WMD in Iraq? Nah, nothing to see here, move along...

POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2026 22:49
VIEWED: 7691
PAGE 7 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, June 6, 2005 1:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

One of the first things that strikes me, when I read their literature, is how comfortable they are with the idea of the United States essentially running the world. As the only remaining superpower, perhaps it is obvious that our role would be one of leadership, but to what extent should we press that leadership? Does it give us reason or right to call for 'regime change' in a given country? Does it give us justification to invade a country that won't bend to our will?

Another question is how far can/should other countrys go to resist you ? Is everyone around the world who doesn't want to be an American a terrorist?

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, June 6, 2005 2:03 AM

Thanks, but I was asking SergeantX's opinion,

not really looking for the right-wingnut version.

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 6, 2005 2:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

It is all open source and rather boring defense planning documents. Nothing special. Would you prefer planning documents that still refer to the USSR nuking West Germany? Lets join the 1990s, OK? (I am not even asking you to join a post 9/11 world -- one step at a time)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html

(I'm not sure what report you are referring to. There are several on the site and none of them are classified as far as I know.)

Now we have something substantial to disagree on. I realize the dry academic nature of the reports might bore some, but they are definitely NOT 'nothing special'. This group advocates a radically different foreign policy that embraces the idea of America as the undisputed leader of the world.

They suggest that this should not be a passive role, or one of leading by example, but that we should take an interventionist role in foreign affairs all around the world. We should pre-emptively attack any nation which is uncooperative or presents a challenge to our authority.

Now, I do agree with you that this is not a conspiracy. They've been open about their aims and methods. But here's what baffles me. I honestly think that most people, even many republicans, would balk if they felt they were supporting such imerialistic aims. If this was common knowledge, if you could at least talk about it in public without the shrill accusations of 'America Hater' shutting you down, I'd at least have a little more respect for the decision of the voters.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 6, 2005 3:02 AM

Quote:
Then why post in a public forum without specifically naming the person you wanted to reply from?

Sad.

Andrew Lynch

Gino, you have failed me for the last time....

You know the rules. Plus, you got kinda rude back there. You know, if you go around referring to people as "rightwing nuts" its only going to provoke them. How would you like it if Lynch called you a "paranoid lunatic fringe conspiracy nut"? Well?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 6, 2005 5:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

I find it interesting those who complain about my opinion on the anti-US anti-GW leftwing messages are those who espouse the "Bush Lied" mythos or at least vocally supported it. I did not see your objections when I called out specifically to SignyM if believed "Bush Lied".

Not so fun when its turned around on you is it?

Please bear that in mind next time you blast away and smear the US and the president. Its highly offensive, not stylish or cool....

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here... I guess you are upset because some people think the president lied? Am I missing something?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Monday, June 6, 2005 9:58 AM

Lynch, you keep shifting your hypothesis. Sometimes you present the case that Saddam had large WMD stockpiles in 1991 that were a threat in 2003. Then you shift your case to large stockpiles in 2003 that were recently produced. Then you shift again to to the case that Saddam didn't have 2003 stockpiles but had plans to produce WMD in the future. Yes, some evidence points to some scenarios, but no evidence can be used in all scenarios. No wonder you're confused! You believe everything at once! Let me help you clarify/ settle your thoughts by presenting three different stories. Grab one senario and run with it as far as the evidence will let you instead of using random data to suport self-contradictory fears.

So, here are three scenarios. Modify all/two/one of them to your heart's content, but pick one and stick with it for your analysis. Some data will stick to some scenarios but not others. In the end, try to explain to us which single scenario seems to make the most sense in light of the data.

-------------------------------
Scenario One
Saddam used chemical weapons in the late 80's and early 90s. He had large-scale chemical weapons and bioweapons production, which created huge stockpiles of weapons, and a research program in nuclear weaponry. Despite Desert Storm- which did not destroy his stockpiles appreciably- and an active UN inspection program from 1991 thru 1998, Desert Fox in 1998, and inspections from 2002 into 2003, he continued production unimpeded up to 2003, adding nuclear capability and producing massive current stockpiles of WMD that were deployed. In the interval when UNMOVIC was forced to leave by the impending US invasion, instead of using his weapons, he hid or transferred all of his WMD to Syria. Production capabilites and stockpiles were not detected by David Kay or Duelfer.

Scenario Two
Saddam used chemicals....and program in nuclear weaponry. Operation Desert Storm destroyed many of his WMD stockpiles and put a temporary halt to his production, but not his plans. In the interval between 1998 and 2002, he reconstituted large-scale production of chemical and bioweapons, producing large stockpiles that were deployed. This new production was not detected by the UNMOVIC teams in 2002-2003, and their apparent plans to certify a nation that maintained large stockpiles of WMD led to the US invasion. In the interval when UNMOVIC was forced to leave by the impending US invasion, instead of using his weapons, he hid or transferred all of his WMD to Syria. Production capabilites and stockpiles were not detected by David Kay or Duelfer.

Scenrio Three
Saddam used chemicals....and program in nuclear weaponry. Operation Desert Storm destroyed most of his WMD stockpiles. UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspections forced Saddam to eliminate production and any active research programs, but not his plans to ultimately reconstitute his WMD programs. Saddam maintained basic dual-use chemical production and equipment, scientific and engineering know-how, and some exemplars of actual equipment. As soon as UN sanctions were lifted, he planned to re-assemble production and research teams, and start production, once again building up threatening stockpiles of WMD, this time with the intent of not only threatening his neighbors but also carrying them to the USA. In the interval just before the war, he transferred basic technology to Syria.

--------------------------------
Pick one. Run as far as you can with it. Tell us where you get. Stop pointing and gibbering at everything. Until you stop shuttling your fears between mutually self-contradictory hypotheses, there is no point in discussing this further.

www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,794275,00.html

SIGNYM

Monday, June 6, 2005 10:19 AM

Quote:
If you truly believe "Bush Lied" then you should seek your representative to have articles of impeachment drawn up and bring this issue to court.

I have done this, and I urge everyone who thinks Bush lied to sign the letter written by John Conyers and signed by about 90 Congressmen (as of this post). You can find the letter at www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com Thanks for bringing this up.

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 6, 2005 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Please bear that in mind next time you blast away and smear the US and the president. Its highly offensive, not stylish or cool
Well for a start you called the freely elected President of the US an SOB and that is at least quite disrespectful of the office is it not?
Undermining the US through smears and hateful attacks on GW and the office of the president is not helpful and downright harmful to us all. I consider it highly offensive as well, somewhat similar to burning a flag or trampling on a Quran.

I am a (somewhat modified) Buddist. Call Buddah a (really bad name), and guess what? No effect.
Call my mother a (really bad name), and guess what? You don't know her.
Burn the flag of my country, and guess what? The price of the flag and a match have been wasted.
Every president has had his share of name calling directed at him. So what?

Buddah was cool, my mom's not a (really bad name), and the flag of my country won't be banished or forgotten no matter how many idiots want to play with fire.

Lives, particularly innocent children, are what matter most. Let's start there.

Peace, my brothers Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Monday, June 6, 2005 3:10 PM

Lynch- I would not claim that Bush lied and cherry-picked data had not others who were party to the process (O'Neill, Clarke, British intelligence, Wilson, Kwiatkowski, CIA and DIA officers, DOE nuclear experts and others) made that claim. But - to take a specific case as example- when someone like Wilson (who was the last ambassador in Iraq and who saved hundreds of lives by offering sanctuary during the invasion, who lowered the flag and was one of the last people to leave) flatly contradicts the President's claims, and his undercover CIA wife is outed by the administration as a reward (and don't forget this is treason) that implies some pretty heavy-duty attempts to deny/ force facts. EDITED TO ADD: If Bush lied that means he knowingly, willfully and callously misused American armed forces, wasted 6000+ American lives, caused 20,000+ disabilites, and blew $300B+ (the entire projected Social Security shortfall) for reasons other than the imminent danger that he portrayed. Serious charges go with serious costs.

I'm not debating to debate. In my mind, there is sufficient evidence that Bush lied to start a Congressional enquiry. If you think so too, don't forget to sign this letter to start the process.
www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 6, 2005 5:12 PM

Lynch,

You seem really confused here. You've responded to my jabs about your argument style with some kind of odd tit-for-tat thing about me and Signym not repsecting the president. As though this either justified what you were doing, or was in some way equivalent. Let me explain.

The argument style (fallacy) that you've been using has, unfortunately, become a trademark tactic of Bush supporters. It's frustrating to deal with because it never addresses an issue but merely attempts to dismiss it. That is what I was needling you about.

The technique, if you can call it that, is essentially a shortcut version of the 'strawman fallacy'. It works like this: When someone says something you disagree with, rather than respond to their points, you seek to change the focus of the argument by labeling their argument as something it's not. You then start attacking vigorously (blindly) as though the situation were actually as you claimed.

For example, lets say someone posts a link to a Washington think tank that has been instrumental in forming American foreign policy. Rather than discuss the information introduced, you attempt to discredit it by suggesting it's a paranoid conspiracy theory. It doesn't matter that it's not a conspiracy at all. It doesn't matter that the information presented is straight from the source. All that matters is that you keep insisting it's so nutty as to not be worth consideration.

Or lets take Gino's comment about terrorism.

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Statements like:
Quote:
Is everyone around the world who doesn't want to be an American a terrorist?

really do not help your credibility and are the stuff of the paranoid lunatic fringe conspiracy nut crowd. The simplest explanation (Occam's Razor) is generally the correct one.

Now, I don't know what got you so worked up about this, but it's a legitimate question. The definition of 'terrorist' is vague at best and ought to be discussed. But to do so brings up fundamental problems with things like the 'War on Terror', so - best to just label it a paranoid conspiracy theory and move on.

The problem with this technique is, it works - if your goal is to derail the conversation. Immediately you've shifted focus away from the points the other person was trying to make and put them in a postion of defending their sanity/patriotism/loyalty or whatever.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE