US expert slams WMD 'delusions'

[shamrock_uk]

Enforcement of the law equally and applying to all is how the law prevails Otherwise you will always have the disenfranchised that resort to illegal methods.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Enforcement of the law equally and applying to all is how the law prevails Otherwise you will always have the disenfranchised that resort to illegal methods.

And no matter how the law is enforced, there will be some who felt it was not enforced "equally" - and they will become disenfranchised and resort to illegal methods.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Don't insult the intelligence of all the people in the UN from across the world by branding them with an inaccurate label. Calling people who criticise Israel's actions anti-semitic is the last resort of the desperate apologist.

Bringing up Israel in a thread about Iraq is another "last resort" of a desparate apologist. When they can't counter a particular point, they just say "Oh yeah? Well what about Israel?"

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by shamrock_uk: Don't insult the intelligence of all the people in the UN from across the world by branding them with an inaccurate label. Calling people who criticise Israel's actions anti-semitic is the last resort of the desperate apologist.

Bringing up Israel in a thread about Iraq is another "last resort" of a desparate apologist. When they can't counter a particular point, they just say "Oh yeah? Well what about Israel?" [/QUOTE]1) An apologist is he who defends the indefensible regardless of the crimes committed. In this thread, I fully agree with Skunks original post and am firmly in the 'attack' camp and therefore cannot be an apologist.

2) Israel had already been brought up in this thread by Skunk when I came to read it

3) What makes bringing up Israel in this thread any different from your post which brought up the UN in a thread devoted to America and Britain's delusions about WMD

4) I agree with most of your original post I quoted from. However by using the 'other reasons' to go to war as justification, comparisons must be drawn with other countries who have done much worse. The question you should be asking is "if the justification for war wasn't about WMD but the other resolutions Saddam broke, then why didn't the US invade the countless other countries that are guilty of the same thing?" The worst offender of course is Israel, so its only natural to use it as an example. The reason for the invasion - both America's middle-east agenda and of course the anti-saddam clique in the Bush dynasty.

5) My post was in response to your critcising the United Nations' inability to enforce resolutions - I simply explained why. If painting the US and Israel in a bad light re. UN activities touches a nerve, then good, it should. Sit back and look at the facts and just consider the possibility that such criticism is justified.

6) I notice that your post doesn't actually contain any response to my argument? Perhaps because it's a valid one? I believe you've just managed to do exactly what I was criticising and dodged the real issues raised by objecting to me using Israel as an example in the first place.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: And no matter how the law is enforced, there will be some who felt it was not enforced "equally" - and they will become disenfranchised and resort to illegal methods.

Quite possibly. However, it seems very plausible that the number of people would be vastly diminished. I agree that there's "always someone" who is going to feel disenfranchised. But surely only a fool would argue that removing actual and legitimate causes for disenfranchisement wouldn't lead to a reduction in this number. Its plain common-sense.

Also, contrary to popular American myth, Islamists don't ulutate (i do like that word TL by the way ) just for the sake of it. The majority of the Islamist movement is young, educated and disollusioned youth. These people aren't stupid just because they're Arabic or Muslim.

Ask a Muslim why they're protesting against America and they will tell you that they hate America because of its double standards. They believe its anti-arabic and anti-muslim because of its unwavering support for Israel. I won't even bother going into what Iraq did to the state of US-Arab relations. Many have to live, or have lived, under brutal dictators that are only there because of American support / military assistance. It claims to be the bastion of liberty and freedom, but in fact, this only applies if you're liked by the current administration.

Theirs is not an irrational hatred, and that is why the public in practically every civilised and educated country around the world agrees with their position in principle. The only two exceptions, of course, being Israel and America. We should ask what makes these two countries different from all the others in the world.

Israel's media reporting with regard to current events is quite commendable, full details of palestinians shot and killed etc are usually given. The siege mentality that exists however makes these things excusable and not politically damaging. But it's certainly often accurate with the facts, if extremely one sided and crude in tackling the underlying causes and reasoning.

The American media has no excuse on the other hand - you get the news you want to hear. Even clips from Israeli news channels are censored by the time they hit US screens. At least if I was Syrian I know the media is state controlled - in America, the self-censorship that goes on is far more insidious, because if that's all you're exposed to, you don't realise.

I wonder if you were typing your IW replies on the front line in Palestine rather than behind your desk in N. Carolina you might alter your opinions a little...

[edits for clarity and additional content]

[ 06-08-2004, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Davros]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: In his latest comments, Mr Kay referred to the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, by name. "Anyone out there holding - as I gather Prime Minister Blair has recently said - the prospect that, in fact, the Iraq Survey Group is going to unmask actual weapons of mass destruction, are really delusional," he said. "There is nothing there. There is a programme there. There was an intention of Saddam Hussein at some point to reconstitute it.

I will agree that Bush and Blair should admit that their intelligence information regarding WMD appears to have been wrong. Oh - Wait - they already did that and were roundly criticized for not being more suspicious of the information they received.
[/QUOTE]Point of order my dear Cerek - nothing diabolical,but just an inconsistancy that I noted when reading your post.

The article of origin (for this thread) clearly states (and requests) that Blair should depart from his stance of certainty that the Iraq Survey Group WILL find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

If Blair is thus so categorically confident then why would you lay laim that he has apologised for the falseness of intelligence that he still clearly believes in.

I am similarly not aware that Bush has ever categorically admitted that his intel was wrong. I think that it is generally leaking through that the stories look more and more unreliable. Not that I think it necessary for the leader of the country to say we got it wrong either - just pointing out that I don't think Teflon Tony or wee George have actually done so.

[Yorick]

Shamrock... the difference between Iraq and Israel, is that Israel act in REACTION. Understand that. They hold the west bank, and Jerusalem because letting them go back to Jordan is militarily undefensable. Given that every Arabic nation declared war on them, and that only Egypt have acknowledge Israel's existence, let alone right to exist, the decision to keep hold of a buffer zone, to SAVE THE LIVES OF IT'S PEOPLE, seems fair.

No Arab invasion = no six day war = no Sinai/West Bank/Gaza possession.

It's called consequences.

Iraq, on the other hand premptively invaded Kuwait, under Hussein. The problem was not Iraq, but Hussein. The TYPES of resolutions he broke are extreme also, such as using internationally banned chemical weapons on his own subjects, the Kurds. The burning of the oilfields was an ecological disaster.

You comparison then is moot, silly, irrelevent and pointless. It is also a STRAW MAN argument. Regardless of what happened to Israel, the issue is Iraq. The way another nation is treated in no way justifies or condemnes the way Hussein was treated.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Davros: Point of order my dear Cerek - nothing diabolical,but just an inconsistancy that I noted when reading your post. The article of origin (for this thread) clearly states (and requests) that Blair should depart from his stance of certainty that the Iraq Survey Group WILL find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If Blair is thus so categorically confident then why would you lay laim that he has apologised for the falseness of intelligence that he still clearly believes in. I am similarly not aware that Bush has ever categorically admitted that his intel was wrong. I think that it is generally leaking through that the stories look more and more unreliable. Not that I think it necessary for the leader of the country to say we got it wrong either - just pointing out that I don't think Teflon Tony or wee George have actually done so.

OK, my mistake for misreading the article. I didn't realize that Blair was still categorically confident that WMD's would be found in Iraq. I think the possibility of them being found still exists, but I also think there is an equal chance that none will be found (because they were either moved before the war or didn't exist in the first place).

As for the Intelligence sources, there have been several stories circulated through the media claiming the stance regarding WMD's was based on Intelligence Info that has - in hindsight - been found to be wrong. You are correct that President Bush hasn't held a formal press conference to announce the Intel was faulty and apologize for it, but the "leaking" of these stories is a way of explaining why the Administration's certainty of WMD's was wrong.

Will Bush give a public apology for the mistake? Not in an election year. Should Bush give an apology after the election?? Not necessarily. While WMD's may have been touted as the primary reason for the invasion, it was NOT the ONLY reason (I believe the official list has 17 items, IIRC). Even if they were wrong about the existence of WMD's, I think they were still justified if they legitimately believed the threat of the WMD's. But even if we completely remove WMD's from the equation, there is no denying that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 1) An apologist is he who defends the indefensible regardless of the crimes committed. In this thread, I fully agree with Skunks original post and am firmly in the 'attack' camp and therefore cannot be an apologist.

An "apologist" is one that defends a doctrine. It could be expanded to say that it is one that defends their position on a subject. So proclaiming yourself in the "attack group" is a rather moot point, in my opinion. It doesn't relieve you of the obligation to defend your views.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 2) Israel had already been brought up in this thread by Skunk when I came to read it

Yes, I realize that Skunk has a habit of bringing up Israel on a regular basis, regardless of whether the thread is actually about Israel or not.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 3) What makes bringing up Israel in this thread any different from your post which brought up the UN in a thread devoted to America and Britain's delusions about WMD

What makes bringing up Israel in a thread about Iraq different from bringing up the U.N. is that the conflict in Israel has NO DIRECT CONNECTION to Iraq. The U.N. - on the other hand - DOES have a very direct connection to discussions about Iraq, since they were the ones originally charged with finding the WMD and overseeing their disposal. They were also charged with disciplining Saddam Hussein for his lack of compliance in that effort. Also, many people still feel that the U.S.A. should have let the U.N. handle the situation this time around. So the actions of the U.N. (or lack thereof) are pertinent to the discussion of the War in Iraq - and are especially pertinent in regards to the WMD's (or lack thereof) in Iraq.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 4) I agree with most of your original post I quoted from. However by using the 'other reasons' to go to war as justification, comparisons must be drawn with other countries who have done much worse. The question you should be asking is "if the justification for war wasn't about WMD but the other resolutions Saddam broke, then why didn't the US invade the countless other countries that are guilty of the same thing?" The worst offender of course is Israel, so its only natural to use it as an example. The reason for the invasion - both America's middle-east agenda and of course the anti-saddam clique in the Bush dynasty.

Exactly how does having more than one reason to invade Iraq make it imperitave to draw comparisons to other countries? The only justification for this is to point out that the U.S. has not invaded Israel. Wow, what a surprise! The U.S. has refused to invade a country they consider an ally and have actually fought to help ease sanctions handed down against them by the U.N. Yes, that IS called "self-interest" - and it is practiced by every single country on the globe. You might as well ask why France and Germany didn't invade Spain for supporting the U.S. and the War in Iraq.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 5) My post was in response to your critcising the United Nations' inability to enforce resolutions - I simply explained why. If painting the US and Israel in a bad light re. UN activities touches a nerve, then good, it should. Sit back and look at the facts and just consider the possibility that such criticism is justified.

And if my pointing out how completely IN-effective the U.N. is as a whole, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that such criticism is justified. You actually provided a FAR better example of just how ineffective the U.N. is with your list of sanctions against Israel. I believe the final total was 16 sanctions against Iraq compared to 84 sanctions against Israel. But instead of blaming the U.N. for their lack of action on ANY of those sanctions, the blame is still placed squarely on the U.S.A.

The argument that all sanctions against Israel have been reduced to a Chapter 6 level, so that it doesn't require action by the U.N. is a Straw Man Argument. Just because action isn't required does not mean that the U.N. wouldn't be justified in pursuing action. Surely a list of 84 sanctions should be justification enough for the U.N. to do SOMETHING!!! But they still sit in their meeting rooms wringing their hands, shaking their fists, and occasionally rattling a sabre here and there. But that is as far as their action ever goes.

One other reason that U.N. hasn't taken any action (and why there is so much blame placed on the U.S.A. for this inaction ) could be because when the U.N. DOES finally get off it's duff and decide to do something, guess who they expect to provide the bulk of the force? Yep, U.S. So when the U.S. says they support Israel and will NOT support action against them, the U.N. is left between the proverbial rock and hard place.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 6) I notice that your post doesn't actually contain any response to my argument? Perhaps because it's a valid one? I believe you've just managed to do exactly what I was criticising and dodged the real issues raised by objecting to me using Israel as an example in the first place.

Careful, shamrock. I don't want you to break your arm while patting yourself on the back. I didn't answer you charges against Israel because (1) it wasn't pertinent to the discussion, and (2) the rebuttals to comparisons made between Israel and Iraq have been mentioned in several threads. I saw no need to repeat what has been said many times before. But I see that Yorick DID post the rebuttals again anyway, so the issue has not been dodged.

But as long as we are talking about dodging issues, you also have not answered the comments I highlighted by David Kay stating that his investigation had found solid evidence that Iraq was engaged in numerous illegal activities. That statement alone provides a measure of justification for the actions taken against them.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: The American media has no excuse on the other hand - you get the news you want to hear. Even clips from Israeli news channels are censored by the time they hit US screens. At least if I was Syrian I know the media is state controlled - in America, the self-censorship that goes on is far more insidious, because if that's all you're exposed to, you don't realise.

Well, I hate to burst your perception-bubble that all Americans are clueless to the censorship that goes on in our media, but most of us are well aware of that. There have been prolific accusations of the media being controlled by the left-wing. While there are many examples to support this theory, there are several examples of the right wing putting their own spin on stories in publications and broadcasts controlled by those that are sympathetic to that side of the fence also.

"Objective reporting" is non-existent in the U.S.A. anymore. Every publication and news broadcast caters to thier target audience, and the stories they cover are tailored (both in wording and presentation) to the tastes, interests, and political views of that target audience. The self-censorship may, indeed, be "insidious" - but it certainly is NOT a big secret.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: I wonder if you were typing your IW replies on the front line in Palestine rather than behind your desk in N. Carolina you might alter your opinions a little...

Probably so. Just as your opinion and views about America would probably be different if you grew up here instead of the U.K.

[John D Harris]

Here's some nuggets to chew on, about stuff found coming out of Iraq.

During last week's visit to Jordan, Perricos told the council that U.N. experts visited "relevant scrapyards" with the full cooperation of Jordanian authorities and discovered 20 SA-2 missile engines.

The U.N. team also discovered some processing equipment with U.N. tags — which show it was being monitored — including heat exchangers, and a solid propellant mixer bowl to make missile fuel, he said. It also discovered "a large number of other processing equipment without tags, in very good condition."
**********Harris Note*********** why didn't these processing equiptment have tags could they have been hidden from the UN inspectors? You know those wonderful UN inspectors that couldn't find anything and said that they didn't know for sure one way or another, yeah those are the guys.

And yet another nugget:
In its quarterly report to the council on Monday, the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission which Perricos heads, said a number of sites in Iraq known to have contained equipment and material that could be used to produce banned weapons and long-range missiles have been cleaned out or destroyed.

The inspectors said they didn't know whether the items, which had been monitored by the United Nations, were at the sites during the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The commission, known as UNMOVIC (search), said it was possible some material was taken by looters and sold as scrap.

UNMOVIC said its experts and a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. body responsible for dismantling Iraq's nuclear program, were jointly investigating items from Iraq discovered in a scrapyard in Rotterdam.
**********Harris Note************* Why is the International Atomic Energy Agency investigating this? Could their Giger(sp?) counter have gone off?

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Yes, I realize that Skunk has a habit of bringing up Israel on a regular basis, regardless of whether the thread is actually about Israel or not.

Rubbish. It has everything to do with Israel. It is because of Israel's nuclear stockpile that every other country in the middle east is seeking weapons of mass destruction, or is expected to be seeking them.

Remember that WAR was declared on Iraq on the SUPPOSITION that it had WMD's. War was not declared on Israel despite the actual EVIDENCE that it has and maintains a nuclear stockpile.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: One other reason that U.N. hasn't taken any action (and why there is so much blame placed on the U.S.A. for this inaction ) could be because when the U.N. DOES finally get off it's duff and decide to do something, guess who they expect to provide the bulk of the force? Yep, U.S. So when the U.S. says they support Israel and will NOT support action against them, the U.N. is left between the proverbial rock and hard place.

War is the LAST TOOL OF RESORT of the UN, Cerek, not the first. And the US does not provide the bulk of troops - INDIA PROVIDES THE MOST (and has done for the last TWENTY years), with Germany second and Britain third.

And the first tool of the UN is SANCTIONS - which does not need the US military to implement. And the US is blamed for the failure of those sanctions to be implemented because it casts it veto to prevent them.