The latest gem from Rumsfeld

[Knife]

There is no "proving a negitive fallacy". I keep hearing that. The weapon inspectors are over there to see how, when, and where the Iraqi's destroyed their WMD as according to the cease fire agreement and UN resolutions. People can us symantics to twist it around and say their over there to find WMD, and therefore the "negitive fallacy". But in truth, we know that Saddam had WMD and by treaty he was suppost to destroy them. The inspectors are over there and were originaly suppost to be over there to see that they were destroyed.

This is not proving an negitive, it is proving an action (that he destroyed them) or in this case the lack of action. The fact that they are finding nothing is very telling, and that they found expended shells that were not destroyed is even more telling.

[Vympel]

That particular thing wasn't in a treaty, nor does it need to be, we have the ability to do it as the victor. Thats how this whole 'war' thing works, you win you get to do virtually whatever you want to the looser.

btw, sry if 'treaty' looked like 'no fly zone treaty' to your nit picking mind. Treaty as in 'cease-fire' ie Saddam looses...

Dumbfuck. The victor can do whatever he wants even when it's not in the treaty eh? Fucking morons like this ....

[Vympel]

There is no "proving a negitive fallacy". I keep hearing that. The weapon inspectors are over there to see how, when, and where the Iraqi's destroyed their WMD as according to the cease fire agreement and UN resolutions. People can us symantics to twist it around and say their over there to find WMD, and therefore the "negitive fallacy". But in truth, we know that Saddam had WMD and by treaty he was suppost to destroy them. The inspectors are over there and were originaly suppost to be over there to see that they were destroyed.

No, it's not, but the US administration insists that it is. Of course the inspector's are there to prove a positive- the basis behind the rhetoric that Iraq must prove it doesn't rather than 'we' must prove it does is to absolve the administration of responsibility if they don't find anything.

[Falcon]

That particular thing wasn't in a treaty, nor does it need to be, we have the ability to do it as the victor. Thats how this whole 'war' thing works, you win you get to do virtually whatever you want to the looser.

btw, sry if 'treaty' looked like 'no fly zone treaty' to your nit picking mind. Treaty as in 'cease-fire' ie Saddam looses...

Dumbfuck. The victor can do whatever he wants even when it's not in the treaty eh? Fucking morons like this ....

Stop me here, but wasn't the no fly zones imposed because Saddam was using nerve gas (against geneva treaty) to engage in ethnic clensing against minority groups in N\S iraq?

[Vympel]

Stop me here, but wasn't the no fly zones imposed because Saddam was using nerve gas (against geneva treaty) to engage in ethnic clensing against minority groups in N\S iraq?

No, they were not.

[Falcon]

Stop me here, but wasn't the no fly zones imposed because Saddam was using nerve gas (against geneva treaty) to engage in ethnic clensing against minority groups in N\S iraq?

No, they were not.

Well we know he did it before http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical ... qgas2.html

I also decided to look up the no fly zones, since you'd been ranting about them.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/is ... 20cook.htm

according to this person, Foreign Secretary of (Britian?), the no-fly zone has prevented Saddam from beginning again his gas attacks on the Kurds that we know he did in the past. Is preventing genocide enough reason to keep them?

[Knife]

There is no "proving a negitive fallacy". I keep hearing that. The weapon inspectors are over there to see how, when, and where the Iraqi's destroyed their WMD as according to the cease fire agreement and UN resolutions. People can us symantics to twist it around and say their over there to find WMD, and therefore the "negitive fallacy". But in truth, we know that Saddam had WMD and by treaty he was suppost to destroy them. The inspectors are over there and were originaly suppost to be over there to see that they were destroyed.

No, it's not, but the US administration insists that it is. Of course the inspector's are there to prove a positive- the basis behind the rhetoric that Iraq must prove it doesn't rather than 'we' must prove it does is to absolve the administration of responsibility if they don't find anything.

So your saying that he didn't sign a treaty or agreement that states that he will destroy all of his WMD? Are you saying that the inspectors are there trying to find WMD that Saddam never had?

We're not trying to prove a negitive, we're trying to ensure that someone lived up to their agreement. Sorry if the last administration didn't and this one is.......

[Vympel]

So your saying that he didn't sign a treaty or agreement that states that he will destroy all of his WMD? Are you saying that the inspectors are there trying to find WMD that Saddam never had?

No, what makes you say that? I was purely referring to the rationale behind saying that it's up to Iraq to prove that it's not doing something.

We're not trying to prove a negitive, we're trying to ensure that someone lived up to their agreement. Sorry if the last administration didn't and this one is.......

I know they're not- the inspectors are obviously there to prove a positive, because that's the only thing you can prove. But the administration is pretending that Iraq has to prove it doesn't have WMD, they say this again and again and it doesn't get any less fallacious with repetition. As Durandal said, there are no limits to such a demand. You cannot prove that you don't have something.

[Vympel]

Not only is it a red herring, because their illegal status cannot be used to justify war (as I pointed out when responding to Sea Skimmer) but I'll entertain your delusions:

Well we know he did it before http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical ... qgas2.html

Your claim of 'genocide' is fucking idiotic, considering that the Kurds were in an uprising against Iraq at the time and want to create a country called 'Kurdistan' out of Iraq, Iran and Turkey. Funny how this URL makes no mention of that unfortunate fact. Regardless, the use of chemical weapons IS a war crime, but has nothing to do with the no-fly zones.

I also decided to look up the no fly zones, since you'd been ranting about them.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/is ... 20cook.htm

according to this person, Foreign Secretary of (Britian?), the no-fly zone has prevented Saddam from beginning again his gas attacks on the Kurds that we know he did in the past. Is preventing genocide enough reason to keep them?

Please establish no-fly zones over Turkey who also commits atrocities against the Kurds, then get back to me- oh wait, they won't do that- Turkey is a US ally, so the Kurds there can go take a flying leap. How surprising. Also factor in the civilians who are killed in the enforcement of these illegal constructs- your bullshit appeals to humanitarian motive hold no water. And also, do you know about the Al-Quaeda members who take refuge in the no-fly zones?

[Vympel]

On the 'he gassed his own people' claim:

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html

[Knife]

So your saying that he didn't sign a treaty or agreement that states that he will destroy all of his WMD? Are you saying that the inspectors are there trying to find WMD that Saddam never had?

No, what makes you say that? I was purely referring to the rationale behind saying that it's up to Iraq to prove that it's not doing something.

We're not trying to prove a negitive, we're trying to ensure that someone lived up to their agreement. Sorry if the last administration didn't and this one is.......

I know they're not- the inspectors are obviously there to prove a positive, because that's the only thing you can prove. But the administration is pretending that Iraq has to prove it doesn't have WMD, they say this again and again and it doesn't get any less fallacious with repetition. As Durandal said, there are no limits to such a demand. You cannot prove that you don't have something.

Its symantics man. Sure you can make people use proper grammer and such but when it all boils down, we are tring to make the mofo live up to his agreements. Every thing else is politics, and which side you fall on.

[Stuart Mackey]

He's actively shooting at us with missiles and guns.

You fogot to add in the illegal no-fly zones, not sanctioned by the UN, certainly never accepted by Iraq in treaty, and whose non-existent legal stance is admitted by the US when they don't take it to the Security Council, because everyone in the UN knows they're full of shit.

The reasoning applied to the no-fly zones is patently ridiculous. The US asserts that they're legal because in their opinion (no one else's of course) every member of the UN has the right to unilaterally enforce one of the UN's resolutions, even when there is no UN resolution that establishes the no-fly zones, and the resolution they use is a UN resolution 'urging protection' of the Kurds and Iraqi opposition.

That's totally reasonable. The UN has no right to be the final arbiter of International Law; only Nation States can be. The UN is just a place for Nation States to discuss the drafting of Internation Law. Any pretension the UN has to arbitrate International Law is just an indication of power-grabbing from traditional rights of Nation States on its part.

With people like you around its no surprise there is so much conflict on this planet
The UN has every right to be the final arbiter of International law, in the same way that a court is the final arbiter of law ina murder case. That you seem to be unable to distiguish the difference does not speak highly of you.

[Vympel]

Its symantics man. Sure you can make people use proper grammer and such but when it all boils down, we are tring to make the mofo live up to his agreements. Every thing else is politics, and which side you fall on.

It's more than just semantics. Using this rationale, if they don't find any evidence of WMD they can just claim that Iraq has not proven to their satisfaction that it doesn't have WMD (the no limits inherent in the negative burden of proof), they have consistently tried to shift the burden to the negative side, irrespective of what the inspectors on the ground are actually doing.

[Durandal]

Its symantics man. Sure you can make people use proper grammer and such but when it all boils down, we are tring to make the mofo live up to his agreements. Every thing else is politics, and which side you fall on.

You're a fucking idiot. You've danced around the meat of the argument for long enough, so I'll straight-out ask you.

At what point will you, Shrub and Rummy be satisfied that Hussein doesn't have weapons of mass destruction? Shrub and Rummy have been stupid enough to proclaim that anything is evidence of guilt, whether they find weapons or not. This is not semantics, and it's plainly obvious that you have no idea what the term means and are just throwing it around to make yourself look good. This is just poor fucking reasoning.

Your bullshit about Hussein not cooperating is a red herring; it has nothing to do with the fact that Shrub and Rummy will declare him guilty no matter what they find or don't find. If they find weapons of mass-destruction, he's guilty. If they don't find weapons of mass-destruction, it's because Hussein is really good at hiding them, so he's guilty. In other words, they already have a conclusion, and this inspection shit is just for show. That's circular reasoning, and that's not the kind of basis you want to start a war on.

[Knife]

Durandal wrote:

You're a fucking idiot. You've danced around the meat of the argument for long enough, so I'll straight-out ask you.

No need for name calling.

At what point will you, Shrub and Rummy be satisfied that Hussein doesn't have weapons of mass destruction?

When he properly deminstrates where, when, and how he destroyed the WMD that he had when he signed the cease fire. When he shows that he has destroyed or dismantled the facilities that were used to make the weapons.

Shrub and Rummy have been stupid enough to proclaim that anything is evidence of guilt, whether they find weapons or not. This is not semantics, and it's plainly obvious that you have no idea what the term means and are just throwing it around to make yourself look good. This is just poor fucking reasoning.

While I do not discount that the poor choice of words, they are still trying to have Saddam live up to his agreement. The inspectors are over there to see if the WMD were destroyed, dumb fuck politicians say they are looking for WMD. These two statments are not exactly the same thing but the underlining meaning is the same. In general, we want to see if Saddam has any by making sure he destroyed what he had and that he can not make any more with the same facilities that made the first batch. It is just twisting words and some twist them to further make politicians look even more stupid than they already are.

Your bullshit about Hussein not cooperating is a red herring; it has nothing to do with the fact that Shrub and Rummy will declare him guilty no matter what they find or don't find. If they find weapons of mass-destruction, he's guilty. If they don't find weapons of mass-destruction, it's because Hussein is really good at hiding them, so he's guilty. In other words, they already have a conclusion, and this inspection shit is just for show. That's circular reasoning, and that's not the kind of basis you want to start a war on.

This whole paragraph is a red herring. The US has adaquate cause to recommence hostilities with Iraq weather or not "inspectors" find anything or quite frankly, if "inspectors" are even over there. The inspectors are there as a political concession to the international community by the US all involve stay all happy, happy, joy, joy. Weather you or me agree with it, the current administration has decided to make Saddam live up to his agreements when the last one ignored the situation as much as possible. This might not jive with you ideologicaly but it is in no way as sinister as some would make it out to be.

[Malecoda]

Let's get something straight: No matter what sort of weapons he has lying around, Saddam Hussein isn't a nice guy. He is a megalomaniacal psychopath who I wouldn't trust with a 22-cal air pistol, let alone what was once the number two armed forces in the Middle East (after Israel).

There are a lot of those kinds of people in positions of power -- Columbian drug lords, Chinese sweatshop owners....

...The American President...