Tal's Iraq War: Blood for Oil, Oil for Food, Food for Thought

quote:

---

Negative, I am just using those links to refute the assertion that there were no WMD in Iraq.

---

Tal, did you read any part of the Republican led US Congressional report on Iraq that I provided for you?It disagrees with you.

quote:

---

Yes contra, I already addressed that earlier. It was not weapons grade material, but it still could have been used to make dirty bombs.

---

Of course it can. And I can kill someone with a rolled up newspaper by shoving it down their throat and collapsing their trachea.Is it not much more likely that in fact this material was intended for an ordinary power reactor for which lightly enriched uranium and yellowcake are entirely appropriate?Either way this is by no means evidence of WEAPONS, let alone weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION. Furthermore, the proposed dirty bomb attakc applies to terrorist operations, not those of a national amy like pre-Conquest Iraq's, so to even suggest there is something suspicious about this implies the discredited linkage between Iraq and terrorism.So this argument falls on all counts.

quote:

---

My position (There are WMD in Iraq) is substantiated from multiple sources of Sarin, Mustard, and 1.7 tons of nuclear material.

​

You guys are ignoring the facts.

---

Tal, have you read the US Congressional report on Iraq?Here is the link again:http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.htmlThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-12-2005 08:56 AM

???? Coulda woulda shoulda... It was only made likely to end up in a dirty bomb after our invasion carelessly left stockpiles unmonitored and unprotected.I am uncertain why we are having to argue this with you when one of the most comprehensive reports has already been handed to you.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

That is a fantasy tied to a conditional, and it certainly refutes the suggestion that there was a threat at the time.I notice you have refused to address the link you specifically asked for which contains counter information (not posted by me because I figured it wasn't worth my time, and I have been proven right), as well as ignoring my repeated point (with evidence) that your own citations refute your overall position.At this point I get the game. You are a troll. I can only hope that you are smarter than what you are playing here at EvC. If not our military is in some seriously bad shape. You certainly are the weakest link, goodbye!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

quote:

---

Hussein, the report concluded, "aspired to develop a nuclear capability" and intended to work on rebuilding chemical and biological weapons after persuading the United Nations to lift sanctions.

---

So, does this mean The US gets to invade and occupy any country who's leader has "aspirations" to build chemical and biological weapons?Gosh, we're going to be busy, eh?Maybe we should only invade the ones with very, very large oil reserves.Oh, BTW, does this mean you admit that Hussein actually did NOT have nuclear or biological capability, but only "aspirations" to REbuild them?

quote:

---

I would like to point this out for future reference.

---

Yes lets check that out, shall we? Over here: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/877222/posts... Fox reports that:

quote:

---

A former Iraqi scientist says Iraq is hiding materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons. He knows this because he helped hide some of the materials more than 20 years ago.

​

Gazi George, who lives near Detroit, Mich., and does consulting work in Quincy, fled Iraq in 1981 after helping to hide 39 rods of enriched uranium enough to build two nuclear bombs.

---

So this is an event that bhappened ten full years before the first gulf war. Now all the evidence is that Iraq did disarm in accordance with UN demands, so is there any actual evidence that the material is still there, or was even there after 1991? No there is not. This is hearsay going back to an event 24 years old.

quote:

---

My best guess as to why they don't unclass it yet is because the intel guys don't want a couple barrels of mustard, VX, or Sarin. They want to know where they came from.

---

I am quite willing to accept that they might indeed have a couple of barrels, but as you conced the idea that they definitely originated in a weapons programme that continued after 1991 is total speculation. There is no evidence. That is the point.Now I remind you that the justification for war was that the US certainly knew that Iraq had WMD which is blatantly false. Some of these mustard gas barrels, if there are any, might go back to the British who used it against Iraqi rebels in the 1950's for all we know. This is still in no way evidence for an active WMD programme, even if you consider Sarin and mustard WMD. And that is why they do not release any info - there is nothing here of any value, nothing to substantiate the claims. [quote] If I were a guessing man I'd say Saddam buried/hid most of it in Syria, and it is being ferried little by little back across.[/qupte]This is one of the more absurd NeoCon conspiracy theories, and it rests entirely on the notional "terrorist network" that Saddam was falsely alleged to have been part of. It is completely absurd to think that what are supposed to be the primary prestige weapons of the Iraqi state would be transported TO ANOTHER STATES TERRITORY. That is nuts. It is also illogical because surely the optimum moment to use such weapons, if you had any, would be early in the conflict. After the early stages you are going to be fighting in around your own population centres and infrastructure. I'm afraid this argument is plainly ridiculous, and once again is entirely without any basis in fact. It is a transparent excuse for the manifest failure to find WMD.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-12-2005 09:09 AM

quote:

---

Go on, murderer, explain it all away.

---

Contra, when you use language like this, I just roll my eyes and stop reading your posts.Clearly, you are not at all interested in rational discussion. How is anybody supposed to respond to you when you treat them this way?You are frothing at the mouth and that just makes you look like a crazy asshole.Tal, there's no point talking to contra when he gets like this, I suggest ignoring him.

quote:

---

Contra, when you use language like this, I just roll my eyes and stop reading your posts.

---

Your loss. My commitment to intellectual honesty supercedes mere custom.

quote:

---

Clearly, you are not at all interested in rational discussion.

---

Oh please - I am not obliged to accept a specific rationalisation of murder as a prerequisite to "polite debate". I will not be blackmailed in to accepting the other sides presumptions by your tut-tutting. And the irony is you've just been defending the right of anyone to speak freely without exception, so stick to your principles and suck it up.

quote:

---

You are frothing at the mouth and that just makes you look like a crazy asshole.

---

Logical fallacy of distraction: Style Over Substance:Definition:The manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is
taken to affect the likelihood that the conclusion is true.Proof:While it is true that the manner in which an argument is
presented will affect whether people believe that its
conclusion is true, nonetheless, the truth of the conclusion
does not depend on the manner in which the argument is
presented. In order to show that this fallacy is being
committed, show that the style in this case does not affect the
truth or falsity of the conclusion.I allege people who go to foreign lands without due legal authority and kill the citizens thereof are murderers. What is your counter-argument?This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-12-2005 09:18 AM

You just described the insurgents.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

quote:

---

You just described the insurgents.

---

Actually they do have authority as volunteer members of a citizens militia to engage in miltary activities against an occupying power.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-12-2005 09:30 AM

What's the price of a cup of tea in China? They would if we had invaded Syria, Iran, or Jordan.This message has been edited by Tal, 01-12-2005 09:33 AM

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Contra, if you call a military person a murderer, they are not going to listen to you.It doesn't matter how airtight your facts are, you are going to put them off.Clearly, your goal is not to persuade him and to help him see your side if you treat him like that.So, what is your goal? To stand alone on the top of your little intellectual mountain with nobody listening to you or even trying to see your point of view because you've been so rude to them?It certainly seems so.

quote:

---

Logical fallacy of distraction: Style Over Substance:

​

Definition:

​

The manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is
taken to affect the likelihood that the conclusion is true.

---

I don't know if you are right or not, because I stop reading your posts when you let yourself behave poorly.

quote:

---

Oh please - I am not obliged to accept a specific rationalisation of murder as a prerequisite to "polite debate".

---

Nobody's asking you to accept any definition as a prerequisite for polite debate.You are simply being told what the consequesnces are when you do not debate politely.People stop listening to you.

quote:

---

I will not be blackmailed in to accepting the other sides presumptions by your tut-tutting.

---

Oh, stop being such a drama queen. Nobody is blackmailing you into anything.

quote:

---

And the irony is you've just been defending the right of anyone to speak freely without exception, so stick to your principles and suck it up.

---

I haven't said that you should stop saying anything at all, have I?I simply told you what the consequesnces were likely to be if you continued ranting.

Holmes and Schra.Let's agree that we haven't found any significant amount of WMD.I can see the side that says a shell here and there isn't enough, and I can also see where the yellowcake is not weapons grade.What are some of your other contentions/issues with Iraq as it is being handled today?

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Now, contra, do you see what Tal is doing?He is not taking you seriously and is ignoring what you are saying.Now, he is ignoring what I have been saying to him as well, but he cannot point to any insulting behavior as an excuse to why he has not replied to my questions the way he can with you.It makes my position stronger, and your insistance upon calling people disrespectful names makes your position weaker.