Where are the chemical weopons? [Archive]

DrChinese

30th March 2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Could you maybe clear up what b) actually means?

Coming from Rose's earlier post:

"Obviously, Saddam doesn't feel threatened or desperate enough to use the weapons, if they are there. If he is still in the research stage, finding the proof of his intent will be harder, since it will involve collating evidence scattered around the country. Thinking that the proof will be laying in the highways for us to exhibit is as foolishly optimistic as those projections that the fighting would be over by the first weekend of the war. Allow at least a few weeks after we declare military victory if you will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
If I may summarize... a) no evidence of WMD; b) intent will require a lot of innuedo to prove what we KNOW to be true. I know that makes me feel a lot better about going to Iraq and bombing the hell out of them."

In reply:

What I was trying to say (unsuccessfully)... How do you invade a sovereign country because they have an "intent" to "develop" WMD? How do you prove what is in someone's minds? This is of course difficult in conspiracy trials, but what we will be left with in this case is a p*ssing contest of what constitutes "proof" that there was intent to develop WMD. For example, would a taped conversation of Saddam discussing it "prove" anything? What about finding a book entited "How to Make an Atomic Bomb"? I fully expect the US to present such a "proof" before it is all over.

The real issue to me is that UN rules specifically forbid one country invading another when (as with this case) there has been no direct attack or encroachment. Logic indicates that this UN rule would supercede the twisted enforcement of some lesser rule (1441, etc.). In other words, you don't get the death sentence for a shoplifting offense. Such proof won't matter to me. Perhaps if you show me an arsenal containing working "nuculer" weapons, but anything else is a feint.

DrChinese

30th March 2003, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by ssibal

Well, that is because we actually have those weapons. So it would not be surprising to find those gas masks and suits here in the U.S..

And exactly why would the good people of the US have such stocks? Their use is banned...

I would be laffing my head off if I wasn't so busy crying. Two years ago things were going so well. Now, every nightmare I can imagine is seemingly coming to pass. Remember the saying, "It can't happen here..."

rikzilla

30th March 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe

I am not suggesting that the US/UK actively seeking out WMD et al weopons be a goal at this time.

my post was asking:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Saddam and or his regime waiting for some specific thresh-hold of a "point of no hope"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

along with other questions about the Iraqi regime's choice of weopons in engagements thus far.

Please read my origional post.

The regime is no longer in tight control of much outside of Baghdad. Their actions are becoming more and more irrational. I don't think you can expect rational actions from this regime any longer. If Chemical munitions are used it will likely be by desperate and hopeless Iraqi Rep. Guard field commanders. If the weapons are not used it will be a great relief to all involved, but should not be construed as meaning that they don't have chem weapons. I believe the answer to your question can only be answered by a shrug....I don't know. Neither does anyone else I guess. It's hard to predict what the regime will do as it becomes more fragmented....irrationality makes them more unpredictable.

-z

Pyrrho

30th March 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Is Saddam and or his regime waiting for some specific thresh-hold of a "point of no hope"?

There is no way to know. Time will tell.

Is there any documentation of actual chemical weopons being used on coalition forces or on Basra's population as pro Saddam forces retreat? If the city is lost to the Brits and the anti Saddam population why not exact revenge with the chemical, biological, or WMDs weopons? The Iraqi artillary is harsh retaliation but I half expected much worse.

There has been no indication that chemical weapons have been used against coalition forces or on Basra's population. Iraqi forces in Basra haven't retreated. They still hold the city. However, they are effectively encircled and aren't going anywhere without being bombarded. Having chemical weapons is one thing; delivering them properly and to tactical advantage is another. If they use chemical weapons they will completely vindicate the coalition invasion and Saddam will no longer be able to claim martyrdom. There are strategic reasons why it would be stupid for Iraq to use chemical weapons.

Other than largely ineffective Scud missile attacks have there been any substantial use of effective, crippling missile attacks by the Iraqis?

Iraq's missile attacks have all been ineffective. No SCUDs have been launched as yet.

I am not intending to be morbid. I am glad that chemical weopons have not come into the picture as of yet. I am relieved that coalition forces have escaped large casualties. It just seems all a little improbable though that coalition forces have not been hit with WMDs and Biological or Chemical weopons that Iraq is said to have.
As I said earlier, strategic reasons outweigh tactical benefits of chemical weapons. Only an idiot would open that door.

Boxes of gas masks that were donated by the US and Britain have been found abandoned by retreating pro-Saddam forces.

Do you have a cite which shows that the equipment was donated by the US and Britain?

003998

30th March 2003, 08:39 AM

I`ve been wondering about that question for quite a while.
There is no arguing that Saddam does posess chemical and biological weapons. We can be sure about this, because they were partialy delivered by the US and were used against the Kurds and in the war against Iran.
It is also quite safe to assume that Saddam does not posess nuclear weapons as was stated by Al Baradai.
Talking from Saddam's point of view, this war cannot be won by military means. The US and British forces are so superior, they could turn the whole Iraq into a lifeless desert. Saddam's only hope of survival -maybe even in a political sense- is with politics. If he stalls the invasion long enough and is able to swing the public opinion even more against this war, he has a chance at least.
Using these banned weapons won't bring victory, but it might destroy the support of the arabian countries and silence some of the anti-war protesters elsewhere.

I am quite confident that he will use these weapons when he sees no way out anymore. The suicide bombings show that there are still enough Iraqis willing to defend their country at all costs. The troops and the Iraqi people might pay the price for this attack eventually.

Captain_Snort

30th March 2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by pyrrho2000

Do you have a cite which shows that the equipment was donated by the US and Britain?

can you go back 20 years and the Iran Iraq war?

can you go back 12 years and look at what front line tanks saddam had?

Now he is running T-55's (or whatever the number) that made the attempt to break out of Basra, a Challenger II (best tank in the world) against a T55 (50 year old technology)

yes I agree that saddams regime was not humaitarian based, and needed to be changed, but hell, international law.

I remeber was (discussed on banter, thread, I knew we would find chemical weapons )or some ****)). that news story gone cold, i.e. some squaddies found a chemical lab and didn;t know what it was and thought, chemichal warfare.

www.warnography.com

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

31st March 2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by pyrrho2000

Do you have a cite which shows that the equipment was donated by the US and Britain?

No sorry, but the US and Britain did supply Iraq with the means to deliver biological agents on Iranian troops and civilians, and supplied masks to protect Iraqi soldiers from similar attacks from Iran.

This link explains what was or was not found at a hospital used as a "fortress" by proSaddam forces.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/iraq/chi-0303260280mar26,0,5820052.story?coll=chi-news-hed

arcticpenguin

31st March 2003, 12:36 PM

Maybe they are in Syria (http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-1apr2003-41.htm)

Supercharts

31st March 2003, 05:00 PM

"Raid Finds al-Qaida Tie to Iraq Militants
55 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By DAFNA LINZER and BORZOU DARAGAHI, Associated Press Writers

BIYARE, Iraq - A U.S.-led assault on a compound controlled by an extremist Islamic group turned up a list of names of suspected militants living in the United States and what may be the strongest evidence yet linking the group to al-Qaida, coalition commanders said Monday. "
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=514&e=3&cid=514&u=/ap/20030401/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_iraqi_militants

31st March 2003, 06:43 PM

Where are the chemical weopons?

OBgac

1st April 2003, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
TO make things clear:

Wishing and hoping that WDMs and Biological and chemical weopons will be used on coalition forces is not the purpose of me starting this thread.

I am asking questions to determine if there is any hard evidence thus far that Iraq has these weopons, as suspected by the Bush and Blair administrations, and therefore the reason for the administrations going to war with Iraq.

regards and respectfully

PPG

Tut Tut, PPG
You obviously havent been watching enough Fox news. The reason for being in Iraq is to FREE the people and nothing more.
WMD has moved down the list of reasons and is hardly being mentioned anymore.

(BTW I was watching the pentagon briefing yesterday as they made a boo boo, mentioning in their list of priorities of achievements the securing of oil fields ahead of humaniterian aid
for the Iraqi people. ) Bad PR even if the priorities were in the right order.

pgwenthold

1st April 2003, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Supercharts
"Raid Finds al-Qaida Tie to Iraq Militants
55 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By DAFNA LINZER and BORZOU DARAGAHI, Associated Press Writers

BIYARE, Iraq - A U.S.-led assault on a compound controlled by an extremist Islamic group turned up a list of names of suspected militants living in the United States and what may be the strongest evidence yet linking the group to al-Qaida, coalition commanders said Monday. "
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=514&e=3&cid=514&u=/ap/20030401/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_iraqi_militants

And the USAToday is reporting today that the Bush administration is backing off claims that the camp found in the north has any links to al-Qaida. It's not a Sadam supporting operation, but not al-Qaida, either.

Maybe it was a band of Iraqis who were about to revolt? Just a thought.

ssibal

1st April 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by DrChinese

And exactly why would the good people of the US have such stocks? Their use is banned...

That does not matter, the bottom line is we are allowed to have them while Iraq is not.

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 06:01 PM

I think you'll find there are plenty in the USA.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm

DrChinese

1st April 2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

That does not matter, the bottom line is we are allowed to have them while Iraq is not.

So if they have them, they violate a UNSC resolution. If we invade Iraq to find them, we violate the UN charter. That's the great thing about laws, always made for the other guy.

DrChinese

1st April 2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Supercharts
"Raid Finds al-Qaida Tie to Iraq Militants
55 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By DAFNA LINZER and BORZOU DARAGAHI, Associated Press Writers

BIYARE, Iraq - A U.S.-led assault on a compound controlled by an extremist Islamic group turned up a list of names of suspected militants living in the United States and what may be the strongest evidence yet linking the group to al-Qaida, coalition commanders said Monday. "
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=514&e=3&cid=514&u=/ap/20030401/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_iraqi_militants

Hmmm, on the border with Iran in Kurd-controlled Iraq. Ooo, that's quite a smoking gun. And they found a laptop with names on it too. Wow, those scumbags.

shanek

2nd April 2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
If the weapons are not used it will be a great relief to all involved, but should not be construed as meaning that they don't have chem weapons.

There it is again. The woo-woo tactics used by many on the pro-war side, taking advantage of the fact that you can't prove a negative.

"You can't prove that ALL of John Edward's readings are cold readings!"
"Okay, these UFOs/crop circles are fakes, but you can't prove that they ALL are!"
"Just because some psychics are frauds doesn't mean that they all are!"

This is a skeptic board! Why aren't more people jumping all over these statements? Why has skepticism and rationality taken a back seat on this subject?

shanek

2nd April 2003, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
There has been no indication that chemical weapons have been used against coalition forces or on Basra's population. Iraqi forces in Basra haven't retreated. They still hold the city. However, they are effectively encircled and aren't going anywhere without being bombarded. Having chemical weapons is one thing; delivering them properly and to tactical advantage is another. If they use chemical weapons they will completely vindicate the coalition invasion and Saddam will no longer be able to claim martyrdom. There are strategic reasons why it would be stupid for Iraq to use chemical weapons.

And I suppose if coalition forces go through and scour the country for WMD and find none, this same logic could be used to conclude that Saddam destroyed the weapons to preserve his status as a martyr. That's the thing about this; if Saddam really doesn't have any WMD, there's no way to satisfy the US of that, even though the burden of proof logically should be on the US to prove that he has them.

If Saddam uses WMD, it proves that he has them. If he doesn't use them, it proves that he has them. If we find WMDs, it proves that he has them, and if we don't, then that proves that he had them.

shanek

2nd April 2003, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by 003998
I`ve been wondering about that question for quite a while.
There is no arguing that Saddam does posess chemical and biological weapons. We can be sure about this, because they were partialy delivered by the US and were used against the Kurds and in the war against Iran.

But this doesn't make any sense! Those that he didn't use, and that weren't destroyed in Gulf War I, and that weren't dismantled by the first team of inspectors, would have had their shelf life run out long ago. He would had to have obtained new material and manufactured new weapons. You can't use the fact that he had weapons in the late 1980s as evidence that he still has them.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

2nd April 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by shanek

If Saddam uses WMD, it proves that he has them. If he doesn't use them, it proves that he has them. If we find WMDs, it proves that he has them, and if we don't, then that proves that he had them.

Correct on all your accounts as are the following kinds of statements

taking advantage of the fact that you can't prove a negative.

"You can't prove that ALL of John Edward's readings are cold readings!"
"Okay, these UFOs/crop circles are fakes, but you can't prove that they ALL are!"
"Just because some psychics are frauds doesn't mean that they all are!"[/B]

I am willing to suspend disbelief at the drop of a hat.;)

I posted these questions, a few days ago, because I was concerned about the lack of proof (currently) that Saddam has WMD or Biological and Chemical weapons.

The whole premise of the invasion was a first strike to "disarm" Saddam of these suspect weapons.

"The first responsibility of the commander in chief is to protect and defend citizens of the United States. In the case of Iraq, where weapons of mass destruction – and the demonstrated desire to use them – are known to exist, Bush has articulated a "pre-emptive strike" doctrine of self-defense. "

Since the posting of the origional post, the media reports state over and over again that Saddam is desperate (therefore suicide bombers in taxis are ordered to approach coalition positions with the determination to destroy some Americans and or British.

The Iraqis are losing ground. Towns and cities are revolting against Saddam.

To my relief Saddam has not unleashed these weapons on Iraqi dissidents or the invading army.

