Lies and the Presidency

12223252728

Comments

  • Reply 481 of 560
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    Okay---okay!!!



    IF you admit that the UN is dirty, that the whole bombing missions, the no-fly zones, and the sanctions were all part of a disingenuous plot by all the members of the security council, then I'll admit that Bush stretched the truth on the intel.




    So truth is something we bargin with now, eh?



    No-fly zones has nothing to do with UN. Its a US-GB thing.
  • Reply 482 of 560
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    No-fly zones has nothing to do with UN. Its a US-GB thing.



    Be careful not to confuse Askolodotna too much. details like this are difficult for it to understand
  • Reply 483 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    No-fly zones has nothing to do with UN. Its a US-GB thing.





    Then I'll take the sanctions. You pick.
  • Reply 484 of 560
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    Then I'll take the sanctions. You pick.



    Yes lets take them. US blocked any humanitarian lifting of them (like water purifying systems that of of course also could be used for water supplies to reactors as well as needed clean water for the population)
  • Reply 485 of 560
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    giant:



    Quote:

    Actually, blix was putting pressure on the Iraqis.



    Kudos on trying to discredit Blix using 1995 anecdotes, but I'm afraid it's not that easy.



    Since Kamel could not prove any destruction (thanks to his untimely murder in 1996) so it makes little difference.



    So Kamel comes out and says "everything has been destroyed" and provides no evidence. Goes back to Iraq and is killed by Hussein.



    I agree that he can't be used to say Iraq has weapons; likewise he is no worthy evidence that Iraq didn't have weapons. He is essentially useless.



    Quote:

    Furthermore, you can cite nothing that demonstrates Iraq is a threat. We went to war because Saddam's Iraq was painted as a threat, which it clearly was not.



    Without a clean bill of disarmament health from the UN you cannot say there is no way he was a threat. The US's inability to find anything means little. It is the unknown that could very justifiably be portrayed as a threat.



    Did Bush say that? No.

    Is Bush a liar? Yes, of course.



    Quote:

    You are continually using this term in a legal sense. You say Iraq was not disarmed, but what you mean is that Iraq didn't attain the status of disarmed.



    Yeah, trying to elevate the discourse a bit. Sorry.



    When people want to start talking about the UN-SC then my course of discussion is the only proper one.



    Quote:

    But whether Iraq is disarmed in a real world sense, you simply don't know.



    No one does, and that's the entire point.

    The burden of proof is on Hussein. Was, rather.



    Quote:

    But this war was not about Iraq being 'disarmed' in a legal sense. This war was to eliminate a threat.



    Ok, but the thread has different veins. Try not to swirl everything together.



    When blatant lies are told I will happily correct them.



    Iraq was not disarmed in the legal or "real-world" sense. I'm not the one who brought disarmament up.



    I'm saying that you don't have to have solid knowledge to feel a threat. That's the easiest time to feel threatened.



    Quote:

    Quite a few AO and FC posters argued that the decision had not yet been made during the build-up.



    You got me, I'm not clairvoyant!

    Had Hussein answered all Blix's questions, who knows what may have happened.
  • Reply 486 of 560
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    He is essentially useless.



    look up before you miss the point flying over your head.



    Quote:

    Without a clean bill of disarmament health from the UN you cannot say there is no way he was a threat.



    yes. the things that are unaccounted for in the inspection process are not a threat to the US.

    Quote:

    The US's inability to find anything means little. It is the unknown that could very justifiably be portrayed as a threat.



    Wrong. It looks like rummy got to you. In the real world there are physical limitations. For instance, bulk mustard gas can't be produced in your neighbor's basement.



    Furthermore, we have very good knowledge of Iraq weapons programs, contrary to what the Bush admin would have you believe.

    Quote:

    Did Bush say that? No.



    Did bush say what?





    Quote:

    Yeah, trying to elevate the discourse a bit. Sorry.



    When people want to start talking about the UN-SC then my course of discussion is the only proper one.



    That's fine, but it doesn't demonstrate a threat or justify war.



    Quote:

    No one does, and that's the entire point.

    The burden of proof is on Hussein. Was, rather.



    To 'disarm,' yes. To be a threat, no. That's up to the Bush admin to prove.



    Quote:

    Iraq was not disarmed in the ... "real-world" sense.



    But you don't know that. even you just admitted it, and I quote: No one does, and that's the entire point. So which is it?



    Quote:

    I'm saying that you don't have to have solid knowledge to feel a threat. That's the easiest time to feel threatened.



    We are discussing states, not individuals.



    Of course, since all available evidence points to Iraq being far from a threat, your statement doesn't cut in in this discussion.



    As I've said before, if you can demonstrate that Iraq was a clear threat, then do so. If you can't, then resorting to bigfoot and UFOs (things that MIGHT be true) only cheapens your position.

    Quote:

    You got me, I'm not clairvoyant!



    Or apparently very intelligent. It was clear to anyone paying attention to the skewed info and flat out lies that the Bush admin was going to invade regardless of anything else.
  • Reply 487 of 560
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Blix:



    Quote:

    "What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were expecting to stumble on large quantities of gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons," Blix said in an interview with the New York Times.



    "I don't see how they could have come to such an attitude if they had, at any time, studied" existing reports by UN inspectors, he said.




    http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au...5E1702,00.html



    Apparently this is news to some of you. Like I have said, if you actually look at the UN reports, you will see that the claims by the Bush admin are not true.
  • Reply 488 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Oh no!!!! John Kerry is in on the conspriacy too!!!



    Will it never end!!!





    Use Of Force Against Saddam Justified To Prevent WMD Production:



    '[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)



    Military Force Should Be Used Against Suspected WMD



    "In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)



    U.S. May Have To Go It Alone To Stop Saddam:



    "Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)



    U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do, With Or Without Other Nations:



    "[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
  • Reply 489 of 560
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    Oh no!!!! John Kerry is in on the conspriacy too!!!



    What conspiracy?
  • Reply 490 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    What conspiracy?





    Apparently some here believe that the US has put the whammy on the UN to keep Iraq as the red-headed stepchild in the basement----apparently for some yet undisclosed Halliburton oil grab.



    I'm being facetious, but that is the gist.
  • Reply 491 of 560
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    giant:



    Quote:

    look up before you miss the point flying over your head.



    And that would be? Different sources say different things?



    Quote:

    yes. the things that are unaccounted for in the inspection process are not a threat to the US.



    Really? There's no way hundreds of tons of chemical/biological weapons are a threat to the US?



    Very interesting. I don't want you in charge of national security.



    Would you call NK a threat? Just curious.



    Quote:

    Wrong. It looks like rummy got to you. In the real world there are physical limitations. For instance, bulk mustard gas can't be produced in your neighbor's basement.



    And it is an impossibility that Iraq maintained these? Their systems are a tad more advanced than my neighbor.



    Quote:

    Furthermore, we have very good knowledge of Iraq weapons programs, contrary to what the Bush admin would have you believe.



    And you'll notice I don't quote a damned thing from the Bush administration, thank you.



    Who is this "we"? Because if it's UNMOVIC I'm reading from their reports.



    Quote:

    Did bush say what?



    Bush didn't say "Iraq hasn't disarmed. And since we don't know what they have truly destroyed and they will not divulge I consider them a threat." He said they actually had things.



    Quote:

    That's fine, but it doesn't demonstrate a threat or justify war.



    Very little would because you hate Bush. It's purely subjective.



    Quote:

    To 'disarm,' yes. To be a threat, no. That's up to the Bush admin to prove.



    On what level would the Bush administration have to prove it?



    Legally? Certainly not.

    Morally? Subjective.



    Quote:

    But you don't know that. even you just admitted it, and I quote: No one does, and that's the entire point. So which is it?



    Since no one knows whether or not they are disarmed they are not disarmed.



    You can't be a little pregnant, so either you are or you're not. If we don't know whether or not they are disarmed they are not disarmed.



    It's logic, keep up.



    Quote:

    As I've said before, if you can demonstrate that Iraq was a clear threat, then do so. If you can't, then resorting to bigfoot and UFOs (things that MIGHT be true) only cheapens your position.



    I guess if a decade+ of official UN documents amounts to UFOs and bigfoots to you...



    Quote:

    Or apparently very intelligent. It was clear to anyone paying attention to the skewed info and flat out lies that the Bush admin was going to invade regardless of anything else.



    Hard to predict, the future is.

    It was Hussein's war to stop, IMO.



    --



    ena:



    They will act like the WMD is new. It is very amusing.
  • Reply 492 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    It's the UN security council!! They're in on it too!!!





    Round up the usual suspects!!



  • Reply 493 of 560
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    tonton:



    Quote:

    Do the math. I looked at the "cluster document" and there are not "hundreds of tons" unaccounted for. Don't exaggerate.



    Take a look at page 67 & 68. I was being conservative. You obviously didn't look very hard.

    - 219 tons of Tabun produced. 70 tons allegedly destroyed (30 unilateral & unverified, 40 in front of inspectors).

    - They destroyed MORE POCI than they declared they had.

    - 191 tons of NaCN and 140 tons of DMA-HCI "that could still be viable today"



    So that's hundreds of tons just from two pages in the 173 page document.



    Sorry tonton, your ignorant lies continue to stink.



    Quote:

    And it doesn't matter. If there were 1000 tons unaccounted for that didn't actually exist, they are not a threat. They are a suspected threat. Until you can prove that they exist, you cannot prove that they are a threat.



    The unknown can be and is usually the biggest threat. You have to see something to be scared of it?



    A "suspected threat"?

    Until proven guilty in a court a law by a jury of its chemical peers?



    Jesus.... quit while you're way behind.



    Quote:

    There have been no inspections in NK so we have no indication of what they do and do not have except Kim's word. Kim has overtly stated that he will nuke the USA if there is a war. That's a proven threat.



    How can it be a threat if we don't know what they have? It's a "suspected threat" right?



    Quote:

    Groverat, you'd be advised not to argue a point that supports your opponent. Comparing Iraq and NK only makes Saddam look even less of a comparative threat, and therefore Bush even more hypocritical.

    It's a possibility, but you can't go to war on a possibility.




    Well since my goal isn't to defend Bush or make him look groovy I don't give a rat's ass.

    The hypocrisy of those saying "NK is the REAL threat!" is laughable.



    There is just as much evidence (if not more) that NK doesn't have any ability to hit us with a nuke as there is evidence he can. It's all in what you want to see I guess.



    Quote:

    Did you know that the last time Iraq was proven to have produced WMD was 1991?



    Yes, I did. I read the Cluster document before the war even started.



    Quote:

    That the last time stored weapons were destroyed was 1997?



    See above.



    Quote:

    I might have missed something, but that's what it looked like according to that document. And that says to me that war was incredibly irresponsible. I'm going to read the document fully and see if I was wrong on those points. Feel free to correct me. But tell me. Did you read it?



    Yes. I don't see how the above two points dispute anything I say?

    Did I say Iraq was still producing the weapons? Of course not.



    Quote:

    I don't get your point. Bush lied. We all know it. In fact, he should in fact have said that since he didn't "know what they have truly destroyed and they will not divulge [he] consider[s] them a threat." That would have been honest.



    Harder to sell the war that way, so he lied instead and said Iraq had the stuff.



    Quote:

    This is a cop-out. I don't think Giant hates Bush any more than I do. We hate his actions. We hate his dishonesty. We hate his ignorance. When he does something that's not harmful or dishonest or ignorant, we won't hesitate to give him credit.



    So what did Iraq have in 1998 that justified a unilateral 33,000 troop attack?



    Let's see how much you really hate dishonesty. You must be filled with self-loathing.



    Quote:

    You have heard of the concept of Due Process, no? I know legally it isn't binding to non-Americans and foreign bodies, but in the spirit of all things American it should be.



    No, it shouldn't be. How foolish.

    And past that, if you want to look at it that way Iraq was convicted over a decade ago and has been violating its parole agreements (dozen resolutions) ever since.



    Quote:

    Bush ignored due process in his attack on Iraq, even though the UN pressed for it. Not to mention that we broke the rules of the UN charter, according to the UN (and they have the sole right to judge whether we did or not). And we are bound to that signed charter by the constitution. So our action did indeed break the law.



    Quote the law we broke and then explain to me how that law trumps the supreme power of the US federal government in the Constitution which gives Congress and the Prez war-making powers. Please.



    Quote:

    If they have no weapons than they are disarmed. Period.



    They are disarmed when the UN-SC says they are disarmed. Period.



    Did you not remember these lovely humanitarian anti-war nations resisting the ending of sanctions because they said Iraq needed further inspections and disarmament?



    Selective memory and lies abound.



    Quote:

    I ask again. Did you actually look at the cluster document? Where did the UN documents say Saddam had WMD? Nowhere, that's where.



    I'm not sure it said that I never said it did.



    Quote:

    That's not the way it works. It was Bush's war to justify.



    Sure it's the way it works. Obviously that's the way it works. Look at the world.



    Hussein has outstanding WMD issues.

    Bush says "I consider you a threat, Saddam, resolve them or I will shoot you with the big gun!" and calls for new resolutions and inspections.

    Iraq's big declaration answers damn near ZERO questions.

    The inspections process produces very few results in answering the question.

    Bush says "Do it or I will shoot you with the big gun I discussed earlier."

    Saddam does not.

    Bush shoots him with the big gun.



    What is the law here? Is there anything tangible WRT legal recourse against the US?
  • Reply 494 of 560
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Take a look at page 67 & 68. I was being conservative. You obviously didn't look very hard.

    - 219 tons of Tabun produced. 70 tons allegedly destroyed (30 unilateral & unverified, 40 in front of inspectors).

    - They destroyed MORE POCI than they declared they had.

    - 191 tons of NaCN and 140 tons of DMA-HCI "that could still be viable today"



    So that's hundreds of tons just from two pages in the 173 page document.



    Wrong again. First, NaCN and DMA-HCl (that's an "L") are not chemical weapons.



    Second, as the document clearly states on one of the pages you cited, "tabun was produced using process technology and quality control methodologies that would result in the agent being degraded to a very low quality through the action of a resulting by-product." Since this unaccounted for amount is known by everyone to have degraded, why would Iraq hide it from inspectors? It wouldn't. Here you are able to see clearly how weapons could be unaccounted for even without Iraqi wrongdoing.



    Third, you conveniently ignored everything else that invalidates your point. What you are talking about are precurssors to Tabun. Let the document explain:



    Quote:

    documentary evidence suggests that Tabun was produced using process technology and quality control methodologies that would result in the agent being degraded to a very low quality through the action of a resulting by-product.



    One bottleneck for Tabun production is the availability of precursors. Iraq may have retained up to 191 tonnes of NaCN and up to 140 tonnes of DMA.HCl, but there is no evidence that any POCl3 remains unaccounted for....



    Another bottleneck for Tabun production would be the limited availability of some key equipment needed for processing and storage of corrosive intermediates.



    Iraq?s assertion that it decided in 1986 to stop production of Tabun and concentrate on the production of Sarin is plausible and appears to be supported by UNSCOM?s findings.



    from page 68 of the document you so frequently erroneously cite: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/docu...March%2003.pdf



    Iraq was never able to make Tabun that was viable enough to make is desireable today. While Iraq has some unaccounted for precurssors, this is not the case with all precurssors needed for Tabun, so Iraq can't make it.



    All evidence points to a program to develop Tabun being stopped, which would be the best course of action in Iraq's point of view.



    This is far from evidence of a threat, and is not treated as such in the document. It is the tying up of loose ends on an obviously discontinued program.



    You are lucky the G5 info is out so people don't see you make such a fool of yourself.
  • Reply 495 of 560
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Apparently the two jokers in the deck were Iraqi scientists!



  • Reply 496 of 560
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Never said the Tabun was viable. Never said it was a threat.



    Beat up those strawmen, giant, beat them to hell.
  • Reply 497 of 560
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Never said the Tabun was viable.

    Never said it was a threat.



    So the only thing you are stating is that Iraq was never designated 'disarmed' by the UN. Of course, the war stopped the inspection process, thus making the UN unable to complete the process of designating Iraq 'disarmed.' So the war was the largest hinderance to resolving this matter in the way dictated by the UN.



    You also did say, "war is the only way to disarm Iraq."



    According to your new-found defintion which makes 'disarm' a simple UN designation, war was certainly NOT the only way to 'disarm' Iraq.



    But maybe you meant 'war' in some other sense, too.
  • Reply 498 of 560
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    giant:



    Quote:

    So the only thing you are stating is that Iraq was never designated 'disarmed' by the UN.



    A point I have to repeat since you guys don't seem to understand. Iraq wasn't disarmed. The ambiguity in that can be a threat.



    Do I consider it a threat? Not really, I don't consider NK a real threat. Then again I am not responsible for anyone's security. If I were POTUS I might feel differently.



    ---

    While Iraq=not disarmed;

    run (sanctions & occassional bombing)



    if Iraq=disarmed;

    kill (sanctions & occassional bombing)



    Written in Logic++

    ---



    Quote:

    Of course, the war stopped the inspection process, thus making the UN unable to complete the process. So the war was the largest hinderance to resolving this matter in the way dictated by the UN.



    Actually it ended it all rather succinctly.

    No more sanctions, no more books, no more Hans Blix dirty looks.



    It ended inspections, sanctions, voided all complaints against Saddam (re:disarmament). All in one fell swoop. Go Army!



    Quote:

    You also did say, "war is the only way to disarm Iraq."



    War did disarm Iraq.



    Quote:

    According to your new-found defintion which makes 'disarm' a simple UN designation, war was certainly NOT the only way to disarm Iraq.



    How was it going to happen otherwise?

    Was Hussein going to answer every single question?
  • Reply 499 of 560
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    giant:







    A point I have to repeat since you guys don't seem to understand. Iraq wasn't disarmed. The ambiguity in that can be a threat.



    Do I consider it a threat? Not really, I don't consider NK a real threat. Then again I am not responsible for anyone's security. If I were POTUS I might feel differently.



    ---

    While Iraq=not disarmed;

    run (sanctions & occassional bombing)



    if Iraq=disarmed;

    kill (sanctions & occassional bombing)



    Written in Logic++

    ---







    Actually it ended it all rather succinctly.

    No more sanctions, no more books, no more Hans Blix dirty looks.



    It ended inspections, sanctions, voided all complaints against Saddam (re:disarmament). All in one fell swoop. Go Army!







    War did disarm Iraq.







    How was it going to happen otherwise?

    Was Hussein going to answer every single question?






    Doesn't matter now. The war was based on a lie!
  • Reply 500 of 560
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Iraq wasn't disarmed. The ambiguity in that can be a threat.



    Except that it was clear Iraq was not a threat. So while the 'ambiguity' could be, it wasn't.



    Quote:

    While Iraq=not disarmed;

    run (sanctions & occassional bombing)



    if Iraq=disarmed;

    kill (sanctions & occassional bombing)



    Nope. sanctions should be changed to serve specific purposes. Sanctions restricting military buildup would never have been lifted.



    Quote:

    Actually it ended it all rather succinctly.



    Only if you ignore not only the fact that it has not yet ended, but also the major global changes that have worked to make the US position a very nasty one.



    There is a WHOLE lot more to the effects of this war than the removal of Saddam. In fact, that is actually one of the minor ones. People 100 years from now aren't going to care about Saddam's removal, they are going to care about the massive geo-political changes resulting from this war that will still be affecting them.



    Quote:

    War did disarm Iraq.



    But that's not what you said. You are like a ****ing child.



    Quote:

    How was it going to happen otherwise?

    Was Hussein going to answer every single question?



    Ah, here's where you have proven that it was not necessary by citing the Tabun. Iraq wasn't hiding Tabun. It would be worthless at this point, so if Iraq could account for it they would have. You have only demonstrated how discrepancies can't be interpreted solely as lack of cooperation.



    It is very likely that this issue would have been resolved through peaceful means. The only thing that would have prevented that was an Iraq of the kind dreamed up by the Bush admin, which was not the reality of the situation.
Sign In or Register to comment.