Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
I was referring to the biological weapons labs - I don't think we have any of those on the back of an HMMWV (at least, I hope not).Vympel wrote:
Why not? The US Army has their's mounted on the back of a HMMWV.
Wouldn't it be more efficient to have one big one? Hydrogen generators are not exactly advanced tech here..I don't think we know enough about it's internal layout to know how many hydrogen generators are inside.
We still have analysts divided over the issue, as well as a British team that should have started inspecting the trailers by now- that the issue of whether mobile biowar/ arty balloon facility is even in contention among the experts- it must make sense to them. They certainly don't have any reason to mess around- their heads are on the chopping block after all.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
I was referring to the biological weapons labs - I don't think we have any of those on the back of an HMMWV (at least, I hope not).
It could be that there is just one big one inside these trucks, I don't know; we'll have to wait for what the British think- I'll say right now though that these trucks are hardly conclusive proof.Wouldn't it be more efficient to have one big one? Hydrogen generators are not exactly advanced tech here..
In other words, we went there because of oil. Bush would have committed political suicide in saying that before the war, and he'll be doing the same thing by saying it after the war.Axis Kast wrote:No. Unspoken justifications for war included seizing oil-rich territory central to the Middle East that would provide us a ?replacement? to our then-Saudi hosts, eliminating one of the few remaining state sponsors of terrorism in general, and preempting Hussein?s becoming a larger threat as time went on considering that (A) the man was hardly ancient and (B) he had a clear line of succession involving one of two sons.
Red herring. The simple fact is that the two primary, publicly hyped justifications for this war (weapons of mass destruction, connections to al Qaeda) remain totally unsubstantiated. You're doing a wonderful job of dancing around the point, though.As for the ridiculous theory that we?ve blazed new ground or helped establish a new precedent? Ludicrous. What other nations can afford to buck international opinion and walk away without consequences? Since when has anybody fought a war ?because the other guy did it?? We?re talking about nation-states, not playground partners. This won?t change a thing for anybody. Let the Indians claim they launched a preemptive strike on Pakistan. You just watch how fast the sanctions fly. Their talk would change nothing.
Two of the highest-ranking leaders of Al Qaeda in American custody have told the C.I.A. in separate interrogations that the terrorist organization did not work jointly with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein, according to several intelligence officials.Durandal wrote: You're still assuming that Hussein had al Qaeda connections with absolutely no evidence.
Great. I move on and you’re still talking about the last topic. It’s not a red herring. It’s a defeat of the notion that we set a “dangerous precedent” for others to follow.In other words, we went there because of oil. Bush would have committed political suicide in saying that before the war, and he'll be doing the same thing by saying it after the war.
Yes, we went there for oil. That was clear since day one. The war in Iraq is about wresting control of Saddam’s oil deposits and putting them in the hands of a new government more easily controlled from the White House. It is simulatenously about finding a new strategic (and oil-rich!) partner to replace the Saudis, with whom tight association has become both a political and moral liability. These among other, lesser goals. It doesn’t mean that what Bush said about weapons of mass destruction was entirely false. But don’t kid yourself: the causes for any war are like an iceberg. There’s the part in the public eye – above the surface, if you will -, and then there’s everything else that private logic tells you is there but that you’ll never see or hear in the general public. The “hidden objectives” have been floating around since September 2002. I also refuse, by the way, to believe that they were lost on you entirely. It’s one thing to disagree. It’s another to assume that this is rare or unique.
You're still assuming that Hussein had al Qaeda connections with absolutely no evidence. Hussein's regime was a lot of things, but there is no evidence to say that it sponsored terror. Any such conclusions are pure conjecture and paranoia on your part, as is your insistence that his two sons will somehow would have grown into a larger threat had we stayed out of Iraq.
No. I am telling you that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism even assuming they had no ties to al-Qaeda at all. Saddam dabbled until the day he fell from power with militias working across Iraq, many oriented toward various inane “liberation” schemes for Iran and Turkey. That I happen to believe Saddam’s men had passing experience dealing with al-Qaeda representatives – or that Iraq sponsored Palestinians with illegal weapons sales and monetary infusions – is beside the point.
My insistance that his two sons would almost certainly take power is only logical. And what do you think would happen over time in Iraq? Certainly they’d continue Saddam’s search for illegal weaponry and evasion of sanctions. Or are you arguing that they’d always remain inactive?
Red herring. The simple fact is that the two primary, publicly hyped justifications for this war (weapons of mass destruction, connections to al Qaeda) remain totally unsubstantiated. You're doing a wonderful job of dancing around the point, though.
When did Durandal argue that point? You do know that I'm not Durandal, right? Regardless, the reason I brought it up back in that monster of tedium and head-banging is that I assumed (wrongly) that you attached some sort of principle to your position. You tacitly acknowledged that preventive war logic was totally outrageous and the only reason you advocated it was because the superpower was doing it.Axis Kast wrote:
Great. I move on and you’re still talking about the last topic. It’s not a red herring. It’s a defeat of the notion that we set a “dangerous precedent” for others to follow.
You have suspicions, and they are unfounded at that- it's not hard to get a fake passport etc. You don't need state support to get them. Heck, I could go to a fake passport dealer a few blocks away and get one if I put my mind to it. Especially when you're helped along by the gross incompetence of immigration services of your target country to get in the first place.Axis Kast wrote:Vympel, that article says nothing as to whether Saddam himself invited al-Qaeda representatives to Baghdad or if his intelligence services had any unofficial contact with their agents as middle-men selling illegal transit documents and identification.
Now I don't believe that al-Qaeda and Iraq conspired outright, but I do believe they passed communication - at least on Hussein's part - suggesting cooperation and that Iraqi intelligence might have had something to do with al-Qaeda's ease-of-movement throughout the international community.
“Also, if weapons of mass destruction were "just" our casus belli, and they're not there ... how does that help in justifying the war again? What's next? Can I walk down the street and shoot a guy because I think he's got a concealed weapon?”When did Durandal argue that point? You do know that I'm not Durandal, right?
Ah. You are correct. Must have missed that. Still, it doesn’t make my statement any less true. How, exactly, do you think those boreholes were drilled in the first place? The Soviet satellites didn’t notice a massive stream of equipment moving to the Kalahari during their sweeps. There was no especial reason to notice what might have been a trickle of cargo trucks moving across the Syrian border before the war. Not that I believe the Syrian theory, mind you.jegs2 was talking about Syria.
So now the Intelligence Oversight Committee – again, with all the political incentive in the world to bash President Bush if they’re democrats – was disuaded from questioning any of the information they received because the American public is stupid?That may have something to do with the extraordinary stupidity of the US populace, some 40% of whom, it seems, think that Iraq used WMD on US forces during OIF. Look at the situation in the UK. A lot ... hotter for Tony.
My argument follows quite logically: to say that there are certainly no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is at this point opinion based on faith that nothing will be found. You cannot change that. And as I’ve pointed out time and time again, three months is too short a time in which to make a definitive argument that satisfies most of the people – or all of the people – you need to convince of your convictions. The truth is that nothing has been found, sure. But that’s yet.The inability of your argument to follow logically is not my problem. You'd have a much easier time of things if you actually attempted to construct a sound argument that actually follows from it's premises instead of trying to assume the existence of something for which there is no evidence. Quite frankly, admitting that they as yet have not been proven to exist wouldn't harm your argument in the slightest, you're just stubborn.
Again. Faith in an inspection process that hasn’t in total lasted more than three months. You have your potential justifications and I’ve mine. Either way, it’s all opinion at this stage.Irrelevant to the question. There is no reason to assume that they exist, irrespective of the situation on the ground now. The burden of proof is on those asserting their existence. Full stop- you think those teams in Iraq are sitting on their asses waiting for someoent to tell them why they're not there?
Ridiculous. He assumes that Hussein simply “stopped” his attempted acquisition. This I find presumptuous. And what "intelligence" would this man have had?I didn't say I agreed. I repeated what he said. Regardless, it is his informed opinion, and he must've had a reason for making that statement. It's also one more thing to chuck on the pile of 'incompetent intelligence' and false claims.
Axis Kast wrote:Yes, we went there for oil. That was clear since day one.
The war in Iraq is about wresting control of Saddam’s oil deposits and putting them in the hands of a new government more easily controlled from the White House. It is simulatenously about finding a new strategic (and oil-rich!) partner to replace the Saudis, with whom tight association has become both a political and moral liability. These among other, lesser goals. It doesn’t mean that what Bush said about weapons of mass destruction was entirely false.
Yes, but in most other wars, the reasons given to the public have some semblance of validity.But don’t kid yourself: the causes for any war are like an iceberg. There’s the part in the public eye – above the surface, if you will -, and then there’s everything else that private logic tells you is there but that you’ll never see or hear in the general public. The “hidden objectives” have been floating around since September 2002. I also refuse, by the way, to believe that they were lost on you entirely. It’s one thing to disagree. It’s another to assume that this is rare or unique.
Not when Bush was connecting Saddam with the September 11th attacks.No. I am telling you that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism even assuming they had no ties to al-Qaeda at all. Saddam dabbled until the day he fell from power with militias working across Iraq, many oriented toward various inane “liberation” schemes for Iran and Turkey. That I happen to believe Saddam’s men had passing experience dealing with al-Qaeda representatives – or that Iraq sponsored Palestinians with illegal weapons sales and monetary infusions – is beside the point.
What search? Is there any evidence that Saddam had or was looking to acquire weapons of mass destruction? Or was it just your speculation and paranoid conjecture?My insistance that his two sons would almost certainly take power is only logical. And what do you think would happen over time in Iraq? Certainly they’d continue Saddam’s search for illegal weaponry and evasion of sanctions. Or are you arguing that they’d always remain inactive?
I never mentioned anything about precedent. So yes, it's a red herring.Great. I move on and you’re still talking about the last topic. It’s not a red herring. It’s a defeat of the notion that we set a “dangerous precedent” for others to follow.
"It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."I say again: the search for weapons of mass destructuion has gone on for three months, variously in a war zone or under the watchful eye of a dictatorship.
Not what I think Durandal was saying, but it could be construed that way.Axis Kast wrote:
“Also, if weapons of mass destruction were "just" our casus belli, and they're not there ... how does that help in justifying the war again? What's next? Can I walk down the street and shoot a guy because I think he's got a concealed weapon?”
War isn't always pre-emptive. Look at WW2. Classic case of naked expansionism in the East and empire building on behalf of Nazi Germany.No. For one side, war is always preemptive. Just because you dislike the current situation doesn’t mean it’s played out in the past, Vympel.
Ok then.I tacitly acknowledge that the preemptive justification wouldn’t work for anyone else unless they already had the unshakable support of the international community. And that it probably wouldn’t hold up as an “excuse” for war elsewhere in the world. As in no Pakistani official would be likely to be able to buck any of the normal consequences of a first-strike on India if they made the vain protestation that “America did it in Iraq!” Oh, the pundits would rant and rave. But they always do. In the end, we’ve changed nothing on this level.
Ok then.Ah. You are correct. Must have missed that. Still, it doesn’t make my statement any less true. How, exactly, do you think those boreholes were drilled in the first place? The Soviet satellites didn’t notice a massive stream of equipment moving to the Kalahari during their sweeps. There was no especial reason to notice what might have been a trickle of cargo trucks moving across the Syrian border before the war. Not that I believe the Syrian theory, mind you.
These arepoliticians. They won't raise a stink if they think it looks like they're bashing the President who's currently popular. A Republican on the Intelligence Oversight Committee (can't remember the name, it was on a CNN article), said that he didn't think an investigation was necessary 'at this point in time' because they hadn't even gone through all the documents that the CIA had provided them with yet.
So now the Intelligence Oversight Committee – again, with all the political incentive in the world to bash President Bush if they’re democrats – was disuaded from questioning any of the information they received because the American public is stupid?
All true. In terms of (2) especially- the politicians have a far greater incentive to go over to the attack. Though in terms of (3), the CIA has a lot to answer for with the aluminum tubes claim that the IAEA not only debunked- but the US Department of Energy experts as well. And not spotting the forged documents? It's farcical.The situation in the United Kingdom is “a lot hotter for Tony Blair” for reasons Bush never has to deal with: (1) the British will always be seen unfairly as playing second fiddle to Washington, (2) many more Britons than Americans opposed the war in the first place, and (3) key documents coming from British services were declared false whereas the CIA has been more guarded about the whole issue despite facing its own whistle-blowers.
The argument is that there is no reason to assume they exist without evidence, not "the weapons definitely don't exist." They may. I just don't think they do- at the very worst, if they do, it definitely won't be what was claimed at the start. What annoys me is the predisposition some have to assuming their existence from the start rather than following the evidence.My argument follows quite logically: to say that there are certainly no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is at this point opinion based on faith that nothing will be found.
You cannot change that. And as I’ve pointed out time and time again, three months is too short a time in which to make a definitive argument that satisfies most of the people – or all of the people – you need to convince of your convictions. The truth is that nothing has been found, sure. But that’s yet.
I'd take it it'd be the same information he had to make the claims of Iraq being hoodwinked in the first place. Iraqi orders could've dried up, for example.
Ridiculous. He assumes that Hussein simply “stopped” his attempted acquisition. This I find presumptuous. And what "intelligence" would this man have had?
Yes. Al-Qaeda probably had many largely unaffiliated “associations” with other terrorist or “black” and underground networks worldwide. I’m saying that I think Iraqi intelligence was one of those.You have suspicions, and they are unfounded at that- it's not hard to get a fake passport etc. You don't need state support to get them. Heck, I could go to a fake passport dealer a few blocks away and get one if I put my mind to it. Especially when you're helped along by the gross incompetence of immigration services of your target country to get in the first place.
Those two high-rankers stated in no uncertain terms that they did not cooperate with the Hussein government. I think that about covers the spectrum of assistance.
Who said that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of September 11th? That’s a public misconception, not a lie by the administration in Washington.Bzzt! I'm sorry, that's completely incorrect. We went there first because Saddam was sponsoring al Qaeda and connected with the September 11th attacks. Then it was because he had weapons of mass destruction. Then it was to free the Iraqi people. At least, that's what he told the public. That's what he told the UN. That's what he told everyone in order to sell the war.
I think the reasons have validity.Yes, but in most other wars, the reasons given to the public have some semblance of validity.
Source?Not when Bush was connecting Saddam with the September 11th attacks.
Before 1998? Yes. You have access to the same sources I do, Durandal. It’s all about personal analysis at this point. We’ve been searching three months. Neither side should expect a “clean” analysis for another nine at least.What search? Is there any evidence that Saddam had or was looking to acquire weapons of mass destruction? Or was it just your speculation and paranoid conjecture?
Actually, you did. You asked if you’d be justified in shooting a man on the street because he might have done you harm.I never mentioned anything about precedent. So yes, it's a red herring.
An interview with a man who says he’s surprised by a lack of immediate, large-scale results. He says absolutely nothing about anything more than vague “ammunition supply points.” Let’s try schools, hospitals, and sewers."It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
Japan would beg to differ. So would much of the eastern Europe. Preventative war is an intelligence option.War isn't always pre-emptive. Look at WW2. Classic case of naked expansionism in the East and empire building on behalf of Nazi Germany.
He said “all,” not “some.” There would be whistleblowers if things looked so out-of-whack.These arepoliticians. They won't raise a stink if they think it looks like they're bashing the President who's currently popular. A Republican on the Intelligence Oversight Committee (can't remember the name, it was on a CNN article), said that he didn't think an investigation was necessary 'at this point in time' because they hadn't even gone through all the documents that the CIA had provided them with yet.
But my reasoning nevertheless explains why Blair was pasted and not Bush.All true. In terms of (2) especially- the politicians have a far greater incentive to go over to the attack. Though in terms of (3), the CIA has a lot to answer for with the aluminum tubes claim that the IAEA not only debunked- but the US Department of Energy experts as well. And not spotting the forged documents? It's farcical.
What annoys me is that you believe an early failure to find these weapons is a final statement as to their non-existence. Yours is still a guess.The argument is that there is no reason to assume they exist without evidence, not "the weapons definitely don't exist." They may. I just don't think they do- at the very worst, if they do, it definitely won't be what was claimed at the start. What annoys me is the predisposition some have to assuming their existence from the start rather than following the evidence.
Drying up is not stopping completely.I'd take it it'd be the same information he had to make the claims of Iraq being hoodwinked in the first place. Iraqi orders could've dried up, for example
I didn't mention Japan, did I?Japan would beg to differ.
So would much of the eastern Europe.
Did you mean intelligence or intelligent?Preventative war is an intelligence option.
There are whistleblowers- among the intelligence community. The artciles are plastered all over the internet, in both the US and UK.He said “all,” not “some.” There would be whistleblowers if things looked so out-of-whack.
They do have something to lose if it blows up in their faces. Bush remains popular- and the Republicans can always play their 'you unpatriotic traitor' card. Regardless, some Dems are moving on the issue.Yes. These are politicans. The Democrats have nothing to gain by not sticking it to Bush right before an election in which nine of their candidates will have no hope unless Bush is knocked down by a substantial blow.
I know that.But my reasoning nevertheless explains why Blair was pasted and not Bush.
It was so unlikely that that's what they were for is the point- it remains an embarassment.The CIA made a hypothetical statement. A guess. Those rods could be used as nuclear components – even if they weren’t.
It's not a final statement. That's what I said where you quoted me. It is however a good reason to be skeptical and to challenge any lazy assertions that the weapons *must* exist as an article of faith. It's not up to me to prove they don't exist.What annoys me is that you believe an early failure to find these weapons is a final statement as to their non-existence. Yours is still a guess.
It's a theory Axis.Drying up is not stopping completely.
Just one more thing to chuck on the pile.He had public information about ruses. Big deal.
But like I said, it’s always preemptive for somebody somewhere. They decide war makes sense in the long view, and then we’re off …I didn't mention Japan, did I?
Intelligent.Did you mean intelligence or intelligent?
But they aren’t the ones that truly count.There are whistleblowers- among the intelligence community. The artciles are plastered all over the internet, in both the US and UK.
They play it anyway. Jegs still makes a strong argument: none of the supreme higher-ups on the Committee has come forward to disparage the information they’ve received in any significant way.They do have something to lose if it blows up in their faces. Bush remains popular- and the Republicans can always play their 'you unpatriotic traitor' card. Regardless, some Dems are moving on the issue.
It’s up to you to explain why you believe they don’t exist. That’s my point. It’s not enough to suggest that because we didn’t find them in a short search that they obviously aren’t there at all. That’s turning opinion into fact.It's not a final statement. That's what I said where you quoted me. It is however a good reason to be skeptical and to challenge any lazy assertions that the weapons *must* exist as an article of faith. It's not up to me to prove they don't exist.
Yes. It is.It's a theory Axis.
For both sides.But like I said, it’s always preemptive for somebody somewhere. They decide war makes sense in the long view, and then we’re off …I didn't mention Japan, did I?
Intelligent.Did you mean intelligence or intelligent?
But they aren’t the ones that truly count.There are whistleblowers- among the intelligence community. The artciles are plastered all over the internet, in both the US and UK.
They play it anyway. Jegs still makes a strong argument: none of the supreme higher-ups on the Committee has come forward to disparage the information they’ve received in any significant way.They do have something to lose if it blows up in their faces. Bush remains popular- and the Republicans can always play their 'you unpatriotic traitor' card. Regardless, some Dems are moving on the issue.
It’s up to you to explain why you believe they don’t exist. That’s my point. It’s not enough to suggest that because we didn’t find them in a short search that they obviously aren’t there at all. That’s turning opinion into fact.It's not a final statement. That's what I said where you quoted me. It is however a good reason to be skeptical and to challenge any lazy assertions that the weapons *must* exist as an article of faith. It's not up to me to prove they don't exist.
Yes. It is.It's a theory Axis.
Just one more thing to chuck on the pile.
The self-defense argument is an old one, but it's not universal. Hitler for example was all about expansionism, though he dressed up his attack on Poland as self-defense.Axis Kast wrote: But like I said, it’s always preemptive for somebody somewhere. They decide war makes sense in the long view, and then we’re off …
For it to be intelligence, I'd say it'd have to rely on good intelligenceIntelligent.
They're not movers and shakers, no, but they do have access to what was going on.But they aren’t the ones that truly count.
As I pointed out to jegs, they recieved the same information as the President, but that information was not necessarily provided without an interpretation- the argument is that the interpretation was wrong.
They play it anyway. Jegs still makes a strong argument: none of the supreme higher-ups on the Committee has come forward to disparage the information they’ve received in any significant way.
I can make the argument if I care to, but it's not pre-requisite on me. The burden of proof is on the party asserting the existence of something, not the other way round, but I have plenty of reason to assume their nonexistence at the start. It's the old God argument: Religious person: "Tell me why you don't believe God exists!" Atheist: "Where's the evidence?"It’s up to you to explain why you believe they don’t exist.
That’s my point. It’s not enough to suggest that because we didn’t find them in a short search that they obviously aren’t there at all. That’s turning opinion into fact
Preemptive self-defense. The excuse.The self-defense argument is an old one, but it's not universal. Hitler for example was all about expansionism, though he dressed up his attack on Poland as self-defense.
Did you mean intelligence or intelligent?For it to be intelligence, I'd say it'd have to rely on good intelligence.
Still, nobody can satisfactorily answer why the Committee Democrats haven’t stepped forward if the crisis was so great.They're not movers and shakers, no, but they do have access to what was going on.
Interpretation generally includes “worst-case scenario” coverage. And if others were dissatisfied with the same analysis, we still have no word why the Committee wasn’t.As I pointed out to jegs, they recieved the same information as the President, but that information was not necessarily provided without an interpretation- the argument is that the interpretation was wrong.
It’s not a strong argument. It’s reliance on faith unless you add additional information (which you did, but others at times fail to do in general).I can make the argument if I care to, but it's not pre-requisite on me. The burden of proof is on the party asserting the existence of something, not the other way round, but I have plenty of reason to assume their nonexistence at the start. It's the old God argument: Religious person: "Tell me why you don't believe God exists!" Atheist: "Where's the evidence?"
Bugger- intelligent. I think ... ack I'm confused.Axis Kast wrote:
Did you mean intelligence or intelligent?
We'll just have to see what happens I guess.Still, nobody can satisfactorily answer why the Committee Democrats haven’t stepped forward if the crisis was so great.
Interpretation generally includes “worst-case scenario” coverage. And if others were dissatisfied with the same analysis, we still have no word why the Committee wasn’t.
Agreed, the argument is stronger when you provide specific reasons for why the counter-claim can be wrong.It’s not a strong argument. It’s reliance on faith unless you add additional information (which you did, but others at times fail to do in general).