Yet, despite that he is desperate, irrational, and it has been his practice to gas his enemies in the past, Saddam has had immense self control. As of writing this the suspect weapons have not been used.

I do understand that coalition forces are not going to "drive over them" on the highways. I do know I can not know Saddam's mind or his current strategy if he is reticent using the suspect weapons.

The simplest explanation, given the current actions of Saddam's regime and the lack of evidence of the existance of suspect weapons in Saddam's control is:

(I hold my breath, as I know I may get a lot of flack for this)

There is no evidence that the suspect weapons currently exist.

When evidence is presented and/or Saddam's regime uses the suspect weapons then I will examine the evidence and consider whether the evidnece shows that the suspect weopons do exist.

Note to those people who may read more into this :

I am not saying Saddam is nice, I am not saying: I would like to live in his regime

I am not saying I want to see death and destruction and death to coalition troops,

I am not saying that Saddam has not commited acts of aggression or crimes against humanity in the past,

and

I am not saying that when presented with new evidence that I will not consider that evidence and use it to determine if a change of view is required.

By all means I suspect I have not covered all the objections people will have with this view.

Bearguin

2nd April 2003, 11:23 AM

Not adding anything to this thread except....

PPG, it's spelled "weapons"

:D

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

2nd April 2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Gods Advocate
Not adding anything to this thread except....

PPG, it's spelled "weapons"

:D

Thanks where is that sheapish smilie....

003998

2nd April 2003, 11:56 PM

But this doesn't make any sense! Those that he didn't use, and that weren't destroyed in Gulf War I, and that weren't dismantled by the first team of inspectors, would have had their shelf life run out long ago. He would had to have obtained new material and manufactured new weapons. You can't use the fact that he had weapons in the late 1980s as evidence that he still has them

I confess I am not an expert concerning chemical weapons, but it would have been my guess that things like mustard gas sustain their lethality over quite a while. If your expertise exeeds mine, I withdraw that one.
Biological Weapons are a different matter. As a friend of mine, who is a Biologist, told me, it is very easy to keep bacteria alive. The delivery of nutrients by Donald Rumsfeld was more than enough to retain a big arsenal of biological weapons up to date.

If I remember correctly, the UN Inspectors never destroyed these nutrients. Anyone who paid attention to the inspections knows that Saddam tried and often succeeded in deceiving or simply keeping out the inspectors. If he had really destroyed his "illegal" weapons, he would have had no reason to do so. I think it is quite clear that he had things to hide and safe to assume that this also includes at least biological weapons.

I am not of the opinion, however, that this justifies the war.

shanek

3rd April 2003, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by 003998
I confess I am not an expert concerning chemical weapons, but it would have been my guess that things like mustard gas sustain their lethality over quite a while. If your expertise exeeds mine, I withdraw that one.

I'm going off of the reports that the weapons Iraq had had a shelf life of 5 years.

Biological Weapons are a different matter. As a friend of mine, who is a Biologist, told me, it is very easy to keep bacteria alive. The delivery of nutrients by Donald Rumsfeld was more than enough to retain a big arsenal of biological weapons up to date.

The five year figure may have only applied to chemical weapons; I'm not sure about that.

If I remember correctly, the UN Inspectors never destroyed these nutrients. Anyone who paid attention to the inspections knows that Saddam tried and often succeeded in deceiving or simply keeping out the inspectors. If he had really destroyed his "illegal" weapons, he would have had no reason to do so.

Wait...are you really going to fall back on, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide?" :rolleyes:

I think it is quite clear that he had things to hide and safe to assume that this also includes at least biological weapons.

I think that's possible, but as the old commercial said, where's the beef?

003998

3rd April 2003, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Wait...are you really going to fall back on, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide?" :rolleyes:

No, I am more on the grounds of: "If you are actively hiding something, you have something to hide."
I am referring to multiple reports by the inspectors that trucks were leaving facilities just before they entered these facilities. And we know from the fact that the Inspectors found the Al Samud missiles that Saddam was trying to keep up his military power.
All this is of course not compulsory. Saddam may have destroyed all his B-weapons because he suddenly felt they were inhuman. Or he may have simply abandoned his weapons, because he saw no further use for them. But neither of these theories do sound all that credible to me.

pgwenthold

3rd April 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by 003998

I am referring to multiple reports by the inspectors that trucks were leaving facilities just before they entered these facilities.

Wow, trucks were leaving facilities? Those bastards...

You are making a logical error here. How many trucks left the facilities when the inspectors weren't there? If you don't know that, you cannot say whether the trucks leaving when the inspectors showed up is evidence of anything.

If weapons inspectors showed up at a Wal-mart warehouse in Alabama, they would probably observe trucks leaving as they got there, too.

003998

3rd April 2003, 08:18 AM

I believe that the Inspectors had sufficient expertise to decide if some event deserved mention in their reports.

ssibal

3rd April 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by DrChinese

So if they have them, they violate a UNSC resolution. If we invade Iraq to find them, we violate the UN charter. That's the great thing about laws, always made for the other guy.

Exactly what part of the charter do we violate? The funny thing about international laws is the U.S. seems to be the only nation willing to enforce them. Most other nations would rather talk about problems for a decade and hope they will fix themselves.

shanek

3rd April 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by 003998
No, I am more on the grounds of: "If you are actively hiding something, you have something to hide."

That's just a clever restating of the excuse. It still suggests, for example, that the only reason someone wouldn't want the police to search their home was because they were obviously doing something illegal. After all, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right?

shanek

3rd April 2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by 003998
I believe that the Inspectors had sufficient expertise to decide if some event deserved mention in their reports.

But do you don't trust that the Inspectors have enough expertise to state that there's no evidence of weapons of mass destruction? Do you trust Scott Ritter when he said that? Hans Blix? A very interesting conundrum...

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

3rd April 2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by shanek

But do you don't trust that the Inspectors have enough expertise to state that there's no evidence of weapons of mass destruction? Do you trust Scott Ritter when he said that? Hans Blix? A very interesting conundrum...

indeed

Why do only selective statements or observations in the report/s on the evidence of the suspect weapons have weight and not the others?

pgwenthold

3rd April 2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by 003998
I believe that the Inspectors had sufficient expertise to decide if some event deserved mention in their reports.

I didn't call it an ignorant conclusion, so their "expertise" in weapons is irrelevent. I called it illogical.

Unless they compared the activity of the trucks when they weren't there vs when they were there, then it is not logical to make any conclusions about the activity.

The leaving of trucks was undoubtedly an observation they made, and it is worth including in a report on what they observed. In fact, it may be why they didn't find any illegal weapons there. OTOH, it may have just been normal activity at the time. To select one of these over another, without more information, is completely unjustified, regardless of who is doing it.

Most importantly, to assert that it shows they are "actively hiding weapons" is totally baseless.

003998

3rd April 2003, 10:39 AM

That's just a clever restating of the excuse. It still suggests, for example, that the only reason someone wouldn't want the police to search their home was because they were obviously doing something illegal. After all, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right?

That is right, after all. If some policemen came to my house and were searching for ABC-weapons, I would have nothing to worry about. And if they had sufficient reason to believe I could posess these, like my killing of 5000 Kurds some years ago, I would even be able to understand why they search my house. And I would also know that it might raise suspicions if I where flushing small packages down the toilett the moment I see them coming.

But do you don't trust that the Inspectors have enough expertise to state that there's no evidence of weapons of mass destruction? Do you trust Scott Ritter when he said that? Hans Blix? A very interesting conundrum...

Why do only selective statements or observations in the report/s on the evidence of the suspect weapons have weight and not the others?

I do have a lot of trust in the Inspectors. But I am also aware that they were not allowed to finish their job. They asked for more time to conduct the inspections. They also said that the cooperation of Iraq was not sufficient and they could not be sure that there are no BC weapons. Remember that they inspected the Al Samud missiles mere weeks before the war was broken loose. And these missiles are a lot harder to hide than some Petri dishes.

We will probably find out who was right some time soon. For the sake of the Iraqi people, I hope I'm wrong.

003998

3rd April 2003, 10:47 AM

Exactly what part of the charter do we violate? The funny thing about international laws is the U.S. seems to be the only nation willing to enforce them. Most other nations would rather talk about problems for a decade and hope they will fix themselves.

America is violating the part of the charta that forbids any offensive war without permission of the Security Council. And it is very interesting to see that America seems only to enforce those international laws that suit its momentary cause.

I didn't call it an ignorant conclusion, so their "expertise" in weapons is irrelevent. I called it illogical.

I meant to say that the Inspectors probably had enough information about the facilities to know how common or uncommon the departures of trucks should be.

pgwenthold

3rd April 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by 003998

I meant to say that the Inspectors probably had enough information about the facilities to know how common or uncommon the departures of trucks should be.

Did they include it in the report?

If not, it is still an unjustified conclusion of the report, regardless of what they think.

003998

3rd April 2003, 11:38 AM

Of course they did. They stated that several times when they aproached facilities, they were not allowed to enter before said trucks had left.
These reports date back to the first wave of inspectors that entered Iraq after the first Gulf War, by the way.

DrChinese

3rd April 2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

Exactly what part of the charter do we violate? The funny thing about international laws is the U.S. seems to be the only nation willing to enforce them. Most other nations would rather talk about problems for a decade and hope they will fix themselves.

Following your logic, the rest of the world is remiss for NOT declaring war on the US. Because we invaded Iraq in violation of the UN charter, just as Iraq did Kuwait. In both cases, the aggressor stated they had the right even though it violated UN provisions, and most of the rest of the world was against the invasion.

Reference for violation of UN Charter: http://www.lcnp.org/global/iraqstatement3.htm

What good is having law - one of the most important elements of our civilization - if words are distorted to justify our position in contravention of those laws. The meaning of the UN charter is pretty clear, especially since the US helped to craft it. I think Bush knows what is says, and just doesn't care.

ssibal

3rd April 2003, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by 003998

America is violating the part of the charta that forbids any offensive war without permission of the Security Council.

It has the permission under the previous resolutions.

And it is very interesting to see that America seems only to enforce those international laws that suit its momentary cause.

That is more of an insult to the UN than the US.

ssibal

3rd April 2003, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by DrChinese

Following your logic, the rest of the world is remiss for NOT declaring war on the US. Because we invaded Iraq in violation of the UN charter, just as Iraq did Kuwait. In both cases, the aggressor stated they had the right even though it violated UN provisions, and most of the rest of the world was against the invasion.

Reference for violation of UN Charter: http://www.lcnp.org/global/iraqstatement3.htm

No, that is not following my logic because the two situations are completely different. Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait, while the U.S. has no plans on annexing Iraq. Iraq never claimed that it had a right under the UN whereas the U.S. is claiming that it has that right under the UN. As for the article, the previous resolutions DO give the legal authority for the U.S. and the other nations to invade Iraq. Let me ask you this, if this war was illegal then why is it that the General Assembly has not yet passed a resolution condemning the actions of the U.S. and other nations involved? Come on, at least one 'legal' UN document citing reasons why this war is illegal and condemning the actions of the parties involved should not be too difficult to come up with if this war was actually illegal.

What good is having law - one of the most important elements of our civilization - if words are distorted to justify our position in contravention of those laws. The meaning of the UN charter is pretty clear, especially since the US helped to craft it. I think Bush knows what is says, and just doesn't care.

The problem is that laws are meaningless without enforcement of those laws. This is the main problem with the UN, it lacks the means and more importantly the willingness to enforce its own laws.

Ace_of_Sevens

3rd April 2003, 11:13 PM

There currently is no smoking gun for wmd, but there is plenty of circumstantial evindense:

The chem suits the Iraqis had. You could argue they were afraid coalition forces would use chemical weapons on them, but that seems unlikely as the US and UK have no history of using chem weapons.

The semi-cooperation with inspectors. You'd think that Saddam would have avoided a war by full cooperation and by presenting evidence they destroyed the weapons they used to have. He didn't do this. You can make the arguement that they were only trying to hide their multiple smaller violations the UN inspectors did find, but that seems less likely.

Drooper

4th April 2003, 12:31 AM

Even more anecdotal evidence last night.

At Chemical Ali's planning headquarters there was a seat labelled "Chemical Officer". Why would you want a Chemical Officer?

Shane Costello

4th April 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Drooper:
At Chemical Ali's planning headquarters there was a seat labelled "Chemical Officer". Why would you want a Chemical Officer?

Have "The Chemical Brothers" toured Iraq recently? If they have then they'd obviously need someone to organise tour dates, appearances, promotions etc, hence the appointment of a "Chemical Officer".

Drooper

4th April 2003, 03:33 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by Drooper:

Have "The Chemical Brothers" toured Iraq recently? If they have then they'd obviously need someone to organise tour dates, appearances, promotions etc, hence the appointment of a "Chemical Officer".

Of course. Howstupid of me.

iain

4th April 2003, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by Drooper
Even more anecdotal evidence last night.

At Chemical Ali's planning headquarters there was a seat labelled "Chemical Officer". Why would you want a Chemical Officer? Or maybe they picked up all the furniture in a garage sale from another country :D

The probably got the chair at half price because of the old "Chemical Officer" wording on it.

Lothian

4th April 2003, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by Ace_of_Sevens
You could argue they were afraid coalition forces would use chemical weapons on them, but that seems unlikely as the US and UK have no history of using chem weapons.

The USA does have a history of using chemical weapons. Try typing "Agent Orange" and "Vietnam" into a search engine.

Additionally in the last war depleated uranium was used in shells.

Drooper

4th April 2003, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by Lothian

The USA does have a history of using chemical weapons. Try typing "Agent Orange" and "Vietnam" into a search engine.

Additionally in the last war depleated uranimum was used in shells.

Agent Orange was a defoliant (weed killer), not a chemical weapon.

If it was a chemical weapon, it would just about be the world's worst. Australian troops subject to direct spraying were complaining about effects years down the line.

Drooper

4th April 2003, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Lothian

The USA does have a history of using chemical weapons. Try typing "Agent Orange" and "Vietnam" into a search engine.

Additionally in the last war depleated uranium was used in shells.

Also, I think we have done to death the depleted uranium red herring.

just to recap:

Depleted means just that, depleted. If it was in any way dangerously radioactive, do you think the US military would have their troops handling the stuff, confined in tanks with the stuff, loading it into A10 tankbuster guns?

Depleted uranium also forms part of the M1A1 armour. Do you think it would be a bit strange to have the US armoured units driving around in radioactive tanks?

edited to fix my spelling

iain

4th April 2003, 03:55 AM

Is it possible that these Chem suits etc. were there because they were used in the past, not now. We know that Iraq has used chemical weapons in the past.

If Saddam has got a few thousand chem suits, he's not going to throw them away. Knowing military bureaucracy, they get stored somewhere for a few years and forgotten about, or even carefully maintained by someone who has no idea what they are being maintained for.

Likewise the chair. Is it possible that the "Chemical officer" designation is one from a few years ago and the chair is still being used today, but other people are allowed to sit on it.

Drooper

4th April 2003, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by iain
Is it possible that these Chem suits etc. were there because they were used in the past, not now. We know that Iraq has used chemical weapons in the past.

If Saddam has got a few thousand chem suits, he's not going to throw them away. Knowing military bureaucracy, they get stored somewhere for a few years and forgotten about, or even carefully maintained by someone who has no idea what they are being maintained for.

Likewise the chair. Is it possible that the "Chemical officer" designation is one from a few years ago and the chair is still being used today, but other people are allowed to sit on it.

Maybe, with regard to the equipment. But remember, the Iraqi position is that they haven't had any chemical weapons for more than 10 years!!!!

On the sign bit. I saw it on the telly. Although I couldn't vouch for the translation, the signs were pretty new (looked like bright yellow card) and were overlooking a sandpit which had a model of the local defences etc. Seemed pretty current to me.

4th April 2003, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by Drooper
Even more anecdotal evidence last night.

At Chemical Ali's planning headquarters there was a seat labelled "Chemical Officer". Why would you want a Chemical Officer?
I wouldn't consider that one to be particularly strong evidence. I admit that I don't know anything about Iraqi military terminology, but it is possible that "chemical officer" is one who is responsible for protection against chemical weapons. I would guess that most armies have officers in such jobs. (In Finnish army they nowadays have the title "suojelu-upseeri", meaning literally "protection officer".)

Note that I'm not claiming that Iraq doesn't have chemical weapons, actually I think that they probably have at least some.

Drooper

4th April 2003, 04:10 AM

iain

4th April 2003, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by Drooper
Your point about a chemical officer used in a defensive context did occur to me, but then with one swipe of Occam's Razor it fell in the bin. Watch out, you'll cut yourself shaving ;)

Drooper

4th April 2003, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by iain
Watch out, you'll cut yourself shaving ;)

I've only three fingers and half of one thumb left.

Lothian

4th April 2003, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

Also, I think we have done to death the depleted uranium red herring.

just to recap:

Depleted means just that, depleted. If it was in any way dangerously radioactive, do you think the US military would have their troops handling the stuff, confined in tanks with the stuff, loading it into A10 tankbuster guns?

Depleted uranium also forms part of the M1A1 armour. Do you think it would be a bit strange to have the US armoured units driving around in radioactive tanks?

edited to fix my spelling Sorry missed that conversation.
(If you hadn’t realised) I don’t know much about Depleted uranium so I had a quick look on the Net According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1101447.stm)
When a weapon made with a DU tip or core strikes a solid object, like the side of a tank, it goes straight through it and then erupts in a burning cloud of vapour.
The vapour settles as dust, which is chemically poisonous and also radioactive.
Both the US and the UK acknowledge that the dust can be dangerous if it is inhaled, though they say the danger is short-lived, localised, and much more likely to lead to chemical poisoning than to irradiation. This explains why the danger is not in the loading of weapons but their change on impact. Mind you if you have been hit by one of these I suspect the chemical poisoning is irrelevant, the burning cloud of vapour will have killed you first.

Drooper

4th April 2003, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by Lothian
Sorry missed that conversation.
(If you hadn’t realised) I don’t know much about Depleted uranium so I had a quick look on the Net According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1101447.stm) This explains why the danger is not in the loading of weapons but their change on impact. Mind you if you have been hit by one of these I suspect the chemical poisoning is irrelevant, the burning cloud of vapour will have killed you first.

That represents a tiny fraction of the rounds used. It also explains why this does not equte to WMDs (chemical/biological weapons, nuclear weapons etc.)

pgwenthold

4th April 2003, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by Ace_of_Sevens
The chem suits the Iraqis had. You could argue they were afraid coalition forces would use chemical weapons on them, but that seems unlikely as the US and UK have no history of using chem weapons.

Your assessment is contradicted by reports that the Iraqi media has told its citizens that the US is planning to use chemical weapons.

Sure, we can see it as propaganda, but we aren't the ones who are having our country invaded.

You have to consider the position of the Iraqis, not us. If you were an Iraqi, would you trust the US when it says they aren't going to use chemical weapons? You know, the ones who are dropping bombs all over your country...

Drooper

4th April 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Your assessment is contradicted by reports that the Iraqi media has told its citizens that the US is planning to use chemical weapons.

Sure, we can see it as propaganda, but we aren't the ones who are having our country invaded.

You have to consider the position of the Iraqis, not us. If you were an Iraqi, would you trust the US when it says they aren't going to use chemical weapons? You know, the ones who are dropping bombs all over your country...

Look at it this way. If I was a military planner, facing an invasion by the US, I wouldn't be wasting any resources on some PR exercise that could only ever serve as a distraction to my troops.

pgwenthold

4th April 2003, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Drooper

Look at it this way. If I was a military planner, facing an invasion by the US, I wouldn't be wasting any resources on some PR exercise that could only ever serve as a distraction to my troops.

Would you trust the US when says it wouldn't use chemical weapons?

Trusting your enemy is a bad approach to war.

Kodiak

4th April 2003, 06:47 AM

Terror toxins, atropine, and chemical weapon manuals found in Iraq (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=408517#post408517)

pgwenthold

4th April 2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
Terror toxins, atropine, and chemical weapon manuals found in Iraq (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=408517#post408517)

It should be noted that the "camp" where this was found is not associated with the Iraqi government, and the US has acknowledged this (it's not al-Quada, either).

There are also reports today of a "white powder" found in facilities. However, I am waiting for the 24 hour window to pass before thinking too much about it, though.

rikzilla

4th April 2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

It should be noted that the "camp" where this was found is not associated with the Iraqi government, and the US has acknowledged this (it's not al-Quada, either).

There are also reports today of a "white powder" found in facilities. However, I am waiting for the 24 hour window to pass before thinking too much about it, though.

MSNBC has this now (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895185.asp?0cv=CA01)
From the link
SARGAT, Iraq, April 4 — MSNBC.com tests reveal evidence of the deadly toxins ricin and botulinum at a laboratory in a remote mountain region of northern Iraq allegedly used as a terrorist training camp by Islamic militants with ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network.

You guys who've been bleating about no evidence of WMD, and no evidence of Al Qaida links call all now free free to shut the f#ck up.

-z

Kodiak

4th April 2003, 06:56 AM

richardm

4th April 2003, 07:01 AM

Apparently, there was an expectation that the WMD production labs would be found around Baghdad - that is where most of the suspect sites were (it seems). Nevertheless, based on past experience of the war reporting, I think we should wait a while before feeling too vindicated. At that rate, the phials of white powder are probably cakes of baking powder. Coloured green. In boxes. ;)

Kodiak

4th April 2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by richardm
Apparently, there was an expectation that the WMD production labs would be found around Baghdad - that is where most of the suspect sites were (it seems). Nevertheless, based on past experience of the war reporting, I think we should wait a while before feeling too vindicated. At that rate, the phials of white powder are probably cakes of baking powder. Coloured green. In boxes. ;)

Your caution and wish to not rush to judgement is prudent.

The white powder is believed to be explosives stabilizer, and not a WMD...

rikzilla

4th April 2003, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Your caution and wish to not rush to judgement is prudent.

The white powder is believed to be explosives stabilizer, and not a WMD...

Oh??? Scroll up about three posts and read my previous post...you guys must have missed it!

-z

richardm

4th April 2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Oh??? Scroll up about three posts and read my previous post...you guys must have missed it!

-z

No, I saw that Rik - fair enough; but I was talking about the white powder pgwenthold mentioned. That was only found a couple of hours ago.

rikzilla

4th April 2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by richardm

No, I saw that Rik - fair enough; but I was talking about the white powder pgwenthold mentioned. That was only found a couple of hours ago.

:confused: "DOH!" Stupid me.....:o

Kodiak

4th April 2003, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Oh??? Scroll up about three posts and read my previous post...you guys must have missed it!

-z

We're discussing two different, but related, instances... (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=408517#post408517)

Tricky

4th April 2003, 07:47 AM

As I look at the geopolitical map of Iraq (kindly provided by Newsweek) I see that the area where these "WOMDs" were found is in the Kurdish-controlled area of Iraq, and in fact, arguably in Iran. There is absolutely no Iraqi government presence in that area.

It appears that the hawks are grasping at straws in order to justify their war. It is just as likely that these materials were going to be used against Saddam. Islamic fundamentalists have no love for him at all, especially Kurds and Iranians.

Kodiak

4th April 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
As I look at the geopolitical map of Iraq (kindly provided by Newsweek) I see that the area where these "WOMDs" were found is in the Kurdish-controlled area of Iraq, and in fact, arguably in Iran. There is absolutely no Iraqi government presence in that area.

"Kurdish-controlled"...I love that... ;) :rolleyes:

Do you mean the same lack of Iraqi government presence that existed in 1988 when Saddam had several Kurdish villages gassed??? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Tricky
It appears that the hawks are grasping at straws in order to justify their war. It is just as likely that these materials were going to be used against Saddam. Islamic fundamentalists have no love for him at all, especially Kurds and Iranians.

It appears that the doves will go to ridiculous lengths to justify their inaction, complacency, and righteous indignation....

"Fundamentalists have no love for him" you said... :rolleyes:

Yeah, that's why militant Palestinians are pouring to Iraq and swelling the ranks of the terror squads executing civilians and training their weapons on the Iraqi front lines to force obedience...

pgwenthold

4th April 2003, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

The camp existed inside Iraq proper.

If this is the same camp that they destroyed last week, it was admitted then that the camp does not have ties to al-Qaida nor the government. I don't know who is changing their tune.

Quick question: if we find criminals in the US with drugs, does that mean that the US government has illegal drugs?

Kodiak

4th April 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Quick question: if we find criminals in the US with drugs, does that mean that the US government has illegal drugs?

Apples and oranges. The US is not the size of California and it is not ruled by a regime that uses secret police and fanatical death squads. Also, the criminals are not working with the blessing (or a blind eye, at the very least) of the government, nor are drugs on the same level with WMD.

pgwenthold

4th April 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Apples and oranges. The US is not the size of California and it is not ruled by a regime that uses secret police and fanatical death squads. Also, the criminals are not working with the blessing (or a blind eye, at the very least) of the government, nor are drugs on the same level with WMD.

The US does also not have a significant fraction of a given region that is actively combating the government, like the Kurds are in northern Iraq.

Compare this camp to an anti-government militia outfit hidden in the woods that is stockpiling weapons. Kind of like David Kuresh and his followers.

Sure, the US went in to get them, but a lot of people think the government actions were wrong in doing so.

Kodiak

4th April 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

The US does also not have a significant fraction of a given region that is actively combating the government, like the Kurds are in northern Iraq.

Compare this camp to an anti-government militia outfit hidden in the woods that is stockpiling weapons. Kind of like David Kuresh and his followers.

Sure, the US went in to get them, but a lot of people think the government actions were wrong in doing so.

It was a hard lesson, but one they learned well after the 1988 gassing.

The Kurds only again started actively combating the Saddam regime when the pre-war military buildup started and teams of special forces appeared "in country".

Before that, all they were doing was starving and dying...

4th April 2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Apples and oranges. The US is not the size of California and it is not ruled by a regime that uses secret police and fanatical death squads

Really? I take it you didn't go to that FBI site a while ago? No secret police? No violations of civil rights? No black men carrying cellphones shot by paranoid police? (Note: Being a cop is very dangerous. I am not referring to some of the events where the evidence is very confused, I mean some of the obvious events, like several in NYC, and so on. There was a police shooting in Seattle last fall that was just the opposite. The guy attacked the cop, but some organizations are still after the cop because he wasn't in uniform and it is claimed he didn't hollar "stop" first, even though he was factually in deadly danger. Sorry. Cops have the right to self defense. Just go away.)

No, the USA isn't as bad as Iraq, at least yet, I do agree, but I think your "black and white" comparison at this point is more like "medium grey vs. pitch black".

Just look at what the resident "americans" (I mean Jedi, Rik, etc) would do with people who don't disagree with them. Remember when they were approving life sentences for UNKNOWINGLY being part of a demonstration in which ONE PERSON intended to block traffic? Now they want to give people 25 years instead of life, BUT IT STILL IS THE SAME CONDITIONS, i.e. if one person out of 100,000 who are ESCAPING FROM A STADIUM IN A PANIC intends to stop traffic to dispute something the government did, ALL OF THOSE 100,000 people ARE GUILTY if the crowd they are part of BLOCKS ONE VEHICLE! That's what the dumb*** law proposes. It is, furthermore, clear as day that the law was written deliberately to allow willful abuse by law enforcers. In fact, it's so bad that the law enforcement community is now opposed to it, because the sensible elements in the law enforcement community (which is most of it) read the proposed law and simply roll their eyes at the absurdity of it all.
.
Also, the criminals are not working with the blessing (or a blind eye, at the very least) of the government,

Enron? Whitewater? :D Shall we bring up LBJ? How about Iran-Contra? Black ops in Columbia. Methinks you completely misphrased that one. (Note, any government that will survive must have some black ops, sad but true. Any black op is illegal. Ergo, any government that survives for long must be blessing criminals somewhere. It's sad but true.)

nor are drugs on the same level with WMD.
Which routinely kills more people in a given year, drugs or WMD? We can stick just with a legal monopoly drug, Tobacco, when you go to answer that one. Bear in mind that Tobacco is a big money-maker for the government, too, in taxes, and that the tobacco subsidy supports (for many years) meant that the government was paying for our smokes...

Look, the government of Iraq is (was, at this point?) despicable, I think we all know that. It has to go, I think we all even know that. I think about the ONLY thing anyone disagrees on is "how".

4th April 2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

The US does also not have a significant fraction of a given region that is actively combating the government, like the Kurds are in northern Iraq.

Really, what about Jedi Knight's "millions of antiamerican leftists" who are "trying to pull the US down any way they can"? :D

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

4th April 2003, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by LW

I wouldn't consider that one to be particularly strong evidence. I admit that I don't know anything about Iraqi military terminology, but it is possible that "chemical officer" is one who is responsible for protection against chemical weapons. I would guess that most armies have officers in such jobs. (In Finnish army they nowadays have the title "suojelu-upseeri", meaning literally "protection officer".)

Note that I'm not claiming that Iraq doesn't have chemical weapons, actually I think that they probably have at least some.

(New York, January 17, 2003) Human Rights Watch called today for the immediate arrest and prosecution of Iraqi General Ali Hassan al-Majid

"I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fxxx them! the international community, and those who listen to them!
-Iraqi General Ali Hassan al-Majid, the architect of the 1988 genocidal "Anfal" campaign against the Iraqi Kurds

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq0117.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/World/2020_chemicalali030328.html

This man has nothing to lose.
This man is going to be charged and tried with war crimes. His Palace at Basra is stormed, the city that was under his command is all but lost to the UK forces.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030403/140/dwweb.html

"U.S. investigators say the trove of evidence against him is damning."

This man has not unleashed chemical weapons on the Iraqi dissidents and the UK forces.

Majid ... Basra, ... well remembered for how he put down a short-lived rebellion in 1991.

An estimated 200,000 people were killed in Basra on Majid's orders. -edited quotes, please refer to ABC article

Baker

5th April 2003, 08:50 AM

The anti-war side is really pushing the no WMD found in Iraq can’t we wait until its all over with to start bragging?

crackmonkey

5th April 2003, 09:36 AM

The Marines found a high concentration of cyanide and mustard agent in the Euphrates, and surmised that the Iraqis were attempting to poison them. Last I heard, they were digging furiously in a girls' school where some locals told them Iraqi troops buried some suspicious barrels. I believe another site was found... 48 hour rule in effect. Stay tuned.

Nasarius

5th April 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The Marines found a high concentration of cyanide and mustard agent in the Euphrates, and surmised that the Iraqis were attempting to poison them. Last I heard, they were digging furiously in a girls' school where some locals told them Iraqi troops buried some suspicious barrels. I believe another site was found... 48 hour rule in effect. Stay tuned.

Related link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2919645.stm

So nothing conclusive so far. Even the bottle at the "training school" apparently hasn't been tested yet.

DrChinese

5th April 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Baker
The anti-war side is really pushing the no WMD found in Iraq can’t we wait until its all over with to start bragging?

Let's see, mad dog Saddam has banned weapons. We have already taken over Saddam airport, and we are assembling massive numbers of troops in Baghdad. But he hasn't used these weapons yet. Hmmm.

I have no doubt that "something" will be found to justify our invasion of Iraq. What could that something be? Oh, just about anything. Before the war started, I seem to remember Colin Powell showing pictures of trucks - which he said "proved" Saddam was hiding weapons from inspectors. Perhaps some old and unusable chemical weapons Rumsfeld sold Iraq 20 years ago. Maybe some defective scuds. They were searching near the Iranian border last week, maybe they'll "find" something there.

If they found an assembled nuclear weapon, that would get my attention. Short of that, it is all baloney anyway.

Get real folks. This war has nothing to do with WMD, UN resolutions or Iraqi liberation. It is about American hegemony. Domination, pure and simple.

crackmonkey

5th April 2003, 07:41 PM

Well, I can understand your attitude. If you're prepared to reject any WMD that's found as 'baloney' - and I'm guessing that's a euphemism for 'planted evidence' - you can afford to be smug.
You can't lose, right?
As for your US dominance theory - how do you explain the decade-long cesation of hostilities? We could easily have knocked over Saddam's regime at the end of the Gulf War, with the world's approval. We'd have more oil than we could ever burn ( I understand that's what this war is REALLY about)... so why the hiatus? It must be some kind of conspiratorial misdirection, huh?

DrChinese

5th April 2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Well, I can understand your attitude. If you're prepared to reject any WMD that's found as 'baloney' - and I'm guessing that's a euphemism for 'planted evidence' - you can afford to be smug.
You can't lose, right?
As for your US dominance theory - how do you explain the decade-long cesation of hostilities? We could easily have knocked over Saddam's regime at the end of the Gulf War, with the world's approval. We'd have more oil than we could ever burn ( I understand that's what this war is REALLY about)... so why the hiatus? It must be some kind of conspiratorial misdirection, huh?

1. I am prepared to accept anything, based on the evidence. I am not saying that it will be planted. But I am pointing out that what is evidence for you as to what constitutes a WMD may not be the same for me. A factory capable of producing such weapons is not proof. Plans to create such weapons is not proof. Finding weapons that were banned by 687 would not be proof unless that are actually WMD. A missile is not a WMD. Nuclear weapons would be, regardless of size. Biological weapons on the field of warfare would be, but not stockpiles in Saddam's bunker. So there is plenty of room for disagreement as to the seriousness of the threat that Saddam represents. I say he is a threat to his own people every day he is alive. But that does not make him a threat to the US.

2. Decade+ long cessation: George Sr. was right to leave Iraq when he did. Clinton agreed. GW Bush is a cowboy, decided to make his mark. (And it's not about oil, either, at least not directly. It's about telling the world who is the biggest, baddest in town.)

shanek

5th April 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by DrChinese
I have no doubt that "something" will be found to justify our invasion of Iraq.

Well, that's really what's going on—we're having a war with Iraq in order to find reasons to justify having a war with Iraq. And for some reason, otherwise skeptical people have absolutely no problem with this.

Baker

5th April 2003, 09:29 PM

If you look at the news coverage, it shows more and more evidence of what kind of monster we are removing.
You can appose the war but you can’t justify letting Saddam stay in power.

shanek

6th April 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Baker
If you look at the news coverage, it shows more and more evidence of what kind of monster we are removing.
You can appose the war but you can’t justify letting Saddam stay in power.

I have never said Saddam was anything more than a murderous tyrant. But there are other issues, like our own safety and freedom at home, both of which I'm convinced are very much endangered by this war, and what kind of ruler will be left in his place, which I can't see it being anything other than either another murderous tyrant or a military ruler.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

6th April 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Well, that's really what's going on—we're having a war with Iraq in order to find reasons to justify having a war with Iraq. And for some reason, otherwise skeptical people have absolutely no problem with this.

Using the "logic" : go to war with country A to find reasons to justify having a war with counrty A could be a motivation to attack any country.

for e.g. If the United States attacked Canada, the war could be justified by finding evidence to support the attack.

Canada has "unwittingly" sold CANDU reactors to Pakistan and other nations that may have used the materials to develop their Nuclear weapons programs. Does Canada actively support Terrorism?

Canada has "harboured" terrorists, allowing them to wander back and forth through ports of entry. Members of a terrorist cell group have been found in Montreal. Canada repeatedly "turns a blind eye to terrorist activities". Terrorists in Canada have access to welfare and social subsistance. Does Canada fund terrorism?

Canada considers requests of fefugee status by individuals from the following countries that support terrorism or from where known terrorists are from: Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Eqypt, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Phillipines, just to name a few. Does Canada allow these individuals to enter the country and set up their cells, therefore putting the U.S. in danger?

Canada has refused to adequately fund a sizable army to help protect North America from attack by the U.S.s armies. It has a near non-existant coast guard, forcing the U.S. to stretch it's resources by expanding Coast Guard duties. Is Canada working against the U.S. interests and undermining the U.S.'s effectiveness of protect itself?

When G.W. Bush said "You are either with us or against us", Canada's government did not support the U.S. decision to attack Iraq outside the framework of the U.N. Canada's refusal to join a coalition of the willing is suspect.

The reasons to attack Canada are many, and the answers to the above questions are assured if the U.S. attacks Canada. The evidence found will justify an attack on Canada.

DrChinese

6th April 2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Well, that's really what's going on—we're having a war with Iraq in order to find reasons to justify having a war with Iraq. And for some reason, otherwise skeptical people have absolutely no problem with this.

Thanks for saying that. I was beginning to think that the irony of this was escaping most everyone.

DrChinese

6th April 2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Baker
If you look at the news coverage, it shows more and more evidence of what kind of monster we are removing.
You can appose the war but you can’t justify letting Saddam stay in power.

The news coverage actually does NOT show that - it simply shows more of the same of what we actually knew about Saddam before we invaded. I.e. that he is bad for his people, a point few would dispute.

I opposed the war before; I oppose the war now after seeing the news; and I can justify letting any tyrant stay in power because it is none of our business to be removing tyrants from power around the world. Just as it is not our business to help install such tyrants in the first place, which we have a brilliant record of doing.

The US is good at exporting our ideas freely, and of serving - by example - as a better way of life. When we intercede in the affairs of other nations, our track record is inconsistent and dismal. If the rest of the world needs our help, let them come to us and request it as in Kuwait.

Reginald

6th April 2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by DrChinese

Thanks for saying that. I was beginning to think that the irony of this was escaping most everyone.

Somewhat patronising comment.

Maybe we are delivering the serious consequences that the Iraqi Regime simply refused to believe we would put into action.

Or are you seriously going to suggest that Iraq complied with resolution 1441?

shanek

6th April 2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Using the "logic" : go to war with country A to find reasons to justify having a war with counrty A could be a motivation to attack any country.

Exactly.

shanek

6th April 2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Reginald
Somewhat patronising comment.

Maybe we are delivering the serious consequences that the Iraqi Regime simply refused to believe we would put into action.

Or are you seriously going to suggest that Iraq complied with resolution 1441?

No, we're just considering whether or not the cure is worse than the disease.

Reginald

6th April 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by shanek

No, we're just considering whether or not the cure is worse than the disease.

I understand that, however from my own viewpoint, I have never felt comfortable, sitting "In a nice armchair" knowing that in countries like Iraq, People are being treated with the highest disregard for human rights.

I dont claim that military action is the only way to resolve this, I am however happy that Saddam is going to lose power. I have not just suddenly aquired an interest in the internal abuses in these countries, many embassies have received letters from me, along with letters writen to lots of Newspapers and MPs here in the UK.

However I am realistic enough to know the following, any Regime that can do these things is not going to pay the slightest bit of attention to a letter from Reg esq, and How saddened I am that over a million people can rally to stop a war yet we had trouble getting 60, yes 60 people to protest on many occasions about human rights abuses.

Comments like the good Doctor's...

(snip) I can justify letting any tyrant stay in power because it is none of our business to be removing tyrants from power around the world. (snip)

.....dont impress me much.

If we had all thought that, just think of how the world would be now. I thought my Armchair was getting uncomfortable, however, I will stay in it, it's far nicer than living in the perceived moral high ground that comments such as this inhabit.

shanek

6th April 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Reginald
I understand that, however from my own viewpoint, I have never felt comfortable, sitting "In a nice armchair" knowing that in countries like Iraq, People are being treated with the highest disregard for human rights.

Who does? But that's exactly the reason politicians are able to get away with so much of what they do. At home, it's the poor, or flood victims, or whatever that politicians use as an excuse to finance their favorite boondoggles. No one wants to sit back and do nothing, and the government uses this to get support for things they have no Constitutional authority to do in the first place.

I dont claim that military action is the only way to resolve this, I am however happy that Saddam is going to lose power.

If Saddam comes out of this war a grease stain I won't be shedding any tears. But I'm worried about much more than Saddam.

6th April 2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by ssibal
No chemical or biological weapons have been found yet, and those missiles fired at Kuwait were apparantly not SCUDs.

Those missiles were full of flowers and rice.
Were humanitaries(...) missiles.

