Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
someone had to post it...........
Topic Started: Sep 24 2003, 04:40 PM (1,010 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
nztrekkie
Oct 5 2003, 05:56 PM

Hi Bill - I for one have said MANY times that I would apologise as soon as any WMD are found - I don't recall you, or anyone else actually, saying that you'all would apologise if in fact, none are found.

And anyway, watch this space for the TRUTH about Iraq WMD which, the Bush administration - which I am growing to despise in increasingly large and intracite terms - have completely sold down the river to an ever blinkered and benign American public.

I'll post something quite startling in an hour or two.

Startling? You mean like evidence that it was all planted by the CIA/FBI/KGB/BSA (Boy Scouts of America)?

You see, there HAVE been biotoxins found in Iraq... that qualifies as WMD status. According to David Kay (and I know you have NOT read his report, or else you wouldn't post such bull$h!t), there have been "startling" finds. The only thing they haven't found have been "shiny pointy things like weapons" (i.e., the delivery system).

Why don't you just give up while you are behind?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
The drive and decision to go to war was Bush's. Blair and Howard simply followed the leader. = uni-lateral. I would agree with your tri-lateral statement if I could be convinced Blair or Howard would have gone in without the US lead, which I seriously doubt (or) if I could be convinced that Blair and Howard would have been the driving force behind the drive to war, which I also seriously doubt


Convenient definition of unilateral. It is of course false and ignores human nature.
Leaders biuld consensus and coilitions. The whole idea that governments would or wouldn't perform an act due to the leadership of another governtment does not define unilateral action. Try not to redefine terms to suit your agenda.


Quote:
 
- This is where I most certainly disagree with you whole-heartdly. First off I think the drive to war would have gone much differently if the Bush administration had addressed physical evidnece in such a way. Secondly, all the circumstantial evidnece in the world can lead you to BELIEVING or THINKING he has weapons. But this was not the language of the Bush admin nor should we veiw justifying a war as a legal arguement. Their language was of utter assurance of KNOWING he had weapons. You can't know someone has weapons through speculation. Not that I beleive the specualtive arguements are all that good either.


Gee welcome to the real world. No absolute certitude here. Even the intellegence that was used to determine the existence was reated buy its "probable accuracy".

Speculation is what THINKING people do when the evidence is incomplete. The ability to act on incomplete knowledge has kept us from being sabre tooth tiger food in the past. Wiating for 100% certitude would would mean wiating for Saddam to use them. Not exceptable.


ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
qubed
Ensign
Anova,

You simply glossed over my arguement. If you'd like to redefine intentions and defintions go ahead but the rest of the world has called these actions unilateral nor has the Bush admin gone to really any strives to challenge this label themselves.

"The ability to act on incomplete knowledge has kept us from being sabre tooth tiger food in the past"

- I would have said sharp pointy sticks really. Specualtion would be fine if there was some piece of decent evidence to begin with. Almost all of the pre-war intelligence had already been dismissed before the war even started. Its not like they spackled a tiny hole with specualtion. Rather a gaping hole.

Bill,

I have read everything that is available to us, though I'm sure my sources are different then yours, but I'm puzzled by some of your assurances. Namely, you don't find it a bit suspicious that the report is classifeid as of Sep 5th? We got some of the report but any real meat was left out. This doesn't bother you? Nothing in the report that I've read is solid evidence of weapons or a weapons program and unfortunatley any decent information is classified, especially that cryptic "another Afrrican nation thing" that has all wondering who they'll point to next. Kays assertions equal plenty of leads, the vial of bacteria and missles program, but thats pretty much it and I nor anyone has any reason to takes Kay for his word. He was the first guy to call those two trucks proof of WMD well before any investigation into their usage had taken place. Not to mention that he was the American appointed inspector and a big war-hawk. He's got credibility issues and without indpendet verification hes really, really got credibility issues. Eventually 3rd party investigators will get to the information and sites and we'll see then.

Wichita,

Howdy.

"Pro-torture" you ask, Qubed"

- Specious reasoing. I doubt I've labeled anyone pro-war who is was not FOR the war. Maybe they had one or a plethora of reasons but inevitably they agreed with the war at the time. If I have mislabled anyone who was not FOR the war as pro-war I apologize nor do I think in the context of the Iraq discussion anyone is confusing the term pro-war with warmonger. If people have then I apologize. If I were a pathefist or truelly nonviolent I would be using warmonger to mean people who are for war in whatever context. However, I don't think you could argue I'm FOR torture.

"Having said that, I still don't see how you can say it is a done deal "that there are NO WMD's""

- I don't recall having said that. The issue is whether Bush and Co told us the truth about what they "knew" and whehter they can prove that immenent threat that scared up signifigant support for the war. They really built the pretext for war on the immenant threat of Saddam's WMD, especially to Congess and the UN, and have to be held accountable for their misleads. It was war. Its not like it was just some campaign promise we can all just gloss over.

You also suggest that somehow my interpetation of existing evidnece is skewed to always neglect evidence. But what evidnece? What evidnece has actually surfaced of weapons programs or weapons that I've glossed over? Farm chemicals are bad but they did have farms nor have any such chemicals been linked to the former government. Botulinum can be used for evil but was it? If so, why one culture? And why the B strain? And why would it sit in some poor shmo's fridge for 10 years if the sample needed usage for a program? Its by all means smoke of misdeeds past but to say a single vial of bacteria sitting in a scientest's fridge at home is a present WMD is stretching it just a bit I think. Like I said to Bill, Kay has presented some intresting leads but none of it equals programs or weapons. Nor do we have any reason to beleive any of the specualtive arguements. Such as Saddam buried weapons or sent them abroad. These are possible theories sure, but without some evidence they are just specualtion. I doubt history will judge the war as justified simply on specualtive arguements about weapons we had no assurance he had or what supposedly what he did with them. And frankly how long are we gonna sit on specualtion? I doubt it will ever be time to say he had no weapons but I think its long past the time when Bush can say that his pre-war assurances of an immenant threat and intellignece was accurate. Especially after the rhetoric of the White House was so decisive during the build up and obviously skewed towards ignoring any countering intelligence. So again I ask, cause maybe I have missed something, what evidnece?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
If you'd like to redefine intentions and defintions go ahead but the rest of the world has called these actions unilateral nor has the Bush admin gone to really any strives to challenge this label themselves.


You mean the rest of the liberal world. Besides, since when do we let the French define english terms?

Quote:
 
Specualtion would be fine if there was some piece of decent evidence to begin with. Almost all of the pre-war intelligence had already been dismissed before the war even started. Its not like they spackled a tiny hole with specualtion. Rather a gaping hole.


You have yet to define what qualifies as decent evidence. would anything other than direct physical evidence satisfy you? Overwelming circumstantial evidence seems not too.

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
One vial of bacteria doesn't represent a WMD program - have the bacteria been confirmed to be viable or weaponised (dried and powdered) ?

Still no mention of the Kuwati "find" elsewhere - guess other networks, and the PM have be given advise that reported find is not credible.

OK 1200 "staffers" (what about the rest employed by the coallision search teams - I would bet that there are maybe twice that number of specialist employed not as staff but on a contract basis).

1800000 troops on the ground and not looking around when patrolling about.

Iraq is not a very big country.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
qubed
Ensign
"Overwelming circumstantial evidence seems not too"

2 points.

1. Bush and Co never described their evidence as anything approaching circumstantial. They declared their case as certain. If the people had understood his arguement was based on circumstantial evidence I doubt there would have been a war.

2. The circumstantial evidence is rather underwhelming, in my opinion. He had weapons doesn't equal he has weapons, unnacounted for materials doesn't equal he has weapons, him saying he has weapons doesn't equal he has weapons nor does Clinton's strikes in 98 which had no evidnece to support it equal he has weapons. A whole bunch of arguements bundled together none of which point to him having weapons some how equal an arguement that he has weapons. 4 No = 1 yes? IMO anyways.

"You have yet to define what qualifies as decent evidence"

Something which points to weapons or programs, even munitions would be a start. The bacteria could be used in a program, but by itself it doesn't equate either a weapon or a program. Its a little like finding a trumpet with no player and declaring you've found the symphony. The missle thing may pan out but it has yet to be decently addressed.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Qubed

Quote:
 
I doubt I've labeled anyone pro-war who is was not FOR the war. Maybe they had one or a plethora of reasons but inevitably they agreed with the war at the time. If I have mislabled anyone who was not FOR the war as pro-war I apologize nor do I think in the context of the Iraq discussion anyone is confusing the term pro-war with warmonger. If people have then I apologize.


Slight change in the use of language - good. :D

In fact, pro-war has been used as if to say "warmonger" in your posts (and some others). As in, "the Bush Administration wanted to find a war so badly, they went out and manufactured one". The decision to go to war is never taken lightly - despite how one party or the other may wish to paint it.

The school I just graduated from is Mennonite - compared to my professors there, YOU are pro-war as well. Most wouldn't have felt justified in fighting in WW2.

Quote:
 
However, I don't think you could argue I'm FOR torture.


Why couldn't I? :P :)

There is certainly evidence of torture. There's even evidence that there was imminent threat of more torture against those who opposed Sadaam Husein. You have acknowledged that torture existed.

What evidence is there you opposed it or wished to take steps to put an end to it? :angel: :whistle:


Quote:
 
You also suggest that somehow my interpetation of existing evidnece is skewed to always neglect evidence. But what evidnece? What evidnece has actually surfaced of weapons programs or weapons that I've glossed over? Farm chemicals are bad but they did have farms nor have any such chemicals been linked to the former government. Botulinum can be used for evil but was it? If so, why one culture? And why the B strain? And why would it sit in some poor shmo's fridge for 10 years if the sample needed usage for a program? Its by all means smoke of misdeeds past but to say a single vial of bacteria sitting in a scientest's fridge at home is a present WMD is stretching it just a bit I think. Like I said to Bill, Kay has presented some intresting leads but none of it equals programs or weapons. Nor do we have any reason to beleive any of the specualtive arguements. Such as Saddam buried weapons or sent them abroad. These are possible theories sure, but without some evidence they are just specualtion. I doubt history will judge the war as justified simply on specualtive arguements about weapons we had no assurance he had or what supposedly what he did with them. And frankly how long are we gonna sit on specualtion? I doubt it will ever be time to say he had no weapons but I think its long past the time when Bush can say that his pre-war assurances of an immenant threat and intellignece was accurate. Especially after the rhetoric of the White House was so decisive during the build up and obviously skewed towards ignoring any countering intelligence. So again I ask, cause maybe I have missed something, what evidnece?


And that sums up what I said in a nutshell - a big nutshell, but a nutshell, none the less. :D

As far as I can tell, the ONLY evidence that you will accept is the USE of the weapons. "Was the weapon used? Nope, then there is no proof that it could or would have been used. Moving on ..."

Sadaam said he certain chemicals just before the war (the report has been posted here before). If you won't accept speculation as valid, then why accept that "these chemicals never existed to start with" or that "it was a clerical error" or any one of the "speculative" arguments being used to explain? What happened to the chemicals he admitted to having?

If the vial had no importance, why did the guy leave it in his home refrigerator for ten years? This is not a jar of cocktail olives. Why did he not simply throw it out if it couldn't hurt anyone? Why did the weapons inspectors simply take custody of it and destroy it with other things they destroyed? I am not the world's greatest housekeeper, but nothing stays in my fridge for 10 years.

As far as the time element, you have been saying the same type of thing since a week after the war. Well, no, as I recall, you actually said something about the Bush Administration "planting" something by now...... ;)





Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
We posted at the same time .....


Quote:
 
Something which points to weapons or programs, even munitions would be a start.


In additions to the caches of munitions found by coalition forces in the odd school, mosque, hospital, or buried underground, they are aware of 130 sites - of which only 10 have been fully searched. Some of the sites are 50 acres in size.

How much munitions do you need?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
qubed
Ensign
"In fact, pro-war has been used as if to say "warmonger" in your posts"

- Actually, no. Sorry if you were confused by this.

"What evidence is there you opposed it or wished to take steps to put an end to it?"

- 20 years of protesting against Baathist rule good enough? While most couldn't spell Iraq or even knew it existed freaky protestors like me were trying to get something done about Saddam's murderous regime. Does this mean I'm gonna stand by like a moron and get lied to and allow a war to be fought without UN approval yet on the basis of a UN charter. Uh, no. If Bush wanted to sell a war to free Iraqis he should have sold a war to free Iraqis and let America and the world decide that way. Instead, he sold a war about immenant threat, without UN backing and without signifigant enough world support.
- So where were you during those 20 years? If you can try to label me for the past 6 months as somehow supporting torture, which is still an incredibly specious arguement (though you might be joking, I'm not sure) can't I just as easily label you as pro-torture for the 19.5 years you did nothing? How about the other regimes that torture their citizens, you calling for action against them? How about for action against the world's leader in child capital punishment? Got any guesses who that is? I don't mean to be harsh but if your going to suggest my actions sponsored torture when I spend a great amount of my time working for Human Rights Organizations I'm most certainly going to point out how your inactions allow torture to continue. Not to mention be very soar at you :realmad: . But you probably didn't know this so I'll downgrade to this guy :angry: .

"far as I can tell, the ONLY evidence that you will accept is the USE of the weapons"

- The weapons themselves would be super. Or a program. Or even munitions. Haven't I said that about 3 or 4 times in this thread alone? I don't recall ever stating 'unless our boys are coughing up blood I won't beleive it' or something to that affect. I'm pretty convinced your not paying attention to what I'm saying or rather are trying to contextualize what I'm saying into a more simplified arguement. My opinion about this is a great deal more complex then "There are No weapons". I

"What happened to the chemicals he admitted to having"

- The problem with taking Saddam on his word is first of all taking Saddam on his word and secondly world leaders and governments, especially ones with unfreindly borders, don't make statements like "we have no ability to defend ourselves". 1/3 of his own country was in the control of of a sworn enemy. Without the threat of WMD Saddam had nothing to protect himself with, his army was laughable. Toyota pickups against tanks? Thats a winning combination. Are his statements which are untrustworthy for 2 excellent reasons to begin with enough to replace the need for sound evidnece. I don't think so.

- I don't mean to sugget that the bacteria sample is absolutley not part of a weapons program. But without weapons or a program its a vial of potentially naughty bacteria. It by itself doesn't make a program and unless its thrown really, really hard equate as a weapon either. If it came with some corroborating evidence then my tune would be different.

"you have been saying the same type of thing since a week after the war"

- Nope. I didn't join this particular conversation until late June. You must be confusing me with others. I was away from my home for most of May and June (to the tune of touring on another continent) and was very suprised at them finding nothing. I found the pre-war arguement, the evidence they presented, to be worth a flaming pile of poo and was greatly disheartened by the manuevering for profiteering and the tieing to 9/11 and the Al-Queda bunk. However, I was pretty sure they'd find weapons. I didn't beleive Bush's terrible arguement and so couldn't support action, especially with a craptacular list of supporters, but I also never beleived Saddam would have nothing. Even with the terrible pre-war evidnece I pretty much felt assured we were going to find some WMD themselves or hidden programs. Its not like Blix ever stated pre-war or during the war that he thought Saddam had no WMD. But if the weapons arguement Bush used were true something would have been found a long, long time ago. If Bush could have won UN support or presented a convincing arguement or won more global support or presented the arguement that its about freeing Iraqis in a maningful way without the fearmongering (is that a word?) I probably would have supported the war. Now what would it have taken you to not? How much worse did the arguement have to be?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
qubed
Ensign
"munitions found by coalition forces in the odd school"

- Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. Chem and Bio, and obviously nuke, weapons require special munition for delivery. A large part of the search has been for such munitions and have so far turned up bupkiss (spelling?). I was suprised that Kay didn't make reference to such munitions at all. And with the now classified report who the hell knows. I don't know if I'd call 30 delivery shells proof of banned programs or not but at least it would be evidnece. You can make all the VX you want, which would be proof enough for me, but unless you have a way to deliver it what use is it.

"as I recall, you actually said something about the Bush Administration "planting" something by now"

- To use a very an arguement style I would credit to you, how do you they haven't? :angel: :whistle: - Just kidding. If they planted something and then their misdeeds be discovered it'd be time for a hangin'. I doubt they'd take the risk.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Quote:
 
"In fact, pro-war has been used as if to say "warmonger" in your posts"

- Actually, no. Sorry if you were confused by this.


Yeah, sure ... "my" confusion ...

Quote:
 
"What evidence is there you opposed it or wished to take steps to put an end to it?"

- 20 years of protesting against Baathist rule good enough? .....  without UN backing and without signifigant enough world support.


Actually I was attempting to joke/use sarcasm to make a point, but since you have taken this position, let's go with it.

I believe you when you say that you have protested the actions of the regime for 20 years, but I certainly don't "know" it. Proof of your involvement would certainly exist, but, if I personally haven't seen it, does it exist for me?

Quote:
 
- So where were you during those 20 years? .... . But you probably didn't know this so I'll downgrade to this guy  :angry: .


Nice speculation ...

Quote:
 
....  I'm pretty convinced your not paying attention to what I'm saying or rather are trying to contextualize what I'm saying into a more simplified arguement. My opinion about this is a great deal more complex then "There are No weapons".


I am paying attention ... which I think is too simplified for the situation.

Quote:
 
"you have been saying the same type of thing since a week after the war"

- Nope. I didn't join this particular conversation until late June.


My apologies. During that period of time, I was the recipient of the attention of several duals from the anti-war side of the issue. I got you confused with one of them.

Quote:
 
Now what would it have taken you to not? How much worse did the arguement have to be?


The lack of mass burial sites ... the lack of documented evidence of torture ... the lack of stories of gang rapes ... the lack of stories of "disappearances" ...

Quote:
 
I was suprised that Kay didn't make reference to such munitions at all.


:huh: :huh:

According to Kay, the Iraqi government did not have separate facilities for different types of munitions. What you are asking about could very well be mixed with the other type of munitions. Since they were THEIR weapons, they knew where they were - we have to look.



Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
qubed
Ensign
"The lack of mass burial sites ... the lack of documented evidence of torture ... the lack of stories of gang rapes ... the lack of stories of "disappearances" ... "

- You do realize that Iraq is not the only country in the world where such attrocities happen right. In recent years Iraq has been relatively quite compared to some regions.

"Yeah, sure ... "my" confusion"

- As much as you want to tell me what I meant by my own words... oh, no point in finishing that sentence I'm sure you know what I mean to be saying all ready :P .

"Proof of your involvement would certainly exist, but, if I personally haven't seen it, does it exist for me?"

- Good ol Wichita. Ha-ha. Breaking out the philisophical arguement while dodging the content, a bit much? You call me to defend myself then don't or won't do the same. :ermm:

"The lack of mass burial sites ... the lack of documented evidence of torture ... the lack of stories of gang rapes ... the lack of stories of "disappearances" ... "

- So are you willing to allow the other arguements to just be ignored then. Is it improper to scrutinize the claims and evidnece on WMD and the AL-Queda link?

- I don't mean to get you on the defensive but after months of discussing this with you some of your comments some as nebulous as ever yet who and how you choose to anwser seems to say more then you intend. Or its that you just like me. :D
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench

Quote:
 
You do realize that Iraq is not the only country in the world where such attrocities happen right. In recent years Iraq has been relatively quite compared to some regions.


Yes, I do and I addressed this point earlier.

Quote:
 
- As much as you want to tell me what I meant by my own words... oh, no point in finishing that sentence I'm sure you know what I mean to be saying all ready  :P .


:lol: :lol:

Quote:
 
Breaking out the philisophical arguement while dodging the content, a bit much? You call me to defend myself then don't or won't do the same.


Actually it was always a philosophical arguement - you chose to make a personal defense. Protest is not the only way to make the world a better place.

Quote:
 
So are you willing to allow the other arguements to just be ignored then. Is it improper to scrutinize the claims and evidnece on WMD and the AL-Queda link?


Never said that ... They don't invalidate the mass burials, disappearances, gang rapes, etc. though.

Quote:
 
- I don't mean to get you on the defensive but after months of discussing this with you some of your comments some as nebulous as ever yet who and how you choose to anwser seems to say more then you intend. Or its that you just like me. :D


Actually, when you are on the road, I treat Impulse Engine just as badly. :lol:

I'm not sure that I know what you mean by this.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
qubed
Ensign
"Actually, when you are on the road, I treat Impulse Engine just as badly.

I'm not sure that I know what you mean by this"

- I just mean to say that you have remained on the fence about the WMD, or at least I have never read a strong statement by you, yet when posts are made by one camp you step in and when the other posts you don't. If I'm reading your mojo right, and correct if I'm not, your still giving time and waiting but a signifigant part of you leans towards supporting the Bush claims. Or you just think the other camp is so out of touch why respond to them, but that wouldn't jive (I think) with what you've said in the mean time. And I allready realize the slim possibility of trying to pin down your feelings and how wonderfully succesful that'll probably be. :huh:


- Nice talking with you as always.

By the way, how goes the teaching?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
FYI: If you want to quote something, click on the quote tab above the box you are typing in - paste what you want to say - and then click on the quote tab again to close.

Quote:
 
By the way, how goes the teaching?


Well, thank you. :lol: The boss is coming to my next class for my review so I am a bit nervous - I'll live though.

Quote:
 
- I just mean to say that you have remained on the fence about the WMD, or at least I have never read a strong statement by you, yet when posts are made by one camp you step in and when the other posts you don't. If I'm reading your mojo right, and correct if I'm not, your still giving time and waiting but a signifigant part of you leans towards supporting the Bush claims. Or you just think the other camp is so out of touch why respond to them, but that wouldn't jive (I think) with what you've said in the mean time. And I allready realize the slim possibility of trying to pin down your feelings and how wonderfully succesful that'll probably be.  :huh:


Or perhaps its because one camp has chosen to "pigeonhole" me because of what they "think" my politics are .... If they already "know" how I am going to answer, why bother to change their minds, right? It's the same camp who have told me what I believed about the reasons for the conflict were - when I have disagreed with the statement, I have been told simply that I am wrong. They apparently are concerned that I may actually think for myself.

Or, perhaps, it's because I have become seriously concerned for what passes for "evidence" these days. What has actually has been said or done is often overshadowed by what is perceived to have been said or done.

This world has some serious problems ... If you don't like the current administration, that is your right. Find a candidate who has your ideals, but find one who can win. Telling the American electorate that they are too stupid to understand because they didn't vote for your guy solves nothing and alienates a number of people in the process. If you can't convince people to your postion, then try harder - or get a new position because yours is flawed. Stop blaming everyone else. (The "you" is generic in this sentence.)

Many of the problems in the Middle East are centuries old - have we learned from that? Or have we simply co-opted the mindset?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus