Where's the proof that Iraq has chemical weapons, hmm??

[Rubia Warren]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81935,00.html

They just found a huge chemical weapons plant in Iraq. Oops! Where'd that come from?!?!

[Epoetker]

It's a lie! Saddam hates chemical weapons about as much as he hates terrorists! It's all a Jewish plot! It's all a neoconservative plot! Richard Perle probably planted that information!

[kiwimac]

Hmmm,

This is on Fox right?? Why has no one else reported it? This should be BIG news but nary a rermark about it anywhere else, nothing in the international media either!

Ah, of course, its FOX!

Kiwimac:hrm:

[Hitch]

Dont forget in Eriann speak 'chemical weapons plant' looks like this baby food factory

[Captain Ochre]

There will be many similar finds, I suspect, but let's remain cautious until the crews designated for that purpose identify the products the the plant is designed to manufacture.

[yxboom]

La Rubia how dare you release such propoganda. :hrm:

Kiwimac is far too intellegent to fall for you false accusations.

[Pilgrim]

So chemical plant = chemical weapons cache?

[Rubia Warren]

Okay, kiwi-
here's another unreliable source:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31679


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION: IRAQI FREEDOM
U.S. captures Iraqi
chemical-weapons plant
100-acre, camouflaged facility
overtaken 90 miles south of Baghdad

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 23, 2003
4:00 p.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

U.S. forces have uncovered an illegal chemical-weapons plant in An Najaf, some 90 miles south of Baghdad, according to a report in the Jerusalem Post.

The discovery of the chemical plant was also later confirmed by Fox News.

A senior Pentagon official told network correspondent Bret Baier that coaltion forces discovered a ''huge'' chemical-weapons factory near An Najaf.

At least 30 Iraqi troops, including a general, surrendered today to troops with the 3rd Infantry Division within minutes of U.S. forces entering the area to capture the sheet metal-lined chemical weapons production facility.

One U.S. soldier was wounded when a booby-trapped explosive went off at the 100-acre complex, which is surrounded by an electrical fence.


F-16 Fighting Falcon preps to refuel near Iraq

The Post states the surrounding barracks resemble an abandoned slum and the facility was camouflaged in sand-cast walls to make it look like the surrounding desert, in an apparent attempt to keep it from being photographed aerially.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But I guess the news isn't legit 'til it's reported by CNN.:ahem:

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 01:36 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43220#post43220)
Pilgrim:

So chemical plant = chemical weapons cache?

No, they just built the plant so that they would have the ability to make chemical weapons. They never intended to actually make any.

C'mon, Pilgrim, get serious. If the plant is fitted for making sarin, or mustard gas, or something of that ilk, won't you admit that Iraq is cheating even if they don't find gallons of the stuff lying around?

[yxboom]

Today @ 05:36 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43220#post43220)
Pilgrim:

So chemical plant = chemical weapons cache?

To make that kind of statement only says you been watching too much dramas. If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck it must be the chicken.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 07:24 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43213#post43213)
Hitch:

Dont forget in Eriann speak 'chemical weapons plant' looks like this baby food factory
Oh, good Lord, go change your diaper, Hitch!

If you want Eireann-speak, it would go like this: "Since the media has been jumpy and premature so many times since this war has started, and has had to retract so many statements it has made since this war started, it would be wise to wait until there is official confirmation of this find."

Note: not to be read as "confirmed by Fox News," as in La Rubia's second link, but confirmed by actual military sources, such as those who actually found the facility.

[Rubia Warren]

Today @ 08:59 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43243#post43243)
Eireann:


Oh, good Lord, go change your diaper, Hitch!

If you want Eireann-speak, it would go like this: "Since the media has been jumpy and premature so many times since this war has started, and has had to retract so many statements it has made since this war started, it would be wise to wait until there is official confirmation of this find."

Note: not to be read as "confirmed by Fox News, as in La Rubia's second link" but confirmed by actual military sources, such as those who actually found the facility.

Someone from the Pentagon confirmed it, Eirann. It's in the article.
Just out of curiosity, these so many times since the war started that the media has had to retract, when were they? I'm not challenging you, or anything, I just was curious as to when they happened, and what it was over.

[yxboom]

I read the Newsweek article when this war first began and so far it has stated everything then what is being revealed now....so I would rule them having any retraction :hrm:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 08:07 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43247#post43247)
La Rubia:



Someone from the Pentagon confirmed it, Eirann. It's in the article.
Just out of curiosity, these so many times since the war started that the media has had to retract, when were they? I'm not challenging you, or anything, I just was curious as to when they happened, and what it was over.
I was referring to the initial reports that the entire 51st Iraqi Division had surrendered, when at the time only one brigade had done so. The BBC was the first to retract and correct that error. Also, I've seen at least 8 reports of SCUD attacks, which later had to be withdrawn when it was found they weren't SCUDs. The best, though, was when the command headquarters in Kuwait got word that there were inbound missiles fired from Iraqi missile batteries (two of the prematurely-reported SCUD missiles that weren't) and the reporters said it was being considered a "terrorist" attack! I laughed so hard at that (the idea that when an enemy under attack fights back, it is "terrorism") that the soda I was drinking came back up through my nose! It was Fox News that reported that one, and actually cited the words of one of the officers in calling it a "terrorist attack." Hence, you can see why I am a bit skeptical of what Fox News has to say unless I see it actually come from the military itself.

[Rubia Warren]

Alright, I'll give you that one- I, too, raised an eyebrow at the "terrorist attacks" (or at least it being called that). I didn't catch the other ones, though.
It will be interesting to see what comes of this story... the two things that really catch my eye are that an official from the Pentagon confirms it, and also that the factory was camoflaged.
Now they're covering it real hard on tv- I mean, real hard (on fox).

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 08:11 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43206#post43206)
La Rubia:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81935,00.html

They just found a huge chemical weapons plant in Iraq. Oops! Where'd that come from?!?! Fox, don't come looking for news, just what you want to hear!

I'll eat my hat if that is a chemical weapons plant. Propaganda in the US is picking up seeing how the Iraqi's aren't just giving up like the playbook said they would. The Admin can't let the US fall off from supporting the war. I mean Fox already said the first capturees were executed. Turned out not to be the case. Won't be the last lie out of the news room.

[Rubia Warren]

Ahem. Will someone tell me which news source to use? Because every time someone doesn't like what the news has to say, it is passed off as propaganda, lies, and error (unless, of course, it's saying something they want to hear).
While I do realize that sometimes, guns are jumped in the news, you guys tell me: where should I get my news?
Or should I just not get any news and just listen to you.:ahem:

[flipper]

Jimmy Higgins:

Why wouldn't it be a chemical weapons plant? We know the Iraqis had them.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 08:51 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43283#post43283)
La Rubia:

Ahem. Will someone tell me which news source to use? Because every time someone doesn't like what the news has to say, it is passed off as propaganda, lies, and error (unless, of course, it's saying something they want to hear).
While I do realize that sometimes, guns are jumped in the news, you guys tell me: where should I get my news?
Or should I just not get any news and just listen to you.:ahem:
It's not really a question of where you get the news, because every news source you can name is going to be slanted one way or another. "Unbiased journalism" is really an oxymoron these days. More important, I think, is how they present the information. When a reporter comes on and says, "He said she said ..." it is a lot less reliable than if they actually show the person saying it. It's one thing to say General Jones said such-and-such, but another thing to actually show General Jones making the quotes firsthand.

[flipper]

La Rubia:

I don't think it's so much a matter of bias as it is a matter of fragmented information conveyed real-time, with no real way of checking sources.

MSNBC, CNN, and the BBC (www.bbc.co.uk/news) are probably your best bets to get a broad conscensus on the confusion. I like the BBC best, but I'm biased. Fox News seem to have spent a bunch of money and time in getting their correspondents all over the shop.

NPR is really your best bet for radio news. Sorry right-wing folk, but there it is.

For an alternative look, you might try the Jerusalem Post, or Pravda (http://english.pravda.ru/). I can't find an english language arabic paper that I am especially impressed by, but maybe someone else will have some ideas.

[Alden]

Today @ 05:24 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43212#post43212)
kiwimac:

Hmmm,

This is on Fox right?? Why has no one else reported it? This should be BIG news but nary a rermark about it anywhere else, nothing in the international media either!

Ah, of course, its FOX!

Kiwimac:hrm:

yet another brilliant refutation

:argue:

[flipper]

Actually, it's on CNN also.

A hidden factory seems like a strange thing to lie about. I'm sure if it is a chemical weapons plant, the US will be busting to invite the world's press in to look it over as soon as it is safe to do so as it would nicely prove the non-compliancy point, presuming it has been recently used. Even if it hasn't, it still looks bad.

And if it's a lie, they'll look really, really silly because this is the sort of thing people want to see.

I expect the Iraqis will say it is used for making fertilizer. But that won't explain the electric fence.

[wienerdog]

I get my news online, and I tend to go back and forth between MSNBC and Fox. However, I have recently discovered www.andrewsullivan.com, and appreciate his commentary, although it is clearly Republican. Here are a few comments from the past week he has made about NPR and the BBC:

ALL THINGS DISTORTED: More reader disgruntlement:

I'm a lifelong NY Times reader and NPR listener. But no more. Raines has successfully driven me to subscribe to the Post. And this morning I started searching the radio dial for AM news to wake up to. The final nail in the NPR coffin occurred last night (3/21), when they reported on the Palestinian "Peace Protests." No mention of them chanting for "Our beloved Saddam, hit Tel Aviv." Instead, it was about them protesting American aggression. What really got me apoplectic was when they referred to the sympathetic relationship between Hamas and Hussein. As NPR described it, Hussein has helped give aid to Palestinian families who have lost loved ones in the struggle with Israel. This is how they refer to Hussein paying the families of homicide bombers. I'm through with NPR.

Lots of epiphanies all round. This war is clarifying a lot of things, isn't it?

BAGHDAD BROADCASTING CORPORATION: An email from the in-tray:

I just finished watching the first news brief/update by Gen Franks. During the question period, a BBC World reporter stood and made some statements that were truly shocking. I'm going by memory, but the salient points were:
You (Franks) are trying to get us to report that many Iraqi troops are surrendering
If we do, this would provide you much valuable propaganda wouldn't it? It just might accelerate further surrenders.
You are going to have to provide me with much better proof if you expect me to report that there are "tens of thousands" of troops surrendering.
Franks replied with a "Whoa! No one here mentioned anything about 'tens of thousands' surrendering" and then proceed to calmly re-state the information he had previously.
What kind of mind inhabits the BBC? God forbid that they report something that might hasten and end to war - and save lives on all fronts.

What inhabits the minds of the lefties who work for the BBC is a visceral hatred of American power, even to the extent of spinning for a genocidal monster.

AXIS OF BIAS: Lileks observes a moronic convergence:

11:50 NPR is running . . . the BBC. It's interesting, listening to these guys - I'm unsure how it's possible to sneer the entire time you're speaking. I fear the announcer's face will stay that way. Perhaps you can recognize an old Beeb hand by the permanently curled lip. I've tuned in twice in half an hour; both times they were talking about the FAILURE to get Saddam, and what this FAILURE means for the war which might be hindered by this initial FAILURE. And then the reporter - a female one, with a sneerier sneer - says the question now is when the attack will come, and whether the President will give his generals permission to act with a free hand.
Um . . . haven't we already settled that question? I know it conflicts with the Beeb's view of Bush as a vulture with a bloody globe clutched in one claw, the other holding the leashes of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but I heard hours ago that theater decisions had been left to the folks who do this for a living.
Unbelievable: NPR's top of the hour theme is somber, downbeat, with a few disconsolate snare drums - music to lose by! Is it too much to ask of these people to play something that doesn't sound like the music you'd use for the sinking of a f--king aircraft carrier? *$#%*(#$%$#5

Nah, James. They've only just begun. Imagine how terrified they are that Saddam might actually be dead.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: "Listened this morning to a report from NPR reporter Sylvia Poggioli on world reaction to the beginning of the war. She quoted the official responses from the following countries only: France, Belgium, Russia, Greece. Apparently, Senator Daschle was not available..."

[Epoetker]

Flipper thus establishes himself firmly into the camp of liberals who accept reality. Congratulations. You earn a gold star and a subscription to The New Republic:

www.tnr.com

Spread its non-inane policy positions everywhere!

Now will Vorky and Eirann join you, is the question...

[flipper]

Hey, I've never denied Iraq had a chemical weapons program. The Iraqis consistently lied to everyone since 1990, and I view their recent denials in the same light. I think anyone arguing that Iraq does not have chemical weapons is being very optimistic. The question is, are they manufacturing more, and how degraded are their old stockpiles? A more important question is if their chemical weapons are still good, then where are they?

[Alden]

Today @ 06:39 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43271#post43271)
Jimmy Higgins:


I'll eat my hat if that is a chemical weapons plant.

Would you like condiments with that hat sir?

:ahem:

[flipper]

Weinerdog:

I think sombre music is quite appropriate for wartime. A cheery jingle of martial music is a bit too 1984 for my liking. Or 3rd world dictatorship at least.



What kind of mind inhabits the BBC? God forbid that they report something that might hasten and end to war - and save lives on all fronts.

You seem to be confused as to what the primary role of a reporter should be (hint, not to act as a willing propaganda shill).

And All Things Considered is an opinion piece. Sorry the NYT reader didn't like the bias in the opinion they heard (assuming that's what they were listening to).

Alden:


Would you like condiments with that hat sir?

Well, don't be too hasty with that fricasee chapeau a la mode as I don't think it's been confirmed that this plant is a chemical factory yet. And I'd prefer my confirmation to come from an independent source (some UN inspectors might be nice), but this may well be an object lesson on why people should never say things like "I'll eat my hat if..."

Time will tell. I hear that with a good balsamic dressing, a fedora tastes quite unlike a salad.

[wienerdog]

Flipper,

Well, I think maybe military music that doesn't necessarily arouse happy or sad emotions would be more appropriate, although of course I agree that war is a horrific tragedy. I think everyone who thinks this war is justified (as I do) needs to spend some time in the insane bureaucracy of the military (as I did) and read "Catch-22" (as I have).

As for the BBC reporter who challenged Gen. Franks: I think that reporter was obligated to report what Franks said. To essentially refuse to report it because it might lead to a conclusion you don't like is just...while I've been trying to think of an appropriate adjective, and I'm torn between "twisted" and "evil".

[flipper]

The BBC's tally of POWs has been in broad accordance with that of CNN's. Several thousand, but no mass surrenders yet.

[wienerdog]

Oops! I cut and pasted too soon! Here's some more from www.andrewsullivan.com

THE BBC VERSUS THE UNITED STATES: Just a smattering of emails from people shocked to hear the BBC for the first time:

I've watched BBC coverage from time to time in recent years (I live in New York), but have had occasion to watch it with some regularity this week as the war has begun. I know that the Beeb has been a favorite target of yours and I now understand why. While the coverage itself was informative, if somewhat tilted, what truly shocked me was a fellow named Alan George, who was trotted out as a military analyst. If they could have hired a commentator more contemptuous of the coalition's aims, it's hard to imagine how. This morning his remarks nearly rocked me out of bed when he suggested that the Iraqi Information Ministry's credibility compared favorably to Washington's and London's.

No surprise here. Then there's this:

I am an Emmy award-winning, documentary film producer with 30-plus years of experience on five continents. For the last two years I have been working in Europe and stuck in a hotel that has as its only English-language TV channel, BBC World. Fortunately, I have access via the Web to a far wider understanding of what’s going on in the world. I am more than appalled over BBC’s blatant and incessant propaganda; I am deeply concerned to the point of perhaps being, well, frightened. The BBC is clearly and unambiguously the most corrupt and dangerous English-language media force in the world today ... Just one slice of the destruction: BBC’s propagandizing effect of fueling wider European anti-Americanism. There’s a whole lot of folks here on the Continent that think the BBC is the voice of great mid-Atlantic (read "objective, middle ground") insight into what Americans are all about. Most people here are not so much aware that, yes, Americans and the BBC speak the same language, but that’s as far as it goes. So the propaganda, BBC propaganda, is parroted, and it spreads.

Then the latest obscenity came with the capture and shooting in the head of American POWs:

Watching BBC World Service when this remarkable utterance was made in respect of the captured US soldiers - "In a war where public opinion is as important as what happens on the field of battle today saw a true public relations disaster." Initially I agreed - openly parading your barabarism should clarify for everyone the nature of the Baathist regime - but it rapidly became evident that in the inverted moral universe of the BBC the public relations disaster they referred to was one that affected the Coalition and the US only - it was a PR disaster that these prisoners had been captured. That some of them had been obviously executed in cold blood and the rest were being put through a course in which the Iraqi intended to break every other Geneva convention with just this small group was not something that would reflect badly on the Iraqi's - and anyway the Iraqi disinformation minister had said that they were being treated well.

It is important to remember, I think, that the war isn't just between the West and Saddam. There's also a political and ideological war within the West. The anti-war crowd have lost the argument about going to war; so they are determined to win the case during and after it. They want this war to be regarded as a disaster. And it's up to the rest of us to fight back, expose them, and keep people focused on reality, not pro-Saddam and anti-Western spin. I need your help in this, so keep those press clips coming. Blogs are another weapon. We should use them.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

You (Franks) are trying to get us to report that many Iraqi troops are surrendering
If we do, this would provide you much valuable propaganda wouldn't it? It just might accelerate further surrenders.
You are going to have to provide me with much better proof if you expect me to report that there are "tens of thousands" of troops surrendering.
Franks replied with a "Whoa! No one here mentioned anything about 'tens of thousands' surrendering" and then proceed to calmly re-state the information he had previously.
What kind of mind inhabits the BBC? God forbid that they report something that might hasten and end to war - and save lives on all fronts.
Wow, I'm speechless. This is something you almost never see -- a journalist actually being responsible, with a care for the accuracy of their reporting! I don't blame him/her, though. "Tens of thousands" of mass surrenders is exactly what some of the other networks were reporting. Jaltus cited one as saying that more than 10,000 troops had surrendered from the 51st Division ... at a time when only a few hundred from one brigade of the 51st had actually surrendered (not blaming Jaltus, I'm blaming the source he cited for premature reporting). Even when the rest of the Division did surrender, it was still less than 10,000. Might it encourage more surrenders? Possibly. But still I have this lingering distaste for being lied to.

[efta777]

Jimmy Higgins:
I mean Fox already said the first capturees were executed. Turned out not to be the case. Won't be the last lie out of the news room.

You don't think that the Iraqi's have executed POWs?
Well then what do you think these pictures here:
http://www.drudgereport.com/md323.htm
are all about?

[GrayPilgrim]

The Media imdedded in the particualr unit of the 3rd ID that took the plant works for the Jerusalem Post. It was most defintely a chemical plant made to be invisibel from the sky. He reported itover 12 hours ago. FoxNews and MSNBC waited until they could get confrimation from the Pentagon on this and they have confirmed it. They report large vats of chemicals on site as well as the General in charge of defdending the plant have been captured. They are waiting for the 75th (?) Exploratory Unit, the unit tasked with handeling WMD, to arive and analyse the particualr chemicals. (THat was the news as of 11:00 EST).

GP

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 11:52 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43457#post43457)
wienerdog:

It is important to remember, I think, that the war isn't just between the West and Saddam. There's also a political and ideological war within the West. The anti-war crowd have lost the argument about going to war; so they are determined to win the case during and after it. They want this war to be regarded as a disaster. And it's up to the rest of us to fight back, expose them, and keep people focused on reality, not pro-Saddam and anti-Western spin. I need your help in this, so keep those press clips coming. Blogs are another weapon. We should use them.
Yet another person who just doesn't get it. I've posted this time and time again.

What the pro-war people claim the anti-war people are saying: "No war ever! Leave Saddam alone and in power! He is hurting no one."

What the anti-war people are really saying: "Get Saddam out of power, but find something other than all-out war to do it. And if war does become necessary, give us real reasons, not just 'hunches.' Until the moment comes when you can prove your allegations, don't send our brothers, sisters, parents and friends to die for your 'hunch'."

You claim that our position is anti-Western and pro-Saddam. What I just posted above is the typical anti-war stance. Do you see something pro-Saddam or anti-Western in that? If so, please point it out, because I don't see it.

The difference between the pro-war and anti-war sides is that the anti-war people are tired of being lied to. The pro-war people are okay with being lied to because they think that the war will vindicate the lies and will prove itself "just" despite the lies and flagrant misinformation of the administration in support of it.


Today @ 12:07 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43465#post43465)
GrayPilgrim:

The Media imdedded in the particualr unit of the 3rd ID that took the plant works for the Jerusalem Post. It was most defintely a chemical plant made to be invisibel from the sky. He reported itover 12 hours ago. FoxNews and MSNBC waited until they could get confrimation from the Pentagon on this and they have confirmed it. They report large vats of chemicals on site as well as the General in charge of defdending the plant have been captured. They are waiting for the 75th (?) Exploratory Unit, the unit tasked with handeling WMD, to arive and analyse the particualr chemicals. (THat was the news as of 11:00 EST).

GP
If that is the case, then perhaps war is justified at this point. That doesn't change the fact that none of this proof was available several days ago when the war started. The fact is, we went into this war having no idea if such proof existed or not. It was a lucky find that corroborated a guess. Now is when war should have been started, not several days ago when it was still playing a hunch.


Today @ 12:01 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43463#post43463)
efta777:



You don't think that the Iraqi's have executed POWs?
Well then what do you think these pictures here:
http://www.drudgereport.com/md323.htm
are all about?
Do you know that they were executed? I haven't heard anyone say that until now. Most of the spin I had heard suggested they were killed during whatever fight took place that resulted in the prisoners being taken. If that's the case, that's not execution, it's war.

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 01:15 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43466#post43466)
Eireann:


If that is the case, then perhaps war is justified at this point. That doesn't change the fact that none of this proof was available several days ago when the war started. The fact is, we went into this war having no idea if such proof existed or not. It was a lucky find that corroborated a guess. Now is when war should have been started, not several days ago when it was still playing a hunch.


UNMOVIC (sp?) was actually in the city a couple weeks ago examining a cement factory and they were completely unaware of the facility's existence according to an interview with their spokeman.

GP

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 06:09 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43466#post43466)
Eireann:


Yet another person who just doesn't get it. I've posted this time and time again.

What the pro-war people claim the anti-war people are saying: "No war ever! Leave Saddam alone and in power! He is hurting no one."

What the anti-war people are really saying: "Get Saddam out of power, but find something other than all-out war to do it. And if war does become necessary, give us real reasons, not just 'hunches.' Until the moment comes when you can prove your allegations, don't send our brothers, sisters, parents and friends to die for your 'hunch'."


"An intuitive feeling or a premonition"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hunch

Iraq has an established history of lying in their weapons declarations, and has admittedly had WMD in the past. They were given the burden of proof for documenting their dismarmament, and failed. They were coerced into allowing weapons inspectors into the country to document their dismarment and did not cooperate fully.

Either explain why you call the conclusion that Iraq is continuing to harbor WMD a "hunch" or please point me in the direction of the meaning for "hunch" that you intend when you use the term of the coalition leadership.



You claim that our position is anti-Western and pro-Saddam. What I just posted above is the typical anti-war stance. Do you see something pro-Saddam or anti-Western in that? If so, please point it out, because I don't see it.


Yes, placing the burden of proof on the UN or on the US for showing that Iraq maintains weapons of mass destruction gives Saddam a huge advantage in maintaining his power over the oppressed people of Iraq. Insisting on proof of WMD without cooperation from Iraq is a pro-Saddam stance (even if you dislike him).
Elsewhere, you suggested a total embargo on Iraq to force compliance. Hussein has a history of dealing with such hardships by passing them on to the common people, rather than to his army and friends. The embargo idea is pro-Saddam (unless he were to act out-of-character, I guess).

Policies which permit despots to produce chemical and biological agents for use or sale to those who would use them against Western nations is an anti-Western policy.
Using "cowboy" as a derogatory term is anti-Western, too. :wink:



The difference between the pro-war and anti-war sides is that the anti-war people are tired of being lied to.


I love it when Iraq lies about not having WMD. Give me more.
:argh:



The pro-war people are okay with being lied to because they think that the war will vindicate the lies and will prove itself "just" despite the lies and flagrant misinformation of the administration in support of it.

I'm tired of Blix soft-pedaling Iraq's failure to comply with the UN resolution calling for disarmament and full cooperation from Iraq. I'm tired of Iraq lying about their weapons.
I'm tired of the lie that France is primarily interested in good global policy with regard to Iraq rather than preserving their economic intersts in Iraq and clinging to their last straw of international importance.
Any questions?

Now, what lies has the Bush administration told about Iraq?

[kiwimac]

A chemical plant does not necessarily equate with a chemical-weapons plant firstly. Secondly, If I were manufacturing something like fertiliser (as an example only) the LAST thing I would want is a dirty great bomb through the roof, that stufl is more explosive than TNT! (as an example, McVeigh's bomb in Oklahoma city was a fertiliser-based weapon)

In NZ, which has a large number of chemical plants, they are indeed surrounded by barbed wire, electric fencing and razor-wire. Why? Because they are bloody dangerous.

I will suspend judgement until I hear from experts what the nature of the plant is. Just remember that while it might be more efficient to have a purpose-built plant you can manufacture chemical weapons in any well-set up chemical plant. It does not have to be purpose built.

Kiwimac

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:29 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43482#post43482)
Captain Ochre:

Iraq has an established history of lying in their weapons declarations, and has admittedly had WMD in the past. They were given the burden of proof for documenting their dismarmament, and failed.
Until today, that was mere conjecture. Iraq provided an 11,000 page document of disarmament. The administration intuited that it was incomplete, but they had no real evidence that it wasn't complete. At that point in time, if someone were to ask me to take up arms and go to war because they intuited that there might be something there, I would tell them to go screw themselves and come back when they have something more than a hunch.


They were coerced into allowing weapons inspectors into the country to document their dismarment and did not cooperate fully.
Please demonstrate how they were coerced? They didn't ban inspectors from entering Iraq. They banned them from entering certain places in Iraq, until a new resolution was drafted that made those areas accessible by the terms of the resolution.


Either explain why you call the conclusion that Iraq is continuing to harbor WMD a "hunch" or please point me in the direction of the meaning for "hunch" that you intend when you use the term of the coalition leadership.
Simple. At the time the war started, we had no empirical evidence that Saddam was harboring WMD. All we had was gut feelings that what he declared in his document was incomplete. Today's discovery of a chemical plant is the first evidence that has ever been uncovered of a possible active chemical weapons program in Iraq. It was not available when the war began, thus the war began on a hunch.


Yes, placing the burden of proof on the UN or on the US for showing that Iraq maintains weapons of mass destruction gives Saddam a huge advantage in maintaining his power over the oppressed people of Iraq.
Well, in that case you had best label the American judicial system as anti-Western and pro-Saddam, because that is how the "burden of proof" works, as laid down by our own judicial system. The burden of proof is always on the accuser, not on the accused.


Insisting on proof of WMD without cooperation from Iraq is a pro-Saddam stance (even if you dislike him). Elsewhere, you suggested a total embargo on Iraq to force compliance. Hussein has a history of dealing with such hardships by passing them on to the common people, rather than to his army and friends. The embargo idea is pro-Saddam (unless he were to act out-of-character, I guess). Policies which permit despots to produce chemical and biological agents for use or sale to those who would use them against Western nations is an anti-Western policy.
Using "cowboy" as a derogatory term is anti-Western, too. :wink:
I can see your point, but I would suggest choosing a different way of phrasing it. What you're talking about is holding to viewpoints for our own reasons that Saddam could potentially exploit for his own reasons. That's not pro-Saddam, that is merely an unfortunate fact of life -- for any position you can name, some despot can exploit it for their own means. Trying to hold to a position that can't be exploited by some evil person or another is impossible. But calling us anti-Western or pro-Saddam because of it borders on libel.


I love it when Iraq lies about not having WMD. Give me more.
:argh:
I don't want to hear lies from either side. Using the lies of one side to justify the lies of the other just doesn't work for me.



I'm tired of the lie that France is primarily interested in good global policy with regard to Iraq rather than preserving their economic intersts in Iraq and clinging to their last straw of international importance.
France isn't on trial here. Their motivations are not open to our scrutiny. The fact is, France didn't allow itself to be bullied into supporting a war they didn't want, and all this anti-franco rhetoric that is passing around is nothing more than childish petulence from people who didn't get their way, for once.


Now, what lies has the Bush administration told about Iraq?
For starters, they lied about finding ingredients for nuclear weapons. They lied about the UN inspectors being kicked out in 1998. They lied about having an incontrovertable smoking gun at a time when they had no such documentation. The previous Bush administration lied about atrocities that never occurred in a hospital using an "eyewitness" who turned out to be the daughter of a UN ambassador. This administration has proposed ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda that they could not back up with any actual facts, citing the existence of an Al Qaeda camp within the borders of Iraq. What they forgot to mention was that the Al Qaeda camp is in the Kurdish-held region, working with the sworn enemies of Saddam Hussein. There's a list just for starters.

[flipper]

That's ammonium nitrate you're thinking of there, Kiwi.

I'm thinking of the Fertilizer/Pesticide combos that are in the organophosphate groups. They are the raw materials that can be used in manufacturing nerve agents. Actually, OP poisoning is symptomatically very similar to nerve gas poisoning.

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 08:44 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43228#post43228)
La Rubia:

But I guess the news isn't legit 'til it's reported by CNN.:ahem: Ooops ... it was: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/sprj.irq.iraqi.plant/index.html


Today @ 01:15 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43466#post43466)
Eireann:


... That doesn't change the fact that none of this proof was available several days ago when the war started. The fact is, we went into this war having no idea if such proof existed or not. It was a lucky find that corroborated a guess. Now is when war should have been started, not several days ago when it was still playing a hunch.And by this, we are supposed to assume you work for the government with access to all classified information that was available several days ago? :no:


Today @ 01:29 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43482#post43482)
Captain Ochre:
Either explain why you call the conclusion that Iraq is continuing to harbor WMD a "hunch" or please point me in the direction of the meaning for "hunch" that you intend when you use the term of the coalition leadership.
Today @ 02:04 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43508#post43508)
Eireann:

Simple. At the time the war started, we had no empirical evidence that Saddam was harboring WMD. All we had was gut feelings that what he declared in his document was incomplete. Today's discovery of a chemical plant is the first evidence that has ever been uncovered of a possible active chemical weapons program in Iraq. It was not available when the war began, thus the war began on a hunch. Posh ... :ahem: Perhaps you should provide your definition of empirical evidence as well. Empirical, to me, means "Verifiable or provable by means of observation." So all the satellite pictures of buildings and trucks moving them weren't empirical evidence? All the evidence of undeclared weapons that he was known to have from previous declaration/inspection that didn't match up to this one aren't empirical evidence? Testimony from people who escaped Iraq who were "in the know" isn't empirical evidence?

[Rubia Warren]

You guys who keep talking about it being just a chemical plant... do you not read that it was camoflaged? If it were a mere fertilizer plant, why the need to hide it?
Thanks for your comment, Sherbear- I was just about to say the same thing- we don't know what our gov't knew beforehand.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 10:40 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43563#post43563)
SherBear:

[Eireann insists that WMD were posited in Iraq on the basis of a "hunch".]

Posh ... :ahem: Perhaps you should provide your definition of empirical evidence as well. Empirical, to me, means "Verifiable or provable by means of observation." So all the satellite pictures of buildings and trucks moving them weren't empirical evidence? All the evidence of undeclared weapons that he was known to have from previous declaration/inspection that didn't match up to this one aren't empirical evidence? Testimony from people who escaped Iraq who were "in the know" isn't empirical evidence?
[bracketed portion a helpful reconstruction of context by the Cap'n]

Quite, SherBear. Eireann gravitates toward a false dichotomy: It it isn't "empirical" evidence, then it's a "hunch"--and even then he's pretending that the solid empirical evidence that exists doesn't exist.
Eireann should steel himself for the realization that most sound conclusions that are made in the world every day are based on such "hunches" (that is, empirical circumstantial evidence).

Eireann, exactly as SherBear intimated, the Iraqi papers of weapons declaration have been self-****ing (is that going to pass the censor?). The evidence of lying is via self-contradiction. It's not a "hunch" that the Iraqis are lying. The only question is to what extent they are lying, and to what extent their lies are covering up banned activity. There is empirical evidence (most that we know about is circumstantial) that the Iraqis have persisted in banned activities.
If you really hate lying, then try to lose the word "hunch" from your rhetoric.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 04:40 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43563#post43563)
SherBear:
And by this, we are supposed to assume you work for the government with access to all classified information that was available several days ago? :no:
If they had the proof they would have shown it. If they had knowledge of specifics of violations, then they would have reported such specifics, rather than the vague handwaving they actually gave. Why do you suppose the UN didn't buy their vague and feeble "proofs?"

What we got: "We have proof that they have Weapons of Mass Destruction, but we can't tell you what they are, or where they're at, and we can't show you the proof due to National Security reasons." lame, lame, lame.

What we should have gotten: "We have proof that they have an active WMD program. A chemical munitions plant was discovered in Southern Iraq near the town of [the name eludes me for the moment]. It was camouflaged from the air, and 500-gallon tanks of chemicals were discovered inside. These chemicals were found to be consistent with biochemical weapons manufacture. Testimony from the Iraqi guards protecting the plant corroborate this [show some of the testimony]. All of this is testified to by the Inspectors who discovered the plant [name, name, name, show testimony]." That would be empirical evidence. The former is not.


Perhaps you should provide your definition of empirical evidence as well. Empirical, to me, means "Verifiable or provable by means of observation."
See above.


So all the satellite pictures of buildings and trucks moving them weren't empirical evidence?
Not when the CIA itself denied the veracity of the claims.


All the evidence of undeclared weapons that he was known to have from previous declaration/inspection that didn't match up to this one aren't empirical evidence?
Interesting how what a few weeks ago was "intelligence sources estimate that he may have had as many as ..." (the President's own words) has now evolved into "he was known to have from previous declaration/inspection." Gotta love the ability to alter testimony as it is needed.


Testimony from people who escaped Iraq who were "in the know" isn't empirical evidence?
Not when you consider both the fact that there were also people who escaped from Iraq "in the know" about one thing or another that refuted some of that testimony, and the fact that our government has a known history of fabricating such testimony, especially in the Bush family (remember the Ambassador's daughter?). Like father, like son, as the saying goes.

Appended Post:


Today @ 09:59 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43658#post43658)
Captain Ochre:

Quite, SherBear. Eireann gravitates toward a false dichotomy: It it isn't "empirical" evidence, then it's a "hunch"
That would be consistent with both the term "empirical" and "hunch," yes. Christians don't quite understand that, though, because the idea that the unprovable is "fact" is so deeply engendered that you can't seem to grasp any notion to the contrary. The idea of "prove it before you call it fact" seems alien to your religion.


--and even then he's pretending that the solid empirical evidence that exists doesn't exist.
At the time, it didn't. See my above post where I mention the strange evolution in evidentiary statements.


Eireann should steel himself for the realization that most sound conclusions that are made in the world every day are based on such "hunches" (that is, empirical circumstantial evidence).
And if the reasons behind this war, as they were known at the time, actually had the backing of empirical circumstantial evidence (that hadn't already been disproven or refuted by those "in the know"), then my attitude toward the rightness of the war might have been different. But your empirical circumstantial evidence at the time the war started was nothing but shadowstuff.


Eireann, exactly as SherBear intimated, the Iraqi papers of weapons declaration have been self-****ing (is that going to pass the censor?). The evidence of lying is via self-contradiction. It's not a "hunch" that the Iraqis are lying.
Apparently it didn't pass the censor, so I'm not sure what word you were using, but I infer that it probably was along the same contextual lines as self-contradicting. But, on to the post -- we do know that now, but we didn't "know" that then, we just "thought" that then.


The only question is to what extent they are lying, and to what extent their lies are covering up banned activity. There is empirical evidence (most that we know about is circumstantial) that the Iraqis have persisted in banned activities.
That is the question now that the first empirical evidence has actually surfaced and not been refuted. That wasn't the question at the moment Bush decided he was a reincarnated cowboy and sent the troops in guns a-blazin'.


If you really hate lying, then try to lose the word "hunch" from your rhetoric.
Nope, because at the time the war began, it was applicable. No one has shown otherwise.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 01:01 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43463#post43463)
efta777:
You don't think that the Iraqi's have executed POWs?
Well then what do you think these pictures here:
http://www.drudgereport.com/md323.htm
are all about?

Dogbert: Please wait while I wag.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The Drudge Report? I've already seen the pictures from Al Jazerra (sp?). It looks like they died in combat.

Appended Post:


Today @ 07:28 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43589#post43589)
La Rubia:

You guys who keep talking about it being just a chemical plant... do you not read that it was camoflaged? If it were a mere fertilizer plant, why the need to hide it?
Thanks for your comment, Sherbear- I was just about to say the same thing- we don't know what our gov't knew beforehand. Well seeing that the State Department hasn't said it was a Chemical Weapons plant would make me want to hold up on any rushes in judgment. Please, don't let me stop Fox from doing it though. Of which, on WTAM 1100, I heard that it was FOX and only FOX who has "broken" this story.

[Ryokan]

Eireann, I suggest, much in the way you think most prowar people are supporting the war because of jingoism and a need for quality TV, that most anti-war supporters don't really care about the evidence, but are against war no matter what and are also motivated by a political axe to grind with our nation. Both my and your opinions are just hunches, though. But don't you still act on them?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 01:42 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43824#post43824)
Jimmy Higgins:



Dogbert: Please wait while I wag.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The Drudge Report? I've already seen the pictures from Al Jazerra (sp?). It looks like they died in combat.

Appended Post:

Well seeing that the State Department hasn't said it was a Chemical Weapons plant would make me want to hold up on any rushes in judgment. Please, don't let me stop Fox from doing it though. Of which, on WTAM 1100, I heard that it was FOX and only FOX who has "broken" this story.
True. I watched TV for three hours last night before going to bed (I went to bed at 5:00am CST). I watched an hour each of Fox, MSNBC and BBC. In the hour each that I watched MSNBC and BBC, not a word was mentioned on BBC, and MSNBC only mentioned that a plant had been found but that it had not yet been determined whether or not it was a weapons or munitions facility, only Fox was still making those assertions. That's why I hate following the war on only one station -- all that irresponsible gun-jumping the media loves to do. The problem is, every media network wants to be the first to get the story out (that's how Pulitzers get won), so in the race to get the story out first, they will often sacrifice accuracy by refusing to wait for corroboration and details. And in the case where several networks are privy to the same information so that it breaks simultaneously, then the race is to have the most dramatic version.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 07:23 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43805#post43805)
Eireann:

If they had the proof they would have shown it.


Non sequitur. Divulging information which came through spying nationals could easily compromise the informant (for example).



If they had knowledge of specifics of violations, then they would have reported such specifics, rather than the vague handwaving they actually gave. Why do you suppose the UN didn't buy their vague and feeble "proofs?"


The UN bought the evidence that Powell presented, just not the conclusion that armed intervention was necessary. It is not clear that any evidence would cause the UN to reach that conclusion (certainly not using Eireann's criteria for evidence).
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.un/



What we got: "We have proof that they have Weapons of Mass Destruction, but we can't tell you what they are, or where they're at, and we can't show you the proof due to National Security reasons." lame, lame, lame.


Security Council nations found the presentation convincing--they wanted to use the information to give the weapons inspectors one more chance.
You must get dizzy, spinning so much.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.world.reax/index.html



What we should have gotten: "We have proof that they have an active WMD program.


We have proof that Iraq is not cooperating with the UN inspectors. We have strong circumstantial evidence (lying and lack of cooperation)--Eireann calls this a "hunch"--that Iraq continues to develop WMD and maintain them for future use.
Eireann's demand that the UN prove its case removes the burden of proof from the Hussein regime and permits him to continue to play that games that have made the UN ineffectual in dealing with Iraq over the past decade.



A chemical munitions plant was discovered in Southern Iraq near the town of [the name eludes me for the moment]. It was camouflaged from the air, and 500-gallon tanks of chemicals were discovered inside. These chemicals were found to be consistent with biochemical weapons manufacture. Testimony from the Iraqi guards protecting the plant corroborate this [show some of the testimony]. All of this is testified to by the Inspectors who discovered the plant [name, name, name, show testimony]." That would be empirical evidence. The former is not.


The weapons inspectors didn't even know that the suspicious plant existed, apparently. Without the military action, there would probably be no inspection at all; assuming that intelligence suspected the existence of the plant prior to removal of the inspectors, it is apparent that the US suspects the inspection team of shoddy performance in that their intended inspection targets are known aforehand by the Iraqis, which permitted continued coverups.



Interesting how what a few weeks ago was "intelligence sources estimate that he may have had as many as ..." (the President's own words) has now evolved into "he was known to have from previous declaration/inspection." Gotta love the ability to alter testimony as it is needed.


Gotta love your ability to respond to good evidence that Iraq isn't complying by diverting attention to past arguments.



Not when you consider both the fact that there were also people who escaped from Iraq "in the know" about one thing or another that refuted some of that testimony, and the fact that our government has a known history of fabricating such testimony, especially in the Bush family (remember the Ambassador's daughter?). Like father, like son, as the saying goes.

Explain why you associate the Kuwaiti ambassador's testimony with the Bush family (chain of guilt-by-association, perhaps?)
The sort of link that Eireann probably loves, but sans the Bush connection:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3589/us-iraq-lie.html

I'd like for you to provide some evidence backing your assertions in your other reply to me, please.
Or, are you operating on a "hunch"? :wink:

[Pilgrim]

Yesterday @ 08:45 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43229#post43229)
Captain Ochre:



No, they just built the plant so that they would have the ability to make chemical weapons. They never intended to actually make any.

C'mon, Pilgrim, get serious. If the plant is fitted for making sarin, or mustard gas, or something of that ilk, won't you admit that Iraq is cheating even if they don't find gallons of the stuff lying around?


I still don't get it, for peats sake if you make soap you need chemicals. And still int he midst of all this shock and awe, not chemical weapons attack. What gives?

DOn't get me wrong, I think Saddam should be taken out, but I don;t think the best argument for it can be made from that direction.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 08:02 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43847#post43847)
Pilgrim:




I still don't get it, for peats sake if you make soap you need chemicals.


You can make soap out of mustard gas???
I don't get it, either--why don't you respond to what is written? Why are you playing dumb?



And still int he midst of all this shock and awe, not chemical weapons attack. What gives?


It's difficult to use chemical and biological agents effectively against cruise missiles and airplanes, iirc.
Beyond that, I've already given two possibilities as to why such agents haven't been used. Maybe one day you'll respond to that post as though you understood what I wrote.



DOn't get me wrong, I think Saddam should be taken out, but I don;t think the best argument for it can be made from that direction.

What's the best argument, please?

[wienerdog]

Today @ 06:01 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43462#post43462)
Eireann:


Wow, I'm speechless. This is something you almost never see -- a journalist actually being responsible, with a care for the accuracy of their reporting! I don't blame him/her, though. "Tens of thousands" of mass surrenders is exactly what some of the other networks were reporting. Jaltus cited one as saying that more than 10,000 troops had surrendered from the 51st Division ... at a time when only a few hundred from one brigade of the 51st had actually surrendered (not blaming Jaltus, I'm blaming the source he cited for premature reporting). Even when the rest of the Division did surrender, it was still less than 10,000. Might it encourage more surrenders? Possibly. But still I have this lingering distaste for being lied to.

Oh my gosh. Dude, the problem was that Franks said they had captured thousands of Iraqi troops, the reporter said "I refuse to report that until you give us proof that you've captured tens of thousands of Iraqi troops," and Franks replied "I didn't say tens of thousands." If it was merely a misunderstanding, so be it. But it certainly looks like the reporter was refusing to report what the military man in charge was announcing because it would lead to a conclusion that the reporter wouldn't like. This is reprehensible and completely irresponsible, with a complete disregard for accuracy in reporting. He should be fired for allowing his bias to influence which facts he would report.

[Sher]

From CNN.com (capt'n 2nd link) "While Britain staunchly backed the U.S. position that Iraq is already in material breach of U.N. resolution 1441 and France just as staunchly insisted that inspections could still bring about a solution to the crisis, the rest of the Security Council fell somewhere in between."

Let's see, spin-master Eireann ... France who is not supporting the war "insisted that inspections could still bring about a solution to the crisis" ... admitting there is a crisis .... but maybe they were just speaking about the crisis of a decreasing market availablity of Swiss and Bleu cheeses for their Chicken Cordon Bleu recipe :duh: not the WMD in Iraq that the Council was discussing.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 02:32 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43856#post43856)
wienerdog:

Oh my gosh. Dude, the problem was that Franks said they had captured thousands of Iraqi troops, the reporter said "I refuse to report that until you give us proof that you've captured tens of thousands of Iraqi troops," and Franks replied "I didn't say tens of thousands." If it was merely a misunderstanding, so be it. But it certainly looks like the reporter was refusing to report what the military man in charge was announcing because it would lead to a conclusion that the reporter wouldn't like. This is reprehensible and completely irresponsible, with a complete disregard for accuracy in reporting. He should be fired for allowing his bias to influence which facts he would report.
On the contrary, it shows a complete regard for accuracy of reporting. That the reporter might have misunderstood the scale of numbers that Franks was talking about is irrelevent. A reporter says, "I'm not going to report this without confirmation." That's rare and commendable, especially since other news agencies had been exactly reporting tens of thousands of surrenders. From all the broadcasts I've seen so far, the BBC seems to be by far the most responsible about not jumping the gun with the "facts" until they are confirmed. I see this incident as right in keeping with the tack they have taken all along.

Appended Post:


Today @ 02:34 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43858#post43858)
SherBear:

From CNN.com (capt'n 2nd link) "While Britain staunchly backed the U.S. position that Iraq is already in material breach of U.N. resolution 1441 and France just as staunchly insisted that inspections could still bring about a solution to the crisis, the rest of the Security Council fell somewhere in between."

Let's see, spin-master Eireann ... France who is not supporting the war "insisted that inspections could still bring about a solution to the crisis" ... admitting there is a crisis .... but maybe they were just speaking about the crisis of a decreasing market availablity of Swiss and Bleu cheeses for their Chicken Cordon Bleu recipe :duh: not the WMD in Iraq that the Council was discussing.
Nice try, but as counter-assertions go, this one is really paltry. Keep trying, though. Someday you'll get it right.

Appended Post:


Today @ 02:11 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43849#post43849)
Captain Ochre:

It's difficult to use chemical and biological agents effectively against cruise missiles and airplanes, iirc.
Beyond that, I've already given two possibilities as to why such agents haven't been used. Maybe one day you'll respond to that post as though you understood what I wrote.
And I'm sure if you try really hard, you can come with a thousand more possibilities about why they haven't used them. That's the beauty of unfalisifiable arguments.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 08:45 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43860#post43860)
Eireann:

Nice try, but as counter-assertions go, this one is really paltry. Keep trying, though. Someday you'll get it right.


Eireann, you had huffed and puffed that the UN did not accept Powell's evidence. You provided not evidence in favor of your assertion.
Evidence has been provided that the UN did accept the evidential impact of Powell's presentation, but that the nations varied as to what the solution was.

Deal with the issue? Provide your evidence, or back off from your earlier assertion.



And I'm sure if you try really hard, you can come with a thousand more possibilities about why they haven't used them. That's the beauty of unfalisifiable arguments.

The argument behind "Why hasn't he used WMD yet, then" ("if he really had WMD, then he would have used them by now", for example) is easily countered by suggesting reasonable scenarios which explain the lack of use apart from lack of the weapons themselves.
I don't apologize for illustrating the absurdity of the argument to which I was responding.
Call it a hunch.

:bonk:

[wienerdog]

No, the reporter's job is to report "Today, General Tommy Franks announced..." His refusal to report it until Franks provided him with evidence that he was willing to accept is absolutely reprehensible. You can't prove that 2+2=4 to a mathematician if he doesn't want to believe it. And again, I don't think it was a misunderstanding. It sounds like the BBC reporter was exaggerating what Franks had said on purpose in order to make it sound more extreme, and thus as less plausible than what Franks actually said. He's simply refusing to report what the general in charge of the war announced because he doesn't like it. He should be fired.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 02:54 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43864#post43864)
Captain Ochre:

Eireann, you had huffed and puffed that the UN did not accept Powell's evidence. You provided not evidence in favor of your assertion.
Evidence has been provided that the UN did accept the evidential impact of Powell's presentation, but that the nations varied as to what the solution was.

Deal with the issue? Provide your evidence, or back off from your earlier assertion.
Very well, I withdraw my assertion that the UN as a whole did not buy Powell's presentation. I do not withdraw my assertion that only certain members of the UN bought his presentation, because you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Nor have you provided any evidence that a majority of the UN or the Security Council bought his presentation.


The argument behind "Why hasn't he used WMD yet, then" ("if he really had WMD, then he would have used them by now", for example) is easily countered by suggesting reasonable scenarios which explain the lack of use apart from lack of the weapons themselves.
I don't apologize for illustrating the absurdity of the argument to which I was responding.
Call it a hunch.
Granted, the assertion to which you were responding was conjecture. Of course, I'm not the one who made that assertion, but I still recognize the conjecture in it. His argument was conjecture, and your rebuttal was unfalsifiable. Neither his argument nor your rebuttal bear any validity, for those reasons.

Appended Post:


Today @ 02:54 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43865#post43865)
wienerdog:

No, the reporter's job is to report "Today, General Tommy Franks announced..." His refusal to report it until Franks provided him with evidence that he was willing to accept is absolutely reprehensible. You can't prove that 2+2=4 to a mathematician if he doesn't want to believe it. And again, I don't think it was a misunderstanding. It sounds like the BBC reporter was exaggerating what Franks had said on purpose in order to make it sound more extreme, and thus as less plausible than what Franks actually said. He's simply refusing to report what the general in charge of the war announced because he doesn't like it. He should be fired.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. The reporter's comment was perhaps ill-chosen, but to me it seems as if the reporter was trying to avoid mirroring the irresponsible reporting that has taken root in their rival networks. That incident aside, BBC has had far and away the most responsible reporting of any of the major news networks, and the reporter possibly overstepped his/her bounds (was it a male or a female? I didn't see the interview in question) in trying to uphold that integrity. That doesn't warrant the reporter being fired, but possibly cautioned and reprimanded. By the way, depending on the picture you get when you hear the word "thousands", it might have been irresponsible on Gen. Franks' part to report it in that way, when the Pentagon today has only confirmed 2,200 POWs, according to MSNBC citing the Pentagon.

Appended Post:


Today @ 02:11 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43849#post43849)
Captain Ochre:

You can make soap out of mustard gas???
Can someone please point me to a reliable source that says there has been a confirmation on the nature of the chemicals found in the plant? I haven't seen any reports about the plant today, and I can't seem to find anything in a Google search that talks about this plant was discovered. Nothing on CNN.com or MSNBC.com either. In short, I haven't been able to find anything that says mustard gas, sarin, VX, or any other specific type of chemical was found in the plant. I'm not saying that they haven't confirmed such things, but I can't find it anywhere. Can someone help me out?

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 09:30 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43882#post43882)
Eireann:


Can someone please point me to a reliable source that says there has been a confirmation on the nature of the chemicals found in the plant? I haven't seen any reports about the plant today, and I can't seem to find anything in a Google search that talks about this plant was discovered. Nothing on CNN.com or MSNBC.com either. In short, I haven't been able to find anything that says mustard gas, sarin, VX, or any other specific type of chemical was found in the plant. I'm not saying that they haven't confirmed such things, but I can't find it anywhere. Can someone help me out?

My comment to Pilgrim regarding soap and mustard gas is not well understood apart from the context it was drawn from.
I am not aware of any confirmation of either the identity of the chemicals at the plant, nor of the probable intent of the factory's fittings.
All we know, afaik, is that the plant was unknown to at least one of the weapons inspectors, and that the plant was reportedly camouflaged to make it difficult to identify from above.

Be careful of separating comments from their context, as this easily changes the apparent intent of various statements. When in doubt, leave a link to the source of the quotation (I grant that a link was provided).
Thanks.

[$cirisme]

I think Saddam is hiding his weapons in Syria, and I think(possibly after NK, or maybe even during) that we'll deal with them next.

We shall see, though.

[Ryokan]

between Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the global war on terror, I think we are more than busy enough without messing with North Korea. Putting pressure on Syria, who is almost certainly NOT hiding Saddam's chem, to get out of Lebanon, is probably not out of the question.

[GrayPilgrim]

As for the use or non-use of Chem/bio weapons.


The conditions have to be just right, this when it is below freezing or above a certain temperature they are ineffective.
The main delivery system of choice by the Iraqis in the past was as an artillery shell not a missle.
Saddam has announced his attention to defend Baghdad not the rest of the country. Thus as we have yet to engage the RG to whom he reportedly distributed these munitions we must wait, IMO, untill those engagements to make decsions as to whether or not he will or will not use them.

Just some ramblings

[kiwimac]

Please note the factory is now being reported as an old, long deserted facility.


DJ No Chemical Weapons Found At Site In Najaf - TV

03/24/2003
Dow Jones News Services
(Copyright © 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)


NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--U.S. officials said Monday that no chemical weapons were found at a suspected site at Najaf in central Iraq, U.S. television networks reported.

NBC News reported from the Pentagon that no chemicals at all were found at the site. CNN, also reporting from the Pentagon, said officials now believe the plant there was abandoned long ago by the Iraqis.


(END) Dow Jones Newswires

I'm sure those of you so were certain this meant that Iraq was indeed manufacturing Chemical weaponry will now admit that, in this case at least, you were wrong?

Kiwimac

[Rubia Warren]

Alrightie, kiwi, I was wrong........ THIS time.:hrm:

[wienerdog]

Eireann,

Well, I think the job of a reporter is to report; and when his job is to report what the General in charge of a war is announcing about that war, his job is to report what was said, regardless of whether he believes it or likes it.

Now, OF COURSE, there is a place for questioning the validity of what Franks said. But that is the job of analysts, not the reporters.

And here is some more analysis from www.andrewsullivan.com about the BBC:

MORE BIAS UPDATES: You guys are on the ball. Here's another Freudian slip from the BBC:

Read your note mentioning ITN's Freudian slip this morning, then drove out of town from Prague, where I live, to a meeting. I had the radio tuned to the World Service most of the way. During a morning segment on what the world papers had to say about the war, the reader was describing a Syrian front page that, along with its headline, showed pictures of the dead and captured soldiers thoughtfully broadcast by al jazeera. "And here," she said, "are the pictures evidently showing the murderers, er, rather the murdered, soldiers." Not, as they, making that one up.

Then there's this lovely interaction:

Mitchell Switch (of the BBC): Nobody thought this was going to be simple, but, given the degree of resistance, which I think you concede has been unexpected -- the level of casualties, now the prisoners of war -- is it not the case that this is proving to be significantly more difficult than you might have hoped?
GEN. ABIZAID: No. (Laughter.)

And the BBC is not beneath active deception in its propaganda campaign. Here's an email from a longtime BBC employee:

Earlier in the evening I saw CNN (Pool pictures I guess) of Kurds in Ebril moving out of the town and away from the possible Iraqi incusion into the Kurdish area. An interview with one villager saying life was tough and she and her family wanted to be safe etc etc. Imagine my suprise to find the same pictures and interview turn up in a BBC report about how citizens of Bagdad were fearing the US bombing to come. Withoput explaining that the people of Ebril were escaping Saddam's violence, the commentary said, "And as in Bagdad so it is throughout Iraq" - cue Ebril material and interview. The implication being the Kurds (they weren't described as such) were afraid of US bombs. (in fact later in the oriinal piece, they welcome US intervention). Just one small example. I am wondering how I can go about shaming my former employer (30 years working in the Beeb). Any suggestions?

One suggestion is to appeal to anyone at the BBC who's witnessing these monstrosities to relay me as much inside dope as they can. Hey, it works at the NYT ...

[wienerdog]

But wait! There's more!

THE LATEST FROM THE BBC: A report on "the fickleness of American public opinion." Teased with the headline: "Will US public opinion prove to be Saddam's secret weapons?" The piece tries to suggest that Americans are rallying against the war. No polling data is provided (which would suggest the opposite). One bereaved African-American father of a serviceman is featured. And a visit to the Vietnam Memorial. It's pieces like these that are responsible for slips of the tongue on the Beeb about the "increasingly peacenik public." They wish.

[flipper]

Well, I guess that goes to show some important lesson about jumping to conclusions, or assuming an early report is true. I was inclined to believe it because there was an apparently independent journalist on the scene, and there was *alleged* to have been corroboration of some kind from the Iraqi general.

I will one day learn this lesson. One day.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44407#post44407)
wienerdog:

But wait! There's more!

THE LATEST FROM THE BBC: A report on "the fickleness of American public opinion." Teased with the headline: "Will US public opinion prove to be Saddam's secret weapons?" The piece tries to suggest that Americans are rallying against the war. No polling data is provided (which would suggest the opposite). One bereaved African-American father of a serviceman is featured. And a visit to the Vietnam Memorial. It's pieces like these that are responsible for slips of the tongue on the Beeb about the "increasingly peacenik public." They wish.
Actually, that's not a very good criticism. Peace rallies have been stepping up dramatically in the US. The march in New York City alone featured more than 100,000 people.

[wienerdog]

You know, now that I think about it (always a good idea after posting), referring to American public opinion as "Saddam's secret weapon" could be considered a dig against the protestors.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 09:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44429#post44429)
Eireann:


Actually, that's not a very good criticism. Peace rallies have been stepping up dramatically in the US. The march in New York City alone featured more than 100,000 people.

OTOH, polling data reflects about 65% support for the war despite lack of UN support, which is a marked increase from pre-war numbers.
FWIW.

http://salt.claretianpubs.org/sjnews/2002/10/sjn0210a.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A11942-2003Feb1&notFound=true

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 03:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44818#post44818)
Captain Ochre:



OTOH, polling data reflects about 65% support for the war despite lack of UN support, which is a marked increase from pre-war numbers.
FWIW.

http://salt.claretianpubs.org/sjnews/2002/10/sjn0210a.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A11942-2003Feb1&notFound=true
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Polls are the absolute worst measuring stick you can possibly use to show the true climate of a country. There is no such thing as an unbiased poll. For every slant you want to put on an issue, you will find a poll that gives you precisely the slant and precisely the percentage you are looking for. Sampling bias is rampant in every poll you can name.

I don't doubt that approval of the war has gone up. I also don't doubt that opposition to the war has gone up. Remember, not everybody in the nation chose a side before the war. Nor were any but a small fraction of the population actually polled. There were a whole lot of undecideds and a whole lot that were never asked. A lot of those people are now taking sides, and they're taking both sides. If the pollsters won't come to the neighborhoods that are most likely to be anti-war (less affluent, lower to middle class, minority, liberal, heavily Democrat), preferring those neighborhoods that are most likely to be pro-war (affluent, middle class, conservative, heavily Republican), then those who have been ignored by the pollsters will take their voice to the streets, just as they have been doing steadily.

If you want a picture of how the pro-war people feel, read the polls. If you want a picture of how the anti-war people feel, look in the streets.

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 09:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44829#post44829)
Eireann:


I've said it before and I'll say it again. Polls are the absolute worst measuring stick you can possibly use to show the true climate of a country. There is no such thing as an unbiased poll. For every slant you want to put on an issue, you will find a poll that gives you precisely the slant and precisely the percentage you are looking for. Sampling bias is rampant in every poll you can name.


Sampling bias is fairly rampant in public demonstration, also.



I don't doubt that approval of the war has gone up. I also don't doubt that opposition to the war has gone up. Remember, not everybody in the nation chose a side before the war. Nor were any but a small fraction of the population actually polled. There were a whole lot of undecideds and a whole lot that were never asked. A lot of those people are now taking sides, and they're taking both sides.


A well-conducted poll tends to obtain representative numbers.
The trick is in evaluating the conduction of the poll to see whether or not the conclusions follow.



If the pollsters won't come to the neighborhoods that are most likely to be anti-war (less affluent, lower to middle class, minority, liberal, heavily Democrat), preferring those neighborhoods that are most likely to be pro-war (affluent, middle class, conservative, heavily Republican), then those who have been ignored by the pollsters will take their voice to the streets, just as they have been doing steadily.


Maybe the pavement will listen.
The streets are pretty quiet around here.



If you want a picture of how the pro-war people feel, read the polls. If you want a picture of how the anti-war people feel, look in the streets.

I'm more interested in how you reason regarding the war, rather than how you feel about it, and the same goes for anybody else.

[wienerdog]

More on the BBC from www.andrewsullivan.com

THE LEFT'S TRIBUTE TO THE BBC: Here's NPR's John Burnett, a guy who puts the term "liberation" of Iraq in parentheses, comparing himself with the BBC:

What's interesting is that I think when you come over here and when you imbed with this, with this group and you in a sense become sort of part of the project of the invasion and pacification of a country, you cease to hear the dissonant voices against that project, un--un--until you tune in to the BBC. And even then, you know, they're pretty muted.

Just so you don't think I'm imagining this. The BBC is increasingly perceived, even by sympathetic parties, as the voice in part of the anti-war forces. Other lefties, like Katha Pollitt, who opposed the invasion of Afghanistan and refused to let her own daughter fly the American flag, see the BBC as their kind of news organization:

On BBC, there is serious discussion of how the invasion of Iraq is being received around the world -- not so well, it turns out. There is much discussion of the bombing of civilians, of the apparent good cheer of the Iraqi leadership and the seeming lack of universal jubilation among the population; last night there were substantial interviews with an Iraqi official (or former official? missed that) and with Paul Wolfowitz. I'm a fan of NPR, but I have to say I think they're missing an opportunity here.

I wonder if most listeners know that the BBC is the favorite station of the far left? How the Beeb ceased to become an objective news source and became a broadcast version of the Nation is one of the great tragedies of modern journalism.

THE BBC COMES UNSPUN: Two great stories. The first details why the Iraqi civilians in Basra are uniting with the Saddamies to resist the enemy invaders. The support for this theory? A Guardian correspondent:

Consider what happened in Basra last Saturday when there were air raids. The Qatari television channel al-Jazeera had a team in the city and it sent back graphic pictures of dead and wounded civilians which were widely shown in the Arab world. But these images have been all but ignored in the West, which seems more interested in pictures of the American prisoners of war. People do not take kindly to being bombed, even by "friendly forces"... There is an interesting article in the Guardian of 25 March from its correspondent, James Meek, who has been with the US Marines in Nasiriya. He shows how hostility to Saddam Hussein is not necessarily converted into support for the invasion.

Then, nine hours later, the BBC reports the following:

British forces on the outskirts of Basra have reported that a violent civilian uprising against Saddam Hussein's regime has begun in the southern Iraqi city. Major General Peter Wall, British Chief of Staff at Allied Central Command in Qatar, confirmed that it appeared an uprising had taken place, but that it was in its infancy and British troops were "keen to exploit its potential".

Suddenly, a different picture. Never mind.

[flipper]

Actually, the Beeb was the first to break the Basra revolt story, while CNN was all wrapped up in the slowing of the allied advance outside Baghdad.

I don't think you've made a particularly good case for bias. Perhaps what you're seeing is balance, but you're not used to it?

From the center-right in the USA, the rest of the world looks Red.

[Vorkosigan]

Today @ 06:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45168#post45168)
wienerdog:

Suddenly, a different picture. Never mind.

Weiner, there is no contradiction here. In fact, you should be terrified. People who rebel against Hussein may well rebel against us. As an article over at www.amin.org pointed out, it was Sharon who made the Shi'ites into a serious fighting force when he invaded Lebanon, and Bush may well do the same thing in Iraq. People whose country you trash and whose countrymen you kill are not going to love you.

You're making the elementary error of assuming that to be against Hussein is to be for the US invasion. That's not necessarily the case. Osama Bin Laden was our boy; his Dad and George Bush's did business, until one day we posted US troops to Saudi Arabia. And then it turned out that the enemy of my enemy could also be my enemy.

Vorkosigan

[Pilgrim]

What's the best argument, please?


Simple, the guy's a monster who feeds on the blood of innocents. What more reason does one need? A gospel that proclaims liberation and tells us to love justice calls for us to remove him from power, and in this case, though I despise war and refuse to be so triumphalistic about it, I think force is the only thing that will work.

What bugs me is that we seem so glib and even joyful about the prospect.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 01:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45284#post45284)
Pilgrim:

Simple, the guy's a monster who feeds on the blood of innocents. What more reason does one need?


Good answer, albeit one that the UN would probably scoff at.



A gospel that proclaims liberation and tells us to love justice calls for us to remove him from power, and in this case, though I despise war and refuse to be so triumphalistic about it, I think force is the only thing that will work.


I think that you're probably right.



What bugs me is that we seem so glib and even joyful about the prospect.

"Showing little thought, preparation, or concern"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=glib
?
For example?

Joyful?
For example?

[Pilgrim]

Exactly. I think many Christians are thinking about the war in exactly those terms. As evidenced by prayers I have heard that actually petition the Lord for war. Who prays FOR war?

[Epoetker]

In fact, you should be terrified. People who rebel against Hussein may well rebel against us.

Yeah, all we have to do is starve them and drain out all their marshes and farmlands. And continually send airstrikes against them. For like 12 years.


As an article over at www.amin.org pointed out, it was Sharon who made the Shi'ites into a serious fighting force when he invaded Lebanon, and Bush may well do the same thing in Iraq.

Trusting Arab media, especially by one whose supposedly so all-fired about democracy and the casualties of democratic misrepresentation, is the first sign of mental breakdown.


People whose country you trash and whose countrymen you kill are not going to love you.

Then why are the Iraqi exiles, nearly all Shiites, so pro-American and all-fired-up for us to get rid of Saddam?


You're making the elementary error of assuming that to be against Hussein is to be for the US invasion. That's not necessarily the case. Osama Bin Laden was our boy

Until he repudiated that with his conversion to militant Wahhabism.


his Dad and George Bush's did business,

Bin Laden's dad was nothing like him.


until one day we posted US troops to Saudi Arabia.

At SA's request, of course.


And then it turned out that the enemy of my enemy could also be my enemy.

Enemy of whose enemy of whatta? OBL the spoiled rich kid went wacks because he converted to Islamist Wahabbism, the most evil and extreme form of Islam known to man. It had nothing to do with his dad, whose get-along, go along philosophy he rejected.

[wienerdog]

The reason I've been cut 'n pasting from www.andrewsullivan.com is that I can't say anything about the BBC myself. I don't have a TV. I get my news online, mostly from MSNBC and Fox--and I have to say that I don't find much difference between them. I would just encourage all of you to check in at Sullivan's website.

However, I think that the stuff I've posted about the "Beeb" certainly looks convincing to me. I've never been accused of being conservative before (except by my sister), but you would never know that so far this is one of the most successful military ventures the US has ever undertaken. In just one week, with only 20 battle related deaths, we are in control of three-fourths of the country. The resistance has not been stronger than we expected, despite all claims of "fierce fighting." Of course, I was praying before the war started that there would be a miracle where no civilian deaths occurred, and that it would be over quick (and at first, with the strike against the bunkers, I thought that prayer had been answered). I think some of this is because we have more jounalistic access to the situation than in other wars, and the news is inherently more oriented towards the negative rather than the positive. But it seems that it's gone beyond this, and is verging over to downright distortion:

THE BBC'S OWN DEFENSE CORRESPONDENT: Assails the anti-war spin of the Beeb's own coverage. In a leaked memo, Paul Adams blasts his own editors:

On Monday, [Adams] wrote from US Central Command in Qatar: "I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering significant casualties. This is simply NOT TRUE. Nor is it true to say, as the same intro stated, that coalition forces are fighting guerrillas. It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas."

Adams memo was fired off to TV news head Roger Mosey, Radio news boss Stephen Mitchell and other Beeb chiefs. It adds stunning weight to allegations that BBC coverage on all its networks is biased against the war. In one blast, he storms: "Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving small victories at a very high price? The truth is exactly the opposite. The gains are huge and the costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected."

The BBC has come under attack for describing the loss of two soldiers as "the worst possible news" for the armed forces.
It makes Katie Couric look benign. Of course, some of this is due to the hyped expectations for the war which the administration didn't do enough in advance to quell. But that doesn't explain all of it.

[Captain Ochre]

I stumbled across this public CIA link that gives a rundown of the reasons for holding Iraq in continued material breach of its committment to eliminate its WMD.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#05

[Vorkosigan]

I've never been accused of being conservative before (except by my sister), but you would never know that so far this is one of the most successful military ventures the US has ever undertaken. In just one week, with only 20 battle related deaths, we are in control of three-fourths of the country.

Nobody thought we would have tactical failure. Military success is not the relevant measure of success here, it's political success. So far we've come out on the short end of that stick. We got defeated by the UN, went in illegally, picked a completely corrupt kleptocrat to run the country on our behalf, screwed up massively with the reconstruction contracts, elbowed out our allies, left the Kurds and Shias to rot, betrayed Turkey, etc, etc. etc over the years. The really insane point is that all of these political defeats were the Administration (or previous Administrations) shooting itself in the foot. Not one was caused by Hussein.

But it seems that it's gone beyond this, and is verging over to downright distortion:

I quite agree. Look at Fox or CNN.

It makes Katie Couric look benign. Of course, some of this is due to the hyped expectations for the war which the administration didn't do enough in advance to quell. But that doesn't explain all of it.

No. Perhaps the Beeb's analysts have a more robust view of things than how many cities we've taken or how many soldiers have been killed. War is politics by other means; that means, essentially, that war is politics. Perhaps the Beeb's point of view takes that into account in a way that you have not yet grasped.

Vorkosigan

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 01:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65087#post65087)
Vorkosigan:

I've never been accused of being conservative before (except by my sister), but you would never know that so far this is one of the most successful military ventures the US has ever undertaken. In just one week, with only 20 battle related deaths, we are in control of three-fourths of the country.

Nobody thought we would have tactical failure.

Vorkosigan, meet Peter Arnett.
http://www.subliminalnews.com/archives/000040.php

Scott Ritter, Vorkosigan.
Vorkosigan, Scott Ritter.
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~gulufuture/news/scott_ritter030325.htm

[Vorkosigan]

Vorkosigan, meet Peter Arnett.
http://www.subliminalnews.com/archives/000040.php

This interview nowhere says that Arnett expects the US to lose the war on tactical grounds. He simply notes that the initial US plan failed and now they have to shift their plans.

Scott Ritter, Vorkosigan.
Vorkosigan, Scott Ritter.
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~gulufuture/news/scott_ritter030325.htm

Hooboy. One whole analyst.

In any case, my point stands. Everyone expected that we would have tactical success. The issue was never tactical success, but political success. Like this:


By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, April 13, 2003; Page A01

BAGHDAD, April 12 -- At the National Museum of Antiquities, where priceless artifacts had been wrapped in foam and secured in windowless storage rooms to protect them against U.S. bombs, an army of looters perpetrated what war did not: They smashed hundreds of irreplaceable treasures, including Sumerian clay pots, Assyrian marble carvings, Babylonian statues and a massive stone tablet with intricate cuneiform writing.

As employees returned today to survey the damage at one of the world's greatest repositories of artifacts, they encountered devastation that defied their worst expectations. The floor was covered with shards of broken pottery. An extensive card catalog of every item the museum owns, some of which date back 5,000 years, was destroyed. A cavernous storeroom housing thousands of unclassified pieces was ransacked so badly that an ar 1609 chaeologist predicted it would be impossible to repair many of the items.

Of course, the US has its priorities straight:

Some Iraqis, however, question the allocation of U.S. forces around the capital. They note a whole company of Marines, along with at least a half-dozen amphibious assault vehicles, has been assigned to guard the Oil Ministry, while many other ministries -- including trade, information, planning, health and education -- remain unprotected.

This is what we call political defeat, Cap. Not to mention a tragedy for the world.

"Why just the oil ministry?" Jaf asked. "Is it because they just want our oil?"

Naw. It doesn't have anything to do with oil. :rofl:

Vorkosigan

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 11:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65387#post65387)
Vorkosigan:

Vorkosigan, meet Peter Arnett.
http://www.subliminalnews.com/archives/000040.php

This interview nowhere says that Arnett expects the US to lose the war on tactical grounds. He simply notes that the initial US plan failed and now they have to shift their plans.


Maybe you should explain what you mean by "lose the war on tactical grounds", Vorko. Is it just a longer way of saying "lose the war"?



Scott Ritter, Vorkosigan.
Vorkosigan, Scott Ritter.
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~gulufuture/news/scott_ritter030325.htm

Hooboy. One whole analyst.


We've moved your claim into the realm of generality rather than of absolute, which was my purpose. You apparently used exaggeration as a literary device in your presentation. Right?



In any case, my point stands. Everyone expected that we would have tactical success.


Your point stands only if your words were not to be taken as absolute.
Then you repeat the same sort of seemingly absolute statement!
Exaggeration for emphasis, right?
What some call spin.



The issue was never tactical success,


Maybe when you say "tactical" you mean "military". Sorry for the interruption, but this distinction didn't seem to fit after your later punctuation.



but political success. Like this:


By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, April 13, 2003; Page A01

BAGHDAD, April 12 -- At the National Museum of Antiquities, where priceless artifacts had been wrapped in foam and secured in windowless storage rooms to protect them against U.S. bombs, an army of looters perpetrated what war did not: They smashed hundreds of irreplaceable treasures, including Sumerian clay pots, Assyrian marble carvings, Babylonian statues and a massive stone tablet with intricate cuneiform writing.

As employees returned today to survey the damage at one of the world's greatest repositories of artifacts, they encountered devastation that defied their worst expectations. The floor was covered with shards of broken pottery. An extensive card catalog of every item the museum owns, some of which date back 5,000 years, was destroyed. A cavernous storeroom housing thousands of unclassified pieces was ransacked so badly that an ar 1609 chaeologist predicted it would be impossible to repair many of the items.


We lost tons of art and artifacts when Nazi Germany was overthrown. Are you still losing sleep over it?
http://www.museum-security.org/ww2/
http://www.dhh-3.de/biblio/news/1995/95-1/



Of course, the US has its priorities straight:

Some Iraqis, however, question the allocation of U.S. forces around the capital. They note a whole company of Marines, along with at least a half-dozen amphibious assault vehicles, has been assigned to guard the Oil Ministry, while many other ministries -- including trade, information, planning, health and education -- remain unprotected.

This is what we call political defeat, Cap. Not to mention a tragedy for the world.



I'd call your assessment of political defeat either personal opinion or argument by assertion.
Let's work it like this: Somebody writes down your assertion, then notes that Cap'n Ochre questions the assertion. That same somebody concludes that your assertion therefore failed.



"Why just the oil ministry?" Jaf asked. "Is it because they just want our oil?"

Naw. It doesn't have anything to do with oil. :rofl:

Vorkosigan

It's almost as though you still haven't realized that your complaint was snuffed earlier in the oil-specific thread.

Iraq's economic recovery has everything to do with oil.
The aim of the US in going to war to topple Hussein's regime had nothing to do with oil. Review the thread.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 11:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65744#post65744)
Captain Ochre:

It's almost as though you still haven't realized that your complaint was snuffed earlier in the oil-specific thread.

Iraq's economic recovery has everything to do with oil.
The aim of the US in going to war to topple Hussein's regime had nothing to do with oil. Review the thread.
I never saw it get snuffed. I saw a lot of conjecture from both sides -- the anti-war side opining that oil is a significant motivator for this war, and the pro-war side opining that it has nothing to do with oil. However, when all you have is your opinion that it isn't about oil, that doesn't suffice to "snuff" the opinion that it is about oil to some degree.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

____________________________________________________

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 07:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65866#post65866)
Eireann:

I never saw it get snuffed.


Then you weren't paying attention.






I saw a lot of conjecture from both sides -- the anti-war side opining that oil is a significant motivator for this war, and the pro-war side opining that it has nothing to do with oil.\


And you didn't notice anything at all about Iraq relying significantly on oil for her economic well-being (again, no pun intended). Try to notice it now and figure it into your previously blind musings.
Or is it simply conjecture on my part that oil is the figurative life-blood of an Iraqi economy?



However, when all you have is your opinion that it isn't about oil, that doesn't suffice to "snuff" the opinion that it is about oil to some degree.

Eireann, I gave a rationale for my opinion then just as I have done above. Either answer the rationale or don't. If you don't answer the rationale, then you have no business claiming that my take on the situation is mere opinion--that's like claiming that it's my mere opinion that the Buccaneers won the Super Bowl in January 2003.

I see that "about oil to some degree" phrase creeping in again. It's about sand "to some degree" also.
It's about water "to some degree".
It's about religion "to some degree".
Presto-change-oh:
It's all about sand.
It's all about water.
It's all about religion.

[edit to add]

I see that you located one of the Bush Administration's official Operation Iraqi Liberation posters on the Web. With evidence like that, I am forced to admit that the war against Iraq was all about oil.:ahem:

[Epoetker]

And one might note something about the fact that they're guarding the MINISTRY of oil-it's HIGHLY LIKELY that that's going to be the source of some VERY INTERESTING documents on CONNECTIONS with CERTAIN GROUPS who might have had INTERESTS in the PROFITS of such oil sales. We already know the Ministries of Agriculture, Water, and whatnot were just bureaucratic structures meant to give international legitimacy to Saddam's thug state (See, we have a ministry for feeding people, so it means we really do care about them, even though they're starving!) so their looting isn't all that big of a loss for the Iraqi people. One wonders if the looter-aided RENOVATION of those BIG UGLY GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS might not be a good thing?