Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loren Pechtel · 04-01-2003, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch
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.

There was a thread about this not too long ago.

My take on it:

He has them. He has only a very limited means of delivering them, however. Scuds aren't very accurate, planes will get shot down (although if a bunch go up some could live long enough). Thus he's limited to short-range delivery systems.

I don't think he sees this as the endgame. He's flaunted us for years. He's probably hoping to inflict enough casualties to chase us off.

I also think he's waiting until he has a bigger target--such as when we assault Baghdad. Prepositioned warheads on the edge of the city could be quite nasty.

Ronin · 04-01-2003, 06:28 PM

Quote:

And that means they know the exact GPS coordinates because the Iraqis are just friendly like that?

Or that they're not held in Baghdad?

Ah, I see, evidence from no evidence...makes perfect sense to me.

I think I'll start typing up my arrest affidavits and warrants just like that from now on.

Quote:

Look, I don't know one way or another if Iraq has them, although I think it likely. However, if emperical evidence isn't presented after a reasonable amount of time (and I'm sorry, 2 fucking weeks during a war isn't a reasonable amount of time) then I would be the first in line to denounce that motivation.

You'll 'denounce that motivation'?!

Well, I feel much better now.

Quote:

Until then I'd rather withold my judgement in lieu of frothing at the mouth everytime someone starts a Bush jumping thread.

Relax...it's the Guinness.

theyeti · 04-01-2003, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by enrious
Christ, people demanded more time for UN inspections (because 6 months wasn't enough)

The inspections lasted less than 3 months.

Quote:

but won't give Coallition forces even 6 weeks...and those UN inspectors weren't getting shot at.

The inspectors didn't have 300,000 men either.

theyeti

Ronin · 04-01-2003, 06:36 PM

Details...details!

Sakpo · 04-01-2003, 06:38 PM

I think I've made my opion onthis invasion abundantly clear already, so I'll hold off on that here. If I suddenly became all knowing (ah, to be 15 again

) and learned the Hussein regime didn't have any chemical or biological weapons I'd be quite suprised. As the good doctor said, we know they had them before, and it's doubtful they destroyed them once nobody was looking, didn't document it, and didn't tell anyone. If they aren't used, my guess would be that it was due to the fear that Bush would carry through on his threat to respond with nuclear (oops, "nuculur"

) weapons, and/or a lack of ability to effectively deploy them.

enrious · 04-01-2003, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronin
Ah, I see, evidence from no evidence...makes perfect sense to me.

Nope. I'm saying that one side is complaining that they weren't given enough for inspections to work. Then they complain that the other side hasn't found anything in what, 1/12 the time that they had?

6 months for inspections before the administration decided to say "screw it" and invaded.

After 2 weeks of war, people are demanding proof?

6 months versus 2 whole weeks?

I don't know one way or another if the administration is right or wrong...but I wonder why they aren't given even half the time they gave to inspectors?

Quote:

You'll 'denounce that motivation'?!

Well, I feel much better now.

Yeah, I'll whine as much as y'all.

Quote:

Relax...it's the Guinness.

Nah, not a drop. But dang if you didn't make me want some.

Guinness...it's like a meal in a glass.

Ronin · 04-01-2003, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Nope. I'm saying that one side is complaining that they weren't given enough for inspections to work. Then they complain that the other side hasn't found anything in what, 1/12 the time that they had?

6 months for inspections before the administration decided to say "screw it" and invaded.

After 2 weeks of war, people are demanding proof?

6 months versus 2 whole weeks?

I don't know one way or another if the administration is right or wrong...but I wonder why they aren't given even half the time they gave to inspectors?

You're math is faulty...the two weeks is added to the time the inspectors had to find nothing and now on to death and destruction.

Quote:

Yeah, I'll whine as much as y'all.

Trust me, it isn't called 'whining' where I come from.

Quote:

Nah, not a drop. But dang if you didn't make me want some.

Guinness...it's like a meal in a glass.

Well, my job is done then.

enrious · 04-01-2003, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronin
You're math is faulty...the two weeks is added to the time the inspectors had to find nothing and now on to death and destruction.

Nope. The administration's now on the clock. The burden's theirs to carry (but hey, they seemed to have wanted it...what was that conceit thing?)

Quote:

Trust me, it isn't called 'whining' where I come from.

It is where I'm from.

Quote:

Well, my job is done then.

*burp*

leonarde · 04-01-2003, 07:01 PM

Five will get you ten that if the US/UK forces DID turn up WMDs the same skeptics would say 'Riiiiight, in the MIDDLE OF A GROUND OFFENSIVE with BULLETS STILL ZINGING overhead these WMDs allegedly show up [wink, wink; nudge, nudge]!! And HOW EXACTLY do we know they weren't planted by the invaders since Hans Blix never saw them???'

Cheers!

Clutch · 04-01-2003, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Look, I don't know one way or another if Iraq has them, although I think it likely. However, if emperical evidence isn't presented after a reasonable amount of time (and I'm sorry, 2 fucking weeks during a war isn't a reasonable amount of time) then I would be the first in line to denounce that motivation.

Until then I'd rather withold my judgement in lieu of frothing at the mouth everytime someone starts a Bush jumping thread.

Huh?

You're completely changing the topic. (And naughty Ronin is helping you.)

I didn't say anything about the failure of the Ang/Am troops to find C/B weapons. The question is, why hasn't Hussein used them? I mean, presumably he knows where to find them, wouldn'tcha think?

Notice that I figure he does indeed have at least some such weapons -- ie, like Iran, Pakistan and a long list of other countries that nobody is invading just this minute. But the rationale for the war was -- think way back a couple weeks, now -- that Hussein was likely to use these weapons, if left unchecked.

The answers as to why he hasn't seem to cluster around things like fear of retaliation and unwillingness to alienate absolutely everyone in the international community.

But who on earth is this Saddam Hussein, who can be cowed by the threats of massive retaliation and universal opprobrium even when his country is being invaded? Not the same fellow, surely, as the Saddam Hussein who had to be deposed, since he absolutely could not be made to see the force of such prudential reasoning way back in... er, March. Couldn't be.

Or, as I actually put it in my actual OP:

Quote:

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, 06:36 PM	#24
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	Details...details!

04-01-2003, 06:38 PM	#25
Sakpo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Pacific Northwest (illegally occupied indigenous l Posts: 7,716	I think I've made my opion onthis invasion abundantly clear already, so I'll hold off on that here. If I suddenly became all knowing (ah, to be 15 again ) and learned the Hussein regime didn't have any chemical or biological weapons I'd be quite suprised. As the good doctor said, we know they had them before, and it's doubtful they destroyed them once nobody was looking, didn't document it, and didn't tell anyone. If they aren't used, my guess would be that it was due to the fear that Bush would carry through on his threat to respond with nuclear (oops, "nuculur" ) weapons, and/or a lack of ability to effectively deploy them.

04-01-2003, 07:01 PM	#29
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Five will get you ten that if the US/UK forces DID turn up WMDs the same skeptics would say 'Riiiiight, in the MIDDLE OF A GROUND OFFENSIVE with BULLETS STILL ZINGING overhead these WMDs allegedly show up [wink, wink; nudge, nudge]!! And HOW EXACTLY do we know they weren't planted by the invaders since Hans Blix never saw them???' Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.