Arguing with antiwar

[Vympel]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/is ... yindex.htm

Here's a bunch of links to articles on no-fly zones since they were established in 1991. Especially interesting is the halting of flights for Turkish Special Missions against the Kurds.

[Hamel]

I don't trust the US, period. They lied about a potential Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia (Russian satellite imagery showed that there was no massing of troops), babies taken out of incubators and murdered, and the gassing of the Kurds (they were gassed by chemicals that only Iran possessed at the time).

Addressing the first post on this thread :

1) Appeal to emotion(What would YOU feel like if YOU were there?)

1) Advocates of this war are basing their assertions on fearmongering, scare tactics, nationalism, and other appeals to emotions. "Do you want your children to die in another 9/11?" "IFWEDON'TDOSOMETHINGRIGHTNOWHE'SGONNAKILLUSALL!!!!111111ONEONEONE"

Now, on to Powell's speech to the UN. For clarity and just plain kickassness, I'll snip some items from Will Pitt's post at DU.

"The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources. And some are those of other countries. Some of the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to. I cannot tell you everything that we know."

You describe a variety of sources. Who and what are they? Some of your data is indeed taken from satellite and radio reconnaissance, which we will deal with shortly. Who are the people who have risked your lives, as you say? What are their loyalties? Can they be trusted? We have endured a spate of terror warnings since 9/11 that wound up being based on wildly inaccurate reports from our sources. How solid is this data, and why are you unable to give us more clarity on its origin?

You make similar declarative statements regarding Iraq throughout your presentation, but always are unwilling to divulge the sources for your data. See below:

"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources."

Who are these human sources?

"While we were here in this council chamber debating Resolution 1441 last fall, we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq."

How do we know? What sources? Where are the satellite photos of the rocket launchers and biological warfare warheads?

"Let me just tell you what a number of human sources have told us."

Again, this is a lead-in to yet another dire assertion. Who are these human sources? Can they be trusted?

"Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries. What makes this picture significant is that we have a human source who has corroborated that movement of chemical weapons occurred at this site at that time. So it's not just the photo, and it's not an individual seeing the photo. It's the photo and then the knowledge of an individual being brought together to make the case."

You are describing what appears to be a building with some trucks around it. It is these unnamed sources which provide the dangerous context you imply. Who and what are these sources?

"What we know comes largely from intercepted communications and human sources who are in a position to know the facts."

Human sources in a position to know the facts – Who?

You see, sir, what I am driving at. We may well be headed to an incredibly dangerous military confrontation with Iraq – dangerous for Iraqi civilians, and for civilians here in America, who will doubtlessly be targeted by retaliatory terrorism from agents who would avenge the deaths of Muslim Iraqi non-combatants. Will you and the administration you serve lead us to this place on the word of "unnamed sources" from unspecified places whose allegiances are unknown? This is the essence of the factual report we were promised?

Moving on.

"We know that Saddam Hussein has what is called quote, 'a higher committee for monitoring the inspections teams,' unquote. Think about that."

This was presented as a menacing fact, correct? Considering the fact that the last round of weapons inspections, UNSCOM, became infiltrated by American intelligence services for the purpose of collecting targeting data for military strikes, does it not strike you as common-sense that Iraq would establish a monitoring group to make sure this does not happen again? That infiltration led to a breakdown of UNSCOM and a military attack on Iraq in 1998. Does it not strike you as prudent for a sovereign nation to make sure the UN mandate is not once again being perverted?

"You saw the result. Dr. Blix pronounced the 12,200-page declaration rich in volume, but poor in information and practically devoid of new evidence."

Mr. Blix has stated on several occasions that the United States is misrepresenting his conclusions regarding this report. Why would you quote him without also representing his widely-reported side of the issue?
Hameru's note: we're talking about the same report that the US ripped 8000 odd pages out of. Suspicious, no?

"At this biological weapons related facility, on November 25, just two days before inspections resumed, this truck caravan appeared, something we almost never see at this facility, and we monitor it carefully and regularly."

How are you able to state that the picture you show – a building surrounded by trucks – is a biological weapons-related facility? You assert that we never see trucks at this building. On what facts is this assertion based?

"Iraq also has refused to permit any U-2 reconnaissance flights that would give the inspectors a better sense of what's being moved before, during and after inspectors. This refusal to allow this kind of reconnaissance is in direct, specific violation of operative paragraph seven of our Resolution 1441."

U2 spy planes fly at fantastic heights. How is it that Iraq can forbid the powerful United States from doing whatever it pleases above the skies of Iraq? What is stopping us from doing as many U2 flyovers as we wish? If it is allowed by Resolution 1441, we should just go and do it, correct? Are you concerned about a possible shoot-down? Wouldn't even an attempted shoot-down be the grounds for an attack you have sought?

"On orders from Saddam Hussein, Iraqi officials issued a false death certificate for one scientist, and he was sent into hiding."

What data do you base this assertion on? You do not explain it. Is it another unnamed human source?

"One of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents. Let me take you inside that intelligence file and share with you what we know from eye witness accounts. We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails. The trucks and train cars are easily moved and are designed to evade detection by inspectors. In a matter of months, they can produce a quantity of biological poison equal to the entire amount that Iraq claimed to have produced in the years prior to the Gulf War."

This is the part of the presentation that is most confusing. You used a variety of satellite images to establish your points, yet on this subject we are given pieces of computer-generated artwork. Have we no pictures of these items? Hans Blix has stated that these mobile factories do not actually exist. Is that why there are no pictures? I am also curious about the specifics of production within these trucks, because you offered no data as to how exactly this process is done. Since you went out of your way to explain that a pinch of these deadly materials can kill a roomful of people, I'd be curious to know what kind of safety measures can be maintained on a moving truck. What if they hit a pothole, or take a sharp turn? What if they go down a hill, or get into a fender-bender? What brave soul gets to drive these things?

"This defector is currently hiding in another country with the certain knowledge that Saddam Hussein will kill him if he finds him. His eye-witness account of these mobile production facilities has been corroborated by other sources."

The defector you speak of offers damning evidence. What is his name? If he is in peril of his life, why has he not been brought to America for his safety? Who are the other sources offering corroboration?

"Saddam Hussein has investigated dozens of biological agents causing diseases such as gas gangrene, plague, typhus (ph), tetanus, cholera, camelpox and hemorrhagic fever, and he also has the wherewithal to develop smallpox."

Are these the agents our government and corporations helped him develop back in the 1980s, when Hussein was a key ally? Do you have the shipping manifests?

"This photograph of the site taken two months later in July shows not only the previous site, which is the figure in the middle at the top with the bulldozer sign near it, it shows that this previous site, as well as all of the other sites around the site, have been fully bulldozed and graded. The topsoil has been removed. The Iraqis literally removed the crust of the earth from large portions of this site in order to conceal chemical weapons evidence that would be there from years of chemical weapons activity."

The first picture you showed was of some buildings surrounded by some trucks. The picture described above shows the absence of these buildings, and some bulldozed ground. You call this concealment. Could it not also be an Iraqi effort to destroy the facilities themselves? If chemical evidence could remain for years, is it not possible that Iraq could be accused on proof that is a decade old? Would they not destroy such false evidence so as to avoid a false accusation?

"Let's review a few selected items of this conversation. Two officers talking to each other on the radio want to make sure that nothing is misunderstood: 'Remove the expression "nerve agents" wherever it comes up in the wireless instructions.'"

This was, indeed, one of the more disturbing aspects of your presentation. This was one of three intercepted transmissions you used. You offered for the other two a date stamp, a temporal context for when it was captured. On this one, you did not. Could this have been a recording taken between 1991 and 1996, a time period we know Iraq was actively hiding material from inspectors. Why did you not offer a date for when this was recorded? Furthermore, can you certify that these recordings have not been faked? Such forgery is all too easy these days.

"Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed."

Strange. Virtually the entire planet, including the weapons inspectors in Iraq, laughed the Bush administration out of the room when this 'evidence' was offered some weeks ago. These tubes have been proven to have nothing to do with weapons production, and the IAEA has further stated that there is no evidence of any nuclear programs in Iraq. Why would you trot out previously discredited evidence?

"We also have intelligence from multiple sources that Iraq is attempting to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines; both items can be used in a gas centrifuge program to enrich uranium."

What sources? Do you have the shipping manifests for this procurement? Do you have the sales receipts from the companies they bought this material from?

Let us move on to your assertion of terrorist connections to Iraq.

"Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialties and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. You see a picture of this camp. The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq."

Where do you come by the data on this man? The picture you show is of some kind of facility, but how can we tell it is in Iraq? How do we know what they are producing there? If the camp is indeed in territory not controlled by Iraq, how can it be connected to Saddam Hussein? We have actively recruited the Kurds as allies in the fight against Hussein. Now, you seem to offer proof that we are trying to ally ourselves with a group that is harboring Zarqawi within their controlled territory. Why would we do this if he is connected to al Qaeda?

"Saddam Hussein's use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988 was one of the 20th century's most horrible atrocities; 5,000 men, women and children died."

In August of 2002, the New York Times reported that senior Reagan administration officials were fully aware of the use of chemical weapons by Iraq, but continued to support him. Another recent report was penned in the Times by Stephen C. Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Mr. Pelletiere cites a classified report circulated within the intelligence community that explains how Iranian gas, and not Iraqi gas, killed these Kurds during a battle. Given these two facts, how can you feel comfortable citing this matter as a means to bolster your case?

Now that we have finished with the transcript, Mr. Powell, I have only a couple more questions for you.

The CIA has publicly stated that there is no tie between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Why do you dispute these reports?

Let us, for a moment, accept your report on face value. Section 10 of UN Resolution 1441 requires any nation with material data regarding Iraqi weapons to hand that data over to the inspectors. You have given none of your data to Blix and UNMOVIC. Does this not mean that America is in violation of Resolution 1441?

[Master of Ossus]

I don't trust the US, period. They lied about a potential Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia (Russian satellite imagery showed that there was no massing of troops), babies taken out of incubators and murdered, and the gassing of the Kurds (they were gassed by chemicals that only Iran possessed at the time).

1. The Soviet satellite images were either incorrect or incomplete. The Iraqis admitted after the war that they WERE planning to invade Saudi Arabia, if the US had not intervened (I assume that they meant, "if the US AND the rest of the world had not intervened"). Saddam's military advisors were quite adamant on that point.
2. The gassing of the Kurds DID take place, but it was an Iranian gas attack. Both sides during that war used extensive chemical weapons against each other. I have never heard anything about babies being taken out of incubators and murdered, however the Iraqis did illegally use medical supplies to further their WoMD programs.

Addressing the first post on this thread :

1) Appeal to emotion(What would YOU feel like if YOU were there?)

1) Advocates of this war are basing their assertions on fearmongering, scare tactics, nationalism, and other appeals to emotions. "Do you want your children to die in another 9/11?" "IFWEDON'TDOSOMETHINGRIGHTNOWHE'SGONNAKILLUSALL!!!!111111ONEONEONE"

Hardly. Everyone knows that the Iraqis are not a serious threat to the United States, right now. The disagreement is over how much of a threat the Iraqi government poses to the peace of the region, the Iraqi people, and their neighbors.

Now, on to Powell's speech to the UN. For clarity and just plain kickassness, I'll snip some items from Will Pitt's post at DU.

"The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources. And some are those of other countries. Some of the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to. I cannot tell you everything that we know."

You describe a variety of sources. Who and what are they? Some of your data is indeed taken from satellite and radio reconnaissance, which we will deal with shortly. Who are the people who have risked your lives, as you say? What are their loyalties? Can they be trusted? We have endured a spate of terror warnings since 9/11 that wound up being based on wildly inaccurate reports from our sources. How solid is this data, and why are you unable to give us more clarity on its origin?

You are being an idiot. These people are Iraqi defectors and CIA intelligence operatives. If you are going to go after the sources, you must SHOW that they are incorrect. The burden of proof is on YOU to show that the evidence that they have presented is falsified. It is not enough merely to state that they have not been completely revealed.

You make similar declarative statements regarding Iraq throughout your presentation, but always are unwilling to divulge the sources for your data. See below:

"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources."

Who are these human sources?

They are CIA operatives and defecting Iraqis. If you honestly cannot see a reason why their names cannot be revealed, then you are a complete idiot.

"While we were here in this council chamber debating Resolution 1441 last fall, we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq."

How do we know? What sources? Where are the satellite photos of the rocket launchers and biological warfare warheads?

Irrelevent nitpick. You are demanding unreasonable amounts of proof (particularly since he just said that he was using human intelligence data). You are trying to create an impression of falibility when in fact there is none.

"Let me just tell you what a number of human sources have told us."

Again, this is a lead-in to yet another dire assertion. Who are these human sources? Can they be trusted?

Again, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that these sources are not to be trusted. Demonstrate an example of when these sources have been incorrect.

"Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries. What makes this picture significant is that we have a human source who has corroborated that movement of chemical weapons occurred at this site at that time. So it's not just the photo, and it's not an individual seeing the photo. It's the photo and then the knowledge of an individual being brought together to make the case."

You are describing what appears to be a building with some trucks around it. It is these unnamed sources which provide the dangerous context you imply. Who and what are these sources?

He JUST TOLD YOU, dumbass. They are intelligence operatives from various countries. Try to pay attention. Moreover, the pictures of the trucks AND the intelligence from the ground demonstrate conclusively that the vehicles were carrying biological and chemical agents.

"What we know comes largely from intercepted communications and human sources who are in a position to know the facts."

Human sources in a position to know the facts – Who?

Irrelevent. The intercepted communications more than prove what he's saying. Besides that, he CANNOT reveal the information on who these sources are. Are you completely stupid, or are you trying to be annoying. You've done nothing but claim that the US evidence may be unreliable, but you haven't even TRIED to propose an alternative solution that solves all the problems.

You see, sir, what I am driving at. We may well be headed to an incredibly dangerous military confrontation with Iraq – dangerous for Iraqi civilians, and for civilians here in America, who will doubtlessly be targeted by retaliatory terrorism from agents who would avenge the deaths of Muslim Iraqi non-combatants. Will you and the administration you serve lead us to this place on the word of "unnamed sources" from unspecified places whose allegiances are unknown? This is the essence of the factual report we were promised?

BLATANT appeal to motive fallacy that is made even worse by the fact that you don't even know what their allegiance are. Their allegiances have no bearing on the validity of the argument and evidence that they present. Review basic logic.

Moving on.

"We know that Saddam Hussein has what is called quote, 'a higher committee for monitoring the inspections teams,' unquote. Think about that."

This was presented as a menacing fact, correct? Considering the fact that the last round of weapons inspections, UNSCOM, became infiltrated by American intelligence services for the purpose of collecting targeting data for military strikes, does it not strike you as common-sense that Iraq would establish a monitoring group to make sure this does not happen again? That infiltration led to a breakdown of UNSCOM and a military attack on Iraq in 1998. Does it not strike you as prudent for a sovereign nation to make sure the UN mandate is not once again being perverted?

Yeah, I guess that it also explains why the Iraqis were monitoring the FIRST round of inspections, including following around the members of the inspection teams, bugging their hotel rooms, and other such activities. I guess this explains why Iraqi vehicles would roll out of Presidential Palaces just as (and sometimes after) UN teams were moving in in DIRECT violation of the UN mandates. Even if we accept your bizarre assertion that "common sense" is somehow more reliable than satellite imagery, it does NOT strike me as being "common sense" that the Iraqis would be concerned with American infiltrators if the sites that were being inspected were not constructing weapons.

"You saw the result. Dr. Blix pronounced the 12,200-page declaration rich in volume, but poor in information and practically devoid of new evidence."

Mr. Blix has stated on several occasions that the United States is misrepresenting his conclusions regarding this report. Why would you quote him without also representing his widely-reported side of the issue?

Because everyone can access the report and see for themselves what actually happened, moron. You've just asked the United States to get into a "he said she said" match that would serve no purpose.

Hameru's note: we're talking about the same report that the US ripped 8000 odd pages out of. Suspicious, no?

Are you capable of making a point without resorting to a logical fallacy? This is an OBVIOUS appeal to ignorance fallacy.

"At this biological weapons related facility, on November 25, just two days before inspections resumed, this truck caravan appeared, something we almost never see at this facility, and we monitor it carefully and regularly."

How are you able to state that the picture you show – a building surrounded by trucks – is a biological weapons-related facility? You assert that we never see trucks at this building. On what facts is this assertion based?

Appeal to ignorance fallacy.

"Iraq also has refused to permit any U-2 reconnaissance flights that would give the inspectors a better sense of what's being moved before, during and after inspectors. This refusal to allow this kind of reconnaissance is in direct, specific violation of operative paragraph seven of our Resolution 1441."

U2 spy planes fly at fantastic heights. How is it that Iraq can forbid the powerful United States from doing whatever it pleases above the skies of Iraq? What is stopping us from doing as many U2 flyovers as we wish? If it is allowed by Resolution 1441, we should just go and do it, correct? Are you concerned about a possible shoot-down? Wouldn't even an attempted shoot-down be the grounds for an attack you have sought?

The Iraqis are armed with former Soviet missiles and American radar systems, dumbass. They had the best air-defense system in the entire world as of the Persian Gulf War, and while a substantial portion of those resources were destroyed during the conflict, some of them remain. They ARE capable of shooting down U2's.

"On orders from Saddam Hussein, Iraqi officials issued a false death certificate for one scientist, and he was sent into hiding."

What data do you base this assertion on? You do not explain it. Is it another unnamed human source?

Who cares. It's yet another appeal to ignorance fallacy (ie. "Spell it out for me").

"One of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents. Let me take you inside that intelligence file and share with you what we know from eye witness accounts. We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails. The trucks and train cars are easily moved and are designed to evade detection by inspectors. In a matter of months, they can produce a quantity of biological poison equal to the entire amount that Iraq claimed to have produced in the years prior to the Gulf War."

This is the part of the presentation that is most confusing. You used a variety of satellite images to establish your points, yet on this subject we are given pieces of computer-generated artwork. Have we no pictures of these items? Hans Blix has stated that these mobile factories do not actually exist. Is that why there are no pictures? I am also curious about the specifics of production within these trucks, because you offered no data as to how exactly this process is done. Since you went out of your way to explain that a pinch of these deadly materials can kill a roomful of people, I'd be curious to know what kind of safety measures can be maintained on a moving truck. What if they hit a pothole, or take a sharp turn? What if they go down a hill, or get into a fender-bender? What brave soul gets to drive these things?

What's this? That's right! It's yet ANOTHER appeal to ignorance fallacy. This one is made even worse by the statement that this is based on "satellite imagery," and then a complaint that the INSIDE of the vehicles are computer-generated projections.

Your statement that you'd be curious to know what kind of safety measures can be maintained on a moving truck, and your question as to how they build a weapon in a truck, is LAUGHABLY stupid. Not only would the United States not want to reveal the process of constructing biological or chemical weapons (for obvious reasons). You also do nothing but imply that because Powell did not talk about the specifics of such things (even though this was a SPOKEN statement, and therefore limited in time), his information is incorrect, AND you assume that the Iraqis were building weapons WHILE moving AND that they were attempting to maintain safety equivalent to a real laboratory. Yet ANOTHER appeal to ignorance.

"This defector is currently hiding in another country with the certain knowledge that Saddam Hussein will kill him if he finds him. His eye-witness account of these mobile production facilities has been corroborated by other sources."

The defector you speak of offers damning evidence. What is his name? If he is in peril of his life, why has he not been brought to America for his safety? Who are the other sources offering corroboration?

Again, you are a COMPLETE idiot if you expect the United States to give out this information in a speech to the entire UN (and broadcast across the world). Don't you realize that this person's life is in danger? Don't you realize that there is a danger IN AMERICA? You obviously haven't been watching the news, lately.

"Saddam Hussein has investigated dozens of biological agents causing diseases such as gas gangrene, plague, typhus (ph), tetanus, cholera, camelpox and hemorrhagic fever, and he also has the wherewithal to develop smallpox."

Are these the agents our government and corporations helped him develop back in the 1980s, when Hussein was a key ally? Do you have the shipping manifests?

You imply that the development of biological weapons is okay if the United States is involved in developing them. There is a reason why the US does not construct biological or chemical weapons, dumbass.

"This photograph of the site taken two months later in July shows not only the previous site, which is the figure in the middle at the top with the bulldozer sign near it, it shows that this previous site, as well as all of the other sites around the site, have been fully bulldozed and graded. The topsoil has been removed. The Iraqis literally removed the crust of the earth from large portions of this site in order to conceal chemical weapons evidence that would be there from years of chemical weapons activity."

The first picture you showed was of some buildings surrounded by some trucks. The picture described above shows the absence of these buildings, and some bulldozed ground. You call this concealment. Could it not also be an Iraqi effort to destroy the facilities themselves? If chemical evidence could remain for years, is it not possible that Iraq could be accused on proof that is a decade old? Would they not destroy such false evidence so as to avoid a false accusation?

In other words, you are presenting a POSSIBLE alternative explanation based on no proof. There would be no reason to bulldoze those sites, unless it was to conceal the chemical activity. They should have just declared that site when they went to the UN to "come clean," rather than trying to conceal it like this. There was another way out of it, and no reason to take the actions that they took unless it was designed to hide something.

"Let's review a few selected items of this conversation. Two officers talking to each other on the radio want to make sure that nothing is misunderstood: 'Remove the expression "nerve agents" wherever it comes up in the wireless instructions.'"

This was, indeed, one of the more disturbing aspects of your presentation. This was one of three intercepted transmissions you used. You offered for the other two a date stamp, a temporal context for when it was captured. On this one, you did not. Could this have been a recording taken between 1991 and 1996, a time period we know Iraq was actively hiding material from inspectors. Why did you not offer a date for when this was recorded? Furthermore, can you certify that these recordings have not been faked? Such forgery is all too easy these days.

Burden of Proof fallacy. To properly debunk this, YOU must present evidence that the recording was faked, rather than claiming that it COULD have been faked. That is not enough.

"Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed."

Strange. Virtually the entire planet, including the weapons inspectors in Iraq, laughed the Bush administration out of the room when this 'evidence' was offered some weeks ago. These tubes have been proven to have nothing to do with weapons production, and the IAEA has further stated that there is no evidence of any nuclear programs in Iraq. Why would you trot out previously discredited evidence?

Because it's still valid. The IAEA was obviously wrong. The Iraqis HAVE been hiding biological and chemical weapons from the UN for years from 1991-1996, but the IAEA THEN claimed that there was no evidence that the Iraqis were constructing weapons. Read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books

"We also have intelligence from multiple sources that Iraq is attempting to acquire magnets and high-speed balancing machines; both items can be used in a gas centrifuge program to enrich uranium."

What sources? Do you have the shipping manifests for this procurement? Do you have the sales receipts from the companies they bought this material from?

Let us move on to your assertion of terrorist connections to Iraq.

"Spell it out for me." Nothing can be a weapon unless you show where all of its components were made, when, and by whom. Then show where it was shipped and when, then where it went, and show where it's been for every second since then. This is still a speech that is limited in length.

"Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialties and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. You see a picture of this camp. The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq."

Where do you come by the data on this man? The picture you show is of some kind of facility, but how can we tell it is in Iraq? How do we know what they are producing there? If the camp is indeed in territory not controlled by Iraq, how can it be connected to Saddam Hussein? We have actively recruited the Kurds as allies in the fight against Hussein. Now, you seem to offer proof that we are trying to ally ourselves with a group that is harboring Zarqawi within their controlled territory. Why would we do this if he is connected to al Qaeda?

You dumbass. Even if the US was trying to fake every single piece of evidence it had, it could NOT take a picture of something outside of Iraq and then claim it was in Iraq. Other nations have spy satellites, and demonstrably untrue statements are NOT good propoganda tools. You are essentially asking Powell to reveal the US sources, and you continuously ask for proof of every possible aspect of everything, even when it is untenable (ie. How to "prove" that something is in a specific country in a virtually featureless landscape).

"Saddam Hussein's use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988 was one of the 20th century's most horrible atrocities; 5,000 men, women and children died."

In August of 2002, the New York Times reported that senior Reagan administration officials were fully aware of the use of chemical weapons by Iraq, but continued to support him. Another recent report was penned in the Times by Stephen C. Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Mr. Pelletiere cites a classified report circulated within the intelligence community that explains how Iranian gas, and not Iraqi gas, killed these Kurds during a battle. Given these two facts, how can you feel comfortable citing this matter as a means to bolster your case?

The world has changed since then. The US also knew about the Holocaust in 1940, but chose not to get involved. Are you saying that the Holocaust was justified, because hte US knew about it but chose not to do anything?

Now that we have finished with the transcript, Mr. Powell, I have only a couple more questions for you.

The CIA has publicly stated that there is no tie between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Why do you dispute these reports?

Let us, for a moment, accept your report on face value. Section 10 of UN Resolution 1441 requires any nation with material data regarding Iraqi weapons to hand that data over to the inspectors. You have given none of your data to Blix and UNMOVIC. Does this not mean that America is in violation of Resolution 1441?

In case you haven't realized it, the US HAS turned over its data.

Moreover, you are flat out lying. The resolution has this to say in operative clause 10. "[The United Nations] Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;"

It is not a "violation" of a resolution to ignore a REQUEST from the United Nations.

Also, the CIA's statement held that there was no connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda, but ALWAYS held that there was a demonstrable connection between IRAQ and Al Qaeda. Finally, there ARE other terrorist organizations, including the one mentioned above, that are not TECHNICALLY Al Qaeda, but are run by some of the same people.

[jegs2]

I have a friend who's family is ardently anti-war. His arguments hinge upon two things:

1) Appeal to emotion(What would YOU feel like if YOU were there?)

2) No blood for oil!

I pointed out Iraq's numerous violations, Saddam's maliciousness, the problems with the 'blood for oil' theory, the fact that a state of war still exists, the warheads found in Iraq, the uncooperativeness of Iraq with the inspectors, etc. etc. but he keeps going back to the same damn appeal to emotion. How do I defeat it?

There are many good reasons to avoid war, but neither that your friend mentions are good reasons.

[HemlockGrey]

Interesting point.

My father, a history professor, pointed out that the US successfully contained both Soviet Russia and Red China, and is currently containing North Korea. He then asked what the hell the problem was with just containing Iraq with the threat of MAD.

[Hamel]

Nice. His whole post had nothing but

1) Namecalling
2) Digging out fallacies that weren't present (such as the ignorance and motive fallacies)

[Master of Ossus]

Nice. His whole post had nothing but

1) Namecalling
2) Digging out fallacies that weren't present (such as the ignorance and motive fallacies)

Let me get this straight. It's not an appeal to ignorance to claim that "I'd be curious to know what kind of safety measures can be maintained on a moving truck. What if they hit a pothole, or take a sharp turn? What if they go down a hill, or get into a fender-bender? What brave soul gets to drive these things?" Is it not an appeal to ignorance fallacy to claim that "we're talking about the same report that the US ripped 8000 odd pages out of. Suspicious, no?"

[Darth Wong]

Hmmm, some of the reasons for attacking Iraq sound pretty good (although some of them seem rather trumped-up too). On the other hand, it's been pointed out repeatedly that some or all of these reasons have applied (and still apply) to many, many other (non oil-rich) nations without invasion from the US. Has anyone addressed that argument in all of these voluminous treatises on the details?

[Wicked Pilot]

Has anyone addressed that argument in all of these voluminous treatises on the details?

There are so many asshole nations, but only so much political will to go around.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Hmmm, some of the reasons for attacking Iraq sound pretty good (although some of them seem rather trumped-up too). On the other hand, it's been pointed out repeatedly that some or all of these reasons have applied (and still apply) to many, many other (non oil-rich) nations without invasion from the US. Has anyone addressed that argument in all of these voluminous treatises on the details?

I think Sadam is easiest for the US to villify and gain public support. We fought a previous war with him, he does pose a threat to Isreal which is a traditional ally of ours.

Im curious, what do people think will happen if we keep him contained. We accept that for the rest of his life we keep enough troops in the region to keep him in in check, what will he do? Do people believe that Sadam only goal is to give WMD's to someone to attack the US?

[The_Nice_Guy]

Frankly speaking, the rest of the world wants/needs that oil. While it can be perfectly easy to just throw away all those UN resolutions and start trading with Saddam again, the US doesn't want future oil supplies mortgaged to Saddam's good will, and it doesn't want Saddam trying to conquer the Middle East ala Saladin and controlling the entire region's oil production.

So yeah, Iraq matters because it has oil and somebody just crazy enough to get ideas from that. North Korea doesn't. Somalia doesn't. A lot of shitholes don't. Because they don't have oil.

Still, the US did intervene in Bosnia, even when they had about jack to repay the US. That, at least, should count for something.

The Crazed Guy

[Master of Ossus]

Hmmm, some of the reasons for attacking Iraq sound pretty good (although some of them seem rather trumped-up too). On the other hand, it's been pointed out repeatedly that some or all of these reasons have applied (and still apply) to many, many other (non oil-rich) nations without invasion from the US. Has anyone addressed that argument in all of these voluminous treatises on the details?

While some of the different reasons clearly apply to other nations, others are unique to Iraq, and no other nation comes close to having all of the Iraqi characteristics. As you said, Mike, many of the reasons are weak in and of themselves, but they DO add up.

For instance, Libya, Syria, Iran, and North Korea are all absolutely horribly governed nations, but none of them have invaded a neighboring country for its oil in the past. None of them have refused UN weapons inspectors, or violated treaties under the penalty of war more than 75 times in the last decade. North Korea has come clean about its weapons program (at least, so everyone says on all sides). Libya has taken steps to rejoin the international community. Iran has been very quiet. Syria hasn't done anything to warrant significant attention. None of the other nations have been as consistently antagonistic or expansionistic as Iraq has been, and the combination of factors add up to just one place.

[Knife]

1) Advocates of this war are basing their assertions on fearmongering, scare tactics, nationalism, and other appeals to emotions. "Do you want your children to die in another 9/11?" "IFWEDON'TDOSOMETHINGRIGHTNOWHE'SGONNAKILLUSALL!!!!111111ONEONEONE"

Actualy, on these pages and in other places I see the anti war side making statments basing thier assertions of fearmongering (detension of illegal combatents will lead to the US being a facist state), scare tactics (draft), nationalism (or anti nationalism), and other appeals to emotion.

You long winded post amounted to "we can't believe anything Powell said because he didn't release the sources and methods of the information he gave to the international comunity. How high is that damned bar of credibility?

[Knife]

Hmmm, some of the reasons for attacking Iraq sound pretty good (although some of them seem rather trumped-up too). On the other hand, it's been pointed out repeatedly that some or all of these reasons have applied (and still apply) to many, many other (non oil-rich) nations without invasion from the US. Has anyone addressed that argument in all of these voluminous treatises on the details?

Sure, which one do you want to deal with? NK, IMHO, will resolve itself and I believe that the administration thinks this as well. Its regime is hanging on by a thread and the same can be said of Iran. Unfortunately, we need Pakistan right now so political expediency will win out over the fact that they are not the greatest bunch.

Basicly each situation needs to be looked at independently and in some cases military action is needed and in some diplomacy can prevail. Iraq has had more than enough time to take the diplomatic approach and so now military action is all that is left, that or forget it and let the fucker off and make the US and the international comunity's credibility go down the drain.

[HemlockGrey]

Containment, anyone?