Did Saddam bluff the US and allies into attacking?

[UltraQuiet]

Nonetheless, even if that premise is true, your conclusion is a logical fallacy. No country has come forward to claim that GWBush is NOT a space alien. By your logic, that proves that he is an alien. It doesn't work that way. If your premise is true at all, it only proves they didn't speak up, NOT that they agreed. There are countless reasons a country might choose to keep such beliefs quiet, not the least of which is retribution from the United States. If you'll remember, the U.S. wasn't very nice to countries that didn't support our drive to invade Iraq.

Talk about your logical fallacies. I don't remember the space alien thing being discussed in the UN. I supose it's also logical to you that if Russia, France and Germany, who were against the war, had evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD they wouldn't have presented it? They were against the war anyway. What possible scenario would have kept them from presenting contrary evidence about WMD? That argument makes ZERO sense. I'm searching the UN sites to get the security council mtg. minutes to post for you but you have hardly "corrected" me and I stand by my argument.

 

[DealMonkey]

UQ: Doesn't it seem rather hypocritical to support the war in Iraq by pointing to the U.N., when the same organization was roundly criticized, ignored and international law flouted by the current administration?

 

[Moonbeam]

The hatred thingi is no big mystery. We identify with externals when we have had our true selves killed by hate. We then acquire self respect from the imputed respect in that external thing. Along comes somebody to pop our bubble and wham. We feel that old hate and see it in that which pokes at us. We hate that in turn and seek to drive it underground. Thus does each successive generation destroy the last. In this way the hate build up and up till calamity and purge. We tear everything down and start again. We are the Mote in God's Eye.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
UQ: Doesn't it seem rather hypocritical to support the war in Iraq by pointing to the U.N., when the same organization was roundly criticized, ignored and international law flouted by the current administration?

How am I being hypocritical? It is where the majority of debate took place. Other than that I'm not pointing to it at all. We should never bow to the UN if we feel other action is warranted.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Nonetheless, even if that premise is true, your conclusion is a logical fallacy. No country has come forward to claim that GWBush is NOT a space alien. By your logic, that proves that he is an alien. It doesn't work that way. If your premise is true at all, it only proves they didn't speak up, NOT that they agreed. There are countless reasons a country might choose to keep such beliefs quiet, not the least of which is retribution from the United States. If you'll remember, the U.S. wasn't very nice to countries that didn't support our drive to invade Iraq.

Talk about your logical fallacies. I don't remember the space alien thing being discussed in the UN. I supose it's also logical to you that if Russia, France and Germany, who were against the war, had evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD they wouldn't have presented it? They were against the war anyway. What possible scenario would have kept them from presenting contrary evidence about WMD? That argument makes ZERO sense. I'm searching the UN sites to get the security council mtg. minutes to post for you but you have hardly "corrected" me and I stand by my argument.

I'm sorry if logic is hard for you. The space alien comment was a simple "analogy" to demonstrate the flaw in your thinking. I didn't mean to confuse you.

Nonetheless, it is a logic fallacy to claim that "X" is true because nobody said "NOT X". More to the point, it is a lie to say "everyone said X" just because you don't recall anyone saying "NOT X". They simply, factually did NOT say the things you keep trying to put in their mouths. You made it up. You can choose to keep repeating it if you like. I will continue to call BS whenever I see you do it.

As far as, "What possible scenario would have kept them from presenting contrary evidence about WMD?", I already answered this in part you quoted above. I'm not going to repeat myself. If you disagree, explain why. I'm sure I can come up with a hundred other possible reasons. Such speculation is ultimately irrelevant, of course, since their reasons for NOT saying "NOT X" doesn't change the fact that they didn't say "X".

If the above is confusing, feel free to replace every uppercase "X" with "our intelligence agencies say Iraq has WMDs".

Finally, to bring this back to my initial point. The little evidence we had -- Iraq's declarations, the statements of Iraqi exiles and defectors, and the findings of the U.N. inspectors -- unanimously indicated that Iraq had no significant WMDs or chemical and biological agents. Everything else was speculation, assumption, or innuendo. The inspectors were in Iraq to determine whether this evidence pointed to the truth.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Nonetheless, it is a logic fallacy to claim that "X" is true because nobody said "NOT X". More to the point, it is a lie to say "everyone said X" just because you don't recall anyone saying "NOT X". They simply, factually did NOT say the things you keep trying to put in their mouths. You made it up. You can choose to keep repeating it if you like. I will continue to call BS whenever I see you do it.

It is not a logical fallacy. The issue was being discussed for months in the UN. No one stood up and said "we don't believe Saddam has WMD". It's not a matter of me not being able to recall them. It never happened. Everyone agreed he hadn't accounted for them and probably still had them. You're inability to remember does not mean it didn't happen. I'll ignore, for the moment, that you called me a liar and accused me of making things up.

As far as, "What possible scenario would have kept them from presenting contrary evidence about WMD?", I already answered this in part you quoted above. I'm not going to repeat myself. If you disagree, explain why. I'm sure I can come up with a hundred other possible reasons. Such speculation is ultimately irrelevant, of course, since their reasons for NOT saying "NOT X" doesn't change the fact that they didn't say "X".

Yes you answered it and it was sh!t. I already explained to you why I disagreed and yes I'm sure you can come up with a hundred more reasons, all of which will lack the logic, intelligence and basis in fact that your previous reason had. I'm sure you're quite right when you say that France, Germany and Russia were afraid of US reprecussions (after they said they were against the war) and that's why they didn't present contrary evidence. It couldn't have possible been because all of their intel. estimates said the contrary. I mean it's perfectly understandable that the three biggest opponents of the war wouldn't present evidence to back up their case for not going. That makes perfect sense. Your logical thinking skills need some work. OK I'm wrong, a lot of work.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Nonetheless, it is a logic fallacy to claim that "X" is true because nobody said "NOT X". More to the point, it is a lie to say "everyone said X" just because you don't recall anyone saying "NOT X". They simply, factually did NOT say the things you keep trying to put in their mouths. You made it up. You can choose to keep repeating it if you like. I will continue to call BS whenever I see you do it.

It is not a logical fallacy. The issue was being discussed for months in the UN. No one stood up and said "we don't believe Saddam has WMD". It's not a matter of me not being able to recall them. It never happened.

Because credible people don't say things unless they have proof. Others could not prove Saddam didn't have WMD's, so they didn't say it. That is in stark contrast to the US, which claimed Saddam had retained his WMD's, even though they had no credible proof.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Because credible people don't say things unless they have proof. Others could not prove Saddam didn't have WMD's, so they didn't say it. That is in stark contrast to the US, which claimed Saddam had retained his WMD's, even though they had no credible proof.

So standing up and saying "we have intel. that indicates to us that Saddam no longer has WMD" wouldn't have been responsible in an effort to prevent a war? Or to even further their own agenda of inspections, the lifting of sanctions and the "no-fly"? Gimme a break.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Because credible people don't say things unless they have proof. Others could not prove Saddam didn't have WMD's, so they didn't say it. That is in stark contrast to the US, which claimed Saddam had retained his WMD's, even though they had no credible proof.

So standing up and saying "we have intel. that indicates to us that Saddam no longer has WMD" wouldn't have been responsible in an effort to prevent a war? Or to even further their own agenda of inspections, the lifting of sanctions and the "no-fly"? Gimme a break.

Sounds like some sort of duck test to me, using your reasoning process based of corcumstancial evidence. Goodness me. And the conclusions you reach will relate to your insight into life. That could prove interesting. The question sorta shifts to who can see. Wild implications, I should think, there.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Because credible people don't say things unless they have proof. Others could not prove Saddam didn't have WMD's, so they didn't say it. That is in stark contrast to the US, which claimed Saddam had retained his WMD's, even though they had no credible proof.

So standing up and saying "we have intel. that indicates to us that Saddam no longer has WMD" wouldn't have been responsible in an effort to prevent a war? Or to even further their own agenda of inspections, the lifting of sanctions and the "no-fly"? Gimme a break.

If they didn't have proof that he didn't have WMDs, why would they say anything? To do so would simply have brought themselves down to the level of the U.S. who shouted wolf without really knowing for sure there was a wolf.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Because credible people don't say things unless they have proof. Others could not prove Saddam didn't have WMD's, so they didn't say it. That is in stark contrast to the US, which claimed Saddam had retained his WMD's, even though they had no credible proof.

So standing up and saying "we have intel. that indicates to us that Saddam no longer has WMD" wouldn't have been responsible in an effort to prevent a war? Or to even further their own agenda of inspections, the lifting of sanctions and the "no-fly"? Gimme a break.

If they didn't have proof that he didn't have WMDs, why would they say anything? To do so would simply have brought themselves down to the level of the U.S. who shouted wolf without really knowing for sure there was a wolf.

I wouldn't have exected them to. But if they did have proof he didn't or even a suspicion he didn't, I would have expected them to present it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
UQ: Doesn't it seem rather hypocritical to support the war in Iraq by pointing to the U.N., when the same organization was roundly criticized, ignored and international law flouted by the current administration?

How am I being hypocritical? It is where the majority of debate took place. Other than that I'm not pointing to it at all. We should never bow to the UN if we feel other action is warranted.

Because you're pretending to care about what went on in the U.N. prior to the war, meanwhile you justify the U.S. "going it alone" at every turn. That's pretty much the definition of a hypocrite.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
UQ: Doesn't it seem rather hypocritical to support the war in Iraq by pointing to the U.N., when the same organization was roundly criticized, ignored and international law flouted by the current administration?

How am I being hypocritical? It is where the majority of debate took place. Other than that I'm not pointing to it at all. We should never bow to the UN if we feel other action is warranted.

Because you're pretending to care about what went on in the U.N. prior to the war, meanwhile you justify the U.S. "going it alone" at every turn. That's pretty much the definition of a hypocrite.

I only care about the debate that went on at the UN because that is where the bulk of it took place, nothing more and nothing hypocritical about it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
It is not a logical fallacy.

Yes, it simply and factually is a logical fallacy to assert that "X" is true because nobody said "NOT X". Your inability or unwillingness to understand this logical truth says something about you, but nothing about the truth of the assertion.

The issue was being discussed for months in the UN. No one stood up and said "we don't believe Saddam has WMD". It's not a matter of me not being able to recall them. It never happened. Everyone agreed he hadn't accounted for them and probably still had them. You're inability to remember does not mean it didn't happen.

You have that backwards, my friend. You asserted that "every intellignece agency in the world said [Iraq] had WMD". It never happened. Even if "No one stood up and said 'we don't believe Saddam has WMD'" -- doubtful -- it is untrue that every country, EVERY agency said he did. It is a preposterous claim which is why you have no evidence to back it up. Instead, you dodge the issue by arguing about what 'is' is.

I'll ignore, for the moment, that you called me a liar and accused me of making things up. That will get shoved up your much visited ass as soon as the search function on the UN web site starts working.

You did make it up. You twisted a lack of publicized opposition into an allegedly unanimous show of support. It did not happen, plain, simple, indisputable. You invented it. You even admit you invented it by telling us that you are now checking for U.N. documents to determine what was actually said.

Finally, to bring this back to my initial point (which you also keep dodging). The little evidence we had -- Iraq's declarations, the statements of Iraqi exiles and defectors, and the findings of the U.N. inspectors -- unanimously indicated that Iraq had no significant WMDs or chemical and biological agents. Everything else was speculation, assumption, or innuendo. The inspectors were in Iraq to determine whether this evidence pointed to the truth.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If they didn't have proof that he didn't have WMDs, why would they say anything? To do so would simply have brought themselves down to the level of the U.S. who shouted wolf without really knowing for sure there was a wolf.

I wouldn't have exected them to. But if they did have proof he didn't or even a suspicion he didn't, I would have expected them to present it.

Perhaps they would have had the U.S. ever allowed the U.N. to vote on whether or not to invade Iraq.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If they didn't have proof that he didn't have WMDs, why would they say anything? To do so would simply have brought themselves down to the level of the U.S. who shouted wolf without really knowing for sure there was a wolf.

I wouldn't have exected them to. But if they did have proof he didn't or even a suspicion he didn't, I would have expected them to present it.

Perhaps they would have had the U.S. ever allowed the U.N. to vote on whether or not to invade Iraq.

Right because the only time they could have presented that evidence is after a vote.

The didn't present it because they didn't have any.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
It is not a logical fallacy.

Yes, it simply and factually is a logical fallacy to assert that "X" is true because nobody said "NOT X". Your inability or unwillingness to understand this logical truth says something about you, but nothing about the truth of the assertion.

The issue was being discussed for months in the UN. No one stood up and said "we don't believe Saddam has WMD". It's not a matter of me not being able to recall them. It never happened. Everyone agreed he hadn't accounted for them and probably still had them. You're inability to remember does not mean it didn't happen.

You have that backwards, my friend. You asserted that "every intellignece agency in the world said [Iraq] had WMD". It never happened. Even if "No one stood up and said 'we don't believe Saddam has WMD'" -- doubtful -- it is untrue that every country, EVERY agency said he did. It is a preposterous claim which is why you have no evidence to back it up. Instead, you dodge the issue by arguing about what 'is' is.

I'll ignore, for the moment, that you called me a liar and accused me of making things up. That will get shoved up your much visited ass as soon as the search function on the UN web site starts working.

You did make it up. You twisted a lack of publicized opposition into an allegedly unanimous show of support. It did not happen, plain, simple, indisputable. You invented it. You even admit you invented it by telling us that you are now checking for U.N. documents to determine what was actually said.

Finally, to bring this back to my initial point (which you also keep dodging). The little evidence we had -- Iraq's declarations, the statements of Iraqi exiles and defectors, and the findings of the U.N. inspectors -- unanimously indicated that Iraq had no significant WMDs or chemical and biological agents. Everything else was speculation, assumption, or innuendo. The inspectors were in Iraq to determine whether this evidence pointed to the truth.

You've already shown plenty of real intell (ie people on the ground) said saddam did'nt have them. Seventh post down here why we choose to ingore this and rely on what even the british called "noted that most estimates were based on guesswork. " US intell is beyond me.

 

[SuperTool]

The only intelligence failure in the whitehouse is Bush.
He heard only the intelligence that he wanted to hear.

 

[Moonbeam]

It may look like a duck but the bill says mergancer.

 

[UltraQuiet]

I wonder why these countries are urging Iraq to disarm if they didn't think they had any weapons?

Linky

 

[tweakmm]

Hey man, whatever you need to tell yourself to look in the mirror in the morning.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It may look like a duck but the bill says mergancer.

anything like this?

 

[Moonbeam]

Careful LR, UQ may accuse you of foul play.