Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clutch · 04-01-2003, 03:55 PM

Just wondering whether any of the advocates of the attack on Iraq could see any plausible reconciliation of these two statements:

A) Hussein was a real threat to use chemical or biological weapons on the USA, even if he was not invaded.

B) Hussein has not used chemical or biological weapons, even though he's been invaded.

Of course, anyone who reads the BC&A forum knows that there are any number of ways to reconcile apparent contradictions! Plus, Hussein might yet use, or attempt to use, such weapons. But even if he does, the data to date are worth consideration in themselves: He's been very hard pressed, is backed into his own burrow, and yet has not used C/B weapons. This surely reflects badly on the pre-war Master Narrative: Hussein as eminently prepared to use C/B weapons against Americans.

Marduk · 04-01-2003, 04:01 PM

he hid them so well that now he can't remember where he put them!!!

Jane Bovary · 04-01-2003, 04:28 PM

"Tariq! Where did you put that 10,000 litre drum of anthrax?"

"I dunno...you had it last. Check your sock drawer."

theyeti · 04-01-2003, 04:30 PM

The fact that he hasn't used them is proof that he's fooling the inspectors.

Marduk · 04-01-2003, 04:32 PM

No!

The fact that he hasn't used them is proof that he has them!!!

Pomp · 04-01-2003, 04:33 PM

As if we needed any more evidence that he's a master of deception...

Seriously, I'm thinking he hasn't used them for one of three reasons:

1) Most likely, he doesn't have them or, at least, doesn't have enough to make their use worthwhile.

2) He knows that he's more or less done as far as world opinion goes if he pulls them out now.

3) He's saving them for some clever tactical use in the late stages of the war.

peacenik · 04-01-2003, 04:38 PM

They'll claim that Syria and/or Iran have hidden the WMD's for Iraq. They'll have Colin Powell present some forged documents supporting this propoganda, and then they'll use this new propoganda to justify an invasion of either or both of these nations. Bush won't stop untill he has colonized the entire Middle East.

theyeti · 04-01-2003, 04:39 PM

And I would add to the possiblities:

4. Decision that they wouldn't be effective militarily.

5. Fear of retaliation.

6. He won't give his Precious out to any but his most loyal troops, who have yet to see action.

theyeti

Marduk · 04-01-2003, 04:43 PM

"5. Fear of retaliation. "

He's afraid they may bomb Baghdad!

Clutch · 04-01-2003, 04:53 PM

Okay, as to plausibility: If it's game over for him -- and really, it sure looks like it is -- why should world opinion or retaliation matter a damn?

04-01-2003, 03:55 PM	#1
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Why hasn't Hussein used C/B weapons? Just wondering whether any of the advocates of the attack on Iraq could see any plausible reconciliation of these two statements: A) Hussein was a real threat to use chemical or biological weapons on the USA, even if he was not invaded. B) Hussein has not used chemical or biological weapons, even though he's been invaded. Of course, anyone who reads the BC&A forum knows that there are any number of ways to reconcile apparent contradictions! Plus, Hussein might yet use, or attempt to use, such weapons. But even if he does, the data to date are worth consideration in themselves: He's been very hard pressed, is backed into his own burrow, and yet has not used C/B weapons. This surely reflects badly on the pre-war Master Narrative: Hussein as eminently prepared to use C/B weapons against Americans.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-01-2003, 04:01 PM	#2
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	he hid them so well that now he can't remember where he put them!!!

04-01-2003, 04:28 PM	#3
Jane Bovary Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Fatal Shore Posts: 900	"Tariq! Where did you put that 10,000 litre drum of anthrax?" "I dunno...you had it last. Check your sock drawer."

04-01-2003, 04:30 PM	#4
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	The fact that he hasn't used them is proof that he's fooling the inspectors.

04-01-2003, 04:32 PM	#5
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	No! The fact that he hasn't used them is proof that he has them!!!

04-01-2003, 04:33 PM	#6
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	As if we needed any more evidence that he's a master of deception... Seriously, I'm thinking he hasn't used them for one of three reasons: 1) Most likely, he doesn't have them or, at least, doesn't have enough to make their use worthwhile. 2) He knows that he's more or less done as far as world opinion goes if he pulls them out now. 3) He's saving them for some clever tactical use in the late stages of the war.

04-01-2003, 04:38 PM	#7
peacenik Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Knoxville, TN Posts: 331	They'll claim that Syria and/or Iran have hidden the WMD's for Iraq. They'll have Colin Powell present some forged documents supporting this propoganda, and then they'll use this new propoganda to justify an invasion of either or both of these nations. Bush won't stop untill he has colonized the entire Middle East.

04-01-2003, 04:39 PM	#8
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	And I would add to the possiblities: 4. Decision that they wouldn't be effective militarily. 5. Fear of retaliation. 6. He won't give his Precious out to any but his most loyal troops, who have yet to see action. theyeti

04-01-2003, 04:43 PM	#9
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	"5. Fear of retaliation. " He's afraid they may bomb Baghdad!

04-01-2003, 04:53 PM	#10
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Okay, as to plausibility: If it's game over for him -- and really, it sure looks like it is -- why should world opinion or retaliation matter a damn?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.