Thanks,
S&S

pgwenthold

6th April 2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Reginald

I understand that, however from my own viewpoint, I have never felt comfortable, sitting "In a nice armchair" knowing that in countries like Iraq, People are being treated with the highest disregard for human rights.

I just read in the news this morning about tribal warfare in Afrcia where 1000 were killed. Is that next on the list?

I've seen a lot of attempts to justify the war by having stories from Iraqi people about how terrible it is to live in a country with an oppressive government. At the risk of opening a huge can of worms, were I to provide quotes from Palestineans complaining about having to live with the oppressive Israeli government, would that be just cause for an attack on Israel? I would expect not. Thus, I don't buy the argument that we are there to help the people in an oppressive regime.

I do accept the argument that we are there to help the people in an oppressive regime that we don't like.

DrChinese

6th April 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Reginald

I understand that, however from my own viewpoint, I have never felt comfortable, sitting "In a nice armchair" knowing that in countries like Iraq, People are being treated with the highest disregard for human rights.

Comments like the good Doctor's....dont impress me much.

If we had all thought that, just think of how the world would be now. I thought my Armchair was getting uncomfortable, however, I will stay in it, it's far nicer than living in the perceived moral high ground that comments such as this inhabit.

Ok, I'll bite. When and where have we (US/UK) used our might to remove dictators who are "bad" for their people? Please include in your analysis the dictators who we have installed, supported and armed. In other words, both sides of the equation.

I don't think our record is too good. We should be good neighbors with the rest of the world. Not close-minded playground bullies. Two wrongs do not add up to a right; the ends do not justify the means; and might does not make right.

crackmonkey

6th April 2003, 11:11 AM

I'm not sure I follow. You're saying that since the US & UK have done business with dictators, we shouldn't remove dictators? Since we haven't been willing to overthrow them all, we should have no part in overthrowing any? What if we're asked to help - should we be able to intervene on behalf of a population if asked?
I just don't think this position is well though out.

Baker

6th April 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by shanek

I have never said Saddam was anything more than a murderous tyrant. But there are other issues, like our own safety and freedom at home, both of which I'm convinced are very much endangered by this war, and what kind of ruler will be left in his place, which I can't see it being anything other than either another murderous tyrant or a military ruler.

Just how is our own safety and freedom at home, endangered by this war?

pgwenthold

6th April 2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Baker

Just how is our own safety and freedom at home, endangered by this war?

Safety: if our acts are viewed as empirical or tyrannical, it could lead to increased activity in response. Not sure I agree, but it is not a crazy position,

Freedom: Are you serious?

Reginald

6th April 2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by DrChinese

Ok, I'll bite. When and where have we (US/UK) used our might to remove dictators who are "bad" for their people? Please include in your analysis the dictators who we have installed, supported and armed. In other words, both sides of the equation.

I don't think our record is too good. We should be good neighbors with the rest of the world. Not close-minded playground bullies. Two wrongs do not add up to a right; the ends do not justify the means; and might does not make right.

Bite? On what?
You begin by making some assumptions about my possition, none of which seem to be correct.

Did I, in my post say that what we have done in history, any event, is either right or wrong?

Your over defensiveness in demanding an analysis (and suggesting how I might do said) is again patronising.

In your need, you take it upon yourself to tar everyone with the same brush...simple error.

I have stated That IMO I am glad that Saddam H will be removed from power, the fact that we equiped him (We did not put him in power) a) does not change my view of him and b) does not disqualify the "suppliers" from any further or future action.

My comments come from YEARS of struggling to raise public and political awareness of human rights abuses. You can posture all you like, you can use the word "bite" to imply that I am trolling, you can sit and do and say what you like, maybe you may (if you have not already) consider trying to raise some awareness, maybe not, the choice is yours.

Baker

6th April 2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by DrChinese

I can justify letting any tyrant stay in power because it is none of our business to be removing tyrants from power around the world.

It does if he is a threat he has been supporting terrorist in Israel for years.
As well as harboring terrorist in his own country.

pgwenthold

6th April 2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Baker

It does if he is a threat he has been supporting terrorist in Israel for years.
As well as harboring terrorist in his own country.

The US has been supporting terrorists in Ireland for years.

Baker

6th April 2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

The US has been supporting terrorists in Ireland for years.

Can you provide some evidence of this?

Darat

6th April 2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Baker

Can you provide some evidence of this?

Cannot vouch for the veracity of this but

Links to articles about IRA funding etc (http://www.nisat.org/blackmarket/europe/Central_Europe/ireland/)

And a quick search with "Noraid US fund rasiing" on Google opens up a lot of interesting pages & articles.

(Edited the link to work.)

Baker

6th April 2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Darat

Cannot vouch for the veracity of this but

http://www.nisat.org/blackmarket/europe/Central_Europe/ireland/85.01.17-Veteran%20IRA%20gunrunner%20Joe%20Cahill%20tells%2 0his%20story.html

And a quick search with "Noraid US fund rasiing" on Google opens up a lot of interesting pages & articles.

I couldn’t get the link to load do you have another one?
Google? I didn’t make the claim so I don’t see the need for me to do the research.

Darat

6th April 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Baker

I couldn’t get the link to load do you have another one?
Google? I didn’t make the claim so I don’t see the need for me to do the research.

Try now - and one article I read was titled:

85.01.17-Veteran IRA gunrunner Joe Cahill tells his story

(Edited to add)

From the above article:

...snip...

Cahill is a joint treasurer of Sinn Fein. He is also one of three trustees of An Cumman Cabhrach, the Republican prisoner-relief organization that is listed as the recipient of virtually all of the funds raised in the United States by the Irish Northern Aid Committee (Noraid), headquartered in New York City. Noraid has consistently provided the Republican movement with its largest regular source of overseas revenue.

From the perspective of American and Irish security officials concerned about US funds possibly being diverted to IRA gunrunning efforts, Cahill's position in Dublin as treasurer and trustee seems like having a fox guard the chicken coop.

The convicted gunrunner has made his position clear. After being found guilty in the Claudia affair, he was quoted as saying: ``If I am guilty of any crime it is that I did not succeed in getting the contents of the Claudia into the hands of the freedom fighters in this country.''

Cahill is said to be a fierce advocate of maintaining guerrilla operations against the British, including bombings in England. He classifies politicians in Britain and Northern Ireland as ``targets.''
According to one of Noraid's own fund-raising fliers of the early 1970s:``Joe [Cahill] has been closely associated with the defense of Belfast since August last. He is one of the strongest supporters of the Provisional Army Council in the six counties [Northern Ireland] and one of the strongest opponents of any deviation from the fundamental Republican position. He believes that Ireland's freedom can only be achieved by force of arms. Accordingly, he believes that a strong IRA is vital to the Irish national interest.''
Such statements have fueled the suspicions of security officials on both sides of the Atlantic that some of the US dollars sent by Noraid may be siphoned into an IRA general military account in Dublin.

..snip...

Baker

6th April 2003, 12:14 PM

I don’t see how this proves the US has been supporting terrorists in Ireland?

crackmonkey

6th April 2003, 01:11 PM

Sure, some US citizens have supported the IRA, unfortunately. Other US citizens apparently support Hezbollah, and some likely support AL Qaeda. No nation is exempt from having a percentage of their citizenry being idiots.
This type of support is illegal, and these citizens do so at their own risk.
Your attempt to draw a parallel between US citizens supporting an outlawed group and the Iraqi government hosting and funding terror groups is pretty forced...

DrChinese

6th April 2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Reginald

Bite? On what?
You begin by making some assumptions about my possition, none of which seem to be correct.

Did I, in my post say that what we have done in history, any event, is either right or wrong?

Your over defensiveness in demanding an analysis (and suggesting how I might do said) is again patronising.

In your need, you take it upon yourself to tar everyone with the same brush...simple error.

I have stated That IMO I am glad that Saddam H will be removed from power, the fact that we equiped him (We did not put him in power) a) does not change my view of him and b) does not disqualify the "suppliers" from any further or future action.

My comments come from YEARS of struggling to raise public and political awareness of human rights abuses. You can posture all you like, you can use the word "bite" to imply that I am trolling, you can sit and do and say what you like, maybe you may (if you have not already) consider trying to raise some awareness, maybe not, the choice is yours.

Ok, upon re-reading your posts I can see that you were getting at something different than what I read into it. I thought you were trying to say that Saddam's non-compliance with 1441, combined with his human rights abuses, justifies the invasion of Iraq. But you didn't actually say that, so my apologies for going too far in my assumptions.

I was not being defensive in my post, and I didn't actually expect you to present an analysis for rebuttal. I was merely trying to point out that the US motivations, for the last 100 years, have had little or nothing to do with human rights issues. I salute you and others who would spend time and effort to try to stop them anywhere in the world. I consider such effort heroic, and certainly the issue of human rights is something I consider fundamental to all the people of the world.

Unfortunately, I also consider the sovereignty of nations to be fundamental. Which is more fundamental? One day, the countries who do not supply their citizens with basic human rights will be held accountable. But this day may be far into the future, as apparently the United Nations is not yet prepared to take on this issue due to afforementioned sovereignty issue.

Cheers.

DrChinese

6th April 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I'm not sure I follow. You're saying that since the US & UK have done business with dictators, we shouldn't remove dictators? Since we haven't been willing to overthrow them all, we should have no part in overthrowing any? What if we're asked to help - should we be able to intervene on behalf of a population if asked?
I just don't think this position is well though out.

We (US/UK) are not in business to eliminate the dictators and tyrants of the world. We have never adopted this position previously, and we shouldn't now. It's that simple. We are not in Iraq primarily for the purpose of helping the Iraqi people. That is what I am saying.

As to whether we should intervene under any circumstances... yes, if asked by the UNSC, NATO, etc. and there were immediate issues of sovereignty, a la Kuwait 1990. That, of course, is not the case in Iraq at this time. I am neither an isolationist nor a unilateralist.

And how would we ever know if a population actually wanted us to intervene in their behalf? Who do we listen to? As to whose position is well thought out, state what you object to and let's discuss.

DrChinese

6th April 2003, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Baker

It does if he is a threat he has been supporting terrorist in Israel for years.
As well as harboring terrorist in his own country.

I disagree. Supporting terrorism against Israel is an issue for Israel and Iraq to resolve. Please note that the Israelis have taken military action against Iraq in their own defense in the past. They didn't ask us to intervene at this time. And the internal affairs of Iraq are not our business either. The UN Charter grants sovereignty to all member nations, and I agree with that concept.

ssibal

6th April 2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by S&S

Those missiles were full of flowers and rice.
Were humanitaries(...) missiles.

Thanks,
S&S

I did not imply that those missles were harmless.

Baker

6th April 2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by DrChinese

I disagree. Supporting terrorism against Israel is an issue for Israel and Iraq to resolve. Please note that the Israelis have taken military action against Iraq in their own defense in the past. They didn't ask us to intervene at this time.

Pardon me but we are at war with terrorism.
As one of are closest ally next to, Briton and there one of are main bakers behind the war.
I think it is are business.

And the internal affairs of Iraq are not our business either. The UN Charter grants sovereignty to all member nations, and I agree with that concept.

It is are business if he is harboring terrorist with links to al Qaeda!

shanek

6th April 2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Baker
It is are business if he is harboring terrorist with links to al Qaeda!

But there's still that pesky matter of there being no evidence of such links...

crackmonkey

7th April 2003, 01:46 AM

To answer the question naming this thread...http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/5573683.htm

armageddonman

7th April 2003, 02:29 AM

Official confirmation for this one?

Shane Costello

7th April 2003, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold:
The US has been supporting terrorists in Ireland for years.

Hold on a minute. The US government has not been arming the IRA or the UDA. Up until Clinton the attitude of successive US governments towards Northern Ireland was indifference. Sure some Irish Americans sent money to the IRA via Noraid, but on the flipside were Irish Americans such as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who were under no illusions about the IRA and weren't afraid to say so.

crackmonkey

7th April 2003, 08:27 AM

More...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47645-2003Apr7.html

Kodiak

7th April 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by shanek

But there's still that pesky matter of there being no evidence of such links...

Yeah, it's not like Al Quida had well-established terrorist training camps in Iraq or something! (...oops!) :rolleyes:

Kodiak

7th April 2003, 08:34 AM

Blister and nerve agents reportedly found in Karbala (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392_asp.htm?0cv=CA01)

shanek

7th April 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
Yeah, it's not like Al Quida had well-established terrorist training camps in Iraq or something! (...oops!) :rolleyes:

There are anti-American government training camps in the US. Are you saying the US sponsors its own overthrow? :rolleyes:

shanek

7th April 2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
Blister and nerve agents reportedly found in Karbala (http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392_asp.htm?0cv=CA01)

Oh, gee, now what would an agricultural facility be doing with chemical agents???

THINK, people! :rolleyes:

DrChinese

7th April 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Yeah, it's not like Al Quida had well-established terrorist training camps in Iraq or something! (...oops!) :rolleyes:

They didn't have any that Saddam was supporting.

Kodiak

7th April 2003, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by shanek

There are anti-American government training camps in the US. Are you saying the US sponsors its own overthrow? :rolleyes:

Terrorist training camps?? If you have any evidence to back that up, I suggest you hire a lawyer and contact the FBI immediately...

whitefork

7th April 2003, 09:03 AM

Tell me, would anyone really be surprised if there are al-Qaeda training camps in the US? I'd be surprised if there were not, myself. It is a large country. We don't need to count pilot schools unless you want to.

Kodiak

7th April 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Oh, gee, now what would an agricultural facility be doing with chemical agents???

THINK, people! :rolleyes:

"blister" and "nerve" agents!!

NOW you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt??!!!?? :eek:

...sad :(

Baggle

7th April 2003, 09:10 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47645-2003Apr7.html

Report says 20 medium range missles equipped with chemical weapons, not trace elements, found. It's still pretty short and I'm sure more info will be needed to verify. Looks like this could be it, though. Now let's just wait the 48 hours and see...

-Baggle

Kodiak

7th April 2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by DrChinese

They didn't have any that Saddam was supporting.

Saddam has an internal intelligence system that can round up and execute Iraqi coalition sympathizers and information providers, but can't unearth large permanent terrorist training camps?????

Are you serious???

Troll

7th April 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Oh, gee, now what would an agricultural facility be doing with chemical agents???

THINK, people! :rolleyes:

From the article:

Those tests also were positive for GA, known as tabun, GB, also known as sarin, both nerve agents, and for lewisite, a blister agent.

Since when do nerve agents have a part in agriculture? Does it grow better corn or kill only the little beetles that may eat the crops?

THINK, shanek! :rolleyes:

DrChinese

7th April 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Saddam has an internal intelligence system that can round up and execute Iraqi coalition sympathizers and information providers, but can't unearth large permanent terrorist training camps?????

Are you serious???

There were significant portions of Iraq that Saddam exercised no control whatsoever over. That is merely a statement of fact, not really disputed by anyone. At any rate, there has been no connection found between Saddam and Al Queida.

shanek

7th April 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
Terrorist training camps??

No, not terrorist. So what? You're moving the goalposts again. You claimed that just becaused a camp existed in an area (which has yet to be proven, BTW) then it means that the government was supporting it! I pointed out an absurd example of this to reveal the absurfity of your logic.

shanek

7th April 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
"blister" and "nerve" agents!!

Which can include many fertilizers. Fertilizers made from nitric acid, for example. They can be mixed into chemicals making blister and nerve agents.

shanek

7th April 2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
Saddam has an internal intelligence system that can round up and execute Iraqi coalition sympathizers and information providers, but can't unearth large permanent terrorist training camps?????

Even without refuting your conclusion, are you saying that failing to root out terrorists is the same as supporting them? Now you're starting to sound like Dubya.

Kodiak

7th April 2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by DrChinese

There were significant portions of Iraq that Saddam exercised no control whatsoever over. That is merely a statement of fact, not really disputed by anyone. At any rate, there has been no connection found between Saddam and Al Queida.

Which "significant portions"? (and don't try to tell me the Kurdish ones or I'll have to mention the 1988 gassings again...)

Kodiak

7th April 2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by shanek

No, not terrorist. So what? You're moving the goalposts again. You claimed that just becaused a camp existed in an area (which has yet to be proven, BTW) then it means that the government was supporting it! I pointed out an absurd example of this to reveal the absurfity of your logic.

I said: "Yeah, it's not like Al Quida had well-established terrorist training camps in Iraq or something! (...oops!)"

To which you replied: "There are anti-American government training camps in the US. Are you saying the US sponsors its own overthrow?"

Reread your posts, shanek. You're the one "moving goalposts"... ;)

Kodiak

7th April 2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Which can include many fertilizers. Fertilizers made from nitric acid, for example. They can be mixed into chemicals making blister and nerve agents.

The NBC test kits used by the military give positive results only for known military-use agents, not farm grade chemicals which also happen to be toxic.

Kodiak

7th April 2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Even without refuting your conclusion, are you saying that failing to root out terrorists is the same as supporting them? Now you're starting to sound like Dubya.

In diplomatic/statecraft circles it's called "plausible deniability"...

Which fallacy is it where a person or their position is attacked simply by associating them with someone or something else in a purposefully negative way?? ;) (shame on you, shanny... :D )

rikzilla

7th April 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Which can include many fertilizers. Fertilizers made from nitric acid, for example. They can be mixed into chemicals making blister and nerve agents.

There he goes again! Shane is never wrong! :rolleyes: Remember when he wouldn't back off of his assertion that chemical weapons are not WMD?? Sheesh....

So Shane,...the agricultural chems are guarded by the military? And since when do farmers fertilize their fields with artillery rockets??
From the previously linked story
April 7 — U.S. experts are investigating three independent reports that American troops have found Iraqi chemical weapons, including some 20 rockets armed with warheads containing deadly sarin and mustard gas that were apparently ready to fire.

Think Shane....think

WildCat

7th April 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Oh, gee, now what would an agricultural facility be doing with chemical agents???

THINK, people! :rolleyes:
But this was a military compound. (http://www.asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2522860)

Edited to fix link

Saturn

7th April 2003, 11:35 AM

"Smoking gun" WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1514&e=3&u=/afp/20030407/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_wmd_030407175243

WildCat

7th April 2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Saturn
"Smoking gun" WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide
Nothing about pesticides here, (http://www.asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2522841) unless they're using BM-21 missiles to deliver pesticides.

Maj. Michael Hamlet of the U.S. 101st Airborne Division said earlier that initial tests on substances found at a military training camp in central Iraq revealed levels of nerve agents sarin and tabun and the blister agent lewisite.

"If tests from our experts confirm this, this could be the smoking gun. It would prove Saddam has the weapons we have said he has all along," Hamlet told Reuters correspondent Kieran Murray.

In what appeared to be a separate incident, U.S. National Public Radio reported U.S. forces near Baghdad found a cache of 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical warheads.

Citing a top official with the 1st Marine Division, NPR said the BM-21 missiles were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire."

Edited to fix link

shanek

7th April 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak
I said: "Yeah, it's not like Al Quida had well-established terrorist training camps in Iraq or something! (...oops!)"

In response to my message:

But there's still that pesky matter of there being no evidence of such links...

which was a response to Baker's message:

It is are business if [Saddam] is harboring terrorist with links to al Qaeda!

Perhaps you should be more mindful of what it is you're defending.

shanek

7th April 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak
The NBC test kits used by the military give positive results only for known military-use agents, not farm grade chemicals which also happen to be toxic.

Yes, well, given the press's track record of late in reporting military findings (like those mysterious Scud missiles that were never launched), I think I'll wait for an official report from the military before I go jumping to any conclusions.

Kodiak

7th April 2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by shanek

In response to my message:

which was a response to Baker's message:

Perhaps you should be more mindful of what it is you're defending.

Point taken... :)

shanek

7th April 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak
In diplomatic/statecraft circles it's called "plausible deniability"...

And the reason why it's called that is because it's plausible that it wasn't actively supported at all. You need evidence, man! And its mere presence doesn't count. You won't accept cover-up stories from woo-woos without evidence, so why should I accept a cover-up story from you without evidence?

Kodiak

7th April 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Yes, well, given the press's track record of late in reporting military findings (like those mysterious Scud missiles that were never launched), I think I'll wait for an official report from the military before I go jumping to any conclusions.

Agreed. I never stated that the reported findings were definitive...

shanek

7th April 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla
There he goes again! Shane is never wrong! :rolleyes: Remember when he wouldn't back off of his assertion that chemical weapons are not WMD?? Sheesh....

I NEVER ASSERTED THIS AND YOU KNOW IT, YOU FILTHY LIAR!!!!!

I claimed that not all chemical weapons are WMD! AND PEOPLE ON THE PRO-WAR SIDE AGREED WITH ME!!!

WHY DO YOU LIE?????? :mad:

shanek

7th April 2003, 12:38 PM

Wildcat: none of your links work. Please check your posts.

shanek

7th April 2003, 12:42 PM

More about the agricultural site:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-8apr2003-13.htm

A military intelligence officer for the US 101st Airborne Division's aviation brigade, Captain Adam Mastrianni, told AFP news agency that comprehensive tests determined the presence of the pesticide compounds.

Initial tests had reportedly detected traces of sarin - a powerful toxin that quickly affects the nervous system - after US soldiers guarding the facility near Hindiyah, 100 kilometres south of Baghdad, fell ill.

Captain Mastrianni said a "theatre-level chemical testing team" made up of biologists and chemists had finally disproved the preliminary field tests results and established that pesticide was the substance involved.

He said that sick soldiers, who had become nauseous, dizzy and developed skin blotches, had all recovered.

The turnaround was an embarrassment for the US forces in the region, which had been quick to say that they thought they had finally found the proof they have been actively looking for that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

I await apologies. I don't mind it when people are simply wrong, but there's no excuse for the treatment I've received here today.

shanek

7th April 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Point taken... :)

You, sir, are a true gentleman.

Kodiak

7th April 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by shanek

And the reason why it's called that is because it's plausible that it wasn't actively supported at all. You need evidence, man! And its mere presence doesn't count. You won't accept cover-up stories from woo-woos without evidence, so why should I accept a cover-up story from you without evidence?

It's called "plausible deniability" because the link between any two issues or organizations is purposefully kept confused and obscure so that a denial of any link at all could be considered plausible...

What cover-up am I asking you to accept?

The terrorist camps exist...

They exist inside Iraq...

Saddam has demonstrated, over and over, the level of influence he has over his country and its citizens...

Is it such a leap that he either allowed their continued operation and existence or actively supported them??

Or have you been talking to Michael Moore again... :D

shanek

7th April 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Agreed. I never stated that the reported findings were definitive...

You certainly appeared to when you expressed surprise at my skepticism of the site...skepticisim which may have been well-founded, according to recent reports.

To refresh your memory, this is what you said:

"blister" and "nerve" agents!!

NOW you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt??!!!?? :eek:

...sad :(

Tmy

7th April 2003, 12:48 PM

I never believe any of the "breaking news" stories.

Remember that chemical factory they discovered a couple of weeks ago? It turned out to be an abandoned Orange Julious kiosk. :D

shanek

7th April 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak
It's called "plausible deniability" because the link between any two issues or organizations is purposefully kept confused and obscure so that a denial of any link at all could be considered plausible...

What cover-up am I asking you to accept?

Um, how about the one you just mentioned in your previous paragraph? If Saddam had approved and sponsored these sites, and the evidence in favor of that were being confused and obfuscated, that would constitute a coverup.

The terrorist camps exist...

Apparently.

They exist inside Iraq...

I have read some suspicions of this, that they may actually be within Iran's borders, but I'll grant you this anyway. But even so, it's in an area of Iraq that Saddam doesn't have that much control over.

Saddam has demonstrated, over and over, the level of influence he has over his country and its citizens...

Again, there are areas where Saddam's influence is negligible, and this appears to be one of those areas.

Is it such a leap that he either allowed their continued operation and existence or actively supported them??

It's not a leap, but there's still no evidence of it, at least not that I have seen.

Let's go by what the evidence says, not by what appears plausible, or what isn't a "leap," or what we wish or hope or fear is the case. Let's go by the evidence, examined with rigid skepticism. What's wrong with that?

shanek

7th April 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
I never believe any of the "breaking news" stories.

Remember that chemical factory they discovered a couple of weeks ago? It turned out to be an abandoned Orange Julious kiosk. :D

Now, that might be a violation of the UN resolution! :p

It certainly gives a "chemical attack" to anyone who drinks it...

Kodiak

7th April 2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by shanek

You certainly appeared to when you expressed surprise at my skepticism of the site...skepticisim which may have been well-founded, according to recent reports.

To refresh your memory, this is what you said:

And I stand by that assertion. Your lack of skepticism seems to lean in the direction of Saddam. The coalition countries aren't perfect, but they are stellar in comparison with Saddam's Ba'ath Party regime...

Kodiak

7th April 2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Let's go by what the evidence says, not by what appears plausible, or what isn't a "leap," or what we wish or hope or fear is the case. Let's go by the evidence, examined with rigid skepticism. What's wrong with that?

OK, I'm going to ask an honest question, and I think you know me well enough to know I'm not trolling or trying to enflame...so her it goes.

Would we have ever entered the ETO of WWII if what you posted above had been the criteria necessary to prove the holocaust?

WildCat

7th April 2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Wildcat: none of your links work. Please check your posts.

Sorry, don't know what happened there. They should work now.
I'll also post it here:
http://www.asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2522860

PogoPedant

7th April 2003, 01:08 PM

Was Holocaust the only reason the US came to the party? They weren't asked repeatedly by their ally to help out defend against an aggressor?

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

7th April 2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Saturn
"Smoking gun" WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1514&e=3&u=/afp/20030407/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_wmd_030407175243

This Source is AFP, lets be cautious and look for robustness of information by considering many media sources.

including FoxNews (though it has been known to manipulate the truth and perhaps even lie, and argued that it had the right to do that in court)

sources that are 1 or 2 hours old and not been confirmed need to be "filed" and compared to later reports. The US "Chemical Teams" are getting a lot of information and the teams need to carefully test any suspicious sites. This takes time, and tests need to be confirmed. I have faith that the US is doing good science and good science takes time.

I have stated previously : There is currently no evidence that Saddam's regime has suspect weapons

but I will consider the evidence the chemical teams present.

I have difficulty accepting that it is necessary to do a pre-emptive attack on Iraq to attain the evidence to justify attacking Iraq. Unfortunately what is done is done, yet , the international community needs to have a sober discussion about the implications of this precident setting policy.

I am relieved that Coalition Forces and Iraqis have not been subjected to attacks of alleged suspect weapons by Chemical Ali and like officers.

