How unfortunate :(

Ok, I guess we will go on forever. I understand your argument but I disagree. It looks like you won't even make a good faith attempt at ending this.

Please remember that I tried to find a way to end this. I withdraw my accusation and have moderated my tone in the hopes of resolving our difference (and it was the right thing to do).

So, "and away we go....."


Originally posted by shanek
That wasn't how it went down. You put me on the defensive by calling me dishonest. By the time you retracted that, we were already in the thick of it. That is exactly how it went down. And it was appropriate to point out that the notion is entirely disingenuous. It is propaganda and it is wrong because it intentionally leaves out the truth.

No, I'm sorry, there's a difference between "spin" and "lies." At least "spin" attempts to work within the facts and doesn't make blatantly false statements. FACT, SADDAM WOULD NOT LET THE INSPECTORS DO THEIR JOB.

FACT THE INSPECTORS WERE THERE TO INSPECT.

FACT FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES SADDAM KICKED THE INSPECTORS OUT.

No, I keep disputing that. And you keep making the same mistakes.

How is it "functionally the same" when people have such a drastically different reaction to the two statements? I don't buy that the have a drastically different reaction to the two statements. That is YOUR characterization based on your own bias.

You have not the will to admit that your own ego colors your perception. Please note that I have admitted to that fact.

No, it's your reaction distracts from the truth that Bush is lying to inflame the American people. You are the one who refuses to acknowledge that you conveniently leave out important information from your "fact". This is called a sin of omission. It is the same as lying.

Yeah, right; I'm the one who told the truth here, and you even acknowledged that. Have you ever heard of the "sin of omission" telling only "half" of the truth is the same as lying.

[qutoe]RandFan
I get just about as mad as when I see a defense attorney focus on some minutiae

shanek
This is not minutiae! Kicking the inspectors out is a very serious charge! {sigh} Hey, let's repeat ourselves over and over because you refuse to meet me halfway.

Not letting the inspectors do their job IS A VERY SERIOUS CHARGE.

Do you get THAT? It violated a resolution.

Saddam was ordered to let the inspectors inspect.

He did not do as he promised.

That WAS a very WRONG thing to do. It was critical.

But your blind bias won't let you acknowledge that Saddam's actions were actionable. IT WAS A VERY SERIOUS CHARGE.

You can't make that go away.

That level of force would be considered an act of war! Helllooooo..... what do you think refusing to let the Inspectors do their job was?

Come on shanek, get real. It was a BLATANT violation of the agreement.

Why don't you get that? Why don't you get that what Saddam did was A VIOLATION OF HIS AGREEMENT?

Why don't you get that we he did was in effect kicking out the inspectors?

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

RandFan
To me you are that attorney, and Saddam is the defendant and you are doing everything in your power to take the focus off of Saddam and put it on Bush.

Oh, here it comes! I knew it would sooner or later...I'm just a Saddam-loving, anti-American propagandist! Why don't you just call me a "traitor" and then you'll pretty much run the full gamut of the excuses the pro-war side uses to avoid considering points which contradict their pre-conceived delusions? Boy are you adept at straw men.

I never said or intimated that you are anti-American or Saddam loving.

Please stop making fallacious arguments.

I am accusing you of being anti-Bush and accusing you of defending Saddam in this instance to convict Bush.

He said it in the SOTU address, and he repeated it in his speech last week. Thank you, do you have a link?

I do acknowledge it, as I acknowledged it here. You can't weasel out of it that way. Reread the statements and you'll see that it's clear. Hold on there, I have read the record and though you have acknowledged the fact but you did not point out at the beginning. You did not address it when you laid the egg that started this whole thing.

Why didn't you tell the whole truth then? Hmmmm.... I wonder.

I haven't left out any information. You can assert all you want,... Oh, is that right. Well let's look at the record, 'k?

03-23-2003 03:22 PM
This is another lie Bush & Co. have perpetuated. The inspectors WERE NOT KICKED OUT OF IRAQ. The US withdrew them. And immediately started bombing them. That is it. The entire post. For some "unknown" reason you fail to tell us all of this important point. I wonder why?

Every time I have brought that point up to someone,... Since it is demonstrable that you failed to tell the "whole" truth when you asserted that bush lied I can't help but wonder if you tell the "whole" truth all of the other times you "bring up this point". Hmmmm.....


...but the fact remains that people just aren't as impressed with the true statement Fact? FACT?

Oh really, this is a "fact?"

Well, if it is truly a "fact" and not just your belief or opinion then I am sure that you will have no problem demonstrating this "fact".

I want to thank you for bringing this "fact" to my attention. I only await confirmation before I can embrace and celebrate this "fact".

Fact my ass!

("The Inspectors were pulled out because they weren't satisfied with the level of cooperation Saddam was giving them") as they are with the lie ("Saddam kicked out the inspectors"). You are now backtracking.

"weren't satisfied with the level fo cooperation Saddam was giving them"[/qiote] SPIN, ********, LIES.

Ok, {this is getting so old} let's go back again.

[quote]Baker
No Saddam refused to allow any more inspections didn’t you even bother reading the link?
Here is more.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/wld/iframes/iraq_us.asp

October 31, 1998
Iraq announced it is halting all dealings with U.N. arms inspectors, who are charged with investigating the country’s weapons of mass destruction.


December 15, 1998
Butler says in his report that Iraq has not met promises made a month ago to fully cooperate with U.N. inspectors and has imposed new restrictions on their work.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/wld/iframes/iraq_us.asp

The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes.

--AP, 12/16/98


The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes.

--Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98
http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html Now let's compare that to your statement.

"weren't satisfied with the level fo cooperation Saddam was giving them"[b][/qiote] "level of cooperation" shanek translation, they refused to cooperate.

Yet another example of not quite telling the truth.

Ok, now let's look at your response to the above.

[quote]Baker
No Saddam refused to allow any more inspections didn’t you even bother reading the link?

shanek 03-24-2003 06:50 PM
[b]I'm not arguing that. I'm refuting the lie that Saddam kicked them out. Wait a minute now! Can't you make up your mind?

Shanek, "weren't satisfied with the level fo cooperation" is propaganda.

Why not say the whole truth? They "weren't satisfied with the fact that Saddam REFUSED to cooperate"

Do you see the difference? It "revenue enhancement" vs. "tax increase".

Yes, you are! When you talk about it being "functionally equivalent" or having the same "net effect" as the truth you are defending the lie! No, I am telling the truth.

You your self admitted that they are functionally the same. Since I freely admit over and over and over that the statement is factually wrong. I am pissed that people would obfuscate by refusing to state the "whole" truth.

But hey, let's keep repeating ourselves. Isn't this so much fun?

Now it is your turn to gainsay. Rebut my rebuttal and we will repeat ourselves forever.

You still have yet to found that assertion. Shanek, my contention is no more demonstrated than yours is.

My contention I assert that the omission of all the facts is done to inflame and it does inflame.

Your contention You assert that stating that "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" is done to inflame and it does inflame.

A. I have demonstrated that you have omitted some of the facts (facts I think are very important) from your claim.

B. You have demonstrated that the stamen in question is wrong

C. You have not given any data that demonstrates that the statement "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" is substantively more inflammatory than the fact that Saddam refused to cooperate and violated his agreement and the UN's resolution.

D. I have not produced any data to substantiate my claim that the omission of pertinent facts from the statement Saddam did not kick the inspectors out is substantively more inflammatory than if the information were included.

Will you agree that your assertion "C" and my assertion "D" are equally unproven?

For the record I will state that I understand your argument that one statement is perhaps more inflammatory.

However I also believe that the omission of pertinent data is far more inflammatory.

You have not presented any data to change my mind. You can only appeal to specious argument.

Shanek,

Do you have any data or demonstrable evidence to support your contention ("C")?

Do you have any data or demonstrable evidence to show why my contention ("D") is wrong?

Absent that data or demonstrable evidence we are left with our opinions. Since you are seemingly capable of grasping this simple concept we will just go on forever gainsaying. {wow}


I think I have demonstrated quite clearly that it makes a very important point clear: Our government is lying to us to inflame the people and gain undeserved support for the war. You have simply done NO such thing.

What? What does the statement, "Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out, we pulled them out because we weren't satisfied with the level of cooperation we were getting from Saddam" leave out? Straw man.

The statement "we pulled them out because we weren't" satisfied with the level of cooperation" is wrong.

The inspectors were pulled out because Saddam REFUSED to cooperate.

REFUSING to cooperate was a blatant violation of the UN resolution.

REFUSING to cooperate forced the inspectors to stay and do nothing or leave.

To say "Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out" but fail to inform that Saddam violated the resolution that he refused to cooperate and left the inspectors with no choice but to stay and do nothing or leave" is simply dishonest.

RandFan
Now I am confused, you are saying that the fact that Saddam would not let the inspectors do their job is "bubkes"?

shanek
Yes, because that's my point all along! shanek, I'm going to tell you this one more time. The inspectors were there to inspect. By refusing to let the inspectors inspect he violated his agreement and the UN resolution.

By refusing to let the inspectors inspect he put the inspectors in a position to choose to stay and do nothing or leave.

By refusing to let the inspectors inspect he set up a situation where he could say "I didn't kick them out". Big F***ing deal! They were there to inspect.

Again, it's the logical conclusion of your position. Bush's lie doesn't matter because it's "functionally equivalent" to the truth and the "net result" is the same. Maybe you could show me where I say "it doesn't matter"? More words. I don't know if it is a "lie". I know that it is functionally wrong. I know that as sins go it pales in comparison to omitting the fact that Saddam refused to let the inspectors do their job.

You've said it several times in the very post I'm replying to! That's your main point! WRONG! My main point is that whatever "sin" the statement makes is minuscule compared to the fraud being perpetrated by omitting the important information that Saddam refused to let the inspectors do their job.

That Saddam violated both his agreement and the UN resolution.

That Saddam forced the inspectors to choose to stay and do nothing or leave.

The only time I've ever heard it, and the only time I've ever used it, is when people claim that Saddam kicked the inspectors out. And since that statement just isn't true, I am completely at a loss to see why it's a lie to point that out. It's dishonest to omit all of the information. The way the Republicans did with Gore, yes it was factually wrong but if they told the "whole" truth it would not have the same impact.

RandFan
It is VERY misleading. In obscures the most important part of the entire issue. It makes people think "oh, Saddam was cooperating when he demonstrably wasn't.

shanek
No, it doesn't. You're grasping for excuses. Oh good, more gainsaying, well we know what we have to look forward for the next few weeks.

Yes it does,

No it doesn't,

Yes it does,

No it doesn't.

RandFan
It is VERY misleading. In obscures the most important part of the entire issue. It makes people think "oh, Saddam was cooperating when he demonstrably wasn't.

shanek
No, it doesn't. Yes it does.


You're grasping for excuses. No, I'm not. I mean that sincerely. You don't accept my assertion, fine. It would be nice if we could agree to disagree but apparently you find such diplomatic solutions to disagreement unseemly, or something else I don't know.

Maybe you think if you repeat yourself enough I will agree. I can't agree because you are wrong.

I would like to move on but whatever,

Okay; now all you have to do is point out how I've done that. Easy, thank you for the opportunity.

RandFan
John and Bob were both drivers in a race.

Bob finished behind the person in first place while John finished in front of the person in last place.

By focusing on these "facts" the propagandist can make most people think that Bob did better than John. The propagandist never tells the important point. There were only "2" drivers.

shanek
This is another lie Bush & Co. have perpetuated. The inspectors WERE NOT KICKED OUT OF IRAQ. The US withdrew them. And immediately started bombing them. Ok, please not the absence of the following in your statement.

1. Saddam refused to let the inspectors do their job.

2. Saddam violated his agreement and the UN resolution.

3. Saddam put the inspectors in a position to choose between doing nothing and going home.

By "omitting" these MATERIAL facts you paint the picture that Saddam was cooperating and that the inspectors left on their own accord. This is false.

What "dirty little secrey"? Actually there are at least 3.

1. Saddam refused to let the inspectors do their job.

2. Saddam violated his agreement and the UN resolution.

3. Saddam put the inspectors in a position to choose between doing nothing and going home.

No, it isn't. One implies the use of force, the other one doesn't. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this shows your bias. Violation of Saddam's agreement and the UN resolution is a very serious matter. As serious if not far more serious as "Saddam kicked the inspectors out". I know, you are going to dispute that {wow}, you disagree. alert the media. sound the alarm.

Okay...so, now that you've agreed that it's a coherent argument, and since that's the crux of my point, how about responding to it? I have over and over and over, many times in every post.

Do I really need to keep repeating myself?

Ok, {sigh}

Only with regard to your assertion that the inspectors could no longer do any inspecting. But Statement #1 describes a forceful act not covered under Statement #2, which as I have repeatedly stated, is being used to inflame public opinion against Saddam. 1. It is a coherent argument

2. I understand the argument.

3. It is arguable.

4. It is your opinion.

5.[/] You have not PROVEN it.

6. I don't necessarily agree with it.

There, though I'm sure I will have to respond to it again.

RandFan
The example was used to make a valid point. That such tactics are common and often successful in court (OJ Simpson) and Politics (Al Gore).

I would submit that it is Bush who is guilty of using the tactics you accuse me of. Well of course, why give me even an inch.

Personally, both sentences would inflame me. There probably are people who would be more inflamed by #1 than by #2, OMG, let me look at that again...holy cow...you actually acknowledge my argument. Perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel. Ok, we can work with that.

but I dispute that people who are making this point are leaving out that bit of data. I just did a Google search and here are some examples: Ok, this is a new line of argument. How refreshing.

Thank you, it get tiring to have to respond to the exact same thing over and over.

First, I have heard this canard on talk radio a number of times. NPR comes to mind. And I have responded to it before on this forum. You are free of course to not believe me.

RandFan
This is not even in the ballpark shanek. Can I skip this one?

That is exactly the same thing! "The police left because you wouldn't let them search your house" is to "The inspectors left after Clinton pulled them out because Saddam wasn't complying" as "The police left after you forcibly threw them out" is to "Saddam kicked the inspectors out." I guess we can't skip it. Ok,

Or do you contend that not complying with a police warrant to search your home is "tantamount" to firing on them or otherwise using force against them?

First off it is demonstrably not the exact same thing.

Shanek, if you are going to use analogies you should match them to the actual events.

To make your analogy accurate we are going to have to change some things.

First some facts.

[list=1]
The UN had a resolution requiring Saddam to comply.
Saddam allowed the inspectors to come into his country.
Saddam used force to keep the inspectors from performing their duty.
[/list=1]

Now we can get to the analogy.

A policeman shows up to your door with a warrant.

You let him in.

He starts to search.

As he approaches a closet you barricade the closet with a shotgun and tell him that he can no longer perform the search.

You inform him that he is welcome to stay and eat cookies but he can't search.

Being outgunned he decides to leave and get backup.

1. I contend that using force to prevent the sheriff from performing his sworn and legal duties is tantamount to "kicking him out".

2. When Saddam used force to prevent the inspectors from performing their legal and sworn duties it was tantamount to kicking them out.

Now THAT is the exact same thing. Do you see the difference?

Or do you contend that not complying with a police warrant to search your home is "tantamount" to firing on them or otherwise using force against them? No, I don't contend that at all. Since that is not at all what happened.

[qoute]You see I have this ego problem. If I honestly believe that I am right then I won't give up.

Well, maybe this means I have an ego problem, too, but I find that to be an admirable trait. Would you be amenable to find common ground or do you really want to keep repeating the same thing over and over? Well, I guess we can hash out the degree to which people omit the fact that Saddam refused to let the inspectors do their job.

I await breathlessly your response.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Poorly drawn analogy. All options were taken from the inspectors except to stay or leave.

And how is his experience in the furniture store different?

In your analogy you have the choice to pay the extra price.

Not if he doesn't have the money or can't get the credit.

The other day I walked into a furniture store. Unfortunately the owner would not let me "inspect" the furniture, furthermore he said I could not buy anything. He did say I could hang around though.

Did the owner kick me out?

YES! For all intents and purposes he kicked me out!

He said you could hang around, and yet "for all intents and purposes" he kicked you out???

Do you realize how ridiculous you're sounding?????

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Please note that I did not ask for you to stipulate that the argument was correct. I did not ask you to agree. I did not ask you to even say that it is a good argument. Only that an argument can be made.

Okay, I can stipulate that far.

I don't buy that the have a drastically different reaction to the two statements. That is YOUR characterization based on your own bias.

No, it's my conclusion based on my own experience.

You are the one who refuses to acknowledge that you conveniently leave out important information from your "fact". This is called a sin of omission. It is the same as lying.

How can it be an omission when I've been saying it all along? And I've pointed out examples of others pointing it out as well?

Not letting the inspectors do their job IS A VERY SERIOUS CHARGE.

But a different charge, and not anywhere near as serious as, actually kicking them out! Actually kicking out the inspectors would be an act of war! Do you not agree that it would be an act of war?

I never said or intimated that you are anti-American or Saddam loving.

You said I was defending Saddam with my argument. Same thing.

Thank you, do you have a link?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html

This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors.

Hold on there, I have read the record and though you have acknowledged the fact but you did not point out at the beginning.

So? Do I have to give out every single detail right away in order to not be guilty of a "sin of omission"?

Fact? FACT?

Oh really, this is a "fact?"

Well, if it is truly a "fact" and not just your belief or opinion then I am sure that you will have no problem demonstrating this "fact".

I've already told you how you can demonstrate it for yourself.

Shanek, "weren't satisfied with the level fo cooperation" is propaganda.

No, it's the truth.

You your self admitted that they are functionally the same.

No, I haven't. I have only stated that they both resulted in the inability of the inspectors to do their jobs. That DOES NOT mean they are functionally equivalent; in fact, that's the very contention I've been pointing out!

Will you agree that your assertion "C" and my assertion "D" are equally unproven?

No, I do not, and I have given you the means to verify this for yourself. I wonder why you won't do it?

You have simply done NO such thing.

Your ability to not even try to face the issue here is staggering.

First, I have heard this canard on talk radio a number of times. NPR comes to mind. And I have responded to it before on this forum. You are free of course to not believe me.

And you are free of course to submit evidence of this alleged dishonesty.

As he approaches a closet you barricade the closet with a shotgun and tell him that he can no longer perform the search.

You inform him that he is welcome to stay and eat cookies but he can't search.

Being outgunned he decides to leave and get backup.

1. I contend that using force to prevent the sheriff from performing his sworn and legal duties is tantamount to "kicking him out".

No court of law would ever, ever, ever agree with you here.

Would you be amenable to find common ground

Of course.

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek


All I can say to that is: :rolleyes:
Nice way to avoid the question.
I noticed you ignored my other comments.


How are we defending ourselves? If one thing is blatantly clear at this point, it is that Saddam's "war machine" has absolutely no chance against us. He never had the ability to do anything against us.

We have already established that he supports terrorist.
In addition to the points rikzilla showed on his thread.
That you keep ignoring.

[q]
What, we get to attack people just because they have no credibility? I have to do it again: :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]

You're the one that believes he should be trusted to stay in power.
Can we stop with the ad hominem replies now?


But a different charge, and not anywhere near as serious as, actually kicking them out! Actually kicking out the inspectors would be an act of war! Do you not agree that it would be an act of war?

Refusing to allow theme to do there job and kicking them out lead to the same results it's the same offence.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker
We have already established that he supports terrorist.

No, we haven't. That has been a point of contention for a long time.

You're the one that believes he should be trusted to stay in power.

When did I say that?

Can we stop with the ad hominem replies now?

When you stop with the strawmen.

[/b]Refusing to allow theme to do there job and kicking them out lead to the same results it's the same offence. [/B]

So, trying to save someone's life and murdering someone lead to the same results so it's the same offence? Might convoluted logic in this thread....

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek


No, we haven't. That has been a point of contention for a long time.

Are you forgetting his well own support for terrorist in Israeli?
And other well known links.

Abu Mussab al Zarqawi (al Qaida senior operative) is apparently free to operate in Baghdad as well.
the link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.alqaeda/index.html)

When did I say that?

I wasn't implying you said that but your continuing argument against the war that is intended to remove him.
Gives the impression of it.


When you stop with the strawmen.

If that's the case then please explain the strawman comments I'm making?


So, trying to save someone's life and murdering someone lead to the same results so it's the same offence? Might convoluted logic in this thread....

Can you explain how this is connected to the comment you are replying to?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
He said you could hang around, and yet "for all intents and purposes" he kicked you out???

Do you realize how ridiculous you're sounding????? He also said that I couldn't look at the furniture or buy anything. What the hell would I want to hang around for?

If you went to a furniture store and you couldn't look at furniture or buy furniture, would you hang around?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, I can stipulate that far.

RandFan
Would you be amenable to find common ground

Of course. Well I will keep my promise and I will let you have the last word.

Let me just say that I think I made very good arguments. I know that you don't agree. But you did grant me a little bit on your previous post. I think I can live with that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker
I wasn't implying you said that but your continuing argument against the war that is intended to remove him.
Gives the impression of it.

And how does my stating that we should have supported the Iraqi National Congress, who had the best chance of overturning Saddam and setting up a proper democratic government by Iraqis themselves, and how stupid it was that Bush (and Clinon before him) actively undermined their effort, as I have stated in so many threads now, give the impression that I wish Saddam to remain in power?

If that's the case then please explain the strawman comments I'm making?

Well, your assertion that I believe that "Saddam should be trusted to stay in power" certainly counts...

Can you explain how this is connected to the comment you are replying to?

It's a logical extention of your argument. If two things that lead to the same results are the same crime, then accidentally killing someone is the same as murder.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
He also said that I couldn't look at the furniture or buy anything. What the hell would I want to hang around for?

Maybe you could sit in the middle of the floor and read a book. He still didn't kick you out.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Well I will keep my promise and I will let you have the last word.

Let me just say that I think I made very good arguments. I know that you don't agree. But you did grant me a little bit on your previous post. I think I can live with that.

Okay.

[RandFan]

Edited because I promised to give shanek the last word on the subject. Sorry.

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek


And how does my stating that we should have supported the Iraqi National Congress, who had the best chance of overturning Saddam and setting up a proper democratic government by Iraqis themselves, and how stupid it was that Bush (and Clinon before him) actively undermined their effort, as I have stated in so many threads now, give the impression that I wish Saddam to remain in power?

Iraqi National Congress is based in London and it's not clear how much influence they have inside Iraq.
Plus they couldn't take out Saddam on there own they would need Air support.
They're also mainly Kurds who only make up only 15% of Iraq's population.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020201/2002020113.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/crs-iraq-op.htm


It's a logical extention of your argument. If two things that lead to the same results are the same crime, then accidentally killing someone is the same as murder.

The Complex Question Fallacy.
I can see the obvious difference from accidentally killing someone and murder.
There was no accident the inspectors where denied continuing their job.
The same result as being kicked out.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker

The Complex Question Fallacy.
I can see the obvious difference from accidentally killing someone and murder.

And I can see the obvious difference between not letting someone do their job and kicking them out. It's hardly an uinreasonable distinction. One is an act of force, the other isn't.

So, are you now retracting your statement that two actions which lead to the same result are the same crime?

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek

And I can see the obvious difference between not letting someone do their job and kicking them out. It's hardly an uinreasonable distinction. One is an act of force, the other isn't.


Yes, it was misquoted perhaps purposely but it's still wrong the violation is the same.
The fact is they violated a direct UN resolution.


So, are you now retracting your statement that two actions which lead to the same result are the same crime?


So your saying because they just refused to let them do there job instead of kicking them out that it isn't a violation.
I don't recall saying that every two actions, which lead to the same result, are the same crime.
That's a Red Herring Fallacy
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker
So your saying because they just refused to let them do there job instead of kicking them out that it isn't a violation.

When did I ever say it wasn't a violation? Stop putting words in my mouth.

I don't recall saying that every two actions, which lead to the same result, are the same crime.

Refusing to allow theme to do there job and kicking them out lead to the same results it's the same offence.

There it is. If it leads to the same results, it's the same offence. You said it.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Lothian
Has it been confirmed that Saddam has lit up any oil fields? The news here this morning suggested that oil fields captured in the south were intact. In the North the BBC correspondent saw flames coming from some fields however he suggested that it was just the normal flares you get. If the oil fields were on fire he would have expected much more fire and smoke.

I am not saying that no oil fields have been set on fire, but the messages are contradictory. They certainly have not all been set on fire which suggests that if some have it may not have been as a result of a central policy decision.

The reports seem to indicate that compared to the scale in the oil fields of Kuwait (300 to 400 oil heads set on fire), that there are relatively few ablaze at the moment (only a half dozen or so in Iraq's oil fields are ablaze.)

The oil heads may have been unwittingly or unintentionally hit by weopons fire. There are apparently hundreds of oil heads around southern Iraq, so the odds are good that some may be damaged or hit with weopons fire.

PPG

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


The reports seem to indicate that compared to the scale in the oil fields of Kuwait (300 to 400 plus oil heads set on fire), that there are relatively few ablaze at the moment (only a half dozen or so in Iraq's oil fields are ablaze.)

The oil heads may have been unwittingly or unintentionally hit by weopons fire. There are apparently hundreds of oil heads around southern Iraq, so the odds are good that some may be damaged or hit with weopons fire.

PPG

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/21/markets/oil.reut/




All key components of oil fields in a southern Iraqi port remain safe, with only seven oil wells being set on fire, Admiral Michael Boyce, British chief of defense staff told reporters Friday.

British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon earlier said that about 30oil wells at Umm Qasr, a city not far from Basra, have been set onfire by Iraqi forces.

"I'm pleased to be able to tell you that the latest informationI have is that only seven well heads have been fired, as opposed to the some 30 or so that we suspected might have been on fire today," Boyce told a press briefing at the Ministry of Defense in London.

"We are absolutely determined not to let (Iraqi President) Saddam (Hussein) to bring more damage to the lives of his people through some sort of scorched-earth policy," Boyce said, adding that "specialist civilian contractors" would be in the area "in a day or two" to snuff out the fires.

Umm Qasr has been overwhelmed by US Marines and now "is in coalition hands," Boyce said, adding that two Iraqi vessels loadedwith mines for deployment in the Gulf have been captured by alliedforces.

Progress made in the campaign so far was "promising" and humanitarian supplies were expected to be brought into Iraq withinthe next few days, Boyce said.

He also praised the British and American advance into southern Iraq, under air cover provided by the RAF and US air force.

On Friday, local reports said the US and British forces were expected to take Basra, Iraq's southern stronghold, later in the day.

[rikzilla]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Baker
We have already established that he supports terrorist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by Shanek
No, we haven't. That has been a point of contention for a long time.


From the link Baker is talking about:


#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

#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.


So...no evidence he supports terrorism?? #1-4, 7, and 10 are hard evidence to the contrary. Open your eyes Shane. The rest of us can see very well that he supports terrorism. Today it is being reported that a huge terror camp has fallen to the coallition in the north....but I guess this will merely be another fact that Shane will refuse to see?

-zilla

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by rikzilla


So...no evidence he supports terrorism?? #1-4, 7, and 10 are hard evidence to the contrary. Open your eyes Shane. The rest of us can see very well that he supports terrorism. Today it is being reported that a huge terror camp has fallen to the coallition in the north....but I guess this will merely be another fact that Shane will refuse to see?

-zilla

Let's see if I get this (your #1). Saddam supported Abu Nidal for a while, then had him killed. That DOES prove Saddam is still a terrorist. But we (the US) supported Saddam for a while (p.s. both Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld have personally met Saddam), and now we want to kill him. But that does NOT mean we are a supporter of Saddam. Hmmm.

You wouldn't be applying different standards of "proof" would you? Or selectively presenting evidence which supports your case, knowing the arguments are fatally flawed? This thread is about what Saddam lies about... what does Bush lie about?

[shanek]

Originally posted by rikzilla
So...no evidence he supports terrorism?? #1-4, 7, and 10 are hard evidence to the contrary.

By that same token, Bush is guilty of supporting terrorism because many of the hijackers were living here and wer trained here! :rolleyes:

Ronald Reagan supported Osama bin Laden. Was Reagan supporting terrorism? :rolleyes:

See, the difference between you and me, is that I don't claim that Saddam is not supporting terrorism, just that there's no evidence. You're so desperate to prove your assertion that he is that you provide "evidence" that would condemn our own country as well.

You're nothing but a jingoist.

[Kodiak]

Tests find toxins in northern Iraq (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp?0cv=CA01)


Chemical weapon manuals and atropine found in Iraqi facility (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392.asp?0cv=CB10)

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek


By that same token, Bush is guilty of supporting terrorism because many of the hijackers were living here and wer trained here! :rolleyes:

The big difference here is the 9/11 terrorist where unknown before 9/11 in Saddam's case they where known as terrorist plus your comparing the US to a country that is only one tenth the size of the US Where Saddam keeps track of everyone leaving and coming.

Ronald Reagan supported Osama bin Laden. Was Reagan supporting terrorism? :rolleyes:

Ronald Reagan supported the Afghans not Osama bin Laden even if he did it was long before he used acts of terror.

See, the difference between you and me, is that I don't claim that Saddam is not supporting terrorism, just that there's no evidence. You're so desperate to prove your assertion that he is that you provide "evidence" that would condemn our own country as well.

No, you are once again using similar evidence but irrelevant to the current situation.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker
The big difference here is the 9/11 terrorist where unknown before 9/11 in Saddam's case they where known as terrorist plus your comparing the US to a country that is only one tenth the size of the US Where Saddam keeps track of everyone leaving and coming.

There's been no evidence presented of that. And you seem to conveniently forget that we supported Saddam during and after the time when he gassed the Kurds, which now seems to be the biggest excuse for this war.

What's that old saying? "Physician, heal thyself!"

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek
And you seem to conveniently forget that we supported Saddam during and after the time when he gassed the Kurds...

I'd like to see evidence of this, but, assuming you are correct.

I have two questions.

1. Are you indicting the US simply because Saddam's regime committed atrocities while his country was receiving aid from the US?

and

2. How does your statement excuse Saddam of these vicious acts?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I'd like to see evidence of this,

Oh, come on! We were aiding Saddam right up until he invaded Kuwait! It's not like anyone's even denying it!

1. Are you indicting the US simply because Saddam's regime committed atrocities while his country was receiving aid from the US?

No, and that's exactly the point.

2. How does your statement excuse Saddam of these vicious acts?

It doesn't, but yet again another pro-war advocate completely misses the point! This is just one more piece of "evidence" against Saddam that can also be used against the US!

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek

supported Saddam during and after the time when he gassed the Kurds

Can you provide some sort of evidence of this?
Face it shanek there is no way you can justify Saddam staying in power.


But former CIA operative Robert Baer, who spent years in the Middle East, disagreed.

"Somebody at some level had to know he was there. Now obviously I can't tell you whether Saddam knew, but somebody in an official line of responsibility for customs and immigration knew he came into the country," Baer said.

"Palestinians, other Arabs, even Iraqis go through a very tight screen when they come into that country. Documents are looked at. You just can't do it [sneak in]. It is a police state."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.alqaeda/index.html

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker
Face it shanek there is no way you can justify Saddam staying in power.

STRAWMAN! Why do you jingoist @$$holes have to continually lie about what I've said??? :mad:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek
Oh, come on! We were aiding Saddam right up until he invaded Kuwait! It's not like anyone's even denying it!

Again, I'll take you for your word, shanny, but I would prefer some evidence...


Originally posted by shanek
It doesn't, but yet again another pro-war advocate completely misses the point! This is just one more piece of "evidence" against Saddam that can also be used against the US!

That would be a neat trick!

Exactly which of Saddam's atrocities did the U.S. commit??

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Again, I'll take you for your word, shanny, but I would prefer some evidence...

Why don't you ask Donald Rumsfeld? He was the one who was keeping US foreign policy so close to Saddam up to and all through 1988! He also made sure that Saddam had plenty of chemical weapons to use against Iran and looked the other way when he used them against the Kurds.

If you want a good source for this, check out The Threatening Storm by former CIA analyst Kenneth M. Pollack. And before you go thinking this is a biased anti-war source, this book actualy argues in favor of the current war.

That would be a neat trick!

Exactly which of Saddam's atrocities did the U.S. commit??

Come on, Kodiak! You're such a good skeptic on pretty much every other subject, why are you behaving like a woo-woo when it comes to the war?

The point, since you seem intent on missing it, is that if Saddam is responsible for the 9/11 attacks because he allowed a training camp for a group sponsored by the same group that led the attacks (which is quite a few degrees of separation, with little if any evidence for it), then the US is responsible for the gassing of the Kurds because we know the US gave Saddam the weapons directly!

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek
The point, since you seem intent on missing it, is that if Saddam is responsible for the 9/11 attacks because he allowed a training camp for a group sponsored by the same group that led the attacks (which is quite a few degrees of separation, with little if any evidence for it), then the US is responsible for the gassing of the Kurds because we know the US gave Saddam the weapons directly!

I didn't say Saddam was responsible, only that he would have to have known of their existence and operation inside his country.

To the contrary, there is nothing to suggest that the US had any inkling that Saddam would gas the Kurds, any more than the US knew that they were aiding the future 9-11 mastermind when the CIA gave money, supplies, and weapons to the Afghans during the Russian invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I didn't say Saddam was responsible,

Then how is it a justification for the war?

To the contrary, there is nothing to suggest that the US had any inkling that Saddam would gas the Kurds, any more than the US knew that they were aiding the future 9-11 mastermind when the CIA gave money, supplies, and weapons to the Afghans during the Russian invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

Do you really think that George III is going to allow the room for such a possibility for Saddam?

All I'm looking for is a little consistency here.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek


Then how is it a justification for the war?

I never said it was. It is just one more thing to consider when looking at the man and his regime.

He is in non-compliance with both resolution 1441 and the Gulf War unconditional terms of surrender. That plus his crimes against humanity are enough for me...