RED DAVE

Some people just don't get it. This was a put-up job from the start.

The Fig Leaf

RED DAVE

leonarde

And tell me, RED DAVE, if WMDs are found (anthrax, VX, for instance) will you change your tune? Or do you, like so many, have a fall back position? (yeah, they have the WMDs and they DESERVE to have them!!!)

Cheers!

TealVeal

And tell me, leonarde, if WMDs are never found (anthrax, VX, for instance) when will you change your tune? Or do you, like so many, have a fall back position? (yeah, they had the WMDs and they sent them to Syria!!!)

Cheers!

RED DAVE

From leonarde:

1. The United States is already in possession of WMDs and has used them.

2. WMDs were provided to Iraq during the 80s for the war against Iran. Their use was justified by us.

3. THe US gave the wink to Hussein prior to the invasion of Kuwait, intimating that we would let it go by.

4. During the past 20 or so years, the US has invaded Nicaragua, Panama and Grenada (my personal favorite).

5. The US actively supports bloody dictators in other countries, i.e. Saudi Arabia.

6. Iraq was never a military threat to the US.

7. The US has never hesitated to invade other countries, on any pretext.

Now, this summarizes my position prior to the invasion. I also believed that the existence of WMDs was a pretext.

(Major General Smedly Butler, former Commandante of the Marine Corps)

So, should some weapons be found, it would make very little difference. they weren't the reson for the invasion, nor was "freeing" the Iraqis from dictatorship. The cause alwaays was the furtherance of US world hegemony and oil.

RED DAVE

Farren

Lets not forget that the theme of this thread was "Proof of Iraqi/Al Qaida link?".

Leonarde,

Early in the thread, you and I got into a rumble about the veracity of those documents and the quality of press that supplied them.

After some acrimonious exchanges I pointed out that the CIA had had (supportive) links with Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden. The relevance being that a historical connection does not imply a contemporary relationship, else we would have to suspect the CIA of being complicit in 9/11.

I was unable to substantiate my claim (derived from a broad number of news sources, but unsubstantiated by online documentary evidence) that the CIA "handled" Bin Laden, and conceded this.

However, I subsequently went to great lengths to demonstrate that there is a substantial amount of knowledge and concession in the public domain that the CIA collaborated with Pakistans ISI in setting up, funding and training the mujahadeen and MAK (the organisation of which Osama was co-leader at the time), and that Reagan's government supplied the arms and funds for such activities. I posted a large number of links from the US government website, since you disputed my other sources.

I also provided you with my "hallmarks of good/bad press", held our respective sources up in this light, and (implicitly) challenged you to either invalidate the comparison or at least formulate some argument about the premises (what constitutes good/bad journalism)

At this point, Koy entered the fray, you stopped answering my posts and went haring off after another target.

When Koy, like myself, took the time and effort to assemble an impressive body of logic, references and assessments of each of your points, you quoted 4 sentences from 40 paragraphs and heaped scorn on them.

You then address the issue of the slender nature of your response thus

It evidently hasn't occurred to you that the bold faced words and phrases, which are substantially less than the normal text, are intended as guides to the salient issues.

Instead, the few sentences that are evidently an IMO and not direct arguments against your case "all countries have WMD's". and ignore, as Koy indicates, the substantial material that in fact confronts your arguments.

Similarly, with my posts, you chose a single fault in my argument, which I conceded, and indicated did not alter the logic of my argument, then continued to criticise this point after I conceded it. Clearly, my concession indicated that I was no longer maintaining that premsie, and a failure of that premise did not indicate a failure of the case if the case did not rest on it.

There seems to be a pattern here. We present a large amount of data and a structured case to you. You focus on a single premise or argument that you feel you can argue, often a trivial one, and expand it to be the entire discourse.

If you fail in demonstrating the validity of your case within this discourse, you shift to another poster or item, leaving the first one dangling (as you did with my posts) and thinking that continuity alone demonstrates the feasability of your case.

The issues under discussion are, however, complex and interdependent. Your line of argument instead demonstrates that you are unable to address a multiple threaded line of reasoning, hence my earlier criticism of being able to see only trees but not the forest.

I must say I share Koy's immense frustration.

btw it is not difficult to respond to lengthy posts like Koy's point by point. You simply have to read it and argue or concede each issue, instead of quickly hunting through it for the few items you can easily formulate a reply to.

leonarde

Partial post: I see no position in the above 7 points: merely statements of fact or alleged fact, SOME of which I have no problem with. That tells me what I want to know: you, and I suspect many others here, would have opposed military action even if the WMD programs were a universally recognized fact. Based on some concept of 'equality among nations' (If the US/UK can have nukes so can nation X!).
As I pointed out many weeks ago on one or more of these threads such a position is the death knell of even the potential for nuclear non-proliferation. And nuclear non-proliferation USED to be a dear concern of the left. Which is ONE of the reasons that most Americans regard the left as utterly impractical on matters of national security/foreign affairs.

Cheers!

leonarde

Partial post:Nowhere in this thread or ANY thread have I disputed that the US supported via money and arms (from about 1982 to 1989) the armed resistance to the Soviets and the communist government of Afghanistan. Therefore it was unnecessary to go to great lengths to "prove" it. Since then (1982-89), as now, Afghanistan was landlocked and far from bordering any ally of the US, it was necessary to funnel this money and these arms through PAKISTAN. And specifically this was handled by the Pakistani equivalent of the CIA: ISI. In some ways this was satisfactory (we, the US, could keep a tad of distance and still keep fairly good relations with the Soviets AND the resistance eventually drove the Soviets out); in OTHER ways it was NON-satisfactory:
there was little-to-no direct contact with the Afghan leadership and so the US got little credit for the arms and money: probably the overwhelming number of Afghans never realized at that time that the US was supplying ANYTHING. In addition there was probably some skimming of funds by some Pakistanis in the pipeline. Last but not least, many of the fighters (especially the ARAB ones) were radical Muslim believers and the Pakistanis seemed to have encouraged/shared anti-West attitudes as much as anti-Soviet ones.

I mentioned previously having read a biography of Bin Laden. It is "Through our enemies' eyes : Osama bin Laden, radical Islam, and the future of America" / Anonymous.

Publisher: Washington, D.C. : Brassey's, c2002

What I understand from Bin Laden's role is:
1) he was a (then) very young man who fell under the spell of one or more religious leaders who supported the Afghan resistance.

2) since he was a multimillionaire and knew many wealthy fellow Saudis, he did a great deal of fund raising in Saudi Arabia for the resistance (we mustn't imagine that ALL ----or even most----of the financing of the resistance was by the US: in 1979-1981, there was, as far as I can tell, NO US funding of the resistance).

3) Bin Laden's big contributions (besides the fund-raising) was to do extensive tunnel digging so that resistance facilities could be built into mountains, unseen by Soviet airmen. His family's construction business had given him both the know-how and equipment to do this effectively.

4) When he did engage in combat he was a brave and capable soldier.

Back to al Qaeda: it seems to not have existed prior to the 1990s
(exact date is unclear to me) so there simply COULD NOT BE (for chronological reasons) US support for this organization: it existed for "jihad" not in Afghanistan but in other countries. Bin Laden was unknown to most of the West until that time (1990s).

Cheers!

leonarde

Partial post by TealVeal:For me, it's not really a fall-back position. I told (on one message board or another) people before the invasion that for me ANY ONE of the following was ample justification for military action:

1) expelling the ORIGINAL arms inspectors (UNSCOM) which was done in 1997 and prompted the Clinton administration to try to get support for war in Feb of 1998. Eventually some deal was worked out to re-admit the inspectors in mid-1998 but they found that they couldn't work unencumbered and that was basically the end of UNSCOM. Since weapons-inspection was part of the ceasefire of Gulf War I expelling the inspectors was a de facto act of war.

2) continued support for/harboring of known terrorist organizations (Abu Nidal's group, paying money as reward to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers etc.). Syria and Pakistan, by contrast, have been more aggressive in fighting terrorism since Sept 11th 2001.

3) continued existence of WMD programs. They were part of the ceasefire agreement of 1991 so again violation here is a de facto act of war.

Points 1 and 2 (EITHER would be sufficient for a just war) are undeniable (with only the level of contact with al Qaeda being unknown). Number 3 seemed (and to me still seems) LIKELY.

Cheers!

TealVeal

[QUOTE]Originally posted by leonarde
Partial post by TealVeal:

Quote:

For me, it's not really a fall-back position.

When your position is "we will find WMD" and WMD still have not been found then you by definition must go to a fall back position. Notice how "we will find WMD" is not the same as "WMD is the cause for the war" Please don't engage in any more non sequitors, what are you a politician?

Quote:

1) expelling the ORIGINAL arms inspectors (UNSCOM) which was done in 1997 and prompted the Clinton administration to try to get support for war in Feb of 1998. Eventually some deal was worked out to re-admit the inspectors in mid-1998 but they found that they couldn't work unencumbered and that was basically the end of UNSCOM. Since weapons-inspection was part of the ceasefire of Gulf War I expelling the inspectors was a de facto act of war.

Good thing we didn't have war monger at the helm then. I mean clinton lied abot sex, but bush? He lied to start a war.

Quote:

2) continued support for/harboring of known terrorist organizations (Abu Nidal's group, paying money as reward to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers etc.). Syria and Pakistan, by contrast, have been more aggressive in fighting terrorism since Sept 11th 2001.

Blah blah blah second verse just as bad as the first. When the US bombs every country which harbors terrorists you have at least one leg to stand upon, till then it's a little thing called "hypocrasy" a thing which the right wing is well versed in.

Quote:

3) continued existence of WMD programs. They were part of the ceasefire agreement of 1991 so again violation here is a de facto act of war.

Wait? Didn't you say later on in your post that

Quote:

Number 3 seemed (and to me still seems) LIKELY.

So what is it? You can either have "they had WMD" or "they likely had WMD." You are equivocating. Pick one.

Quote:

Points 1 and 2 (EITHER would be sufficient for a just war) are undeniable (with only the level of contact with al Qaeda being unknown).

And you our hawk were of course crying high and loud for war when these transpired! Or wait, just trying to use them as a fallback for the cause of the war (which is not the same question I asked you, try staying on topic in your reply to this) when your precious WMD were discovered just like santa clause and god to not exist except in the fantasies of the brainwashed.

Quote:

Number 3 seemed (and to me still seems) LIKELY.

Which of course did not even adress my question! DO I detect a patern of weasleness? "It's like trying to nail jello to the wall." When will you say "Well I guess he doesn't have WMD" or are you going to keep repeating the mantra "They shipped them to Syria" as long as a self flagellating priest?




Answer the damned question. If WMD continue to not be found what will you say? "Oh they are in Syria"? Or "Well I guess I was wrong"?

Optional

See, what you did there was shift the discussion from 'weapons of mass destruction' to 'nukes'. They are not the same thing. WMDs are chems bios AND nukes.

And the REASON you shifted lies (I think anyway) near the heart of the matter... What we had plenty of evidence for was the possibility/probability that Iraq had chems/bios. The thing that actually SOLD the war for a NUMBER of important people (ie, prezzie might not have been able to get congressional permission without this) was the NUKE factor. And we had two pieces of evidence for that. 1) Those tubes that prezzie said were DEFINITELY being used for NUKE purposes which damn near every knowledgable person said could NOT have been used for NUKE purposes, and 2) the Niger documents, which were FORGED.

See what I mean?

-me