Tmy

7th April 2003, 01:16 PM

Breaking News! Apparently there has been a discovery of bags of white powdery substance believed to be some sort of chemical weapon. The substance was discovered in the gargage of one of Saddam's palaces. The bags were hidden behind barrels of grass seed in bags marked "Scotts Weed and Feed Dandelion Killer". Chemical teams have been dispathed to the area.

shanek

7th April 2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak
And I stand by that assertion. Your lack of skepticism seems to lean in the direction of Saddam.

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that my skepticism is more pressed against the Bush administration, and I have two reasons for this: 1) because they're making claims that they are asking me as an American to accept, and 2) they can affect my life; Saddam can't.

shanek

7th April 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak
Would we have ever entered the ETO of WWII if what you posted above had been the criteria necessary to prove the holocaust?

I don't really understand what you're asking. We entered WWII because Japan directly attacked us.

HarryKeogh

7th April 2003, 01:50 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/07/international/worldspecial/07CND-CHEM.html

here's the first few paragraphs...

WITH V CORPS HEADQUARTERS, Near the Kuwait Border, April 7 — American soldiers in Iraq's Karbala area, raiding an empty training camp in search of abandoned weapons, instead found several barrels that, according to early inconclusive evidence, hold nerve gas and mustard gas, military officials said.

During the raid, two American soldiers of the 101st Division became sick after accidentally inhaling a riot control gas, CN, that was also in a barrel. Army officials said they did not believe the soldiers were seriously ill.

"We're treating it as real, we're reporting it as real" said Col. Tim Madere, the top chemical officer in V Corps, referring to the containers, which he said may hold the chemical/biological weapons.

Initial tests, Colonel Madere said, indicated the presence of nerve gas and mustard gas. But Colonel Madere said conclusive results probably won't be available until Tuesday or Wednesday.

Baker

7th April 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by shanek

There are anti-American government training camps in the US. Are you saying the US sponsors its own overthrow? :rolleyes:

Just what are these anti-American government training camps?
Just how do they compare to terrorist?
Its very meager compared to Kodiak’s comment.

Baker

7th April 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by shanek
More about the agricultural site:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-8apr2003-13.htm

I await apologies. I don't mind it when people are simply wrong, but there's no excuse for the treatment I've received here today.

There still claiming on Fox news and CNN that its still very likely chemical weopons?
So who is right?

shanek

7th April 2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Baker
Just what are these anti-American government training camps?

You know, fringe militia groups like the Montana Freemen.

shanek

7th April 2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Baker
There still claiming on Fox news and CNN that its still very likely chemical weopons?
So who is right?

Regardless of who is right, I didn't deserve that treatment for merely being skeptical.

Baker

7th April 2003, 03:05 PM

You need to read a little more into this pesticide story you posted.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392.asp?0si=-

crackmonkey

7th April 2003, 04:37 PM

There was a terrorist training site near Baghdad, at Salman Pak. Numerous Al-Qaeda prisoners talked about being trained there, and it has recently been taken over by the US. A fuselage of an airliner and a large cache of weapons and documents were found.

EvilYeti

7th April 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe

I have difficulty accepting that it is necessary to do a pre-emptive attack on Iraq to attain the evidence to justify attacking Iraq. Unfortunately what is done is done, yet , the international community needs to have a sober discussion about the implications of this precident setting policy.

What about the implications of the previous policy, i.e. rogue nations can ignore U.N. mandates and kick out weapon inspectors while hiding illegal weapons? Don't you think allowing nations to violate international law regarding WMD's without any fear of reprisial sets a more dangerous precedent?

Don't you think that maybe other countries might think twice about flouting U.N. resolutions in the future if it turns out the U.S. is actually going to enforce them?

Do not laws need to be enforced to be effective? Why should international law be any different?

DrChinese

7th April 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

OK, I'm going to ask an honest question, and I think you know me well enough to know I'm not trolling or trying to enflame...so her it goes.

Would we have ever entered the ETO of WWII if what you posted above had been the criteria necessary to prove the holocaust?

Oops, we didn't enter WWII for any reason related to the Holocaust. In fact, the only reason we entered WWII was because of Pearl Harbor. We didn't learn about the Holocaust until later. Although there were rumors, there was disbelief from those who heard because they thought the stories were exaggerations. Even the troops who came across the camps couldn't believe their eyes.

I am proud of our role in WWII. But we didn't do it for humanitarian reasons, or to liberate Germany or the Jews, or to defend England or Russia, or to help France, or because Hitler had weapons of mass destruction.

DrChinese

7th April 2003, 05:25 PM

Here's some more "proof" about chemical weapons in Iraq... I just saw this on Fox, so you know it's good. They even had pictures!

At a camp in Iraq, chemical formulas were found! Yes, formulas, on pieces of paper no less! That PROVES it! What would they being doing with something like that unless it was for EVIL purposes?

In this case, the formulas were in English. Hmmm. I read them, and they were chemical reactions between H20 and Cl. Let's see, you could get hydrochloric acid from that. A well know WMD. Of course, it wouldn't be much harm if you were throwing the formulas themselves at people.

LOL. Get with the program, Bush is using our ignorance to justify the unjustifiable.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

7th April 2003, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Baker
You need to read a little more into this pesticide story you posted.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392.asp?0si=-

Is this like reading between the lines? Explain "You need to read a little more into...."

Does it help define context, motive, agendas, coded messages? I do not have a decoder ring, sorry. Help me out.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

7th April 2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

What about the implications of the previous policy, i.e. rogue nations can ignore U.N. mandates and kick out weapon inspectors while hiding illegal weapons?

Who defines rogue nations?
Does the UN have a definition of rogue nation ?
What criteria must be met for a nation to be labelled rogue nation?
Did the United Nations define Iraq as a rogue nation because it met these criteria?
I am ignorant about the term rogue nation and how it applies to UN mandates.

Don't you think ;)I try, but often fail ;)allowing nations to violate international law regarding WMD's without any fear of reprisial sets a more dangerous precedent?

One moment, I am lost what are we discussing, rogue nations or WMD, the UN, international law?

The UN does not allow any nation to do anything. Nations are sovereign and choose to do what is in their interests. Sovereign nations can choose to/ not choose to pursue these interests with in the scope of international laws and or treaties. The UN is not a governing body.

Don't you think ;)again, ;) that maybe other countries might think twice about flouting U.N. resolutions in the future if it turns out the U.S. is actually going to enforce them?

Do not laws need to be enforced to be effective? Why should international law be any different?

I am not sure how many countries' governments perceive U.N. resolutions. Some resolutions may be deemed against the sovereign interests of a nation. International Laws may be deemed by nations as contrary to the furtherence of their goals and interests. I can not say with authority how nations will react in the future. Each nation determines for itself how it will react to sanctions, resolutions, treaties, and international laws.

One reason the United Nations was set up was to create a framework for discussing what options countries have when the interests of one country offend or threaten the interests of another country.

shanek

8th April 2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Baker
You need to read a little more into this pesticide story you posted.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392.asp?0si=-

"Conclusive testing is still underway."

What more do we need than that, for the time being? Unless you're so desperate to support your jingoistic view...

shanek

8th April 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Don't you think that maybe other countries might think twice about flouting U.N. resolutions in the future if it turns out the U.S. is actually going to enforce them?

Isn't that exactly what the British said about Gandhi and his followers?

(Not that I'm in any way comparing Saddam to Gandhi, before you jigoists looking for any excuse to distort an argument for the sake of discrediting your opposition do so again. It's offered to show that the above claim isn't always effective, and often has results contrary to what one intended. Don't you think that maybe this "show of force" is just going to increase anti-American terrorism?)

rikzilla

8th April 2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by shanek

I NEVER ASSERTED THIS AND YOU KNOW IT, YOU FILTHY LIAR!!!!!

I claimed that not all chemical weapons are WMD! AND PEOPLE ON THE PRO-WAR SIDE AGREED WITH ME!!!

WHY DO YOU LIE?????? :mad:

Yikes. :eek:

While I'm a "filthy liar" you are free to assert falsehoods with impunity? I direct all present to this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14046&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)

In which Shanek forcefully supports the erroneous assertions of an anti-war propaganda site. Eventually even the webmaster of the site offered to retract the erroneous info....finally, after I had quit the thread in disgust...Shane "backed off" his assertion that Bush was misusing the WMD designation for chemical weapons.

Here are some of the lowlites:

shanek
A Quinn Martin Production

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 4948
quote:

Originally posted by svero
I think it's stretching yourself thin to claim that Saddam has no WMD. I doubt he has nukes, but I think there's a very good chance he has some chemical or biological weapons stashed somewhere.

Maybe, but read the basis for that claim:

quote:

First, we need to get our terms straight. The Bush administration has changed the accepted definition of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD). Technically, according to the U.S. military, Hussein has no WMDs. Our military does not define chemical and biological weapons as WMDs, because they are hard, if not impossible, to use effectively to cause mass destruction or death. ---(highlighted by me,...the filthy liar) ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It goes on and on if you're interested:

Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Critical Thinker

Registered: Oct 2002
Location: Hudson Highlands
Posts: 435
Our military does define them that way:

quote:

<http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MarApr02/MS722.htm>
Joint Publication 1-02, DOD [Department of Defense] Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, as amended by JMGTM-085-97, offers this definition of WMD—
In arms control usage, weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Can be nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, but excludes the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon.

(snip)
shanek
A Quinn Martin Production

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 4949
quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
How about the freakin' truth?

Well, HOW ABOUT HELPING ME OUT A BIT HERE??? I'm getting sick and tired of you people saying that the site's wrong, and the site's lying, and I should send them a correction, but being rebuffed every time I try and get some help as to what would be an acceptable correction! If you're really trying to provide constructive feedback, and not just lash out at the site because you don't agree with it, why wouldn't you do that?

quote:

This is a LIE.

NO IT ISN'T!!!! Nuclear weapons are the only category of weapons which can wholly be considered to be WMD! That was even admitted by crackmonkey above!

quote:

Another LIE.

Not when read within context of the article. Get over it. If you've got a problem with the way it's worded, then how about helping me out when I ask for a correction?

quote:

Numerous official military definitions have been quoted for you. Each includes chemical and bilogical weapons.

But not all chemical and biological weapons!

quote:

My link to Reuters doesn't work for you?

No, I get just a blank page every time I try to go to that date. Maybe it's a Mozilla thing.

quote:

Nothing relevant.

So, then, what's all the fuss about?

quote:

I'm fascinated that you don't want to discuss whether linking to Saddam's official news organ is a good idea or not.

Because that's not the source of the article. Reuters is.
schplurg
Scholar

Registered: Jan 2003
Location: California, USA
Posts: 116
NEWS FLASH

I believe TruthAboutWar.com has updated their "Definition" as I took it upon myself to advise them of their mistake. View it here:

<http://www.truthaboutwar.org/claim1.shtml>

quote:

Mike,

Thanks so much for catching this. Although I'm not the writer of the site's
copy, I've posted an interim revision of Claim #1 to reflect your data, thus
preserving our credibility.

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

- Geoff Braun
Webmaster

I don't credit myself for this, as I began with information I learned from viewing this thread, then did some digging of my own. I just added my own further research and 2 cents, and forwarded this information to the site.

I would look at "Mahatmas" information as being the determining factor in this...he did most of the legwork for me...so to speak. In my reply to this email, I will link to this thread and let them know where the data really came from.

I'm the new guy here, and I already see that spending time discussing topics such as this can make a difference if that extra step is taken.

Kudos to the TruthAboutWar.com for recognizing the error and doing something about it. My work here is done
-------------------------------------------------------
rikzilla
Destroyer of Diezel, and Football God

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1658
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by shanek

Geez, can't you people read???

Do you people have any authoritative source which states conclusively that all chemical and biological weapons are WMD, regardless of their destructive capacity?

------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL!

This is a skeptics site Shanek....if you want folks to sit back and agree with your dishonest claims then you're going to need to spam another forum. The people here see right thru you...whether it's your bogus "truth" site...or the revisionist "historical" literature you read.

-zilla

So Shane actually defended the errors until the webmaster owned up and made the correction...then, and only then did he "backtrack"...never once did he apologise for defending false assertions. So who's the "filthy liar" Shane??

Besides, this is only one example of Shane making mistakes that he rarely if ever apologises for.

He and AUP are like 2 peas in a pod, they both operate the same way. AUP said that Nazi jets were so advanced that there was no way one could be defeated by the allies in piston engine fighters....I'm something of an airplane buff and right away posted info from 3 web sites detailing Chuck Yeager's dogfight with an Me262. Yeager was flying a P51 Mustang with a 12 cylinder liguid cooled Rolls Royce Merlin engine. Yeager defeated the jet engined 262 in single combat in the air. I'm still waiting for AUP to admit his error....yet all I get is his whine that Chuck Yeager was an exceptional pilot and he meant no ordinary pilot could do it.....sorry, AUP, but that wasn't what you originally said....not even close.

But I'm just a "filthy liar"!! hardeharhar :D
Me thinks thou doth protesteth too much guys. ;)

-zilla

shanek

8th April 2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla
Here are some of the lowlites:

Well, Rik is very selective in his quotes, to say the least. He could at least have given the link to the thread, which is here:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14046

But I guess that would have made it harder for him to take my remarks out of context.

Anyway, it's interesting that he didn't highlight certain things:

NO IT ISN'T!!!! Nuclear weapons are the only category of weapons which can wholly be considered to be WMD! That was even admitted by crackmonkey above!

