The latest gem from Rumsfeld

[Malecoda]

We are not in OPEC. Iraq is. What does that have to do with anything?

[Vympel]

Woah runaway thread

1: Regardless of the 11 122mm empty rockets found, they are hardly material breach- Iraq originally had 300 of them, all destroyed, no one can seriously claim that this 11 empty Grad rockets is somehow evidence of an ongoing WMD program.

2: Regardless of this latest development, it in no way justifies Rumsfelds stupidity. Basically what he was trying to do was

a: If we can't find WMD, it's evidence
b: If we can find WMD, it's evidence

Does anyone see the problem here? It was a fucking inane, stupid thing to say.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Though it was the US that originally gave Iraq the chemical and biological weapons and jumpstarted its weapons program. Then Iraq went rogue.

Bullshit. We didn't give them VX or Anthrax. We funded their war w/ Iran.

US "know" for sure that Iraq has WMDs cause the US gave them to it in the first place. And Rumsfield's quote screams "WE ONLY WANT YOUR OIL!!! WAAAARRR!!!!"

While I don't believe sincerity on the Bush camp's claims, it is bullshit that we want Iraq just for oil. I've read several documents which show that while an Iraqi oil industry wouldn't be cost prohibitive for the US, it hardly brings enough output soon enough to make it the sole reason for attacking Iraq.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Woah runaway thread

1: Regardless of the 11 122mm empty rockets found, they are hardly material breach- Iraq originally had 300 of them, all destroyed, no one can seriously claim that this 11 empty Grad rockets is somehow evidence of an ongoing WMD program.

2: Regardless of this latest development, it in no way justifies Rumsfelds stupidity. Basically what he was trying to do was

a: If we can't find WMD, it's evidence
b: If we can find WMD, it's evidence

Does anyone see the problem here? It was a fucking inane, stupid thing to say.

Vympel, I'm sure no one disagrees with you. But Rumsfeld's stupidity and bad wording don't mean that's actually U.S. policy. Shit I'd say wierd shit being forced to answer the same fucking questions every day in politically correct mind drool.

[Vympel]

Vympel, I'm sure no one disagrees with you. But Rumsfeld's stupidity and bad wording don't mean that's actually U.S. policy.

I'm pretty sure it isn't either.

Shit I'd say wierd shit being forced to answer the same fucking questions every day in politically correct mind drool.

LOL

Bullshit. We didn't give them VX or Anthrax. We funded their war w/ Iran.

Not VX or anthrax (I think- haven't read the following list)- but there was something?

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news12.htm

[Stravo]

Two, of course there's oil, which puts Saddam right in our crosshairs. We live in a society driven by the consumption of energy. Oil plays a HUGE role in that consumption. Increases in the price of that oil can and do affect our entire economic system. When oil gets more expensive, then the price of fuel goes up, which hits everyone right in the pocketbook. It is in our best interests to safeguard our supply of oil to keep the price stable.

You are saying that it is best for America if you invade Iraq and monopolize the oil industry. Yet, the fact is, you already do monopolize the oil industry with OPEC.

Christ Ted, we're not even IN OPEC, thats a real simple fact to know without doing much research yet you fling this shit aorund withiout a clue. Once you know what you're talking about peopel will listen.

[Illuminatus Primus]

bacillus Anthracis, (anthrax) Clostridium botulinum, and West Nile Fever Virus as pathogens that were shipped to Iraq in the 1980’s

I dunno. Could be for meds, could be bio. But strangely the problem w/ it being for bio is why the fuck is West Nile in there? It would NOT make an effective weapon.

[Durandal]

Stephen Colbert put it best on The Daily Show:

"We're not sure what they are, but there's no evidence that he doesn't have them.

[Falcon]

Woah runaway thread

1: Regardless of the 11 122mm empty rockets found, they are hardly material breach- Iraq originally had 300 of them, all destroyed, no one can seriously claim that this 11 empty Grad rockets is somehow evidence of an ongoing WMD program.

2: Regardless of this latest development, it in no way justifies Rumsfelds stupidity. Basically what he was trying to do was

a: If we can't find WMD, it's evidence
b: If we can find WMD, it's evidence

Does anyone see the problem here? It was a fucking inane, stupid thing to say.

You don't seem to understand that the burden of proof lies with IRAQ. Keeping that in mind you've taken his position slighly out of context, its not the absense of proof that they have WMD that makes them in breech of treaty, its the lack of proof that they don't have WMD that institutites a breech.

[Vympel]

You don't seem to understand that the burden of proof lies with IRAQ. Keeping that in mind you've taken his position slighly out of context, its not the absense of proof that they have WMD that makes them in breech of treaty, its the lack of proof that they don't have WMD that institutites a breech.

And you don't seem to understand the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, ever. I don't care what bullshit the administration pulls out that Iraq has to prove it's NOT doing something, because you CAN'T prove that. Rumsfeld wasn't taken out of context- he said what he said.

[Falcon]

You don't seem to understand that the burden of proof lies with IRAQ. Keeping that in mind you've taken his position slighly out of context, its not the absense of proof that they have WMD that makes them in breech of treaty, its the lack of proof that they don't have WMD that institutites a breech.

And you don't seem to understand the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, ever. I don't care what bullshit the administration pulls out that Iraq has to prove it's NOT doing something, because you CAN'T prove that. Rumsfeld wasn't taken out of context- he said what he said.

Yes they can. If Iraq behaves in a mannor in line with the treaty and the UN resolutions then there won't be any cause to suspect they have WMD. However, when they have hidden scientists or told them not to talk, move labs around, etc... then they arn't fulfilling their end of the agreement.

Yes Rummy said what he said, but he didn't mean it the way you took it, either that or he has utterly changed his position from the last few months.

[Vympel]

Yes they can. If Iraq behaves in a mannor in line with the treaty and the UN resolutions then there won't be any cause to suspect they have WMD. However, when they have hidden scientists or told them not to talk, move labs around, etc... then they arn't fulfilling their end of the agreement.

Sophistry and retreat. Just in your previous post you said: "it's the lack of proof that they don't have WMD that institutes a breach". You flat out demanded proof of a negative.

For all this silly proof of a negative rhetoric, what the inspectors are doing is seeking proof of a positive- that Iraq HAS violated UN resolutions.

Yes Rummy said what he said, but he didn't mean it the way you took it, either that or he has utterly changed his position from the last few months.

It means what it says- I don't need to overcomplicate something so straightforward. It was nonsense.

[Falcon]

Yes they can. If Iraq behaves in a mannor in line with the treaty and the UN resolutions then there won't be any cause to suspect they have WMD. However, when they have hidden scientists or told them not to talk, move labs around, etc... then they arn't fulfilling their end of the agreement.

Sophistry and retreat. Just in your previous post you said: "it's the lack of proof that they don't have WMD that institutes a breach". You flat out demanded proof of a negative.

For all this silly proof of a negative rhetoric, what the inspectors are doing is seeking proof of a positive- that Iraq HAS violated UN resolutions.

Call it whatever makes you feel better about yourself, at best its a clarification.

Iraq has already violated treaties and resolutions neumerous times, we're just giving them one last chance.

Yes Rummy said what he said, but he didn't mean it the way you took it, either that or he has utterly changed his position from the last few months.

It means what it says- I don't need to overcomplicate something so straightforward. It was nonsense.

So you want to ignore months of his stated policy because one quote contradicts it? That doesn't sound very bright, but again, what ever helps your psychie...

[Vympel]

Call it whatever makes you feel better about yourself, at best its a clarification.

Iraq has already violated treaties and resolutions neumerous times, we're just giving them one last chance.

You don't like admitting you're wrong do you? Concession Accepted.

So you want to ignore months of his stated policy because one quote contradicts it? That doesn't sound very bright, but again, what ever helps your psychie...

Actually it's perfectly in line with what they've been saying since the start of this farce. Bush has already said that Iraq must prove it DOESN'T have WMD. I put it up on the board months ago.

[Falcon]

Call it whatever makes you feel better about yourself, at best its a clarification.

Iraq has already violated treaties and resolutions neumerous times, we're just giving them one last chance.

You don't like admitting you're wrong do you? Concession Accepted.

You like ignoring any fact that doesn't fit into your fantasy world don't you? Concession Accepted.

(do you see how UTTERLY GAY that is?)

So you want to ignore months of his stated policy because one quote contradicts it? That doesn't sound very bright, but again, what ever helps your psychie...

Actually it's perfectly in line with what they've been saying since the start of this farce. Bush has already said that Iraq must prove it DOESN'T have WMD. I put it up on the board months ago.

I thought we were talking about Rummy here...? You know Bush doesn't say anything right, the poor man does well, but a public speaker he isn't.

[Vympel]

You like ignoring any fact that doesn't fit into your fantasy world don't you? Concession Accepted.

(do you see how UTTERLY GAY that is?)

*Yawn*

You're such a moron. It's funny how you can blatantly contradict yourself then pretend you did no such thing.

I thought we were talking about Rummy here...? You know Bush doesn't say anything right, the poor man does well, but a public speaker he isn't.

Amazing. Now you're claiming that Rumsfeld has a different policy from the President of the United States. With no evidence. How surprising.

[Falcon]

You like ignoring any fact that doesn't fit into your fantasy world don't you? Concession Accepted.

(do you see how UTTERLY GAY that is?)

*Yawn*

You're such a moron. It's funny how you can blatantly contradict yourself then pretend you did no such thing.

I didn't contradict myself, your inability to comprehend the simple is stunning.

I thought we were talking about Rummy here...? You know Bush doesn't say anything right, the poor man does well, but a public speaker he isn't.

Amazing. Now you're claiming that Rumsfeld has a different policy from the President of the United States. With no evidence. How surprising.[/quote]

I didn't say that either. Come back when you learn to read.

[Vympel]

I didn't contradict myself, your inability to comprehend the simple is stunning.

Yes here's 'the simple':

You don't seem to understand that the burden of proof lies with IRAQ. Keeping that in mind you've taken his position slighly out of context, its not the absense of proof that they have WMD that makes them in breech of treaty, its the lack of proof that they don't have WMD that institutites a breech.

Translation: the burden of proof lies with Iraq, even though that means proving a negative, which can't be done.

No wait, you think it can:

Yes they can. If Iraq behaves in a mannor in line with the treaty and the UN resolutions then there won't be any cause to suspect they have WMD. However, when they have hidden scientists or told them not to talk, move labs around, etc... then they arn't fulfilling their end of the agreement.

Translation: Iraq can prove a negative if they just behave nicely, and I think I'll throw in some arbitrary nonsense that has no basis like if they 'move labs around' as a goalpost for if they can prove a negative.

I didn't say that either. Come back when you learn to read.

Oh of course. You just acted as if Rumsfeld and Bush have different policy views

[Falcon]

My quotes

You don't seem to understand that the burden of proof lies with IRAQ. Keeping that in mind you've taken his position slighly out of context, its not the absense of proof that they have WMD that makes them in breech of treaty, its the lack of proof that they don't have WMD that institutites a breech.

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

Yes they can. If Iraq behaves in a mannor in line with the treaty and the UN resolutions then there won't be any cause to suspect they have WMD. However, when they have hidden scientists or told them not to talk, move labs around, etc... then they arn't fulfilling their end of the agreement.

2st quote - Follow up. Here is his quote, and if you'll notice it agrees with my interpertation of what he ment.

"The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation," Rumsfeld said. "We do know that Iraq has designed its programs in a way that they can proceed in an environment of inspections and that they are skilled at denial and deception."

If you will notice that is exactly what I mentioned. Scientists unwilling to leave the country to talk, Iraqi movement of labs, etc...

This doesn't negate my origional quote in any way, it was regarding to the lack of proof not being an exemption to guilt. I mearly clarified it in the follow up quote because you threw a little fit. Hiding materials and shutting up scientists are great ways to keep any proof of guilt from being found, but it doesn't prove innocence. It especially doesn't prove cooperation, which was the point.

[Falcon]

Bush and Rumsfeld don't have different positions (as far as adminstration policy is concerned), but Bush isn't the best spokesperson. I don't think that you can take a quote from Bush saying simply that Iraq must prove it doesn't have WMD can be construed to an illogical extream. The actions (and indeed the words of people like Rummy) have shown that this isn't in fact the administrations literal policy, its just Bush not being percise enough for nitpicking busybodies like yourself.

[Vympel]

"The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation," Rumsfeld said. "We do know that Iraq has designed its programs in a way that they can proceed in an environment of inspections and that they are skilled at denial and deception."

Don't you see the tautology right in front of you? The accusation that Iraq has WMDs is completely unfalsifiable, by this logic:

Hypothesis: Iraq has WMD
Possible outcome: Found. Hypothesis proven
Possible outcome: Not found. Clearly, Saddam is hiding them, this is evidence of Saddam's non-cooperation. Hypothesis proven.

Hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

In either case: WAR.

Rumsfeld didn't say anything of what you mentioned. It's in black and white right there: since we "know" the Iraqis are skilled in denial and deception, then clearly that we're not finding anything is evidence of it's own of Iraqi non-cooperation

This doesn't negate my origional quote in any way, it was regarding to the lack of proof not being an exemption to guilt. I mearly clarified it in the follow up quote because you threw a little fit. Hiding materials and shutting up scientists are great ways to keep any proof of guilt from being found, but it doesn't prove innocence. It especially doesn't prove cooperation, which was the point.

Bush and Rumsfeld don't have different positions (as far as adminstration policy is concerned), but Bush isn't the best spokesperson. I don't think that you can take a quote from Bush saying simply that Iraq must prove it doesn't have WMD can be construed to an illogical extream. The actions (and indeed the words of people like Rummy) have shown that this isn't in fact the administrations literal policy, its just Bush not being percise enough for nitpicking busybodies like yourself.

I defy you to enunciate anywhere else where the administration has said anything but this. Since this entire thing started, that's all they've been saying. Your attempt to manufacture a different meaning out of what Rumsfeld said notwithstanding. It is you who can't understand the context.

[BenRG]

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).

However, we must not forget that he was the West's stooge for a long time. A lot of those WMDs he had at the time of Gulf War 1 were developed using technology exported by the US and other western nations. Donald Rumsfeld has admitted this. Back then, he was the 'devil we know' compared to the spectre of Islamic fundamentalist theocracy in Iran. By the early 1990s, however, he bacame enough of a threat to Israel (the US's regional ally, no matter how little you like their internal politics), that he had to be stopped. The US tipped Iraq the wink over Kuwait and then, when he took the trapped move, blew him out of the water. I'm not sure what followed. I suspect that the west hoped that he would get the message and go back to being a good little stool pidgeon. No such luck.

I strongly suspect that the Iraqi regime does still have tactical chemical agents (like sarin and the like). Those rocket warheads look too recent to be 'lost' inventory. However, Saddam isn't an idiot. He knows that if he uses them ever, no matter how (direct deployment or using terrorist go-betweens), the west would reduce Iraq to a radioactive glass parking lot.

The real issue here is oil. Saudi Arabia is... well the most generous term that I can use is 'unstable'. Old King Fahad is dying, and there is no clear heir to the throne. The country is also a breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalism (al-Quaeda is a Saudi group, after all). When the old man finally kicks the bucket, there will almost certainly be a civil war that will end with the imposition of a fundamentalist government that would make Iran under Khomeni look like a liberal democracy by comparison. I strongly suspect that these individuals won't be very interested in selling oil to the 'great Satan'.

So what then? America is a net importer of oil, and the fact is that modern military equipment can't use alternative sources like vegetable oils and the like. However, Iraq has larger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia and Kuwait put together. Putting a puppet government (or at least a pro-US government) in place would do two things:

1. Ensure the continual supply of oil
2. Maybe fix the looming domestic economic disaster by dropping billions in oil revenue into the US economy

There are even technical details that mean that oil wells in Iraq could suck the bottom out of the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields, which means even more control over this regrettably vital strategic resource.

Okay, it is hardly morally pleasent, but it is realpolitic. Either America conquers Iraq or it dies, one way or the other. That's just life, I guess.

[irishmick79]

I think a point that people are missing here is that the UN inspectors, before finding the warheads, had found that Iraq had illegally imported sensitive missile components as late as 2001, 2002. While it does not prove that Iraq has WMD's it certainly casts a shadow of doubt on their claims that they have not made efforts to pursue them. Given Hussein's past interest in accquiring WMD's and the latest discoveries, it seems pretty reasonable to guess that at least some of his weapons programs are still in place and still operating on some level. Either way, that is in direct violation of the security council resolutions that brought about an end to the Gulf War.

[Vympel]

I think a point that people are missing here is that the UN inspectors, before finding the warheads, had found that Iraq had illegally imported sensitive missile components as late as 2001, 2002. While it does not prove that Iraq has WMD's it certainly casts a shadow of doubt on their claims that they have not made efforts to pursue them. Given Hussein's past interest in accquiring WMD's and the latest discoveries, it seems pretty reasonable to guess that at least some of his weapons programs are still in place and still operating on some level. Either way, that is in direct violation of the security council resolutions that brought about an end to the Gulf War.

What illegally imported missile components? If you refer to the aluminum tubing, that was debunked.

[Durandal]

All right, personally, I can see why the "Let's go to war with Iraq" camp would want Hussein to provide proof that he isn't running a weapons program. Hussein is not exactly a trustworthy individual, and his non-compliance in the past only makes things worse.

This does not, however, eliminate the logical fallacy in the situation. It's literally impossible for Hussein to satisfy the "prove you're not doing it" challenge because it gives no limits. That's at the heart of why proving a negative is fallacious. What if Hussein begins complying 100% with the weapons inspectors, and they find nothing? Shrub and Rummy could use this idiotic proof of a negative scheme to keep these searches going forever. At what point do Bush and Rummy become satisfied that Iraq is doing nothing illegal?