The Saddam was bluffing theory

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-08-22 07:21am

While Comical Axi here continues to demonstrate his fundamental ignorance of concepts such as "verifiable fact" and "hard evidence," it's worth mentioning at this juncture that BBC News have reported that Australian Prime Minister John Howard is now facing a serious parliamentary inquiry in Canberra for having used falsified and/or exaggerated intelligence to mislead the Australian public and government in making the case for participation in the late war.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-22 06:21pm

President Bush and the International Atomic Energy Agency

Yes, President Bush appears to have given false testimony. No, it is not proof of criminal intent to mislead the American public. What we have here could as easily be error as malignance. Clearly, the White House ran with Jay’s original analysis of Iraq’s fissile enrichment program (which, of course, was joined to the determination that Iraq’s program could be far enough along to require only processed uranium). Somehow, Jay’s assessment was put forth as that of the IAEA. You choose to believe that Bush spun an elaborate argument for war. I’ll choose to believe that, in the heat of the situation, somebody jumped to conclusions too quickly. You’ve still failed to convince me that our President is some kind of lying, cheating snake.

More burden of proof fallacies. NON-EXISTENCE IS NOT A CLAIM. You think there's a report, you provide the proof. End of story.

Stop it with these ridiculous fallacies. You hide behind them too often in order not to have to make any kind of argument. The fact of the matter is that you put forth a claim that required substantiation. It is not my responsibility to hunt down evidence that will keep your case afloat. You tell me that the IAEA hasn’t issued this report, then I want to see that accusation from a credible source.

Bullshit. Misleading someone and lying is the same thing by any reasonable standard, but you've already shown that you will go far beyond reasonable standards to defend Bush.

Now who’s playing with semantics? This is a case of personal indignance at having been led to certain conclusions by placing Bush’s statements within the framework of preconceived notions. For the umpteenth time: President Bush was passing on data still held true in the British intelligence community. He made certain to indicate that the report had originated entirely within those circles.

Dishonestly is not always lying. An omission is not necessarily a lie. Expectation can still lead you to the wrong analysis assuming you haven’t dug deep enough on your own.

Ah yes, Bush 'disagreed' with the USAF on UAVs. Just like he disagreed with the Department of Energy on aluminum tubes. He misled the public. Misleading is dishonesty. Dishonesty is lying.

He did not mislead the public. He highlighted a situation unlikely to occur. At no time did he make the argument that Iraqi use of UAVs against domestic targets in the United States of America was imminent without certain very exclusive preconditions.

Supported by a mountain of evidence, which you continue to rail against by presenting hypothetical, unsupported scenario after scenario.

All you’ve got to go on its your own incomplete search and a handful of gaffes or errors still not clearly the result of some malign master plan. You’re taking the conspiracy theory to the limit, Vympel.

If the administration makes a political maneuver to lift pressure off it in preparation for the time when they'll eventually have to make an about face (and they will), it speaks directly to what they know, or rather, what they didn't know, about how strong their position really was.

A government source revealing the upcoming “about face”, please. Who says the shift in themes must be an indication of false arguments rather than an unusually difficult search?

Hello strawman. Where did I say nuclear?

Any large-scale aggressive action taken by any major nation (outside Africa or Central Asia) against any other would most likely (overwhelmingly likely) result in United Nations sanction and diplomatic isolation. The negative long-term effects of slapping an American ally on the wrist for outright aggression against a neighbor would be simply too great to accept.

Classic problem of acting alone is that you piss people off. In case you didn't notice, the US has been running around with its hat in its hand pleading for troops for Iraq. So far, none of the major UN nations worth a damn are providing any meaningful relief.

We had pissed people off long before. The US has been unable to engage assistance as much because of purpose-driven holdouts as anything else. Nobody else in Europe wants to play second-fiddle to Washington; Eastern Europeans with token commitments are one thing, and Western Europeans with their own special (and pre-existing) interests in the Middle East quite another.

Short-sighted might makes right reasoning.

Once more, no other nation in the world can do what we did. From the point of view of precedent, that is very much an issue.

And why do I care what the hell the French think?

It’s an example of conflicting viewpoints over the same factual data.

The European intelligence services in their analyses were tasked with the job of judging an Iraqi threat based on what the US provided with them- in particular, whether Iraq had WMD. That was the standard Bush successfully made the war about. The case was not made successfully to them. The German ambassador (or FM? doesn't matter) said so point blank to Rumsfeld in the lead up to war.

The German government had also staked itself on an anti-American position in a nation increasingly questioning the value and flavor of its role in the Cold War world. The German ambassador is hardly one to make an impartial assessment.

Those certain points of view being whoose? It is obvious that every Iraqi, including even that bastard construct, the INC, is desperate to get America out of the country. You think they'll tolerate American meddling in Iraqi internal affairs without doing anything about it, indefinitely?

It’s not whether they do anything about it. It’s whether they’re successful.

Ah, so you're going to suggest that Iraq should be permanently occupied in order to prevent a replay?

Iraq will most likely be occupied into the next fifty years at least, or until a successive string of governments emerges with clear leanings toward American suggestion. It was a given from the beginning.

No, the Ba'ath Party is secular. The Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims clearly didn't have much of their identity invested in it.

And yet Iraqis lived and died under its rule between the 1970s and the current day.

If Iraqi women were able to present a credible front representative of the entire population in a secular manner, it'd be the first time in history.

They’re able to speak for a major portion (approximately one half) of the population unlikely to put down secular gains without some kind of fight.

No, it doesn't. You would have to show significant large scale purchases of modern weapons and increased training to even begin to make that case.

Of course it does. As you’ve already acknowledged, Iraq was receiving high-speed upgrades to its defense network as late as 2000. The fact that any kind of successful smuggling goes on at all with the help of hundreds of Western companies is an indication of poor containment. What this boils down to is whether or not you, Vympel, walk away concerned about that. In this case, we’ll have to agree to disagree once more.

No quantative or qualitative reasoning. Those companies provided spare parts for Iraq's pre-existing weaponry, and the war showed conclusively that after 12 years, Iraq had deteriorated, not improved. Hell, Iraq couldn't even bring in spare barrels for it's tanks.

Spare parts are still useful from the point of view of conventional military activities. Whether or not they make Iraq a fearsome competitor for its neighbors in terms of conventional arms is irrelevant. The fact that prohibited items are flowing in so heavily is of greater interest.

Complete leap in logic. Spare parts and ammunition are nowhere in remotely the same league as NBC components.

How much a leap in logic? After all, neither should have evaded detection and seizure in the first place. We already know security was let down on numerous occasions.

No, you said it would be democratic more than any other country in the region with exception of Israel. I don't give a shit about Israel. As to claiming American 'democracy' will be better, you've already argued that it should be malleable to American interests and home to American troops, and we know for a fact that not a single Iraq wants America to stay for more than 1 millisecond than it has to. That spells eventual problems.

The presence of American troops doesn’t exclude the possibility of democracy over the long term. See: Japan, Germany. And where was it made clear that the United States planned to leave Iraq completely at the very opportunity?

Ah, so because it supports the Palestinians, it's going to give them a nuclear weapon. No leaps in logic there.

Red herring. We’re talking about a nuclear weapon – a bargaining tool already used expertly by the North Koreans to avoid direct consequences for poor behavior and international arms deals – in the hands of a state avowedly the center of state sponsorship of terrorism. You sure make credible assessments.

Self contradiction. Successful democratization and a malleable country being used as a base for the legions do not go together.

If the ire of the Arab world is a constant, explain what happened to Egypt.

See, Japan.

Egypt? The government has concluded deals to the tune of $3 billion in American aid on an annual basis. It’s an alliance of convenience for one and obligation for the other. Who says the Egyptian public is very much enamoured of Washington or its policies?

Until of course they get sick of your troops on their territory and your government telling there's what to do. The US has already said it won't tolerate any type of democracy in Iraq if it's not what it wants. And of course, you think the Iraqis are just going to take that up the ass.

They might not be able to do anything else, Vympel. The Japanese and Germans sure weren’t.

Yes, what a brilliant alternative it was. Perhaps you can add up the body counts resulting from the two places and see where American troops are worse off.

We cannot. Hopefully we’ll never have to find out, either.

With a drop in points of how much?

Irrelevant. Most Americans (58% by your article) still support George W. Bush. That’s virtually six in ten.

Bingo- you're so short sighted you can't even think of where action might be required again. A 'stabilizing' influence is an interesting way of putting it, how exactly are you stablizing anything?

No. We’re not talking about whether action might be required again. We’re talking about what other rogue nation would have as easily fallen.

In time, stabilization is extremely likely assuming we reach most of our goals. Successful nation building in Iraq would certainly make things difficult for the Ayatollah and diminish the appeal of other Arab states to their own people - throughout the Middle East.

In case you forgot, the opinion and testimony is that Iraq would try and wait until sanctions were lifted and it was off the agenda to rebuild its arsenal.

And we wish to wait for that to happen why, exactly? A feasibility study indicates malign intentions toward an end we do not wish Iraq to reach in the first place.

There is clear evidence of widespread disloyalty in the aftermath of the war towards the entire Ba'ath party, and in General Kamel and his brother, evidence of that before the war, among the very officers who knew the most. That noone has talked when they knew something stretched credibility to breaking point.

Again, the particular group of people we’re speaking about could indeed be quite small. Especially considering they’d have had to go through multiple screenings and were probably recruited from a region extremely loyal to Hussein (meaning turncoats could never return home), it’s not a leap to say that informants would be few and far between – especially those with key overhead knowledge.

The prima facie case is that they didn't try, because not a single prohibited shell or anything of that nature has been discovered.

They couldn’t have taken it with them as they went?

I'm perfectly prepared to accept that they couldn't accomplish their mission. What I will not accept is that they couldn't even begin to try and carry out their orders- as we argue below.

You’re unprepared however to accept that they could have avoided detection?

Stop trying to change the subject. We're talking about disloyalty, and you just conceded what their loyalty was -i.e. pretty fucking poor.

Loyalty to the extreme of committing virtual suicide for no confirmed gain? Stop playing your fallacy games. This isn’t one of them. You brought up the issue of a firing squad. Now I’m asking: who was going to stop them? And who says failure to carry out a suicide mission is evidence of a desire to become traitor?

Tribal alleigance didn't prevent Uday and Qusay getting turned in by their own cousin, did it?

It prevented their capture beforehand. They were “at large” for quite some time.

Not the point. By even bringing this up, you are saying their loyalty extends only so far as "will I get killed for not doing it?" And you think this is helping you?

You’ve provided a false dilemma. You’re taking the issue to one of two extremes: treason and loyalty to the point of carrying out suicidal orders in a country that’s falling apart at the seams without quality leadership.

Since it indicates disloyalty. If they're willing to derelict their duty to the point that they'll follow no orders whatsoever, they're certainly willing to make a buck after the war is gone and their old masters who they obviously did not respect are gone too.

“No orders whatsoever?” Try “orders almost certain to end in failure and the deaths of all involved.”

The numbers haven't been revealed. You're unable to respond to why so many of these Ba'athists are being turned in, and so you try and make it about Saddam specifically.

I’m making the argument that somebody or something well-secured can indeed evade detection.

Oh yeah, that's brilliant, there are SSO guards around WMD stockpiles as we speak.

The security measures around WMD are probably quite impressive – especially by Iraqi standards. If Hussein, a man who must move frequently in an occupied country (and with a large entourage) can avoid detection, why can’t WMD?

And yet the same article establishes tips were being given against Saddam, and Ba'athist high level officials continue to be caught and/or killed.

None of which have panned out.

Source please. I though the administration claimed Iraq's programs were more advanced than they had been in 1991, IIRC?

They said there was some advancement, not, to my knowledge, that they were more advanced. I’d like a quote of yours for that, in fact.

It’s common sense. If the programs were pared down, the circle of those with absolute knowledge is most likely much smaller.

Ridiculously high standard.

No. Fact.

Sure, they were all kept in the dark. And you think they could get any work done when noone knew.

You’re telling me that you can’t train with mock-ups for a general mission and then accept final directions (literally) about where to go and get the real thing in the end?

Do you EVER, even bother to read up on anything before opening your mouth? Kamel was killed when he was lured back to Iraq in 1996. Is it 1996? Last I checked ... ummm ... no.

Still, those willing to cooperate with the Americans have become targets. That you cannot deny.

Oh yeah, I'm sure in Iraq right now trucks full of WMD are moving about being guarded, unnoticed by the 150,000+ troops there.

Just like Saddam?

And who says the trucks are moving?

Even I could tell what a fortification/military storage/command bunker differences were.

A general, empty bunker? Who says it wasn’t being used for other purposes?

No, it's not a red herring, it's the same fucking logic. Set fire to the building, then use the fire as a reason to crackdown. That's bullshit.

It was part of our argument in the first place, Vympel.

Not when I (think, admittedly) hear stupid things like chemical weapons on oil fields.

That was your assumption, not mine.

They had enough SCUDs to target both, as you know now. Furthermore, SCUDs don't have the accuracy to cause significant damage to oil fields. It's a crap shoot by any measure.

So is firing weapons at Israel that might be intercepted. They managed to hit an American barracks but can’t afford to fire several barrages at sprawling Saudi oil-fields?

If the orders weren't there, your argument isn't either.

The argument was that Saddam was delusional, Vympel. He was and is. You’ve lost.

*Someone* knew where they were- you think it's credible that not one would talk? I dont.

I do. This is where we stop and then agree to disagree.

Obviously not very well screened= Kamel.

Kamel was one of many. He was also in a rather unique position.

Kamel's death doesn't help your case. He was killed by Saddam 6 years ago. Totally different situation.

And that’s why symapthizers are being targeted now, correct?

That Iraq was planning to attack Israel in 2003. Remember?

Nice try. The question was whether Saddam was delusional.

Iraq didn't have the capability to destroy SA's oil fields.

They had the capability to do great damage.

Which does not apply to pre-delegation of launch authority.

The argument is whether Hussein was delusional. The “last resort” was an example.

An indicator of absolutely nothing.

Of delusional thinking we don’t want Saddam to indulge in once more.

No it is not. Anyone can just fucking plan. If you can't carry out your threats, you are not a threat, by definition. You are full of shit, not a threat.

The man leads a nation, Vympel. Over time, he would have been in a position to act, given most of the data.

What's why?

Because it was so dangerous.

Launch in caravan?

Everything to the point the launchers are removed and sent off on their own. During the early movement, the excavation, and the general dispersal.

Because I thought you were clued in enough to know what Iraq exactly did in 1991, which included use of SCUDs on Saudi Arabia.

But not on its oil fields. Now you’re harping over some imagined allusion I’ve made in order to attempt and devalue my intelligence.

And what part of 'Iraq couldn't attack anyway and had no inclination to attack if not provovked, ever' do you not understand?

No inclination? Have you been sleeping the entire time, Vympel?

Nah, digging something out of the dirt takes days in suboptimal conditions ...

Days they might not have had for any number of reasons. Several days become a week.

Empty rhetoric. I'm sure you'll repeat yourself just for emphasis, but the fact remains Iraq was no threat to anyone. It had no teeth, wasn't getting any teeth, and would never get any teeth.

Opinion stated as fact.

Considering the trouncing he got in 1991, I don't see how anyone could realistically argue that a shittier Iraq could be a threat

Unconventionally? Very easily.

No, they weren't coming undone. That Iraq's forces were on the decline is demonstrable objective fact.

They were a virtual non-issue until September of last year.

You'd make a great soldier- your ability to carry out orders extends only so far as to whether you'll be shot for not doing it. Way to completely miss the point ... and this is supposed to strengthen your argument as to the loyalty of his troops? Think before you say something.

Why don’t you, rather than simply repeat this false dilemma?

Again, if pre-delegation wasn't there, your argument is weaker. That you persist that they would be a 100% failure in their mission is another matter.

Failure to launch in the end is 100% failure of the mission. And if pre-delegation wasn’t there, it doesn’t devalue the original argument: Hussein was guilty of delusions.

No different from the last war. Try again.

Unearthing and moving them would have been difficult – if there were any there at all.

As I said, he had delusional tendencies, but was clearly cogent enough to not launch an unprovoked attack on Israel. And I continue to reject your bullshit that what Iraq *could do* was unimportant as opposed to what it *might want to do* at some point in the future.

The conditions were never met, Vympel.

What does this have to do with the ORDER? You present a bunch of mundane, easy as pie tasks as evidence of WHAT, exactly? That because of this going through the motions logistics procedure it's impossible that any of them could be remotely successful in actually breaking dirt? Please.

The entire process is so massive that we must question whether they actually cared to break the dirt in the first place.

Ah, more glorious ignorance. You're on a roll in this thread. Military hardware= complete weapon systems. Not spare parts. Not that this semantics is relevant, considering you'd be hard pressed to even begin to argue that Iraq got any new weapons at all over the last 12 years.

Now you’re attempting to complete my arguments for me. You’ve been doing this for a while.

Which is not the point. We're talking about whether Iraq still has them, and the reasons for why it may or may not.

It’s absolutely to the point. It means somebody somewhere isn’t holding up their credibility as a guarantor of sanctions.

Which is not what I'm talking about. IMO, the decision should not have been made.

You were talking pull-out. Troops need to be sent somewhere in order to later consider one of those.

Helps my argument that they weren't fucking there, for one.

But the question was whether Hussein was delusional. And just because SCUDs might not have been there doesn’t mean WMD aren’t.

Not that I'm aware of. Did it occur to you that a missile with a CEP of several hundred metres would be hardpressed to do any significant damage to an oil field in the middle of nowhere? You have to set fire to them. Not the easiest job in the world.

They hit a barracks but can’t hit a sprawling oil field?

What a fine soldier you'd make. If only the Germans defending Berlin had your lack of intestinal fortitude. You still completely miss the point. By admitting that if there were orders, missiles, and gas, and that the people tasked with accomplishing the order chickened out and ran because "well fuck, we'e gonna lose anyway" you admit that these are not the caliber of people who wouldn't sing like birds. Oh well.

It was likely a suicide mission, Vympel. You’re restating a false dilemma. It’s over. You’ve lost. You haven’t been able to prove that in saving themselves the units also became willing to give up all they knew.

Yet they will still become useless if you don't use them by their use by date. At that time, you are de facto disarmed.

If they hid anything, it’s illegal. Bush’s justification is there. We can’t afford non-compliance.

I'm sorry, the scientists in Iraq at the time weren't there?

Not every scientist commenting on the issue did so from Iraq.

Yup over 7 years sure is a short period.

The only truly comprehensive searches began after the occupation.

ullshit. If you destroy their infrastructure and any weapons they have hidden obviously can't last forever, in some cases not even years, the country is disarmed. Resumed production would be detected. Therefore, Iraq is disarmed.

This isn't about excluding the possibility of hidden stockpiles. That's a fancy round-about way of shifting the burden of proof. There is overwhelming evidence that Iraq was disarmed. There is no evidence that Iraq was armed at this time.

De-facto disarmed. It’s all still under investigation. Who says resumed production would always be detected? Or hidden and lingering stockpiles? They’d still be in contravention anyway.

What are you talking about? We have their word for it – but no documentation – that they destroyed major quantities of chemicals and other weapons on their own. You really believe them?

I don't see what possibly more could be said- we're like that toy with the two boxers in the ring who go at each other indefinitely.

Then this argument is over. We end by agreeing to disagree.

While Comical Axi here continues to demonstrate his fundamental ignorance of concepts such as "verifiable fact" and "hard evidence," it's worth mentioning at this juncture that BBC News have reported that Australian Prime Minister John Howard is now facing a serious parliamentary inquiry in Canberra for having used falsified and/or exaggerated intelligence to mislead the Australian public and government in making the case for participation in the late war.

Glad to see you can hop on the train, Deegan. Don’t fall off now.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-08-22 11:04pm

Axis Kast wrote:President Bush and the International Atomic Energy Agency

Yes, President Bush appears to have given false testimony. No, it is not proof of criminal intent to mislead the American public. What we have here could as easily be error as malignance. Clearly, the White House ran with Jay’s original analysis of Iraq’s fissile enrichment program (which, of course, was joined to the determination that Iraq’s program could be far enough along to require only processed uranium). Somehow, Jay’s assessment was put forth as that of the IAEA. You choose to believe that Bush spun an elaborate argument for war. I’ll choose to believe that, in the heat of the situation, somebody jumped to conclusions too quickly. You’ve still failed to convince me that our President is some kind of lying, cheating snake.

The Niger yellowcake story was confirmed by our own envoy to be baseless. And the alledged IAEA report you keep referring to and which Bush cited as evidence was nonexistent. That spells LIE no matter how many weasel words you wish to employ to make it not so.

For the umpteenth time: President Bush was passing on data still held true in the British intelligence community. He made certain to indicate that the report had originated entirely within those circles.

Nevermind that the data were already known to be baseless. Here's a hint: if you're bound and determined to commit a massive Appeal To Authority fallacy, at least don't pick one whose own credibility doesn't bear close examination.

Dishonestly is not always lying. An omission is not necessarily a lie.

From which Bizarro-world did you get that one from?

Expectation can still lead you to the wrong analysis assuming you haven’t dug deep enough on your own.

Which does not support your ludicrous redefinition of the word "dishonesty".

He did not mislead the public. He highlighted a situation unlikely to occur. At no time did he make the argument that Iraqi use of UAVs against domestic targets in the United States of America was imminent without certain very exclusive preconditions.

In a word, bullshit.

All you’ve got to go on its your own incomplete search and a handful of gaffes or errors still not clearly the result of some malign master plan. You’re taking the conspiracy theory to the limit, Vympel.

No conspiracy theory is necessary in the face of massive distortions of fact incorporated into a very public speech for which George Tennant and Condoleeza Rice had to fall on their own swords.

Any large-scale aggressive action taken by any major nation (outside Africa or Central Asia) against any other would most likely (overwhelmingly likely) result in United Nations sanction and diplomatic isolation. The negative long-term effects of slapping an American ally on the wrist for outright aggression against a neighbor would be simply too great to accept.

If we ignore the subsequent undermining os American diplomacy and international law, you might have an argument, that is...

Short-sighted might makes right reasoning.
Once more, no other nation in the world can do what we did. From the point of view of precedent, that is very much an issue.

And we're right back to Hitlerian logic, I see.

The European intelligence services in their analyses were tasked with the job of judging an Iraqi threat based on what the US provided with them- in particular, whether Iraq had WMD. That was the standard Bush successfully made the war about. The case was not made successfully to them. The German ambassador (or FM? doesn't matter) said so point blank to Rumsfeld in the lead up to war.
The German government had also staked itself on an anti-American position in a nation increasingly questioning the value and flavor of its role in the Cold War world. The German ambassador is hardly one to make an impartial assessment.

Attacking The Messender fallacy.

Iraq will most likely be occupied into the next fifty years at least, or until a successive string of governments emerges with clear leanings toward American suggestion. It was a given from the beginning.

Wrong, Comical Axi. Rumsfeld, Pearle, Wolfowitz and Rice were unanimous that the occupation would be swift, that the Iraqis would be falling all over themselves to greet us as liberators, that it would be an in-and-out proposition. It was one of the selling points of the war.

No, it doesn't. You would have to show significant large scale purchases of modern weapons and increased training to even begin to make that case.
Of course it does. As you’ve already acknowledged, Iraq was receiving high-speed upgrades to its defense network as late as 2000. The fact that any kind of successful smuggling goes on at all with the help of hundreds of Western companies is an indication of poor containment. What this boils down to is whether or not you, Vympel, walk away concerned about that. In this case, we’ll have to agree to disagree once more.

Um, excuse me, but that was not what Vympel was saying.

Spare parts are still useful from the point of view of conventional military activities. Whether or not they make Iraq a fearsome competitor for its neighbors in terms of conventional arms is irrelevant. The fact that prohibited items are flowing in so heavily is of greater interest.

One of the primary arguments for the late war —and one you flogged repeatedly— was the threat posed to the region by the Mighty Iraqi War Machine; a threat which was demonstrated to be nonexistent. As for prohibited items "flowing in so heavily", it would be nice if you could provide us with the hard vevidence which has not been found either by our own occupation forces or seven years of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspections.

Complete leap in logic. Spare parts and ammunition are nowhere in remotely the same league as NBC components.
How much a leap in logic? After all, neither should have evaded detection and seizure in the first place. We already know security was let down on numerous occasions.

Proof, please. Evidence, please.

The presence of American troops doesn’t exclude the possibility of democracy over the long term. See: Japan, Germany.

Examples which don't even begin to compare to Iraq and therefore quite irrelevant to the current situation.

We’re talking about a nuclear weapon – a bargaining tool already used expertly by the North Koreans to avoid direct consequences for poor behavior and international arms deals – in the hands of a state avowedly the center of state sponsorship of terrorism. You sure make credible assessments.

Considerably more so than yours. Here's a hint: "credible assessments" are ones based on hard evidence and verifiable data; not what you really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really want to believe is so.

If the ire of the Arab world is a constant, explain what happened to Egypt.
See, Japan.

Non-sequitor.

In time, stabilization is extremely likely assuming we reach most of our goals. Successful nation building in Iraq would certainly make things difficult for the Ayatollah and diminish the appeal of other Arab states to their own people - throughout the Middle East.

You hope.

In case you forgot, the opinion and testimony is that Iraq would try and wait until sanctions were lifted and it was off the agenda to rebuild its arsenal.
And we wish to wait for that to happen why, exactly? A feasibility study indicates malign intentions toward an end we do not wish Iraq to reach in the first place.

As has been pointed out, intentions don't mean dick without the capacity to carry them out, and our deterrence was effectively denying Iraq the capacity to do anything.

There is clear evidence of widespread disloyalty in the aftermath of the war towards the entire Ba'ath party, and in General Kamel and his brother, evidence of that before the war, among the very officers who knew the most. That noone has talked when they knew something stretched credibility to breaking point.
Again, the particular group of people we’re speaking about could indeed be quite small. Especially considering they’d have had to go through multiple screenings and were probably recruited from a region extremely loyal to Hussein (meaning turncoats could never return home), it’s not a leap to say that informants would be few and far between – especially those with key overhead knowledge.

I'm sure Uday and Qusay would be comforted by that sentiment.

The prima facie case is that they didn't try, because not a single prohibited shell or anything of that nature has been discovered.
They couldn’t have taken it with them as they went?

Um, if you're on the run, the sure way to get caught as quickly as possible is to port along enough baggage to slow you down and make you conspicuously visible. Without a Shrink-Ray handy, there's no way to move an ammunition train inconspicuously.

You’re unprepared however to accept that they could have avoided detection?

And they accomplished this feat how, exactly? With the advanced Iraqi cloaking technology, perhaps?

Loyalty to the extreme of committing virtual suicide for no confirmed gain? Stop playing your fallacy games. This isn’t one of them. You brought up the issue of a firing squad. Now I’m asking: who was going to stop them? And who says failure to carry out a suicide mission is evidence of a desire to become traitor?

Are you insane?

Not the point. By even bringing this up, you are saying their loyalty extends only so far as "will I get killed for not doing it?" And you think this is helping you?
You’ve provided a false dilemma. You’re taking the issue to one of two extremes: treason and loyalty to the point of carrying out suicidal orders in a country that’s falling apart at the seams without quality leadership.

Amusing coming from a man engaging in his own Begging The Question Fallacy. Refusal to carry out a suicide mission, by definition an act requiring absolute loyalty, is treason by the standards of the regime that orders such an action in the first place. You continue to argue the concept of partial treason.

Since it indicates disloyalty. If they're willing to derelict their duty to the point that they'll follow no orders whatsoever, they're certainly willing to make a buck after the war is gone and their old masters who they obviously did not respect are gone too.
“No orders whatsoever?” Try “orders almost certain to end in failure and the deaths of all involved.”

I hate to tell you this, but in the military, if your commanders give you a direct order to die, you don't get the option of voting on it.

The numbers haven't been revealed. You're unable to respond to why so many of these Ba'athists are being turned in, and so you try and make it about Saddam specifically.
I’m making the argument that somebody or something well-secured can indeed evade detection.

As you wish...

The security measures around WMD are probably quite impressive – especially by Iraqi standards. If Hussein, a man who must move frequently in an occupied country (and with a large entourage) can avoid detection, why can’t WMD?

Bulk, for a start. Even you cannot possibly believe that a man with an entourage is the same as an ammunition supply train or a formation of mobile missiles.

And yet the same article establishes tips were being given against Saddam, and Ba'athist high level officials continue to be caught and/or killed.
None of which have panned out.

I think that those members of the Hussein government presently in American custody and two rather famous corpses might want to have a word with you on that score.

Source please. I though the administration claimed Iraq's programs were more advanced than they had been in 1991, IIRC?
They said there was some advancement, not, to my knowledge, that they were more advanced. I’d like a quote of yours for that, in fact.

Ahem:

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax - enough doses to kill several million people. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin - enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands. He has not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors - sanitizing inspection sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. And intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with UN inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

—George W. Bush, 2003 State of the Union address

Assertions of fact of large WMD arsenals and an advanced nuclear weapons programme; none of which have been borne out by extant evidence.

No. Fact.

A concept you seem to have no acquaintence with.

Oh yeah, I'm sure in Iraq right now trucks full of WMD are moving about being guarded, unnoticed by the 150,000+ troops there.
Just like Saddam?

And who says the trucks are moving?

Begging The Question yet again, I see.

Even I could tell what a fortification/military storage/command bunker differences were.
A general, empty bunker? Who says it wasn’t being used for other purposes?

And again...

No, it's not a red herring, it's the same fucking logic. Set fire to the building, then use the fire as a reason to crackdown. That's bullshit.
It was part of our argument in the first place, Vympel.

The UN resolution ending the first Gulf War did not include any sort of tripwire clause for resuming hostilities; nor any subsequent resolution against Iraq passed in the intervening twelve years.

They managed to hit an American barracks but can’t afford to fire several barrages at sprawling Saudi oil-fields?

An assertion so idiotic on its face that it hardly merits refutation.

If the orders weren't there, your argument isn't either.
The argument was that Saddam was delusional, Vympel. He was and is. You’ve lost.

Now whose being delusional?

Kamel's death doesn't help your case. He was killed by Saddam 6 years ago. Totally different situation.
And that’s why symapthizers are being targeted now, correct?

Begging The Question yet again, are we?

Iraq didn't have the capability to destroy SA's oil fields.
They had the capability to do great damage.

Junk SCUDs falling apart during flight and hitting any target through sheer luck. Reality says you're dead wrong yet again.

No it is not. Anyone can just fucking plan. If you can't carry out your threats, you are not a threat, by definition. You are full of shit, not a threat.
The man leads a nation, Vympel. Over time, he would have been in a position to act, given most of the data.

The data in fact says otherwise. Iraq's infrastructure was severly degraded by the first war, and the evidence on the ground now conclusively demonstrates that it only deteriorated further in twelve years.

Because I thought you were clued in enough to know what Iraq exactly did in 1991, which included use of SCUDs on Saudi Arabia.
But not on its oil fields. Now you’re harping over some imagined allusion I’ve made in order to attempt and devalue my intelligence.

You can't devalue something which is already valueless.

Empty rhetoric. I'm sure you'll repeat yourself just for emphasis, but the fact remains Iraq was no threat to anyone. It had no teeth, wasn't getting any teeth, and would never get any teeth.
Opinion stated as fact.

No, extant fact. It is you who confuses the terms "opinion" and "fact".

Considering the trouncing he got in 1991, I don't see how anyone could realistically argue that a shittier Iraq could be a threat
Unconventionally? Very easily.

Nice attempt to weasel out of the issue at hand. And unfortunately a futile one: Iraq's unconventional threat has also been demonstrated as nonexistent.

Which is not the point. We're talking about whether Iraq still has them, and the reasons for why it may or may not.
It’s absolutely to the point. It means somebody somewhere isn’t holding up their credibility as a guarantor of sanctions.

Then where are the weapons? What happened to the thousands of chemical shells ready to be deployed? Why no evidence of these alledged stockpiles? Where did all that materiel disappear to? What is the evidence that the sanctions failed to deter Saddam Hussein?

But the question was whether Hussein was delusional. And just because SCUDs might not have been there doesn’t mean WMD aren’t.

And I see we're Begging The Question yet again. Pathetic.

Not that I'm aware of. Did it occur to you that a missile with a CEP of several hundred metres would be hardpressed to do any significant damage to an oil field in the middle of nowhere? You have to set fire to them. Not the easiest job in the world.
They hit a barracks but can’t hit a sprawling oil field?

Because the ability to hit maybe one target by sheer luck just naturally translates into perfect targeting capability; a capability which went strangely undemonstrated in 1991.

De-facto disarmed. It’s all still under investigation. Who says resumed production would always be detected? Or hidden and lingering stockpiles? They’d still be in contravention anyway.

Insane babble.

While Comical Axi here continues to demonstrate his fundamental ignorance of concepts such as "verifiable fact" and "hard evidence," it's worth mentioning at this juncture that BBC News have reported that Australian Prime Minister John Howard is now facing a serious parliamentary inquiry in Canberra for having used falsified and/or exaggerated intelligence to mislead the Australian public and government in making the case for participation in the late war.
Glad to see you can hop on the train, Deegan. Don’t fall off now.

Don't derail the train, now —oops, too late. Far far too late.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-23 05:28am

I don't see anything that I can say that Patrick already hasn't, but just to hammer home the point- I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that thanks to your ignorance you'd hold up a pure dumb luck hit on a barracks as reasoning.

Iraq's Al-Hussein SCUD derivative missiles, with 600-750km range (depending on which variant), carried a payload of a mere 300kg and had a Circular Error Probable Accuracy of 1,000-3,000m.

What does CEP mean? Well, you've got a 50% chance of a puny 300kg warhead of landing within 1-3km circle of the actual target you want to hit.

Sure, you can expect that to hit oil fields with reasonable accuracy and damage worth the trouble of firing them, while breaking up in the sky because of their poor design and jury-rigged manufacture

These are pure terror weapons. Not strategic.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-23 12:01pm

The Niger yellowcake story was confirmed by our own envoy to be baseless. And the alledged IAEA report you keep referring to and which Bush cited as evidence was nonexistent. That spells LIE no matter how many weasel words you wish to employ to make it not so.

Tony Blair still stood by the report at the time of the State of the Union address.

I’m not quite sure why it’s not sinking in, but let me try once more: President Bush simply passed on to the American public word of a claim held in good esteem – at the time – by the British leadership.

Nevermind that the data were already known to be baseless. Here's a hint: if you're bound and determined to commit a massive Appeal To Authority fallacy, at least don't pick one whose own credibility doesn't bear close examination.

… but which 10 Downing Street was still advocating, permitting Bush to make his reference.

From which Bizarro-world did you get that one from?

An omission is not a lie. Period. An omission is not the distribution of false information as fact.

Which does not support your ludicrous redefinition of the word "dishonesty".

Of course it does. You and people like you took Bush’s statement and ran with it based on your own preconceived notions about the situation.

In a word, bullshit.

Red herring. Are you even aware of the original issue? It was whether or not posing the situation to the American public was at all dishonest. The answer is clearly no.

No conspiracy theory is necessary in the face of massive distortions of fact incorporated into a very public speech for which George Tennant and Condoleeza Rice had to fall on their own swords.

Wrong. You’re speaking about supposed symptoms or indicators of a specific problem. If you believe there is some kind of puppetry or widespread deception here, please enlighten us as to its particulars. I’m sure it’s worth a good laugh or two.

If we ignore the subsequent undermining os American diplomacy and international law, you might have an argument, that is...

Once Bush made his statement and became embroiled with the UN politics, American diplomacy would have suffered an even greater blow had we not committed ourselves to invasion. As for whether the original decision to go to war was damaging to our credibility in the first place, a successful conclusion will more than patch it up. Remember that much of the world’s opposition arose from the simple fact that it was good politics to try one’s best to impede “the guy on top.” We’re never going to be rid of that kind of criticism into the foreseeable future. America’s ability to do what it needs to do has not been at all compromised.

International law is perfectly intact. I challenge you to provide the credible framework for a similar situation carried out by any other nation on this Earth (exclusive, of course, of the People’s Republic of China or the Russian Federation, each of whom have already broken the precedent themselves).

And we're right back to Hitlerian logic, I see.

Well, here’s a Red Herring if every I saw one. If you’re going to try to refute the notion that we’ve established a dangerous precedent here, a counter-argument is in order.

Attacking The Messender fallacy.

Again, I need some kind of argument to explain why the American and European intelligence services would see eye-to-eye over every situation despite their vastly different national security interests. The framework in which they analyze their data is much, much different, Deegan.

Wrong, Comical Axi. Rumsfeld, Pearle, Wolfowitz and Rice were unanimous that the occupation would be swift, that the Iraqis would be falling all over themselves to greet us as liberators, that it would be an in-and-out proposition. It was one of the selling points of the war.

Red Herring. We’re not discussing Rumsfeld, Pearle, Wolfowitz, or Rice. We’re not discussing their initial visions. We’re discussing whether or not Iraq is likely to be home to American troops for the foreseeable future. It was going to happen either way.

Um, excuse me, but that was not what Vympel was saying.

The argument is over whether Iraq’s capability to smuggle replacements and other dual-purpose hardware or defensive equipment between 1998 and 2002 was an indication of dangerous gaps in the UNSC sanctions régime, and whether (A) that left the door open to the smuggling of items related to unconventional weaponization, or (B) the key guarantors (the United States and the United Kingdom) should be concerned that those once committed to the cause of Iraqi isolation remain credible today.

One of the primary arguments for the late war —and one you flogged repeatedly— was the threat posed to the region by the Mighty Iraqi War Machine; a threat which was demonstrated to be nonexistent. As for prohibited items "flowing in so heavily", it would be nice if you could provide us with the hard vevidence which has not been found either by our own occupation forces or seven years of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspections.

One I “flogged repeatedly?” No. My concern was the threat of unconventional weapons. Do not try to raise the Red Herring of Iraq’s conventional capability.

Hard evidence? Such as Chinese air-defense equipment (fiber-optic cables meant to speed data transfer) in 2000? An article that speaks to this particular situation well: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2591351.stm. If so many nations were apparently concluding back-door deals with a state virtually under economic siege, I don’t see how we can maintain strong faith in their commitment to disarmament.

Proof, please. Evidence, please.

See above. That Iraq violated the UNSC sanctions on numerous occasions is a well-known fact. Relevant data can also be found here, under, “Who Armed Iraq?”

http://web.amnesty.org/web/web.nsf/prin ... icle_7-eng

Sites relevant to Yugoslavian and Bosnian assistance:

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/th ... _misp.html

http://www.time.com/time/europe/eu/dail ... 86,00.html

More:

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1 ... _A,00.html

On the People’s Republic of China:

http://www.nci.org/iraq/iraq-prc-wt22001.htm

Examples which don't even begin to compare to Iraq and therefore quite irrelevant to the current situation.

The question was whether democracy could be born despite the presence of troops. Each situation I have referenced is thus quite relevant.

Considerably more so than yours. Here's a hint: "credible assessments" are ones based on hard evidence and verifiable data; not what you really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really want to believe is so.

This is not a counter-argument to the danger of Iran’s being in possession of weapons that have been used effectively by others in its position to circumvent or avoid direct consequences. Concession accepted.

Non-sequitor.

You don’t actually read now, do you?

The original quotation was thus:

“Self contradiction. Successful democratization and a malleable country being used as a base for the legions do not go together.

If the ire of the Arab world is a constant, explain what happened to Egypt.”

You hope.

You think it very likely that Iraq will remain a quagmire for years?

As has been pointed out, intentions don't mean dick without the capacity to carry them out, and our deterrence was effectively denying Iraq the capacity to do anything.

That’s debatable. As I have proven, Iraq was able to import a variety of equipment. European assessments were increasingly more lenient as regards Iraq; countries such as Turkey and Jordan were clamoring for special compensation to continue the sanctions régime as recently as 2000. Not good signs from the point of view of solid isolation. If conventional weapons could be smuggled in, why not dual-purpose equipment for unconventional arms? In any case, the whole situation is still under investigation. It isn’t yet certain that Iraq had nothing at all.

Vympel has admitted that he believes Iraq was waiting for an eventual release from sanctions and would then restart its program – but a feasibility study at this point in time would still be representative of some kind of program in the first place (which is, of course, illegal).

I'm sure Uday and Qusay would be comforted by that sentiment.

That they survived as long as they did is remarkable given your expectation of massive, sweeping cooperation. I’m still waiting on numbers, by the way.

Um, if you're on the run, the sure way to get caught as quickly as possible is to port along enough baggage to slow you down and make you conspicuously visible. Without a Shrink-Ray handy, there's no way to move an ammunition train inconspicuously.

Plenty of Iraqi divisions virtually melted away overnight by the middle and closing stages of the war. Are you saying it would be somehow impossible for a special unit tasked with transporting WMD to join them? You also have no idea how the WMD were packaged – or in what quantity.

And they accomplished this feat how, exactly? With the advanced Iraqi cloaking technology, perhaps?

It’s possible that they avoided detection – just as the buried planes outside al-Taqqadum appeared to have done. That leads us to the “They joined the universal retreat,” theory.

But you’re making my argument for me: it would have been very difficult to avoid detection in the first place. Hence the title of “suicide mission” in a country falling apart and a war sure to be lost.

Are you insane?

What kind of argument is that?! Vympel’s committed the worst False Dilemma I’ve ever seen. Since when is failure to carry out a suicide mission evidence that the entire unit would give up their leader? Concession accepted.

Amusing coming from a man engaging in his own Begging The Question Fallacy. Refusal to carry out a suicide mission, by definition an act requiring absolute loyalty, is treason by the standards of the regime that orders such an action in the first place. You continue to argue the concept of partial treason.

Who was going to put these men on trial, Deegan? Of whom did they have to be afraid assuming they didn’t carry out or complete their assigned mission? None of the conventional forces would know. Even Hussein would be in no position to act against them.

That said, you’re also ignoring the importance of family ties. None of these people could go home had they turned over information to the Coalition forces.

I hate to tell you this, but in the military, if your commanders give you a direct order to die, you don't get the option of voting on it.

False assumption. You’re using the standard of Western militaries. Who’s to say anybody was going to prosecute these soldiers?

Bulk, for a start. Even you cannot possibly believe that a man with an entourage is the same as an ammunition supply train or a formation of mobile missiles.

As Vympel pointed out, once they are prepared, they can generally function alone.

But that’s beside the point, since this particular quotation of mine was comparing Hussein to the stockpile of WMD at large, not the special units transporting them. In fact, if that’s the argument, I admit they should not have been able to escape detection in the first place.

Saddam is most likely mobile – in an occupied country where virtually everybody knows his face. WMD are not. Assuming they are well-hidden (which is likely, given their importance), it’s not impossible that they could escape detection so long.

I think that those members of the Hussein government presently in American custody and two rather famous corpses might want to have a word with you on that score.

Regarding Saddam Hussein.

Assertions of fact of large WMD arsenals and an advanced nuclear weapons programme; none of which have been borne out by extant evidence.

Red Herring. The question was whether the programs were accused of being more advanced today than in 1991. The answer is no. Your evidence does not bear that out. Concession accepted.

As to the WMD themselves, the search is still underway.

A concept you seem to have no acquaintence with.

This doesn’t even address the question. Concession accepted.

Begging The Question yet again, I see.

No argument. Concession accepted. It is per his special scenario that WMD are in motion. And anybody with half a brain can see the parallels to Saddam Hussein in this specific case.

And again...

No. Massive oversight and dangerous assumptions on your part.

The UN resolution ending the first Gulf War did not include any sort of tripwire clause for resuming hostilities; nor any subsequent resolution against Iraq passed in the intervening twelve years.

Part of our argument, Deegan, was that nobody else was actively engaging the problem – regardless of the UN framework. Bush made it clear in his speeches: he was responsible to the American public and its national security interests.

An assertion so idiotic on its face that it hardly merits refutation.

Why? Concession accepted.

Now whose being delusional?

You deny that Saddam Hussein was delusional?

Begging The Question yet again, are we?

He raises Kamel as an example. But considering what happens to many sympathizers, it’s not exactly unknown why some people might not step forward.

Junk SCUDs falling apart during flight and hitting any target through sheer luck. Reality says you're dead wrong yet again.

The same thing would be true in Israel as in Saudi Arabia. Still, the later target was the best from a strategic point of view.

The data in fact says otherwise. Iraq's infrastructure was severly degraded by the first war, and the evidence on the ground now conclusively demonstrates that it only deteriorated further in twelve years.

This is personal analysis. We already have red flags (such as the sanctions) to tell us that not everything had reached the specific “full stop.”

You can't devalue something which is already valueless.

Ad-hominem. Concession accepted.

No, extant fact. It is you who confuses the terms "opinion" and "fact".

Opinion. Vympel made long-range assumptions and used personal viewpoints to justify them. How do we know Iraq could never have rebuilt its capabilities? That the sanctions would remain forever? That they had nothing at all (which is still under investigation)?

Nice attempt to weasel out of the issue at hand. And unfortunately a futile one: Iraq's unconventional threat has also been demonstrated as nonexistent.

No, it hasn’t. The search is not yet complete.

Then where are the weapons? What happened to the thousands of chemical shells ready to be deployed? Why no evidence of these alledged stockpiles? Where did all that materiel disappear to? What is the evidence that the sanctions failed to deter Saddam Hussein?

We’re still searching for the weapons, Deegan. It’s been a handful of months. What evidence that the sanctions failed to deter Saddam Hussein? That’s a matter of opinion. If you ask me, I doubt he’s lost his ambitions.

And I see we're Begging The Question yet again. Pathetic.

You’re going to claim that because SCUDs might not exist, WMD obviously don’t, either?

Because the ability to hit maybe one target by sheer luck just naturally translates into perfect targeting capability; a capability which went strangely undemonstrated in 1991.

Since when does it have to translate if a barrage of missiles are fired at a large target? If he felt he couldn’t hit small targets, why fire at the barracks?

Insane babble.

Concession accepted.

Iraq's Al-Hussein SCUD derivative missiles, with 600-750km range (depending on which variant), carried a payload of a mere 300kg and had a Circular Error Probable Accuracy of 1,000-3,000m.

What does CEP mean? Well, you've got a 50% chance of a puny 300kg warhead of landing within 1-3km circle of the actual target you want to hit.

Sure, you can expect that to hit oil fields with reasonable accuracy and damage worth the trouble of firing them, while breaking up in the sky because of their poor design and jury-rigged manufacture.

The Saudi oil fields in question would have been much larger than the barracks (which Hussein was strangely willing to target despite the supposed major deficiencies of the weapons in question).

It was unlikely that Hussein would have been able to stop the Coalition by invoking any threats – especially if his missiles failed to do any damage. If they did, it was still very questionable whether he’d achieve the actual, desired response – and even live to reap the rewards of possible success.

But then, our argument here is over, Vympel.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-23 12:20pm

Axis, go read up on logical fallacies. Because your posts are so full of them, if I hit the Quote button, I'd hear a flush.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-23 12:48pm

SirNitram wrote:Axis, go read up on logical fallacies. Because your posts are so full of them, if I hit the Quote button, I'd hear a flush.

You haven't noticed? Axis doens't believe in logical fallacies. His version of them is where you simply look at the name when someone else uses it and extrapolate it to what he thinks it might be

Notice the continued shifting of the burden of proof to the negative "how do we know Iraq could never rebuild", or his ridiculous "fibre optic cable/ miscellaneous spare parts= increased Iraqi threat" that is totally contrary to what the hell actually happened for all to see in the war.

And then of course there's the SCUD issue, where he actually thinks a barrage of Al-Husseins' with puny 300kg high explosive warheads and accuracy in the kilometre range would be remotely effective in causing any significant damage to Saudi oilfields, and his claim that Israeli/Saudi cities are equivalent to Saudi oilfields

Moving on to the more bizarre, like his ridiculous redefinition of what it means to lie, and also that because there was noone around to shoot these special WMD troops who 100% failed to carry out their orders and who just went home, this somehow refutes the argument that they're disloyal and not the caliber of soldiers you'd expect to keep their mouth shut as to where the hell the WMD is. All while shoving his fingers firmly in his ears and singinging "la la la" when presented with evidence of high-ranking defections (oh, wait, this one has the dumbass idea of saying because Kamel was executed when Saddam was in power, this is the same now, despite the fact that informers with something to tell are known to be granted protection and asylum

), and continued informing against the entire former power structure, including Saddam.

The Saudi oil fields in question would have been much larger than the barracks (which Hussein was strangely willing to target despite the supposed major deficiencies of the weapons in question).

I assume you're subscribing to the command and conquer version of a barracks, while at the same time assuming that it was a deliberate target, ignoring the fact that the barracks in question was a converted warehouse in the middle of a fucking major Saudi city- and the facts of the weapons involved. Do you ever stop talking out of your ass?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-23 01:04pm

Axis, go read up on logical fallacies. Because your posts are so full of them, if I hit the Quote button, I'd hear a flush.

It doesn’t matter. Half of the time, you didn’t even make arguments, Deegan. Your arguments back there are more full of holes than Swiss cheese.

Notice the continued shifting of the burden of proof to the negative "how do we know Iraq could never rebuild", or his ridiculous "fibre optic cable/ miscellaneous spare parts= increased Iraqi threat" that is totally contrary to what the hell actually happened for all to see in the war.

Vympel, Iraq did indeed have the capability to slowly reconstitute. Witness the rather significant flow of dual-purpose materials – and even military hardware - into the country despite the arms embargo. You might brush aside such warning signs. Others would not be so naïve.

A more responsive defense system is certainly a threat in my book. The capability to continue receiving arms from members of the United Nations Security Council isn’t peanuts, either. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: our different standards preclude any form of agreement on this topic.

And then of course there's the SCUD issue, where he actually thinks a barrage of Al-Husseins' with puny 300kg high explosive warheads and accuracy in the kilometer range would be remotely effective in causing any significant damage to Saudi oilfields, and his claim that Israeli/Saudi cities are equivalent to Saudi oilfields.

Considering the large size of certain Saudi oil fields the potential for an effective hit isn’t quite so remote as you would have us believe. All it takes is a relative handful.

I assume you're subscribing to the command and conquer version oft barracks, while at the same time assuming that it was a specific target, ignoring the fact that the barracks in question was a converted warehouse in the middle of a fucking major Saudi city- a terror target, not a strategic target. Do you ever stop talking out of your ass?

Saudi oil fields aren’t exactly minimal in size, Vympel. Many extended over dozens of miles of ground.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-23 01:06pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Axis, go read up on logical fallacies. Because your posts are so full of them, if I hit the Quote button, I'd hear a flush.
It doesn’t matter. Half of the time, you didn’t even make arguments, Deegan. Your arguments back there are more full of holes than Swiss cheese.

I'm not Deegan. If you were capable of higher thinking, you'd notice this.

Besides, you claiming someone else's argument is full of holes it ridiculously funny; even Darkstar had more logic in his arguments than yours. What you don't realize is there's nothing needed but to point out the fallacies you spew forth; there's nothing left after they're removed.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-23 01:19pm

Axis Kast wrote:
It doesn’t matter. Half of the time, you didn’t even make arguments, Deegan. Your arguments back there are more full of holes than Swiss cheese.

That you didn't understand his arguments and not making arguments is not the same thing. You've already shown complete ignorance and contempt for logical rules.

Vympel, Iraq did indeed have the capability to slowly reconstitute. Witness the rather significant flow of dual-purpose materials – and even military hardware - into the country despite the arms embargo. You might brush aside such warning signs. Others would not be so naïve.

Point to one single export of an actual complete, new military hardware into Iraq. Spare parts aren't sufficient to make Iraq a threat.That you continue to pretend there's some sort of 'progression' is ridiculous- Iraq, nor the country that was exporting to it, could never get away with actually purchasing purchasing anything.

A more responsive defense system is certainly a threat in my book.

The wonders never cease- a defensive system is a threat to the United States

The capability to continue receiving arms from members of the United Nations Security Council isn’t peanuts, either. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: our different standards preclude any form of agreement on this topic.

Your standards are absurd. Iraq recieved no arms for 12 years. It got a minimal trickle of spares that wasn't even sufficient to sustain readiness or effectivness. That is undeniable fact. Furthermore, there is no connection between mundane spare parts and the considerable infrastructure and rare, proscribed, tightly controlled items required for reconstituting an NBC weapons program. Furthermore, reconstituion would be noticed, and easily proved, as Scott Ritter has said.

Considering the large size of certain Saudi oil fields the potential for an effective hit isn’t quite so remote as you would have us believe. All it takes is a relative handful.

To do WHAT? Damage maybe a few, if they're lucky, for a few weeks, assuming any of them even hit at all? If you want to fuck over an oilfield you set fire to it.

Saudi oil fields aren’t exactly minimal in size, Vympel. Many extended over dozens of miles of ground.

See above, not that this is a response to what I originally said, so I'll take that as a concession on your claim that the hit on the converted warehouse in that particular Saudi city was a pinpoint strike rather than pure dumb luck- absurd on its face.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-23 01:21pm

Axis Kast wrote:
The Niger yellowcake story was confirmed by our own envoy to be baseless. And the alledged IAEA report you keep referring to and which Bush cited as evidence was nonexistent. That spells LIE no matter how many weasel words you wish to employ to make it not so.
Tony Blair still stood by the report at the time of the State of the Union address.

I’m not quite sure why it’s not sinking in, but let me try once more: President Bush simply passed on to the American public word of a claim held in good esteem – at the time – by the British leadership.

For Gods sake Axis.

lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.

To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-23 01:41pm

Besides, you claiming someone else's argument is full of holes it ridiculously funny; even Darkstar had more logic in his arguments than yours. What you don't realize is there's nothing needed but to point out the fallacies you spew forth; there's nothing left after they're removed.

If my argument is so full of holes that it’s ridiculously funny, why wasn’t Deegan able to refute almost half of it?

That you didn't understand his arguments and not making arguments is not the same thing. You've already shown complete ignorance and contempt for logical rules.

Would you care to explain how, “You’re insane!” is any kind of refutation whatsoever? He wasn’t even aware of the original issues when he stepped into the ring. Hell, he was firing away at snippets of responses without having actually read them in their entirety in the first place.

Point to one single export of an actual complete, new military hardware into Iraq. Spare parts aren't sufficient to make Iraq a threat.That you continue to pretend there's some sort of 'progression' is ridiculous- Iraq, nor the country that was exporting to it, could never get away with actually purchasing purchasing anything.

The fact that Iraq was able to circumvent United Nations arms embargoes on such a scale – and in collusion with virtually every member of the United Nations Security Council – is indicative of negligence on a vast scale. To deny this is to close one’s eyes to all reality.

The wonders never cease- a defensive system is a threat to the United States.

When we’re the guarantors of peace and isolation in that specific region? Perhaps you’ve never heard of them, Vympel. They’re called: “No-Fly Zones.” And if the Iraqis can engage the Chinese to expand their air-defense system, I don’t see why we shouldn’t be concerned that they might have been similarly able to import other prohibited materials.

Your standards are absurd. Iraq recieved no arms for 12 years. It got a minimal trickle of spares that wasn't even sufficient to sustain readiness or effectivness. That is undeniable fact. Furthermore, there is no connection between mundane spare parts and the considerable infrastructure and rare, proscribed, tightly controlled items required for reconstituting an NBC weapons program. Furthermore, reconstituion would be noticed, and easily proved, as Scott Ritter has said.

It’s not the status of their conventional military forces that concerns me. It’s the fact that the embargoes were so clearly circumvented on multiple occasions and by multiple parties. Reconstitution wouldn’t necessarily be noticed if these items were still in hiding, Vympel. The fact that you’re sitting here asserting your belief that we have no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not Iraq was able to smuggle more than simply replacement equipment past the United Nations is evidence of an extremely narrow point-of-view – not to mention a dangerous naïveté that puts out of sight and out of mind anything contradictory to your own bright, fully trusting point-of-view.

To do WHAT? Damage maybe a few, if they're lucky, for a few weeks, assuming any of them even hit at all? If you want to fuck over an oilfield you set fire to it.

Missiles carry warheads. Warheads are explosive. Explosions are – and can cause other – fires.

See above, not that this is a response to what I originally said, so I'll take that as a concession on your claim that the hit on the converted warehouse in that particular Saudi city was a pinpoint strike rather than pure dumb luck- absurd on its face.

Do you have proof that our barracks wasn’t the original target?

Then again, considering the size of the oil fields that would have been involved, this is really irrelevant.

Now, to deal with the SOTU issue …

Bush passed on information held in high regard by Tony Blair. He chose to adopt Blair’s point-of-view: that the intelligence was credible. In that respect, Bush did not make false statements. As for the parts of the definition that deal with impression, the road becomes less clear. Geopolitics is all about interpretation. Virtually anything and everything can be challenged as a lie on the grounds that (A) everything is meant to convey some kind of analysis and (B) analysis is always skewed toward the source. From the point-of-view of the source of that data – the British government -, it was still valid.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-23 01:44pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Besides, you claiming someone else's argument is full of holes it ridiculously funny; even Darkstar had more logic in his arguments than yours. What you don't realize is there's nothing needed but to point out the fallacies you spew forth; there's nothing left after they're removed.
If my argument is so full of holes that it’s ridiculously funny, why wasn’t Deegan able to refute almost half of it?

Sorry, little boy. Sitting with your fingers in your ears yelling 'I WIN YOU LOSE NU UH YOU DIDNT REFUTE NUFFIN' is not the same as your opponent not refuting your argument. It was torn to shreds and left to die in the cold, cold night. Kindly don't insult me by pretending you won an argument.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-23 02:03pm

Axis Kast wrote: Bush passed on information held in high regard by Tony Blair. He chose to adopt Blair’s point-of-view: that the intelligence was credible.

So Bush took Blair's POV, when he knew all along it was wrong, while his own was right. Is that pretty much the way it went down?

Axis Kast wrote: In that respect, Bush did not make false statements.

Rubbish. You cannot alter the truth value of a fact by changing POV's.

Axis Kast wrote: As for the parts of the definition that deal with impression, the road becomes less clear. Geopolitics is all about interpretation. Virtually anything and everything can be challenged as a lie on the grounds that (A) everything is meant to convey some kind of analysis and (B) analysis is always skewed toward the source. From the point-of-view of the source of that data – the British government -, it was still valid.

