I thought I saw Hussein at Wal-Mart the other day. He was buying duct tape, plastic sheeting, some antacids, and a weapon of mass destruction. 
i can buy that, especially when his existence was a known entity and there has been no proof otherwise, seems rather logical, yet when you aplly this to known WMD for some reason it no longer makes sense to some...
The former head of South Africa's WMD programs said they fielded and intercepted worldwide orders for supplies and equipment to make WMD from Saddam throughout the sanctions period, funny they didn't speak up to the security council when it mattered, they claimed he was robbed by many criminals who preyed upon his desperation and rarely had much luck procuring new stuff, but at least he made the effort.....Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
I thought I saw Hussein at Wal-Mart the other day. He was buying duct tape, plastic sheeting, some antacids, and a weapon of mass destruction.
But that's just the opinion of an "uninformed" american......
Now do you see how flawed your logic is? In the past you've used the phrase 'KNOWN WMD' and argued that they are proven to exist because their is no proof to the contrary. Here, using SH, you apply the same fuzzy logic. Yet it's just as likely that the SOB is dead as it is that he's alive. You even use the phrase seems rather logical when it's not logical at all. At all.
not at all, not at all, lol.
Would you agree Saddam existed? Would you agree he is unaccounted for? Would you state that this somehow creates the possibility he never existed?
So where are the tons of nerve agents of thousands of liters of anthrax still unaccounted for, the ones the UN kept sanctions in place because their existence was known, their destruction was never proven, and therefore, they logically felt there was a good chance they still existed. Or did they never exist? then why did Saddam admit to having them if he knew he would be required to prove they were in fact destroyed?
Why did he never meet his accepted burden of proof?
Why did he continue to develop WMD programs, systems, and elaborate hiding dual use facilities while actively attempting to circumvent sanctions to obtain WMD supplies and equipment worldwide?
How the fvck did the US know about mobile bio weapons labs when the UN did not? Such accurate detailed drawings, how bad was the intelligence anyway?
Why would not one security council member, including none of the 5 who actually saw the full 12,000 page report Saddam submitted, accept Blair's challenge to publicly state no WMD would be found in Iraq?
What was the UN doing there again? Think again of the goal of the inspections, WMD are not some phantom ghost Bush cooked up like the crack you must be smoking to think otherwise considering the overwhelming evidence.
Would you agree Saddam existed? Would you agree he is unaccounted for? Would you state that this somehow creates the possibility he never existed?
So where are the tons of nerve agents of thousands of liters of anthrax still unaccounted for, the ones the UN kept sanctions in place because their existence was known, their destruction was never proven, and therefore, they logically felt there was a good chance they still existed. Or did they never exist? then why did Saddam admit to having them if he knew he would be required to prove they were in fact destroyed?
Why did he never meet his accepted burden of proof?
Why did he continue to develop WMD programs, systems, and elaborate hiding dual use facilities while actively attempting to circumvent sanctions to obtain WMD supplies and equipment worldwide?
How the fvck did the US know about mobile bio weapons labs when the UN did not? Such accurate detailed drawings, how bad was the intelligence anyway?
Why would not one security council member, including none of the 5 who actually saw the full 12,000 page report Saddam submitted, accept Blair's challenge to publicly state no WMD would be found in Iraq?
What was the UN doing there again? Think again of the goal of the inspections, WMD are not some phantom ghost Bush cooked up like the crack you must be smoking to think otherwise considering the overwhelming evidence.
no, i dont care anymore, would like to know what the hell happened to them, but I never had a big problem believing Saddam had them and have seen nothing to suggest he did not........
what happened to all the nasty bio samples like polio stolen from the health ministry, along with "unknown substances", did they perform bio weapons research there as the US claimed? what a joke, we even said they had these mobile bio labs and we gave them bogus cartoon drawings, that claim was just as absurd.
Seems to me the average Iraqi citizen who looted that should be dead or pretty sick by now, along with many more around him, why havent we heard about that? Someone has them who can properly handle, store, and transport them, same with any nuclear material "looted", nice thought.
what happened to all the nasty bio samples like polio stolen from the health ministry, along with "unknown substances", did they perform bio weapons research there as the US claimed? what a joke, we even said they had these mobile bio labs and we gave them bogus cartoon drawings, that claim was just as absurd.
Seems to me the average Iraqi citizen who looted that should be dead or pretty sick by now, along with many more around him, why havent we heard about that? Someone has them who can properly handle, store, and transport them, same with any nuclear material "looted", nice thought.
Alistar7 - <<not at all, not at all, lol.
Would you agree Saddam existed? Would you agree he is unaccounted for? Would you state that this somehow creates the possibility he never existed? >>
You, my friend, need to study a little bit harder in English class. There's a very distinct difference between a possibility, a probability, and a certainty. You might also look into just what exactly constitues 'logic'.
Would you agree Saddam existed? Would you agree he is unaccounted for? Would you state that this somehow creates the possibility he never existed? >>
You, my friend, need to study a little bit harder in English class. There's a very distinct difference between a possibility, a probability, and a certainty. You might also look into just what exactly constitues 'logic'.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Well... ain't found them yet! If they had them and they were not destroyed and are not in Iraq the logical conclusion would be that they are somewhere else.... that somewhere else means to me somewhere that Saddam felt could or would further his ideology or philosophy. Perhaps even a bribe to secure his safety.. the WMD, however, must be accounted for factually. Otherwise they scare me. Why we cut back on the search is a puzzle to me. Maybe we know where they are and are planning our next invasion?
Last time i heard one group was being redeployed and another was being sent in. This did not sound like a slowdown in the search. Yes i would prefer to know where the weapons went or at least what happened to them. THen I would like to know why our intel has been so bad over the years(not just this admin)
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
If you know the intel has been bad for years and I surmise that as well... why does the administration rely on it to effect foreign policy actions. It would be imprudent, I think, to take action based on intel that was known to be unreliable. Unless the agenda did not need to rely on intel that was reliable any move was a move to far.
Fine - You are wrong. Now try to keep up here: first off you must consider the issue of legitimacy was the war legitimate if the reasons cited for millitary war were a false pretext fabricated on baseless information by the administration? No it is not a legitimate war. You still with me, because here comes justification: The United States is a democracy meaning our leaders are accountable to who? Thats right, the american people, by using false information to justify the use of millitary force to the american people, the administration has subverted the trust and the flow of power in a democracy, thus they have undermined the democracy itself. If I haven't lost you yet, I will move on to your final "contention" (I use the term loosely as it seems to me to be a victim of a hasty generalization fallacy, as well as the straw man fallacy, but I cannot let it stand) The administration has gone on record as saying that they may never find WMD's and that their word should be enough for the people of the United States, does this sound like a democracy to you? They are supposed to be the representatives of the people, yet we are not to question their motives? I could go on and on, the bottom line is yes, saddam did pay for suicide bombers, a deplorable act to be sure, (although the official figures were 25thousand per family, not millions) however, if this act was enough to justify millitary force on prima facie why was it not used as a justifying criterion? Because it was not strong enough to stand on its own, which is why the administration pushed the "link" to WMD so hard. I hope I didn't lose you, I know most of that will probably wash right over you, but I believe that the majority of the members here will understand what I am saying.
After my last post I really don't feel like going into an exorbitant ammount of detail on yours, however, I will make a few casual points. First, since when is America supposed to decide which forms of government are legitimate and which need to be dissolved to "liberate" their people? I don't think you are familiar with the min/max theorem, but basicallly what it says is that if you use one extreme to justify an action, you must use the other extreme to justify it's antithesis, so here goes: What if say North Korea decided to "liberate" America from the oppression of democracy in favor of a more "liberal" dictatorship in which people don't have to worry about making tough decisions as the government does it for them? Sounds great, we were justified in forcing our views on others, just as the North Koreans will be justified in a similar aggression. There, that was fairly straightforward, I certainly don't think you should have any trouble grasping that.
I won't dignify your contentions with a response, come back with clear and concise arguments that do not suffer from the common fallacies (yours is obviously straw man) and we will deal.
The religious right is the most dangerous idea ever used to justify millitary action. To disagree with the ordained is to disagree with God himself, in so doing you are damning yourself, those that belive their leaders or their country are so ordained have no choice but to follow blindly to their deaths the objectives of their leaders. Sun tzu said it in the art of war that the general who convinces his soldiers that they have the right of God on their side will be a victorious general.
Wow, of all the bad analogies I've encountered in my life, this certainly is up there.
a) If you are trying to argue that Iraqis were somehow enjoying being under a dictatorship, or at the very worst did not want to be free of the tyrant that is Saddam, then I suggest you actually go live in such conditions and just come back and tell me that you don't wish for someone to change things.
b) America currently is the arguably the most prosperous and successful country to ever grace this earth. You'd think we'd be doing something right.
c) In Iraq on the other hand, people starve on a regular basis, a very small amount of children, and an even lower amount of women have any sort of hope at a life that even Americans would consider poverty. It is a given that pretty much any sort of change to this situation would be considered an improvement. It'd be like having to wait for a hostage or kidnapped child to cry for help before trying to free them..
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,905
- 10
- 81
How is that relevant? The point is that it is not the Unitest States' place to decide which governments ought to be overthrown and which governments should not. While we're at it, why not overthrow all of the other countries we don't like? Castro better watch out. But this war was NOT about freeing the Iraqis from an oppressive dictator; if it was, we'd be moving on to the next country ruled by an oppressive dictator by now.
You left out most hated country as well. Maybe we're going something wrong?
Women had much more freedom in Iraq than in other Muslim countries, like Afghanistan. Should we trample on their religious beliefs while we're invading their country?
If Iraqis started a rebellion and attempted to overthrow Saddam and free themselves, I think we may have been justified in aiding them. But we went in uninvited and overthrew their government.
I noticed that you started your post by saying that DaiShan's analogy to North Korea was one of the worst you've ever seen. As far as I can see, the only possible flaw in his logic that you pointed out was that Iraq deserved to be invaded because its government was bad, but the United States does not deserve to be invaded because our government is good. That's entirely subjective and depends on your perspective. From North Korea's perspective, it could easily be argued that the United States has an evil and oppressive government, because we go around the world imposing our will on everyone.
You completely miss the point. You are not even on mark with any of your assumptions. First off, I made no such argument about the iraqi people, I simply stated it is not America's place to decide what type of government another people should have. Period. If you cannot understand this, I point you to my justifying example of North Korea, it is a very simple concept. Secondly, what may work for one nation may not work for another, a nation is contingent completely upon the circumstances surrounding it, would it make sense for America to try to market goods for which it does not at least have a comparitive advantage? No. Period. I won't even delve into the issue of prosperity (given that we are a relatively new nation, read up on ibn kaldouns theory of the cyclical nature of empires) Again your third point just re-iterates your first, so cross apply my argument to this one. In summation basically what I am saying (in oversimplified terms ) is that America nor any other country has the right to enforce what it views as the best form of government upon another people, this is a far more dangerous form of tyranny. In the now deposed dictatorship, the Iraqis were opressed by one of their own, while I would not want to live in such conditions I would certainly prefer home rule to millitary rule by an invading army. These concepts are not difficult.
how many forget about 1/3 of Iraq has been free for 12 years, and still is, along with Mosul (elected mayor and city council) and other key cities in Iraq.Originally posted by: Syringer
You'd rather be ruled over by Saddam than to enjoy freedom? Yeah, tell that to the Iraqis
Oh BTW way I found the WMD, forget to mention it at the time, was just cleaning up around the house, went to vacuum under the couch cushions, and BAM, there they were. I set them off to the side and can't find them now though, sorry.....
no, that was sarcasm, apply your logic to the unaccounted for WMD
the fact that they are unaccounted for is proof of their existence.....
wow, and all along you have swearing up and down their existence was not possible.....
So you believe that the role of the U.S. in the new world order is to be the policeman? Have you made up your list of sovereign governments and checked it twice? Do you know who's been naughty and nice?
The new american empire marches on. No one country can stop this machine. You are either behind us, or under our boots.
Heh.
Heh.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question New Apple SoC - M1 - For lower end Macs - Geekbench 5 single-core >1700- Started by Eug
- Replies: 2K
-
Question Speculation: RDNA2 + CDNA Architectures thread- Started by uzzi38
- Replies: 5K
-
-
Discussion IBM Unveils World's first "2nm" chip- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 5
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 11K
Facebook
Twitter