Iraq WMD report
-
pankajdaga wrote: Yeah, and it is even nicer that these are American bodies that are conducting such investigations. American bodies who are rabidly anti-Bush. You would expect to hear such "think tanks" parroting the positions also held by France, Syria and other pro-terrorist nations. Sure sounds cute to smirk and say that though! It damn near makes sense. But just because the think-tank was AMERICAN, it was not a GOVERNMENT study. it was an extremely partisan study released to show the Bush govt. in the worst possible light. Get over it - your buddy Saddam is gone. Americans are on the ground in force in the heart of the middle east and all of your whining and the whining of a billion of your jealous little wankers isn't going to change that fact. A vote for the US to stop its war on terrorism is a vote for the terrorists!
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: Get over it - your buddy Saddam is gone. Americans are on the ground in force in the heart of the middle east and all of your whining and the whining of a billion of your jealous little wankers isn't going to change that fact. You do sound like a very mature person. Maybe you can do some wanking after you get it out of Bush's ass. What a dumbass you are. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
He had opened the gates. The UN inspectors were never given a chance! Well, now the gates are open! Where are the weapons?? Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
pankajdaga wrote: The UN inspectors were never given a chance! Ummmm... he threw them out. Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
Not during the inspection before this war started. They chief inspector even said that they need more time but US got too ansy. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: . For you to suggest that a persons entire width of mind can be determined by their personal opinion about the Iraq liberation is rather troubling. By narrow minded, I mean completely unable to consider an alternative point of view on a specific subject, not holding opinions on a narrow range of subjects, but holding narrow opinions on a range of subjects. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Who do you think I am bigoted against? Anyone willing to criticise any aspect of US policy. Terry O`Nolley wrote: I'd hate to think you found interest in debating issues with a stupid person. We don't debate, that would involve you addressing issues more and making wild accusations a lot less. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: By narrow minded, I mean completely unable to consider an alternative point of view on a specific subject, not holding opinions on a narrow range of subjects, but holding narrow opinions on a range of subjects. So, anyone who disagrees with you on a specific subject is narrow-minded. Care to change your mind and agree with me? If not, you are narrow minded. You also have no right to claim that I do not even consider other viewpoints. I have already stated that the proof of lack of WMD is looking like it will bear enough weight to change my opinion on the actual amount of WMD in Iraq immediately prior to the war. I still do not believe that the USA/UN/iraqi defectors were lying about them. If it turns out that they had no WMD, it will only mean that we were fooled. If it is proven that Bush knew that Saddam had no WMD and no intent of producing them then I will be the one lied to instead of the US govt. But (even though I didn't vote for Bush) I would feel the invasion was still justified because of the other reasons we listed as factors in removing Saddam. Christian Graus wrote: Anyone willing to criticise any aspect of US policy. This isn't true and you know it. I have a very narrow range of subjects that I am vocal about. You choose to read that to mean I am a 1-dimensional Bush sycophant. Personally, I don't care. But I just thought I throw it out there in case you weren't bigoted and narrow minded. Christian Graus wrote: We don't debate, that would involve you addressing issues more and making wild accusations a lot less. How many more issues do I need to offer my opinions/responses to my opinions/responses to those responses/etc./etc. before I can claim to be debating issues? Obviously we aren't debating now. I am prepared to offer a logic chain for any "wild accusations" I have made. You may choose to not agree with my logic. You may even go to the extraordinary step of offering counter-logic rather than flatly labelling my opinion a "wild accusation".
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=8&u=/nm/20040108/wl_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc[^] Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
From the article: that U.N. weapons inspectors had discovered that nerve agents in Iraq's chemical weapons program had lost most of their lethal capability as early as 1991. The weird thing is that Time magazine's report said that Saddam's military had kept a few chemical artillery munitions (undeclared to UN inspectors) because they wanted to see how long it could be stored for. The article said that they opened the munitions before Gulf War 2 and the chemical agents were nearly 100% as lethal as the day they had created them - in direct contradiction to the think tank's statement. It's also worth noting what the BBC said about the think tank's report: The report is from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a liberal think tank in Washington, which opposed the war, arguing that UN inspections should continue. I somewhat agree with the report, but I don't think you can hold up the report as the objective conclusion of an independent body who's conclusions should be accepted on that basis. Also, But in one area, it does accept that Iraq was acting in violation of UN sanctions. It had developed its al Samoud rocket by more than the 150 kilometres permitted, albeit by only 30 km. The rockets were destroyed by the inspectors. The report also acknowledges that Iraq probably intended to develop a 1000 km range missile. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3380645.stm[^] ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
-
Hi, How come you are so whole-heartedly convinced that Saddam had WMDs? Before you start screaming and clog up the bandwidth, I would clarify that I am no fan of Saddam and one good thing out of all of this is that he is gone. However, the US/UK said that the main reason for going into Iraq was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. However, here is why I am leaning to the belief that it was utter nonsense. 1: No weapons of mass destruction have been found. 2: Sure people say that Saddam transferred or destroyed it before the war. If Saddam indeed did that, he could have averted the war by opening the gates to really full-fledged investigation. The weapons are gone, why not invite people over. 3: Even if he destroyed the weapons, they would still leave traces in the soils and the effect would be seen for many years. That is a lot of WMDs we are talking about. 4: Sure he transferred tons and tons of weapons of mass destruction but himself was hiding in a bunker probably for months like a dog that he is. I am sorry somehow things do not add up here. Pardon my skepticism, but I would not believe none of this they come up with some real evidence. I would rather keep an open mind than stroke myself into ignorance and blind faith. Sorry Terry, could not resist ;P Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
pankajdaga wrote: How come you are so whole-heartedly convinced that Saddam had WMDs? I think you need to read my other posts on this topic. I have repeated it many times. [sigh]. Ok, I am still leaning towards believing Saddam had weapons prior to the war. I have also said that this belief is lessening as new facts come in. The reasons I continue to believe he had weapons boil down to: 1) Saddam's listing of WMD he had after the first gulf war 2) Intel reports from at least 4 countries 3) Saddam's kicking out of the UN inspecters when they began visiting certain sites he wanted left hidden 4) Reports from Iraqi defectors 5) Saddam's willingness to live under sanctions and US airpower rather than let the UN verify his weapon's disposal You say: pankajdaga wrote: 1: No weapons of mass destruction have been found. This is logically meaningless. You can't cite lack of proof as proof of lack. This point is invalid. pankajdaga wrote: 2: Sure people say that Saddam transferred or destroyed it before the war. If Saddam indeed did that, he could have averted the war by opening the gates to really full-fledged investigation. I use this exact same point to bolster my argument - if Saddam had no weapons then he could have let the UN into his country and had the sanctions removed 12 years ago. Since we are both claiming this argument, they cancel each other out. pankajdaga wrote: 3: Even if he destroyed the weapons, they would still leave traces in the soils and the effect would be seen for many years. That is a lot of WMDs we are talking about. Exactly - and Saddam couldn't show the UN where that contaminated soil was prior to him kicking the UN out in the late 90's. So, by your argument, Saddam NEVER had WMD. Since we know he did (after all - he killed thousands of his own people with them just a couple years before the gulf war), we can strike this point as invalid. It is also another example of using lack of proof as proof of lack. pankajdaga wrote: 4: Sure he transferred tons and tons of weapons of mass destruction but himself was hiding in a bunker probably for months like a dog that he is. Transferring weapons while in power is not logically inconsistent with hiding in a hole after he lost his power. This point is irrelevant. pankajdaga wrote: I would rather keep an open mind than stroke
-
What else would you expect from a radical-liberal think-tank. I never believed the US was in any imminent danger from Saddam. I did believe that Saddam might pass on WMD secrets to terrorists. From these 2 viewpoints you can have all sorts of fun whereby the rabid anti-US/pro-Saddam people will tell you that this means Bush lied whereas the anti-terrosist/anti-Saddam people will say that potentially transferring WMD technology to terrorist groups is enough of a threat to warrent action. I personally don't care that his pre-1990 VX gas was nearly impotent. He knew how to whip up a batch using chemicals and equipment that had dual uses and were thus hidden in plain site just waiting for France and Russia - Saddam's military and economic allies - to force the UN into abandoning sanctions. Thank god the US wasn't stupid enough to listen to assholes like that and thank god the president wasn't weak enough to listen to snivelling pro-terrosist think tanks when it came to formulating national security policy.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!What happened to your "absence of proof is not proof of absence" mantra? Did you realize it could also be used to prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot? Or maybe Bigfoot with WMDs! If they haven't been proved not to exist, then they must, right? :rolleyes: Terry O'Nolley wrote: will tell you that this means Bush lied 1) Bush said that Saddam had WMD and that this was a compelling reason to invade. I can provide links to speeches on whitehouse.gov if you don't remember. 2) This is now known to be a lie. Thus: Bush lied.
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
« eikonoklastes »
-
Not during the inspection before this war started. They chief inspector even said that they need more time but US got too ansy. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
I believe Mr. Blix's report also indicated Iraq and Saddam were being very deceptive and much of the paperwork and procedures required by his surrender were flawed or missing. Saddam was playing a very dangerous game. He lost... badly. Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Get over it - your buddy Saddam is gone. Americans are on the ground in force in the heart of the middle east and all of your whining and the whining of a billion of your jealous little wankers isn't going to change that fact. You do sound like a very mature person. Maybe you can do some wanking after you get it out of Bush's ass. What a dumbass you are. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
pankajdaga wrote: mature....wanking.....dumbass ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Nice! Another would be high-brow, above-the-fray smegma joins my dark army! Dude - you are more malleable than warm silly putty.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Christian Graus wrote: I've had a revelation - Terry is actually Mike Moore trolling to try and make those who oppose his views look narrow minded, bigoted and stupid. I dunno why it took me this long to figure it out. HuuuuuuuuuUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHH?!??!?!??!?!? Christian Graus wrote: narrow minded Trust me - the width of my mind is in no way represented by the tiny slice of issues I choose to post about here. For you to suggest that a persons entire width of mind can be determined by their personal opinion about the Iraq liberation is rather troubling. Christian Graus wrote: bigoted Who do you think I am bigoted against? Christian Graus wrote: stupid I'd hate to think you found interest in debating issues with a stupid person.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: I'd hate to think you found interest in debating issues with a stupid person. if it's good enough for Shakespeare... ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
See, I would also like to clarify that I am just trying to be a rational person, to look at facts (as they are being presented by various media) and try to draw a picture. Somehow to me it seems that there is no way he had WMDs. He destroyed everything so perfectly in such a short time that no trace remains of any WMDs. One has to be totally blinded, brain-washed or a total moron like Terry who pays no regards to any facts to be absolutely sure that Saddam was the threat that he was made out to be and that US did not make up facts here. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
pankajdaga wrote: See, I would also like to clarify that I am just trying to be a rational person ok, but... pankajdaga wrote: (as they are being presented by various media) therein lies the problem. no one knows all the facts outside of those who have a need to know. the rest is fueled by liberal, gay, love the world, peace in cannibis, same sex marrige lobbying, narrow minded, think they are right because they love both sexes, live in the UK (or san fransisco), bush-hating because he's a man, elect the wallflowers for president type media. sheesh, stop pole smoking, love a woman (or man if ure female), have a family, get off wellfare, get off the weed, and take a look at the freaking world! See, this is what happens when peeople do away with God! I'd hate to be any of you at the second coming. :|
-
What happened to your "absence of proof is not proof of absence" mantra? Did you realize it could also be used to prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot? Or maybe Bigfoot with WMDs! If they haven't been proved not to exist, then they must, right? :rolleyes: Terry O'Nolley wrote: will tell you that this means Bush lied 1) Bush said that Saddam had WMD and that this was a compelling reason to invade. I can provide links to speeches on whitehouse.gov if you don't remember. 2) This is now known to be a lie. Thus: Bush lied.
Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains. ~Robert G. Ingersoll, Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
« eikonoklastes »
so without your vote, he'll surely lose this year's election, right? Or was that comment for Clinton... I can't remember :~ OP
-
pankajdaga wrote: See, I would also like to clarify that I am just trying to be a rational person ok, but... pankajdaga wrote: (as they are being presented by various media) therein lies the problem. no one knows all the facts outside of those who have a need to know. the rest is fueled by liberal, gay, love the world, peace in cannibis, same sex marrige lobbying, narrow minded, think they are right because they love both sexes, live in the UK (or san fransisco), bush-hating because he's a man, elect the wallflowers for president type media. sheesh, stop pole smoking, love a woman (or man if ure female), have a family, get off wellfare, get off the weed, and take a look at the freaking world! See, this is what happens when peeople do away with God! I'd hate to be any of you at the second coming. :|
in the words of Jimi Hendrix: I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
pankajdaga wrote: The UN inspectors were never given a chance! Ummmm... he threw them out. Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
Mike Mullikin wrote: Ummmm... he threw them out. Actually, he didn't. http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html[^] John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
in the words of Jimi Hendrix: I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Well said :) Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
pankajdaga wrote: How come you are so whole-heartedly convinced that Saddam had WMDs? I think you need to read my other posts on this topic. I have repeated it many times. [sigh]. Ok, I am still leaning towards believing Saddam had weapons prior to the war. I have also said that this belief is lessening as new facts come in. The reasons I continue to believe he had weapons boil down to: 1) Saddam's listing of WMD he had after the first gulf war 2) Intel reports from at least 4 countries 3) Saddam's kicking out of the UN inspecters when they began visiting certain sites he wanted left hidden 4) Reports from Iraqi defectors 5) Saddam's willingness to live under sanctions and US airpower rather than let the UN verify his weapon's disposal You say: pankajdaga wrote: 1: No weapons of mass destruction have been found. This is logically meaningless. You can't cite lack of proof as proof of lack. This point is invalid. pankajdaga wrote: 2: Sure people say that Saddam transferred or destroyed it before the war. If Saddam indeed did that, he could have averted the war by opening the gates to really full-fledged investigation. I use this exact same point to bolster my argument - if Saddam had no weapons then he could have let the UN into his country and had the sanctions removed 12 years ago. Since we are both claiming this argument, they cancel each other out. pankajdaga wrote: 3: Even if he destroyed the weapons, they would still leave traces in the soils and the effect would be seen for many years. That is a lot of WMDs we are talking about. Exactly - and Saddam couldn't show the UN where that contaminated soil was prior to him kicking the UN out in the late 90's. So, by your argument, Saddam NEVER had WMD. Since we know he did (after all - he killed thousands of his own people with them just a couple years before the gulf war), we can strike this point as invalid. It is also another example of using lack of proof as proof of lack. pankajdaga wrote: 4: Sure he transferred tons and tons of weapons of mass destruction but himself was hiding in a bunker probably for months like a dog that he is. Transferring weapons while in power is not logically inconsistent with hiding in a hole after he lost his power. This point is irrelevant. pankajdaga wrote: I would rather keep an open mind than stroke
Terry O`Nolley wrote: You can't cite lack of proof as proof of lack. This point is invalid. Are you crazy? This way I can say that you have WMDs and come in and beat your head in. So apparantly we do not need proof for anything anymore. This point is not invalid. It is the only valid point. Solid evidence is the only valid reason for action. - Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Ummmm... he threw them out. Actually, he didn't. http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html[^] John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
Actually, he did (on a number of occassions). BBC Timeline: Iraq weapons inspections[^] 29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors... 13 January 1998: Iraq blocks an inspection by a US-dominated team and accuses its leader, Scott Ritter, of spying for America. 31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom... 5 July 2002: UN-Iraq talks end without agreement on inspections Obviously Saddam was playing a game with the UN. How much longer do you think the game should have continued? Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
-
Actually, he did (on a number of occassions). BBC Timeline: Iraq weapons inspections[^] 29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors... 13 January 1998: Iraq blocks an inspection by a US-dominated team and accuses its leader, Scott Ritter, of spying for America. 31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom... 5 July 2002: UN-Iraq talks end without agreement on inspections Obviously Saddam was playing a game with the UN. How much longer do you think the game should have continued? Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
Mike Mullikin wrote: Actually, he did (on a number of occassions). I don't know the detail of all of these cases, but they appear to fall under the category of a lack of cooperation and brinkmanship rather than an expulsion. Mike Mullikin wrote: Obviously Saddam was playing a game with the UN. How much longer do you think the game should have continued? We are revisiting old ground. The fact is that the weapons inspections succeeded in removing WMDs from Iraq, notwithstanding the games. Frankly, I don't think that, even with WMDs, Iraq would pose much of a threat to its neighbours. It had them in the first Gulf War and declined to use them because it knew that, if it did, the US would obliterate it. And the experience of getting its arse well and truly kicked in that war means Iraq was very unlikely to try it again. Iraq waged war against Iran with the tacit approval of the US. With the knowledge, post-Kuwait, that the US would oppose any aggressive moves, the threat from Iraq had essentially evaporated. The focus on Iraq is for historical reasons (the invasion of Kuwait), not currently relevant ones. The only argument with any force for invading Iraq is the human rights argument. I have a lot of sympathy for it and might have been prepared to support an invasion on that basis if I thought that the Bush Administration was both credible and competent on the issue --- which I don't. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Actually, he did (on a number of occassions). I don't know the detail of all of these cases, but they appear to fall under the category of a lack of cooperation and brinkmanship rather than an expulsion. Mike Mullikin wrote: Obviously Saddam was playing a game with the UN. How much longer do you think the game should have continued? We are revisiting old ground. The fact is that the weapons inspections succeeded in removing WMDs from Iraq, notwithstanding the games. Frankly, I don't think that, even with WMDs, Iraq would pose much of a threat to its neighbours. It had them in the first Gulf War and declined to use them because it knew that, if it did, the US would obliterate it. And the experience of getting its arse well and truly kicked in that war means Iraq was very unlikely to try it again. Iraq waged war against Iran with the tacit approval of the US. With the knowledge, post-Kuwait, that the US would oppose any aggressive moves, the threat from Iraq had essentially evaporated. The focus on Iraq is for historical reasons (the invasion of Kuwait), not currently relevant ones. The only argument with any force for invading Iraq is the human rights argument. I have a lot of sympathy for it and might have been prepared to support an invasion on that basis if I thought that the Bush Administration was both credible and competent on the issue --- which I don't. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: I have a lot of sympathy for it and might have been prepared to support an invasion on that basis if I thought that the Bush Administration was both credible and competent on the issue --- which I don't. Seems like your saying "If someone who I respect wants to do X than X is a wonderful thing, but if someone who I disrespect wants to do X than X is a bad thing." No? Isn't the value of X the only real concern? Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
-
John Carson wrote: I have a lot of sympathy for it and might have been prepared to support an invasion on that basis if I thought that the Bush Administration was both credible and competent on the issue --- which I don't. Seems like your saying "If someone who I respect wants to do X than X is a wonderful thing, but if someone who I disrespect wants to do X than X is a bad thing." No? Isn't the value of X the only real concern? Please allow me to introduce myself - I’m a man of wealth and taste. I’ve been around for a long, long year - Stole many a man’s soul and faith
Mike Mullikin wrote: Seems like your saying "If someone who I respect wants to do X than X is a wonderful thing, but if someone who I disrespect wants to do X than X is a bad thing." No? Isn't the value of X the only real concern? Wanting to do X and actually accomplishing X are not the same thing. The costs of achieving X also need to be considered. I think that achieving democracy/human rights in Iraq is really difficult, given the divisions between Sunnis/Shiites/Kurds, the desire on the part of many in Iraq for a theocratic state, the lack of a democratic tradition in Iraq and the legacy of the Baath Party, and the fact that Iraq is going to need an "honest broker" to help them on the way to democracy yet many Iraqis are deeply suspicious of the US (unfairly, no doubt) and, for that matter, the UN. If there is not demonstrable progress, the US will eventually grow tired of the cost in dollars and lives and withdraw. At that point (and possibly before), the situation in Iraq may become dire. If all that happens is that a lot of lives are lost and the Iraqis end up no better off, then it would be better if the attempt had not been made. Now that the die has been cast, I can only hope that it works out for the best and that democracy/human rights take firm root in Iraq (the mere holding of an election doesn't ensure this --- plenty of places have had elections and subsequently slid back into dictatorship/civil war). The Iraqi people could certainly do with some breaks (which is not to deny that they have been to some extent the authors of their own problems and remain so). But I am not optimistic. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell