If WMD existed, evidence would be widespread

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Lucky
I wont argue the wider issues of whether the war was right or wrong. I'm just arguing the finer points of crowd control chemical agents, which AFAIK have not been used.

Again, do you have any opinion on the US using weapons with Uranium 238 as armor piercing/bunker busting weapons in densely populated civilian areas - like Baghdad?

We are in effect setting off dirty bombs in a city of 5 million people. Are you comfortable with that?

 

[prometheusxls]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: etech
BOBDN

The USA used chemical weapons in the Iraq invasion. The Iraqis stockpiled chemical weapon suits and geiger counters to fend off the US attack.

What have you been smoking boy?

well technically conventional bombs use a chemical reaction to release energy, just as nuclear bombs use a nuclear reaction to release energy. so, in that sense, a conventional bomb is a chemical weapon just as a nuclear bomb is a nuclear weapon

Thanks for the comic relief.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: prometheusxls

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: etech
BOBDN

The USA used chemical weapons in the Iraq invasion. The Iraqis stockpiled chemical weapon suits and geiger counters to fend off the US attack.

What have you been smoking boy?

well technically conventional bombs use a chemical reaction to release energy, just as nuclear bombs use a nuclear reaction to release energy. so, in that sense, a conventional bomb is a chemical weapon just as a nuclear bomb is a nuclear weapon

Thanks for the comic relief.

Yeah, everyone deserves a good laugh once in a while. Maybe I'll email this thread to Iraq. I'm sure they could use a laugh. A little chuckle while they bury their dead family members and try to rebuild the mess we made.

 

[prometheusxls]

Originally posted by: Lucky
I wont argue the wider issues of whether the war was right or wrong. I'm just arguing the finer points of crowd control chemical agents, which AFAIK have not been used.

Once these weapons are authorized it is fact that they can be used. And it is my assumption that in war time in order to minimize casualties any weapon that can be used will be used. I think the onus is on you to prove that even though they were fully sanctioned to use these "chemical weapons" that our militarty was conservative in this respect and that they never were in fact used.

 

[BOBDN]

Here's something interesting I came across. Keith Payne at the Pentagon. He thinks we can win a nuclear conflict with only 20 million casualties, "a level compatible with national survival and recovery."

Sick.


Link

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: prometheusxls

Originally posted by: Lucky
I wont argue the wider issues of whether the war was right or wrong. I'm just arguing the finer points of crowd control chemical agents, which AFAIK have not been used.

Once these weapons are authorized it is fact that they can be used. And it is my assumption that in war time in order to minimize casualties any weapon that can be used will be used. I think the onus is on you to prove that even though they were fully sanctioned to use these "chemical weapons" that our militarty was conservative in this respect and that they never were in fact used.

Now can I prove something that didn't happened? WTF? It's pretty standard etiquette in debating that if (A) says (X) and (B) asks for the source of (X), then (A) should provide (source of X) to (B).

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Here's something interesting I came across. Keith Payne at the Pentagon. He thinks we can win a nuclear conflict with only 20 million casualties, "a level compatible with national survival and recovery."

Sick.


Link

Ok, I dont like to start calling names but you are a dumbass if you are seriously presenting the statements in a 1980 article while in the midst of Soviet cold war tensions as applicable to the current situation.

 

[prometheusxls]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: prometheusxls

Originally posted by: Lucky
I wont argue the wider issues of whether the war was right or wrong. I'm just arguing the finer points of crowd control chemical agents, which AFAIK have not been used.

Once these weapons are authorized it is fact that they can be used. And it is my assumption that in war time in order to minimize casualties any weapon that can be used will be used. I think the onus is on you to prove that even though they were fully sanctioned to use these "chemical weapons" that our militarty was conservative in this respect and that they never were in fact used.

Now can I prove something that didn't happened? WTF? It's pretty standard etiquette in debating that if (A) says (X) and (B) asks for the source of (X), then (A) should provide (source of X) to (B).

Lucky,

How is this. Our soldiers are allowed to use firearms in combat. No one is going to ask me to prove that they use them. The question of proof is naieve. Now our soldiers are allowed to use these CS Gas and it seems that in the course of the Iraq war and occupation there are a number of situations where a soldier could make use of it as a croud control agent, to save civilan lives. I am sure our soldiers would prefer to send in the gas as opposed to filling a few dozen rioters with bullets. Why do you think the war was so quick and clean? Why grant permission (in viloation of treaty) for a weapon that is not going to be used? The fact that we don't know specificly that it was used doesn't mean we don't know that at some point it must surely have happened given the types of engangemnts and the casualty free nature of the war.

 

[EpsiIon]

I haven't really been following this issue, but I'll put in my two cents.

The major question that remains in my mind is this: If Saddam really and truly had no WMD, why didn't he let the UN inspectors inspect everything? Losing control of your country over a little pride seems like a really dumb idea to me.

I'm not saying this was the case; it's just a thought. If anybody can show me this is foolish, I'm open to correction. If you could cite sources, however, I would appreciate it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Did you read the thread, EpsiIon? I already covered that. :

Iraq was afraid that if the US knew it didn't have WMD that it would attack them as per the Doctrine of the New American Century. They had to pretend casualties would be so great on the American side that we wouldn't risk invasion. Naturally, the UN weapons inspectors cleared up that fear and allowed Bush to give the go ahead. I wish I could show you the internal memo's for this, but I have to protect my sources.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The major question that remains in my mind is this: If Saddam really and truly had no WMD, why didn't he let the UN inspectors inspect everything? Losing control of your country over a little pride seems like a really dumb idea to me.

Kinda like UN monitors trolling around Area 51, right?

Iraq was afraid that if the US knew it didn't have WMD that it would attack them as per the Doctrine of the New American Century. They had to pretend casualties would be so great on the American side that we wouldn't risk invasion. Naturally, the UN weapons inspectors cleared up that fear and allowed Bush to give the go ahead. I wish I could show you the internal memo's for this, but I have to protect my sources.

I read a great article by a neocon stating that Saddam deserved his fate for refusing to remove the ambiguity as to his WMD capabilities.

I skipped the SUN AM pundits and politicians (what's the point no one tells the truth anymore) but I've read that Rice and Powell are standing behind WMD claims including . . . Saddam deployed WMD to units before the war. I guess he gave it to the units protecting the Phantom Zone.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Here's something interesting I came across. Keith Payne at the Pentagon. He thinks we can win a nuclear conflict with only 20 million casualties, "a level compatible with national survival and recovery."

Sick.


Link

Ok, I dont like to start calling names but you are a dumbass if you are seriously presenting the statements in a 1980 article while in the midst of Soviet cold war tensions as applicable to the current situation.

Just one of many links.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: EpsiIon
I haven't really been following this issue, but I'll put in my two cents.

The major question that remains in my mind is this: If Saddam really and truly had no WMD, why didn't he let the UN inspectors inspect everything? Losing control of your country over a little pride seems like a really dumb idea to me.

I'm not saying this was the case; it's just a thought. If anybody can show me this is foolish, I'm open to correction. If you could cite sources, however, I would appreciate it.

If you'll remember Iraq was allowing the UN inspectors unfettered access just before the invasion began. They were destroying missiles daily. The reports were in all the major newspapers and in broadcast media.

The Bush invasion of Iraq was a forgone conclusion because IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WMD.
There is no WMD in Iraq and Bush rushed to war because giving the UN inspectors time would prove that fact.

 

[Moonbeam]

Funny, Bali, you sound suspicious but you don't strike me as somebody stampeded by media hype. What gives?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: prometheusxls

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: prometheusxls

Originally posted by: Lucky
I wont argue the wider issues of whether the war was right or wrong. I'm just arguing the finer points of crowd control chemical agents, which AFAIK have not been used.

Once these weapons are authorized it is fact that they can be used. And it is my assumption that in war time in order to minimize casualties any weapon that can be used will be used. I think the onus is on you to prove that even though they were fully sanctioned to use these "chemical weapons" that our militarty was conservative in this respect and that they never were in fact used.

Now can I prove something that didn't happened? WTF? It's pretty standard etiquette in debating that if (A) says (X) and (B) asks for the source of (X), then (A) should provide (source of X) to (B).

Lucky,

How is this. Our soldiers are allowed to use firearms in combat. No one is going to ask me to prove that they use them. The question of proof is naieve. Now our soldiers are allowed to use these CS Gas and it seems that in the course of the Iraq war and occupation there are a number of situations where a soldier could make use of it as a croud control agent, to save civilan lives. I am sure our soldiers would prefer to send in the gas as opposed to filling a few dozen rioters with bullets. Why do you think the war was so quick and clean? Why grant permission (in viloation of treaty) for a weapon that is not going to be used? The fact that we don't know specificly that it was used doesn't mean we don't know that at some point it must surely have happened given the types of engangemnts and the casualty free nature of the war.

You think the war was "quick and clean" I'd like to drop you in Iraq right now and see if your perceptions change.

We will be mired in this mess for years to come spending hundreds of billions to clean up the mess Bush and Co. made there. In all likelihood there will ultimately be an Islamic state in Iraq unless the US is willing to maintain complete control there indefinitely.

As for the "casualty free nature of the war." Tell that to the thousands of Iraqi civilians - including women and children - who died during the US invasion.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Here's something interesting I came across. Keith Payne at the Pentagon. He thinks we can win a nuclear conflict with only 20 million casualties, "a level compatible with national survival and recovery."

Sick.


Link

Ok, I dont like to start calling names but you are a dumbass if you are seriously presenting the statements in a 1980 article while in the midst of Soviet cold war tensions as applicable to the current situation.

BTW Lucky, the grade school name calling that you don't like to start is a poor replacement for facts. If you don't think the 1980 aritcle is jermaine to the current situation read some of the other links. They are all interconnected.

Or you could take the time to find some info to refute mine - instead of the name calling.

Or, lacking any factual information, is that the only means you have of expressing yourself forcefully?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Funny, Bali, you sound suspicious but you don't strike me as somebody stampeded by media hype. What gives?

I'm not sure I follow you, Moonie. I am skeptical of everything. I do not believe many of the Bush administration or the ex-Iraqi regime claims. Past behavior favors the Bush administration but the overwelming majority of evidence collected over the past year favors Saddam. I reject the Bush admin "double speak" that Saddam's obfuscation is prima facie evidence of guilt . . . if anything Saddam's behavior makes a lot more sense in retrospect. Unfortunately, the rush to war (relative to evidence and CURRENT events) makes sense as well.

Anyway, I will give the Bush admin the benefit of a doubt that Saddam was hiding something (secret nuke plans, underground labs, and significant precursor material). I think the Bush admin was perpetrating a fraud when it comes to claims of a global threat to security. I just wish they would admit the intelligence was bad (or at least insufficient to the claims) so we can move on.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not sure I follow you, Moonie. I am skeptical of everything. I do not believe many of the Bush administration or the ex-Iraqi regime claims. Past behavior favors the Bush administration but the overwhelming majority of evidence collected over the past year favors Saddam. I reject the Bush admin "double speak" that Saddam's obfuscation is prima facie evidence of guilt . . . if anything Saddam's behavior makes a lot more sense in retrospect. Unfortunately, the rush to war (relative to evidence and CURRENT events) makes sense as well.

Anyway, I will give the Bush admin the benefit of a doubt that Saddam was hiding something (secret nuke plans, underground labs, and significant precursor material). I think the Bush admin was perpetrating a fraud when it comes to claims of a global threat to security. I just wish they would admit the intelligence was bad (or at least insufficient to the claims) so we can move on.
--------------
Sorry for the confusion there, Bali. I thought I was in another thread where I got accused by UQ of being stampeded by media hysteria. I replied that I didn't think so, that circumstantial evidence pointed to Admin lies. I was seeking some support in that suspicion from somebody I think is balanced in their views, you. Do you really think an admission and move on is all that should occur here. My republican side demands personal responsibility and an accounting including any appropriate and applicable punishments.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Here's something interesting I came across. Keith Payne at the Pentagon. He thinks we can win a nuclear conflict with only 20 million casualties, "a level compatible with national survival and recovery."

Sick.


Link

Ok, I dont like to start calling names but you are a dumbass if you are seriously presenting the statements in a 1980 article while in the midst of Soviet cold war tensions as applicable to the current situation.

BTW Lucky, the grade school name calling that you don't like to start is a poor replacement for facts. If you don't think the 1980 aritcle is jermaine to the current situation read some of the other links. They are all interconnected.

Or you could take the time to find some info to refute mine - instead of the name calling.

Or, lacking any factual information, is that the only means you have of expressing yourself forcefully?

I've read more of his articles, especially the recent ones. I think it's misleading that you are presenting that quote out of context. I also find it humorous that you are hammering me for "facts" when you still cannot show a single source saying we used chemical weapons in iraq during this current conflict.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Do you really think an admission and move on is all that should occur here. My republican side demands personal responsibility and an accounting including any appropriate and applicable punishments.

Well once you realize you've done something wrong . . . and you've been caught . . . you have several options:

1) Deny, deny, deny while portraying your accusers as "liars, propagandists, terrorists, or traitors" (the administration likes this one).

2) Bait and switch (Wolfowitz likes this one).

3) Modify your message . . . not really a bait and switch . . . just imply you acted in good faith but mistakes may have been made (administration will adopt this message soon).

4) Diversion: Empasize the positive . . . essentially #3 but instead of modifying original intent you point to the outcome as all the justification you need (this tactic is always useful).

5) Lay out all the facts in chronological order to justify the decision matrix and the assumptions which underlied specific actions (no one ever takes this route b/c the whole truth invariably contains something your enemies can use against you).

The Bush administration has some major complications in using any tactic other than 4 and 5:
1) The search for WMD has been unproductive. Even if UN findings were staged (Iraqis feigning compliance), they were infinitely more successful in finding WMD and destroying prohibited armaments than 250K US/UK troops.

2) It's not just an American political problem. Aznar and Blair in particular need proof to justify their actions. Italians have a borderline fascist for PM so they don't really care about truth. Eastern Europeans are used to being lied to by the government so recent events are par for the course . . . plus they got paid. Blair is taking fire from the Liberals, Labor, and the Tories.

3) Afghanistan is not going well . . . but we can blame it on the international peacekeepers and the lack of international financial support for Karzai's government. Iraq's occupation is not going horribly wrong but it's not a real success story, either. Unfortunately, there's no one to blame EXCEPT the US. We will make veiled and occasionally overt comments on the subpar infrastructure which existed before invasion but that only works with foreigners. Common Iraqis, Sunnis, and any Iraqi with skills and connections (essentially Ba'athist) will clearly exclaim that day to day life has gotten much worse.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Here's something interesting I came across. Keith Payne at the Pentagon. He thinks we can win a nuclear conflict with only 20 million casualties, "a level compatible with national survival and recovery."

Sick.


Link

Ok, I dont like to start calling names but you are a dumbass if you are seriously presenting the statements in a 1980 article while in the midst of Soviet cold war tensions as applicable to the current situation.

BTW Lucky, the grade school name calling that you don't like to start is a poor replacement for facts. If you don't think the 1980 aritcle is jermaine to the current situation read some of the other links. They are all interconnected.

Or you could take the time to find some info to refute mine - instead of the name calling.

Or, lacking any factual information, is that the only means you have of expressing yourself forcefully?

I've read more of his articles, especially the recent ones. I think it's misleading that you are presenting that quote out of context. I also find it humorous that you are hammering me for "facts" when you still cannot show a single source saying we used chemical weapons in iraq during this current conflict.

Lucky, come on now. Do you think the US military has a single weapon in their arsenal they wouldn't use? They are considering developing "limited" thermo-nuclear battlefield weapons! Wake up my friend. They use Uranium 238 as shell casings for their armor penetrating weapons and bunker buster bombs. What wouldn't they use?

 

[BOBDN]

Italians have a borderline fascist for PM so they don't really care about truth.

Ditto for the majority of Americans.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Here's something interesting I came across. Keith Payne at the Pentagon. He thinks we can win a nuclear conflict with only 20 million casualties, "a level compatible with national survival and recovery."

Sick.


Link

Ok, I dont like to start calling names but you are a dumbass if you are seriously presenting the statements in a 1980 article while in the midst of Soviet cold war tensions as applicable to the current situation.

BTW Lucky, the grade school name calling that you don't like to start is a poor replacement for facts. If you don't think the 1980 aritcle is jermaine to the current situation read some of the other links. They are all interconnected.

Or you could take the time to find some info to refute mine - instead of the name calling.

Or, lacking any factual information, is that the only means you have of expressing yourself forcefully?

I've read more of his articles, especially the recent ones. I think it's misleading that you are presenting that quote out of context. I also find it humorous that you are hammering me for "facts" when you still cannot show a single source saying we used chemical weapons in iraq during this current conflict.

Lucky, come on now. Do you think the US military has a single weapon in their arsenal they wouldn't use? They are considering developing "limited" thermo-nuclear battlefield weapons! Wake up my friend. They use Uranium 238 as shell casings for their armor penetrating weapons and bunker buster bombs. What wouldn't they use?

The military doesn't even control every weapon in it's arsenal, it's hardly up to them whether nukes get used or not.

 

[BOBDN]

The military doesn't even control every weapon in it's arsenal, it's hardly up to them whether nukes get used or not.

Yeah, I know. Just following orders.

Scary but true.

Are you saying if battlefield nukes are developed as Bush and Co. propose (in violation of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and every disarmament treaty the US has ever signed) and they are actually used in combat the military wont be responsible for their use? In the event they are developed and used who would be firing these weapons, the Boy Scouts?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The military doesn't even control every weapon in it's arsenal, it's hardly up to them whether nukes get used or not.

While your statement is true . . . and quite fortunate considering it saved the world from oblivion during the Cuban Missile Crisis . . . it does not address the primary problem. Let's take a hypothetical; if the US possessed a low-yield bunker buster do you think it would NOT have been used in Iraq?

With regards to the current debate about low-yield nukes . . . my understanding is that civilian leadership is driving the pursuit not the military brass. I am not sure which is worse . . . the chickenhawk's pursuit of palatable WMD or a military unwilling to reject chickenhawks who are eager to use them.