Status Quo Ante - The return of Saddam

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: happyhelper

Of course there was a negative to be proved. Saddam Hussein was asked to prove "that he did NOT posess WMD." How can you argue that that is not a negative to be proved?? That's impossible for him to do. How can you argue the impossibility of him being able to prove that he does not have something? Your an example of the extremely weak logic that American people posess, which is what causes "the people" to be easily duped by the leaders. I hope you work on that.

saddam was asked to prove the number of wmd he declared did not exist through verification.
i hated to do that to you . . . you were riding so high on your 'prove a negative' and 'impossibility'
kick. saddam and his cohorts made declarations - which were always changing - on numbers and
all the u.n. wanted was simple verification in whatever form (usually documents) that proved they
had destroyed the wmd he declared.

sorry. maybe you can try denying those numbers were real. you can say saddam was too engrossed
in his snuff films to hear the questions clearly, or something like that. i'll leave it to your imagination.
its a possibly more rewarding avenue for you pursue because saddam never could decide how many
he wanted to declare. your poor guy had people jumping ship every week, taking their secrets with
them.

Apparently you do not understand the concept of "proving a negative" although I asked you, "Do you understand that simple concept, sir?" Remember? You could have just said, "No I don't... I'm not familiar with that concept and you haven't explained it well enough, happyhelper." Instead you accuse me of being contradictory. I'll use another person's words to explain again:

Negative statements often make claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance, "there are no big green Martians" means "there are no big green Martians in this or any universe," and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition--we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians. In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question.

ouch . . . 'prove a negative' . .. prove a negative' . . . . here is a global security.org summary
which should help you prove those negatives - yes, the impossible is now possible :

unscom and iraqi wmd declarations, failed verifications, and inspections

I did use a qualifier when I put this logic towards Iraq, but I guess that flew by you, so I'll overexpress it now... instead of being able to see the entire realm of existence, we merely need be able to see the entire existing area of . ..

more garrulation. again. you argue that saddam cannot prove an impossibility, so why even mention
the limits on u.n. resources ? maybe you want him to prove the impossible negatives . .. perhaps
those negatives did exist as kemal, hamza, samarra-i, and others reported.

Because the US made the accusation that Hussein posessed WMDs and must rid himself of them. Hussein didn't say "Hey, I've got WMDs and I invite you to go on an Easter Egg hunt in my country for them." Thus inspection teams were formed to "search Iraq" to look for WMDs. Not only that, Iraq was deprived from trading with other countries, deprived of selling it's most lucrative natural resource on the open market, deprived of buying medicine, food and just about every other commodity

except for palaces. oh, you don't count palaces as commodities ? dude, you should. he had nearly
four dozen of them. that should be a large enough number to make these items tradeable. what do
you think ?

and the billions he squeezed from the illict overland trade with his contiguous neighbors and the
billions morehe milked fom the oil-for-food scam ? the hungarian and russian communist parties
and a brazilian marxist organization (former guerilla group) thank him mightily. so should you.

You completely missed my analogy to the DEA accusing you of possessing drugs in your home.
I'll try it again.

hmmm, no, i classed it under the 'prove the negative' delusion. see above.

scott ritter testified before the senate in sept 1998 that iraq did not comply with inspection protocol
and when asked by the senators if iraq possessed this or that wmd program, weapon, etc,. he said
'yes, yes, yes.'

Yea, I know. However, both earlier and later UN inspectors said the opposite, that Iraq was complying and that no evidence of any programs was found.

how do the earlier (than 1998) inspections matter if the current ones (in 1998) found he was not
cooperating ? you can check the globalsecurity link above to learn that saddam had only grudgingly
admitted to a biological program in 1996, after years of denial. can you spin your DEA example into
this, if you like. i would hate for you to just kick that by the side of the road. relying on saddam is
tough, aint it . . .

unmovic balsted iraq's december '02 12,000 page vomit as old hat, saying, in effect, that none of
the live issues had been addressed with the same declaration they submitted and had been deemed
far from adequate in 1998.

And this is like the DEA in my example saying, "Well, you've already told us all this" (because you had already told them everything you could think of to convince them you didn't have drugs). So UNMOVIC said "it's old hat" --- that doesn't mean it's false! It just means that once again, that Hussein was presumed guilty until he could prove himself innocent,

no, poor man, 'old hat' means 'old hat', or it means el-baradei's 'disappointment', or blix's 'failure
to answer the open questions of 1998', not the gibberish you interpret above. those negatives are
like free radicals now. careful.

as for this:

Posted 3/2/2004 1:33 AM
U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
UNITED NATIONS ? A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

The report, to be outlined to the U.N. Security Council as early as Friday, is based on information gathered over more than seven years of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the 2003 war, plus postwar findings discussed publicly by Kay.

Kay reported in October that his team found "dozens of WMD-related program activities" that Iraq was required to reveal to U.N. inspectors but did not. However, he said he found no actual WMDs.

The study, a quarterly report on Iraq from U.N. inspectors, notes that the U.S. teams' inability to find any weapons after the war mirrors the experience of U.N. inspectors who searched there from November 2002 until March 2003.

this news report is faulty on just a few points. saddam did not admit he had a biological program
until after 1994. general kemal's defection did not occur until 1995 and his debriefing brought
even more declarations - and adjustments - from saddam, including the biological weapons
program admission.

the article absolutely butchers dr. kay's final testimony. no wonder you accept it.

i hope you don't mind if dr. kay does the talking . . . january 2004 (final report):

In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group,
and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution
1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean
about what it had.

We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the
testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and
that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell
the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

dr. kay's final testimony before the senate - january 28, 2004

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

I'd settle for high resolution photos like are always used as the basis of conclusions made regarding the type of WMD/Delivery Systems we allege Iraq had. (The UN Security Counsel Oct 1962) Stevenson to Zornin's statement "In due course, sir, you will have your reply" was "I am prepared to wait for my answer until Hell freezes over, if that's your decision. And I'm also prepared to present the evidence in this room." That evidence was the photos later displayed. Have we such photos? We should show the world the evidence that supports our assertions or admit the evidence does not exist. With out evidence even the guilty should go free!

the may 2004 unmovic report contains confirmation of 2 of powell's assertions in feb 2004, namely
that iraq did sanitize sites - and even whole buildings (destroying them !) in an effort to hide their
wicked activities. there were photos presented of the same in powell's testimony. and there were
audio recordings of iraqi agents coordinating their santization efforts.

I will say this, however. If one solid piece of evidence becomes a reality and is followed by more 'indications' that build on it I will have the basis to argue that we did follow the rule of
law in our invasion of Iraq. Until then, all the nifty words like 'looked like' and 'could be' and
'maybe' just don't cut it for me and shouldn't cut it for you either.[/b]

[/quote]

dr. kay's final testimony (jan. 2004) contains these 'indications' and his oct. 2003 report
includes better than solid evidence that iraq tried to acquire illicit weapons tech from north
korea and maintained a clandestine network of prison labs under the aegis of their cheerful
intelligence services. oh, kay's isg crew also discovered research into two new biological
strains, which some think were destined to cure sick and dying little babies.

In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had.

We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

:Q

dr. kay's final testimony (in full) - jan., 28 2004

i wont hold you to your promise above

 

[MadRat]

Actually Iraq did come clean just before the invasion. The official U.S. policy was to ignore the existence of the last UN directive allowing Iraq to come forward with evidence of previous programs. France and Russia were the prime movers of that directive which caused real division between the U.S. and its European allies.

 

[AcidicFury]

hahaha

 

[LunarRay]

Syzygy,

i wont hold you to your promise above

You have the mistaken impression that I have selected a side and am trying to defend the reason I'm there. That couldn't be further from the truth. I am citizen of the truth. What ever that is or where ever the chips fall. Nothing more and nothing less. The only thing I care about is the Rule of Law and that my government abides by not only the letter of it but its spirit as well. I'd just as quickly prosecute Saddam as I would Bush if they violated it and if I was in such a position.

Keeping the above in mind, I've yet to see anything that would support the Article 51 Invasion rationale. Everything I've read or seen required me to fill in some blanks which I'm not going to do. The use of terms and words and phrases that are very well crafted so to give the understanding of substance but, in reality its an illusion. Without my cross examination of the assertions, half truths and untruths along with the assignment of potential WMD on everything from beer cans to used diapers, I'm left with the questioning propounded by others and, I don't buy it. Depending on the Agenda of the questioner is the manner in which the questions are formed. When I read or listen to C-span I want to jump into the TV and tell the Senator or Congressman to ask him directly this or that and keep asking it till he is pinned down.

I'll reread the links you provided and will get back later.

 

[MadRat]

I really feel like WMD hunting in Iraq was like searching for a great white elephant. Sure they probably exist or did exist, but proof will never be found to ascertain the claims made by the U.S. to justify the invasion. And with Bush/Dumsfeld you better believe there will be more coincidental happenings (i.e. saboteurs happen to target the same pieces of the oil industry that Haliburton is garaunteed to be the sole sources of the fixes bounded by contract) that make this look everyday more and more like a real shakedown of both the Iraqi and American peoples by global corporate types.

 

[LunarRay]

MadRat,
That is acceptable as a real possible truth - the impossibility of finding what may be dismantled and buried WMD and Delivery Systems in some remote desert place(s). But, we should have at least one little photo of them moving about. Or failing that we should have some hard Intel that they really did exist. Not in '91 but, in '02 and '03 as we insisted.
Without the proof that a reasonable and prudent population can grasp onto and all agree (putting their bias blinders in the drawer for awhile) we are left with our actions and no reason for them.

I've read the links 'syzygy' provided but, again, they are either in conflict with other credible sources or based on now debunked Intel pronouncements.

When (in law) you have two equally credible sources testifying to the same event and they materially differ you must adopt that which points to the innocence of the indicted.

 

[Moonbeam]

syzygy has a criminal-God mind. He knows which laws to break and when. He is like Hitler in that respect. All that separates him from Hitler is imagination. There are no bad people. All people do what is good. Law is our way of keeping people who are right from killing each other. But might makes right if you have the might. Now we got the might and we too have proven we are only swine. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. For a man to see he is evil is possible only for the meek. Only they will inherit the world. Only they can die to their ego. Man has fallen in love with his own insanity. Who will let his lover die?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
syzygy has a criminal-God mind. He knows which laws to break and when. He is like Hitler in that respect. All that separates him from Hitler is imagination. There are no bad people. All people do what is good. Law is our way of keeping people who are right from killing each other. But might makes right if you have the might. Now we got the might and we too have proven we are only swine. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. For a man to see he is evil is possible only for the meek. Only they will inherit the world. Only they can die to their ego. Man has fallen in love with his own insanity. Who will let his lover die?

hehehehe,
What is most illuminating is the notion that the Iraqi must want freedom and that it is the freedom we enjoy and in the manner we enjoy it. It shows (me at least) that it don't matter what anyone believes if it don't agree with us they must be wrong. (Our Ego at work) The quote "... All men are created equal ..." is only true for those who are equal at creation. I think it possible that the quote really means; that all men are created in the same manner and then using their talents or what ever strive to become unique and unequal over time.
The only thing I can think of that really can be an equalizer is when the Rule of Law is obeyed or disobeyed and punitive results occur. When Might makes its move and violates what the Weak are forced to obey we lose all sense of 'equal'. Saddam violated the International Law, I think, in his dealings with the Kurds. We violated International Law, I think, in our dealings with Iraq. But, we say that we had to in order to keep Saddam from breaking the Law... interesting ain't it. Well.. it is argued that we wouldn't have to if the UN had some guts... being in the UN we function as the Large intestine and what results is Poop!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
syzygy has a criminal-God mind. He knows which laws to break and when. He is like Hitler in that respect. All that separates him from Hitler is imagination. There are no bad people. All people do what is good. Law is our way of keeping people who are right from killing each other. But might makes right if you have the might. Now we got the might and we too have proven we are only swine. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. For a man to see he is evil is possible only for the meek. Only they will inherit the world. Only they can die to their ego. Man has fallen in love with his own insanity. Who will let his lover die?

hehehehe,
What is most illuminating is the notion that the Iraqi must want freedom and that it is the freedom we enjoy and in the manner we enjoy it. It shows (me at least) that it don't matter what anyone believes if it don't agree with us they must be wrong. (Our Ego at work) The quote "... All men are created equal ..." is only true for those who are equal at creation. I think it possible that the quote really means; that all men are created in the same manner and then using their talents or what ever strive to become unique and unequal over time.
The only thing I can think of that really can be an equalizer is when the Rule of Law is obeyed or disobeyed and punitive results occur. When Might makes its move and violates what the Weak are forced to obey we lose all sense of 'equal'. Saddam violated the International Law, I think, in his dealings with the Kurds. We violated International Law, I think, in our dealings with Iraq. But, we say that we had to in order to keep Saddam from breaking the Law... interesting ain't it. Well.. it is argued that we wouldn't have to if the UN had some guts... being in the UN we function as the Large intestine and what results is Poop!

Law is how the weak attempt to control the strong. We liked law when it worked against the Soviet Union and the Chinese. It was very convenient when they were evil and did illegal things, but now it's the dawning of the Age of The New American Century and Gengis Sam is on the march. Now what we do and what we want are so good they should be what is law. People are small and selfish and vain. I want selfish things, but I want them to be things that are noble in my mind so I don't have to see how I really am. Only the meek and the sinner has the self truth to see these things about themselves. That is why only they can be saved. Did ye but suffer ye would not suffer.

 

[LunarRay]

MB,

Law is how the weak attempt to control the strong. We liked law when it worked against the Soviet Union and the Chinese. It was very convenient when they were evil and did illegal things, but now it's the dawning of the Age of The New American Century and Gengis Sam is on the march. Now what we do and what we want are so good they should be what is law. People are small and selfish and vain. I want selfish things, but I want them to be things that are noble in my mind so I don't have to see how I really am. Only the meek and the sinner has the self truth to see these things about themselves. That is why only they can be saved. Did ye but suffer ye would not suffer.

For all painful things reasonably under the sun there is a pill to take. That is; if one chooses to ignore the cause and treat the symptom. It is far easier to take the pill than find the source and if found develop the remedy and cure the self. So..... if we are selfish we'd forsake everything in search of the cure for the underlying cause of pain... any kind of pain. It seems to me pain denies much of anything else to co-exist. Hard to smile with a tooth ache. But, then again taking the pill is also selfish because it just masks the pain for a bit while we hedonistic-ally prance about or just prance or just exist while waiting for the time to take the next pill.

Saddam is but a symptom as is Bush as are them all.. the pill they take or are given never ever deals with the reality of even the simple things in life. Saddam's pill which we gave so freely were actually bombs and ironically enough Bush's pill was the giving of those very same bombs..

We are all what we are within. We only look at what we can see. What we see is seen from within. And, what that may be... God only knows!

 

[Moonbeam]

To understand pain better, we need to understand the story of the princess and the pea. Only royalty can feel it under the 39th mattress. It is profoundly difficult to know what you feel because we have been profoundly knocked out of that capacity. To feel is to die because we died as children. Everybody is afraid to die and to remember is to die all over again. That's true because we don't know we are dead. Of course the meek are almost dead anyway so they got a chance.

He who dies in my name shall have eternal life.

Of course if the clocks stop whose to measure anyway, right?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
To understand pain better, we need to understand the story of the princess and the pea. Only royalty can feel it under the 39th mattress. It is profoundly difficult to know what you feel because we have been profoundly knocked out of that capacity. To feel is to die because we died as children. Everybody is afraid to die and to remember is to die all over again. That's true because we don't know we are dead. Of course the meek are almost dead anyway so they got a chance.

He who dies in my name shall have eternal life.

Of course if the clocks stop whose to measure anyway, right?

Let's see If I understand this - your above quoted post.

The royalty of the world - whether that means Movie Star or Billionaire, Prince or Emir, Political or Business elite all have the capacity to feel because to get to that status one needs to have the ability and desire to feel the pea or be born with it and it not trampled under foot by who ever tramples. In either or any case the same capability exists. To me and the rest of us lessers we don't feel the pea cuz we'd neither have the mattress build up to confront the pea's potential to irritate and even if we did we'd not complain about a little bitty pea and the discomfort it may cause.
Why is it so easy for the Princess to feel the pea? What is the nexus betwix feel and die for her as in your post. Could it be that the life of the Elite is such that harmony and bliss accompany every second since birth so the pea is the greatest trauma encountered? Would I feel it too if I were me and with out the trauma associated with being much less elite than the princess?

In any event, what sense should I use to determine if I am in pain so I can 'die' and be born again. If I don't know it now I must not have that sense. How do I acquire it, if I can. Should I look about for someone who always smiles and is free to love with equal force the Flea, the Cow, the Ground, the Ocean and me?