"Wholly"...as in, chemical weapons as a whole being considered WMDs. Pepper spray is a chemical weapon. Do people use WMDs to fight off rapists and muggers? Can you have a WMD strapped to your keychain?

But not all chemical and biological weapons!

Again, there's a difference between stating that "no chemical and biological weapons are WMDs," which is what Rik maintains I said, and "not all chemical and biological weapons are WMDs."

Rik, the passages you quoted show your lie. I NEVER claimed that there were NO chemical and biological weapons which were considered WMDs!

I also quoted from "Chemical and Biological Weapons: Use in Warfare, Impact on Society and Environment" by Gert G. Harigel of CERN and 18 U.S.C. 2332a to back up my points.

Some other posts of mine that Rik didn't quote, which happend prior to the point where he says I "backtracked" (even prior to the ones Rik quoted):

How about if it said, "Our military does not define all chemical and biological weapons as WMDs"? Would you consider that to be clearer?

Do you people have any authoritative source which states conclusively that all chemical and biological weapons are WMD, regardless of their destructive capacity?

How about, "The military does not consider the whole of biological and chemical weapons as weapons of mass destruction the way they do with the whole of muclear weapons?" That's a bit wordy.

(note this above quote shows that I was actively seeking workable corrections before this so-called "backtracking" took place.)

Okay, my bad. I made an ASS out of U and ME on that one.

(And the above quote shows that I am perfectly capable of admitting errors. I had asserted that CERN had published a report when they hadn't.)

And how had people responded to my requests for clarification and correction? Just look at one from Aerocontrols:

As for offering a correction, I'm not interested in helping you make these apologies for Saddam into more effective propaganda.

And just to remind everyone, this is Rik's comment in this thread which started this:

Remember when he wouldn't back off of his assertion that chemical weapons are not WMD??

I never, ever, ever asserted that chemical weapons are not WMD. None of Rik's quotes support that. I said that not all chemical weapons are WMDs, which not only do I maintain to this date, but also has been agreed to by Crackmonkey and others on the pro-war side.

crackmonkey

8th April 2003, 08:57 PM

I don't think it's possible to split that hair any finer... no, ALL chemical weapons aren't necessarily WMD, but neither are nuclear weapons, necessarily. It's quite conceivable to have a nuclear weapon that isn't designed for mass destruction - maybe a radioactive pellet used like a bullet.
A trivial point? You bet... just like this sideshow. As I recall, this tempest in a teapot was spawned by your accusations of Bush redefining WMD for his own purposes. It was subsequently shown that you were wrong, and I don't recall you ever admitting it.
Oh, some website you were using as a reference for this argument admitted that they were incorrect as well, as I recall.

shanek

9th April 2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
As I recall, this tempest in a teapot was spawned by your accusations of Bush redefining WMD for his own purposes. It was subsequently shown that you were wrong, and I don't recall you ever admitting it.

I retracted the claim that Bush changed the definition. I did not retract the claim that not all chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction.

At any rate, I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up and lying about it...

rikzilla

9th April 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by shanek

I retracted the claim that Bush changed the definition. I did not retract the claim that not all chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction.

At any rate, I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up and lying about it...

Yeah...only after the webmaster admitted the mistake...before that you spent over 20 posts defending it. And CM is right, I don't remember your mia culpa either. :rolleyes:

You obfuscate better than Bill Clinton Shane...before long you'll be explaining to us the many meanings of "is".
-z

shanek

9th April 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla
Yeah...only after the webmaster admitted the mistake...

NO!!!! As I showed by my comments above, I was making that statement BEFORE THAT HAPPENED!!!!

But here we have Rik lying again, even after the evidence has been presented to him, yet again.

rikzilla

9th April 2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by shanek

NO!!!! As I showed by my comments above, I was making that statement BEFORE THAT HAPPENED!!!!

But here we have Rik lying again, even after the evidence has been presented to him, yet again.

Oh please Shane...save the hystrionics! :rolleyes: You kindly provided the link...anyone with the stomach for it can go look for themselves.

You were the one making the assertions about Mr. Bush's alleged obfuscation regarding the definition of WMD's. You provided flimsy evidence. When evidence to the contrary was brought to your attention you refuted it. (Various people like Mahatma and CrackMonkey brought this up to you BTW...not me) You continued to defend your erroneous opinion until the webmaster was made aware, and actually agreed and changed the website. (much to his own credit) Only after this did you backpedal...not admit you were wrong...just backpedalled, and obfuscated...see? You're still doing it now. I have no reason to lie about you Shane, I only know you from this forum. I have seen first hand how you work, from the looks of it I'm not the only one who's noticed.

Shame on you... :mad:

-z

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

9th December 2003, 09:16 PM

Origional question still goes unanswered by Bush administration. No evidence of WMDs yet?

Kodiak

10th December 2003, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Origional question still goes unanswered by Bush administration. No evidence of WMDs yet?

"Unanswered"?? I don't think so...

You just refuse to accept their explanation.

Tricky

10th December 2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by shanek
But here we have Rik lying again, even after the evidence has been presented to him, yet again.

Hey! I have a great new forum game. See who can get Shanek to call them a liar in the fewest posts in a thread!

DrChinese

10th December 2003, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

"Unanswered"?? I don't think so...

You just refuse to accept their explanation.

Exactly! Bush administration answer: "Even though we were wrong in every particular, we were still right because we want to wage war to make the world a better place to live in."

Kodiak

10th December 2003, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by DrChinese

Exactly! Bush administration answer: "Even though we were wrong in every particular, we were still right because we want to wage war to make the world a better place to live in."

You got the "exactly" part right.

The rest is a blatant straw man.

shanek

10th December 2003, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak
"Unanswered"?? I don't think so...

You just refuse to accept their explanation.

You mean, that it was never really about WMDs to begin with? Yes, I refuse to accept that explanation, because it's clearly revisionist crap!

shanek

10th December 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Hey! I have a great new forum game. See who can get Shanek to call them a liar in the fewest posts in a thread!

The winner would be the one who tells the most lies. I quoted the thread; anyone can see that Rik was lying. Anyway, that was months ago. Amazing how you people have some sort of malfuction that causes you to bring things like this up over and over and over again...

DrChinese

10th December 2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
From March 29:

TO make things clear:

Wishing and hoping that WDMs and Biological and chemical weopons will be used on coalition forces is not the purpose of me starting this thread.

I am asking questions to determine if there is any hard evidence thus far that Iraq has these weopons, as suspected by the Bush and Blair administrations, and therefore the reason for the administrations going to war with Iraq.

regards and respectfully

PPG

Originally posted by shanek
From April 2

But this doesn't make any sense! Those that [Saddam] didn't use, and that weren't destroyed in Gulf War I, and that weren't dismantled by the first team of inspectors, would have had their shelf life run out long ago. He would had to have obtained new material and manufactured new weapons. You can't use the fact that he had weapons in the late 1980s as evidence that he still has them.

Some very interesting words from the beginning of the war. Considering the existence of WMD was in fact a major, if not the primary, explanation for the need to invade Iraq immediately. And this was hotly debated on this board, it certainly seems to me that the consensus explanation for going to war was WMD.

And yet, none were found. (And actually, not even a weapons program of any substance has been found either - although this could be debated.)

Suppose you take a lot of crummy, false reasons for going to war and add them all together. Does that then make one GOOD reason?

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

18th December 2003, 07:04 PM

Bush:

"Yet."

"Yet."

"...no doubt..."

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

18th December 2003, 07:11 PM

"Jesus has not arrived in a second coming."

"Yet."

"He has not arrived..."

"Yet."

People keep making dates , the dates come and go, come and go, and new dates are set. People who believed in Jesus' second coming have asked the question...

"Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer's gonna be the same."

Will Jesus come?

"There is no doubt."

"No doubt."

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

8th January 2004, 03:49 PM

Bush Administration has withdrawn (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3378467.stm) a 400 person strong U.S. WMD inspection/ disposal team;

unlikely that WMDs will ever be found

Latest assessment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3380645.stm)

"pre-emptive war in absence of imminent threat."

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

8th January 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Is Saddam and or his regime waiting for some specific thresh-hold of a "point of no hope"?

Is there any documentation of actual chemical weopons being used on coalition forces or on Basra's population as pro Saddam forces retreat? If the city ....

Months after a U.S.-led military coalition invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, no banned weapons have been found in Iraq, nor were any used during the war. Despite criticism that the United States exaggerated Iraq's arms programs to bolster the case for war, the White House says it remains convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

-from an interative on-line in-depth special CNN News

shanek

8th January 2004, 07:43 PM

No reasonable person can deny any more how much of a liar Bush is.

Lying for a Living by Harry Browne (http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/LyingForALiving.htm)

Fully cited and linked.

LFTKBS

9th January 2004, 02:54 PM

So where's rikzilla? Surely he knows the secret wherabouts of Saddam's WMD.

demon

10th January 2004, 09:07 AM

Rice Pudding....seems this narrows the choice even further...

Rice: No Evidence Iraq Moved WMD to Syria

Friday January 9, 2004 9:16 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States has no credible evidence that Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria early last year before the U.S.-led war that drove Saddam Hussein from power, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

Rice said, ``Any indication that something like that happened would be a very serious matter.

``But I want to be very clear: we don't, at this point, have any indications that I would consider credible and firm that that has taken place, but we will tie down every lead,'' she said at a White House briefing about Bush's trip Monday to a hemispheric summit in Mexico.

In nine months, arms control experts in Iraq have failed to find a single item from a long list of weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration cited an alleged weapons stockpile in Iraq as a primary reason for launching the war against Saddam's government.

``We're going to follow every lead on what may have happened here,'' Rice said. ``I don't think we are at the point that we can make a judgment on this issue. There hasn't been any hard evidence that such a thing happened.

``But obviously we're going to follow up every lead,'' she said, ``and it would be a serious problem if that, in fact, did happen.''

Rice said the United States talks with Syria about a number of issues, ``including the borders with Iraq and what may have happened in the past there and what may be continuing to happen there.'' Mainly, she said, the United States opposes Syria's support for terrorism, particularly its support for anti-Palestinian groups Hezbollah and Hamas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3606884,00.html

TillEulenspiegel

10th January 2004, 01:56 PM

Evidently the Carnegie report out yesterday -1/08/04, seems to put a studied and trusted exclamation point in regards to the Bush Whitehouses lying. Course they don't say "lie" they say misstatements, exaggerations, ect.

Link : http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1118424,00.html

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

16th January 2004, 05:56 PM

Evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction/Chemical Weapons have not been found

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Bush:

"Yet."

"Yet."

"...no doubt..."

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

16th January 2004, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
"Jesus has not arrived in a second coming."

"Yet."

"He has not arrived..."

"Yet."

People keep making dates , the dates come and go, come and go, and new dates are set. People who believed in Jesus' second coming have asked the question...

"Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer's gonna be the same."

Will Jesus come?

"There is no doubt."

"No doubt."

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

22nd January 2004, 02:35 PM

PBS "Frontline" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/)

The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons-Bush

I honestly believe that the way information is gained is through defectors.-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

Airing Thursday, January 22, at 9 P.M. on PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/press/2206.html)

fishbob

22nd January 2004, 11:35 PM

I just watched the Frontline program on the WMDs. My take:

2001 video of Colin Powell stating that Saddam did not have the capability to develop WMDs, Saddam was not a threat.

2002 video clips of Bush and Powell stating that Iraq has stockpiles of chem and bio weapons, an active program to develop nukes, and missiles capable of delivering WMD warheads. Early 2003 - still claim knowledge of stockpiles of weapons.

UN weapons inspector Blix says that he did not find any evidence of WMDs as described by Bush and Powell. Blix says that not finding evidence can not rule out WMDs, but looking unlikely.

US weapons inspector David Kay, Bush advisor, prior to March 2003 said that Iraq had weapons, after March 2003 that he couldn't find weapons. May 2003 - found mobile bio weapons labs, now says that statement was erroneous. Claimed aluminun tubes were for nuke enrichment centrifuges, later said that the tubes looked sort of like tubes that could be used for nuke enrichment. Late 2003, Kay pointed out Iraq failure to comply with UN 1441 by not declaring some equipment that might be used for incubating bio agents.

The reporter noted that US technical guys (Dept of Energy) and US State Dept folks noted early on that the aluminum tubes were not for nuke enrichment. The implication was that Kay ignored the advice of experts for political reasons.

Kay's inspectors did find a long range missile development program, in violation of UN rulings. Frontline was unclear whether any long range missiles were found. The reporter noted that this program started when Iran began testing long range missiles. The suggestion was that Iraq began building these missiles to counter Iranian capabilities, not to deliver WMD warheads. No evidence of WMD warheads was found.

End of the program: Kay is resigning because his inspection force is being cut, when there is much work left to do. His replacement says that he does not expect to find weapons. Blix says that leaving the issue unresolved is better politically than finding nothing.

Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday that the administration has not given up on the so far fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The “jury is still out,” he said.

“It’s going to take some additional, considerable period of time in order to look in all the cubby holes and the ammo dumps and all the places in Iraq where you might expect to find something like that,” Cheney said in an interview with National Public Radio. “It doesn’t take a large storage space to store deadly toxins, or even just the capacity to produce it.”

So, Cheney announces that the search for WMDs will continue at the same time the WMD search force is being cut and slowly disbanded.

I have to conclude: Cheney is a liar. Bush is a liar. And I'm sorry, but Powell is a liar ( I used to respect Powell).