Analysis of FACTS Axis. Your analysis may be different to mine, but the underlying facts never change.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-23 02:12pm

Sorry, little boy. Sitting with your fingers in your ears yelling 'I WIN YOU LOSE NU UH YOU DIDNT REFUTE NUFFIN' is not the same as your opponent not refuting your argument. It was torn to shreds and left to die in the cold, cold night. Kindly don't insult me by pretending you won an argument.

Since when was, “You’re insane!” tearing an argument to sheads?

All you came here to do was jump on the train. Hell, you didn’t even try to grapple with the debate yourself.

So Bush took Blair's POV, when he knew all along it was wrong, while his own was right. Is that pretty much the way it went down?

Bush had a choice between the British and American intelligence agencies. He chose to believe reports already cited as credible by Tony Blair.

Rubbish. You cannot alter the truth value of a fact by changing POV's.

But Bush did not give false fact. He simply stated the fact that the British had learned something – which at the time was their argument, too.

Analysis of FACTS Axis. Your analysis may be different to mine, but the underlying facts never change.

But we’re talking about deception here – which is linked to understanding. Facts by themselves are fine and good, but there can be no discussion without analysis. How you interpret any given fact is your responsibility. It is based on your education, experience, and expectation.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-23 02:15pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Sorry, little boy. Sitting with your fingers in your ears yelling 'I WIN YOU LOSE NU UH YOU DIDNT REFUTE NUFFIN' is not the same as your opponent not refuting your argument. It was torn to shreds and left to die in the cold, cold night. Kindly don't insult me by pretending you won an argument.
Since when was, “You’re insane!” tearing an argument to sheads? All you came here to do was jump on the train. Hell, you didn’t even try to grapple with the debate yourself.

What debate? Sorry, Axis, but you continually reciting the same fallacies that have been exposed and Vympel and Patrick continuing to curb stomp you is not a debate. It's a circus, and you're the main attraction.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-23 02:29pm

What debate? Sorry, Axis, but you continually reciting the same fallacies that have been exposed and Vympel and Patrick continuing to curb stomp you is not a debate. It's a circus, and you're the main attraction.

Do you want to explain to me why Saddam Hussein is a rational human being?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-23 03:00pm

Axis Kast wrote:
So Bush took Blair's POV, when he knew all along it was wrong, while his own was right. Is that pretty much the way it went down?
Bush had a choice between the British and American intelligence agencies. He chose to believe reports already cited as credible by Tony Blair.

Yeah I know. He's a liar. Liar's do that.

Axis Kast wrote:
Rubbish. You cannot alter the truth value of a fact by changing POV's.
But Bush did not give false fact. He simply stated the fact that the British had learned something – which at the time was their argument, too.

Ok. So the British LEARNED something, which is for sure a fact.

What they LEARNED however was found to be NOT A FACT.

To use the fact that the British had learned something when the information actually learned was WRONG, is to deceive.

Bush deceived us by peddling false information through the statement "the British had learned". Sure they had learned. But what they learned was rubbish.

Axis Kast wrote:
Analysis of FACTS Axis. Your analysis may be different to mine, but the underlying facts never change.
But we’re talking about deception here – which is linked to understanding. Facts by themselves are fine and good, but there can be no discussion without analysis. How you interpret any given fact is your responsibility. It is based on your education, experience, and expectation.

Blah blah you just repeated what I said.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-23 03:01pm

Axis Kast wrote:
What debate? Sorry, Axis, but you continually reciting the same fallacies that have been exposed and Vympel and Patrick continuing to curb stomp you is not a debate. It's a circus, and you're the main attraction.
Do you want to explain to me why Saddam Hussein is a rational human being?

Ah yes, the Guerilla Debator's favorite tactic, the Ridiculous Non Sequitor. Connect being rational to having WMDs and I'll consider it.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-23 03:04pm

Yeah I know. He's a liar. Liar's do that.

Bush respects Tony Blair. It wouldn’t have been a major leap for him to accept recommendations of credible British intelligence agencies. The uproar began much later.

Ok. So the British LEARNED something, which is for sure a fact.

What they LEARNED however was found to be NOT A FACT.

To use the fact that the British had learned something when the information actually learned was WRONG, is to deceive.

Bush deceived us by peddling false information through the statement "the British had learned". Sure they had learned. But what they learned was rubbish.

The British learned something that they held as fact until after the SOTU address had already been delivered. There was no final ruling from the other side of the Atlantic on whether or not the information was falsified at that point in time.

Blah blah you just repeated what I said.

It totally destroys the argument that somebody is a liar if they give you a specific impression.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-23 03:06pm

Ah yes, the Guerilla Debator's favorite tactic, the Ridiculous Non Sequitor. Connect being rational to having WMDs and I'll consider it.

Ah, so now you can only cherry pick what portions of Deegan's original arguments you'd like to uphold as the Gospel truth?

You insist that he tore my arguments to shreds. One of his accusations was that I was insane for believing Hussein delusional. Let's see you refute that.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-23 03:08pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Ah yes, the Guerilla Debator's favorite tactic, the Ridiculous Non Sequitor. Connect being rational to having WMDs and I'll consider it.
Ah, so now you can only cherry pick what portions of Deegan's original arguments you'd like to uphold as the Gospel truth?

You insist that he tore my arguments to shreds. One of his accusations was that I was insane for believing Hussein delusional. Let's see you refute that.

Show any proof he was delusional. His actions seem rational enough: Bury his aircraft so they aren't turned into scrap, run like hell, and pump propaganda at maximum force.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-08-23 03:12pm

Show any proof he was delusional. His actions seem rational enough: Bury his aircraft so they aren't turned into scrap, run like hell, and pump propaganda at maximum force.

The Los Angeles Times article posted on this board a short time ago says it all. The kinds of contradictory orders he issued defy logic.

The anticipation in '91 that he'd be able to defeat ready-action formations of the United States military in Kuwait and still avoid consequences.

Personal conception of a plan to launch a chemical warhead at Israel and thus blackmail the Coalition into retreat before the walls of Baghad.

The man was clearly capable of making tremendous assumptions founded more on personal expectation of victory than fact.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-23 03:17pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Show any proof he was delusional. His actions seem rational enough: Bury his aircraft so they aren't turned into scrap, run like hell, and pump propaganda at maximum force.
The Los Angeles Times article posted on this board a short time ago says it all. The kinds of contradictory orders he issued defy logic.

And of course you have no link.

Then again, issuing contradictory orders just means he's not got organized reports to slow him down when he runs.

The anticipation in '91 that he'd be able to defeat ready-action formations of the United States military in Kuwait and still avoid consequences.

And he nearly did, on a large scale. You did notice we didn't continue into Iraq, right?

Personal conception of a plan to launch a chemical warhead at Israel and thus blackmail the Coalition into retreat before the walls of Baghad.

Chemical deterrants are very effective(North Korea's chem artillery pointed at Seoul), and even with his missiles he could be assured the gas would go somewhere.

The man was clearly capable of making tremendous assumptions founded more on personal expectation of victory than fact.

Ah, just like you!

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-23 03:31pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Yeah I know. He's a liar. Liar's do that.
Bush respects Tony Blair. It wouldn’t have been a major leap for him to accept recommendations of credible British intelligence agencies.

If it was accepted, why was an envoy dispatched to Niger, Feb 2002?

The uproar began much later.

Wrong. The uproar began more then a year before the SOTU address.

Axis Kast wrote:
Ok. So the British LEARNED something, which is for sure a fact.

What they LEARNED however was found to be NOT A FACT.

To use the fact that the British had learned something when the information actually learned was WRONG, is to deceive.

Bush deceived us by peddling false information through the statement "the British had learned". Sure they had learned. But what they learned was rubbish.
The British learned something that they held as fact until after the SOTU address had already been delivered.

Doesn't matter. The Americans knew all along that the info was rubbish. Who gives a toss what the British thought. And I doubt very much that after the US "corrected" the British Intel for them that the British STILL felt they had a winner.

Axis Kast wrote: There was no final ruling from the other side of the Atlantic on whether or not the information was falsified at that point in time.

Wrong buddy boy. You were sitting on the truth for close to a year.

Axis Kast wrote:
Blah blah you just repeated what I said.
It totally destroys the argument that somebody is a liar if they give you a specific impression.

The problem for you is the sixteen words in the SOTU address was not an ANALYSIS of someting, but a FACT.