|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 12/22/2006 : 08:42:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
If they were not, why haven't they been found by now? Where are the traces?
How do we know they were not just moved across the border?
quote:
quote:
Shoot, like they are not already there. You have the sunnies and shites killing each other in Iraq, you have Fhata and Hamas fighting in the streets of Palestine. Lebanon is a ticking time bomb. The opposition in Iran is held under a tight thumb, just waiting to explode. And this is all before we even toss Israel into the mix. Now just think if these nuts had nukes...
So your argument is then to go in and just start the process?
No. I said go in and destroy Iran's WMD capabilities. And I guess at this point I am just asking, what if's?
quote:
At least at this point there is some level of control. What you are arguing here is to negate even that level of control and using a method which would give the people there the idea that America was to blame, instead of themselves.
Most of these people have blamed the US and Israel for all their troubles all ready, by default. They are tought to hate us by the time they leave diapers. They have hated us way before Iraq. Remember 1979?
quote:
How is that a solution?
The solution is we remove their ability to produce or obtain WMD's and let them sort out all their civil disagreements amongst themselves. They hate us whether we do this or not.
quote:
How would you think to locate those if the entire region is thrown into complete disarray,
We located them in Afghanistan.
quote:
What you are effectively arguing here is to negate all control the international community still has on the region.
What control are you referring too?
quote:
By having even more nuts. That's the problem you are facing now. What you are effectively proposing not only would leave a number of nuts in power (given the current state in Iran, it is very questionable whether a different regime would arise were America to decapitate the current one), but has the added probable effect of helping some more nuts gain power. You are effectively arguing to get more nuts into power instead of less.
Of course a nut would most likely replace a nut. The mission is to make sure neither of the nuts can produce, or obtain, nukes. Not remove all the nuts. That would be an insurmountable task. I would gladly give up one nut for three if this meant taking away nukes from their playground.
quote:
quote:
I don't want war. I think most Americans don't want war. The realities are that if these nuts are not confronted, and are able to obtain nukes, which they will pass off to Hezbulla and Al Queda, then we are going to have problems that make Iraq look like a summer picnic.
But the answers you are proposing will not get those guys out of power, but make them more powerfull.
No, this nut already runs the country. Getting their hands on nukes will make them more powerful.
quote:
How is that a solution?
The nukes have been removed from the nuts.
quote:
It also has the added drawback of further alienating the few regimes over there that are at least somewhat favorable to the west.
What's the alternative? A ticking nuclear time bomb in the Middle East, that's what.
quote:
How do you think to keep air-superiority in that region without the help (or at least the non-interference) of countries like Saudi-Arabia or Turkey? The line of action you are proposing would put a strain on the American efforts needed there to keep Americans safe that could not be coped with by the American air force. You want to negate the partial control you have now in favor of complete loss of it.
Partial control is not worth a hill of beans if we now have a nuclear equipped Iran, Hezbulla, or Al Queda.
quote:
I fail to see how that would help your cause.
How? How can you fail to see that keeping nukes out of the hands of Iran and their nut, or Hezzbulla, or Al Queda is a help to the cause? Do you think Hezbulla would hesitate for one iota if they had a nuclear devise? If Iran has nukes then Hezbulla will have them shortly afterwards. If Hezbulla uses a nuke on Israel then in effect we will have all out war in the middle east. Which part of my scenario do you not find highly plausible?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 09:37:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill Scott:
How do we know they were not just moved across the border?
This is an example of the denial that beskeptigal talked about. Which border would that be? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait? Once and for all, there were no WMD's when we went in. Saddam could not tip his hand too far because of Iran. He was vulnerable and he knew it.
Try and grasp this little concept Bill. Even with the fall of Saddam, which means there would be no shifting around of WMD's, we still haven't found any. In fact, we have stopped looking for them…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 11:33:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
This is an example of the denial that beskeptigal talked about. Which border would that be? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait?
My money is on Syria.
quote:
Once and for all, there were no WMD's when we went in.
The question is where did they go? We know he had them. We do not have documentation or evidence that can fully conclude that they were all destroyed. He bluffed that he had a more advanced nuclear program then he did, but we were not sure. The truth of the matter we may never what happened to all of them. One thing is for sure, we know he don't have a nuclear or a conventional WMD program anymore.
quote:
Saddam could not tip his hand too far because of Iran. He was vulnerable and he knew it.
Please explain further.
quote:
Try and grasp this little concept Bill. Even with the fall of Saddam, which means there would be no shifting around of WMD's,
All the shifting would have been before the war. He had three years to move them.
quote:
we still haven't found any. In fact, we have stopped looking for them…
Does not mean they were never there. Now what do you do about Iran? Allow them to obtain nuclear weapon status, when we now they fund and supply Hezbulla? And Hezzbulla has vowed to annihilate Israel, as has Iran.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 11:37:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Bill Scott:
This is how we should deal with Iran as well, even more intense then the start of GW two. Send in troops with the cover of air superiority, after weeks of precision bombing of their defences, and attack and destroy all of the Iran capabilities of producing any WMD's and then leave as fast as possible. What do you think?
I think it's good that you're not in charge...
But what is the alternative? To let the likes of Iran, or Iraq, develop nuclear weapons. So far, to my amazement, cooler heads have always prevailed, and the world has yet to see a nuclear exchange. But do you think this will last forever? Not once one of these nuts gets hold of the technology. There is no reasoning with these people. There is no rationalizing, or rationalization to their madness. You've seen the videos. These people will chop your head off with a sword and not even bat an eye. Just wait till they have nuclear technology. My fear is one of these nuts will pass off a devise to Hezbulla or Al Queda who will then use this weapon on Israel. Once this happens it is on in the Middle East. Israel will take all gloves off in response. Then what? Israel vs. the Middle East. You know the USA is not going to just sit around if that goes down. Next comes Russia. Then you got a big big mess. Possible equivalent to a Armageddon scenario if nuclear exchanges start taking place.
So, kill them before they kill us. Is that your plan? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 12:02:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
So, kill them before they kill us. Is that your plan?
Ultimately, that might be the game with these people. But what I am saying right now is to take away their ability to make, or obtain nuclear weapons, and in effect take away their best chance to start WW III. This prez in Iran believes it is his calling to start Armageddon. I think it's in the world's best interest to keep nukes out of his hands, one way or another.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 12:10:06 [Permalink]
|
No, Bill. The question isn't where they went. As has been said time amd time again, "absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence".
Now, try real hard to be logical.
Number one, these supposed WMDs were not small items that people could hide inside their coats. Think the size of a tractor trailer. One doesn't simply move them willy-nilly.
Number two, do you think, perhaps, just maybe, that the U.S. had every spy satellite available trained on Iraq over all these years? Don't you think that movement of such large pieces of equipment would be very well documented?
Number Three, regardless of what Syria (to use your example), thinks of the U.S., Syria isn't about to recieve Saddam's mythical WMDs for the simple reason that that automatically puts Syria into the U.S.'s crosshairs. Substitute any other bordering country in the place of Syria if you wish.
Number Four, Saddam's relations with the bordering countries certainly wasn't friendly enough for them to take on the burden of keeping his WMDs. And that is simplifying it greatly.
Number Five. WMDs have a very short half-life if well-manufactured, for the same reason the pharmaceutical agents have disposal dates on their labels. Simply put, they lose their potency in very short order. And that is if they are well-manufactured. I read a report from the UN inspectors that described the quality and potency of Saddam's biological and pharmaceutical as being "poor". But of course I expect you to "hand-wave" that away.
So what we are left with, Bill, is quite simply, that you are one of the last few people who still believes the fantasy that Saddam had WMDs. Considering what other fairy tales you believe in, it's not surprising.
But the convenient thing in this for you, Bill, is that your position requires absolutely no evidence to support it. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 12:50:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
quote:
No, Bill. The question isn't where they went. As has been said time amd time again, "absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence".
Except for we have UN resolution after resolution that already says he had them. We never have been allowed to inspect in a meaningful way, so we must conclude that he still had them. There was no proof they were gone or destroyed. He would show us parts to old junked out rockets, big deal. Why did Clinton and Clinton dems lobby for strikes on Iraq all through his terms if this is just a made up claim by GWB to get at Iraq's oil? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/22/2006 13:01:09 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 13:39:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Except for we have UN resolution after resolution that already says he had them. We never have been allowed to inspect in a meaningful way, so we must conclude that he still had them. There was no proof they were gone or destroyed. He would show us parts to old junked out rockets, big deal. Why did Clinton and Clinton dems lobby for strikes on Iraq all through his terms if this is just a made up claim by GWB to get at Iraq's oil?
OK, Bill. I'll entertain this because work's slow right now.
I'm sure that with a modicum of effort, I could find a quote from you that labels the UN as either "impotent", "ineffective", "worthless", or something on that order. But you are now using UN resolutions to support your argument? Sloppy, Bill, very sloppy.
I am no expert in UN resolutions or how they were worded. But I do believe that they do NOT make the claim that Saddam had WMDs. Instead, he was allowed an arsenal of such-and-such power with limited range and in limited quantities, and the resolutions demanded that he allow the UN in to comply with these enforcements.
If I remember correctly, Scott Ritter, a darling of conservative commentators and a highly-respected UN Inspector, said categorically that Saddam no longer had WMDs. This was as late as 2002.
Funny how you invoke the name of Clinton to veer attention away from GWB. Didn't you rip people who supposedly steered the conversation towards the ineptness of GWB?
I have always been critical of how Clinton handled Iraq. The first Iraq war never truly ended and Clinton never did anything decisive to resolve the Iraq matter. So don't try to paint me with a broad brush as if I am a Clintonista.
And don't think that I didn't notice that you completely ignored all the points I made regarding how difficult it would be to make all those mythical WMDs magically disappear.
And one last thing, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 14:01:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
We never have been allowed to inspect in a meaningful way, so we must conclude that he still had them. There was no proof they were gone or destroyed. He would show us parts to old junked out rockets, big deal.
Sorry. Incorrect.
From Scott Ritter, who served from 1991 to 1998 as a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq in the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which was charged with finding and destroying all weapons of mass destruction and WMD-related manufacturing capabilities in Iraq. He was chief inspector in fourteen of the more than thirty inspection missions in which he participated.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.cnna/index.html
O'BRIEN: But the situation had become untenable for those inspectors, it's worth reminding our viewers. You're taking that a bit out of context. The inspectors, at that juncture, weren't really able to do their job properly, were they?
RITTER: No, absolutely false. The inspectors were able to do their task of disarming Iraq without any obstruction by Iraq.
Let's keep in mind that from 1994 to 1998, the weapons inspectors carried out ongoing monitoring inspections of the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure. And at no time did Iraq obstruct this work.
The obstruction only came when weapons inspectors sought to gain access to sites that Iraq deemed to be sensitive. And many of these sites -- including intelligence facilities, security facilities, Saddam Hussein's palaces -- had nothing whatsoever to do with weapons of mass destruction.
So we've got to put this in its proper perspective. Yes, there were obstructions. But this obstruction had little, if anything, to do with actual disarmament.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter -
"His views at that time are well summarized in War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know, a book which consists largely of an interview between Ritter and anti-war activist William Rivers Pitt, the book's author. In the interview, Ritter is asked, based on his experience as a chief UNSCOM inspector, whether he believes Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Ritter's quotes include the following:
There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.
We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services.
If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we'd have proof, pure and simple.
[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.
|
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 17:02:43 [Permalink]
|
B.S. said:
quote:
The question is where did they go? We know he had them. We do not have documentation or evidence that can fully conclude that they were all destroyed. He bluffed that he had a more advanced nuclear program then he did, but we were not sure. The truth of the matter we may never what happened to all of them. One thing is for sure, we know he don't have a nuclear or a conventional WMD program anymore.
If Iraq had any WMDs at the time of our invasion, and they were secreted out of the country by Saddam loyalists, I find it rather incredible that none of those weapons have found their way back into Iraq and been used against our troops and the Shiites, or in any terror attacks that have occured elsewhere in the world.
Its not as if we control any but a small section of the Iraq border.
So lets get real. The false idea that Iraq's WMDs were rapidly removed from the country just before we invaded is nothing more than lame republican apologetics.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2006 : 19:16:30 [Permalink]
|
Bill you are ignoring the facts when you fantasize that invading Iraq made us safer from Al Q. It is a well documented fact Al Q. was virtually defeated when we invaded Afghanistan, and had become a pariah in the Arab World where there wasn't a majority agreement the WTC attack was justified. Muslims died in the Trade Center as well. But when we went into Iraq, all that changed. Al Q was able to regain its status and recruitment and donations poured in.
What a shame you and many other Bush supporters believe the lies used to garner sympathy for the Iraq invasion even as it is admitted by the perpetrators of the lie that the information was false. They claim they didn't know the information was false when they were feeding it to the US public. Anyone with half a brain and common sense can see through that. But even if you chose to believe it was a mistake and not a planned deceit, what's with believing the lies after even Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld admit there was no connection between Al Q and Saddam? There was no meeting between Mohammad Ata and any Iraqi intelligence officers. Saddam had nothing to do with Al Q. Is that too hard for you to accept?
Re length of time between terrorist attacks, the first WTC attack was what Stewart started counting time from. In other words, claiming we haven't been attacked since Bush started his failed war is pointless. There was no attack for years between WTC 1 and WTC 2 either.
But the idea you and others touting the same crap, "we haven't been attacked", don't consider the terrorist attacks in Spain and England matter is appalling. Those countries were of the very few who went into Iraq with us. So put your denial in perspective here.
We are attacked. We respond by invading Afghanistan where the attackers have their main base. We rout the attackers and the few left are on the run.
Then we abandon the chase and use the circumstances to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack because a few greedy slimy leaders fantasize they can turn Iraq into a Western country and add the oil resources to the corporate pot. Those greedy slimy leaders lie to the American public and the world that Iraq was in on the attack. It's a shaky case so they throw in lies that Iraq has WMDs and is a threat to the world. England buys in, probably got a deal with the US for a slice of the corporate oil pie. Spain reluctantly goes along.
France and Germany refuse. Low and behold it is later revealed, they had a share of the corporate oil pot via bribes and illegal deals which secretly ignored the UN sanctions against Iraq that France and Germany had agreed to maintain. But I digress.
Spain and England only went into Iraq because we convinced them. According to you, Bill, that would mean they went to help us protect ourselves from Al Q. They both suffer terrorist attacks as a direct consequence.
But Bill Scott and Bill Kristol and O'Reilly and Cheney and all the rest of the die hard Bush supporters who remain in denial continue to espouse the claim, we are safer because we took the war to the terrorists therefore preventing them from attacking us here in the US. And you say, "in context when Kristol said the Iraq war has made us more safe, he was referring to America, and not Spain or England." Heck, we're safer. So apparently the war can be in England and Spain and 3,000 American GIs can die, and we shouldn't consider that when touting Bush's success in fighting terrorism.
Stewart wasn't distorting the context, there are a lot of us who don't agree Bush has prevented anything. Distorting the context is claiming we haven't been attacked because you use the narrow definition of "us attacked" to only mean on US soil as if attacks elsewhere are acceptable.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
