Anti-french feeling and lies

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Axis Kast wrote: President Bush sited a cease-fire in his case for the legality of war in a March 2003 speech just prior to the war.
President Bush also said that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. He's not an authority.

I’m not fully convinced. There had to have been documents signed in the field between the actual combatants.
That's it, I've had it with your invincible wall of ignorance. The facts are fully available to anyone with the fucking brains to run a google search.

Even if you prove correct and Resolution 687 is the only form of cease-fire agreement, I was never convinced that the Security Council should have final say over American national defense. France, China, et al. certainly don’t share many of the same fears as Washington. Paris and Moscow are far more safe from an assault by Iraq – even if you don’t agree that one would occur under Hussein – than Washington or New York. An American or Israeli target was Saddam’s most attractive choice.
Then you should have refused to sign the cease-fire. As such, you are bound to it's terms, cannot claim it as justification for invasion, and the consequence is you should abandon your legal argument.
I could have said the same of Afghanistan.
Except that Afghanistan was *known* to be the haven of terrorists who had attacked the United States. Repeatedly.

Look at the determinations that Hussein made. That he’d win against a better-armed enemy by virtue of untrained mass warfare alone? That is was a good – or at the very least acceptable – idea to strand his troops in the desert on the Kuwaiti border during Desert Shield – even after the bombs began to fall? That his military was a capable enough machine to invade a country at least as militarily powerful as his own with an infrastructure he himself had helped to undermine? The man is illogical, Vympel. He is unpredictable. He is victim to illusions of grandeur. That’s a sign of basic insanity.
Repeating your claims without modification is not an argument.

You’re willing to bet that Iraqi intelligence was twiddling its thumbs in relation to the United States up to and during the war? That their collective thumb was up their collective ass just because we didn’t catch anybody on the homefront?
Appeal to ignorance (burden of proof) fallacy. It's not a question of what I'm willing to bet.

Proved to whom? There are different levels of proof. If you ask me, all the circumstantial evidence – as well as the physical evidence of clear circumvention – put forth thus far is proof enough of danger.
81mm artillery rockets for helicopters are proof of danger?

A reasonable time frame as in within twelve months or less. The potential for disaster to strike some unit of our troops in the Middle East stationed to threaten Iraq was supreme.
Complete nonsense. Do tell me what Iraq would gain by such an incredibly foolish act. Saddam was so eager to be out on his ass, after all.
Not to mention that unlike in the Soviet Union, there was a clear line of succession in Iraq among Hussein’s own family.
No appreciable difference between the two. You'd think anyone would advance the argument that if Brezhnev died the Soviet Union would collapse?

And to whom was Iraq the greater threat in the first place? France, Germany, China, Russia, or the United States? None of this “he’s toothless” crap, either. Answer the question. To whom did Iraq pose the greatest physical danger?
There was no nation Iraq was posing any physical danger to. I need not subscribe to your question begging.

And neither did the United Nations. They allowed Saddam’s circumvention to go largely unpunished.
I guess strangulating sanctions aren't 'punishment' enough.
He waffled incessantly over the al-Samouds until Washington made additional noise about an invasion.
Incessantly? Their destruction began in a matter of *weeks*.
Not to mention that those aluminum tubes were never destroyed despite being illegal in the first place.
Well, perhaps if you hadn't fucking invaded, we would've seen some movement on the issue :roll:
Remarkably stupid. Why permit Iraq to rearm on any level beyond the most base?
Because if it doesn't make the threat any more significant, it does not merit such a heavy-handed response. Not to mention that any attempts to deprive Iraq of weapons (like the drone) that are not prohibited would destroy the entire process.
Of course I’m “allowed” to exclude them – because we dictate the terms in the first place.
What kind of fucking bullshit argument is this? You just get more incoherent and fucking loopy the more this goes on. YOU argued that Iraq did not have a justification for having any such legal arms, and sort to artificially exclude a key threat to Iraq. Fucking wierdo.
Against who else could Iraq have put up a halfway legitimate argument against about its security?
Iran.
“Bullshit alert?” If I were an American soldier poised to invade Iraq – even as part of the United Nations plan to continue sanctions under threat of invasion -, I’d sure as shit hope that Iraq didn’t have that kind of capability on even a basic level.
Too bad. You'd sure as wish hope the entire Iraqi Army would spontaneously combust too, doesn't make it a legitimate reason for invasion, you loon.
Are you implying that either of those – a helicopter or an airplane – would more easily escape early detection and destruction than a small drone launched out of the back of a cargo hauler?
Of course they would. They are faster, can fly under radar cover as well as any drone, have more range, making them safer from counterattack, and can actually carry a meaningful payload.

To force Iraq to comply with inspections? Jesus fucking Christ!
No, you stupid fucking idiot. Who said it was necessary to have permanent forces for invasion? You've already conceded that point.

And you’re telling me there’s no potential for those drones to get in the air during a combat situation? Let’s remember that at times even American troops had to wait a few minutes for ground support.
From close air support aircraft. Allied air supremacy and CAPs were supreme.

This argument is irrelevant. Your drone claim is just as idiotic as citing the fact that the Iraqis have tanks as some sort of violation of the 'spirit' of the sanctions.

Actually, that’s a cogent argument.
Gather round people, for the great Axis Kast moron circus.
Because we were preparing for the eventuality of having to attack Iraq as part of the UNSC’s envisioned solution as well.
Ah, it's the school of "we should invade because of what they might do when we invade, luckily we were preparing to invade anyway, so that makes it a cogent argument" thought.

You gibbering mound of idiocy, do shut up.

Clinton tried and failed.
He did, did he? When?
In case you hadn’t noticed, his strategy featured the now-clichés “cruise-missile lob.” Sure helped in Afghanistan, yessiree.
Please direct me to the source that states the reason for the cruise missile strikes in 1998 were so that Iraq would disband it's military.
And who’s to say Bush 41 didn’t make mistakes? Or that Bush 43 picked up the ball a bit late?
Please direct me to any point where Bush 43 indicated that it was unacceptable for Iraq to have any weapons whatsoever.

And yet superfluous.
Superfluous? YOU brought it up.

But I thought it was such a basic thing! :roll: That it was absolutely no threat because its systems were absolutely worthless. And here you had me nearly convinced the thing was run by remote-control.
You think a fucking RC could reach a plane 8km away? Are you retarded? Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question.
Let’s see. Hospitals. Civilian housing. Schools.
And still entirely irrelevant. Iraq can also place men with guns in such facilities- clearly, this is a reason to invade also. :roll:
Again, it’s a tactical drone. It provides real-time information for small units.
Actually, 'real-time' isn't guaranteed at all. That would require datalinks.
Weak construction and power limit its range, but not its utility inside a certain area.
It's range and it's payload.
Are you implying that every unit will have air-defense assets attached at all times?
That *is* the idea of modern warfare. Quite frankly, I think this thing could be shot down by commander's MG on an M1, judging from it's engine.
So small-scale attacks are acceptable?
Irrelevant. You asked why it was a moronic tactic. And to turn around you incredibly inane reasoning- any Iraqi opposition to a US invasion is unacceptable. We must invade.
An entire small unit could become infected. Remember the fears that those twelve soldiers who surrendered to British troops before the war might have carried smallpox and that it could spread through blue-on-blue mingling later?
Yes, I remember the paranoia. This is reasoning for invasion- how?
NBC protection that won’t necessarily come on in anticipation of the drone attack.
And the same applies for much more effective, and harder to destroy, missiles. Give up the gimmick.
Bullshit. They’ve got more capability than Afghanistan in the first place – on all levels.
More stating your position as fact, eh?
The “proving the negative” argument is a means of evading having to ever justify your position and exposes a blind faith that has no place in politics.
Wrong. It's a logical fallacy known as the "appeal to ignorance", used by one side when he is uncapable of justifying his positive claim. It is exactly the same as the fallacy I just cited- i.e. no more valid You are fooling precisely noone- you cannot prove something by saying "prove that he's NOT!"

And for whom does that look worse? Me or you?
Oh delicious! You're a fucktard creationist too?! Why am I not surprised?!
Neither was the Taliban.
Except, they were known to be harboring terrorist organizations that had been attacking the US for years.
Your argument is bullshit, Vympel. The Taliban were told they’d be ejected from power and their country occupied if they didn’t turn over Saddam.
:lol: Getting confused?
They had at least as much assurance as Hussein – if not less, because Baghdad was reliant on UN intervention until the very end of inspections. Still, they held on to Osama. And this is again to say nothing of the potential for Iraqi intelligence forces to act as middle-men or for Hussein to plot the demolition of American military targets in the Middle East. Remember that al-Qaeda threatened the same as well.
You've descended into dogma. Why don't you stop repeating yourself and actually respond to a point for once?

It’s that (A) we can’t catch them [or that we feed some misinformation] and (B) it’s not worth it to got to war with Britain, Russia, China, or France. Are you suggesting that we should grant Iraq the same privileges?
No, I'm suggesting that if you think Iraq should be destroyed for your so far unproven assertions of sabotage in the United States, then the same must apply to other nations against whom there are equally unproved assertions.

And this is a cogent argument in defense of Iraq, how? Appeal to strategic overreach? Criticism of failure to self-endangerment? Jesus fucking Christ.
No, it's just a comment on your atrocious charachter.

Only a delusional idiot like you would foot the argument that I’m a coward for suggesting sound strategy.
You've also claimed that you would support the terrorizing of the civilians of another nation if you sincerely believed it benefited your nation, without any moral qualms. You are indeed a facist coward.
It’s the basis of your whole argument.
Do find where exactly in my argument the strawman that "Afghanistan was a conventional threat" was the basis of my entire argument, you buffoon.
That Iraq isn’t a conventional threat and so must not be an unconventional threat either.
That Iraq was not a conventional threat is fact. That you amusingly cite piss-ant legal programs like a drone to play up this conventional threat is incredibly funny.
What do you call them … ? Tremendous leaps of logic?
It would be, if you had at any point made a case.

You are asking for proof that Iraqi intelligence was still in existence until the war began? You are denying that the al-Samouds were prohibited but that Saddam had them because inspections ended early? He did have unconventional weapons and intelligence capabilities until the end. Period.
Do point out where Iraq's magical 'intelligence capabilities' were cited as a justification for war. Do point out in which UN resolution the existence of a security service in Iraq is cited as a contravention. Do point out where the WMD are. Al-Samouds are conventional weapons- and were destroyed.
Perhaps because when he attacked Israel, he was hoping to avoid Palestinian casualties?
:lol: Ah, so Saddam is gibbering mad, but not enough to kill Palestinians. The SCUD has a circular-error-probable of several hundred metres- with chemical weapons and fired in a predominantly Jewish area (non-West Bank/ Gaza Strip), the risk of Palestinian casualties is rather low.
He didn’t use WMD on Coalition forces in 1991 because his régime wasn’t in clear danger of falling apart. Or don’t you remember that he was still in power subsequent to the cease-fire.
Funny, I thought he was insane, illogical, and unpredicatable? Concession Accepted.
He didn’t use WMD in 2003 because it was previously destroyed, buried, disassembled, or never existed in the first place.

But this is all conjecture. Unlike you, I have no faith that history will repeat itself.
Oh, I'm well aware it's conjecture- but again, your baseless paranoia is not my problem.

The same assets were present and still American inspectors were fooled.
In what amounts, with what frequency, and with what level of dedication?!

But still true.
So, you don't have any evidence, but you attest to it's truth anyway.

I honestly believe that even had force been a possibility that Israel would never have fully divested itself of its full arsenal. I don’t believe anybody would.
Funny, above you speculated that Iraq destroyed it's WMD.

The rest of the world monitored compliance, idiot. Not to mention that Iraq was long able to break economic sanctions. Or how did the Indian centrifuges and Chinese air-defense systems get there … ? Those American troops weren’t always on top of things.
Chinese air-defense systems? Which one would those be? Not to mention that the issue of economic sanctions is not the same as that of compliance with weapons of mass destruction provisions.

Bullshit. Saddam was waffling until the end. In this case, without the threat of full invasion, who’s to say what he would have done? It took 100,000 men on his border and a huge array of threats to get him to destroy the al-Samouds.
Really? I can argue precisely the oppoisite and point to the presence of that invasion level force to his reluctance to destroy a means of his own defense, and indeed, I already have.
Good or bad, no Islamofascists.
Not the point. That it's a bad thing is the point.


… I’m not even going to say where you went wrong with that. But I will say I laughed for quite a while.
Laughing about a lack of evidence and the fact that US WMD hunters in every site they've inspected have found no such concealment techniques? You must be on crack.
They were taken for a fucking train ride even when they did go. Not to mention that it never says whether inspectors were on-site at all. Only that the site was “explained away.”
And this helps your argument, that you don't even know if these US inspectors ever were on site? Here's a news bulletin: you can't maintain the charade of a grain facility if the inspectors are IN the facilitiy.

I am still under the impression that the cease-fire and the resolution are two different things.
And you are absolutely incorrect.

All of them?
No, obviously not all.

Because TROOPS threatened to INVADE.
But WERE. THE. TROOPS. ACTUALLY. THERE. No. You previously cited that troop levels would have to stay at that level to ensure compliance, unfortunatley for you Iraq did comply right up to 1998 (when the US fucked up the sanctions).
His invasion was BASED ON A PLAN DRAFTED IN 1941. He expected complete victory AGAINST A BETTER-ARMED FOE.
An intelligence failure (lack of spares), and the superiority of Iranian armaments was not that marked.

Also, what's wrong with basing your plan on a pre-existing one? You think they followed it rote- extraordinarily hard to do considering the formations would be completely different. Has the geography of Iran changed?
He threw troops into a meat-grinder with the expectation that ELAN would save the day and grant his conscripts victory. The man compounded a poor warplane (which could have been made by a sane man) with delusions of absolute grandeur (which couldn’t).
Except of course that Iran's troops were the same abysmal quality if not worse- until, after the war begun, some officers/ pilots etc of the Shah were brought back in. Fortunes of war, nothing more.

He built and perpetuated that Ba’ath Party system of “yes-men,” you idiot. It was his decision to ignore it. Delusions of grandeur.
Ah, so his responsibility for the Ba'ath Party system somehow translates into direct knowledge of the shortcomings of his military. Fascinating.
What part of perpetuation of a system of “yes-men” and making some of the political appointees himself don’t you understand?
And what part of 'doesn't mean he's crazy and unpredictable and bound to attack us for no reason' don't you understand, you moron? How many dictators are you going to label crazy now in your loopy quest?

Based on wishful thinking on all sides. Again, look at the kind of decisions Hussein made to forward the invasion.
Ah, and thanks to your 20/20 hindsight, you can now safely declare them ALL crazy, instead of just badly informed.
The man is illogical andunpredictable. What kind of logical leader makes a plan for a quick war during which he expects not to face the enemy at full strength because of attrition?
You think that's a totally crazy plan? Perhaps you should justify this view? Knockout blows are common throughout the history of warfare.
During.
In other words, totally irrelevant.
The argument is whether Saddam is logical, predictable, practical, and absolutely sane (as in displaying no characteristics of mental failure). The answer is no.
Answer the question. Where America's military leaders crazy, insance, illogical, and unpredictable by virtue of the fact that they cooked up a stupid warplan that was doomed to fail?

So you move them, you fucking idiot. You tell them to retreat.
What part of if you MOVE them, they DIE, don't you get, you idiot? I have three words for you: Highway of Death.

Moving ground forces are EASIER to spot from the air. When negotiations were cut off, for Saddam to order a retreat immediately would've seen a very early occurence of the Highway of Death. It would've been suicide.

That’s not “abject failure.” Other teams are still there.
True, yet being steadily diverted to other tasks (like finding links to terror evidence, war crimes evidence) instead of what they were originally there for.

After 1998, that changed. Why did it take 100,000 men and threats of invasion for Saddam to comply with the UNSC over the al-Samouds?
False cause. I can easily argue that it was their presence and steadily increasing US invasion rhetoric and obvious military preparations (you don't put on a condom unless you want to fuck) that resulted in the delay- not to mention that the delay was quite minor, and was largely over the issue of whether they were in fact prohibited.

No, its claim to legitimacy would not be strong. It would be criticized just as viciously.
But the US shouldn't be criticized?

You asked for historical precedence.
And you gave me a pair of criminal facist aggressor states. Why am I not surprised.
My argument has no merit? Look at what you’re saying. You just admitted they would still make the claim without our having set a precedent. That means we didn’t set a precedent. Concession accepted

No, that’s what you’re doing. You’re telling me we created a new kind that’s somehow our legacy.
No, I'm saying that if your argument had any merit, which it does not, it *would* be a new kind of precedent- one not committed by a facist aggressor state, which was condemned by the world as a legitimate reason for the use of force back in 1945.

And your bullshit 'you tooisms' aside, you *are* making an artificial distinction. You demand the right to preemptively destroy any nation you wish, but deny that right to others 'just because'.
Anti-ship missiles, yes.
Difference between anti-ship missiles and tanks? Oh sorry, zero.
Violate a cease-fire and there’s no longer a cease-fire. Or hadn’t you heard?
Except that the cease-fire stipulates exactly what the consequnces of breach are. And it's not cessation of the cease-fire.

Get a fucking clue, you ingorant retard.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

President Bush also said that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. He's not an authority.
Link?
That's it, I've had it with your invincible wall of ignorance. The facts are fully available to anyone with the fucking brains to run a google search.
It isn’t my responsibility to prove that no actual cease-fire documents were ever signed by the actual combatants.

A preliminary cease-fire was in actuality signed on February 28, 1991. Iraq accepted that preliminary cease-fire on March 3, 1991. It was not until April 3, 1991 that the United Nations Security Council in fact put forth Resolution 687.
Then you should have refused to sign the cease-fire. As such, you are bound to it's terms, cannot claim it as justification for invasion, and the consequence is you should abandon your legal argument.
For clarification, pieces of paper are never actually binding.

As for this specific instance and the legal question at hand? (A) You’ve provided no conclusive proof that Resolution 687 was the only cease-fire document (Bush brought up that and another resolution in addition to the cease-fire).

Not to mention that Part C, Article 12 upholds the argument that the United Nations should have dealt with Iraq as having in fact broached the cease-fire:

“Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above […]”

El-Baradei acknowledged that it was possible for the aluminum rods to be fashioned into primitive centrifuges, even if both expensive and impractical.
Except that Afghanistan was *known* to be the haven of terrorists who had attacked the United States. Repeatedly.
After 1998. The problem lies in that you insist that Iraq as a nation-state is no threat to the United States of America. The same was true of Afghanistan in conventional terms. Your argument holds no water.
Repeating your claims without modification is not an argument.
My claims are valid in the first place. You continue to insist that Saddam Hussein is a rational, logical, predictable, and sane individual even after starting in the face evidence of blind confidence in victory? The man set for himself a series of traps and later blundered into them all – always with prior knowledge.
Appeal to ignorance (burden of proof) fallacy. It's not a question of what I'm willing to bet.
Certainly it is. You’ve displayed nothing but faith throughout this whole argument that Hussein is (A) not a threat, and that (B) his intelligence services were utterly inactive for some unexplained reason.
81mm artillery rockets for helicopters are proof of danger?
Proof of circumvention. And circumvention is danger. Now you’re entering into the realm of apologetics. “But it’s okay that Saddam defied UNSCR resolutions and rearms! We don’t need to stop it now! Let’s wait until it gets worse!”
Complete nonsense. Do tell me what Iraq would gain by such an incredibly foolish act. Saddam was so eager to be out on his ass, after all.
Al-Qaeda ring a bell? It wasn’t merely Saddam’s men that made keeping one hundred thousand troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar so dangerous or costly.

Not to mention that you went from, “Prove it’s a large expense!” to “We used planes until the situation utterly changed!” to “But why would Saddam hit us?” Taking lessons from Bush, are we?
No appreciable difference between the two. You'd think anyone would advance the argument that if Brezhnev died the Soviet Union would collapse?
The lines of succession in the Soviet Union were unclear. While they wouldn’t collapse, there was always the potential for the country to take a new swing – as it did with Gorby. You think Uday would have been any different than Saddam?
There was no nation Iraq was posing any physical danger to. I need not subscribe to your question begging.
On a conventional level, Vympel. Concession accepted.
I guess strangulating sanctions aren't 'punishment' enough.
Again, “It’s okay that we don’t stop Saddam from circumvention – as long as he keeps it on the down-low.” Apologetics. France and Britain footed the same kind of policy in 1936.
What kind of fucking bullshit argument is this? You just get more incoherent and fucking loopy the more this goes on. YOU argued that Iraq did not have a justification for having any such legal arms, and sort to artificially exclude a key threat to Iraq. Fucking wierdo.
It’s about Iraq having made a worthwhile argument from the point of view of the United States, Vympel.

Germany was allowed to slowly build a modest force despite the restrictions of the post-Second World War peace because of the Soviet threat. Iraq has no similar regional enemies [aside from the United States, which incidentally decides what Iraq can and cannot do] (A) for whom we might let them serve as a bulwark or (B) that would likely launch an invasion.
Iran.
Iran would never have attempted to invade Iraq. They’d have been pounded senseless by the United Nations – or even by the US/UK duo alone.
Too bad. You'd sure as wish hope the entire Iraqi Army would spontaneously combust too, doesn't make it a legitimate reason for invasion, you loon.
In case you hadn’t noticed, this is an argument as to why we’d want the drones prohibited/destroyed under a less strict interpretation of the sanctions.
Of course they would. They are faster, can fly under radar cover as well as any drone, have more range, making them safer from counterattack, and can actually carry a meaningful payload.
They are also larger, take off from previously sighted facilities, and a more immediately-identifiable threat. What part of, “The drones can take off within a few minutes’ time from just about anywhere in all of Iraq,” did you miss?
No, you stupid fucking idiot. Who said it was necessary to have permanent forces for invasion? You've already conceded that point.
No, I didn’t. I pointed out that while UN inspectors were already on the ground in 1998 that only planes were necessary. I pointed out that we fumbled the ball in ’98. We bull-shitted for a bit but ultimately did nothing. And in case you hadn’t noticed – and you hadn’t -, Saddam still had the cojones to waffle over the al-Samouds until he became again worried that invasion would actually move forward.

And again I point to your Bush-like logic. You’ve gone from trying to deny the cost to attempting to argue that the situation is similar to a time when inspectors were actually on the ground already to ignoring Saddam’s brazen rebuttals and stall tactics up until the invasion date.
From close air support aircraft. Allied air supremacy and CAPs were supreme.

This argument is irrelevant. Your drone claim is just as idiotic as citing the fact that the Iraqis have tanks as some sort of violation of the 'spirit' of the sanctions.
To be positive that the drones would be shot out of the sky 100% of the time without making a short “suicide hop” is an ignorant reliance on blind faith.

Again, it isn’t my fault you wish to apologize for Iraq’s past circumvention and feel the need to defend their right to maintain a superfluous arsenal of weaponry that could be the death of soldiers in the field later trying to force compliance or régime-change. Hell, your own damn troops would have been endangered if it came to that. But then again, I guess making sure the letter of the law and only the letter of the law is met is more important than that.
Ah, it's the school of "we should invade because of what they might do when we invade, luckily we were preparing to invade anyway, so that makes it a cogent argument" thought.

You gibbering mound of idiocy, do shut up.
Iraq was part of a number of countries against whom we wished to practice containment, preemption, or actual intervention. To suggest that we should stomach their blatant circumvention of weaponry prohibited by the UNSC and on top of that allow them to build up a superfluous arsenal of weapons is little more than apologetics. If invasion is a potential in the first place – and even France was calling for the U.S. to keep its troops on-site to give a meaty fist to Blix’ inspections -, then why let Iraq prepare to blunt it?
He did, did he? When?
We blustered for several months in 1998 about an invasion because the teams were obliged to pull out. And then Clinton backed off.
Please direct me to the source that states the reason for the cruise missile strikes in 1998 were so that Iraq would disband it's military.
I’m referring to the fact that Clinton’s overall strategy was one of non-engagement.
Please direct me to any point where Bush 43 indicated that it was unacceptable for Iraq to have any weapons whatsoever.
Not any weapons. Prohibited weapons.
You think a fucking RC could reach a plane 8km away? Are you retarded? Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question.
Controlling those vehicles from the ground would not have been a difficult feat.
And still entirely irrelevant. Iraq can also place men with guns in such facilities- clearly, this is a reason to invade also.
Nice try at changing the argument. The point is that he could have hid the controllers in such positions if they required complex, immobile equipment and passing cover.
Actually, 'real-time' isn't guaranteed at all. That would require datalinks.
As long as the drones mount surveillance equipment that Iraqis can use to track, observer, analyze, or follow American or other allied movements, we should make attempts to destroy or prohibit them.
It's range and it's payload.
It doesn’t need to carry very much to be a danger. It has a small range. So? That doesn’t mean it’s no threat at all.
That *is* the idea of modern warfare. Quite frankly, I think this thing could be shot down by commander's MG on an M1, judging from it's engine.
Again, why the fuck would we want something with botulism toxin or anthrax spores on it flying around anyway – intercepted or not?
Irrelevant. You asked why it was a moronic tactic. And to turn around you incredibly inane reasoning- any Iraqi opposition to a US invasion is unacceptable. We must invade.
The point, Vympel, is that you’re brushing under the rug a series of obvious flaws, breaches, and failures by Iraq that the UN overlooks but that deal primarily with the security of the U.S. and Israel. Yours is the tactic of the apologist. Anything is okay as long as it’s not outright.
Yes, I remember the paranoia. This is reasoning for invasion- how?
The man possesses tools of easy delivery. It might not be legal circumvention in your book. It alarms the hell out of me.
And the same applies for much more effective, and harder to destroy, missiles. Give up the gimmick.
Missiles that he can’t as easily deploy.
More stating your position as fact, eh?
You deny that Iraq has more resources at its disposal than Afghanistan?
Wrong. It's a logical fallacy known as the "appeal to ignorance", used by one side when he is uncapable of justifying his positive claim. It is exactly the same as the fallacy I just cited- i.e. no more valid You are fooling precisely noone- you cannot prove something by saying "prove that he's NOT!"
If you tell me Saddam has no arsenal, you’d better be able to deliver a fucking argument with at least some kind of proof that somebody looked into the issue. Or else it’s blind faith.
Oh delicious! You're a fucktard creationist too?! Why am I not surprised?!
No, you fucking idiot. The blind faith example was egg on your face.
Except, they were known to be harboring terrorist organizations that had been attacking the US for years.
And even when approached in no mean terms, they still refused. Such logical dictators.
You've descended into dogma. Why don't you stop repeating yourself and actually respond to a point for once?
Because, “Iraqi dictators are far more intelligent and logical than Afghani dictators” is not a fucking point.
No, I'm suggesting that if you think Iraq should be destroyed for your so far unproven assertions of sabotage in the United States, then the same must apply to other nations against whom there are equally unproved assertions.
I’m saying that all of my arguments clearly outline a very dangerous Iraq whose capabilities we can no longer afford to ignore. We’ve got evidence of limited circumvention of military sanctions and widespread economic transgressions. We’ve got reports of contact with al-Qaeda and a history of support for Palestinian terrorists to work with. We’ve got knowledge that he’s expanding his conventional arsenal with newer, increasingly more modern tools like the drones. We’ve got knowledge that he’s got a fucking line of succession established and will probably hang around for a few more decades. We’ve got knowledge that it took one hundred thousand men and the threat of invasion to compel him to even destroy the al-Samoud missiles. We’ve got knowledge that al-Qaeda was threatening to attack those troops – and did later carry out a series of suicide bombings in the region. That’s a whole bunch of shit right there that justifies early action.
No, it's just a comment on your atrocious character.
So you would never go to war against anyone you could possibly beat? Jesus fucking Christ. That’s the worst fucking attempt at an ad-hominem I’ve ever heard. “You’d fight only those against whom you could win?! My God! You’re a fucking coward!” So I supposed entry into the first Persian Gulf War – for which the outcome was unquestionable – was cowardly? After all, Iraq had no fighting chance. Fuck you’re funny.
You've also claimed that you would support the terrorizing of the civilians of another nation if you sincerely believed it benefited your nation, without any moral qualms. You are indeed a facist coward.
What grounds have you for the accusations of Fascism? How does this make me a coward?
Do find where exactly in my argument the strawman that "Afghanistan was a conventional threat" was the basis of my entire argument, you buffoon.
Do you deny that you’ve said time and again that Iraq is no conventional threat and used this to justify the notion that action is unacceptable or ill-advised?
That Iraq was not a conventional threat is fact. That you amusingly cite piss-ant legal programs like a drone to play up this conventional threat is incredibly funny.
And the same was true of Afghanistan. I’m not talking about the conventional threat of Iraq, you idiot. I’m talking about the unconventional threat. And look who accuses who of dishonestly and changing arguments. :roll:
It would be, if you had at any point made a case.
No. In your case it is. Look at the statements you’ve made.

“Iraq is no conventional threat. Therefore it can be no conventional threat.”

“Dictators like power. They would never take on the United States. Afghanistan’s dictators were special. Religion corrupted them all.”
Do point out where Iraq's magical 'intelligence capabilities' were cited as a justification for war. Do point out in which UN resolution the existence of a security service in Iraq is cited as a contravention. Do point out where the WMD are. Al-Samouds are conventional weapons- and were destroyed.
Iraq’s intelligence capabilities were never cited, but they do represent a certain threat. What does the United Nations have to do with making that threat any more legitimate? The al-Samouds were destroyed, yes, because they were a contravention. Get it through your thick skull that the United Nations each had their own reasons for avoiding war. All of them were political. None view Iraq as a danger to themselves; many wish the United States active harm.
Ah, so Saddam is gibbering mad, but not enough to kill Palestinians. The SCUD has a circular-error-probable of several hundred metres- with chemical weapons and fired in a predominantly Jewish area (non-West Bank/ Gaza Strip), the risk of Palestinian casualties is rather low.
Saddam is insane, not gibbering mad.

And what if those SCUDs still missed? Or those chemical contagions spread?
Funny, I thought he was insane, illogical, and unpredicatable? Concession Accepted.
He is, you fucking retard. The good doesn’t magically outweigh the bad. He’s capable of rational, logical thought. That doesn’t mean he’s predictable or fully sane or fully logical.
Oh, I'm well aware it's conjecture- but again, your baseless paranoia is not my problem.
Neither is your baseless faith in Saddam Hussein mine.
In what amounts, with what frequency, and with what level of dedication?!
They were on-site and conducted examinations of the fucking material. We devoted U2 spy planes to the operation. What more do you need to understand that we were taken for a Nantucket sleigh ride?
So, you don't have any evidence, but you attest to it's truth anyway.
See above. You don’t have evidence either; FAS was ambiguous. But now your argument is speculation that the inspections were somehow faulted when it says clearly that the teams were outright fooled. :roll:
Funny, above you speculated that Iraq destroyed it's WMD.
It’s a possibility one must consider, yes. It doesn’t mean it happened. And do you honestly believe that Israel would have fully divested itself?
Chinese air-defense systems? Which one would those be? Not to mention that the issue of economic sanctions is not the same as that of compliance with weapons of mass destruction provisions.
The Chinese helped build Iraqi air-defense networks and communications relays. Air-defense technologies were shared illegaly.

The circumvention of economic sanctions [which incidentally included circumvention of the fucking weapons sanctions] might have allowed Saddam to put his hands on illicit material. See, centrifuges imported from India. Also look for France in January of this year.
Really? I can argue precisely the oppoisite and point to the presence of that invasion level force to his reluctance to destroy a means of his own defense, and indeed, I already have.
And would he have destroyed them without the threat of invasion? Would Blix alone have been enough? This is exactly my fucking point. It takes an invasion. It takes force.
Not the point. That it's a bad thing is the point.
No. You’re trying to change the argument. The point is that it’s 99% certain we’ll never see Islamofascism in Iraq during the next decade and a half.
Laughing about a lack of evidence and the fact that US WMD hunters in every site they've inspected have found no such concealment techniques? You must be on crack.
No. You must be on crack. I’m not the one suggesting that US hunters would have found concealment techniques if they had been effective.
And this helps your argument, that you don't even know if these US inspectors ever were on site? Here's a news bulletin: you can't maintain the charade of a grain facility if the inspectors are IN the facilitiy.
They were on the ground because it discusses their having been there. They were fooled in certain locations, even if I do take your word for it that they never went to that one particular location.

And who says you can’t build false facilities?
But WERE. THE. TROOPS. ACTUALLY. THERE. No. You previously cited that troop levels would have to stay at that level to ensure compliance, unfortunatley for you Iraq did comply right up to 1998 (when the US fucked up the sanctions).
Yes. There were up to one hundred thousand men when we forced him to destroy the al-Samouds.

This is after 1998. This is now. Today. In the current time. After inspectors left.
An intelligence failure (lack of spares), and the superiority of Iranian armaments was not that marked.

Also, what's wrong with basing your plan on a pre-existing one? You think they followed it rote- extraordinarily hard to do considering the formations would be completely different. Has the geography of Iran changed?
Not that marked? F-14s vs. MiG-21s? Chieftans vs. T-62s?

While they didn’t follow it rote, it smacks of stupidity.

Not to mention that Saddam Hussein was confident of human waves being able to ensure victory when they charged tanks and artillery. Or that he was confident in the superiority of forces he himself had had culled. The man was suffering from delusions, Vympel.
Except of course that Iran's troops were the same abysmal quality if not worse- until, after the war begun, some officers/ pilots etc of the Shah were brought back in. Fortunes of war, nothing more.
And yet almost immediately Hussein was proven wrong. Yet he continued to rely on the same awful tactics. Delusions of grander. A sign of insanity and lack of logic.
Ah, so his responsibility for the Ba'ath Party system somehow translates into direct knowledge of the shortcomings of his military. Fascinating.
Absolutely, since he would have promulgated that kind of system. Or didn’t you notice that he was commander-in-chief?
And what part of 'doesn't mean he's crazy and unpredictable and bound to attack us for no reason' don't you understand, you moron? How many dictators are you going to label crazy now in your loopy quest?
Saddam Hussein is neither logical nor predictable nor fully sane. I didn’t say he was bound to do anything – although I think he is. But I am saying your glowing assessment of the man as a strong, sane, rational, or logical figure is fully off-target.
You think that's a totally crazy plan? Perhaps you should justify this view? Knockout blows are common throughout the history of warfare.
A knock-out blow that will cause supreme and total force attrition?

What part of, “He planned for short war thinking he’d face an enemy suffering from attrition from the very beginning,” don’t you understand?
In other words, totally irrelevant.
How so? What part of, “Iran’s military wasn’t falling apart so fast,” do you not understand?
Answer the question. Where America's military leaders crazy, insance, illogical, and unpredictable by virtue of the fact that they cooked up a stupid warplan that was doomed to fail?
Illogical, yes. Crazy? No. Insane? No. Unpredictable? Probably not. That’s not to say that it vindicates Saddam Hussein however.
What part of if you MOVE them, they DIE, don't you get, you idiot? I have three words for you: Highway of Death.

Moving ground forces are EASIER to spot from the air. When negotiations were cut off, for Saddam to order a retreat immediately would've seen a very early occurence of the Highway of Death. It would've been suicide.
If you don’t move them, they die anyway.
True, yet being steadily diverted to other tasks (like finding links to terror evidence, war crimes evidence) instead of what they were originally there for.
The war was also justified on the basis of a link to terrorism.
False cause. I can easily argue that it was their presence and steadily increasing US invasion rhetoric and obvious military preparations (you don't put on a condom unless you want to fuck) that resulted in the delay- not to mention that the delay was quite minor, and was largely over the issue of whether they were in fact prohibited.
No, because it took threats of invasion for Saddam to entertain the notion of inspections in the first place. And are you implying that Saddam would have fully divested himself of WMD or other weapons like the al-Samouds and drones as a nicety to the United Nations without the presence of a compelling force?
But the US shouldn't be criticized?
The U.S. is criticized. What parts of, “The U.S. action in Iraq is no deciding factor on whether or not preemption will happen again,” and, “The justification that, ‘America did it,’ won’t shield anybody from anything anyway,” don’t you understand?
And you gave me a pair of criminal facist aggressor states. Why am I not surprised.
You wanted a history of preemption. You could also look at Grenada, I suppose. Or South Africa in Angola. Or the US in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
No, I'm saying that if your argument had any merit, which it does not, it *would* be a new kind of precedent- one not committed by a facist aggressor state, which was condemned by the world as a legitimate reason for the use of force back in 1945.

And your bullshit 'you tooisms' aside, you *are* making an artificial distinction. You demand the right to preemptively destroy any nation you wish, but deny that right to others 'just because'.
What does being condemned by the world had to do with it?

A precedent establishes something new. We established nothing new. There is no greater or lesser compelling reason for the use of preemption by anyone else. Those who can evade criticism will do so anyway. That who cannot will not. It migth cause some argument among pundits. That’s about it.

I deny that right to others because I can. It’s called, “good strategy” and “the way the stick falls.”
Difference between anti-ship missiles and tanks? Oh sorry, zero.
Range. Uses. Intended targets. But I’ll be sporting. For your sake, we can forget about this comparison if you so chose.
Except that the cease-fire stipulates exactly what the consequnces of breach are. And it's not cessation of the cease-fire.

Get a fucking clue, you ingorant retard.
No. Resolution 687 does. Not the cease-fire itself. If you violate a cease-fire – a cease-fire, not a resolution -, then the war is “back on” so to speak.
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Axis Kast wrote:
Link?
October 7 speech.
It isn’t my responsibility to prove that no actual cease-fire documents were ever signed by the actual combatants.
No actually, it is your responsibility to provide the relevant documents and prove how they support your case, not mine.
A preliminary cease-fire was in actuality signed on February 28, 1991. Iraq accepted that preliminary cease-fire on March 3, 1991. It was not until April 3, 1991 that the United Nations Security Council in fact put forth Resolution 687.
And this cease-fire was *preliminary* to Resolution 687- which is the actual cease-fire.
For clarification, pieces of paper are never actually binding.

As for this specific instance and the legal question at hand? (A) You’ve provided no conclusive proof that Resolution 687 was the only cease-fire document (Bush brought up that and another resolution in addition to the cease-fire).
I don't need to prove it was the only one. That you think there's some other cease-fire document being cited as reasoning is *your* responsibility.
Not to mention that Part C, Article 12 upholds the argument that the United Nations should have dealt with Iraq as having in fact broached the cease-fire:

“Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above […]”
The UNSC was free to deal with Iraq in any way it so chooses- there was no obligation to go to war.
El-Baradei acknowledged that it was possible for the aluminum rods to be fashioned into primitive centrifuges, even if both expensive and impractical.
Back to this again? It's his *responsibility* to report everything. It's also his responsibility to give his professional opinion.

After 1998. The problem lies in that you insist that Iraq as a nation-state is no threat to the United States of America. The same was true of Afghanistan in conventional terms. Your argument holds no water.
More strawmen. I have already acknowledged that Afghanistan was an unconventional threat. At no point have you proved the same of Iraq.

My claims are valid in the first place ..snip
:banghead: Whatever, I'm really sick of this.

Certainly it is. You’ve displayed nothing but faith throughout this whole argument that Hussein is (A) not a threat, and that (B) his intelligence services were utterly inactive for some unexplained reason.
Appeal to ignorance.
Proof of circumvention. And circumvention is danger. Now you’re entering into the realm of apologetics. “But it’s okay that Saddam defied UNSCR resolutions and rearms! We don’t need to stop it now! Let’s wait until it gets worse!”
Not justification for invasion. Justification for other consequences? Yes.
Al-Qaeda ring a bell? It wasn’t merely Saddam’s men that made keeping one hundred thousand troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar so dangerous or costly.
Ah, so by invading Iraq you made your troops safer from Al-Qaeda, it all makes sense now. :roll:
Not to mention that you went from, “Prove it’s a large expense!” to “We used planes until the situation utterly changed!” to “But why would Saddam hit us?” Taking lessons from Bush, are we?
Incapable of following are we? That it's a large expense was answered when I said you didn't have any obligation to stay, and you debunked your argument that you needed to stay to ensure compliance when you admitted that troops were not continually brought up to invasion levels everytime Saddam wiped his ass sideways. "Why would Saddam hit you" is totally seperate, and still a very valid reason.
The lines of succession in the Soviet Union were unclear. While they wouldn’t collapse, there was always the potential for the country to take a new swing – as it did with Gorby. You think Uday would have been any different than Saddam?
He would've been much worse from a human rights standpoint, actually- considering how he was even more hated by Saddam, with any luck maybe someone would've assassinated him. That's assuming that Saddam's sons would've been the next ones in power at all, of course.
On a conventional level, Vympel. Concession accepted.
Lol! Iraq posed a conventional threat to it's neighbours now! I can just picture you flailing on the ground, without limbs ... :lol:
Again, “It’s okay that we don’t stop Saddam from circumvention – as long as he keeps it on the down-low.” Apologetics. France and Britain footed the same kind of policy in 1936.
False dilemma. Who said that Saddam should be allowed to circumvent? The question is what the consequences are.

It’s about Iraq having made a worthwhile argument from the point of view of the United States, Vympel.
And if the US was ever seriously looking at the situation without a hard-on for invasion from the get-go (doubtful), you'd think they'd exclude themselves from the equation? I don't think they'd be as stupid as you, though it's possible.
Germany was allowed to slowly build a modest force despite the restrictions of the post-Second World War peace because of the Soviet threat. Iraq has no similar regional enemies [aside from the United States, which incidentally decides what Iraq can and cannot do] (A) for whom we might let them serve as a bulwark or (B) that would likely launch an invasion.
West Germany? What are you on about? West Germany was a US ally. Iraq is not.
Iran would never have attempted to invade Iraq. They’d have been pounded senseless by the United Nations – or even by the US/UK duo alone.
Poland will never attempt to invade Germany. Clearly, Germany must disband it's military, now that the threat of the USSR is gone :roll:

In case you hadn’t noticed, this is an argument as to why we’d want the drones prohibited/destroyed under a less strict interpretation of the sanctions.
An argument which was never made because it would've been laughed right out of the UNSC. In case you didn't notice, the drone argument was quietly dropped by the US when the actual nature of the drone was revealed. Your 'we didn't like it because of it's pathetic capabilities' argument is baseless.
Of
They are also larger, take off from previously sighted facilities, and a more immediately-identifiable threat. What part of, “The drones can take off within a few minutes’ time from just about anywhere in all of Iraq,” did you miss?
And what part of why it's such a fucking stupid tactic did you miss, or that it's irrelevant because it is a conventional weapon without the requisite range to make an argument for it's destruction did you miss?

No, I didn’t.
Not voluntarily you didn't, but you did.
I pointed out that while UN inspectors were already on the ground in 1998 that only planes were necessary. I pointed out that we fumbled the ball in ’98. We bull-shitted for a bit but ultimately did nothing. And in case you hadn’t noticed – and you hadn’t -, Saddam still had the cojones to waffle over the al-Samouds until he became again worried that invasion would actually move forward.
At no point have you shown any convincing argument for 'waffling' over the al-Samouds.
And again I point to your Bush-like logic. You’ve gone from trying to deny the cost to attempting to argue that the situation is similar to a time when inspectors were actually on the ground already to ignoring Saddam’s brazen rebuttals and stall tactics up until the invasion date.
Your inability to follow an argument is not my problem. You have gone from "we had the resolutions to invade" to "Iraqi weapons were contravening sanctions" to "they were contravening sanctions in spirit" to "we just dont like them because they might hurt us if we attack". Backpedal backpedal backpedal.

To be positive that the drones would be shot out of the sky 100% of the time without making a short “suicide hop” is an ignorant reliance on blind faith.
Irrelevant. To be positive that an Iraqi battalion will be broken up by CAS without attacking you is an argument on blind faith. Clearly, the existence of Iraqi battalions is a threat and you must invade to deal with this threat.
Again, it isn’t my fault you wish to apologize for Iraq’s past circumvention and feel the need to defend their right to maintain a superfluous arsenal of weaponry that could be the death of soldiers in the field later trying to force compliance or régime-change.
Just keep on using the possible consequences of invasion to justify invasion Kast, makes you look real smart with that there circular logic.
Hell, your own damn troops would have been endangered if it came to that. But then again, I guess making sure the letter of the law and only the letter of the law is met is more important than that.
When you invade another country, you should expect to be opposed. Not to mention that every soldier would undoubtedly say "fuck off, you idiot" to anyone who suggested that the reasons for invading was because they had legal weapons which would make it harder to invade. :roll:
Iraq was part of a number of countries against whom we wished to practice containment, preemption, or actual intervention. To suggest that we should stomach their blatant circumvention of weaponry prohibited by the UNSC
It's blatant now? Funny, I haven't heard of any WMD being found in Iraq.
and on top of that allow them to build up a superfluous arsenal of weapons is little more than apologetics. If invasion is a potential in the first place – and even France was calling for the U.S. to keep its troops on-site to give a meaty fist to Blix’ inspections -, then why let Iraq prepare to blunt it?
Because whether an invasion was really on or not is not the fucking issue. How valid the reasonign was behind it is- and citing the threat to your own troops SHOULD they invade is not valid reasoning by any stretch of the imagination, you moron.

I get it perfectly now.
We blustered for several months in 1998 about an invasion because the teams were obliged to pull out. And then Clinton backed off.
Funny, not a response to the question I asked. Concession Accepted.
I’m referring to the fact that Clinton’s overall strategy was one of non-engagement.
Which is irrelevant to the question.
Not any weapons. Prohibited weapons.
Good, I accept your concession on the issue.

Controlling those vehicles from the ground would not have been a difficult feat.
Who said it was difficult? That you think that you can just plonk a control system within 8km of any forces and think it's a good idea to merit a reason to invade is the problem.
Nice try at changing the argument. The point is that he could have hid the controllers in such positions if they required complex, immobile equipment and passing cover.
The argument was always that you can establish no difference between the drones and any other conventional, non-prohibited weapon in the arsenal. I have said this from the start.
As long as the drones mount surveillance equipment that Iraqis can use to track, observer, analyze, or follow American or other allied movements, we should make attempts to destroy or prohibit them.
As long as the tanks mount main guns, machine guns, and infrared search lights which can be used to shoot at, pursue, encircle, or destroy American or allied movements, we should make attempts to destroy or prohibit them. Clearly, we must invade. :roll:
It doesn’t need to carry very much to be a danger. It has a small range. So? That doesn’t mean it’s no threat at all.
The reason for the 150km range restriction was exactly to minimize the threat posed by Iraq to it's neighbours. That something is a miniscule threat or no under that range is not an issue.
Again, why the fuck would we want something with botulism toxin or anthrax spores on it flying around anyway – intercepted or not?
And why would you like the Iraqis to develop tank shells with anthrax spores in them lying around anyway? Clearly, you must invade! Oh wait- that's right- where the fuck is the anthrax and the botulism toxin? As I recall, it was the inspector's job to find that stuff- and they haven't found anything.

The point, Vympel, is that you’re brushing under the rug a series of obvious flaws, breaches, and failures by Iraq that the UN overlooks but that deal primarily with the security of the U.S. and Israel. Yours is the tactic of the apologist. Anything is okay as long as it’s not outright.
Bullshit. The drone is not illegal. Iraq is perfectly justified in developing it. It cannot be touched for that reason. Your tactics are false dilemmas. When someone says "not a reason to invade", you pervert it to "ah, so you'll just let them do whatever they want! Apologist!"
The man possesses tools of easy delivery. It might not be legal circumvention in your book. It alarms the hell out of me.
I don't give a fuck if you're alarmed. You were also alarmed about Iraqi WMD, and look where that got us.

Missiles that he can’t as easily deploy.
Well that explains the fruitless SCUD hunt in the Western deserts really well. Dumbass :roll:

You deny that Iraq has more resources at its disposal than Afghanistan?
No, I deny that Iraq was a higher unconventional (terrorist) threat than Afghanistan.

If you tell me Saddam has no arsenal, you’d better be able to deliver a fucking argument with at least some kind of proof that somebody looked into the issue. Or else it’s blind faith.
In case you didn't notice, you fucktard, the issue has been looked into for 12 years. If you say they exist, the burden is on you to establish their existence- your bullshit "prove that they're NOT there" is a fallacy. Do fuck off.
No, you fucking idiot. The blind faith example was egg on your face.
Only in your delusional mind: "You think God doesn't exist, that's blind faith!" Classic religious bullshit.
And even when approached in no mean terms, they still refused. Such logical dictators.
Except, of course, that you totally fail to explain Saddam's past behavior. Idiot.
Because, “Iraqi dictators are far more intelligent and logical than Afghani dictators” is not a fucking point.
Helllooooo strawman.
I’m saying that all of my arguments clearly .. *snip*
Rant, rant, rant.
So you would never go to war against anyone you could possibly beat? Jesus fucking Christ.
Hellooooooooo strawman.
That’s the worst fucking attempt at an ad-hominem I’ve ever heard. “You’d fight only those against whom you could win?! My God! You’re a fucking coward!” So I supposed entry into the first Persian Gulf War – for which the outcome was unquestionable – was cowardly? After all, Iraq had no fighting chance. Fuck you’re funny.
Hellooooooooooooo strawman. You'd go to war only against those who you're absolutely certain to win against. Clearly, you're not very interested in your safety from the evil Chinese or Russians when they have a chance of repulsing you. War as a first resort, whenever you can get away with it, is your MO. You are a coward.

What grounds have you for the accusations of Fascism? How does this make me a coward?
Maybe facsist coward was the wrong name ... what word was I looking for ... oh yes, that's right: fucking Nazi coward fits better, when I think about it. Of course, you're someone who looks at special pride at the privations they inflicted on others because they "truly believed" it was for the benefit of their nation, without moral qualms, so feel free to take it as a complement.

Do you deny that you’ve said time and again that Iraq is no conventional threat and used this to justify the notion that action is unacceptable or ill-advised?
It's *part* of the argument- which you have consistently railed against despite that it's irreversible fact.

And the same was true of Afghanistan. I’m not talking about the conventional threat of Iraq, you idiot. I’m talking about the unconventional threat. And look who accuses who of dishonestly and changing arguments. :roll:
I changed the argument? You fucking moron: I said Afghanistan was an unconventional threat and the same has not been proved of Iraq, then, inexplicably, you say "Afghanistan was not a conventional threat! Moron!"

Get a fucking clue.
No. In your case it is. Look at the statements you’ve made.

“Iraq is no conventional threat. Therefore it can be no conventional threat.”
Strawman- also known as attacking a weak imitation of the other side's argument, pretending to have debunked the real thing.
“Dictators like power. They would never take on the United States. Afghanistan’s dictators were special. Religion corrupted them all.”
Strawman.

Iraq’s intelligence capabilities were never cited, but they do represent a certain threat. What does the United Nations have to do with making that threat any more legitimate? The al-Samouds were destroyed, yes, because they were a contravention. Get it through your thick skull that the United Nations each had their own reasons for avoiding war. All of them were political. None view Iraq as a danger to themselves; many wish the United States active harm.
Ah, so do you expect anyone to go along with America's *unspoken* rationales for the allegedly grave, totally unproven threat to it's interest from Iraqi spies?
Saddam is insane, not gibbering mad.
Semantics.
And what if those SCUDs still missed?
Doing wonders for your argument- I can just picture insane Saddam tearing himself up about the risk to Palestinians.

What part of circular-error-probable don't you understand? They are *guaranteed* to fall within that area. That's what the spec is for.
Or those chemical contagions spread?
Chemical weapons are not contagious. And I can just imagine Saddam Insane worrying about it, too, because he's such a nice guy. :roll:
He is, you fucking retard. The good doesn’t magically outweigh the bad. He’s capable of rational, logical thought. That doesn’t mean he’s predictable or fully sane or fully logical.
Watch out for the cliff you're about to backpedal off.

Neither is your baseless faith in Saddam Hussein mine.
Except of course that yours is based on an appeal to ignorance fallacy of "You can't prove that he's NOT doing anything!"

I also can't prove invisible pink unicorns exist. I guess they must.

They were on-site and conducted examinations of the fucking material. We devoted U2 spy planes to the operation. What more do you need to understand that we were taken for a Nantucket sleigh ride?
Not an answer. Concession Accepted.

See above. You don’t have evidence either; FAS was ambiguous. But now your argument is speculation that the inspections were somehow faulted when it says clearly that the teams were outright fooled. :roll:
Nah, the inspections were *fine*, after all, they only allowed their Israeli allies to control the fucking agenda of the visits and benefit from their benign neglect, while taking their word for it that a facility was what they said it was before they set fucking foot in it. Go ahead and apply that to Iraq, fucktard.
It’s a possibility one must consider, yes. It doesn’t mean it happened. And do you honestly believe that Israel would have fully divested itself?
In the face of military force from it's ally whom it obtains all it's military equipment and billions in aid?
The Chinese helped build Iraqi air-defense networks and communications relays. Air-defense technologies were shared illegaly.
I'm well aware that they provided fibre-optics to connect Iraqi C&C facilities, but I'm afraid you'll have to show this sharing of 'air defense technology'
The circumvention of economic sanctions [which incidentally included circumvention of the fucking weapons sanctions] might have allowed Saddam to put his hands on illicit material. See, centrifuges imported from India. Also look for France in January of this year.
Did you also know that the black market routes for circumvention where known by the US/UK for sometime? And that smart sanctions sought to close these routes while allowing trade with Iraq to resume?

Furthermore, I would *love* to see some proof for this France January claim, considering the title of the thread.

And would he have destroyed them without the threat of invasion? Would Blix alone have been enough? This is exactly my fucking point. It takes an invasion. It takes force.
Funny, he didn't need the threat of an invasion to destroy his material from 91-98, did he.
No. You’re trying to change the argument. The point is that it’s 99% certain we’ll never see Islamofascism in Iraq during the next decade and a half.
99% certain? Because you say so? Maybe you need to read up on what's happening over there. If you destroy a movement like that in Iraq, there's no guarantee that you would've put it down for good, and it would DESTROY any remaining goodwill the US has in the region- especially if the movement is popular.

No. You must be on crack. I’m not the one suggesting that US hunters would have found concealment techniques if they had been effective.
Yeahhhh Kast, after all, US inspectors would have *no* idea to search for bricked up hallways and elevators in facilities they have free run of, they just walk in, look around, and walk off. :roll:

They were on the ground because it discusses their having been there. They were fooled in certain locations, even if I do take your word for it that they never went to that one particular location.
They did *eventually* go to that location. The fact remains that they obviously weren't too concerned.
And who says you can’t build false facilities?
Noone.

Yes. There were up to one hundred thousand men when we forced him to destroy the al-Samouds.
Forced my ass.
This is after 1998. This is now. Today. In the current time. After inspectors left.
Except that inspectors returned, idiot.

Not that marked? F-14s vs. MiG-21s?
Iraq also had MiG-23s. And Mirage F1s. And Super Etendards (a loan). And those F-14s were *sabotaged* (no ability to fire AIM-54 Phoenix) and lacking spares.
Chieftans vs. T-62s?
Not a dominant advantage whatsoever. The T-62 is quite capable of knocking out a Chieftain, not to mention they were outnumbered.
While they didn’t follow it rote, it smacks of stupidity

Not to mention that Saddam Hussein was confident of human waves being able to ensure victory when they charged tanks and artillery. Or that he was confident in the superiority of forces he himself had had culled. The man was suffering from delusions, Vympel.
Saddam used human wave tactics? I'm sorry, source? Iran did that.

And yet almost immediately Hussein was proven wrong. Yet he continued to rely on the same awful tactics. Delusions of grander. A sign of insanity and lack of logic.
Almost immediately? Iranian counterattacks didn't begin till Jan 1981- they were getting blitzed. They had inadequate support and ill-trained officers- the first major counterattack failed. They eventually succeeded in stopping Iraq along a river (natural defense line), and then began human wave assaults. Methinks you've confused the q and n.

It's standard military history- your insanity/ lack of logic claim is bullshit.
Absolutely, since he would have promulgated that kind of system. Or didn’t you notice that he was commander-in-chief?
C-in-C is a title, it is not indicative of any actual martial skill. Nor does it indicate that he commanded all his forces personally and dictated their tactics personally.

Saddam Hussein is neither logical nor predictable nor fully sane. I didn’t say he was bound to do anything – although I think he is. But I am saying your glowing assessment of the man as a strong, sane, rational, or logical figure is fully off-target.
He is certainly rational and sane. He's not suicidal, which is what you'd have to claim in any attempt to argue that Iraq would attack the United States.

A knock-out blow that will cause supreme and total force attrition?
Do point out where Saddam thought attrition would be "supreme and total".
What part of, “He planned for short war thinking he’d face an enemy suffering from attrition from the very beginning,” don’t you understand?
He didn't think they'd be able to recoup their losses, obviously.
How so? What part of, “Iran’s military wasn’t falling apart so fast,” do you not understand?
What part of "it wasn't happeneing when the war began" don't you understand?

Illogical, yes. Crazy? No. Insane? No. Unpredictable? Probably not. That’s not to say that it vindicates Saddam Hussein however.
It does actually. Concession Accepted.

If you don’t move them, they die anyway.
Ah, so you'd rather submit them to "hey, look at us! bomb us now!" to airpower they can't even fucking challenge than a defense on the ground against something they can fight back against? You're obviously fucking incompetent.
The war was also justified on the basis of a link to terrorism.
For your sake they better find something.
No, because it took threats of invasion for Saddam to entertain the notion of inspections in the first place. And are you implying that Saddam would have fully divested himself of WMD or other weapons like the al-Samouds and drones as a nicety to the United Nations without the presence of a compelling force?
No, what I am saying is what compelling force was required- invasion level, no.
The U.S. is criticized. What parts of, “The U.S. action in Iraq is no deciding factor on whether or not preemption will happen again,” and, “The justification that, ‘America did it,’ won’t shield anybody from anything anyway,” don’t you understand?
Clearly, you think you're in the right, and that preemptive logic is sound, therfore, criticism shouldn't be made. But then you turn around and claim that other nation's shouldn't be able to employ the same logic?

You wanted a history of preemption. You could also look at Grenada, I suppose. Or South Africa in Angola. Or the US in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
All marvelous incidents in history. Though I don't see how Afghanistan qualifies as preemption.
What does being condemned by the world had to do with it?
Oh, I don't know, that it's unacceptable?
A precedent establishes something new. We established nothing new. There is no greater or lesser compelling reason for the use of preemption by anyone else. Those who can evade criticism will do so anyway. That who cannot will not. It migth cause some argument among pundits. That’s about it.

I deny that right to others because I can. It’s called, “good strategy” and “the way the stick falls.”
In other words, you have no sound reason, you just think they shouldn't be allowed, 'just because'. That's not good strategy, that's just bullshit, and it shows your reasoning to be utterly devoid of any serious thought.
No. Resolution 687 does. Not the cease-fire itself. If you violate a cease-fire – a cease-fire, not a resolution -, then the war is “back on” so to speak.
Incorrect. The cease-fire is Resolution 687. Desert Storm was a Coalition under the UN, not under the United States.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

October 7 speech.
“Developing” is a broad term. It covers everything from importing products for the construction of scientific facilities to the actual fabrication of warheads themselves.
No actually, it is your responsibility to provide the relevant documents and prove how they support your case, not mine.
And I did. The preliminary documents that ended the conflict in the field were signed before Resolution 687.
And this cease-fire was *preliminary* to Resolution 687- which is the actual cease-fire.
Iraq thoroughly violated each cease-fire, be it preliminary or final. One of the logical conclusions of such an action would be renewed hostilities. And the United States – as a combatant – is within its legal rights to make such determinations for the sake of its own security and legal satisfaction.
The UNSC was free to deal with Iraq in any way it so chooses- there was no obligation to go to war.
The United Nations Security Council has clearly chosen to offer only a minor slap on the wrist – contingent of course upon a major American sacrifice of resources – to Saddam Hussein. In essence their prescription has been the least possible penalty for Iraq and the most expensive possible outcome for the Untied States. Unacceptable.
Back to this again? It's his *responsibility* to report everything. It's also his responsibility to give his professional opinion.
Iraq is still[i/] in material breach. Choose your poison.

Terrorists operated from within Iraq’s borders between 1991 and 2003. Ansar al-Islam was a terrorist organization – within Kurdish-dominated territory beyond the No-Fly Zones or not. How’s that for a legal stickler?

Saddam Hussein also violates Article 12H (if I remember correctly) in that he provides money for the families of Palestinian terrorists, which is essentially a form of retroactive advocacy prohibited expressly in Resolution 687.

Never mind that the catalogued economic and import circumvention (as in his illegal contact with hundreds of foreign businesses, links to the NORINCO, and Indian aluminum tubes) can also be thrown in there independent of anything else and still make the entire argument on their own.

More strawmen. I have already acknowledged that Afghanistan was an unconventional threat. At no point have you proved the same of Iraq.


So you deny that Iraqi intelligence could possibly represent a threat to the United States? You deny that Iraq was in actual circumvention of UNSC resolutions prohibition both economic and political activity but that nothing had been done?

Not justification for invasion. Justification for other consequences? Yes.


As in indefinitely prolonging the issue as France was so apt to do? Never mind that Bush was right all along in that Hans Blix couldn’t expect to make a thorough inspection while Saddam himself was still in power or that the cost of “obliging” Saddam to go along was footed entirely by the United States. :roll:

Ah, so by invading Iraq you made your troops safer from Al-Qaeda, it all makes sense now.


On a very basic level, yes.

Incapable of following are we? That it's a large expense was answered when I said you didn't have any obligation to stay, and you debunked your argument that you needed to stay to ensure compliance when you admitted that troops were not continually brought up to invasion levels everytime Saddam wiped his ass sideways. "Why would Saddam hit you" is totally seperate, and still a very valid reason.


We have plenty of obligation to stay considering that Saddam didn’t even begin to destroy the al-Samouds until our men were there in terrific numbers.

Not brought up to invasion levels? Ah. You’re referring to 1998, when we let him off-the-hook after the inspectors had already been on-site for eight years. Typical attempt to side-step current realities.

I’ll say it for the third time: al-Qaeda was threatening attacks on American troops massed in the Middle East. The longer our troops remained collected in jump-off points, the longer they were exposed to the potential of a high-profile attack.

He would've been much worse from a human rights standpoint, actually- considering how he was even more hated by Saddam, with any luck maybe someone would've assassinated him. That's assuming that Saddam's sons would've been the next ones in power at all, of course.


We’ve been waiting for Saddam to get a bullet in his head since 1991. Look at where that expectation has unfortunately landed us. To suggest that we should “sit it out” while our budgets dry up and our troops lie open to attack while waiting for an internal plot to foment is absolutely ridiculous. You deny that Saddam’s sons would be the most logical and likely successors by many orders of magnitude if a natural death were to occur?

Lol! Iraq posed a conventional threat to it's neighbours now!


No, you fucking idiot. It posed an unconventional threat. Read: Israel.

False dilemma. Who said that Saddam should be allowed to circumvent? The question is what the consequences are.


The UN didn’t even think about consequences despite clear violations until Bush broached the issue a second time. Iraq’s been in legal violation since 1998. Without American prodding – or the threat of American force -, Saddam would still be sitting unmolested in Baghdad.

And if the US was ever seriously looking at the situation without a hard-on for invasion from the get-go (doubtful), you'd think they'd exclude themselves from the equation? I don't think they'd be as stupid as you, though it's possible.


If Iran invaded Iraq in December 2002, do you think we would have permitted their boats to enter the Shatt al-Arab? Do you think Iraqi shore-to-ship missiles would have been necessary to keep the Persian Gulf clear of Iranian combatants? Do you think the war would have pivoted on the presence of primitive aerial drones?

I will now repeat my point for your benefit: the United States more or less would have controlled the stricture of sanctions. There was no necessity to permit them to stockpile ship-to-ship missiles or build aerial drones. Such proliferation is a privilege granted the weak by the strong out of ignorance, carelessness, or alliance. Iraq fits none of those.

West Germany? What are you on about? West Germany was a US ally. Iraq is not.


Exactly. Germany received special treatment. Iraq does not enjoy the same circumstances.

Poland will never attempt to invade Germany. Clearly, Germany must disband it's military, now that the threat of the USSR is gone.


Strawman. At what point did I argue that Saddam should have been made to disband his military completely? I was referring only to superfluous, largely redundant systems such as the ship-to-ship missiles.

An argument which was never made because it would've been laughed right out of the UNSC. In case you didn't notice, the drone argument was quietly dropped by the US when the actual nature of the drone was revealed. Your 'we didn't like it because of it's pathetic capabilities' argument is baseless.


And what were the “actual nature” of these drones? You are also aware that we could easily have made enough noise to have them destroyed while still avoiding outright war, yes?

Laughed right out of the United Nations? I think not. Bush technically had the option of pointing to Iraq’s circumvention – however minor – and demanding redress. The UNSC would probably have granted him such requests in lieu of promised war.

And what part of why it's such a fucking stupid tactic did you miss, or that it's irrelevant because it is a conventional weapon without the requisite range to make an argument for it's destruction did you miss?


In wartime, why is it “a stupid fucking tactic” to deploy the drones in the manner I have described?

A conventional weapon that could be easily armed with biological or chemical material. “The requisite range?” What does range have to do with the potential for those drones to do harm at all? Bush might have used the “broad interpretations” argument. Especially if he’d couched it within the right policy framework.

At no point have you shown any convincing argument for 'waffling' over the al-Samouds.


It took Saddam weeks to decide whether or not to finally destroy those missiles. Do you deny this?

Your inability to follow an argument is not my problem. You have gone from "we had the resolutions to invade" to "Iraqi weapons were contravening sanctions" to "they were contravening sanctions in spirit" to "we just dont like them because they might hurt us if we attack". Backpedal backpedal backpedal.


Ahem. Your inability to follow my argument is not my problem.

If you’re looking at the basics of the cease-fire, we had the legal justification to invade.

If you’re looking at the situation logically, the United Nations wasn’t going to handle the issue well.

Iraq was in full contravention of Resolution 687.

There was a potential for Iraq to sponsor or support unconventional strikes on American targets.

Irrelevant. To be positive that an Iraqi battalion will be broken up by CAS without attacking you is an argument on blind faith. Clearly, the existence of Iraqi battalions is a threat and you must invade to deal with this threat.


Bullshit. Your faith in our air defense systems is touching but ultimately dangerous. There is no guarantee that the missiles would be able to respond in time to safely intercept a target carrying biological or chemical materials on a collision course with the ground.

Just keep on using the possible consequences of invasion to justify invasion Kast, makes you look real smart with that there circular logic.


It does justify invasion considering that (A) we were poised to invade all along – by specific request from the UN, and (B) all the Resolutions in question relied on the potential for military enforceability anyway.

When you invade another country, you should expect to be opposed. Not to mention that every soldier would undoubtedly say "fuck off, you idiot" to anyone who suggested that the reasons for invading was because they had legal weapons which would make it harder to invade.


Not the only reasons, but it certainly helps to strengthen the argument that Saddam Hussein is a threat.

It's blatant now? Funny, I haven't heard of any WMD being found in Iraq.


Who said that the contravention of weapons sanctions was related only to WMD?

Because whether an invasion was really on or not is not the fucking issue. How valid the reasonign was behind it is- and citing the threat to your own troops SHOULD they invade is not valid reasoning by any stretch of the imagination, you moron.


Of course it’s valid reasoning considering you’re dealing with a man whose continued contravention would oblige invasion anyway!

Funny, not a response to the question I asked. Concession Accepted.


Oh, it’s the response. How did Clinton try to force Iraq to disarm? He blustered and threw around some tough words. Whether or not it’s the answer you desired, it’s fact. He made a poor effort and summarily failed.

Which is irrelevant to the question.


It’s fully relevant. It’s how he tried to deal with Iraq. Blustering and grandstanding and some missiles in the general neighborhood meant to scare all involved but ostensibly aimed at suspected al-Qaeda hideouts.

Good, I accept your concession on the issue.


Your original statement was a strawman. My clarification is not a concession you fucking moron.

Who said it was difficult? That you think that you can just plonk a control system within 8km of any forces and think it's a good idea to merit a reason to invade is the problem.


You just suggested that a whole plethora of immobile machinery would be involved.

And again, strawmen. Can’t you fucking get it through your thick fucking skull? This all adds up to produce a clear picture of Iraqi circumvention and contempt. It’s not ever just one issue alone.

The argument was always that you can establish no difference between the drones and any other conventional, non-prohibited weapon in the arsenal. I have said this from the start.


Bullshit. The drones are utterly superfluous. And in case you hadn’t noticed, we were debating whether the ground controllers could get “close enough” to represent a threat. The answer was yes.

As long as the tanks mount main guns, machine guns, and infrared search lights which can be used to shoot at, pursue, encircle, or destroy American or allied movements, we should make attempts to destroy or prohibit them. Clearly, we must invade.


Strawman. A tank has many more purposes than a surveillance drone. My argument is about the unnecessary threat posed by Saddam’s possession of the drones.

The reason for the 150km range restriction was exactly to minimize the threat posed by Iraq to it's neighbours. That something is a miniscule threat or no under that range is not an issue.


It is an issue because the drone can potentially perform certain functions missiles cannot and is also more easily-deployed.

And why would you like the Iraqis to develop tank shells with anthrax spores in them lying around anyway? Clearly, you must invade! Oh wait- that's right- where the fuck is the anthrax and the botulism toxin? As I recall, it was the inspector's job to find that stuff- and they haven't found anything.


Yet. Although we did uncover two mobile labs recently.

Bullshit. The drone is not illegal. Iraq is perfectly justified in developing it. It cannot be touched for that reason. Your tactics are false dilemmas. When someone says "not a reason to invade", you pervert it to "ah, so you'll just let them do whatever they want! Apologist!"


The al-Samouds. The economic contravention. The centrifuges.

The drone was not necessarily illegal, but it was a departure from the norm. It’s a threat because it possesses new and as of ’91 or ’98, unforseen capabilities.

When someone says "not a reason to invade", you pervert it to "ah, so you'll just let them do whatever they want! Apologist!"


The United Nations didn’t do anything with those aluminum tubes despite their being in contravention. The United Nations did nothing to look into the breaches related to advocacy for terrorism. They were negligent unless specifically prodded by one power with all the interest.

I don't give a fuck if you're alarmed. You were also alarmed about Iraqi WMD, and look where that got us.


To an end that isn’t exactly undesirable.

Well that explains the fruitless SCUD hunt in the Western deserts really well.


It’s not over yet.

In case you didn't notice, you fucktard, the issue has been looked into for 12 years. If you say they exist, the burden is on you to establish their existence- your bullshit "prove that they're NOT there" is a fallacy. Do fuck off.


The point, Vympel, is that the excuse is bullshit considering you’ve always got to back an opinion or argument with fact, evidence, or credible conjecture. This “proving a negative crap” is being used erroneously to justify not having to make a decent stand.

Only in your delusional mind: "You think God doesn't exist, that's blind faith!" Classic religious bullshit.


It’s just as bad as your faith that Saddam wasn’t doing anything to harm us and that he would never do anything to harm us, period.

Except, of course, that you totally fail to explain Saddam's past behavior. Idiot.


Which is what? He’s been lucky. Both in 1991 and 1998 it looked as if he was a goner. Hell, during the 1980s it sometimes looked that way, too. His behavior was increasingly characterized by bold gambles.

Helllooooo strawman.


Concession accepted.

Hellooooooooo strawman.


Bullshit. You made the piss-poor argument that it was cowardly and unacceptable to war on a nation that couldn’t defeat you.

Hellooooooooooooo strawman. You'd go to war only against those who you're absolutely certain to win against. Clearly, you're not very interested in your safety from the evil Chinese or Russians when they have a chance of repulsing you. War as a first resort, whenever you can get away with it, is your MO. You are a coward.


I’d only start a war against those I’d be certain to win against.

Oh, I’d go to war with the Russians and Chinese – but never as quickly as I’d go to war with Iraq.

Actually, if you ask me, we exhausted all options with Iraq long ago. It’s now war as a last resort rather than, “Let’s rehash the old.”

Your lack of logic in this case is stunning, Vympel.

Maybe facsist coward was the wrong name ... what word was I looking for ... oh yes, that's right: fucking Nazi coward fits better, when I think about it. Of course, you're someone who looks at special pride at the privations they inflicted on others because they "truly believed" it was for the benefit of their nation, without moral qualms, so feel free to take it as a complement.


I will. Thank you kindly. Although I’ll just ignore the “fucking Nazi coward” part. Oh, and by the way … Red herring!

It's *part* of the argument- which you have consistently railed against despite that it's irreversible fact.


So is that a denial?

I changed the argument? You fucking moron: I said Afghanistan was an unconventional threat and the same has not been proved of Iraq, then, inexplicably, you say "Afghanistan was not a conventional threat! Moron!"

Get a fucking clue.


Time and again you respond about Iraq not being a conventional threat and being unable to invade its neighbors. And I’ll repeat: if you use that same logic, Afghanistan was nothing. Wait a minute…

Strawman.


Your argument.

Ah, so do you expect anyone to go along with America's *unspoken* rationales for the allegedly grave, totally unproven threat to it's interest from Iraqi spies?


Again, it adds to a long list.

Not to mention that Wolfowitz recently spoke of the fact that WMD were merely among the most sensational - and therefore publicly understandable/acceptable reasons.

Semantics.


Actually, it’s important. The man is illogical and prone to delusions. That means he’s unpredictable and liable to make overreach.

Doing wonders for your argument- I can just picture insane Saddam tearing himself up about the risk to Palestinians.

What part of circular-error-probable don't you understand? They are *guaranteed* to fall within that area. That's what the spec is for.


There are two problems:

(A) Too risky to deploy WMD directly against Israel. He’d run the risk of being glassed.

(B) If he hits Palestinians, the whole reason for the conventional attack dies anyway.

Is that to say that Saddam would only use WMD if attacked? Most likely. But then look at the issue of the enforcers. You don’t let a known criminal buy a gun if you can help it because it makes him more difficult to apprehend in the future. Hence the call for full disarmament of WMD is still valid. It made the war more risky, but why wait? After all, Saddam could only grow more bold.

Chemical weapons are not contagious. And I can just imagine Saddam Insane worrying about it, too, because he's such a nice guy.


Biological then. Chemicals present the problem of seepage. See above for the issues with Palestine.

Watch out for the cliff you're about to backpedal off.


Concession accepted.

Except of course that yours is based on an appeal to ignorance fallacy of "You can't prove that he's NOT doing anything!"

I also can't prove invisible pink unicorns exist. I guess they must.


In the realm of speculation, this one is 99% valid.

Not an answer. Concession Accepted.


A fine answer. What part of “large-scale operation” did you miss?

Nah, the inspections were *fine*, after all, they only allowed their Israeli allies to control the fucking agenda of the visits and benefit from their benign neglect, while taking their word for it that a facility was what they said it was before they set fucking foot in it. Go ahead and apply that to Iraq, fucktard.


Again – the teams were outright fooled. Blix has minders and guides as well. He’s just used to contravening their suggestions. That doesn’t mean he’s liable to find anything especially well-hidden.

In the face of military force from it's ally whom it obtains all it's military equipment and billions in aid?


How, exactly, would we have obtained a full list of Israeli weapons? How would we account for all of them in the first place?

I'm well aware that they provided fibre-optics to connect Iraqi C&C facilities, but I'm afraid you'll have to show this sharing of 'air defense technology'.


That’s air-defense technology.

Did you also know that the black market routes for circumvention where known by the US/UK for sometime? And that smart sanctions sought to close these routes while allowing trade with Iraq to resume?

Furthermore, I would *love* to see some proof for this France January claim, considering the title of the thread.


The French sent parts for aircraft to Iraq in January. What part of this did you miss on FOX/CNN?

They were also known by the United Nations. All sides are guilty. But this hurts your argument most since you argue that the UN would have safeguarded us in the first place.

Funny, he didn't need the threat of an invasion to destroy his material from 91-98, did he.


Because inspectors were already on the ground. The situation has changed.

99% certain? Because you say so? Maybe you need to read up on what's happening over there. If you destroy a movement like that in Iraq, there's no guarantee that you would've put it down for good, and it would DESTROY any remaining goodwill the US has in the region- especially if the movement is popular.


Again, would we let an Islamofascist group into power? An Islamist group, yes. An Islamofascist group, no.

Yeahhhh Kast, after all, US inspectors would have *no* idea to search for bricked up hallways and elevators in facilities they have free run of, they just walk in, look around, and walk off.


And you happen to personally know that that’s the same thing that happened in Israel, too, right? :roll:

They did *eventually* go to that location. The fact remains that they obviously weren't too concerned.


Or they never knew to be concerned in the first place.

Forced my ass.


Again, stall tactics on Saddam’s part – or were you sleeping for all of early March?

Except that inspectors returned, idiot.


At the barrel of a gun.

Iraq also had MiG-23s. And Mirage F1s. And Super Etendards (a loan). And those F-14s were *sabotaged* (no ability to fire AIM-54 Phoenix) and lacking spares.


The MiG-23 was a poor match for the F-14 even without Phoenix. No Mirages or Super Etendards in action early on either. Lacking spares was a problem only after continuous fighting. West Germany made up for some of that with spares for F-4s anyway.

Not a dominant advantage whatsoever. The T-62 is quite capable of knocking out a Chieftain, not to mention they were outnumbered.


The Chieftan is superior on average in terms of protection and fighting power.

Saddam used human wave tactics? I'm sorry, source? Iran did that.


Hence the references to trench warfare. Saddam’s troops went into action often untrained and unprepared – especially at first. He threw away many infantry in frontal assaults. Like Iran’s leaders, Saddam suffered from the expectation that his worthless troops somehow had a destiny in victory.

Almost immediately? Iranian counterattacks didn't begin till Jan 1981- they were getting blitzed. They had inadequate support and ill-trained officers- the first major counterattack failed. They eventually succeeded in stopping Iraq along a river (natural defense line), and then began human wave assaults. Methinks you've confused the q and n.

It's standard military history- your insanity/ lack of logic claim is bullshit.


Iraqi “success” was expensive and trivial. A farce.

Strategy & Tactics “Ignorant Armies: Iran-Iraq War.” Pages 8 – 9.

“The intial Iraqi offensive was a paradox. Strategically, Hussein had his generals plan a rapid mobile advance. Documents seized from prisoners revealed Iraq planned to take the main centers of oil-rich Khuzestan, including Khoramshahr, Abadan, and Ahwaz, Defzul, and Mesjed Soleyman, within 10-14 days. In another seven days, the Iraqi army was supposed to seize a large part of Kurdistan.

[…] But the tactics of surround, shell, and advance did not work as well as Iraq had intended in Iran. The large Iranian cities defied total encirclement or they over-extended the Iraqi lines. As a result, the Iranians were able to maintain their supply lines and flow of reinforcements to the front. Indiscriminate Iraqi shelling of civilians and urban centers strengthened the resolve of Iranians, including the ethnic Arabs upon whom Baghdad was relying for local support. Establishment of defensive lines and methodical shelling slowed operations so that, on average, Iraqis advanced only six miles a day. That was hardly a war-winning blitzkrieg.”

C-in-C is a title, it is not indicative of any actual martial skill. Nor does it indicate that he commanded all his forces personally and dictated their tactics personally.


As head of the Ba’arth Party, he had to have known personally of purges. He himself later revised the fucking scheme, Vympel.

He is certainly rational and sane. He's not suicidal, which is what you'd have to claim in any attempt to argue that Iraq would attack the United States.


Not directly. Indirectly. Get it through your head that intelligence-sharing or the provision of false documents and the transfer of funds is a danger.

Saddam is irrational and not fully sane.

Do point out where Saddam thought attrition would be "supreme and total".


The man assumed that he would whittle Iranian forces virtually immediately in his battle plans. To the degree that they wouldn’t be a problem. He was wrong until the U.S. fortuitously did it for him.

He didn't think they'd be able to recoup their losses, obviously.


… With a larger population and no sure sign of being cut-off from the rest of the world at first?

What part of "it wasn't happeneing when the war began" don't you understand?


Saddam used the same tactics over and over again, slamming his head into walls.

It does actually. Concession Accepted.


No, it doesn’t. That statement should actually read: “Illogical, yes. Crazy? No. Insane? Yes. Predictible? Probably not.” We can guesstimate on some levels but not on others.

Ah, so you'd rather submit them to "hey, look at us! bomb us now!" to airpower they can't even fucking challenge than a defense on the ground against something they can fight back against? You're obviously fucking incompetent.


He never tried to provide a means by which his own men could escape. He left them to die.

o, what I am saying is what compelling force was required- invasion level, no.


As of March, 2002, yes.

Clearly, you think you're in the right, and that preemptive logic is sound, therfore, criticism shouldn't be made. But then you turn around and claim that other nation's shouldn't be able to employ the same logic?


The question is whether they’d be able to do so without facing all the same criticism or contingencies as if we’d never gone into Iraq. The answer is no. And I happen to think my basis are a lot more sound than anything I’ve heard come out of New Delhi lately.

All marvelous incidents in history. Though I don't see how Afghanistan qualifies as preemption.


To preempt total Soviet control. It’s the most shakey.

Oh, I don't know, that it's unacceptable?


Try unpopular.

In other words, you have no sound reason, you just think they shouldn't be allowed, 'just because'. That's not good strategy, that's just bullshit, and it shows your reasoning to be utterly devoid of any serious thought.


Oh, it’s very sound reason. We didn’t do anything dangerous from posterity’s point of view because nobody else can follow our lead anyway. Not that they wouldn’t have done it without us if they could.

Incorrect. The cease-fire is Resolution 687. Desert Storm was a Coalition under the UN, not under the United States.


But the United States was a principle combatant and the UN is self-serving. We can make determinations about our own security, thank you very much.
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

Oh ... and by the way, that April Glaspie stuff is bullshit.

Saddam Hussein in fact anticipated an American reaction - but only by ready elements of the 82nd/101st or an MEU. Hence why eight RG divisions accompanied the original Iraqi thrust into Kuwait and helped secure sites such as airports and beaches. He expected American intervention. He knew Washington would become involved with Kuwait. He merely thought he could win.
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Axis Kast wrote:Oh ... and by the way, that April Glaspie stuff is bullshit.
Oh really, so you deny that she said anything of that effect to Saddam?
Saddam Hussein in fact anticipated an American reaction - but only by ready elements of the 82nd/101st or an MEU. Hence why eight RG divisions accompanied the original Iraqi thrust into Kuwait and helped secure sites such as airports and beaches. He expected American intervention. He knew Washington would become involved with Kuwait. He merely thought he could win.
And you know this, how? Conducted another interview with him did you?
And I did. The preliminary documents that ended the conflict in the field were signed before Resolution 687.
You provided the documents did you? Funny, I don't see them anywhere.
Iraq thoroughly violated each cease-fire, be it preliminary or final. One of the logical conclusions of such an action would be renewed hostilities. And the United States – as a combatant – is within its legal rights to make such determinations for the sake of its own security and legal satisfaction.
Wrong. Legality is under the sole purview of the UN. You don't have a legal leg to stand on. Resolution 687 says nothing about automatic renewal of hostilities.
The United Nations Security Council has clearly chosen to offer only a minor slap on the wrist – contingent of course upon a major American sacrifice of resources – to Saddam Hussein. In essence their prescription has been the least possible penalty for Iraq and the most expensive possible outcome for the Untied States. Unacceptable.
Unfortunately for you, totally legal.
Terrorists operated from within Iraq’s borders between 1991 and 2003. Ansar al-Islam was a terrorist organization – within Kurdish-dominated territory beyond the No-Fly Zones or not. How’s that for a legal stickler?
Not under Iraq's control. Some legal stickler, retard.
Saddam Hussein also violates Article 12H (if I remember correctly) in that he provides money for the families of Palestinian terrorists, which is essentially a form of retroactive advocacy prohibited expressly in Resolution 687.
Which also has nothing to do with automatic invasion, which is stipulated nowhere in Resolution 687. Too bad.
So you deny that Iraqi intelligence could possibly represent a threat to the United States?
Appeal to ignorance. Your skills in debating just don't improve do they. I love this logic. Invade anyone, when some questions it, just say "prove they weren't plotting against us!"

Fuckwit.
You deny that Iraq was in actual circumvention of UNSC resolutions prohibition both economic and political activity but that nothing had been done?
The issue had not been brought to the UNSC by anyone recently, yes. When the issue was brought, the question was invasion, which was found to be unacceptable. Hence, illegal. Too bad.
As in indefinitely prolonging the issue as France was so apt to do?
False dilemma.
On a very basic level, yes.
I'm sure the 28 dead US soldiers in the month of May sure feel a helluva lot safer in Iraq. Al-Qaeda won't be able to touch them there, after all :roll:
I’ll say it for the third time: al-Qaeda was threatening attacks on American troops massed in the Middle East. The longer our troops remained collected in jump-off points, the longer they were exposed to the potential of a high-profile attack.
And now they're collected in easily targetable masses in the streets of Baghdad. Good job.
Not brought up to invasion levels? Ah. You’re referring to 1998, when we let him off-the-hook after the inspectors had already been on-site for eight years. Typical attempt to side-step current realities.


Funny, where were these invasion levels when the last round of inspections started- oh that's right, whoopsy, troops were still pouring into the region.

We’ve been waiting for Saddam to get a bullet in his head since 1991. Look at where that expectation has unfortunately landed us. To suggest that we should “sit it out” while our budgets dry up and our troops lie open to attack while waiting for an internal plot to foment is absolutely ridiculous.


No, instead you should dry up your budget by assaulting and occupying the place without even preparing properly for the peace while destroying international good will you had since 9/11. Real smart.

You deny that Saddam’s sons would be the most logical and likely successors by many orders of magnitude if a natural death were to occur?


Perhaps Quasay, but not Uday- Quasay had more clout.

No, you fucking idiot. It posed an unconventional threat. Read: Israel.


Was waiting for your moronic Israel=United States lie to turn it's ugly head yet again. Israel can't look after it's own security and respond to threats it deems likely in its own way (as it inimitably does), it has to use the US as it's proxy?

The UN didn’t even think about consequences despite clear violations until Bush broached the issue a second time. Iraq’s been in legal violation since 1998. Without American prodding – or the threat of American force -, Saddam would still be sitting unmolested in Baghdad.


Luckily, I am not the UN. Bush came to the UN asking for invasion, and they wouldn't accept it.

If Iran invaded Iraq in December 2002, do you think we would have permitted their boats to enter the Shatt al-Arab? Do you think Iraqi shore-to-ship missiles would have been necessary to keep the Persian Gulf clear of Iranian combatants? Do you think the war would have pivoted on the presence of primitive aerial drones?

I will now repeat my point for your benefit: the United States more or less would have controlled the stricture of sanctions. There was no necessity to permit them to stockpile ship-to-ship missiles or build aerial drones. Such proliferation is a privilege granted the weak by the strong out of ignorance, carelessness, or alliance. Iraq fits none of those.


Riiiigghhht. Iraq isn't responsible for it's own security, rather, that should be decided by the United States, because Iraq is weak and the US is strong, therefore, some cockhead on the internet can arbitrarily dictate what weapons he does and doesn't find aceptable so he can concoct contrived reasoning for invasion. I get it perfectly, thanks.

Strawman. At what point did I argue that Saddam should have been made to disband his military completely? I was referring only to superfluous, largely redundant systems such as the ship-to-ship missiles.


Surface-to-ship missiles are superfluous? Why, because you say so? Moron. You have no basis to arbitrarily dictate what weapons are acceptable for Iraq to possess and which are not- surface to ship missiles, UAVs, GPS satellites, tanks, planes, guns, artillery units and everything else in the arsenal is essential for a modern military to defend the state.

Laughed right out of the United Nations? I think not. Bush technically had the option of pointing to Iraq’s circumvention – however minor – and demanding redress. The UNSC would probably have granted him such requests in lieu of promised war.


The drone was not a circumvention, so you can't exactly point to it to demand redress.

In wartime, why is it “a stupid fucking tactic” to deploy the drones in the manner I have described?


I've already told you. However, feel free to write a techno-thriller where they prove key to a stunning victory on the battlefield :roll:

The requisite range?” What does range have to do with the potential for those drones to do harm at all?


:lol: ROFL. Really, that's just hilarious. Yes Kast, what does the issue of weapons range have to do with weapon threat, like after all, who needs ICBMs when you have nuclear warheads- their range has nothing to do with their harm, right? Ignoramus.

It took Saddam weeks to decide whether or not to finally destroy those missiles. Do you deny this?


No, I don't deny that. What I deny is your interpretation.

Ahem. Your inability to follow my argument is not my problem.


Shades of Darkstar. At every point where you have failed, you have simply modified and backpedaled to think up a better kind of stupid argument. From legal to spirit. From spirit to they could hurt us.

If you’re looking at the basics of the cease-fire, we had the legal justification to invade.


No, you did not. You are a moron who can't read.

If you’re looking at the situation logically, the United Nations wasn’t going to handle the issue well.


'Well'=invade.

Iraq was in full contravention of Resolution 687.


Contravention, full or no, says nothing of whether war was justified. The requirements of Resolution 687 stipulate nothing of war.

There was a potential for Iraq to sponsor or support unconventional strikes on American targets.


There is also the potential that Togo could do the same. Which means precisely fuck all.

Bullshit. Your faith in our air defense systems is touching but ultimately dangerous. There is no guarantee that the missiles would be able to respond in time to safely intercept a target carrying biological or chemical materials on a collision course with the ground.


Going back to your WMD angle- sorry, you have to show that they were there first.

It does justify invasion considering that (A) we were poised to invade all along


You were justified to invade because you were poised to invade. Fascinating.

B) all the Resolutions in question relied on the potential for military enforceability anyway.


They did? I'm sorry, I don't see anything about military enforceability in those resolutions.

Not the only reasons, but it certainly helps to strengthen the argument that Saddam Hussein is a threat.


No, it doesn't. That a country will try and repulse an invasion is a given. It says nothing about the threat posed.

Who said that the contravention of weapons sanctions was related only to WMD?


Noone. But for the contravention to be 'blatant', they'd have to be there, don't you think?

Of course it’s valid reasoning considering you’re dealing with a man whose continued contravention would oblige invasion anyway!


Lol. Let's break down your idiocy into bite-sized chunks of bullshit:

- We must invade Iraq because
- Our troops are under threat if we invade Iraq.
- Because his contravention obliges invasion.

It all makes sense now :roll:

Oh, it’s the response.


Forgot what we were talking about?

You said: "youre the only one who thinks Iraq should have these weapons anyway" (in relation to antiship missiles)

I said: "really, then why didn't bush, clinton, or bush 2 insist on Iraq's total disarmament"

You then brought up incidents that hand nothing to do with total disarmament.

Idiot.

My clarification is not a concession you fucking moron.


Oh, but it is, you amnesiac hat-fucker.

You just suggested that a whole plethora of immobile machinery would be involved.


No, a trailer, actually.

And again, strawmen. Can’t you fucking get it through your thick fucking skull? This all adds up to produce a clear picture of Iraqi circumvention and contempt. It’s not ever just one issue alone.


A perfectly legal drone adds up to circumvention of quite specific resolutions? Fascinating. I am indeed having trouble getting my head around this fascination double-speak bullshit.

Bullshit. The drones are utterly superfluous. And in case you hadn’t noticed, we were debating whether the ground controllers could get “close enough” to represent a threat. The answer was yes.


A "threat" to you (look sarge, a wooden RC plane! shoot it down!) when you're actually invading the place. Good one.

Strawman. A tank has many more purposes than a surveillance drone. My argument is about the unnecessary threat posed by Saddam’s possession of the drones.


The Axis Kast moron reasoning circus continues: because a tank has *more* purposes than a drone, it is *less* of an unecessary threat. Truly remarkable.

It is an issue because the drone can potentially perform certain functions missiles cannot and is also more easily-deployed.


Do point out where in the resolutions it says anything of the sort.

Yet. Although we did uncover two mobile labs recently.


Which is proof of precisely nothing.

The al-Samouds. The economic contravention. The centrifuges.


Destroyed. Blocked. Not for WMD. The threat was obviously massive :roll:

The drone was not necessarily illegal, but it was a departure from the norm. It’s a threat because it possesses new and as of ’91 or ’98, unforseen capabilities.


And not a threat unless you actually invaded.

The United Nations didn’t do anything with those aluminum tubes despite their being in contravention.


Did they get a chance?

he United Nations did nothing to look into the breaches related to advocacy for terrorism. They were negligent unless specifically prodded by one power with all the interest.


Isn't that always the way? We're well aware of Iraq's behavior (the 'advocacy for terrorism' accusation being quite nebulous but anyway). Your point that invasion was justified because of this does not follow from that, legally, or from a judgement of threat.

To an end that isn’t exactly undesirable.


Not for you, no, because it doesn't affect you in the least.

It’s not over yet.


And the Americans are committing suicide on Baghdad's walls too.

The point, Vympel, is that the excuse is bullshit considering you’ve always got to back an opinion or argument with fact, evidence, or credible conjecture


Wrong. That's what a person asserting a positive claim has to do. Disbelief in a thing is the default position. I need not make any effort to do so regardless, I can easily point to the lack of finding any WMD, the statements by former UN inspectors on the subject, the statements by Hussein Kemal in 1995, the denials of Iraqi scientists both before and after the war.

This “proving a negative crap” is being used erroneously to justify not having to make a decent stand.


It's perfectly rational. You think anyone's going to accept me punching someone in the face when I turn around and say "prove he WASN'T going to punch me!"

It’s just as bad as your faith that Saddam wasn’t doing anything to harm us and that he would never do anything to harm us, period.


No it's not, considering the burden of prooving that he was harming you, and would do something to harm you, was on you.

Which is what? He’s been lucky. Both in 1991 and 1998 it looked as if he was a goner. Hell, during the 1980s it sometimes looked that way, too. His behavior was increasingly characterized by bold gambles.


He didn't make many bold gambles in the 1990s, if any.

Concession accepted.


Yes, sir, black knight.

You made the piss-poor argument that it was cowardly and unacceptable to war on a nation that couldn’t defeat you


That's your perversion of the argument.

I’d only start a war against those I’d be certain to win against.

Oh, I’d go to war with the Russians and Chinese


And that kind of war-mongering would put everyone in a fine pickle, wouldn't it.

Actually, if you ask me, we exhausted all options with Iraq long ago . It’s now war as a last resort rather than, “Let’s rehash the old.”

Your lack of logic in this case is stunning, Vympel.


Yes, the one who has employed strawmen, false dilemmas, and made the appeal to ignorance the cornerstone of his argument is talking about 'lack of logic'.

I will. Thank you kindly. Although I’ll just ignore the “fucking Nazi coward” part.


Funny, that statement makes you one, whether you like it or not.

Oh, and by the way … Red herring


Oh, I'm well aware that it has no relevance to the argument, just thought I'd see how delusional you were- the taking a complement for being a morally bankrupt moron was priceless by the way.

So is that a denial?


Denial of what? You've continaully tried to play up Iraq's conventional threat.

Time and again you respond about Iraq not being a conventional threat and being unable to invade its neighbors. And I’ll repeat: if you use that same logic, Afghanistan was nothing. Wait a minute…


That Iraq is not a conventional threat is of course part of the argument of whether invasion could be justified- it weakens the case. That Afghanistan was an uncoventional threat was fact- which you have not shown for Iraq. You're an idiot.

Your argument.


Because you say so? Fuck off.

Not to mention that Wolfowitz recently spoke of the fact that WMD were merely among the most sensational - and therefore publicly understandable/acceptable reasons.


Which makes him a liar, but then again, I'm sure you're very proud of that scumbag.

Actually, it’s important. The man is illogical and prone to delusions. That means he’s unpredictable and liable to make overreach.


Yes Kast, he's so unpredictable, he's sitting there worrying about what's gonna happen to the poor Palestinians?

Too risky to deploy WMD directly against Israel. He’d run the risk of being glassed.


Funny, I thought he was unpredictable and liable to make overreach.

If he hits Palestinians, the whole reason for the conventional attack dies anyway.


Circular. Error. Probable.

Is that to say that Saddam would only use WMD if attacked? Most likely. But then look at the issue of the enforcers. You don’t let a known criminal buy a gun if you can help it because it makes him more difficult to apprehend in the future. Hence the call for full disarmament of WMD is still valid.


Whoever said the call for disarmament of WMD was *invalid*? The question is whether invasion was required. It was not. The inspectors were perfectly adequate for the job.

It made the war more risky, but why wait? After all, Saddam could only grow more bold.


Not necessarily. If anything, he got less and less brazen as time went on.

Concession accepted.


Concession to what, you idiot?

In the realm of speculation, this one is 99% valid.


Appealing to your own authority eh.

A fine answer. What part of “large-scale operation” did you miss?


The part where you established any meaningul similarity between the two operations, with actual figures and dates, for one?

Again – the teams were outright fooled . Blix has minders and guides as well. He’s just used to contravening their suggestions. That doesn’t mean he’s liable to find anything especially well-hidden.


Bullshit. At no point did Iraq control the agenda of what the UN inspectors were doing during their visits. Do you even know what control the agenda means?

"Hi, we're US weapon inspectors, we're here to-"

Israeli liar: "Yes, today, we're going to show you this lovely worker's safety chart"

*That's* controlling their agenda.

How, exactly, would we have obtained a full list of Israeli weapons? How would we account for all of them in the first place?


Answer the question. Would Israel say yes or no in the face of that threat? Because Iraq sure did, and it wasn't even an ally.

That’s air-defense technology.


No, air defense technology is radars and missiles. Fibre-optics is communication tech.

The French sent parts for aircraft to Iraq in January. What part of this did you miss on FOX/CNN?


*points to article that is the start of the thread*

These bullshit reports rely on 'anonymous administration officials'. Where's the proof? As I recall, I said the Kornet ATGM claim was bullshit. And it was. There is a pdf on the net from Team Abrams confirming no Kornets were used in Iraq, and none were found.

Because inspectors were already on the ground. The situation has changed.


But the situation couldn't revert?

Again, would we let an Islamofascist group into power? An Islamist group, yes. An Islamofascist group, no.


And I repeat my point again.

And you happen to personally know that that’s the same thing that happened in Israel, too, right?


I'd like to see where UN inspectors allowed Iraqis to control the agenda of their visits.

Or they never knew to be concerned in the first place.


Is that why the Israelis were asked to explain it then?

Again, stall tactics on Saddam’s part – or were you sleeping for all of early March?


Your interpretation of events is not the facts.

At the barrel of a gun.


As they were brought in the beginning. Noone said that barrel would have to stay there, just like forces were drawn down after 1991. It's not Iraq's fault, it's the United States. If they didn't want inspectors to leave, they shouldn't have violated their mandate- heck, Iraq didn't even fucking expel the inspectors.

The MiG-23 was a poor match for the F-14 even without Phoenix. No Mirages or Super Etendards in action early on either. Lacking spares was a problem only after continuous fighting. West Germany made up for some of that with spares for F-4s anyway.


Except that the MiG-23s were more numerous, were not being cannabalized for spares. The Mirage F1 began deliveries in 1977. Your source for saying it wasn't in action from the start?

The Chieftan is superior on average in terms of protection and fighting power.


Not by any "we'll lose this fight" sense. It's not a question of shitty T-72Ms facing M1A1s- the T-62 is quite capable of taking on a Chieftain, and there were more of them.

Hence the references to trench warfare. Saddam’s troops went into action often untrained and unprepared – especially at first. He threw away many infantry in frontal assaults. Like Iran’s leaders, Saddam suffered from the expectation that his worthless troops somehow had a destiny in victory.


Trench warfare doesn't equal human wave assaults.

Iraqi “success” was expensive and trivial. A farce.

*snip*


So far, I'm seeing indications of military mismanagement, not insanity and illogic.

As head of the Ba’arth Party, he had to have known personally of purges. He himself later revised the fucking scheme, Vympel.


Did he devise their tactics personally?

Not directly. Indirectly. Get it through your head that intelligence-sharing or the provision of false documents and the transfer of funds is a danger.


Sorry, you have to prove that went on, and then make the case that it's a sufficient danger to warrant danger rather than simply ... oh ... I don't know ... what's the word ..... COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE.

Saddam is irrational and not fully sane.


Just like when you backflipped and pointed to the danger to Palestinians and himself if he used WMD on Israel and the US, right?

The man assumed that he would whittle Iranian forces virtually immediately in his battle plans. To the degree that they wouldn’t be a problem. He was wrong until the U.S. fortuitously did it for him.


Yup, and as we all know, being wrong must mean you're insane.

The man assumed that he would whittle Iranian forces virtually immediately in his battle plans. To the degree that they wouldn’t be a problem. He was wrong until the U.S. fortuitously did it for him.


No sure sign? Iran was a fucking pariah! The revoltuon was barely a year old.

Saddam used the same tactics over and over again, slamming his head into walls.


Red herring. At the start of the war, Iran had no supplies. Later in the war, when it did start to get aid, it still didn't mean they were fully capable. Iraqi intelligence wasn't the best.

No, it doesn’t. That statement should actually read: “Illogical, yes. Crazy? No. Insane? Yes. Predictible ? Probably not.” We can guesstimate on some levels but not on others.


Translation= we can guesstimate on the level of Saddam but not LBJ, because I find the comparison between two fruitless wars that achieved nothing but death and ignomious defeat uncomfortable.

Either you agree that LBJ was unpredictable and crazy enough that you could make a convincing argument that he'd just do something stupid like attack someone who was bound to destroy him, or you concede the argument.

He never tried to provide a means by which his own men could escape. He left them to die.


What is that supposed to mean? 'Means of escape'? What, was he gonna build a big tunnel in between Iraq and Kuwait?

As of March, 2002, yes.


Why couldn't the situation revert, as it did after Desert Storm?

The question is whether they’d be able to do so without facing all the same criticism or contingencies as if we’d never gone into Iraq. The answer is no


They would, but if your reasoning is sound then their reasoning is sound. Frankly, Pakistan poses more of a threat to India than Iraq ever did to America.

And I happen to think my basis are a lot more sound than anything I’ve heard come out of New Delhi lately.


Your basis is exactly the same. By merely relying on appeal to ignorance. India attacks, some Indian guy on a forum: "prove that Pakistan wasn't about to destroy us!"

Try unpopular.


Yes, I've say the start of a World War by two aggressor states would be considered at least 'unpopular' :roll:

Oh, it’s very sound reason. We didn’t do anything dangerous from posterity’s point of view because nobody else can follow our lead anyway. Not that they wouldn’t have done it without us if they could.


Bugger! I forgot, you find nothing wrong with hypocrisy. Silly me.

But the United States was a principle combatant and the UN is self-serving. We can make determinations about our own security, thank you very much.


Sure you can, just don't expect anyone to go along with your 'it's justified by the UN' bullshit.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

Oh really, so you deny that she said anything of that effect to Saddam?
I deny that Saddam Hussein walked away from that discussion with the expectation that the United States would not meet him head-on in Kuwait.
And you know this, how? Conducted another interview with him did you?
Testimony of Tariq Aziz himself, a man who never uttered a word without prior approval.

Milton Vorst, "Report from Baghdad," The New Yorker, June 24, 1991, pp. 66-67 and "Aziz Denies Glaspie Gave Green Light," The Washington Times, May 31, 1991, p. A2.

Aziz discussed that Saddam, "Expected an immediate American military reaction to the invasion, probably by rapidly deployable American forces such as the ready brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division or a Marine Expeditionary Unit. Iraq military activity during the invasion of Kuwait fully supports the claims that Saddam expected a quick military response by Washington: Republican Guard infantry units moved to secure Kuwait's airfields and beaches, and immediately began building hasty defenses against either an air assault or an amphibious landing to repel a possible foreign intervention by air or sea. They did this to some extent at the expense of securing control over the Kuwaiti population.”

This information is corroborated by Pierre Salinger and Eric Laurent, Secret Dossier, (New York: Penguin, 1991), p. 82-83 and Freedman and Karsh, The Gulf Conflict, p. 203, and Jean Edward Smith, George Bush's War (New York: Henry Holt, 1992), p. 14.

You lose.
You provided the documents did you? Funny, I don't see them anywhere.
I provided confirmation that a preliminary cease-fire in fact did exist.
Wrong. Legality is under the sole purview of the UN. You don't have a legal leg to stand on. Resolution 687 says nothing about automatic renewal of hostilities.
The United States of America was, as a combatant, party to preliminary conditions for a cease-fire and peace. Iraq has clearly violated those conclusions. Hence war is justified from that legal perspective.
Unfortunately for you, totally legal.
Just as is the United States’ response as an original signatory to preliminary cease-fire.
Not under Iraq's control. Some legal stickler, retard.
Under Iraq’s control in a technical sense. Yes. Some legal stickler. Just as you claim the United Nations can get away with ignoring the problem in Iraq or taking only half-steps, so too is Iraq in contravention of Article 12H.
Which also has nothing to do with automatic invasion, which is stipulated nowhere in Resolution 687. Too bad.
Legal contravention of Resolution 687 never addressed by the United Nations out of willful ignorance. That’s not to say we shouldn’t feel compelled to uphold those stipulations ourselves for the sake of personal security.
Appeal to ignorance. Your skills in debating just don't improve do they. I love this logic. Invade anyone, when some questions it, just say "prove they weren't plotting against us!"

Fuckwit.
I am asking you a question. An answer, please. And again, don’t try to take this part of the argument on its own. Because it’s actually part of a whole, much as that might not be to your liking.
The issue had not been brought to the UNSC by anyone recently, yes. When the issue was brought, the question was invasion, which was found to be unacceptable. Hence, illegal. Too bad.
The United Nations was as of the moment Resolution 687 was approved, responsible for its enforcement. The excuse that it was not put in front of them is thus unacceptable. Willful ignorance. The United Nations took no steps to address the particular violations of Article 12H and moved only to deal with the charges of weapons of mass destruction. Dangerous oversight.
False dilemma.
Incorrect. You solution of inspections was within an indefinite time frame. That is to say, there was none at all. And yet, of course, the threat of military action – and thus of troops on-site – would always have been there. Not to mention that whereas the Americans brought an end to all active transgression or circumvention by abolishing the guilty régime, the United Nations only addressed one major issue, hoping that in doing so they could somehow downplay all others.
I'm sure the 28 dead US soldiers in the month of May sure feel a helluva lot safer in Iraq. Al-Qaeda won't be able to touch them there, after all.
Red herring. Al-Qaeda’s threats were most serious until the invasion began and our troops were less heavily-concentrated. The only other way to deal with the situation would have been to pull out – which was itself counseled against by the United Nations Security Council, who argued in favor of an American force adding the potential for violence to Blix’ fact-finding.
And now they're collected in easily targetable masses in the streets of Baghdad. Good job.
But not in larger staging areas where more troops would have been in one open, easily-reached location at one time. Baghdad is also a target that the average al-Qaeda might be less prone to hit considering the presence of Arab non-combatants.
Funny, where were these invasion levels when the last round of inspections started- oh that's right, whoopsy, troops were still pouring into the region.
When the last round of inspections started in 2002? Yes. Pouring into the region. As in many were on their fucking way with large guns and armored vehicles in tow.
No, instead you should dry up your budget by assaulting and occupying the place without even preparing properly for the peace while destroying international good will you had since 9/11. Real smart.
We didn’t prepare properly for this peace because this peace came weeks ahead of schedule. That’s to say nothing of long-term prospects. At least we’ve got a credible game-plan coming together. You’d have had us sitting in the desert for an unknown period of time with our thumbs in our ass. International goodwill? You mean the kind by which France, Russia, and Germany were just jumping to get us to commit troops to sit in Iraq and do nothing? As for the budget, I’d sooner spend it eliminating a known threat than wasting it on providing a credible edge to sanctions that aren’t even thorough and deal with only half the problems as is.
Perhaps Quasay, but not Uday- Quasay had more clout.
The line of succession still runs within the family. Hence a continuation of rule by the Ba’athists.
Was waiting for your moronic Israel=United States lie to turn it's ugly head yet again. Israel can't look after it's own security and respond to threats it deems likely in its own way (as it inimitably does), it has to use the US as it's proxy?
The question, Vympel, was whether or not Iraq posed an unconventional threat to any of its neighbors. The answer is yes. Deterrence is irrelevant.
Luckily, I am not the UN. Bush came to the UN asking for invasion, and they wouldn't accept it.
Not surprising, since just about everybody else had their fingers in the Iraqi pie. These people aren’t altruists, Vympel. The United Nations is a forum for self-service via a corrupted quasi-level process of majority agreement. The legal argument – based on the cease-fire – is all we need from the point of view of jurisprudence.
Riiiigghhht. Iraq isn't responsible for it's own security, rather, that should be decided by the United States, because Iraq is weak and the US is strong, therefore, some cockhead on the internet can arbitrarily dictate what weapons he does and doesn't find aceptable so he can concoct contrived reasoning for invasion. I get it perfectly, thanks.
My point is that we should be declaring what is and isn’t acceptable as long as it’s within our power to do so. Fair or not, it’s good security policy.
Surface-to-ship missiles are superfluous? Why, because you say so? Moron. You have no basis to arbitrarily dictate what weapons are acceptable for Iraq to possess and which are not- surface to ship missiles, UAVs, GPS satellites, tanks, planes, guns, artillery units and everything else in the arsenal is essential for a modern military to defend the state.
What ocean-going threat does Iraq feel the pressing urge to counter besides the United States of America?

No basis? Try the threat of invasion, idiot. If we’re going to be risking our troops on deterrence in the first place, why shouldn’t we divest Hussein of any weaponry not immediately necessary for internal security?
The drone was not a circumvention, so you can't exactly point to it to demand redress.
Support for terrorism. Economic circumvention. Aluminum centrifuges. Al-Samouds.
I've already told you.
No. Your argument has been that they might be shot down and don’t have the range to harm targets at long distance.
ROFL. Really, that's just hilarious. Yes Kast, what does the issue of weapons range have to do with weapon threat, like after all, who needs ICBMs when you have nuclear warheads- their range has nothing to do with their harm, right? Ignoramus.
The limited range doesn’t make the drones less dangerous to units deployed in their immediate vicinity.
No, I don't deny that. What I deny is your interpretation.
Why would Saddam take weeks if he planned full compliance, Vympel? Why did he finally acceede?
Shades of Darkstar. At every point where you have failed, you have simply modified and backpedaled to think up a better kind of stupid argument. From legal to spirit. From spirit to they could hurt us.
No, Vympel. Linking reasons is not backpedaling.

The legal justification? Cease-fires to which the United States was a party prior to Resolution 687. The United Nation’s own inability and unwillingness to properly enforce all articles of the same document without repeated insistence – which then results only in a limited, knowingly incomplete review of the problem.

The violations in spirit? The al-Samouds. The drones.

The threat? Saddam Hussein’s unpredictability. His obvious circumvention of sanctions (i.e. the aluminum rods, the black market sales, the Chinese communications technologies, etc.)
'Well'=invade.
It handled the situation only half-way at all.
Contravention, full or no, says nothing of whether war was justified. The requirements of Resolution 687 stipulate nothing of war.
They stipulate nothing of anything. I couldn’t even find the part about future consultations in case of Iraqi non-compliance. Not to mention that the preliminary cease-fire was already violated.
There is also the potential that Togo could do the same. Which means precisely fuck all.
Save for the fact that the accusation against Iraq carries far more weight. Who is more likely to kill, Vympel, a known murderer or your next-door neighbor?
Going back to your WMD angle- sorry, you have to show that they were there first.
Hoodlums in the mailroom can get anthrax but Saddam Hussein’s scientists could not?

And again, the inspections are not yet complete. As for that Alpha Team argument, Bush recently authorized 1,300 new inspectors.
You were justified to invade because you were poised to invade. Fascinating.
Why allow Iraq to circumvent clear regulations that strengthens its ability to resist in the first place? Especially if we’re sitting on the border poised to use force even if everything goes Blix’ way?
They did? I'm sorry, I don't see anything about military enforceability in those resolutions.
And how, exactly, were we supposed to force Saddam Hussein to accept inspections? Sanctions didn’t work after 1998.
No, it doesn't. That a country will try and repulse an invasion is a given. It says nothing about the threat posed.
But we’re talking about contravention of sanctions here. That’s a threat, Vympel. Those Chinese air-defense components prohibited by sanctions? A threat. Those al-Samoud missiles? A threat.
Noone. But for the contravention to be 'blatant', they'd have to be there, don't you think?
Al-Samouds. Aluminum rods. Chinese air-defense components.
Lol. Let's break down your idiocy into bite-sized chunks of bullshit:

- We must invade Iraq because
- Our troops are under threat if we invade Iraq.
- Because his contravention obliges invasion.

It all makes sense now.
His convention obliges credible action.

Bush’s logic works. Hans Blix did not have full access to all sites in Iraq. Only régime-change could provide the best possible look into the question of WMD.

Contravention puts everyone at risk – especially if we ignore all conventional aspects of it so long as they remain small, which is essentially what the United Nations did.
Forgot what we were talking about?

You said: "youre the only one who thinks Iraq should have these weapons anyway" (in relation to antiship missiles)

I said: "really, then why didn't bush, clinton, or bush 2 insist on Iraq's total disarmament"

You then brought up incidents that hand nothing to do with total disarmament.

Idiot.
No, a trailer, actually.
So now you lie?

“Just *try* and camoflage a control station, I'm sure it'll be very convincing.”

A ground-based control station and a trailer are two very different things, Vympel.
A perfectly legal drone adds up to circumvention of quite specific resolutions? Fascinating. I am indeed having trouble getting my head around this fascination double-speak bullshit.
“A perfectly legal drone” is certainly a perfect threat. Circumstantial, but strong.
A "threat" to you (look sarge, a wooden RC plane! shoot it down!) when you're actually invading the place. Good one.
Again, who says our troops will be able to shoot these things down all of the time? Or that the spores and cultures will be damaged?

“Wooden RC plane!” I want a source for what you claim is shoddy construction.
The Axis Kast moron reasoning circus continues: because a tank has *more* purposes than a drone, it is *less* of an unecessary threat. Truly remarkable.
I’m not the one who demanded to know the difference between a tank and an anti-ship missile. :roll:

A tank can be used for internal suppression of crowds. An armored vehicle is sometimes necessary for such activities. A drone is not.

Think about what you are saying. A tank is less of a threat.
Do point out where in the resolutions it says anything of the sort.
Resolutions don’t make or unmake threats.
Which is proof of precisely nothing.
And why does Iraq need labs mounted in trucks?
Destroyed. Blocked. Not for WMD. The threat was obviously massive.
Blocked? Tell that to the fucking Chinese. Iraq was doing business with foreign companies throughout the sanctions era. Not for WMD? The centrifuges are still illegal, pal. Contrafuckingvention.
And not a threat unless you actually invaded.
And yet that’s what France, Russia, and others suggested we should be ready to do.
Did they get a chance?
They destroyed those al-Samouds. Not to mention that they said nothing about Article 12H and the terrorist issue. They ignore what they aren’t required to face up to. That’s poor enforcement.
Isn't that always the way? We're well aware of Iraq's behavior (the 'advocacy for terrorism' accusation being quite nebulous but anyway). Your point that invasion was justified because of this does not follow from that, legally, or from a judgement of threat.
The United Nations isn’t doing its fucking job. That’s a fact. They didn’t enforce all of Resolution 687 even in March 2002. That deprives them of any kind of moderatorial highground or authority as potential source of compromise peace.
And the Americans are committing suicide on Baghdad's walls too.
What the fuck are you talking about, you idiot? Bush sent in 1,300 new inspectors this week. Moron.
Not for you, no, because it doesn't affect you in the least.
It’s all opinion. That’s my fucking point.
Wrong. That's what a person asserting a positive claim has to do. Disbelief in a thing is the default position. I need not make any effort to do so regardless, I can easily point to the lack of finding any WMD, the statements by former UN inspectors on the subject, the statements by Hussein Kemal in 1995, the denials of Iraqi scientists both before and after the war.
Disbelief is a poor substitute for a contrary argument. The insistence that Iraq holds no weapons merely because we haven’t found them during a relatively short hunt is based primarily on faith. If you want to make your argument more potent, you would add that evidence you spoke of.
It's perfectly rational. You think anyone's going to accept me punching someone in the face when I turn around and say "prove he WASN'T going to punch me!"
It’s rational but not credible.
No it's not, considering the burden of prooving that he was harming you, and would do something to harm you, was on you.
The man has been circumventing UNSC resolutions …
He didn't make many bold gambles in the 1990s, if any.
Bullshit. 1998 refusal of inspections.
That's your perversion of the argument.
No. Now you’re trying to worm out of it. Your argument was that I was a coward for wanting to invade Iraq because Saddam couldn’t possibly win a conventional war.
And that kind of war-mongering would put everyone in a fine pickle, wouldn't it.
Jesus Christ. Strawman. You implied I wouldn’t go to war with Russia and China at all. If invaded, I would.
Funny, that statement makes you one, whether you like it or not.
How does it make me a Nazi or a coward? How am I “fucking?”
Oh, I'm well aware that it has no relevance to the argument, just thought I'd see how delusional you were- the taking a complement for being a morally bankrupt moron was priceless by the way.
Geopolitical moral bankruptcy = freedom of movement.

Incidentally, I’m personally more moral than you considering I don’t post to a “Hall of Shame” forum designed to unnecessarily lampoon people I don’t like. You’ve got a mean streak a mile long, Vympel. Don’t throw bricks, mate, when you live in a glass house.
Denial of what? You've continaully tried to play up Iraq's conventional threat.
Which is related to their unconventional threat.
That Iraq is not a conventional threat is of course part of the argument of whether invasion could be justified- it weakens the case. That Afghanistan was an uncoventional threat was fact- which you have not shown for Iraq. You're an idiot.
It does not at all weaken the case considering that my argument is about the unconventional threat.

That Afghanistan was a threat was only shown because people died you fucking moron. We’re trying to avoid that happening a second time.
Which makes him a liar, but then again, I'm sure you're very proud of that scumbag.
Not at all. Just because he chooses to focus on an issue – that you’ve not proven false, by the way – doesn’t mean he’s a liar. It means he’s a good fucking politician. The average person wouldn’t understand the fucking nuances of geopolitical security.
Funny, I thought he was unpredictable and liable to make overreach.
“The Coming Storm.” Kenneth Pollack. Page 253.

“Saddam Hussein and his regime are the polar opposite of every single one of the traits considered desirable, if not essential, for nuclear deterrence. The psychologist Jerrod Post, a longtime U.S. government expert on Saddam who has written extensible on him as a decision-maker, says of Saddam that “while he is psychologically in touch with reality, he is often politically out of touch with reality. Saddam’s worldview is narrow and distorted and he has scant experience outside of the Arab world.” Saddam is determined to overturn the status-quo to make himself hegemon of the Persian Gulf region and leader of the Arab world, to evict the United States from the region, and eventually to destroy the state of Israel. Saddam is also one of the worst gamblers and risk takers in modern history. On the eve of the Gulf War, one of Israel’s senior Iraq analysts in the Directorate of Military Intelligence concluded that, “Saddam has a tendency to run risks: he takes surprising steps without considering the inherent dangers. An example of this is his war against Iran. For that reason, his moves must be watched with care.” Saddam’s behavior is also completely unrestrained by the Iraqi political structure.

Page 254. “[…] Saddam willfully distorts facts and probabilistic outcomes to suit what he wants to have happen. When Saddam looks at a situation, partciularly an external situation, and determins his own actions, he inveriably interprets all of the avaliable data to conform to what would be best for him. Thus, Saddam plays very dangerous games, but […] he plays them falsely confident that the game is not nearly as dangerous as everyone around him believes. This is probably Saddam’s most dangerous trait and the one that makes him most difficult to deter, because it means that he downplays warnings and indicators of danger and plays up information and rationales that support what he wants tyo be true.

Page 255. “[…] Thus, before the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq had little information regarding developments in Tehran, the mood of the country, or the operational status of the armed forces and instead relied on the misinformation of former Iranian generals who had fled the Islamic Revolution […].”

Saddam is indeed irrational, unpredictable, and delusional. I’ll be taking my concession now.
Circular. Error. Probable.
Bullshit. FACT. If he pisses off the Palestinians, he’s fucked up the initial objective.
The question is whether invasion was required. It was not. The inspectors were perfectly adequate for the job.
No, they were not, considering that so long as the régime still stood, they were not completely free.
Not necessarily. If anything, he got less and less brazen as time went on.
As his arsenal slowly grows and the inspectors find only what he wants them to find?
Concession to what, you idiot?

To the argument that Iraq was not a danger.
Appealing to your own authority eh.
I don’t think Iraq’s intelligence community was defunct before the war, no.
The part where you established any meaningul similarity between the two operations, with actual figures and dates, for one?
The point is that inspectors on-site with electronic surveillance and all the modern instruments were fucking had.
Bullshit. At no point did Iraq control the agenda of what the UN inspectors were doing during their visits. Do you even know what control the agenda means?

"Hi, we're US weapon inspectors, we're here to-"

Israeli liar: "Yes, today, we're going to show you this lovely worker's safety chart"

*That's* controlling their agenda.
That doesn’t mean that people still weren’t fooled when they came to fucking look. My point is that it’s been done before.
Answer the question. Would Israel say yes or no in the face of that threat? Because Iraq sure did, and it wasn't even an ally.
False dilemma. Israel would never fully divest itself of all material because (A) there’s no way to get a full count on our part and (B) it’s very probable that we’d never find a few warheads smuggled away anyway.

By the way, concession accepted. You just admitted we had to threaten Iraq into sanctions – which means that those troops in Kuwait and Qatar were in fact necessary.
No, air defense technology is radars and missiles. Fibre-optics is communication tech.
But it makes the fucking weapons work. It’s still a component to the fucking system system. And illegal.
These bullshit reports rely on 'anonymous administration officials'. Where's the proof? As I recall, I said the Kornet ATGM claim was bullshit. And it was. There is a pdf on the net from Team Abrams confirming no Kornets were used in Iraq, and none were found.
The aircraft parts, Vympel. We’re talking France, not Russia.
But the situation couldn't revert?
No, because Saddam was at first fucking unwilling to let them in.
And I repeat my point again.
Which is a strawman.
I'd like to see where UN inspectors allowed Iraqis to control the agenda of their visits.
The point is that it was possible for Iraq to dupe the inspectors while the régime was still active.
As they were brought in the beginning. Noone said that barrel would have to stay there, just like forces were drawn down after 1991. It's not Iraq's fault, it's the United States. If they didn't want inspectors to leave, they shouldn't have violated their mandate- heck, Iraq didn't even fucking expel the inspectors.
So now it’s slipped from, “We didn’t need those troops to compel him,” to, “Well, the can go home after a while?” Backpedaling. You lose.
Except that the MiG-23s were more numerous, were not being cannabalized for spares. The Mirage F1 began deliveries in 1977. Your source for saying it wasn't in action from the start?[/qutoe]

F-14s were being cannibalized for spares for other F-14s. At first, it was a non-issue.

As far as I was aware, the Mirages hadn’t been there from the start. But that’s unimportant anyway since the F-14s beat them hands-down.
But Iran’s armored forces were actually superior in training anyway. Especially in the middle of the war.
It entails all the stupidity in a modern war, Vympel. All the delusions of glorious victory for our thousands of useless, untrained conscripts.
See the Pollack quotations.
He certainly devised periods of culling and was responsible for some of it directly. The man was shooting his own fucking Cabinet staff.
How does not wanting to kill Palestinians make Saddam any less dangerous to us? It merely explains why he didn’t deploy WMD in that instance. It doesn’t explain why he’s no threat at all.

If Saddam Hussein was confirmed to have had WMD at all, would you advocate an invasion?

The dangers of his being able to deal directly with domestic organizations capable of building him the bomb, footing the information to others, or providing assistance to American enemies would be unacceptable.
He’s fucking delusional.

More on that right now.

Page 257 of Pollock’s book.

“Saddam’s foreign policy history is littered with bizarre decisions, poor judgement, and catastrophic miscalculations. When confronted with a problem, he has generally reacted with aggression and justified his offensives with distortions and convoluted logic. All too frequently, Saddam has reached conclusions that no Western leader would have reached; constructed scenarios that are fantastic when recounted; and taken risks that everyone around him (let alone outside observers) has found inexplicable.

In 1974, Saddam made his first catastrophic foreign policy miscalculation: he decided to abrogate the March Manifesto, which had granted the Kurds limited autonomy and which he had negotiated in 1970. Instead, he chose to use force to restore Kurdistan to Baghdad’s control. A key element of this decision was Saddam’s belief that the Shah of Iran ould not intervene on the Kurds’ side. It is not clear why Saddam believed this. Along with the United States and Israel, Iran had been backing the Kurds with money and weaponry since 1972 and had retrained Kurdish forces in conventional military operations. The Shah’s armed forces were far superior to Iraq’s at that time, and there was nothing in particular to stop Tehran from intervening if the Shah chose to do so. Nevertheless, Saddam simply assumed the Shah would stay out and launched his attack.” The result was, of course, direct Iranian intervention and the Algiers Agreement that forced Iraq to cede half the Shatt al-Arab.

Page 258.

“Saddam’s invasion of Iran in September 1980 was another colossal miscalculation that nearly cost him everything. […] He chose to try to solve his internal problem [the potential for Islamic revolt among Shi’ites] with an external adventure – invading Iran to eliminate the Ayatollah’s régime. Iraqi intelligence knew nothing about Iran or its armed forces. Instead, relying primarily on a group of former Iranian military officers who had fled the Iranian revolution, Saddam concluded that Iran was exceptionally weak and that one good shove would cause the whole régime to collapse. Saddam concocted a theory by which Iraqi forces would invade Iran and occupy its oil-rich Kuzestan province; somehow, this would produce either a military coup or a popular revolt against Khomeni. The sycophants around him applauded his decision, and he ordered the attack – without any real planning. Iraqi divisions were moved to the border, given distant objectives, and told to move out -–without any routes of march, logistical preparations, support plans, intelligence assessments, or any of the other rudiments of military planning.”

The man is fucking delusional. That means he’s not fully sane. Thus he is insane. Concession accepted. This evidence also means he is illogical, irrational, and unpredictable. A man surrounded by “yes-men” and with no appreciation for the outside world is inherently very dangerous.
Most parties were early neutrals – specifically Israel, France, and Germany. The Soviet Union also dealt with Iran. Germany never enacted full sanctions. Vietnam sent American parts abandoned during the war in Southeast Asia.
Of course Iran had supplies at the war’s start. They invaded Iraq. Their F-4s won just about every aerial dogfight of the war.

Saddam Hussein ran on poor battleplans based largely on assumptions and delusions, as proven above.
No. I win. See above.
Tell them to fucking hightail it out of there.
Revert to what? At what point did you forget that Hussein refused initially to let in inspectors or to destroy the al-Samouds?
But nobody would accept an argument of preemption on Pakistan’s part without undeniable evidence. And in that case, there’s no proof our preemption was the only factor behind India’s anyway.
And that gets India “off” from criticism or sanction?
It doesn’t change the facts of preemption. It’s an appeal to emotion.
User avatar
Tribun
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2164
Joined: 2003-05-25 10:02am
Location: Lübeck, Germany
Contact:

Post by Tribun »

This threat became somewhat hard to read.......
User avatar
Lord Sander
Padawan Learner
Posts: 353
Joined: 2002-09-09 04:04pm
Location: Netherlands, the
Contact:

Post by Lord Sander »

Tribun wrote:This threat became somewhat hard to read.......
I doubt anyone besides Axis and Vympel actually read this thread :)
Lord Sander,
"Oderint dum metuant"
Glory to the Empire and Emperor Palpatine!
Image
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Lord Sander wrote: I doubt anyone besides Axis and Vympel actually read this thread :)
Well, Tribun must've, at least. 8)

There's no point in continuing to debate with someone who uses the appeal to ignorance (just think of the possibilities- you can get away with anything, no matter how outrageous, by just saying "prove that he WASN'T gonna hurt me!") as the cornerstone of his argument and merely restates his positition and calls logic 'bullshit rules of debate'.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

Well, considering I just proved the Glaspie and predictability arguments bullshit, I’d say we’re getting somewhere.

All I’m doing is restating my position? Pot. Kettle. Black.
User avatar
Hamel
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3842
Joined: 2003-02-06 10:34am
Contact:

Post by Hamel »

Does Kanos or David archive threads? 8)
"Right now we can tell you a report was filed by the family of a 12 year old boy yesterday afternoon alleging Mr. Michael Jackson of criminal activity. A search warrant has been filed and that search is currently taking place. Mr. Jackson has not been charged with any crime. We cannot specifically address the content of the police report as it is confidential information at the present time, however, we can confirm that Mr. Jackson forced the boy to listen to the Howard Stern show and watch the movie Private Parts over and over again."
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Axis Kast wrote:
Testimony of Tariq Aziz himself, a man who never uttered a word without prior approval.

Milton Vorst, "Report from Baghdad," The New Yorker, June 24, 1991, pp. 66-67 and "Aziz Denies Glaspie Gave Green Light," The Washington Times, May 31, 1991, p. A2.

Aziz discussed that Saddam, "Expected an immediate American military reaction to the invasion, probably by rapidly deployable American forces such as the ready brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division or a Marine Expeditionary Unit. Iraq military activity during the invasion of Kuwait fully supports the claims that Saddam expected a quick military response by Washington: Republican Guard infantry units moved to secure Kuwait's airfields and beaches, and immediately began building hasty defenses against either an air assault or an amphibious landing to repel a possible foreign intervention by air or sea. They did this to some extent at the expense of securing control over the Kuwaiti population.”

This information is corroborated by Pierre Salinger and Eric Laurent, Secret Dossier, (New York: Penguin, 1991), p. 82-83 and Freedman and Karsh, The Gulf Conflict, p. 203, and Jean Edward Smith, George Bush's War (New York: Henry Holt, 1992), p. 14.

You lose.
Really? Funny, I don't think so, considering that he expected a military response by light, deployable forces, not the heavy forces that were eventually amassed. Explain why the 8 RG divisions didn't roll over and crush the light forces that deployed first when they had the chance? Expecting an American military reaction is not the same as expecting a military *confrontation*- he moved to neutralize the possibility of such.
I provided confirmation that a preliminary cease-fire in fact did exist.
While Resolution 687 was the formal cease-fire that actually imposed conditions and consequences on Iraq. Concession Accepted.
The United States of America was, as a combatant, party to preliminary conditions for a cease-fire and peace. Iraq has clearly violated those conclusions. Hence war is justified from that legal perspective.
Bullshit. You don't even know what the preliminary cease-fire said, and you claim Iraq has clearly violated it? Fucking bullshit artist ...
Just as is the United States’ response as an original signatory to preliminary cease-fire.
Wrong. You have to show that's the case, hatfucker.
Under Iraq’s control in a technical sense. Yes. Some legal stickler. Just as you claim the United Nations can get away with ignoring the problem in Iraq or taking only half-steps, so too is Iraq in contravention of Article 12H.
Because you say so? Sorry, the UN is specifically authorized to do whatever it wants in the case of Iraqi contravention- even if some idiot (like you) made the claim that a terrorist camp under the control of Kurds was somehow Iraq's responsibility considering it didn't even have power in that region of the country.

Legal contravention of Resolution 687 never addressed by the United Nations out of willful ignorance. That’s not to say we shouldn’t feel compelled to uphold those stipulations ourselves for the sake of personal security.
Yes, because you've established the threat to your personal security so well :roll:

I am asking you a question. An answer, please. And again, don’t try to take this part of the argument on its own. Because it’s actually part of a whole, much as that might not be to your liking.
You're asking me to prove a negative- the burden of proof is not on me. Fuck off.
The United Nations was as of the moment Resolution 687 was approved, responsible for its enforcement. The excuse that it was not put in front of them is thus unacceptable. Willful ignorance. The United Nations took no steps to address the particular violations of Article 12H and moved only to deal with the charges of weapons of mass destruction. Dangerous oversight.
And totally legal. You cannot claim 687 as justification for invasion because it's not the decision of the United States. Period.
Incorrect. You solution of inspections was within an indefinite time frame. That is to say, there was none at all. And yet, of course, the threat of military action – and thus of troops on-site – would always have been there. Not to mention that whereas the Americans brought an end to all active transgression or circumvention by abolishing the guilty régime, the United Nations only addressed one major issue, hoping that in doing so they could somehow downplay all others.
And it's still a false dilemma. Your penchant for just saying 'incorrect' then going on an unconnected rant just gets better and better.
Red herring. Al-Qaeda’s threats were most serious until the invasion began and our troops were less heavily-concentrated. The only other way to deal with the situation would have been to pull out – which was itself counseled against by the United Nations Security Council, who argued in favor of an American force adding the potential for violence to Blix’ fact-finding.
How is it a red-herring, you stupid hatfucker? You cite the safety of American forces then plunge them next door into Iraq and pretend that they're safer? Moron.
But not in larger staging areas where more troops would have been in one open, easily-reached location at one time. Baghdad is also a target that the average al-Qaeda might be less prone to hit considering the presence of Arab non-combatants.
Oh bullshit- you must be fucking retarded if you think that a terrorist would more easily hit a massive military base than he would soldiers who can much more easily be targeted as they patrol the streets of a chaotic urban hell-hole.

When the last round of inspections started in 2002? Yes. Pouring into the region. As in many were on their fucking way with large guns and armored vehicles in tow.
And not invasion level for quite some time. Concession Accepted.
We didn’t prepare properly for this peace because this peace came weeks ahead of schedule. That’s to say nothing of long-term prospects. At least we’ve got a credible game-plan coming together. You’d have had us sitting in the desert for an unknown period of time with our thumbs in our ass. International goodwill? You mean the kind by which France, Russia, and Germany were just jumping to get us to commit troops to sit in Iraq and do nothing? As for the budget, I’d sooner spend it eliminating a known threat than wasting it on providing a credible edge to sanctions that aren’t even thorough and deal with only half the problems as is.
Weeks ahead of schedule? Bullshit. Everyone thought it'd be over quick smart- including administration officials like Dick Cheney. Credible game-plan? Oh yeah, that would be pissing off the Iraqi people who want you to go get fucked, having no credible leader, indefinitely putting off Iraqi self-rule, and getting killed regularly all over Iraq. Great game plan, good job!
The line of succession still runs within the family. Hence a continuation of rule by the Ba’athists.
The same applies to Soviet rule by communists.
The question, Vympel, was whether or not Iraq posed an unconventional threat to any of its neighbors. The answer is yes. Deterrence is irrelevant.
Deterence is irrelevant? Funny, that's why you argued that Iraq didn't attack Israel in 1991 with WMD, huh?

I repeat: why must the United States act as Israel's proxy? Israel can't decide on threats to it's own security?

Not surprising, since just about everybody else had their fingers in the Iraqi pie. These people aren’t altruists, Vympel. The United Nations is a forum for self-service via a corrupted quasi-level process of majority agreement. The legal argument – based on the cease-fire – is all we need from the point of view of jurisprudence.
That legal argument doesn't exist. I defy you once again to find this PRELIMINARY cease-fire. Do you know what the fuck preliminary means? It means prior to a FORMAL cease-fire, which is what RESOLUTION 687 does.
My point is that we should be declaring what is and isn’t acceptable as long as it’s within our power to do so. Fair or not, it’s good security policy.
Ah, it's "because we can" reasoning. Why don't you just snip all the bullshit and make the entire argument "because we can"?
What ocean-going threat does Iraq feel the pressing urge to counter besides the United States of America?
What ocean-going threat does France feel the pressing urge to counter? Clearly, they don't need anti-ship missiles, therefore, they shouldn't have them.

No wait, even better, what ocean-going threat does American feel the pressing urge to counter that they need SSNs? Clearly, they don't need them, therefore, they shouldn't have them. Idiot.
No basis? Try the threat of invasion, idiot. If we’re going to be risking our troops on deterrence in the first place, why shouldn’t we divest Hussein of any weaponry not immediately necessary for internal security?
"We should attack them because of the weapons they have that they'd use against us if the attack!"

Fuckwit. Circular reasoning really is your strong suit, isn't it?
Support for terrorism.
Prove it.
Economic circumvention. Aluminum centrifuges. Al-Samouds.
Blocked (smart sanctions). No time to move on the issue (IAEA final report delivered in MARCH). Destroyed.
No. Your argument has been that they might be shot down and don’t have the range to harm targets at long distance.
Yeah Kast, if there's gross negligence on the part of an entire combat formation that's in the middle of invading Iraq anyway, then they might let a fucking control station that's only 8km away direct a wooden UAV over them to drop evilllll anthrax spores, which thanks to further gross negligence they won't have time to put on any NBC protection to protect themselves. Clearly a sure-fire win military tactic, idiot.
The limited range doesn’t make the drones less dangerous to units deployed in their immediate vicinity.
Forgetting of course that the units deployed in their vicinity will be invading Iraq anyway. Good one.
Why would Saddam take weeks if he planned full compliance, Vympel? Why did he finally acceede?
Because the argument was made that the Al-Samouds did not violate range limits. It took time to decide this issue. Read the goddam news.

The legal justification? Cease-fires to which the United States was a party prior to Resolution 687.
Preliminary, not formal. Your bullshit is fooling noone- oh, btw, do point out where Bush pointed to the preliminary cease-fire as legal justification, you idiot.
The United Nation’s own inability and unwillingness to properly enforce all articles of the same document without repeated insistence – which then results only in a limited, knowingly incomplete review of the problem.
Proper enforcement= invasion? Sorry, doesn't work that way.
The violations in spirit? The al-Samouds. The drones.
Not an argument. Your utterly subjective violation in spirit argument is not a justification by any stretch of the word.
The threat? Saddam Hussein’s unpredictability. His obvious circumvention of sanctions (i.e. the aluminum rods, the black market sales, the Chinese communications technologies, etc.)
Sorry, just quoting a pro-war book-writer's assertions doesn't prove Saddam Hussein's insanity. His circumvention of sanctions does not automatically establish an invasion level threat.
They stipulate nothing of anything. I couldn’t even find the part about future consultations in case of Iraqi non-compliance. Not to mention that the preliminary cease-fire was already violated.
I'm sick and tired of your lies. If you say the preliminary cease-fire was violated, you have to fucking show it's terms, not to mention that it's PRELIMINARY.

Save for the fact that the accusation against Iraq carries far more weight. Who is more likely to kill, Vympel, a known murderer or your next-door neighbor?
No, it doesn't carry any more weight. You have no evidence of either.

Hoodlums in the mailroom can get anthrax but Saddam Hussein’s scientists could not?
Appeal to ignorance.
And again, the inspections are not yet complete. As for that Alpha Team argument, Bush recently authorized 1,300 new inspectors.
In response to the outcry, no doubt. I'll be waiting for them to go home in ignomious embarassment as well.
Why allow Iraq to circumvent clear regulations that strengthens its ability to resist in the first place? Especially if we’re sitting on the border poised to use force even if everything goes Blix’ way?
Because what it will do in an invasion cannot be a reason for an invasion. It's quite simple. Not my fault you're an idiot and like chuckign around circular reasoning like this repeatedly- it assumes the fucking conclusion as a premise. It's not valid.

And how, exactly, were we supposed to force Saddam Hussein to accept inspections? Sanctions didn’t work after 1998.
16th September 2002 Iraq accepts the return of inspectors. Funny, where was the military force then?

But we’re talking about contravention of sanctions here. That’s a threat, Vympel.
No, it is not. If Iraq buys aluminum tubes, it's not a threat to the United States.
Those Chinese air-defense components prohibited by sanctions? A threat.
Funny, I didn't know fibre-optics connecting command centres for air *defense* missiles were a threat.
Those al-Samoud missiles? A threat.
Destroyed.
Al-Samouds. Aluminum rods. Chinese air-defense components.
All of which are not WMD.
His convention obliges credible action.

Bush’s logic works. Hans Blix did not have full access to all sites in Iraq. Only régime-change could provide the best possible look into the question of WMD.
Blix did have full access. He was never obstructed. That Bush didn't like what was found is his problem.
Contravention puts everyone at risk – especially if we ignore all conventional aspects of it so long as they remain small, which is essentially what the United Nations did.
Yeah, 81mm artillery rockets are a threat to world peace, better occupy another nation and kill thousands of people over it :roll:
So now you lie?

“Just *try* and camoflage a control station, I'm sure it'll be very convincing.”

A ground-based control station and a trailer are two very different things, Vympel.
You idiot- a Predator UAV control station is mounted in a series of trucks. The same is true of other foreign UAVs. That's a control station. They're not different.
“A perfectly legal drone” is certainly a perfect threat. Circumstantial, but strong.
Yeah, certainly a minor threat if you decide to invade the place. Strong indeed :roll:
Again, who says our troops will be able to shoot these things down all of the time? Or that the spores and cultures will be damaged?
Considering that at 8km the moment it takes off it'll practically immediately be within MANPADS range, the chances are certain.

Spores and cultures are a seperate issue- not to mention you haven't even proven they existed. There was no chemical spraying equipment on the damn thing. It's a stupid thing to attempt considering you could get better results with a missile
“Wooden RC plane!” I want a source for what you claim is shoddy construction.
I posted the article on Iraq's drone months ago. It's made of balsa wood and held together by duct tape.
I’m not the one who demanded to know the difference between a tank and an anti-ship missile. :roll:
Not only is that a red herring- it's also a strawman- there is no difference between a tank and anti-ship missile- they are both conventional weapons that are not prohibited by any resolution.
A tank can be used for internal suppression of crowds. An armored vehicle is sometimes necessary for such activities. A drone is not.
Oh, that must mean that the US possesses drones for spraying chemicals then, does it? Fuckwit.
Think about what you are saying. A tank is less of a threat.
You tell a soldier in a Bradley whether he'd rather have a drone above him or a T-72 in front of him :roll:

Resolutions don’t make or unmake threats.
And yet you consistently pretend that they do.
And why does Iraq need labs mounted in trucks?
Not the point- they cannot show that these two trucks ever produced biological weapons. Other purposes posited for the trucks have included servicing poisoned water supply (didn't see *that* one coming, eh?). The CIA has claimed that biological warfare is somehow the most 'logical'. I guess that review that's tearing through the department about what a Democrat recently labelled "the greatest intelligence hoax of all time" would have nothing to do with that, huh?
Blocked? Tell that to the fucking Chinese. Iraq was doing business with foreign companies throughout the sanctions era. Not for WMD? The centrifuges are still illegal, pal. Contrafuckingvention.
You can show that the Chinese were still doing so after smart sanctions were introduced?

And again, contravention does not equal military action.
And yet that’s what France, Russia, and others suggested we should be ready to do.
Invade? I'm sorry, where did France and Russia say you should attack Iraq?
They destroyed those al-Samouds.
The last IAEA report on the tubes was on March 7. Lots of time to destroy em eh- especially considering it's not the IAEA's job.
Not to mention that they said nothing about Article 12H and the terrorist issue.
Because there's no evidence?
They ignore what they aren’t required to face up to. That’s poor enforcement.
Or, they're just rational and understand that some things aren't worth going to war over.
The United Nations isn’t doing its fucking job. That’s a fact. They didn’t enforce all of Resolution 687 even in March 2002. That deprives them of any kind of moderatorial highground or authority as potential source of compromise peace.
False. It's job description says nothing about it being obligated to go to war because of the paranoid ranting and piss-poor evidence of one of it's member states.
What the fuck are you talking about, you idiot?
Your villain-esque "It's not over yet!" of course. I can just picture you falling off a cliff while you scream it.

Disbelief is a poor substitute for a contrary argument.
When one is being convinced of something? Sorry, I don't need to make any effort to defend my belief in the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns.
The insistence that Iraq holds no weapons merely because we haven’t found them during a relatively short hunt is based primarily on faith.
"The insistence that God doens't exist because we don't have any evidence for his existence is primarily based on faith"

No, just logic.
If you want to make your argument more potent, you would add that evidence you spoke of.
I already have. They weren't used even when Saddam was going to be overthrown. The scientists insist Iraq doesn't have any. A defector in 1995 said they were all destroyed (suppressed for eight years, oddly enough). America and Britain were reduced to peddling plagiarized and false documents to make their case. I'm not convinced.

The man has been circumventing UNSC resolutions …
And that harms you does it?
Bullshit. 1998 refusal of inspections.
Richard Butler unilaterally ordering his inspectors out of Iraq was Saddam's bold gamble?
No. Now you’re trying to worm out of it. Your argument was that I was a coward for wanting to invade Iraq because Saddam couldn’t possibly win a conventional war.
Worm out of it? No, you are a coward for precisely that fact. If you were so concerned about your safety, you'd advocate military action against every state whom you hurled unproven accusations of 'espionage' at. You only advocate military action against Iraq because it can't possible repel you- the same reason, IMO, why the administration wanted to do it- the difference is you sincerely believe Iraq was a threat to you.

Jesus Christ. Strawman. You implied I wouldn’t go to war with Russia and China at all. If invaded, I would.
Ah, but not for your unproven 'threatening espionage'.

How does it make me a Nazi
"Hey, do you wanna invade Russia and kill the sub-human slavs?"

Axis Kast: "why yes, because I sincerely believe it'll benefit my nation, I'll do it, without any moral qualms!"

You are a coward because you prey on the weak only. You're certainly willing to compromise your precious 'safety' against various unproven and proven threats if they can actually fight back.

The fucking is because youre a moron.
Geopolitical moral bankruptcy = freedom of movement.
Geopolitical my ass. You are a bankrupt, period- other people aren't deserving of the safety and freedom from death that you think *you* deserve because it's not in the 'best interests' of your nation. You make me sick.
Incidentally, I’m personally more moral than you considering I don’t post to a “Hall of Shame” forum designed to unnecessarily lampoon people I don’t like. You’ve got a mean streak a mile long, Vympel. Don’t throw bricks, mate, when you live in a glass house.
Oh yes, because lampooning morons is morally equivalent to condemning people to death and terror because it benefits your nation. :roll:
Which is related to their unconventional threat.
Contradicting yourself again.

It does not at all weaken the case considering that my argument is about the unconventional threat.
Lol. Look up at the last thing you said.
That Afghanistan was a threat was only shown because people died you fucking moron. We’re trying to avoid that happening a second time.
Oh, that's marvellous reasoning Kast, why don't you just attack *every* single state you can produce plagiarized term papers and forged documents for because you're trying to avoid the possibility of terrorist attack.
Not at all. Just because he chooses to focus on an issue – that you’ve not proven false,
Appeal to ignorance.
by the way – doesn’t mean he’s a liar. It means he’s a good fucking politician. The average person wouldn’t understand the fucking nuances of geopolitical security.
Yeah, the average person has way to much decency for that.


“The Coming Storm.” Kenneth Pollack ..
Was waiting for you to pull out the assertions of some pro-war advocate, considering your other loony arguments failed.
“Saddam Hussein and his regime are the polar opposite of every single one of the traits considered desirable, if not essential, for nuclear deterrence. The psychologist Jerrod Post, a longtime U.S. government expert on Saddam who has written extensible on him as a decision-maker, says of Saddam that “while he is psychologically in touch with reality, he is often politically out of touch with reality. Saddam’s worldview is narrow and distorted and he has scant experience outside of the Arab world.” Saddam is determined to overturn the status-quo to make himself hegemon of the Persian Gulf region and leader of the Arab world, to evict the United States from the region, and eventually to destroy the state of Israel.
Fascinating stuff. Where in the past 10 years did Saddam seek to do any of these things. Could it be he was *gasp* deterred?!

This moron's arguments are hilarious- the Soviet Union's *stated* aim was to destroy capitalism- how much more 'over-turn the status quo' can you get? It was deterred just fine.
Saddam is also one of the worst gamblers and risk takers in modern history. On the eve of the Gulf War, one of Israel’s senior Iraq analysts in the Directorate of Military Intelligence concluded that, “Saddam has a tendency to run risks: he takes surprising steps without considering the inherent dangers. An example of this is his war against Iran. For that reason, his moves must be watched with care.” Saddam’s behavior is also completely unrestrained by the Iraqi political structure.
Wow, an Israeli assertion, I'm in *awe*, Kast, really.
Page 254. “[…] Saddam willfully distorts facts and probabilistic outcomes to suit what he wants to have happen. When Saddam looks at a situation, partciularly an external situation, and determins his own actions, he inveriably interprets all of the avaliable data to conform to what would be best for him. Thus, Saddam plays very dangerous games, but […] he plays them falsely confident that the game is not nearly as dangerous as everyone around him believes. This is probably Saddam’s most dangerous trait and the one that makes him most difficult to deter, because it means that he downplays warnings and indicators of danger and plays up information and rationales that support what he wants tyo be true.
Funny, you'd think that if that estimate were at all accurate he would've used WMD by now- where was his false confidence in 1991 when he held back from their use?
Page 255. “[…] Thus, before the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq had little information regarding developments in Tehran, the mood of the country, or the operational status of the armed forces and instead relied on the misinformation of former Iranian generals who had fled the Islamic Revolution […].”
Lol! Like the Americans who took the mininformation of former Iraqi exiles who had fled Iraq! Clearly, Bush is irrational, unpredictable, and delusional as well. :roll:
Saddam is indeed irrational, unpredictable, and delusional. I’ll be taking my concession now.
Oh, so if I post the assertions of an anti-war advocate who says basically what I've been saying except it's in book form, does that mean I get to demand a concession?

Oh, and do you know what other assertions Pollack has made? That Iraq was overflowing with WMD. He recently backpedalled. Do you buy that too, or will you stick to your own arguments?
Bullshit.
Hey, fuckwit. Go get a book. Look up what Circular Error Probable means. Then, take that book, and shove it up your ass sideways. Maybe then you'll understand what the phrase means, you fucking ignoramus.
FACT. If he pisses off the Palestinians, he’s fucked up the initial objective.
Easily avoidable.
No, they were not, considering that so long as the régime still stood, they were not completely free.
Bullshit. Point to one place where Iraq obstructed UNMOVIC.

As his arsenal slowly grows and the inspectors find only what he wants them to find?
That the inspectors could only find what he wanted them to find is bullshit- please point out where Iraq controlled the movements and actions of inspectors.
To the argument that Iraq was not a danger.
Look out, Baghdad Bob, the Americans are behind you!
I don’t think Iraq’s intelligence community was defunct before the war, no.
Not the question. That Iraq's intelligence was somehow a threat to you is the question.
The point is that inspectors on-site with electronic surveillance and all the modern instruments were fucking had.
No, it's not. If a dozen inspectors are casually having a stroll through Israel and having thier agenda controlled by Israel, it's hardly the same as Iraq. Not to mnetion that instruments in the 60s-70s are not the same as instruments in the 90s. Or that Israel is an ally of the US and Iraq is not.
That doesn’t mean that people still weren’t fooled when they came to fucking look. My point is that it’s been done before.
Yeah, and they were so dedicated, letting Israel lead em around instead of looking themselves. :roll:

False dilemma. Israel would never fully divest itself of all material because (A) there’s no way to get a full count on our part and (B) it’s very probable that we’d never find a few warheads smuggled away anyway.
You can't hide a working nuclear capability for long. If you smuggled away a few warheads, what are you going to do with them? You can't mount them anywhere without anyone finding out; you can't maintain them without proper facilities, and you can't build new ones when their service life expires.
By the way, concession accepted. You just admitted we had to threaten Iraq into sanctions – which means that those troops in Kuwait and Qatar were in fact necessary.
No, it doesn't. Troops left Iraq after 1991, yet Iraq complied without their presence.
But it makes the fucking weapons work.
No, it doesn't. It connects C+C centres.
It’s still a component to the fucking system system. And illegal.[/quote

Yet not a reason for automatic invasion.

The aircraft parts, Vympel. We’re talking France, not Russia.
And like I said, where's the proof? Where are these spare parts?
No, because Saddam was at first fucking unwilling to let them in.
And he was willing to let them in in 91? :roll:
Which is a strawman.
Sure it is ... :roll:
The point is that it was possible for Iraq to dupe the inspectors while the régime was still active.
Prove it.
So now it’s slipped from, “We didn’t need those troops to compel him,” to, “Well, the can go home after a while?” Backpedaling. You lose.
Sorry, that was what I said all along. Invasion level forces were never necessary to ensure continuing compliance. You're a liar.

F-14s were being cannibalized for spares for other F-14s. At first, it was a non-issue.
No, it was an issue the moment the revolution happened. Spares support was gone. After a year of no spares, you just see what happens to your readiness rates.
As far as I was aware, the Mirages hadn’t been there from the start. But that’s unimportant anyway since the F-14s beat them hands-down.
You think anyone's going to factor in the rather meaningless superiority of the F-14 over the Mirage F1, especially when they've been sabotaged and cannibalized, to the extent that if they don't they're crazy?
But Iran’s armored forces were actually superior in training anyway. Especially in the middle of the war.
Yet not at the beginning, where Iranian troops had inadequate armor support, and were always outnumbered. And I'm sorry, but superiority in training means jack shit- the average Panther crew was more well-trained than any T-34/85 crew, it didn't save them from losing.
It entails all the stupidity in a modern war, Vympel. All the delusions of glorious victory for our thousands of useless, untrained conscripts.
Who were no different from Iran's soldiers at the war's beginning. Some delusion.

See the Pollack quotations.
So because you quote the assertions of someone you've been paraphrasing all along, I'm supposed to concede? Right.
He certainly devised periods of culling and was responsible for some of it directly. The man was shooting his own fucking Cabinet staff.
And that makes him directly responsible for the military tactics of his Army does it?
How does not wanting to kill Palestinians make Saddam any less dangerous to us? It merely explains why he didn’t deploy WMD in that instance. It doesn’t explain why he’s no threat at all.
It's not an explanation. A SCUD has a guaranteed accuracy of several hundred metres- there's absolutely no chance that it would miss and fall into a Palestinian area.
If Saddam Hussein was confirmed to have had WMD at all, would you advocate an invasion?
Nope. But I would be satisfied that Bush had made his case.
The dangers of his being able to deal directly with domestic organizations capable of building him the bomb, footing the information to others, or providing assistance to American enemies would be unacceptable.
Domestic organizations where?
He’s fucking delusional.

*snip reams of Pollack assertions*

The man is fucking delusional. That means he’s not fully sane. Thus he is insane. Concession accepted. This evidence also means he is illogical, irrational, and unpredictable. A man surrounded by “yes-men” and with no appreciation for the outside world is inherently very dangerous.
Yes, but despite these assertions, you claim he didn't attack Israel with WMD because of risk to Palestinians (false), he didnd't attack American with WMD because of ... oh wait you don't know why, and he didn't attack American forces in his own country with WMD in 2003 because ... oh yeah, that's right, he must've destroyed them before hand, sure sounds like a dictator would do faced with invasion.
Most parties were early neutrals – specifically Israel, France, and Germany. The Soviet Union also dealt with Iran. Germany never enacted full sanctions. Vietnam sent American parts abandoned during the war in Southeast Asia.
Neutrals. Not allies.

Of course Iran had supplies at the war’s start. They invaded Iraq. Their F-4s won just about every aerial dogfight of the war.

Saddam Hussein ran on poor battleplans based largely on assumptions and delusions, as proven above.
As did LBJ in Vietnam. He must be crazy.
No. I win. See above.
Because you quote someone who you've been reading all along anyway? Please.

Either you agree that LBJ was unpredictable and crazy enough that you could make a convincing argument that he'd just do something stupid like attack someone who was bound to destroy him, or you concede the argument.

Tell them to fucking hightail it out of there.
MORON. They'd be fucking slaughtered, just like they were on the Highway of Death, you fucking incompetent!
Revert to what? At what point did you forget that Hussein refused initially to let in inspectors or to destroy the al-Samouds?
Actually, he accepted back in September 2002.
But nobody would accept an argument of preemption on Pakistan’s part without undeniable evidence. And in that case, there’s no proof our preemption was the only factor behind India’s anyway.
But people should accept the preemption argument based on America's pathetic intelligence? Right.

And that gets India “off” from criticism or sanction?
Of course it doesn't. That's my side of the argument. Your side is that you should somehow be excluded from the same.
It doesn’t change the facts of preemption. It’s an appeal to emotion.
You have not established the 'facts' of preemption anywhere.

In fact, you've consistently harped emptily on the danger of ignoring the 'value' of speculation in international politics. I really can't believe I left this bullshit assertion alone for this long. Why is speculation valuable? Can you point to anywhere where it's been remotely useful?

Oh, and I noticed that you snipped:
Sorry, you have to prove that went on, and then make the case that it's a sufficient danger to warrant danger rather than simply ... oh ... I don't know ... what's the word ..... COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE.
You mustn't have liked the statement of the obvious.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

Really? Funny, I don't think so, considering that he expected a military response by light, deployable forces, not the heavy forces that were eventually amassed. Explain why the 8 RG divisions didn't roll over and crush the light forces that deployed first when they had the chance? Expecting an American military reaction is not the same as expecting a military *confrontation*- he moved to neutralize the possibility of such.
Your claim is that April Glaspie’s statements strengthened Hussein’s resolve to invade Kuwait and led the Baghdad leadership to believe that they could avoid the United States’ ire almost completely – and certainly in terms of a military response. That’s patently false. The fact that Saddam Hussein advanced into Kuwait with the equivalent of eight divisions in Republican Guard troops meant that he was expecting some kind of resistance. The question isn’t what kind of resistance. It’s whether he expected resistance at all. Whether Glaspie gave the impression that Saddam could walk all over Kuwait with nary more than a terse diplomatic exchange and some wrist slapping on the Security Council. The answer is yes, Saddam did expect resistance, and no, Glaspie never left him with the impression that the United States wasn’t going to become involved.

And what, pray-tell, is the difference between a “military reaction” and a “military confrontation?” You insisted that Glaspie left no doubt as to American disinterest. Where exactly does “military reaction” in the Gulf theater – where the Americans hadn’t previously deployed anything but naval and very limited air forces – fit within the definition of passive standby?
While Resolution 687 was the formal cease-fire that actually imposed conditions and consequences on Iraq. Concession Accepted.
Considering that the United States signed the preliminary terms of a cease-fire in the field as an actual, legal combatant, President George Bush is thoroughly justified in making the argument that Iraq is in violation. Thus war continues.

Also – and this is again from Kenneth Pollock on page 369 of his book The Threatening Storm -, “United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 authorizes member states to ‘use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council Resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.’ Since Resolution 687 was itself meant to restore peace and certainly provided for “security in the area,” the United States was legally justified in taking action. It considered invasion the “necessary mean” to uphold “security in the area.” From a strict, technical, and sparing perspective, the jurisprudence is there. War was justified from a legal point of view. I challenge you to provide a quotation from Resolution 687 declaring that consultation was necessary. What, exactly, do you understand that the consequences were, as written and ratified?

Bullshit. You don't even know what the preliminary cease-fire said, and you claim Iraq has clearly violated it? Fucking bullshit artist ...


According to George Bush, that is the case.

Because you say so? Sorry, the UN is specifically authorized to do whatever it wants in the case of Iraqi contravention- even if some idiot (like you) made the claim that a terrorist camp under the control of Kurds was somehow Iraq's responsibility considering it didn't even have power in that region of the country.


Article 32H [I originally misread ‘32’ as ‘12’] reads as follows:

“Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;”

Iraqi payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers are posthumous recognitions of terrorism. Baghdad has failed to condemn unequivocally such acts as they occur in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The United Nations is required to raise the matter for the “consultations” about which you’ve spoken so much as an alternative to invasion.

Yes, because you've established the threat to your personal security so well.


Most Americans today believe that Saddam Hussein was a legitimate threat to the national security of the United States of America. Do not delude yourself into believing that President Bush is responsible to any higher power than his own constituent public, the United Nations and Kofi Annan be damned.

You're asking me to prove a negative- the burden of proof is not on me. Fuck off.


I am asking you to tell me whether you honestly believe that the Iraqi intelligence apparatus was inactive up to and during the Second Persian Gulf War. At all. In any organized operative form.

And totally legal. You cannot claim 687 as justification for invasion because it's not the decision of the United States. Period.


Oh, but I can. See above.

The United Nations as a body permitted dangerous circumvention without activating the contingencies called for in 687 and other similar resolutions dealing with sanctions and prohibitions related to Iraq. They thus forfeit credibility as source of reliable security and moderation. Even you cannot deny Vympel that the Untied Nations was remiss in prosecuting Iraq on all counts of violation.

The United Nations was unwilling, unable, or unwitting in enforcement. And, as logic goes, if Resolution 687 was designed to limit the threat posed by Iraq and the United Nations was the medium by which policing would be done, then collective security against Saddam was undeniably imperiled – whether or not you believe invasion was necessary. And from that jumping-off point – proving that Iraq was in circumvention of Resolution 687 and associated sanctions régimes -, we can discuss the merits of preventative preemption. After all, Hans Blix approached the situation from a purely physical standpoint, seeking only weapons of mass destruction. He made no targeted inquiry into economic or political transgressions and no strenuous or thorough inquiry into conventional violations.

The United Nations failed in its role as arbiter of peace. Where does that leave us? It broke a legal argument. It failed to stand up to commitment.

And it's still a false dilemma. Your penchant for just saying 'incorrect' then going on an unconnected rant just gets better and better.


What false dilemma? Arguing that your solution – the inspections régime – was a mere half-step since it did not account for all of Iraq’s violations of sanctions designed to limited its ability to pose a collective security threat? Arguing that even Hans Blix’ own teams were never fully sufficient to cover each and every nook and cranny of Iraq or to acquire full, unabashed testimony while the Iraqi régime itself was still in power – aside from their having been focused only on the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction? Arguing that invasion as proposed by George Bush was in fact the only actual means of ensuring that Saddam would not increase his ability to represent a threat to collective security given the indicators between 1991 and 2002 of his actual initiations (i.e. steady circumvention)?

Wow is it a red-herring, you stupid hatfucker? You cite the safety of American forces then plunge them next door into Iraq and pretend that they're safer? Moron.


Those American forces would not have been pursuing a realistic agenda in Qatar or Saudi Arabia if their sole purpose was to “oblige” Saddam Hussein’s acceptance of Hans Blix. As I have already pointed out, thorough inspection was impossible while the Ba’athists still held power in Baghdad. If we’re going to put our troops in harm’s way – against a primarily conventional foe whereas al-Qaeda represents an unconventional threat that our forces are not necessarily intended to combat on a regular basis -, it goes without saying that they should be pursuing the most effective agenda. George Bush produced that most effective agenda – whether or not you feel it was unwarranted, his solution of invasion was the best and most complete insurance.

Oh bullshit- you must be fucking retarded if you think that a terrorist would more easily hit a massive military base than he would soldiers who can much more easily be targeted as they patrol the streets of a chaotic urban hell-hole.


Let’s look at facts:

(1) Most terrorist strikes against American military targets have traditionally been directed at barracks or staging areas – i.e. Khobar Towers.
(2) Al-Qaeda can expect less civilian support in Iraq considering that (a) there is still conditioning toward aversion if not hatred left over from Hussein’s secular régime and more important (b) suicide bombs in crowded Baghdad neighborhoods by Arab fundamentalists foreign to Iraq would be a sure way to anger and alienate the actual population, making movement for terrorists more difficult and potentially wrecking havoc for al-Qaeda’s public image across the Middle East.
(3) A terrorist attack employing unconventional munitions – i.e. “dirty” materials, biological cultures, or chemical agents – would be most likely effective [from al-Qaeda’s point of view] against large deployments of men and women in one given area with general isolation from civilian services. Not only does this limit public casualty exposure, but one or two soldiers on a crowded Baghdad street are not as enticing a target as say one or two hundred soldiers in a tent camp in the middle of a desert.

And not invasion level for quite some time. Concession Accepted.


But inevitably moving to invasion level. That means that we were sending mounds of equipment and tens of thousands of men. What part of “it took a large and expensive deployment to oblige Saddam to accept inspections” do you misunderstand? Whether they were coming or actually there is irrelevant since either way they end up in the same final area of operations. Don’t tell me you’re advocating that we prep for a massive invasion every time Saddam plays his one-step, two-step game and then recall the troops so we can play the game a second, third, or even sixteenth time.

Weeks ahead of schedule? Bullshit. Everyone thought it'd be over quick smart- including administration officials like Dick Cheney. Credible game-plan? Oh yeah, that would be pissing off the Iraqi people who want you to go get fucked, having no credible leader, indefinitely putting off Iraqi self-rule, and getting killed regularly all over Iraq. Great game plan, good job!


Yes, weeks ahead of schedule. A “fast war” is a general term. But even George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were cautioning that the war would span longer than it actually did. The timetable for Baghdad alone was “weeks.” The war took approximately three in total.

Notice the words “coming together.” We’ve installed an interim leader, coaxed local administration, revived to the best of our ability a temporary police force, attempted to put money back into the economy by providing salaries for government officials, and sought to restore electrical and sewage utilities wherever practicable. The Iraqi people are “pissed off” about occupation in general. What part of “unwelcome series of events” do you need clarified for you? It was obvious from the start that after initial revelry we’d have to work on our public relations spin. Even if you accepted everything put forth by the Bush administration as thoroughly credible blanket-statements meant both for the media and as policy or actual opinion. As for the “indefinitely putting off Iraqi self-rule,” it’s rather unadvisable to turn everything over to a still-divided people living without complete security or any kind of economic infrastructure. And if you’re going to point fingers and claim that no “credible plan” is being established because some soldiers are dying during wartime securing neighborhoods that are still occupied by irregulars (which is in itself upsetting and unfortunate but ultimately expected), then I’m going to laugh at your ignorance.

The same applies to Soviet rule by communists.


Incorrect. While there was obviously a form of hierarchy in place to ensure the continuation of the Soviet Union as a national entity, no clear lines of succession were ever established. Hence you were liable to draw leaders with a range of different objectives, opinions, outlooks, and styles. Look at the difference, for instance, between a gambler like Khruschev, an iconoclastic dictator like Stalin, a by-the-book administrator like Brheznev, and an unconventional liberal (from the Soviet point of view) like Gorbachav. You don’t see that in Iraq. It’s Saddam Hussein the delusional, unpredictable dictator or Uday and Qusai Hussein, the delusional, unpredictable dictators. It’d be essentially exchanging one for the other without any appreciable change in policy or approach. The three are too alike on all levels. “Waiting it out” isn’t an option. Hans Blix was limited to some degree by the very Ba’ath Party structure and command-government foundations themselves. That wouldn’t have changed inside twenty years virtually for certain.

Deterence is irrelevant? Funny, that's why you argued that Iraq didn't attack Israel in 1991 with WMD, huh?

I repeat: why must the United States act as Israel's proxy? Israel can't decide on threats to it's own security?


The question was whether – at all – Iraq represented a threat – conventional or unconventional – to its neighbors, regardless of their perceived ability to thwart, divert, or defend against it. The answer is still yes.

Iraq sought to deploy biological and chemical agents against Tel Aviv during the Gulf War, it turns out. Pollock on page 151 on Hussein’s actual orders relating to WMD [and, incidentally, the man’s mental infirmities]: “Indeed, it is perfectly in-character that – as the United Nations inspectors learned after the Gulf War – Saddam had predelegated orders to Iraqi SCUD units to launch missiles filled with biological and chemical agents at Tel Aviv if the coalition marched on Baghdad. From a military perspective, this makes no sense. The right military approach would have been to use those missiles to threaten the Saudi oilfields or some other high-value target to try to convince the coalition to halt its offensive. But it does according with his image of himself as n historical figure who will someday, even if it is his final act, use force to rid the Arab world of the Israeli presence.” Corroborated by Amatzia Baram’s article, “An Analysis of Iraqi WMD Strategy,” in The Nonproliferation Review, Summer 2001 issue on page 35; Charles A. Duelfer’s, “Weapons of Mass-Destruction Programs in Iraq,” a testimony before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate, February 27, 2002; Scott Ritter’s Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem – Once and For All.” (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999), on page 102. Emphasis mine.

Thus Iraq did in fact have contingency plans for the use of weapons of mass destruction in 1991 and was in fact prepared – the orders were out – to launch missiles at Tel Aviv if indeed Baghdad itself looked about to fall. But why didn’t he deploy in March 2003 when his capital fell? Here we need to look at the facts:

(A) A vast fraction of the Iraqi military’s officer corps was bribed to stand idle or avoid confrontation.
(B) The United States would undoubtedly have practiced total annihilation of any unit responsible for a WMD strike.
(C) If Saddam possessed WMD, it was likely that these were divested into critical components and that the construction of a functional weapon or launch system was in fact too slow or impossible without exposing the weapons themselves to immediate aerial bombardment.
(D) If indeed Saddam sought to build them in hiding and attempt a “suicide strike” by units who would fire one salvo and then depart at once, it is likely that the logistical incompetence of the Iraqi military might have prevented the attack. Iraq’s regular military forces have not necessarily all had proper introduction to WMD since 1991 or 1998. The Iraqi military functions on poor timetables and cannot at all compete with Western militaries, unique in their battlefield support capabilities.

On page 264, in relation to the coalition:

“As for why Saddam did not use WMD to prevent the rout during the ground phase of Desert Storm, it may be that he was deterred, but it seems at least likely that he simply was unable to do so. The vast majority of Iraq’s chemical munitions were not filled before the war because filled munitions begin to degrade fairly quickly. Thus the Iraqis would have had to have filled large numbers of shells and then moved them into the theater and up to the frontline units for them to have been used. This process would have required several days for any tactically signifcant use of chemical warfare. However. U.S. forces moved so fast and overran Iraqi defensive lines so quickly that the Iraqi special units tasked with filling, moving, and ensuring the firing of the WMD munitions could not have done so in time. The few open roads between the theater and central Iraq were choked with Iraqi units fleeing Kuwait, and Iraq’s artillery batteries in Kuwait were being quickly neutralized by US counterbattery fire [one personal discussion with a servicemen has informed me that Iraqi batteries were often hit before their original shells had even landed].” Corroborated by: Amatzia Baram, “Israeli Deterrence, Iraqi Responses,” page 400; Thomas Houlahan’s, Gulf War: The Complete History (New London, N.H.: Schrenker Military Publishing, 1999), pages 436-437; and McCarthy and Tucker’s, “Saddam’s Toxic Arsenal,” on pages 69 and 70.

There’s also the argument that the United States itself wouldn’t potentially have been able to stop Iraq from deploying weapons but that only Saddam Hussein’s own unexplained restraint – and in some cases, inability or ineptitude – prevented deployment of WMD:

"Another point that is often overlooked is that the deterrence threat the United States made to Iraq before the Gulf War regarded not just Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction, but also the destruction of the Kuwaiti oil wells and terrorist attacks. The letter from President Bush that James Baker handed Tariq Aziz in Geneva in January of 1991 right before the onset of Desert Storm threatened Iraqi with the severest of consequences if it did any of those things. Although Iraq did not use (or was not able to use) its weapons of mass destruction, it certainly obliterated Kuwait's oil fields and tried to mount terrorist operations. Thus, at most, Saddam CHOSE (Pollack's emphasis) to be deterred only in the use of his weapons of mass destruction, which he did not believe necessary in any event." Corroborated by Freedman and Karsh’s, “The Gulf Conflict,” page 257, and Gordon Trainor’s, “The Generals' War,” page 197. Saddam was willing to defy American warnings on terrorism and the destruction of oil fields. He ignored the warning altogether in anticipation of having to defend Baghdad, as we saw with the order to prepare for chemical attacks on Tel Aviv. Thus deterrence by response (the reliance on a, “We’ll paste you if you hit us,” argument) is not in this instance credibly sustained.

As for why we should feel compelled to save Israel the trouble of Iraq – if we’re going to look at that piece of the overall argument justifying invasion at all -, it’s essentially because were Israel attacked, (A) Iraq would indeed run the risk of being the target for a nuclear attack and (B) the United States would be called upon to mobilize its forces anyway – and not necessarily at a time or on a level of its own choosing. Never mind that this would most likely be down the road from today – when Iraq was already freely circumventing the United Nations beyond the potential acquisition or presence of weapons of mass destruction -, it only makes logical sense to eliminate the threat as early as possible.

Also – in case you’d like to rehash your old defense that Iraq was fully divested of terrorist groups it could reasonably assist by 1998 … According to Kenneth Pollock’s The Threatening Storm, “Today, Iraq continues to support terrorist groups, but has not resumed the support for international terrorism it mounted in the 1970s. Iraq continues to provide a home for ANO, the Palestine Liberation Front, the May 15 Organization, and other old-time Palestinian receptionists, but they have been largely prevented from conducting operations for more than fifteen years. Iraq’s principal terrorist activity is supporting local groups against its regional adversaries. Iraq supports the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) against Turkey. It supports the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK, or National Council of Resistance) against Iran. The MEK has its own Iraqi-equipped army, which Saddam has not only used to stage raids into Iran but has even employed to suppress unrest inside Iraq. Since the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifadah in the fall of 2000, Iraq has also begun providing support to HAMAS and other Palestinian terrorist groups. […]” The information regarding Iraq’s involvement in the new Palestinian uprising is corroborated by the January 2001 Middle East Intelligence Bulletin’s article “Iraqi Influence in the West Bank, Gaza on the Rise.”

These charges undoubtedly force the question of whether Saddam can, via Palestinian terrorists, be supporting inadvertently – with money, political cover, or worse, training and weaponry -, action against American targets (either as a result of terrorism against Israel or via al-Qaeda, with whom many HAMAS and Hizbollah members see common ground and whom TIME has stated are now opening their doors to Afghani remnants. Never mind that Pollock adds on page 157 a warning on al-Qaeda: “Both Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda’s various subgroups move in the underworld of Middle Eastern terrorism. They undoubtedly encounter eachother and probably have assisted eachother in different ways – such as selling forged passports or know-how.” Hence a threat that, when taken in addition of Iraq’s wider economic, political, and conventional contravention of the United Nations (all unpunished), is cause for calls of régime-change.

That legal argument doesn't exist. I defy you once again to find this PRELIMINARY cease-fire. Do you know what the fuck preliminary means? It means prior to a FORMAL cease-fire, which is what RESOLUTION 687 does.


That “preliminary cease-fire” ended combat in the field. Thus its state violation would have meant that the United States – as a signatory combatant – would have been justified in going to war. Nevermind that a strict interpretation of Resolution 687 seems to justify war on a legal basis itself anyway. See my first replies.

Ah, it's "because we can" reasoning. Why don't you just snip all the bullshit and make the entire argument "because we can"?


What reason was there not to push for Blix to destroy the unmanned aerial drones or for the Untied States not to press that Iraq should be divested of anti-ship missiles?

What ocean-going threat does France feel the pressing urge to counter? Clearly, they don't need anti-ship missiles, therefore, they shouldn't have them.

No wait, even better, what ocean-going threat does American feel the pressing urge to counter that they need SSNs? Clearly, they don't need them, therefore, they shouldn't have them. Idiot.


Just-world fallacy. The world is not just. Washington is not required to keep from exerting pressure on Iraq simply because to do so would be hypocritical or inapplicable in another situation involving another party. The argument is that clearly Iraq doesn’t need ship-to-ship missiles to provide internal security. Any ocean-going threat is already under the purview of the United States Navy.

"We should attack them because of the weapons they have that they'd use against us if the attack!"

Fuckwit. Circular reasoning really is your strong suit, isn't it?


If we’re setting up for the possibility of having to attack them anyway down the road and we’ve already affirmed that the United Nations will stand by and attempt to deal only with the most blatant circumvention? Then yes, preemption of the threat on the basis of wanting to ensure safety in the future [i.e. preventing the necessity of later invasion and military action] is indeed acceptable.

Prove it.


“From above:

Also – in case you’d like to rehash your old defense that Iraq was fully divested of terrorist groups it could reasonably assist by 1998 … According to Kenneth Pollock’s The Threatening Storm, “Today, Iraq continues to support terrorist groups, but has not resumed the support for international terrorism it mounted in the 1970s. Iraq continues to provide a home for ANO, the Palestine Liberation Front, the May 15 Organization, and other old-time Palestinian receptionists, but they have been largely prevented from conducting operations for more than fifteen years. Iraq’s principal terrorist activity is supporting local groups against its regional adversaries. Iraq supports the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) against Turkey. It supports the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK, or National Council of Resistance) against Iran. The MEK has its own Iraqi-equipped army, which Saddam has not only used to stage raids into Iran but has even employed to suppress unrest inside Iraq. Since the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifadah in the fall of 2000, Iraq has also begun providing support to HAMAS and other Palestinian terrorist groups. […]” The information regarding Iraq’s involvement in the new Palestinian uprising is corroborated by the January 2001 Middle East Intelligence Bulletin’s article “Iraqi Influence in the West Bank, Gaza on the Rise.

Clear support for international terrorism.

Blocked (smart sanctions). No time to move on the issue (IAEA final report delivered in MARCH). Destroyed.


You noted that Iraq turned down smart sanctions. And since when did economic circumvention stop? Illegal, yes. Stopped? No. Dozens of businesses did illegal work in Iraq without consequences. Hans Blix never addressed that issue. Last I heard, the French had delivered spares for Mirage aircraft in January.

“No time to move on the issue?” Try no discussion of the issue at all. And that’s excluding the inactive period between 1991 and 2003 during which the United Nations turned a blind eye anyway.

The al-Samouds were destroyed, yes. They shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

Yeah Kast, if there's gross negligence on the part of an entire combat formation that's in the middle of invading Iraq anyway, then they might let a fucking control station that's only 8km away direct a wooden UAV over them to drop evilllll anthrax spores, which thanks to further gross negligence they won't have time to put on any NBC protection to protect themselves. Clearly a sure-fire win military tactic, idiot.


How, exactly, would a small infantry unit detect this “fucking control system” if it’s in the middle of a car-logged street or within a school or hospital? Eight kilometers is a short distance – and that works both ways. The troops aren’t going to put on NBC protection 24/7. There’s a chance they might be surprised. And that’s especially true if all the drone has to do is execute a crash landing.

Also – proof that these things are so poorly-constructed as you claim?

Forgetting of course that the units deployed in their vicinity will be invading Iraq anyway. Good one.


The invasion itself doesn’t eliminate or reduce the threat posed by the UAVs, you moron. There was the potential to sue for their destruction. And why the hell not?

Because the argument was made that the Al-Samouds did not violate range limits. It took time to decide this issue. Read the goddam news.


The man waffled. Just like he waffled over inspectors coming in the first place. He even refused at one point the possibility of destroying them.

Preliminary, not formal. Your bullshit is fooling noone- oh, btw, do point out where Bush pointed to the preliminary cease-fire as legal justification, you idiot.


He pointed to the Gulf War cease-fire as justification during his March speeches.

Proper enforcement= invasion? Sorry, doesn't work that way.


Strawman. My argument was that the United Nations hadn’t addressed the economic and political issues whatsoever but dealt only with the WMDs – and then at American insistence. It was fucking negligent.

Not an argument. Your utterly subjective violation in spirit argument is not a justification by any stretch of the word.


Bullshit. Not that it matters. There are enough factual, physical violations for action outright without the question of violations of spirit at all.

Sorry, just quoting a pro-war book-writer's assertions doesn't prove Saddam Hussein's insanity. His circumvention of sanctions does not automatically establish an invasion level threat.


Try quoting a pro-war book-writer’s quotations of an Israeli military report.

I’ve provided documented instances with which any fuckwit can see that logic went right out the window and delusions of success impracticably colored the day. Now you’re just stalling for time.

His circumvention of sanctions established a threat that demanded a response. The Untied Nations’ was insufficient. Hans Blix was a solution to only one problem – and didn’t even have the same level of access with Saddam in power that American inspectors have now while he is out of power.

I'm sick and tired of your lies. If you say the preliminary cease-fire was violated, you have to fucking show it's terms, not to mention that it's PRELIMINARY.


George Bush used it as justification.

No, it doesn't carry any more weight. You have no evidence of either.


It carries far more weight. Iraq has a history that Togo does not. Don’t be stupid, Vympel.

Because what it will do in an invasion cannot be a reason for an invasion. It's quite simple. Not my fault you're an idiot and like chuckign around circular reasoning like this repeatedly- it assumes the fucking conclusion as a premise. It's not valid.


The point is that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his arsenal with impunity. Even Hans Blix wasn’t willing to strip him of tools that we considered dangerous and could admittedly have been affixed with spray tanks. It’s the argument as a whole that makes the justification. The man had been given years to practice economic, political, and conventional circumvention largely unhindered. What were we supposed to expect from the United Nations but more of the same?

16th September 2002 Iraq accepts the return of inspectors. Funny, where was the military force then?


On their way. And this still doesn’t take care of the problem of his waffling over the al-Samouds. Or the other circumvention the United Nations was negligent to act upon.

No, it is not. If Iraq buys aluminum tubes, it's not a threat to the United States.


It was threatening enough to be put in the sanctions, Vympel. It’s evidence of an ability to commit illegal activity supposedly under the purview of the international community. That equipment was prohibited whether or not it went to any kind of undertaking – especially conventional or unconventional weapons. Now you’re just talking blind faith.

Funny, I didn't know fibre-optics connecting command centres for air *defense* missiles were a threat.


When they’re illegal? The United Nations considered such equipment threatening enough to ban such transactions in the first place.

Not to mention that those air-defense missiles were used to thwart American and British warplanes – which represent a clear danger even in your argument about sparse militarism being necessary to oblige Iraq to conform. You’re a fucking moron.

All of which are not WMD.


But all of which were illegal.

Blix did have full access. He was never obstructed. That Bush didn't like what was found is his problem.


The people to which he spoke had minders.

He wasn’t able to perform spot-inspections on the scale and with the speed of American inspectors today.

There was no sure proof that Saddam’s régime wasn’t still organizing a ruse or perpetuating new ones.

Yeah, 81mm artillery rockets are a threat to world peace, better occupy another nation and kill thousands of people over it.


What part of the legitimate slippery slope do you miss here? Are you arguing that the man should escape punishment for the illegal acquisitions? It was apparently the United Nation’s unwitting position.

Considering that at 8km the moment it takes off it'll practically immediately be within MANPADS range, the chances are certain.

Spores and cultures are a seperate issue- not to mention you haven't even proven they existed. There was no chemical spraying equipment on the damn thing. It's a stupid thing to attempt considering you could get better results with a missile.


Again, what if the spores or contaminants aren’t burned in the explosion? Why rely on MANADS to defeat the drones rather than demand they be destroyed anyway?

We are still searching for WMD. Saddam was known to have equipment that could disseminate WMD. A missile would have been almost certainly intercepted. Far more visible than UAVs, obviously.

I posted the article on Iraq's drone months ago. It's made of balsa wood and held together by duct tape.


So you can talk. Great. Source.

Not only is that a red herring- it's also a strawman- there is no difference between a tank and anti-ship missile- they are both conventional weapons that are not prohibited by any resolution.


Strawman on your part. We were referring to their necessity.

Oh, that must mean that the US possesses drones for spraying chemicals then, does it? Fuckwit.


Strawman. I don’t care what the US has. This is about what Iraq has. Your adherence to the just-world fallacy is stunning.

You tell a soldier in a Bradley whether he'd rather have a drone above him or a T-72 in front of him.


I can turn your own argument right around on you.

“But we’d destroy the drone easily!”

Bradleys with AP ammunition and missile launchers can take on T-72s. So can their aircover.

A tank is a known entity. A drone is not. A drone’s ability to scout the battlefield is dangerous. The potential for carrying WMD – which could be disseminated even if the shell of the drone were destroyed and fell to earth – was there.

And yet you consistently pretend that they do.


They define them.

Not the point- they cannot show that these two trucks ever produced biological weapons. Other purposes posited for the trucks have included servicing poisoned water supply (didn't see *that* one coming, eh?). The CIA has claimed that biological warfare is somehow the most 'logical'. I guess that review that's tearing through the department about what a Democrat recently labelled "the greatest intelligence hoax of all time" would have nothing to do with that, huh?


Saddam could have had them decontaminated. And again I’ll use your argument. Saddam Hussein so fucking concerned about his own people. :roll: The CIA’s statement makes strong sense.

You can show that the Chinese were still doing so after smart sanctions were introduced?

And again, contravention does not equal military action.


I can show the Chinese did it in the first place without a response. Negligence. Not to mention that Smart Sanctions didn’t cut down on known smuggling in the billion-dollar range by Iran, Syria, Turkey, and others connected to Iraq. As Pollock points out on page 219, “The problem with going after Iraq’s neighbors and to cut down on the smuggling is that the smuggling is far too profitable and, in most cases, economically vital to the neighboring states. Iraq would undoubtedly retaliate against any neighboring state that agreed to legalize its share of the smuggling by cutting off all trade – legal and illegal – with it. The neighbors know this and have already made it clear that any program to cut off the smuggling will have to compensate them for the expected loss of both. Thus, in the case of Jordan, someone would have to provide them with roughly $500 million in free and discounted oil, as well as make up for the loss of $900 million in trade, including $683 million worth of Jordanian exports to Iraq. […] The Clinton administration tried several times to get the Saudis and Kuwaitis to step in at least once on the oil side but was rebuffed every time.” Smart sanctions were pushed in January of 2001. And yet Pollock’s sources include: Neil King Jr.’s, "New Iraq Sanctions Are Short on Support - Strategy's Success Depends Upon Neighboring Lands, Which Rely On Iraqi Oil," from The Wall Street Journal, June 18, 2001, page A15 and "Millions of Dollars in Jordan-Iraq Contracts Pushed to This Year," The Wall Street Journal, April 25, 2002. Illegal trade hasn’t been stopped, Vympel.


Contravention didn’t equal any action as far as the United Nations was concerned.

Invade? I'm sorry, where did France and Russia say you should attack Iraq?


France and Germany both agreed that they thought it a good idea that the U.S. indefinitely deploy troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in preparation for an invasion of Iraq should Saddam try and deny the UN.

The last IAEA report on the tubes was on March 7. Lots of time to destroy em eh- especially considering it's not the IAEA's job.


The United Nations never took any action. Again, it’s a history of willful negligence.

Because there's no evidence?


See my arguments above.

The simple fact that Iraq funnels money to the families of Palestinian suicide bomber is by Article 34H an unacceptable form of posthumous recognition and advocacy.

Or, they're just rational and understand that some things aren't worth going to war over.


Try self-serving, self-interested, and personally untouched by the threat.

False. It's job description says nothing about it being obligated to go to war because of the paranoid ranting and piss-poor evidence of one of it's member states.


Strawman. We’re talking, exclusive of invasion, of whether the United Nations has any credibility at all. The answer is no because it has a long history of willful negligence when it comes to transgression of Resolution 687 and others in Iraq.

Sorry, I don't need to make any effort to defend my belief in the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns.


In order for Dave’s argument about Iraq to have credibility, he needs to cite information on weapons inspections and present an argument as to why he thinks weapons aren’t there. It’s more than just saying: “Oh, contraire. Nobody’s found them and so my position is that they aren’t there.” He needs to explain whether anybody looked and why the other person’s arguments about what could have happened to the items are wrong.

"The insistence that God doens't exist because we don't have any evidence for his existence is primarily based on faith"

No, just logic.


We’re talking about weapons with which Saddam has a history and the search for which has been relatively short by any means.

I already have. They weren't used even when Saddam was going to be overthrown. The scientists insist Iraq doesn't have any. A defector in 1995 said they were all destroyed (suppressed for eight years, oddly enough). America and Britain were reduced to peddling plagiarized and false documents to make their case. I'm not convinced.


Saddam ordered them prepared for use in 1991. If they were, as we suspect, broken into components in 2003, that explains why they weren’t used to defend the régime. Other defectors argue that nothing was destroyed; your defector was a theorist, moreover. American and Britain use of plagiarized documents on Nigeria is damning but not the final nail in the coffin.

As for the uranium issue? Try this site article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 97,00.html. It brings up the Congo’s role.

And that harms you does it?


It threatens me, you fucking moron. Understand the problem of a slippery slope.

Richard Butler unilaterally ordering his inspectors out of Iraq was Saddam's bold gamble?


I want sources. Who says Iraq didn’t oblige them to go?

Pollock, pages 90 and 91. “On August 4, the Iraqi National Assembly "voted" to end cooperation with the inspections. […] In October he expelled ten Americans on an inspection team, and then, on the last day of the month, Baghdad announced that it was no longer going to cooperate with UNSCOM at all.” Hm.

Worm out of it? No, you are a coward for precisely that fact. If you were so concerned about your safety, you'd advocate military action against every state whom you hurled unproven accusations of 'espionage' at. You only advocate military action against Iraq because it can't possible repel you- the same reason, IMO, why the administration wanted to do it- the difference is you sincerely believe Iraq was a threat to you.


If I sincerely believe it to be a threat, where’s the cowardice in attempting to confront it, you fucking idiot?

I’d advocate trying to stop and punish somehow the nations responsible for sabotage and intelligence action against the United States – in most instances. But why not invasion? Because it’s not always practical. As in when we find British spies.

Ah, but not for your unproven 'threatening espionage'.


If they were less powerful and influential – on Iraq’s level -, it’d be a possibility, yes.

"Hey, do you wanna invade Russia and kill the sub-human slavs?"

Axis Kast: "why yes, because I sincerely believe it'll benefit my nation, I'll do it, without any moral qualms!"

You are a coward because you prey on the weak only. You're certainly willing to compromise your precious 'safety' against various unproven and proven threats if they can actually fight back.

The fucking is because youre a moron.


Hitler’s argument was that they were sub-human. And don’t presume for a minute that “benefits my nation” isn’t specific. Each scenario is different and you know it. But if all you’ve got is the ad-hominem, I like to laugh.

No, I don’t prey on the weak. I do punish, stop, or crush them when they come up against me however.

You're certainly willing to compromise your precious 'safety' against various unproven and proven threats if they can actually fight back.


It’s called prudence, you fucking moron.

Geopolitical my ass. You are a bankrupt, period- other people aren't deserving of the safety and freedom from death that you think *you* deserve because it's not in the 'best interests' of your nation. You make me sick.


Nobody technically deserves anything. That they get it is another matter.

Oh yes, because lampooning morons is morally equivalent to condemning people to death and terror because it benefits your nation.


That’s right, just try to defend a concept that’s made people so angry they hack your board. Did it ever occur to you that one of the reasons so many people probably hate this place is because some members are at the pinnacle of ignorance?

Contradicting yourself again.


You’re obviously having trouble following through.

Iraq is not an unconventional threat from the point of view of being able to invade its neighbors.

It is however a threat in that its slow growth in conventional ability and resources – as seen in its circumvention of sanctions – allows it to perpetuate the unconventional threat.

You’ve continually attempted to use the first argument as evidence that Iraq was not at all an unconventional threat, which is incorrect.

Oh, that's marvellous reasoning Kast, why don't you just attack *every* single state you can produce plagiarized term papers and forged documents for because you're trying to avoid the possibility of terrorist attack.


We have evidence that Iraq was in circumvention. We have evidence that Saddam once gave the orders to use chemical weapons as a contingency against Israel. We know that he harbors terrorists. We know the man gambled on being able to win a war against the United States military. We know that he’s been able since 1998 to violate sanctions on all manners of levels, acquiring or constructing everything from rocket components to prohibited missiles. Hm. Looks like an unconventional threat to me.

Appeal to ignorance.


Wolfowitz chose to focus on a point that nobody has yet proven false and that still carried weight alone. Just because he didn’t divulge all rationales doesn’t mean he lies you moron.

Fascinating stuff. Where in the past 10 years did Saddam seek to do any of these things. Could it be he was *gasp* deterred?!

This moron's arguments are hilarious- the Soviet Union's *stated* aim was to destroy capitalism- how much more 'over-turn the status quo' can you get? It was deterred just fine.


His government did vote to eject inspectors. He did acquire weapons that in 1998 had to be taken from him. He was a few year away from a nuclear weapon in 1999. He made one in 1991 but failed to acquire fissile materials. Only the United States’ new interest seems to have pinned Iraq down. And that was after a history of negligence that the French and Germans and others didn’t seem to mind perpetuating another long while.

If we had been able to invade the Soviet Union, we would have.

Wow, an Israeli assertion, I'm in *awe*, Kast, really.


An Israeli intelligence analysis.

Funny, you'd think that if that estimate were at all accurate he would've used WMD by now- where was his false confidence in 1991 when he held back from their use?


Oh, but he tried in 1991.

Oh, so if I post the assertions of an anti-war advocate who says basically what I've been saying except it's in book form, does that mean I get to demand a concession?


Aw, poor Vympel can’t take the truth. So sad.

Easily avoidable.


But not entirely.

Bullshit. Point to one place where Iraq obstructed UNMOVIC.
The testimonies were colored by the presence of a fucking régime. Hans Blix could never cover enough ground – especially where schools, hospitals, and mosques were in question.
That Iraq's intelligence was somehow a threat to you is the question.
I believe it was indeed.
No, it's not. If a dozen inspectors are casually having a stroll through Israel and having thier agenda controlled by Israel, it's hardly the same as Iraq. Not to mnetion that instruments in the 60s-70s are not the same as instruments in the 90s. Or that Israel is an ally of the US and Iraq is not.
The point, Vympel, is that you must admit that while he was still in power, Saddam Hussein had every reason to – and could have – perpetrated ruses.
You can't hide a working nuclear capability for long. If you smuggled away a few warheads, what are you going to do with them? You can't mount them anywhere without anyone finding out; you can't maintain them without proper facilities, and you can't build new ones when their service life expires.
You can’t hide a working nuclear capability long? Tell that to North Korea. Or to South Africa – whose actual possession we knew little about until a 1994 admission that bombs had been destroyed.

Try mount them on planes for use as last-ditch tactical arms.

Underground facilities.

You’ve also dodged the question: do you think Israel would have fully divested itself?
No, it doesn't. Troops left Iraq after 1991, yet Iraq complied without their presence.
We’re talking about the here and now.
No, it doesn't. It connects C+C centres.
They are illegal and make the fucking weapons function properly and effectively.
Yet not a reason for automatic invasion.
To the UN, it was a reason for jack shit. Negligence.
And he was willing to let them in in 91?
He at first denied them. He at first denied them the possibility of destroying the al-Samouds, too.
Sure it is ...
The question was whether an Islamofascist group had a good chance at power. The answer was no, your moral conundrums aside.
Prove it.
Are you now saying that you think it was impossible for the Iraqis to have hidden weapons beyond the inspectors’ abilities to find them? To have hidden areas of buildings underground?
No, it was an issue the moment the revolution happened. Spares support was gone. After a year of no spares, you just see what happens to your readiness rates.
With over eighty aircraft, Iran could afford to keep two squadrons working at once – at least.
You think anyone's going to factor in the rather meaningless superiority of the F-14 over the Mirage F1, especially when they've been sabotaged and cannibalized, to the extent that if they don't they're crazy?
It’s part of the irrationality of the pre-war decision-making.
Yet not at the beginning, where Iranian troops had inadequate armor support, and were always outnumbered. And I'm sorry, but superiority in training means jack shit- the average Panther crew was more well-trained than any T-34/85 crew, it didn't save them from losing.
“Superiority in training means jack shit?” Fantastic. I’ll remember that one. I’m thinking of putting it in my signature.

Think about what you just said. “Inadequate armor support” and “always outnumbered.” But Saddam didn’t even know if that would be the case for certain. He relied on it to be. Later on, that wasn’t in fact the case at all.
Who were no different from Iran's soldiers at the war's beginning. Some delusion.
Or in the middle.

Either way, it’s a dumb fucking way to fight a modern war that has got to do with delusions and ignorance – on both sides. The Ayatollah was equally beyond rational explanation.
So because you quote the assertions of someone you've been paraphrasing all along, I'm supposed to concede? Right.
Considering that he’s researched it to a “t”?
And that makes him directly responsible for the military tactics of his Army does it?
It makes him responsible for delusions of grandeur about an army whose capabilities he helped reduce. I can’t believe I’m fucking arguing with you about whether or not Saddam Hussein is a rational, predictable, fully sane individual.
It's not an explanation. A SCUD has a guaranteed accuracy of several hundred metres- there's absolutely no chance that it would miss and fall into a Palestinian area.
Saddam sacrificed accuracy for range with his SCUD modifications.
Nope. But I would be satisfied that Bush had made his case.
And why no invasion?
Domestic organizations where?
Scientists. Any group of people with that knowledge in Saddam’s control is a liability.
Yes, but despite these assertions, you claim he didn't attack Israel with WMD because of risk to Palestinians (false), he didnd't attack American with WMD because of ... oh wait you don't know why, and he didn't attack American forces in his own country with WMD in 2003 because ... oh yeah, that's right, he must've destroyed them before hand, sure sounds like a dictator would do faced with invasion.
He planned to attack Israel. The logistical problems of using WMD on America were massive considering the space of both Persian Gulf wars.

Again, my evidence of his delusions – and the logic bearing down to his insanity – still stands. Concession safe.
Neutrals. Not allies.
And yet Iran still had weaponry until the war’s end when the U.S. itself became unpredictably involved.
Either you agree that LBJ was unpredictable and crazy enough that you could make a convincing argument that he'd just do something stupid like attack someone who was bound to destroy him, or you concede the argument.
Vietnam was never logically bound to destroy the United States armed forces. In fact, it didn’t. It fought us to the point that we pulled out rather than expanded the war.

The United States was virtually assured to destroy Hussein’s military.
Actually, he accepted back in September 2002.
Inspectors. Not al-Samouds.
But people should accept the preemption argument based on America's pathetic intelligence? Right.
Ah, the pathetic strawman. It’s not about whether we’d accept it. It’s about whether Pakistan could avoid any consequences they’d normally have incurred if we hadn’t invaded Iraq. The answer is no.
Of course it doesn't. That's my side of the argument. Your side is that you should somehow be excluded from the same.
No. My argument is that we will be anyway. No matter what. But it doesn’t change anything for India, which means that we set no new precedent as you’ve been arguing.
In fact, you've consistently harped emptily on the danger of ignoring the 'value' of speculation in international politics. I really can't believe I left this bullshit assertion alone for this long. Why is speculation valuable? Can you point to anywhere where it's been remotely useful?
Speculation is valuable because it doesn’t let the threat build up. If you want a look at the results of speculation in the field, look at the fucking Cold War.
You mustn't have liked the statement of the obvious.
Actually, I have no fucking idea what you said. Are you trying to argue that Saddam’s intelligence services now perform only counter-intelligence activities?

Anyway, I'm really tempted to end this since we won't be agreeing anytime soon. It's really annoying to come home and feel compelled to do this.
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Axis Kast wrote: Your claim is that April Glaspie’s statements strengthened Hussein’s resolve to invade Kuwait and led the Baghdad leadership to believe that they could avoid the United States’ ire almost completely – and certainly in terms of a military response. That’s patently false. The fact that Saddam Hussein advanced into Kuwait with the equivalent of eight divisions in Republican Guard troops meant that he was expecting some kind of resistance. The question isn’t what kind of resistance. It’s whether he expected resistance at all. Whether Glaspie gave the impression that Saddam could walk all over Kuwait with nary more than a terse diplomatic exchange and some wrist slapping on the Security Council. The answer is yes, Saddam did expect resistance, and no, Glaspie never left him with the impression that the United States wasn’t going to become involved.
Ah, so it was all so much bullshit then? Did it ever occur to you that his expectation of a light force was predicated on what Glaspie said? You think if the United States had said plainly "invade Kuwait, and it's war" he still would have done it?
And what, pray-tell, is the difference between a “military reaction” and a “military confrontation?” You insisted that Glaspie left no doubt as to American disinterest. Where exactly does “military reaction” in the Gulf theater – where the Americans hadn’t previously deployed anything but naval and very limited air forces – fit within the definition of passive standby?
How about that the light forces that initially *were* deployed weren't crushed? That Iraqi forces didn't seek to prosecute an attack, only to try and keep their gains, while sanctions ticked along and diplomacy ran it's course? There is a difference between the two.

Considering that the United States signed the preliminary terms of a cease-fire in the field as an actual, legal combatant, President George Bush is thoroughly justified in making the argument that Iraq is in violation. Thus war continues.
You're a fucking bullshit artist. You cannot make the argument that Iraq is in violation of a cease-fire agreement you do not know the terms of. So SHUT UP.
Also – and this is again from Kenneth Pollock on page 369 of his book The Threatening Storm -, “United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 authorizes member states to ‘use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security Council Resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.’


More bullshit from your favorite bullshit artist eh?

Pollack is a liar, or you made a typo, or you are a liar. The Resolution in question is SIX. SEVEN. EIGHT. Not 687.

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"

678 only justifies the use of force to implement resolutions on Iraq passed between 2 August and 29 November 1990. This is a position that has been repeated by Council members ad nauseum since 1991, with no state but the U.K. and U.S. holding anything other than a literal and meaningful construction of 678.

It makes no sense, legal or otherwise, to claim that an earlier resolution can authorize the use of force to enforce subsequent resolutions until the end of time. The proper word is RELEVANT resolutions.

Since Resolution 687 was itself meant to restore peace and certainly provided for “security in the area,” the United States was legally justified in taking action. It considered invasion the “necessary mean” to uphold “security in the area.” From a strict, technical, and sparing perspective, the jurisprudence is there. War was justified from a legal point of view. I challenge you to provide a quotation from Resolution 687 declaring that consultation was necessary. What, exactly, do you understand that the consequences were, as written and ratified?


Wrong. It is for the SECURITY COUNCIL (you know, the organization that the resolution starts off with) to enforce it's own resolutions, NOT the United States. There is no jurisprudence there to speak of.

"The Secuirty council decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."

The very last section.


According to George Bush, that is the case.


Appeal to authority fallacy.


Article 32H [I originally misread ‘32’ as ‘12’] reads as follows:

“Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;”

Iraqi payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers are posthumous recognitions of terrorism. Baghdad has failed to condemn unequivocally such acts as they occur in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The United Nations is required to raise the matter for the “consultations” about which you’ve spoken so much as an alternative to invasion.


And the United States raised this matter ... when?


Most Americans today believe that Saddam Hussein was a legitimate threat to the national security of the United States of America. Do not delude yourself into believing that President Bush is responsible to any higher power than his own constituent public, the United Nations and Kofi Annan be damned.


Appeal to popularity fallacy. The American public also thinks that Saddam Hussein was responsbile for 9/11, and that the Earth is 6,000 years old.


I am asking you to tell me whether you honestly believe that the Iraqi intelligence apparatus was inactive up to and during the Second Persian Gulf War. At all. In any organized operative form.


Of course it was active. It's an intelligence service, isn't it?



Oh, but I can. See above.


Sorry, little Kenny Pollack won't save you.

The United Nations as a body permitted dangerous circumvention without activating the contingencies called for in 687 and other similar resolutions dealing with sanctions and prohibitions related to Iraq. They thus forfeit credibility as source of reliable security and moderation. Even you cannot deny Vympel that the Untied Nations was remiss in prosecuting Iraq on all counts of violation.


The United Nations is a body of nations- it is not for the organization itself to prosecute Iraq on all counts of violation- if the US saw fit to bring the matter to the Security Council, it should have done so. It did on the matter of WMD, consultations were had, and force was not authorized. You lose.

The United Nations was unwilling, unable, or unwitting in enforcement. And, as logic goes, if Resolution 687 was designed to limit the threat posed by Iraq and the United Nations was the medium by which policing would be done, then collective security against Saddam was undeniably imperiled – whether or not you believe invasion was necessary. And from that jumping-off point – proving that Iraq was in circumvention of Resolution 687 and associated sanctions régimes -, we can discuss the merits of preventative preemption. After all, Hans Blix approached the situation from a purely physical standpoint, seeking only weapons of mass destruction. He made no targeted inquiry into economic or political transgressions and no strenuous or thorough inquiry into conventional violations.


Becaue they weren't Blix's job. The United States harped on one issue and one issue alone: WMD. If they had brought up other grievances, you think the UN would've done absolutely nothing?

The United Nations failed in its role as arbiter of peace. Where does that leave us?


It failed in its role of arbiter of peace by trying to prevent a war? Remarkable logic. The United States was the aggressor here, not Iraq.

It broke a legal argument. It failed to stand up to commitment.


Actually, it fully complied with it's legal commitments.


What false dilemma? Arguing that your solution – the inspections régime – was a mere half-step since it did not account for all of Iraq’s violations of sanctions designed to limited its ability to pose a collective security threat? Arguing that even Hans Blix’ own teams were never fully sufficient to cover each and every nook and cranny of Iraq or to acquire full, unabashed testimony while the Iraqi régime itself was still in power – aside from their having been focused only on the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction? Arguing that invasion as proposed by George Bush was in fact the only actual means of ensuring that Saddam would not increase his ability to represent a threat to collective security given the indicators between 1991 and 2002 of his actual initiations (i.e. steady circumvention)?


False dilemmas mixed with appeals to ignorance to boot actually. I argue that Iraq's contraventions could be stopped by stricter enforcement. That it is not sound reasoning to proclaim "you'll never be able to prove Iraq doens't have WMD because we haven't invaded!" as reasoning for invasion. That it's not sound reasoning to argue "you can't prove Saddam won't increase his ability to threaten collective security!" is not sound reasoning.


Those American forces would not have been pursuing a realistic agenda in Qatar or Saudi Arabia if their sole purpose was to “oblige” Saddam Hussein’s acceptance of Hans Blix. As I have already pointed out, thorough inspection was impossible while the Ba’athists still held power in Baghdad. If we’re going to put our troops in harm’s way – against a primarily conventional foe whereas al-Qaeda represents an unconventional threat that our forces are not necessarily intended to combat on a regular basis -, it goes without saying that they should be pursuing the most effective agenda. George Bush produced that most effective agenda – whether or not you feel it was unwarranted, his solution of invasion was the best and most complete insurance.


Backpedal backpedal eh? Your troops are no safer in Iraq than they were in Saudi Arabia, if not less safe. Concession Accepted, meaningless rant about "effective agenda" ignored.


Let’s look at facts:
(1) Most terrorist strikes against American military targets have traditionally been directed at barracks or staging areas – i.e. Khobar Towers.


An attack on a military target is by definition not a terrorist attack, unless innocents are used as part of the attack.

Furthermore, if we use your dubious 'terorist' label, then Americans have been under terrorist attack since they invaded Iraq and came under suicide car bombings, drive-by shootings, and grenade attacks. More Americans have died in Iraq in the month of May (excluding the bizarre frequency of military accidents) than they would have in Saudi Arabia.

(2) Al-Qaeda can expect less civilian support in Iraq considering that (a) there is still conditioning toward aversion if not hatred left over from Hussein’s secular régime and more important (b) suicide bombs in crowded Baghdad neighborhoods by Arab fundamentalists foreign to Iraq would be a sure way to anger and alienate the actual population, making movement for terrorists more difficult and potentially wrecking havoc for al-Qaeda’s public image across the Middle East.


Suicide bombs? Try sniper attacks. Drive by shootings. Grenade attacks.

(3) A terrorist attack employing unconventional munitions – i.e. “dirty” materials, biological cultures, or chemical agents – would be most likely effective [from al-Qaeda’s point of view] against large deployments of men and women in one given area with general isolation from civilian services. Not only does this limit public casualty exposure, but one or two soldiers on a crowded Baghdad street are not as enticing a target as say one or two hundred soldiers in a tent camp in the middle of a desert.


And these camps don't exist in Iraq? There are barracks with hundreds of US soldiers in them scattered all over Iraq at this point in time.


But inevitably moving to invasion level. That means that we were sending mounds of equipment and tens of thousands of men. What part of “it took a large and expensive deployment to oblige Saddam to accept inspections” do you misunderstand? Whether they were coming or actually there is irrelevant since either way they end up in the same final area of operations. Don’t tell me you’re advocating that we prep for a massive invasion every time Saddam plays his one-step, two-step game and then recall the troops so we can play the game a second, third, or even sixteenth time.


Actually, that bullshit assertion that you would have to prepare for such an invasion was debunked by you personally when you said how many times the US built up military force to invasion levels in the 91-98 period.


Yes, weeks ahead of schedule. A “fast war” is a general term. But even George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were cautioning that the war would span longer than it actually did. The timetable for Baghdad alone was “weeks.” The war took approximately three in total.

Notice the words “coming together.” We’ve installed an interim leader


An American.

coaxed local administration, revived to the best of our ability a temporary police force


Who the Iraqi people hate.

attempted to put money back into the economy by providing salaries for government officials


I'm sure the Ba'thists are happy about that.

and sought to restore electrical and sewage utilities wherever practicable.


Not many places, in plain speak.

The Iraqi people are “pissed off” about occupation in general. What part of “unwelcome series of events” do you need clarified for you?


Ah, and they'll just calm down and accept these events will they?

It was obvious from the start that after initial revelry we’d have to work on our public relations spin. Even if you accepted everything put forth by the Bush administration as thoroughly credible blanket-statements meant both for the media and as policy or actual opinion. As for the “indefinitely putting off Iraqi self-rule,” it’s rather unadvisable to turn everything over to a still-divided people living without complete security or any kind of economic infrastructure. And if you’re going to point fingers and claim that no “credible plan” is being established because some soldiers are dying during wartime securing neighborhoods that are still occupied by irregulars (which is in itself upsetting and unfortunate but ultimately expected), then I’m going to laugh at your ignorance.


Yeah, you buy tha BS about everyone opposing the Americans just being 'die hard Saddam supporters' eh. Troop morale is already flagging. They want to go home. They were expecting to be relieved by peacekeeprs. Now, as one of them said, the ones doing the killing are keeping the peace. It doesn't work. They're jumpy and are driving the population ape shit.


Incorrect. While there was obviously a form of hierarchy in place to ensure the continuation of the Soviet Union as a national entity, no clear lines of succession were ever established. Hence you were liable to draw leaders with a range of different objectives, opinions, outlooks, and styles. Look at the difference, for instance, between a gambler like Khruschev, an iconoclastic dictator like Stalin, a by-the-book administrator like Brheznev, and an unconventional liberal (from the Soviet point of view) like Gorbachav. You don’t see that in Iraq. It’s Saddam Hussein the delusional, unpredictable dictator or Uday and Qusai Hussein, the delusional, unpredictable dictators. It’d be essentially exchanging one for the other without any appreciable change in policy or approach. The three are too alike on all levels. “Waiting it out” isn’t an option. Hans Blix was limited to some degree by the very Ba’ath Party structure and command-government foundations themselves. That wouldn’t have changed inside twenty years virtually for certain.


Genetic determinism? Why would either of his sons, odious as they both are, be authomatically delusional and unpredictable?


The question was whether – at all – Iraq represented a threat – conventional or unconventional – to its neighbors, regardless of their perceived ability to thwart, divert, or defend against it. The answer is still yes.


Regardless of their ability to defend against it? What kind of fucked up proviso is that? Everyone is a threat to everyone if I add that stupid idea.

*Snip glaring statement of the obvious*

Thus Iraq did in fact have contingency plans for the use of weapons of mass destruction in 1991 and was in fact prepared – the orders were out – to launch missiles at Tel Aviv if indeed Baghdad itself looked about to fall. But why didn’t he deploy in March 2003 when his capital fell? Here we need to look at the facts:


Hey- idiot. The US Army is masking on Moscow. Moscow has it's nuclear weapons ready. What does it do? OF COURSE you're gonna use your WMD if your back is up against the wall and you're about to be out on your ass!

(A) A vast fraction of the Iraqi military’s officer corps was bribed to stand idle or avoid confrontation.


How can something be both vast, and a fraction? Regardless, it is not known which troops took bribes, and which didn't, and if they did in fact take bribes, then they would be willing to reveal the presence of WMD.

(B) The United States would undoubtedly have practiced total annihilation of any unit responsible for a WMD strike.


That much is obvious- that poor empty SCUD launcher.

(C) If Saddam possessed WMD, it was likely that these were divested into critical components and that the construction of a functional weapon or launch system was in fact too slow or impossible without exposing the weapons themselves to immediate aerial bombardment.


Ah, that explains the UK's dossier claim that Iraq could have WMD ready for deployment in 45 minutes. :roll:

(D) If indeed Saddam sought to build them in hiding and attempt a “suicide strike” by units who would fire one salvo and then depart at once, it is likely that the logistical incompetence of the Iraqi military might have prevented the attack. Iraq’s regular military forces have not necessarily all had proper introduction to WMD since 1991 or 1998. The Iraqi military functions on poor timetables and cannot at all compete with Western militaries, unique in their battlefield support capabilities.


Borne out by the fruitless Western military hunt for SCUD launchers in 1991, eh? :roll:

“As for why Saddam did not use WMD ... The vast majority of Iraq’s chemical munitions were not filled before the war because filled munitions begin to degrade fairly quickly


More bullshit from Kenny-boy. In 1991 Iraq declared it had 12,792, mustard *FILLED* munitions. The suggestion that all filled munitions degrade 'fairly quickly' is just hand-waving- you would practically have to imply an effective service life of hours for his laughable argument to have any merit- not to mention that Iraq would've been perfectly capable of launching chemical filled SCUD missiles at Coalition forces from the Western deserts.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world ... unscom.htm

I also refer you to http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960715/72569.htm which states that mustard is quite stable and can be stored safely for a considerable period of time.

There’s also the argument that the United States itself wouldn’t potentially have been able to stop Iraq from deploying weapons but that only Saddam Hussein’s own unexplained restraint – and in some cases, inability or ineptitude – prevented deployment of WMD:

"*snip more excessive quoting* Saddam was willing to defy American warnings on terrorism and the destruction of oil fields. He ignored the warning altogether in anticipation of having to defend Baghdad, as we saw with the order to prepare for chemical attacks on Tel Aviv. Thus deterrence by response (the reliance on a, “We’ll paste you if you hit us,” argument) is not in this instance credibly sustained.


What. the. fuck. I'm sorry, how does deterrence apply at all when the enemy army is about to enter your capital? Good god what a moron ...

As for why we should feel compelled to save Israel the trouble of Iraq – if we’re going to look at that piece of the overall argument justifying invasion at all -, it’s essentially because were Israel attacked, (A) Iraq would indeed run the risk of being the target for a nuclear attack and (B) the United States would be called upon to mobilize its forces anyway – and not necessarily at a time or on a level of its own choosing.


A) doesn't help your argument.

B) doens't make any sense.

Also – in case you’d like to rehash your old defense that Iraq was fully divested of terrorist groups it could reasonably assist by 1998 … *snip*


I'm getting quite sick of your wholesale lifting of assertions from a pro-war advocate as your subsitute for argument. You don't have a prayer of bludgeoning me into submission with massive slabs of quotes- I'll just snip them.

Never mind that Pollock adds ... and probably have assisted eachother in different ways – such as selling forged passports or know-how.” Hence a threat that, when taken in addition of Iraq’s wider economic, political, and conventional contravention of the United Nations (all unpunished), is cause for calls of régime-change.


Bullfuck. Whether it's your Kenny-boy cooking up "what if" scenarios without proof or you, that's not establishing a threat. I am entirely not interested in what he thinks is 'probable'. This is the same dumbass who recently backpedaled on his Iraqi WMD claim in public.


That “preliminary cease-fire” ended combat in the field. Thus its state violation would have meant that the United States – as a signatory combatant – would have been justified in going to war. Nevermind that a strict interpretation of Resolution 687 seems to justify war on a legal basis itself anyway. See my first replies.


Your first replies are bullshit, as I have shown.


What reason was there not to push for Blix to destroy the unmanned aerial drones or for the Untied States not to press that Iraq should be divested of anti-ship missiles?


Because they're conventional, legal weapons Iraq is within it's rights as a sovereign nation responsible for it's own national defense to possess. QED.


Just-world fallacy.


Oh really? Define this "fallacy". I don't see it anywhere.

The world is not just. Washington is not required to keep from exerting pressure on Iraq simply because to do so would be hypocritical or inapplicable in another situation involving another party. The argument is that clearly Iraq doesn’t need ship-to-ship missiles to provide internal security. Any ocean-going threat is already under the purview of the United States Navy.


Ah, it's "just because" reasoning. Concession Accepted.


If we’re setting up for the possibility of having to attack them anyway


Assuming your conclusion as a premise. It's not an argument, you fuckwit. Just shut up.


“From above: *snip*

Clear support for international terrorism.


Because Kenny says so? Funny, I can point to the CIA's opinion of Iraq and terrorism that post-dates Kenny's marvelous little let's go to war screed. Additionally, explain Turkey and Iran's unwillingness to support a war if Iraq supports the Kurds (an inherently absurd claim) against both of them, as he claims?


You noted that Iraq turned down smart sanctions.


They were protested against in a going through the motions spiel about lifting them entirely. They came into force in May 2002.

And since when did economic circumvention stop? Illegal, yes. Stopped? No. Dozens of businesses did illegal work in Iraq without consequences.


After the smart sanctions, whose aim was to close the black market routes and resume open trade?

Hans Blix never addressed that issue. Last I heard, the French had delivered spares for Mirage aircraft in January.


I also heard that France gave Iraq nuclear detonator switches in 1998. Turned out to be bullshit. Where's the evidence?

“No time to move on the issue?” Try no discussion of the issue at all. And that’s excluding the inactive period between 1991 and 2003 during which the United Nations turned a blind eye anyway.


How could there possibly be time for discussion when the US was clamoring for war throughout March?

The al-Samouds were destroyed, yes. They shouldn’t have been there in the first place.


So long as they're destroyed, that's compliance. You'll note that the requirement from Iraq (and stated as such by Jack Straw) was that if Iraq had anything in its possesion it should declare it.


How, exactly, would a small infantry unit detect this “fucking control system” if it’s in the middle of a car-logged street or within a school or hospital?


You need ANTENNAS with a line of sight to the drone to control it, for fuck's sake.

Eight kilometers is a short distance – and that works both ways. The troops aren’t going to put on NBC protection 24/7. There’s a chance they might be surprised. And that’s especially true if all the drone has to do is execute a crash landing.


Actually, a crash landing would severely restrict the area of effect to the area just around the drone.

Also – proof that these things are so poorly-constructed as you claim?


Oh for fuck's sake ..."A remotely piloted aircraft that the United States has warned could spread chemical weapons appears to be made of balsa wood and duct tape, with two small propellers attached to what look like the engines of a weed whacker."- Associated Press.

From the very article I posted on this board months ago.


The invasion itself doesn’t eliminate or reduce the threat posed by the UAVs, you moron.


You stupid fuck. If they can only be a threat during an invasion, it can hardly be an offensive threat.

There was the potential to sue for their destruction. And why the hell not?


Because they weren't illegal dumbass.


The man waffled. Just like he waffled over inspectors coming in the first place. He even refused at one point the possibility of destroying them.


Descending into dogma eh?


He pointed to the Gulf War cease-fire as justification during his March speeches.


Which is Resolution 687.


Strawman. My argument was that the United Nations hadn’t addressed the economic and political issues whatsoever but dealt only with the WMDs – and then at American insistence. It was fucking negligent.


If America was concerned about everything, maybe it should've broached the subject, hmmm? The UN is not a monolith that the US is beating on like some sort of spoilt child.


Bullshit. Not that it matters. There are enough factual, physical violations for action outright without the question of violations of spirit at all.


No, there aren't. If you're going to argue violation, you are arguing within the ambit of UN resolutions. Which don't provide any war provision. The UN would be fucking negligent in its duty if it EVER provided any sort of automatic war provision.


Try quoting a pro-war book-writer’s quotations of an Israeli military report.


Ah yes, because the Israelis are such a credible source, the same people who said that Iraq's WMD were off to Syria and buried in Lebanon :roll:

I’ve provided documented instances with which any fuckwit can see that logic went right out the window and delusions of success impracticably colored the day. Now you’re just stalling for time.


You know you haven't got any legs, right?

His circumvention of sanctions established a threat that demanded a response. The Untied Nations’ was insufficient. Hans Blix was a solution to only one problem – and didn’t even have the same level of access with Saddam in power that American inspectors have now while he is out of power.


And yet you have found nothing in the top 220 sites. Most interesting. And again, do point out where Iraq obstructed Hans Blix.


George Bush used it as justification.


Irrelevant, even if you were right. What are the terms?


It carries far more weight. Iraq has a history that Togo does not. Don’t be stupid, Vympel.


Meaningless in the absence of any evidence. Replace Togo with suitably unsavory country if you like.


The point is that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his arsenal with impunity.


No, he wasn't.

Even Hans Blix wasn’t willing to strip him of tools that we considered dangerous and could admittedly have been affixed with spray tanks.


Becuase they weren't illegal.

It’s the argument as a whole that makes the justification. The man had been given years to practice economic, political, and conventional circumvention largely unhindered. What were we supposed to expect from the United Nations but more of the same?


Unhindered? That's priceless, really. Iraq was turned into a decrepit shithole, in every sense of the word, post-91. That Iraq still possesed WMD is extremely doubtful in light of the evidence. It had engaged in no meaningful contravention that posed any threat to security in the region.


On their way. And this still doesn’t take care of the problem of his waffling over the al-Samouds. Or the other circumvention the United Nations was negligent to act upon.


Your 'waffling' interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. Your bullshit claim of the UN as some sort of monolith instead of just a gathering of nations doesn't work. If the US was concerned, why didn't it bring it up?


It was threatening enough to be put in the sanctions, Vympel. It’s evidence of an ability to commit illegal activity supposedly under the purview of the international community. That equipment was prohibited whether or not it went to any kind of undertaking – especially conventional or unconventional weapons. Now you’re just talking blind faith.


Yes, I have blind faith that 81mm rockets being built since 1987 were not a threat to the United States- and I'm sorry but the fact that something was put in sanctions does not automatically mean it was put there because it was a threat to collective security- these sanctions also had the purpose of punishing Iraq.


When they’re illegal? The United Nations considered such equipment threatening enough to ban such transactions in the first place.


The fact that something was put in sanctions does not automatically mean it was put there because it was a threat to collective security- these sanctions also had the purpose of punishing Iraq.

Not to mention that those air-defense missiles were used to thwart American and British warplanes – which represent a clear danger even in your argument about sparse militarism being necessary to oblige Iraq to conform. You’re a fucking moron.


British and American warplanes flying over Iraq at the time, you fucking moron. And just so you know- resolution 688, which the US tried to use to justify the no-fly zones, is NOT a Chapter VII resolution. Concession Accepted, fucktard.


But all of which were illegal.


Which does not translate into threat.



The people to which he spoke had minders.


Actually, unattended interviews were given. The answers were no different, and surprise surprise, they're still not.

He wasn’t able to perform spot-inspections on the scale and with the speed of American inspectors today.


UNMOVIC's capabilities were still being built up in Iraq when the US torpedoed them. He reiterated this in his reports repeatedly.

There was no sure proof that Saddam’s régime wasn’t still organizing a ruse or perpetuating new ones.


Appeal to ignorance.


What part of the legitimate slippery slope


No such thing. It's called slippery slope FALLACY.

do you miss here? Are you arguing that the man should escape punishment for the illegal acquisitions? It was apparently the United Nation’s unwitting position.


I'm not the UN. The people themselves have had enough shit inflicted on them. I'm not sayign that every issue should've been left alone.


Again, what if the spores or contaminants aren’t burned in the explosion? Why rely on MANADS to defeat the drones rather than demand they be destroyed anyway?


Because I'm just saying why it's not a likely use. I can argue that Iraq *might* develop chemical tank shells as well, does that mean you're going to argue that Iraq should scrap it's tanks?

We are still searching for WMD. Saddam was known to have equipment that could disseminate WMD. A missile would have been almost certainly intercepted. Far more visible than UAVs, obviously.


Missile certainly intercepted? Patriot hardly had a good war.


Strawman on your part. We were referring to their necessity.


And both are necessary for a modern military, if you have a coastline, port faciltiies, and other things you might wish to defend.


Strawman. I don’t care what the US has. This is about what Iraq has. Your adherence to the just-world fallacy is stunning.


No such thing as a just-world fallacy. If it is true for one, it is also true for the other.



I can turn your own argument right around on you.

“But we’d destroy the drone easily!”

Bradleys with AP ammunition and missile launchers can take on T-72s. So can their aircover.


The T-72 can also destroy the Bradley directly in a single shot, without any effort. Not so for a drone.

A tank is a known entity. A drone is not. A drone’s ability to scout the battlefield is dangerous.


A tank's ability to kill your soldiers is also dangerous. Irrelevant. Oh wait, that's a 'just world' fallacy. :roll:

The potential for carrying WMD – which could be disseminated even if the shell of the drone were destroyed and fell to earth – was there.


The potential for WMD to be fired by practically anything and it's dog is also there. Doesn't make the reasoning valid.



Saddam could have had them decontaminated.


Oh right, the forces are too incompetent to assemble WMD to defend Iraq in 2003, but they have time to decontaminate a pair of trucks just in case they lose. Brillaint reasoning.

And again I’ll use your argument. Saddam Hussein so fucking concerned about his own people. :roll: The CIA’s statement makes strong sense.


Ah, so will you also be contending that Iraqi ambulances have a threatening purpose because Saddam 'doenst care about his own people'? Idiot.


I can show the Chinese did it in the first place without a response. Negligence.


Your UN as a monolith bullshit is showing.

Not to mention that Smart Sanctions didn’t cut down on known smuggling in the billion-dollar range by Iran, Syria, Turkey, and others connected to Iraq. As Pollock points out-


Sorry to interrupt your Kenny wanking, but he wrote this when?

Contravention didn’t equal any action as far as the United Nations was concerned.


I'm not the UN. Feels great.


France and Germany both agreed that they thought it a good idea that the U.S. indefinitely deploy troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in preparation for an invasion of Iraq should Saddam try and deny the UN.


And I don't think that was necessary.


The United Nations never took any action. Again, it’s a history of willful negligence.


More monolith bullshit.

The simple fact that Iraq funnels money to the families of Palestinian suicide bomber is by Article 34H an unacceptable form of posthumous recognition and advocacy.


I don't see the word posthumous anywhere in 32H.


Try self-serving, self-interested, and personally untouched by the threat.


Ah, the same as the US then.


Strawman. We’re talking, exclusive of invasion, of whether the United Nations has any credibility at all. The answer is no because it has a long history of willful negligence when it comes to transgression of Resolution 687 and others in Iraq.


UN as monolith bullshit. If the US was so concerned, why didn't it bring it up?


In order for Dave’s argument about Iraq to have credibility, he needs to cite information on weapons inspections and present an argument as to why he thinks weapons aren’t there.
I already have, though it's unecessary. Your trying to defend the appeal to ignorance fallacy sure is amusing though.

We’re talking about weapons with which Saddam has a history and the search for which has been relatively short by any means.
We'll see.
Saddam ordered them prepared for use in 1991.
And were destroyed after.
If they were, as we suspect, broken into components in 2003, that explains why they weren’t used to defend the régime. Other defectors argue that nothing was destroyed; your defector was a theorist, moreover. American and Britain use of plagiarized documents on Nigeria is damning but not the final nail in the coffin.
WMD might yet be found. We'll see. I doubt it.
As for the uranium issue? Try this site article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 97,00.html. It brings up the Congo’s role.
Sept 25 2002 article.
It threatens me, you fucking moron. Understand the problem of a slippery slope.
Amazing, Iraqi 81mm rockets threaten you.
I want sources. Who says Iraq didn’t oblige them to go?
Fairness and accuracy in reporting

As reported by the mainstream media. The US obliged them to go, actually.

Iraq refused to comply with inspectors because they violated their mandate by spying on the Iraqi government- a story that was sat on for months, but which eventually did break:

http://www.fair.org/extra/9903/unscom.html
Pollock ...
Has an agenda and is obviously not too concerned about the facts.
If I sincerely believe it to be a threat, where’s the cowardice in attempting to confront it, you fucking idiot?
That you won't confront others for the same bullshit.
I’d advocate trying to stop and punish somehow the nations responsible for sabotage and intelligence action against the United States – in most instances. But why not invasion? Because it’s not always practical. As in when we find British spies.
Counter-intelligence is the way to deal with enemy spies. Not invasion.
If they were less powerful and influential – on Iraq’s level -, it’d be a possibility, yes.
And where has any US administration demonstrated such reasoning? Nowhere. Heck, even they're not that crazy.
Hitler’s argument was that they were sub-human. And don’t presume for a minute that “benefits my nation” isn’t specific. Each scenario is different and you know it. But if all you’ve got is the ad-hominem, I like to laugh.
It has no relevance to the argument. I just read it and can't believe I didn't call you on your atrocious shit the moment you said it. You were asked a straight out question of whether you'd do certain things just because you could get away with it, and said yes.
No, I don’t prey on the weak. I do punish, stop, or crush them when they come up against me however.
Not what you said.
It’s called prudence, you fucking moron.
I think it's more that countries understand the great game of espionage and how it's played, and that war is not an answer for it. You're loony.

Nobody technically deserves anything. That they get it is another matter.
Translation: "I know I'm scum."
That’s right, just try to defend a concept that’s made people so angry they hack your board.
The concept of collecting all the worst examples of idiocy, intolerance, and illogic on the board and join in mocking them is morally equivalent to your non-existent morals eh? Why am I not surprised.

And besides, how *would* you know that the existence of the Hall of Shame (not an entirely new concept) was the reason for cracking the board? You did know that the perpetrators were from a place called TROLL Kingdom?
Did it ever occur to you that one of the reasons so many people probably hate this place is because some members are at the pinnacle of ignorance?
Yeah Kast, we always wondered about that- you know, when creationist idiots, homophobes, rabid Trekkies who don't read the site, white-supremacists, and pedophiles come onto the board, whether we really are at the height of ignornace and should be more tolerant of such folk.

This is one of the most tolerant boards I've ever seen- Mike allows swearing, insults, idiots with extreme points of view, and all points in between. What is not allowed is criminal activity, trollish invasions by people who don't even want to debate, and people who ask the admin to ban them. That was have a place where the worst pollutants can go to be mocked without fucking up everywhere in the board with their shit is much better than simply banning them (which, in this board's almost 1 year life, has happened to only a handful of the most disgusting or fucked up people this side of the internet).
You’re obviously having trouble following through.

Iraq is not an unconventional threat from the point of view of being able to invade its neighbors.

It is however a threat in that its slow growth in conventional ability and resources – as seen in its circumvention of sanctions – allows it to perpetuate the unconventional threat.

You’ve continually attempted to use the first argument as evidence that Iraq was not at all an unconventional threat, which is incorrect.
We have evidence that Iraq was in circumvention. We have evidence that Saddam once gave the orders to use chemical weapons as a contingency against Israel.
If Baghdad were to fall. Good one, idiot.
We know that he harbors terrorists.
Yeah, Iraq was just overflowing with em.
We know the man gambled on being able to win a war against the United States military.
No, he gambled on not getting into a fight.
We know that he’s been able since 1998 to violate sanctions on all manners of levels, acquiring or constructing everything from rocket components to prohibited missiles. Hm. Looks like an unconventional threat to me
That's because you're deluded.
Wolfowitz chose to focus on a point that nobody has yet proven false and that still carried weight alone. Just because he didn’t divulge all rationales doesn’t mean he lies you moron.
When you get up and make a case for war, drum it into people's heads, then after the fact change your position to downplay the original in the face of public embarassment, you are a liar.

His government did vote to eject inspectors.
No, that was Richard Butler.
He did acquire weapons that in 1998 had to be taken from him.
Which were destroyed.
He was a few year away from a nuclear weapon in 1999.
BULLSHIT. Proof?
He made one in 1991 but failed to acquire fissile materials. Only the United States’ new interest seems to have pinned Iraq down. And that was after a history of negligence that the French and Germans and others didn’t seem to mind perpetuating another long while.
I'm not interested in UN inaction. I'm not the UN.
If we had been able to invade the Soviet Union, we would have.
Not the point. Kenny-boy was attempting to argue (badly) that Iraq was not suitable for deterrence.

An Israeli intelligence analysis.
Like those Iraqi WMD in Syria eh? Where's the support from other intelligence sources?

Oh, but he tried in 1991.
As a last resort if he was about to fall. Good one, idiot.
Aw, poor Vympel can’t take the truth. So sad.
Gather around people, an appeal to Kenneth Pollack's non-existent authority is 'the truth'. Here the good word!
But not entirely.
??

The testimonies were colored by the presence of a fucking régime. Hans Blix could never cover enough ground – especially where schools, hospitals, and mosques were in question.
Sorry, WMD are not stored in schools, hospitals, and mosques. Inspectors used sophisticated surveillance techniques in their hunt for WMD, they do not go on an Easter Egg hunt door-to-door. It was their surveillance capabilities which made the US pressure UNSCOM to spy on Saddam.

And where are the testimonials from scientists now? Oh whoops, still the same.

I believe it was indeed.
Your 'belief' is irrelevant.

The point, Vympel, is that you must admit that while he was still in power, Saddam Hussein had every reason to – and could have – perpetrated ruses.
He well could have, but in the face of how many years of intensive inspections that *did* destroy WMD, in the face of the known fact that Iraq *did* unilaterally destroy some of it's WMD, the argument that he had masses more and was simply hiding it all does not stand very well.
You can’t hide a working nuclear capability long? Tell that to North Korea.
I suppose you missed the part where the US knew NK had material to make nukes for years?
Or to South Africa – whose actual possession we knew little about until a 1994 admission that bombs had been destroyed.
Who were not under inspections.
Try mount them on planes for use as last-ditch tactical arms.

Underground facilities.
You really think you can hide a fully fledged underground facility under intensive surveillance? These things are built by specialists, there are hundreds of people would work in them every day, and they'd produce dangerous nuclear/biological waste. The US knew the locations of all of Iraq's underground facilities- it had who built them.
You’ve also dodged the question: do you think Israel would have fully divested itself?
Yes. If Israel didn't, and information came to light, it would destroy relations- the risk would be too great.

We’re talking about the here and now.
Which is conjecture, because there is no here and now, is there?
They are illegal and make the fucking weapons function properly and effectively.
Highly debatable considering Iraq's laughable AD performance.
To the UN, it was a reason for jack shit. Negligence.
And I am not the UN.
He at first denied them. He at first denied them the possibility of destroying the al-Samouds, too.
And yet both came to pass, and troop levels were not maintained at that level in the former case.
The question was whether an Islamofascist group had a good chance at power. The answer was no, your moral conundrums aside.
Not right now, no.
Are you now saying that you think it was impossible for the Iraqis to have hidden weapons beyond the inspectors’ abilities to find them? To have hidden areas of buildings underground?
Appeal to ignornace. It is not for me to show it's impossible.

With over eighty aircraft, Iran could afford to keep two squadrons working at once – at least.
Which is not impressive.
It’s part of the irrationality of the pre-war decision-making.
Yes, because Saddam was looking at the technical drawings of the F-14 versus the MiG-23 :roll:
“Superiority in training means jack shit?” Fantastic. I’ll remember that one. I’m thinking of putting it in my signature.
Go ahead, it'll only make you look more stupid. In the face of superior numbers with the will to carry the fight, better training won't get you victory.
Think about what you just said. “Inadequate armor support” and “always outnumbered.” But Saddam didn’t even know if that would be the case for certain. He relied on it to be. Later on, that wasn’t in fact the case at all.
Later on. A reversal. It happens.
Or in the middle.

Either way, it’s a dumb fucking way to fight a modern war that has got to do with delusions and ignorance – on both sides. The Ayatollah was equally beyond rational explanation.
Modern wars are never fought perfectly. No plan survives contact with the enemy- it's a question of your competence as a military commander, the skills of your men, and your firepower if you can carry victory in spite of your carefully laid plan falling to shit. The most that can be said of Iraq is that at least it did not utterly lose.
Considering that he’s researched it to a “t”?
Like he researched his WMD claims that he backpedalled on? How he claimed Iraq kicked the inspectors out? How he claimed that mustard gas shells degrade so quickly that they wouldn't be loaded, even thoguh Iraq had 12,000 of such shells? His research of the facts does not automatically make his opinions valid.
It makes him responsible for delusions of grandeur about an army whose capabilities he helped reduce. I can’t believe I’m fucking arguing with you about whether or not Saddam Hussein is a rational, predictable, fully sane individual.
Yeah, it's hard to perpetuate the Saddan Insane cliche isn't it? He's a scumbag, he's not suicidal.
Saddam sacrificed accuracy for range with his SCUD modifications.
SCUD-B accuracy is 450m. The Al-Hussein is a modification of the SCUD-B, with a range of some 400km more (600-650km) than the SCUD-B (270km). Circular Error Probable would not exceed a kilometre. That's assuming Iraq didn't make any modifications to maintain accuracy at that level, like spin-up.
And why no invasion?
Because to me the possession of WMD is not an automatic pretext for invasion.
Scientists. Any group of people with that knowledge in Saddam’s control is a liability.
I've missed your point.
He planned to attack Israel.
If threatened with destruciton.
The logistical problems of using WMD on America were massive considering the space of both Persian Gulf wars.
False Kenny assertion. If he had been willing to use them, he would have had his mustard gas shells at the ready.
Again, my evidence of his delusions – and the logic bearing down to his insanity – still stands. Concession safe.
*yawn*
And yet Iran still had weaponry until the war’s end when the U.S. itself became unpredictably involved.
And Iraq should've figured on that?
Vietnam was never logically bound to destroy the United States armed forces. In fact, it didn’t. It fought us to the point that we pulled out rather than expanded the war.
Irrelevant. America prosecuted an illogical warplan that could not achieve victory.
The United States was virtually assured to destroy Hussein’s military.
And Saddam was not planning for a fight. He was planning to prevent a fight.
Inspectors. Not al-Samouds.
I'm sorry, do point out where the Al-Samouds were even an issue, heck, even known, in Sept 2002?

Ah, the pathetic strawman. It’s not about whether we’d accept it. It’s about whether Pakistan could avoid any consequences they’d normally have incurred if we hadn’t invaded Iraq. The answer is no.
Stop abusing logic terms. If your argument has a shred of credibility, the argument of one should be just as valid as the argument of another, given the same set of variables.

No. My argument is that we will be anyway. No matter what. But it doesn’t change anything for India, which means that we set no new precedent as you’ve been arguing.
Saying "just because" is not an argument.

Speculation is valuable because it doesn’t let the threat build up. If you want a look at the results of speculation in the field, look at the fucking Cold War.
Justify the view that speculation doesn't let the threat build up and somehow 'resulted' in something to do with the Cold War.
Actually, I have no fucking idea what you said. Are you trying to argue that Saddam’s intelligence services now perform only counter-intelligence activities?
No, I'm suggesting that Iraq's intelligence activities are best dealt with via counter-intelligence.
Anyway, I'm really tempted to end this since we won't be agreeing anytime soon. It's really annoying to come home and feel compelled to do this.
Yup.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

Ah, so it was all so much bullshit then? Did it ever occur to you that his expectation of a light force was predicated on what Glaspie said? You think if the United States had said plainly "invade Kuwait, and it's war" he still would have done it?
What Glaspie said at all is irrelevant. Understand – and I’m saying this for the umpteenth time – that Saddam Hussein had gone to war in Kuwait with the express understanding that he would be going to war with the United States. Hence the eight divisions’ Republican Guard troops and their special orders to seize locations also relevant to an incoming American forward-deployment expeditionary or rapid-reaction unit.

“You think if the United States had said plainly "invade Kuwait, and it's war" he still would have done it?” False dilemma. Saddam already believed that to invade Kuwait would be war. He was in fact prepared – however unacceptably – for what was in his mind an eventuality. Glaspie’s comments on any level were inapplicable. Your argument was that she had earlier encouraged Hussein by giving him cause to believe that the United States would not act at all to defend Kuwait beyond diplomatic means. And yet even when his troops cross the border, Saddam Hussein was anticipating an armed confrontation with American troops. He was gambling that “invade Kuwait, and it’s war” was in fact an unstated truth, Glaspie or no. The fault and over-reaching are all Saddam Hussein’s. April Glaspie did not alter his point-of-view on any level. Even after any communication between she and Saddam, it is still clear that Iraq thought it would be doing to war with the United States over Kuwait.
How about that the light forces that initially *were* deployed weren't crushed? That Iraqi forces didn't seek to prosecute an attack, only to try and keep their gains, while sanctions ticked along and diplomacy ran it's course? There is a difference between the two.
The coalition forces initially deployed were in territories beyond Saddam Hussein’s direct control. There was no credible chance for a major conventional battle prior to Desert Shield. Light American forces did not storm Kuwaiti beaches in the face of the Republican Guard. Baghdad had gone into Kuwait expecting war with at least two adversaries – the Kuwaitis themselves and also the Americans. Whether events came to pass as expected is irrelevant.
More bullshit from your favorite bullshit artist eh?

Pollack is a liar, or you made a typo, or you are a liar. The Resolution in question is SIX. SEVEN. EIGHT. Not 687.

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"

678 only justifies the use of force to implement resolutions on Iraq passed between 2 August and 29 November 1990. This is a position that has been repeated by Council members ad nauseum since 1991, with no state but the U.K. and U.S. holding anything other than a literal and meaningful construction of 678.

It makes no sense, legal or otherwise, to claim that an earlier resolution can authorize the use of force to enforce subsequent resolutions until the end of time. The proper word is RELEVANT resolutions.
Where is it specifically written that “all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990)” refer specifically, exclusively, and undeniably to the period between 2 August 1990 and 29 November 1990? The statement is in fact open to interpretation, as are all legal documents. The strict construction of Resolution 678 indeed justifies a war by the United States on Iraq.
Wrong. It is for the SECURITY COUNCIL (you know, the organization that the resolution starts off with) to enforce it's own resolutions, NOT the United States. There is no jurisprudence there to speak of.

"The Secuirty council decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."

The very last section.
And yet Resolution 678 speaks expressly of “member states” using “all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 and all relevant resolution subsequent” to the same.

As for the last quote? That from Resolution 687 and does not expressly deny or contradict the wording of Resolution 678.
And the United States raised this matter ... when?
It is not for the United States to raise the matter per se. The United Nations was as an institution charged with providing meaningful and complete security against Iraqi circumvention. It was in these activities negligent to the point that illegal Iraqi activity was well reported and widely known. That Blix did not in your opinion have sufficient time to do more than hunt WMD is irrelevant. The United Nations should have been dealing with Iraqi circumvention on its own between 1991 and 2003. That it was Washington’s responsibility to pound through the Security Council any attempt to punish Iraq for violations of an express document such as Resolution 687 is ridiculous. Why must Kofi Annan be cajoled into enforcing laws already laid down and under his purview? The topic of Iraqi circumvention never came up for discussion let alone action. That is clearly the fault of the institution responsible for the security work – i.e. the United Nations itself.
Appeal to popularity fallacy. The American public also thinks that Saddam Hussein was responsbile for 9/11, and that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
President George W. Bush was constitutionally justified in going to war considering that it was his constituents that were understood to be facing a threat. Whether or not that same body of people shared the same views as you are irrelevant.
The United Nations is a body of nations- it is not for the organization itself to prosecute Iraq on all counts of violation- if the US saw fit to bring the matter to the Security Council, it should have done so. It did on the matter of WMD, consultations were had, and force was not authorized. You lose.
The United Nations as a body of nations was responsible for security in Iraq. It was a body of nations responsible for enforcing the self-same sanctions it had in fact ratified after 1991. To argue that it had to be cajoled into action already its responsibility is to acknowledge a core failure to live up to express responsibility. Thus the United Nations’ credibility and objectivity come into question. President Bush is thus correct in authorizing that the United Nations was not serious about protecting against the same threats it had first identified in Iraq with Resolution 687. The United Nations is thus proven not to have lived up to its legal responsibilities.

“It did on the matter of WMD, consultations were had, and force was not authorized.” Only in terms of weapons of mass destruction. No additional consultation was ever had on any other topic.
Becaue they weren't Blix's job. The United States harped on one issue and one issue alone: WMD. If they had brought up other grievances, you think the UN would've done absolutely nothing?
It was not the United States’ responsibility to oblige enforcement. George W. Bush and the administration in the White House are not responsible to push Kofi Annan and the rest of the United Nations into fulfilling their legal responsibilities. Other parties were negligent or remiss. The United Nations credibility was thus in serious question.
It failed in its role of arbiter of peace by trying to prevent a war? Remarkable logic. The United States was the aggressor here, not Iraq.
It failed in its role of peacemaker because Iraq was allowed to violate conditions initially set out to achieve peace and stability, yes.
Actually, it fully complied with it's legal commitments.
A great laugh considering that between 1998 and 2002 Iraq was on its own, permitted to amass stockpiles of weapons such as the al-Samoud and pursue agendas that included the laundering of billions in illegal funds drawn from sources that should have been closed by proper enforcement of sanctions. It was not only the United States’ responsibility to prevent Iraq from doing business with others. The United Nations as an organization did not fully comply with the legal commitment “to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution.” Hence the United Nations was in legal contravention of its own mandates.
False dilemmas mixed with appeals to ignorance to boot actually. I argue that Iraq's contraventions could be stopped by stricter enforcement. That it is not sound reasoning to proclaim "you'll never be able to prove Iraq doens't have WMD because we haven't invaded!" as reasoning for invasion. That it's not sound reasoning to argue "you can't prove Saddam won't increase his ability to threaten collective security!" is not sound reasoning.
By “stricter enforcement” that not even your smart sanctions were able to deliver? By an inspections régime led by a man whose first allegiance was to peace at any cost in a country where a régime with a record of active circumvention and outright deception was still in power to influence all those with whom UNSCOM came into contact, directly or indirectly? The United Nations was remiss in its responsibilities. To argue that it “could have” achieved meaningful progress after more than eleven years of negligence is (A) naive and (B) an admission that it was not itself living up to responsibilities in the first place. Hence Washington’s argument that the United Nations was sacrificing its credibility and leaving a threat to American security unchallenged is true.
Backpedal backpedal eh? Your troops are no safer in Iraq than they were in Saudi Arabia, if not less safe. Concession Accepted, meaningless rant about "effective agenda" ignored.
What don’t you understand about choosing the lesser or two evils? Not only were American troops more susceptible to attack in large formation while still in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Qatar, but they were pursuing an agenda not deemed meaningful of acceptable by their own fucking government. That’s a horrendous trade-off.
An attack on a military target is by definition not a terrorist attack, unless innocents are used as part of the attack.

Furthermore, if we use your dubious 'terorist' label, then Americans have been under terrorist attack since they invaded Iraq and came under suicide car bombings, drive-by shootings, and grenade attacks. More Americans have died in Iraq in the month of May (excluding the bizarre frequency of military accidents) than they would have in Saudi Arabia.
Al-Qaeda specifically threatened to kill American troops preparing to invade Iraq. What part of “terrorist danger” do you not fucking comprehend?

The Americans have been under attack, but that was expected. Again, we are at least achieving an objective for having put ourselves in harm’s way.
And these camps don't exist in Iraq? There are barracks with hundreds of US soldiers in them scattered all over Iraq at this point in time.
Less heavily-concentrated than in Saudi Arabia.
Actually, that bullshit assertion that you would have to prepare for such an invasion was debunked by you personally when you said how many times the US built up military force to invasion levels in the 91-98 period.
Not at all, considering that inspections were still within the country of Iraq and that the situation by 2002 had changed drastically.
An American.
Which makes logical sense, since we’ve not yet secured the country fully. But he is nevertheless ultimately the chief person in charge. That you don’t like his being American has nothing to do with the fact that he is at work attempting to bring stability.
Who the Iraqi people hate.
And which is still undergoing transition.
Not many places, in plain speak.
Because some are too fucking dangerous.

Your problems are with the short-term execution of admittedly long-term plans that anybody in the United States’ place would put into effect.
Ah, and they'll just calm down and accept these events will they?
Eventually, a large portion of the population will probably become marginally disinterested in politics – which is to say that they will take no direct sides or action as relates to the American presence. It’s a logical conclusion.

Not to mention that he kind of hatred we face – primarily as an occupying force at the moment rather inefficient and ineffective to the citizens of major cities – can be eroded by success in our relief programmes.
Yeah, you buy tha BS about everyone opposing the Americans just being 'die hard Saddam supporters' eh. Troop morale is already flagging. They want to go home. They were expecting to be relieved by peacekeeprs. Now, as one of them said, the ones doing the killing are keeping the peace. It doesn't work. They're jumpy and are driving the population ape shit.
Strawman. We’re talking about the public-relations side of the issue, not whether American troops are of course homesick. That’s fucking natural and understandible. And in case you hadn’t noticed, Polish troops are en route to administer a portion of Iraq assigned them.
Genetic determinism? Why would either of his sons, odious as they both are, be authomatically delusional and unpredictable?
They grew up in the same fucking environment, in the same fucking circumstances, and with the same fucking father. Do you honestly believe that things would be any different in Iraq if Qusai and Uday were in power?
Regardless of their ability to defend against it? What kind of fucked up proviso is that? Everyone is a threat to everyone if I add that stupid idea.
Iraq is a legitimate threat to Israeli security. It is more an immediate danger to Israel than to, say, Saudi Arabia.
Hey- idiot. The US Army is masking on Moscow. Moscow has it's nuclear weapons ready. What does it do? OF COURSE you're gonna use your WMD if your back is up against the wall and you're about to be out on your ass!
Saddam Hussein was prepared to use nuclear weapons against an Israeli target. What part of “delusional fucking idiot” do you misunderstand?
How can something be both vast, and a fraction? Regardless, it is not known which troops took bribes, and which didn't, and if they did in fact take bribes, then they would be willing to reveal the presence of WMD.
The troops took bribes to stand down or disintegrate as effective combat units, not necessarily to turn themselves over and divulge information. My point still stands. WMD units could simply have been paid to leave the area of operations.
That much is obvious- that poor empty SCUD launcher.
Which means that most men on the ground fighting for a régime they know will fall and with the incentive of bribes are probably going to be divided in their loyalties and at least scared shitless of firing anything.
Ah, that explains the UK's dossier claim that Iraq could have WMD ready for deployment in 45 minutes.
Which is now ultimately under scrutiny as having been a forced statement.
Borne out by the fruitless Western military hunt for SCUD launchers in 1991, eh?
We never undeniably destroyed any SCUD missile launchers during the Gulf War, Vympel. That’s straight out off the History Channel. And again, in 1991, the search was ongoing in a country that was actively deceiving, guiding, and restricting weapons inspections.
More bullshit from Kenny-boy. In 1991 Iraq declared it had 12,792, mustard *FILLED* munitions. The suggestion that all filled munitions degrade 'fairly quickly' is just hand-waving- you would practically have to imply an effective service life of hours for his laughable argument to have any merit- not to mention that Iraq would've been perfectly capable of launching chemical filled SCUD missiles at Coalition forces from the Western deserts.
Also from Pollock, pages 459 and 460:

“Although before the war Saddam boasted of having “binary” CW rounds, these claims were not entirely accurate. In U.S. military parlance, binary rounds contain two chemicals separated by a buffer that shatters when the round is launched, allowing the chemicals to mix to form the lethal agent. Because the precursor chemicals independently are not dangerous binary rounds are much safer to handle. Iraq did not have such binary munitions. Instead, what it had were munitions that were partially failed – they contained one of the precursor chemicals and so were easily handled. However, the other chemical had to be added before firing, making the process no less time-consuming, cumbersome, or dangerous than filling an ordinary CW munition.”

Yours is the hand waving. Pollock cites legitimate sources. The implication is that the degradation occurs over a period of days or weeks. By the time he was probably considering deploying chemical weapons, the war was virtually over, the roads clogged, the logistical infrastructure destroyed, and the command structure in shambles. To argue that any unit could have brought tactically significant amounts of chemical or biological weapons to the front under such conditions within a period of days is to envision a best-case scenario only.

Iraq had no confirmation that SCUD missiles filled with chemical or biological agents would not be ineffective, considering that their scientists couldn’t be sure that the cultures and mixtures would survive high-altitude re-entry.
What. the. fuck. I'm sorry, how does deterrence apply at all when the enemy army is about to enter your capital? Good god what a moron ...
Saddam was warned in no uncertain terms that he’d face mass retaliation if he were to hit support terrorists or hit Kuwaiti oilfields. This he did.

He also left orders for chemical warheads to be used against coalition forces despite the promise of retaliation. Deterrence was ineffective.
A) doesn't help your argument.

B) doens't make any sense.
Of course it does. We don’t want Israel to be forced to respond on any level. It’s a liability. We can’t predict how Sharon will act.

If Israel were attacked, the United States would be forced to invade anyway – and then Iraq could have better prepared for war against us.
I'm getting quite sick of your wholesale lifting of assertions from a pro-war advocate as your subsitute for argument. You don't have a prayer of bludgeoning me into submission with massive slabs of quotes- I'll just snip them.
You’re the one who’s unable to argue against it credibly.
Bullfuck. Whether it's your Kenny-boy cooking up "what if" scenarios without proof or you, that's not establishing a threat. I am entirely not interested in what he thinks is 'probable'. This is the same dumbass who recently backpedaled on his Iraqi WMD claim in public.
It’s a man who analyzed Iraqi capabilities.

Also – source of the claim about the public retraction?
Because they're conventional, legal weapons Iraq is within it's rights as a sovereign nation responsible for it's own national defense to possess. QED.
Why should we permit Iraq to have them? So they’re legal. Great. We could have arm-twisted them into giving them up. An anti-ship missile did nothing to enhance Iraq’s ability to suppress internal dissent, which was the only threat to Saddam Hussein that the Americans would have let him counter on his own at all.
Oh really? Define this "fallacy". I don't see it anywhere.
The notion that the world is fair and the same reasoning applies between two different parties. Yes, the decisions are arbitrary. No, that changes nothing.
Ah, it's "just because" reasoning. Concession Accepted.
Try the, “They are a credible threat to the ships there to oblige Iraq into compliance” reasoning, you fucking moron. We aren’t required by any law to allow Iraq to have anything. What we allow them in terms of anti-ship missiles and drones is a privilege.
Because Kenny says so? Funny, I can point to the CIA's opinion of Iraq and terrorism that post-dates Kenny's marvelous little let's go to war screed. Additionally, explain Turkey and Iran's unwillingness to support a war if Iraq supports the Kurds (an inherently absurd claim) against both of them, as he claims?[]/quote]

What was the CIA’s opinion, Vympel?

Turkey didn’t want to face (A) a Kurdish exodus from Iraq or (B) an independent Kurdistan that gained public sympathy from having fought Saddam.

Iran didn’t want American troops and equipment in Iraq or an American-dominated government in Baghdad.

They were willing to make trade-offs. Don’t tell me you’re that fucking stupid.
After the smart sanctions, whose aim was to close the black market routes and resume open trade?
Yes, after the smart sanctions.
I also heard that France gave Iraq nuclear detonator switches in 1998. Turned out to be bullshit. Where's the evidence?
The Washington Times article, Vympel. You know the one.
How could there possibly be time for discussion when the US was clamoring for war throughout March?
What do American insistences in 2003 have to do with the ability of the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions between 1991 and the present day? Your argument is akin to saying all discussion is irrelevant because the United States would never shut up.
So long as they're destroyed, that's compliance. You'll note that the requirement from Iraq (and stated as such by Jack Straw) was that if Iraq had anything in its possesion it should declare it.
And they did declare it. But between 1998 and 2002, nothing was done at all.
You need ANTENNAS with a line of sight to the drone to control it, for fuck's sake.
Again, easily hidden among schools, hospitals, or civilian construction.
Actually, a crash landing would severely restrict the area of effect to the area just around the drone.
And if the spores were airborne? Or the quantity considerable? Or the troops that this thing could fall near.
Oh for fuck's sake ..."A remotely piloted aircraft that the United States has warned could spread chemical weapons appears to be made of balsa wood and duct tape, with two small propellers attached to what look like the engines of a weed whacker."- Associated Press.

From the very article I posted on this board months ago.
Link up, Vympel.

Not to mention that this is all supposition. “What seems like …” “Looks to be …” “Haven’t seen it myself …”
You stupid fuck. If they can only be a threat during an invasion, it can hardly be an offensive threat.
But why should we have let it pass?

And in the future, there was the potential for these things to grow in both range and complexity. Better to hit Iraq now than wait until they amass additional stockpiles of equipment courtesy of United Nations negligence to any other threat but WMD.
Because they weren't illegal dumbass.
Still dangerous. You’re telling me that if you were President Bush and Blix had found the UAVs, you wouldn’t suggest that they be destroyed?
Descending into dogma eh?
No. Descending into known fact.
Which is Resolution 687.
He pointed to a cease-fire independently of those two resolutions (678 and 687) – although 678 justifies war on its own if strictly interpreted.
If America was concerned about everything, maybe it should've broached the subject, hmmm? The UN is not a monolith that the US is beating on like some sort of spoilt child.
Why should America have had to breach the subject? The Untied Nations was already responsible – and negligent.
No, there aren't. If you're going to argue violation, you are arguing within the ambit of UN resolutions. Which don't provide any war provision. The UN would be fucking negligent in its duty if it EVER provided any sort of automatic war provision.
What the fuck are you saying? That Saddam wasn’t in violation? The United Nations was fucking negligent in its duty to challenge the fucking threat over a twelve year period.

… Jesus Christ you’re so fucking stupid. Conversation finished. I don’t have the will or time to argue constantly against somebody that has such blind faith in Iraq’s supposed toothlessness. This is going nowhere fast. Discussion closed.
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Here's some more from Aziz' inteview:

Q: "And during the build up of American troops in Saudi Arabia, was there discussion among the leadership of 'Let's make a deal, let's back down'?"

Aziz: We were reviewing the situation all the time. Whenever there is a political or military development, we used to review the situation, but we didn't think that there will be a change in the strategy and tactics of George Bush and Margaret Thatcher.

You know, at that time, until the resignation of Margaret Thatcher, she was telling everybody that 'we will attack Iraq even if Iraq withdraws from Kuwait,' you know that. She was asking for the dismantling of Iraqi armament even if Iraq withdraws from Kuwait. . .[/quote]

It's also likely that Pollack knows Aziz said this too:

"Q: Why didn't you use your chemical weapons?

Aziz: Well, we didn't think it wise to use them.

Q: Can you tell me in more detail....?

Aziz: That's all I can say. It was not wise to use such kind of weapons in such kind of war, with such an enemy.

Q: Because they had nuclear weapons?

Aziz: You can....... make your own conclusions..."

That's two (the other being Kemal, in his interview with UNSCOM) different Kuwait-War era Iraqi officials admitting that the threat of US retaliation kept them from using chemical or biological weapons against the coalition. That's also two more than Pollack admits to.

And more

"Q: In August or July 1990, if George Bush had said, 'Do not invade Kuwait or we will fight you', what would you have done?

Aziz: We would have told him, tell the Kuwaitis to stop threatening Iraq, to stop their wrong policies, deliberate wrong policies against Iraq and we will not go to Kuwait, very, very simple.

Q: And if they didn't stop?

Aziz: That means that the war has already started and you have to act."

Pollack brought Aziz into the conversation in the first place. Aziz's response suggests that there never was an unambiguous prewar attempt by the United States to dissuade Iraq from attacking Kuwait. ("IF George Bush had said . . . ") Aziz's frankness earlier in the interview about not being surprised about America's hostile reaction to the invasion strengthens the suggestion.

Where is it specifically written that “all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990)” refer specifically, exclusively, and undeniably to the period between 2 August 1990 and 29 November 1990?
Because Resolution 660 dealt specifically with ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, dumbass. It cannot, by definition, authorize force for regime change in Iraq.
And yet Resolution 678 speaks expressly of “member states” using “all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 and all relevant resolution subsequent” to the same.
Which is not Resolution 687, and again, resolution 660 has nothing to do with regime change in Iraq. The notion that a resolution written before the sanctions/weapons inspections resolution that has nothing to do with them can authorize force for all subsequent resolutions till the end of time is absurd.
A great laugh considering that between 1998 and 2002
US fault. Concession Accepted. The UN actually broke the story to the press, just to let everyone know whatt he US was trying to do. Which was violate the mandate of the inspectors. Some commitment to collective security there.
By “stricter enforcement” that not even your smart sanctions were able to deliver?
My smart sanctions? The US/UK smart sanctions actually. And what's your source for saying they didn't deliver?
What don’t you understand about choosing the lesser or two evils? Not only were American troops more susceptible to attack in large formation while still in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Qatar,
They're still in Kuwait and Qatar, you dumbass.
Al-Qaeda specifically threatened to kill American troops preparing to invade Iraq. What part of “terrorist danger” do you not fucking comprehend?
And you think Al-Qaeda won't come after you in Iraq? Aren't we the optimist all of a sudden!
Strawman.
Still abusing logic terms I see.
We’re talking about the public-relations side of the issue, not whether American troops are of course homesick. That’s fucking natural and understandible. And in case you hadn’t noticed, Polish troops are en route to administer a portion of Iraq assigned them.
Fuckwit: it's the fact that the ones doing the killing are doing the peacekeeping. It's not appropriate.
They grew up in the same fucking environment, in the same fucking circumstances, and with the same fucking father. Do you honestly believe that things would be any different in Iraq if Qusai and Uday were in power?
How many times in history would you have to look at to realize that the sons of a tyrant are not necessarily the same as a tyrant? Often, they're ineffectual, weak, unable to fit their father's shoes, or don't have the respect to rule. They might be *more* crazy, or totally sane. And they did not grow up in the same environmnet or the same circumstances as Saddam Hussein.
Iraq is a legitimate threat to Israeli security. It is more an immediate danger to Israel than to, say, Saudi Arabia.
\

Concession Accepted on your bullshit 'threats are threats regardless of your ability to defend against it'.
Saddam Hussein was prepared to use nuclear weapons against an Israeli target. What part of “delusional fucking idiot” do you misunderstand?
Nuclear weapons? I'm sorry- they didn't have them. Attacking Israel with WMD is exactly what any rational person in Saddam's position would do. He can't destroy US forces with them. But he *can* bring Israel into the war, and as such break the Coalition apart (as was the original point in launchign SCUDs at Israel- it was only by extraordinary restraint that Israel didn't go ape shit at that).
The troops took bribes to stand down or disintegrate as effective combat units, not necessarily to turn themselves over and divulge information. My point still stands. WMD units could simply have been paid to leave the area of operations.
Your point is fucking weak. It was troop commanders who took those bribes, and to suggest that they'd turn traitor and not fight but wouldn't divulge where WMD are is absurd.
Which means that most men on the ground fighting for a régime they know will fall and with the incentive of bribes are probably going to be divided in their loyalties and at least scared shitless of firing anything.
Assuming of course that there was anything to fire.
Which is now ultimately under scrutiny as having been a forced statement.
Like soooo many other things.
We never undeniably destroyed any SCUD missile launchers during the Gulf War, Vympel. That’s straight out off the History Channel. And again, in 1991, the search was ongoing in a country that was actively deceiving, guiding, and restricting weapons inspections.
Not the point. You were arguing logistical incompetence on the part of the Iraqi military so that they would be incapable of using their weapons, and the failure of the 'superior unique battlefield support capabilities' of the US military to catch a single SCUD launcher.
Also from Pollock,
Red herring. Mustard gas is not a binary munition, dumbass. What, you think noone reads this shit?
Yours is the hand waving. Pollock cites legitimate sources.
Concession Accepted. You cite Kenny-boy on a totally unrelated source (binary CW, which mustard is not) and ignore the fact of what Iraq declared-whcih was 12,000+ FILLED mustard gas shells.
Iraq had no confirmation that SCUD missiles filled with chemical or biological agents would not be ineffective, considering that their scientists couldn’t be sure that the cultures and mixtures would survive high-altitude re-entry.
And this is helping your argument?
Saddam was warned in no uncertain terms that he’d face mass retaliation if he were to hit support terrorists or hit Kuwaiti oilfields. This he did.
Mass retaliation? And what exactly does that phrase mean? Use of WMD on Iraq if he blew up Kuwaiti oilfields? :roll:

You stupid fuckwit, he made the CORRECT calculation- where is the US most likely to use mass retaliation:

1) 1) A country with which it is at war dispatches a handful of kill squads.

2) A country sets some oil wells on fire.

3) A country attacks US troops with chemical and biological weapons when the US has always maintained that any country that did so riske a nuclear response.

Which looks more likely to you? The US is going to use its nukes in the frivolous circumstances of 1) and 2)? (even assuming the 1) is true, which I doubt)
He also left orders for chemical warheads to be used against coalition forces despite the promise of retaliation. Deterrence was ineffective.
Kenny-boy's bullshit assertion based on 'it is probable that Iraq just couldn't use them'- based on rank ignorance of the facts of what Iraq posssed. Just like his rank ignorance about sanctions, and his rank ignorance about the oil-for-food program.
You’re the one who’s unable to argue against it credibly.
Oh, obviously, you dumbass :roll:
It’s a man who analyzed Iraqi capabilities.
Badly. He doesn't even know what the fuck mustard gas is, either that or you just thought you could deflect me with an irrelevant point about binary CW, which mustard is not.
Also – source of the claim about the public retraction?
An appearnace on NPR, highlighted by a salon.com article. You have to watch a 15 second advert to read the article:
"The claims of so-called experts"
Over the holiday weekend, National Public Radio broadcast a brief but revealing interview with Kenneth Pollack, the former National Security Council staffer whose book, "The Threatening Storm," played an important role in justifying war with Iraq. As he explained on public radio last fall, Pollack fervently believed -- and convinced many other well-meaning people -- that Iraq possessed a stockpile of biological and chemical weapons ready to use, and that Saddam Hussein was close to developing nuclear weapons as well.

Now, as the hunt for evidence supporting those claims continues without results, Pollack is backing away from those claims. Speaking again with NPR's Steve Inskeep on Saturday (scroll down for link), the author admitted that he is, uh, revising his assessment slightly:

INSKEEP: I really appreciate you agreeing to talk to us especially since -- I do want to put you on the spot a little bit. I want to know if the news from Iraq or maybe the lack of news from Iraq about weapons of mass destruction has changed your opinion about anything.

Mr. POLLACK: Yes and no. Probably not as much as I think you'd suspect. At first, what you may remember from my book was I'd never thought that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States.

INSKEEP: That's right.

Mr. POLLACK: I felt that it was a much more distant threat. And the real threat that I felt from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was the potential for Iraq to eventually develop nuclear weapons. Now I did believe that the Iraqis probably had some weaponized [chemical and biological] agents in the country, somewhere that they probably did have some ballistic missiles.

INSKEEP: U.S. officials did suggest that Iraqi military units were ready to use chemical or biological weapons, that chemical weapons had been distributed to front-line troops and that sort of thing. That does seem to have turned out not to be true at least.

Mr. POLLACK: Right, that's absolutely the case. And, you know, here's one where, you know, I think that, you know, my expectation was off base.

INSKEEP: On another point, which is the most crucial point to you, about nuclear weapons. You told us last November when you came on this program that you believed there was a consensus among American, British, French, German and Israeli intelligence that Saddam Hussein had everything he needed to develop nuclear weapons. I suppose some people would question now whether all of the components for a nuclear program could really be hidden that well, whether they could have disappeared.

Mr. POLLACK: Yeah, I mean, you're now getting beyond my area of expertise, Steven. I try very hard not to talk about things I don't know. I mean, the point that I made on your show was a true point. That was the consensus of opinion among the intelligence community. It was hearing things like that that brought me to the conclusion that, you know, 'Boy, if this is the case, we've got to do something about this guy.' I think, you know, that is exactly the kind of thing that we're going to need to go back and look hard at the evidence that we were getting and those various intelligence services who were making those claims, I think, are going to need to go back and re-examine the methods they used. As I said, that was not me making that claim; that was me parroting the claims of so-called experts.
Why should we permit Iraq to have them? So they’re legal. Great. We could have arm-twisted them into giving them up. An anti-ship missile did nothing to enhance Iraq’s ability to suppress internal dissent, which was the only threat to Saddam Hussein that the Americans would have let him counter on his own at all.
Moron reasoning devoid of any international savvy whatsoever. Iraq would have never accepted it. They are a legitimate tool of national defense and were untouched by any resolutions. Not even the administration made such a moronic argument.
The notion that the world is fair and the same reasoning applies between two different parties. Yes, the decisions are arbitrary. No, that changes nothing.
Not a logical fallacy, though it *is* the way you'd like the world to work so you can continue to construct your pathetic post hoc rationalizations.
Try the, “They are a credible threat to the ships there to oblige Iraq into compliance” reasoning, you fucking moron
Funny, I didn't think Iraqi surface-to-ship missiles were within range of any of those vessels, you ignorant dumbfuck.
e aren’t required by any law to allow Iraq to have anything. What we allow them in terms of anti-ship missiles and drones is a privilege
Completely loony. The notion that you can dictate to Iraq, whom you did not compel the surrender of, what weapons it may and may not have, in the absence of any international legal provisions, is fucking stupid.
What was the CIA’s opinion, Vympel?
That Iraq had no appreciable links to terrorists, you dickhead.
Turkey didn’t want to face (A) a Kurdish exodus from Iraq
But they allowed Iraq to sponsor Kurds against them anyway. That's just brilliant Kast.
an independent Kurdistan that gained public sympathy from having fought Saddam.
Nothing to do with the ridiculous accusation that Iraq would sponsor Kurds against Turkey.
Iran didn’t want American troops and equipment in Iraq or an American-dominated government in Baghdad.

They were willing to make trade-offs. Don’t tell me you’re that fucking stupid.
I'm more surprised that your that fucking stupid to think that Iraq would give money to Kurdish groups :roll:
Yes, after the smart sanctions.
Hello, assertion without supporting evidence.
The Washington Times article, Vympel. You know the one.
There was also news articles on the false passport claim, and the false detonator claim. So where's the evidence?
What do American insistences in 2003 have to do with the ability of the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions between 1991 and the present day? Your argument is akin to saying all discussion is irrelevant because the United States would never shut up.
We were talking about aluminum tubes, which only became an isssue late last year, you hatfucker.
And they did declare it. But between 1998 and 2002, nothing was done at all.
America's fault. Concession Accepted. That you think it's valid to claim that the UN failed when America fucked up UNSCOM is the height of gall.
Again, easily hidden among schools, hospitals, or civilian construction.
You can hide an antenna in a school? Idiot ...
And if the spores were airborne? Or the quantity considerable? Or the troops that this thing could fall near.
And what if tanks fired shells filled with chemical weapons? Of course, we have no proof such weapons exist, but let's say the tanks are in contravention too :roll:
Link up, Vympel.
Lazy ...
Not to mention that this is all supposition. “What seems like …” “Looks to be …” “Haven’t seen it myself …”
Hey- idiot- Journalists were taken to see it.
But why should we have let it pass?
Because it's not illegal. For the umpteenth time, you stupid fuck.
And in the future, there was the potential for these things to grow in both range and complexity. Better to hit Iraq now than wait until they amass additional stockpiles of equipment courtesy of United Nations negligence to any other threat but WMD.
No potential for them to grow in range and complexity with inspectors making sure that they don't, idiot.
Still dangerous. You’re telling me that if you were President Bush and Blix had found the UAVs, you wouldn’t suggest that they be destroyed?
Exactly. Just like *gasp* the real President Bush didn't ask for it to be destroyed! OMG!
He pointed to a cease-fire independently of those two resolutions (678 and 687) – although 678 justifies war on its own if strictly interpreted.
No, 678 cannot justify war, even with a pathetic interpretation like Kenny's pollack. It relates to resolution 660. Which has nothing to do with regime change in Iraq. Idiot.
Why should America have had to breach the subject? The Untied Nations was already responsible – and negligent.
Because if a nation feels it's collective security is threatened, it broaches the subject- the UN was already doing what was required of it, except in 98-02 when the US fucked things up.
What the fuck are you saying? That Saddam wasn’t in violation?
You clearly can't read. If you're going to argue violation of resolutions, you are arguing within the ambit of the UN resolutions. Which do not provide for any automatic war provision, or for the United States to unilaterally try and 'enforce' such resolutions.
… Jesus Christ you’re so fucking stupid. Conversation finished. I don’t have the will or time to argue constantly against somebody that has such blind faith in Iraq’s supposed toothlessness. This is going nowhere fast. Discussion closed.
Concession Accepted, you stupid hatfucker.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

Concession Accepted, you stupid hatfucker.
This discussion is over. Think what you will. In reality, Vympel, your only achivement was to annoy me sufficiently that the argument was no longer something in whch I felt it necessary or exciting to be involved. You haven't changed my viewpoints in the least. I am, if anything, only more certain of validity of my own position and the bankruptcy of yours. I'm sure that's a sentiment shared to the opposite extent on your own side of the fence. That in mind, there's no point in continuing on any level.
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Axis Kast wrote:
This discussion is over. Think what you will. In reality, Vympel, your only achivement was to annoy me sufficiently that the argument was no longer something in whch I felt it necessary or exciting to be involved. You haven't changed my viewpoints in the least. I am, if anything, only more certain of validity of my own position and the bankruptcy of yours. I'm sure that's a sentiment shared to the opposite extent on your own side of the fence. That in mind, there's no point in continuing on any level.
Indeed. Luckily, the facts of the thread are in stark relief for all to see, with all the false dilemmas, appeals to ignorance, cherry picking of evidence (esepcially on Pollack's part in the Aziz interview), outrageous legal reasoning, snipping of arguments you don't like, and misdirection (your ludicrous mustard gas/binary CW claim) you have employed.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Axis Kast
Vympel's Bitch
Posts: 3893
Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Post by Axis Kast »

Or the blind faith in a man proven thirce over to be absolutely insane, the sniping on your part of evidence that Saddam gave orders to deploy WMD against the coalition even before Baghdad was endangered, the insistance that the United Nation lived up credibly to its side of the security bargain in Iraq, and the contined assistance in the face of your own contrary evidence that any deterrent by the United States wouold have meant no war for Kuwait?

Yes, Vympel, the facts are in stark relief for all to see. I'm confident of my victory. That's really all that matters. And this is, by the way, my final post on this thread. I'm rather determined not to get any further into the pissing contest after the pissing contest from this point forth.
User avatar
Lord Sander
Padawan Learner
Posts: 353
Joined: 2002-09-09 04:04pm
Location: Netherlands, the
Contact:

Post by Lord Sander »

:roll: Could we just lock this thread already or something?
Lord Sander,
"Oderint dum metuant"
Glory to the Empire and Emperor Palpatine!
Image
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Lord Sander wrote::roll: Could we just lock this thread already or something?
Only spam threads are locked- this can safely be allowed to drop off the front page and go into the dustbin of history.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Post Reply