• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The WMD Lying Game.... and of course the raw facts if you can handle them

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Thirteenth quarterly report of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in accordance with paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999)
30 May 2003United Nations Security Council

13. Again, with respect to anthrax, the Commission, as it reported, had strong
indications ? but not conclusive evidence ? that all the quantities produced had
not been destroyed, and that hence even today such quantities could remain.


according to the UN even they could not say for sure that all the anthrax was destroyed, as a matter of fact the evidence strongly indicates all had not been destroyed.....

if you disagree, take that up with the UN inspections teams who came up with these findings....

Wake me up when they find them, or when there is proof Bush twisted the intelligence available. you have the CIA's assessment linked here thanks to me, find anything in there not supported by the UN reports.....

The British claim about the 45 minutes to use WMD is on page 7 of their assessment if you were wondering where than came from.....
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,933
3,738
126
The issue, I think, is that we went to war to prevent an immediate threat. That's what could be justified. We walked over Iraq in three weeks with less than two hundred of ours dead, and not one the result of WMD. How do you can take out a nation in a ground war that threatens your homeland 8000 miles away with WMD and turn around and go over there and attack them without a single death.

We all know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq was no immediate threat. Zero, zip, nada. We have committed an international crime because as a nation we are psychologically deranged and can be led by the aggression that results from fear. Americans are vicious because they are cowards too spoiled and self centered to live with fear, too filled with ego and hubris, too spiritually dead.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Thirteenth quarterly report of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in accordance with paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999)
30 May 2003United Nations Security Council

13. Again, with respect to anthrax, the Commission, as it reported, had strong
indications ? but not conclusive evidence ? that all the quantities produced had
not been destroyed, and that hence even today such quantities could remain.


according to the UN even they could not say for sure that all the anthrax was destroyed, as a matter of fact the evidence strongly indicates all had not been destroyed.....

if you disagree, take that up with the UN inspections teams who came up with these findings....

Wake me up when they find them, or when there is proof Bush twisted the intelligence available. you have the CIA's assessment linked here thanks to me, find anything in there not supported by the UN reports.....

The British claim about the 45 minutes to use WMD is on page 7 of their assessment if you were wondering where than came from.....
I think the first issue that needs clarification revolves about the notion of 'proof'. The UN should define the level of proof needed to take action, both unilateral or bilateral under Article 51 of the Charter and as a Security Counsel adopted venture against some event or disruption in the "force". The US used what I'd term "A preponderence of Evidence", I'd hope for at least "Clear and Convincing" or maybe even "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" before lives are subjected to jeopardy. I don't know what level of proof that each member nation applies to accept of deny allegations put forth by another member. I only know it should be uniform. The same argument can be made to the intel issue. Each person has in their own mind a confidence level assigned to each element of intel. I assume this is based on years of experience. What I find difficult to accept is when a person elevates an item of intel not by its own merit but by the value of a collaterial bit of intel (circumstantial nexus) ... it seems I've heard Sec. Def. utter words that suggests, at least to me, that because X is true Y must also be true. Like in the 'trailer mobile lab' issue. 'Just in time' also must mean that 'mobile labs' are true. C-span aired hearings in a British Parlement Committee where their scientist witness indicated they (Iraq) could not have had 'Mobile Labs' or words to that effect. Is that absolute or beyond a reasonable doubt or beyond a preponderence or clear and convincing... when folks talk who are edifying from such a platform they need to include the level of conviction they feel toward their comments. To take the time to publicly inform with out defined clarity simply does not inform. At best it informs in a spun manner.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
his name is robert kagan.

funny this thread went from wmd's to the election and now back to wmds.
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Originally posted by: drewshin
his name is robert kagan.

funny this thread went from wmd's to the election and now back to wmds.
What else can we throw in there? Gun control? Abortion? :p
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Originally posted by: drewshin
his name is robert kagan.

funny this thread went from wmd's to the election and now back to wmds.
What else can we throw in there? Gun control? Abortion? :p
How about development of a robotic police force that keeps the international peace... like in the movie "The day the earth stood still".. Would you give up sovereignty to such an notion?
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: drewshin
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: dexvx
Nice to know you get your sources from the OPINION column at yahoo.com and FAS.org, the most right winged group that does not deserve their name "scientists".
Or the Washington Post?
that link you provided is also an opinion column. try again.
FAS has the official documents from both govts. and the un linked on their page, just tells me he never even looked at them, otherwise he would have realized they were PDF files with offical UN seals, etc......

Nice to know you didn't even examine the facts before you made up your mind....
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Originally posted by: drewshin
his name is robert kagan.

funny this thread went from wmd's to the election and now back to wmds.
What else can we throw in there? Gun control? Abortion? :p
How about development of a robotic police force that keeps the international peace... like in the movie "The day the earth stood still".. Would you give up sovereignty to such an notion?
Yes, excellent movie, remember, he did not attack until he was attacked.....
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Originally posted by: drewshin
his name is robert kagan.

funny this thread went from wmd's to the election and now back to wmds.
What else can we throw in there? Gun control? Abortion? :p
How about development of a robotic police force that keeps the international peace... like in the movie "The day the earth stood still".. Would you give up sovereignty to such an notion?
Yes, excellent movie, remember, he did not attack until he was attacked.....
He was programed to keep the peace and eliminate the perpetrator of violence. I'd go for that... of course Bush would become a lame duck then..

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
I think Bush would be far down the list, willing to bet Saddam would have been well ahead of him....


you know all this talk of Bush and Intelligence is rather ironic wouldnt you say, wasn't his always in question?

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Alistar7
I think Bush would be far down the list, willing to bet Saddam would have been well ahead of him....


you know all this talk of Bush and Intelligence is rather ironic wouldnt you say, wasn't his always in question?
I'm not sure of his intellect... nor do I think it matters... in politics I've understood;

It's not who you know or who you bl*w but rather, how well and how often.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY