Sniff sniff What's that smell?
Kinda smells like a smoking gun. But it can't be. Several members of this very board have already proven beyond a doubt that Iraq cannot have any ability to make WOMD. Therefor this must be false.
Kidding aside this is coming from the NYT. It of course has to be verified but it's clear that the US has gotten farther in a month than Blix did in months and months. The bin Laden stuff sounds too good to be true. But we'll know more in the future.
Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert
By JUDITH MILLER
PS
Don't like my NYT link? Tough shit.
Kidding aside this is coming from the NYT. It of course has to be verified but it's clear that the US has gotten farther in a month than Blix did in months and months. The bin Laden stuff sounds too good to be true. But we'll know more in the future.
Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert
By JUDITH MILLER
Quote:
A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program has told a U.S. military team that Iraq destroyed equipment only days before the war began.
...
A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program has told a U.S. military team that Iraq destroyed equipment only days before the war began.
...
PS
Don't like my NYT link? Tough shit.
Comments
And sattelites can also pick up trails like that. So I guess its only a matter of days or hours before this is confirmed...
Or...
Originally posted by Scott
Kinda smells like a smoking gun. But it can't be. Several members of this very board have already proven beyond a doubt that Iraq cannot have any ability to make WOMD. Therefor this must be false.
Strawman
Originally posted by Anders the White
BTW.
Strawman
That's not "strawman argument". Maybe you should learn what that mean before you use it again?
Originally posted by Scott
That's not "strawman argument". Maybe you should learn what that mean before you use it again?
Oh great Scott then please teach me.
1) Several members here said Saddam couldn´t possible have WoMD
2) Here is a scientist that say Iraq had WoMD.
3) Haha see how wrong those several people are.
Since 1) is pure fiction this describtion fit perfectly:
The strawman argument is created when a person misrepresents the opposing argument then knocks the stuffing out of it.
What I have seen several people say is that until proof is found we cannot take for granted that Iraq had WoMD. Nowhere have I seen anyone say he wasn´t able to make them. I have not even seen anyone say he didn´t have them.
BTW: It sounds like an embedded journalist. They have had a tendency to get carried away in this war.
"gotta keep rationalizing my stance.... gotta keep rationalizing my stance..."
ALIENS! IT WAS ALIENS!
Originally posted by groverat
Anything found now is obviously a CIA plant.
Do you really think that?
But even if you are right it really haven´t got anything to do with this case because THEY HAVEN`T FOUND ANYTHING YET
Let the facts roll in...
A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program has been paid by U.S. military team to say that Iraq destroyed equipment only days before the war began.
The USA doesn't really care about big weapons at this point, unless they are still around. And satellites only pass over from time to time, and most terrorist know these times. Plus, the SR-71 is not a flyover recon plane, so it's not as good at detecting this kind of stuff, We'd have to specially equip some U-2R's to do the job, and I bet they're flying around right now.
The take home message is: If you want to persecute the USA, send in some teams to find (or not find) these easy chemical traces you talk about, and back it up with scientific evidence that they're so easy to find. Plus, it wouldn't be a bad idea to burn the receipts of equipment your government's defense contractors sold to Saddam's regime.
I'm not saying you're wrong, because I really have no idea myself. But I'm not convinced that there were or weren't any weapons of mass destruction until real evidence shows up. At this point there's at least some evidence, though, that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Lastly: a chemical weapon that leaves trails is a poorly made chemical weapon. The idea is that they don't kill the people handling them and firing them. Just bury the warheads deep in the sand. . . good luck finding them.
Now they have this dude, who have been deeply involved with the production. He must have an idea about where they were destroyed.
And finally there must be many more people who were engaged in the production. Just find a couple of those persons and find some evidence. It can´t be that hard. It may take month but you have to find the evidence. It wasn´t Tariq Aziz and Saddam that made the WoMD with their own hands.
Plus, it wouldn't be a bad idea to burn the receipts of equipment your government's defense contractors sold to Saddam's regime.
Could we please stop this? I have never used the Rumsfeldt card. What matters now is this: The reason for starting the war was WoMD, alternatively the risk of Iraq handling over WoMD to terrorists. Now you have to prove that the reason for the war was justified. I think Saddam did have these weapons and they will be found. But it is very importent to find them.
Originally posted by Anders the White
Lets leave it with that and dig up this thread one week from now and see what came out of this.
BTW: It sounds like an embedded journalist. They have had a tendency to get carried away in this war.
NOW that's a strawman! Well done!
BTW "Sounds like"?
JUDITH MILLER
WITH THE 101ST AIRBORNE DIVISION, south of Baghdad, Iraq, April 20
Not only sounds like. Is. Actually it was her seeing the scientist on a distance that made me think she was. But I only had to read the first line to be sure.
This a strawman? In what way? I didn´t say that she had used arguments she hadn´t used. I said that embedded journalists get carried away. That is a subjective observation and can therefore not be a strawman. IMHO they do not have the priveledge of being at distance of things and able to use independent voices to analyse what they see with the units they follow. Thats what I meant by getting carried away.
Sometimes you amaze me Scott. You refuse to see your own argument as a strawman but see mine as one? I have given my definition o a strawman. I´m really interested in seeing yours.
Originally posted by Anders the White
Could we please stop this? I have never used the Rumsfeldt card. What matters now is this: The reason for starting the war was WoMD, alternatively the risk of Iraq handling over WoMD to terrorists. Now you have to prove that the reason for the war was justified. I think Saddam did have these weapons and they will be found. But it is very importent to find them.
so you mean the US didn't burn their receipts so they have a proof there must be womd? or is this my missinterpretation. i think this search of womd is bullshit they know what is in there. i think the cia etc. exactly know what chemicals etc. where sold to irak by american and european companies in the last 20 years. the problem is that if the materials they found are american or another super gun made by the UK they have a bigger problem than if it is german or what so ever.
it's good that america did something against the saddam regime only their argument sucks bigtime. history will teach us what will happen next, but i think america made the world a little more dangerous to life in. not saver, just because they misspeld their arguments. womd? my ass... after syria, north korea, pakistan and india they really take out israel's nuclear capabilities??? what a joke.
Originally posted by Anders the White
Not only sounds like. Is. Actually it was her seeing the scientist on a distance that made me think she was. But I only had to read the first line to be sure.
This a strawman? In what way? I didn´t say that she had used arguments she hadn´t used. I said that embedded journalists get carried away. That is a subjective observation and can therefore not be a strawman. IMHO they do not have the priveledge of being at distance of things and able to use independent voices to analyse what they see with the units they follow. Thats what I meant by getting carried away.
Sometimes you amaze me Scott. You refuse to see your own argument as a strawman but see mine as one? I have given my definition o a strawman. I´m really interested in seeing yours.
I can't hold your hand all the time. A "strawman argument" is one that is weakly or unrelated to the point of the discussion that someone (you) puts up only to knock it down. Point here being that US is starting to uncover hidden weapons program. Point you bring up is that you feel some embedded reporters have acted hastily in the past. It maybe true but has nothing to do with this article. Unless you can prove that about this reporter.
Things don't mean what you want them to mean.
Originally posted by Scott
I can't hold your hand all the time.
Originally posted by Scott
A "strawman argument" is one that is weakly or unrelated to the point of the discussion that someone (you) puts up only to knock it down. Point here being that US is starting to uncover hidden weapons program. Point you bring up is that you feel some embedded reporters have acted hastily in the past. It maybe true but has nothing to do with this article. Unless you can prove that about this reporter.
Things don't mean what you want them to mean.
I say to my experience embedded journalists are in a situation where they haven´t got the overview of the whole situation and therefore their reports tends to be coloured by the sources that are availble to them. This reporter is in this situation so yes she is in a situation where reporters tends to get carried away. I didn´t even say she got carried away.
And your definition is wrong. A strawman is a argument you put in the mouth of another person and then knocks down. Why would I put up an argument to knock it down (unless of course it was part of a philosophical discussion)? That would be counterproductive.
And if you insist on your definition: What argument did I put up and knock down? It simply doesn´t apply to my post.
Originally posted by Scott
Things don't mean what you want them to mean.
Right back at ya.
However, looking at the very beginning of this thread, at the modality of Scott's original argument, i would say that it isn't a straw man, since it is more than anything sarcastic. Sarcasm may be saying that those on the board are wrong, Scott probably believes that they are, but I think the real implication of the argument is that certain people on the board will not believe his story because of preconcieved notions -- which is different than saying what they believe about the presence of WOMD is correct/incorrect.
edit: additionally, I believe Anders may have commited the first fault this time when he parsed out the conditions of Scott's argument:
"1) Several members here said Saddam couldn´t possible have WoMD
2) Here is a scientist that say Iraq had WoMD.
3) Haha, see how wrong those several people are."
The implication here is that this is the reason scott believe these people are wrong, while I think the strongest inference to be made from:
Kinda smells like a smoking gun. But it can't be. Several members of this very board have already proven beyond a doubt that Iraq cannot have any ability to make WOMD. Therefor this must be false.
is that (in a sarcastic voice) these people will not accept any contrary findings because they've already made up their minds.
Not saying that's true, just that that is the gist of Scott's words.
In that light, Anders, you have a little straw man going on here.
In Anders' defence, sarcasm does not easily invite charity, which is what all straw debates are really about.