I have to disagree (of course). My first post here wasn´t about the strawman argument put forward from Scott. It was about the substance and stronger part of his post (which got to live its own life in a different thread) of his post. Its my second post was nothing but a side comment that wasn´t intended to get all the attention.
In scott´s first post he wants to paint a picture of the arguments of several members that misrepresent them. It may be sarcasm but I have no doubt that he wants that impression to stick and that makes them strawman arguments.
This doesn´t prove the above (have to be carefull in arguments like these) but when Scott call people who disagrees with him anti-american its the same: He paints a picture of his opponent that he can´t back up but still sticks if it isn´t called.
I'm not saying it has or even will happen -- probably won't...
...But do you doubt for one second that if told to do so by the powers that be in Langley (not necessarily Bush or one of his cadre) that CIA operatives are both imminently capable and ruthless enough to do just what you're joking about? The CIA is generally not accountable to anyone even though we're in a "new era" of cooperation (maybe) and communication (har) between the various branches of federal law enforcement and intelligence services.
These people will do anything to protect what their supers consider to be "national interests" for a reason -- because that's what we want them to do. We don't really want them to be accountable the same way we hold congressmen or police officers accountable. They play by a different rule book than the rest of us, so don't utterly discount any possibility of existing or future tampering by organizations like the CIA or NSA on stuff like this.
I think we basically did the right thing in Iraq, even if we started what we did in the wrong way (by not demanding 1441 be more specifically worded so that when the time came there was none of the bullshit we had to deal with from the French and Germans for example). I also think we're still very capable of fouling things up by not playing the straight and narrow on this WOMD stuff. Only time will tell....
"I wasn't actually allowed to interview the scientist, but someone told me that he may have said that all the things Dubya said about Saddam Hussein having chemical or maybe biological weapons and working with al Quada might be true"
In other news, according to a crazy homeless man who was shouting at an entire subway car this morning, we should all be wearing tinfoil hats so the lizard people can't read our minds.
How about we actually wait for some proof on this - preferably verified by UN inspectors - before we call 'smoking gun'?
Because I don't trust the UN inspectors anymore than I trust the idiot on Fox News. They are not politically detached enough from the situation to be reliable. The bottom line is, short of us catching their WoMD people with the pants down (say *in the act* of destroying something incriminating), people will always question the validity of the findings made.
Let's just get over it and focus on what [has the potential to] make the biggest positive statement about our presence in Iraq -- the rebuilding process. If we can help these people build a decent life for themselves, the WoMD stuff will be the domain of washed up pundits and wankers who have nothing better to argue about. Robert Novak, Jack Jermond, Mr. Hardball, et al.
The bottom line is, short of us catching their WoMD people with the pants down (say *in the act* of destroying something incriminating), people will always question the validity of the findings made.
Perhaps, but the UN has less of a vested interest in legitimizing the war. If this turns out to have been an illegal war it should be known.
...But do you doubt for one second that if told to do so by the powers that be in Langley (not necessarily Bush or one of his cadre) that CIA operatives are both imminently capable and ruthless enough to do just what you're joking about?
Sure, they could.
But my question is, why haven't they done it yet?
We had quite a while to bust Hussein's ass.
Quote:
They play by a different rule book than the rest of us, so don't utterly discount any possibility of existing or future tampering by organizations like the CIA or NSA on stuff like this.
I'm going to need some substance, though.
I agree with you on one thing, it's time to move on. But the anti-war crowd needs something. They were really dealt a tremendous and embarrassing blow.
----
And der kopf, thanks for finishing my joke.
Anders, do you still not believe there are people who will discount anything like this immediately as a CIA plot?
Even if it isn't, the article (in 'liberal NYT,' no doubt!) gives no technical information nor does it give any specifics whatsoever.
I found it particularly interesting that in the thick of the biggest criticism so far, presto, there's an 'Iraqi scientist' that tells the US armchair hawks everything they want to hear. Don't bother noticing that this guy's knowledge spans beyond the strict compartmentalization needed to have large top-secret programs. Also don't bother noticing that a person under questioning tells his interrogators *exactly* what they want to hear.
Let's assume it's all true and chemical weapons were buried. What chemicals? VX? Iraq's VX degrades rapidly. The only VX production process used by Iraq that enabled stability would have been difficult in the extreme for Iraq to start up since '98 and would have been large-scale enough to notice.
So what then? Other nerve agents? Same problems only worse. Never gained weapon's grade purity and would have destabalized by now (over tens years after they could have last been produced).
So the only thing they could have been is mustard gas. Mustard gas has the shelf life and there is a discrepancy. However, the discrepancy is only a reslut of one document concerning # of bombs dropped during the war with Iran, and doesn't account for the number of bombs containing other chemicals, notably sarin and tabun, of which many of those bombs were. Note that a small quantity of remaining mustard gas is not justification for occupation of Iraq. Mustard gas is not efficient enough to be a threat to the US, and this lone agent would have been eliminated by UNMOVIC, or at the very least prohibited from being used. And this is acknowledging the most pessimistic of views.
But maybe there was a renewed program. I guess if one of the plot twists in your fantasy world view is that disproved US intelligence actually hasn't been disproven (in the real world we call that ignorance), then you could argue along with other mental patients that the US knew about it and presented the material to the UN, who didn't do enough to follow up. Of course, the folks that recognize that not a single piece of 'evidence' provided by the US has stood up to scrutiny, this looks like a long shot, and certainly not something that exists on a large scale. Large facilities are needed for large scale programs, and large facilities can't be hidden.
And that's the biggest key. This war was sold as a way to reduce a threat to the safety of the american people. If the program wasn't large enough to create a threat, then the war was not justified. And this ignores the fact that Saddam is not Al-Qaeda and had no iterest in attacking the US. I guess if you make a strawman out of what you want to see in Saddam, you might convince yourself that he would, but in the end you have to acknowledge that Saddam is no Uday didn't even like the kid (guy, whatever).
Finally and most importantly, one lone scientist claiming that Iraq was working with Al-Qaeda should raise a big red flag about his credibility, especially, as noted above, if he is part of an organization that was supposedly able to keep the giant secret.
Even if it isn't, the article (in 'liberal NYT,' no doubt!) gives no technical information nor does it give any specifics whatsoever.
I found it particularly interesting that in the thick of the biggest criticism so far, presto, there's an 'Iraqi scientist' that tells the US armchair hawks everything they want to hear. Don't bother noticing that this guy's knowledge spans beyond the strict compartmentalization needed to have large top-secret programs. Also don't bother noticing that a person under questioning tells his interrogators *exactly* what they want to hear.
...
Actually I did notice that. Remember I have to quote myself here because giant couldn't stop to read and think
I think giant's point is that when someone has so much information that it's too good to be true it is probably too good to be true.
If the guy has a few pieces of info that are plausible and a few that aren't, it's not wise to discredit the few that are implausible and trust the few that are. The source is either trustworthy or not.
Boy you two are NOT SMART! Not smart at all. My "too good to be true" comment was meant at face value as well. It does sound like the guy is feeding people what they want to hear. Thus ... DUH!!! "too good to be true". But your knee jerk reactions and inability to see things other than in black and white lead you down the wrong path.
Another important point is that Gen. Amer al-Saadi turned minself in over a week ago insisting that Iraq had no WMD. I have seen many reports that he was was talking to the US before the Iraq war, and had already agreed pre-war to surrender. Reports note that he was waiting at his house as was pre-arranged and that US troops failed to come get him, thus promting him to get the german media and turn himself in.
Long story short, this guy is not going to lie to the US, and he also happens to be one of the handful of folks in the former regime to know the program from a bird's-eye view. I find any claims made my him 100000% more credible than some hazy story from someone who 'claims' to be an 'Iraqi scientist' that has such far-reaching knowledge of highly, highly secret programs.
Comments
I have to disagree (of course). My first post here wasn´t about the strawman argument put forward from Scott. It was about the substance and stronger part of his post (which got to live its own life in a different thread) of his post. Its my second post was nothing but a side comment that wasn´t intended to get all the attention.
In scott´s first post he wants to paint a picture of the arguments of several members that misrepresent them. It may be sarcasm but I have no doubt that he wants that impression to stick and that makes them strawman arguments.
This doesn´t prove the above (have to be carefull in arguments like these) but when Scott call people who disagrees with him anti-american its the same: He paints a picture of his opponent that he can´t back up but still sticks if it isn´t called.
I'm not saying it has or even will happen -- probably won't...
...But do you doubt for one second that if told to do so by the powers that be in Langley (not necessarily Bush or one of his cadre) that CIA operatives are both imminently capable and ruthless enough to do just what you're joking about? The CIA is generally not accountable to anyone even though we're in a "new era" of cooperation (maybe) and communication (har) between the various branches of federal law enforcement and intelligence services.
These people will do anything to protect what their supers consider to be "national interests" for a reason -- because that's what we want them to do. We don't really want them to be accountable the same way we hold congressmen or police officers accountable. They play by a different rule book than the rest of us, so don't utterly discount any possibility of existing or future tampering by organizations like the CIA or NSA on stuff like this.
I think we basically did the right thing in Iraq, even if we started what we did in the wrong way (by not demanding 1441 be more specifically worded so that when the time came there was none of the bullshit we had to deal with from the French and Germans for example). I also think we're still very capable of fouling things up by not playing the straight and narrow on this WOMD stuff. Only time will tell....
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Scott: That's not what a strawman argument is, and even if it was, it wouldn't apply in this case.
Um? unless things means something different than what they mean then you are right. If things mean what they mean then I'm right.
Plus, the SR-71 is not a flyover recon plane, so it's not as good at detecting this kind of stuff
What is it then? Anyway, they're no longer in service.
In other news, according to a crazy homeless man who was shouting at an entire subway car this morning, we should all be wearing tinfoil hats so the lizard people can't read our minds.
How about we actually wait for some proof on this - preferably verified by UN inspectors - before we call 'smoking gun'?
Let's just get over it and focus on what [has the potential to] make the biggest positive statement about our presence in Iraq -- the rebuilding process. If we can help these people build a decent life for themselves, the WoMD stuff will be the domain of washed up pundits and wankers who have nothing better to argue about. Robert Novak, Jack Jermond, Mr. Hardball, et al.
Originally posted by Moogs
The bottom line is, short of us catching their WoMD people with the pants down (say *in the act* of destroying something incriminating), people will always question the validity of the findings made.
Perhaps, but the UN has less of a vested interest in legitimizing the war. If this turns out to have been an illegal war it should be known.
...But do you doubt for one second that if told to do so by the powers that be in Langley (not necessarily Bush or one of his cadre) that CIA operatives are both imminently capable and ruthless enough to do just what you're joking about?
Sure, they could.
But my question is, why haven't they done it yet?
We had quite a while to bust Hussein's ass.
They play by a different rule book than the rest of us, so don't utterly discount any possibility of existing or future tampering by organizations like the CIA or NSA on stuff like this.
I'm going to need some substance, though.
I agree with you on one thing, it's time to move on. But the anti-war crowd needs something. They were really dealt a tremendous and embarrassing blow.
----
And der kopf, thanks for finishing my joke.
Anders, do you still not believe there are people who will discount anything like this immediately as a CIA plot?
» Sniff sniff What's that smell?
I think that smell is bullshit.
Even if it isn't, the article (in 'liberal NYT,' no doubt!) gives no technical information nor does it give any specifics whatsoever.
I found it particularly interesting that in the thick of the biggest criticism so far, presto, there's an 'Iraqi scientist' that tells the US armchair hawks everything they want to hear. Don't bother noticing that this guy's knowledge spans beyond the strict compartmentalization needed to have large top-secret programs. Also don't bother noticing that a person under questioning tells his interrogators *exactly* what they want to hear.
Let's assume it's all true and chemical weapons were buried. What chemicals? VX? Iraq's VX degrades rapidly. The only VX production process used by Iraq that enabled stability would have been difficult in the extreme for Iraq to start up since '98 and would have been large-scale enough to notice.
So what then? Other nerve agents? Same problems only worse. Never gained weapon's grade purity and would have destabalized by now (over tens years after they could have last been produced).
So the only thing they could have been is mustard gas. Mustard gas has the shelf life and there is a discrepancy. However, the discrepancy is only a reslut of one document concerning # of bombs dropped during the war with Iran, and doesn't account for the number of bombs containing other chemicals, notably sarin and tabun, of which many of those bombs were. Note that a small quantity of remaining mustard gas is not justification for occupation of Iraq. Mustard gas is not efficient enough to be a threat to the US, and this lone agent would have been eliminated by UNMOVIC, or at the very least prohibited from being used. And this is acknowledging the most pessimistic of views.
But maybe there was a renewed program. I guess if one of the plot twists in your fantasy world view is that disproved US intelligence actually hasn't been disproven (in the real world we call that ignorance), then you could argue along with other mental patients that the US knew about it and presented the material to the UN, who didn't do enough to follow up. Of course, the folks that recognize that not a single piece of 'evidence' provided by the US has stood up to scrutiny, this looks like a long shot, and certainly not something that exists on a large scale. Large facilities are needed for large scale programs, and large facilities can't be hidden.
And that's the biggest key. This war was sold as a way to reduce a threat to the safety of the american people. If the program wasn't large enough to create a threat, then the war was not justified. And this ignores the fact that Saddam is not Al-Qaeda and had no iterest in attacking the US. I guess if you make a strawman out of what you want to see in Saddam, you might convince yourself that he would, but in the end you have to acknowledge that Saddam is no Uday didn't even like the kid (guy, whatever).
Finally and most importantly, one lone scientist claiming that Iraq was working with Al-Qaeda should raise a big red flag about his credibility, especially, as noted above, if he is part of an organization that was supposedly able to keep the giant secret.
Originally posted by groverat
But the anti-war crowd needs something. They were really dealt a tremendous and embarrassing blow.
This might be true, but I'm going to need some substance though. Do you have any?
Originally posted by giant
I think that smell is bullshit.
Even if it isn't, the article (in 'liberal NYT,' no doubt!) gives no technical information nor does it give any specifics whatsoever.
I found it particularly interesting that in the thick of the biggest criticism so far, presto, there's an 'Iraqi scientist' that tells the US armchair hawks everything they want to hear. Don't bother noticing that this guy's knowledge spans beyond the strict compartmentalization needed to have large top-secret programs. Also don't bother noticing that a person under questioning tells his interrogators *exactly* what they want to hear.
...
Actually I did notice that. Remember I have to quote myself here because giant couldn't stop to read and think
The bin Laden stuff sounds too good to be true.
Stop. Read. Think. Then reply.
Originally posted by Scott
Stop. Read. Think. Then reply.
Take your own advice, little man. I was arguing against what was in the article. Here's a hint: you aren't the center of the world.
Originally posted by Scott
Actually I did notice that.
I think giant's point is that when someone has so much information that it's too good to be true it is probably too good to be true.
If the guy has a few pieces of info that are plausible and a few that aren't, it's not wise to discredit the few that are implausible and trust the few that are. The source is either trustworthy or not.
Long story short, this guy is not going to lie to the US, and he also happens to be one of the handful of folks in the former regime to know the program from a bird's-eye view. I find any claims made my him 100000% more credible than some hazy story from someone who 'claims' to be an 'Iraqi scientist' that has such far-reaching knowledge of highly, highly secret programs.
If something new comes up with regards to this, start a new thread. Do not start another one for the personal attacks, keep those to private messages.