Point by point debunking of Powell's February go-to-war speech

[HarmlessRabbit]

Good article, well researched. It's nice to see the press doing some research on their own and holding the administration accountable for what they have said in the past.

Sorta makes "I did not have sex with that woman" seem a bit irrelevant, doesn't it?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...printstory.jsp

Powell's push toward Iraq war questioned

By CHARLES J. HANLEY
The Associated Press

In a hushed U.N. Security Council chamber in New York last February, Secretary of State Colin Powell unleashed an 80-minute avalanche of allegations:

The Iraqis were hiding chemical and biological weapons, were secretly working to make more banned arms and were reviving their nuclear bomb project. He spoke of "the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world."

It was the most comprehensive presentation of the U.S. case for war. Powell marshaled what were described as intercepted Iraqi conversations, reconnaissance photos of Iraqi sites, accounts of defectors, and other intelligence sources.

In the United States, Powell's "thick intelligence file" was galvanizing, swinging opinion toward war.

Six months later, the file looks thin. Powell has said several times since February that he stands by what he said, the State Department said Wednesday.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, however, told U.S. senators last month that the Bush administration had no "dramatic new evidence" before ordering the Iraq invasion.

"We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on September 11," he said.

So how does Powell's pivotal indictment look from the vantage point of today? Today in The Kansas City Star, an Associated Press review analyzes what he said, based on what was known in February and what has been learned since.

FOR AN IN-DEPTH, POINT-BY-POINT ANALYSIS OF THE U.S. CASE FOR WAR, SEE PAGE A-XX

Satellite photos

Powell presented satellite photos of industrial buildings, bunkers and trucks. He suggested that they showed Iraqis surreptitiously moving prohibited missiles and chemical and biological weapons to hide them. At two sites, he said, trucks were "decontamination vehicles" associated with chemical weapons.

These and other sites, however, had undergone 500 inspections in recent months. Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix, a day earlier, had said that his experts had found no contraband in their inspections and no sign that items had been moved.

Nothing has been reported found since.

Addressing the Security Council a week after Powell, Blix used one photo scenario as an example and said it could be showing routine as easily as illicit activity.

Inspector Jorn Siljeholm told The Associated Press on March 19 that "decontamination vehicles" the U.N. teams were led to by U.S. information turned out to be water trucks or fire trucks.

Audiotapes

Powell played three audiotapes of men speaking in Arabic of a mysterious "modified vehicle," "forbidden ammo" and "the expression `nerve agents' " -- tapes said to be intercepts of Iraqi army officers discussing concealment.

Two of the brief, anonymous tapes, otherwise not authenticated, provided little context for judging their meaning. It could not be known whether the mystery vehicle, however modified, was even banned. A listener could only speculate over the mention of "nerve agents."

The third tape was an order to inspect scrap areas for "forbidden ammo." The Iraqis had just told U.N. inspectors that they would search ammunition dumps for stray, empty chemical warheads left over from years earlier. They later turned four over to inspectors.

Powell's rendition of the third conversation made it more incriminating, by saying an officer ordered that the area be "cleared out." The voice on the tape did not say that, but only that the area be "inspected," according to the official U.S. translation.

Hidden documents

Powell said that "classified" documents found at a nuclear scientist's Baghdad home were "dramatic confirmation" of intelligence saying prohibited items were concealed this way.

U.N. inspectors later said the documents were old and irrelevant -- some administrative material, some from a failed and well-known uranium-enrichment program of the 1980s.

Desert weapons

According to Powell, unidentified sources said the Iraqis dispersed rocket launchers and warheads holding biological weapons to the western desert, hiding them in palm groves and moving them every one to four weeks.

Nothing has been reported found after months of searching by U.S. and Australian troops.

Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi, the Iraqi presidential science adviser, suggested that the story of palm groves and movement was lifted whole from an Iraqi general's written account of hiding missiles in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

U-2s, scientists

Powell said that Iraq was violating a U.N. resolution by rejecting U-2 reconnaissance flights and barring private interviews with scientists. He suggested that only fear of the Saddam Hussein regime kept scientists from exposing secret weapons programs.

On Feb. 17, U-2 flights began. By early March, 12 scientists had submitted to private interviews.

In postwar interviews, with Hussein no longer in power, no Iraqi scientist is known to have confirmed any revived weapons program.

Anthrax

Powell noted Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 liters of the biological agent anthrax before 1991, but U.N. inspectors estimated it could have made up to 25,000 liters. None has been "verifiably accounted for," he said.

No anthrax has been reported found.

The Defense Intelligence Agency, in a confidential report last September that has recently been disclosed, said that although it thought Iraq had biological weapons, it did not know their nature, amounts or condition.

Three weeks before the invasion, an Iraqi report of scientific soil sampling supported the regime's contention that it had destroyed its anthrax stocks at a known site, the U.N. inspection agency said May 30. Iraq also presented a list of witnesses to verify amounts, the agency said.

It was too late for inspectors to interview them; the war soon began.

Bioweapons trailers

Powell said that defectors had told of "biological weapons factories" on trucks and in train cars. He displayed artists' conceptions of such vehicles.

After the invasion, U.S. authorities said they found two such truck trailers in Iraq, and the CIA said it concluded they were part of a bioweapons production line. But no trace of biological agents was found on them.

Iraqis said the equipment made hydrogen for weather balloons, and State Department intelligence balked at the CIA's conclusion.

The British defense secretary, Geoffrey Hoon, has said the vehicles were not a "smoking gun."

The trailers have not been submitted to U.N. inspection for verification.

No "bioweapons railcars" have been reported found.

Unmanned aircraft

Powell showed video of an Iraqi Mirage F-1 jet spraying "simulated anthrax." He said that four spray tanks were unaccounted for, and that Iraq was building small unmanned aircraft "well-suited for dispensing chemical and biological weapons."

According to U.N. inspectors' reports, the video predated the 1991 war, when the Mirage was said to have been destroyed, and three of the four spray tanks were destroyed in the 1990s.

No small drones or other planes with chemical-biological capability have been reported found in Iraq since the invasion.

Iraq also gave inspectors details on its drone program, but the U.S. bombing intervened before U.N. teams could follow up.

Nerve agent production

Powell said that Iraq produced 4 tons of the nerve agent VX.

"A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons," he said.

Powell did not note that most of that 4 tons was destroyed in the 1990s under U.N. supervision. Before the invasion, the Iraqis made a "considerable effort" to prove they had destroyed the rest, doing chemical analysis of the ground where inspectors confirmed that VX had been dumped, the U.N. inspection agency reported May 30.

Experts at Britain's International Institute of Strategic Studies said that any pre-1991 VX most likely would have degraded anyway.

No VX has been reported found since the invasion.

`Embedded' capability

"We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry," Powell said.

No "chemical weapons infrastructure" has been reported found.

The newly disclosed Defense Intelligence Agency report of last September said there was "no reliable information" on "where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent-production facilities."

It suggested that international inspections, swept aside by the U.S. invasion six months later, would be able to keep Iraq from rebuilding a chemical weapons program.

Chemical agent stockpile

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent," Powell said.

Powell gave no basis for the assertion, and no such agents have been reported found.

An unclassified CIA report last October made a similar assertion without citing concrete evidence, saying only that Iraq "probably" concealed precursor chemicals to make such weapons.

There "is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons," the Defense Intelligence Agency reported confidentially last September.

Chemical warheads

Powell said 122 mm chemical warheads found by U.N. inspectors in January might be the "tip of an iceberg."

The warheads were empty, a fact Powell did not note.

Blix said June 16 that the dozen stray rocket warheads, never uncrated, were apparently "debris from the past" -- the 1980s.

No others have been reported found since the invasion.

Deployed weapons

"Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons....And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorized his field commanders to use them," Powell said.

No such weapons were used, and none was reported found after the U.S. and allied military units overran Iraqi field commands and ammunition dumps.

Revived nuclear program

"We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program," Powell said.

Chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council two weeks before the U.S. invasion: "We have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."

On July 24, Foreign Minister Ana Palacio of Spain, a U.S. ally on Iraq, said there were "no evidences, no proof" of a nuclear bomb program before the war.

No such evidence has been reported found since the invasion.

Aluminum tubes

Powell said that "most United States experts" thought aluminum tubes sought by Iraq were intended for use as centrifuge cylinders for enriching uranium for nuclear bombs.

Energy Department experts and the State Department intelligence bureau had already dissented from this CIA view.

On March 7, ElBaradei said his experts found convincing documentation -- and no contrary evidence -- that Iraq was using the tubes to make artillery rockets. Powell's scenario was "highly unlikely," he said.

No centrifuge program has been reported found.

Magnets

Powell said "intelligence from multiple sources" reported that Iraq was trying to buy magnets and a production line for magnets of "the same weight" as those used in uranium centrifuges.

The U.N. nuclear agency traced a dozen types of imported magnets to their Iraqi end users, and none was usable for centrifuges, ElBaradei told the Security Council March 7.

No centrifuge program has been found.

Scuds, new missiles

Powell said that "intelligence sources" indicated Iraq had a secret force of up to a few dozen prohibited Scud-type missiles. He said it also had a program to build newer, 600-mile-range missiles, and had put a roof over a test facility to block the view of spy satellites.

No Scud-type missiles have been reported found.

In the 1990s, U.N. inspectors had reported accounting for all but two of these missiles.

No program for long-range missiles has been uncovered.

Powell did not note that U.N. teams were repeatedly inspecting missile facilities, including looking under that roof, and reporting no Iraqi violations of U.N. resolutions.

[The_Dude]

i think i'll forward it to my gop leaning govt teacher.

thanks for the post.

[Dragonlich]

repeating "no X has been found" again and again is hardly debunking. *So far* nothing has been found. This does not imply that it is not there, simply because Saddam hasn't actually proven that he got rid of all his weapons. We know what he had, but we don't know what happened to all of it.

In fact, given Saddam's long list of lies and deceptions, along with his regime's secrecy, it is quite conceivable that he did indeed hide some of his WMDs. Can I prove this? Nope. However, can anyone prove the WMDs are all gone? No again.

And no, "haven't found anything" isn't proof of the non-existence of the WMDs. It just proves we haven't found any *yet*; it says nothing at all about any future discoveries or lack thereof.

[ctembreull]

I've said this before, but this is an appropriate topic for a restatement.

Formal logic states that nobody can prove a negative; an argument which claims a theorem to be true simply because nobody can prove it wrong is a fallacy. It has been stated that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction because he has not proven that he does not. This is a logical fallacy, and a piss-poor justification for war to boot. The hawks out there can scream until they're blue in the face about how Saddam has to prove it; this doesn't change the cold, hard fact that the entire basis for the war rested upon a logical fallacy that a first-year college student should know to avoid.

[Phaenx]

Actually, us hawks are quite happy with the results. We don't have to scream about anything, the sour grapes however.. =)

[The_Dude]

Originally posted by Phaenx
Actually, us hawks are quite happy with the results. We don't have to scream about anything, the sour grapes however.. =)

doesnt it both u a bit that we havent found anything after months of occupation?

[Phaenx]

Originally posted by The_Dude
doesnt it both u a bit that we havent found anything after months of occupation?

Nope.

[HarmlessRabbit]

And no, "haven't found anything" isn't proof of the non-existence of the WMDs. It just proves we haven't found any *yet*; it says nothing at all about any future discoveries or lack thereof.

Did you even read the article, Dragonlich? The article points out several cases where specific items that Powell cited turned out not to be true AT ALL. This isn't a case of some vague "finding weapons" evidence, these are specific items cited by the adminisration to get us into a war that the rest of the world did not want. Those items, in hindsight, appear to be at minimum exaggerations, at worst maybe outright lies.

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by ctembreull
I've said this before, but this is an appropriate topic for a restatement.

Formal logic states that nobody can prove a negative; an argument which claims a theorem to be true simply because nobody can prove it wrong is a fallacy. It has been stated that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction because he has not proven that he does not. This is a logical fallacy, and a piss-poor justification for war to boot. The hawks out there can scream until they're blue in the face about how Saddam has to prove it; this doesn't change the cold, hard fact that the entire basis for the war rested upon a logical fallacy that a first-year college student should know to avoid.

This question wouldn't be "proving a negative". It would be proving a negative if we didn't know whether Saddam had any WMDs at all. But we *do* know that Saddam had them; we had a long list detailing everything he used to have.

Now, let's throw all those weapons on a big heap, and call the total amount X. We know that Saddam destroyed a certain amount of those weapons, because he proved this. Throw this on a big heap, and call the total amount Y. Now, unfortunately, X is not equal to Y. That is, there is a certain amount of WMD material which has not been proven to be destroyed. Therefore, it is *possible* it is still out there. It used to be, and I doubt it simply disappeared into thin air. The problem is that nobody seems to be able to show where it is.

Saddam could easily have proven the destruction of his WMDs, simply by accounting for everything he had bought and/or produced in the past. Hell, even this wasn't needed - he simply had to prove the destruction of everything he was shown to have after the '91 gulf war. Shortly before the US attack, Hans Blix himself said there were still questions about the whereabouts of large amounts of chemical and biological weapons...

My take on this: If Saddam had gotten rid of his WMDs in an orderly manner, he could have complied. He should have known that he would have to proof everything he said, so he should have had at least *some* evidence of everything he did with his WMDs. He did not, which was a big mistake, because it allowed the US to use the resulting uncertainty to push for war.

Now, suppose the whole question *is* a logical fallacy (which it isn't)... The UN demanded that Iraq prove the destruction of his WMDs. That means that he *had* to comply. In fact, because the UN is supposedly the body dictating international law, their demands on Iraq were in effect extensions of that law; Saddam broke that law by not complying fully, and any inability to do so is pretty much irrelevant. If your government decides to make a law against breathing, and you do not comply, you get fined. As silly as the law may be, you *still* have to follow it.

Whether or not the WMDs are a poor justification of this war is a different question altogether. If the only reason for the war would be those WMDs, I wouldn't have supported it, if only because (at least) most of the WMDs were gone, and any future use would have resulted in some serious payback... To me, the WMD issue is just another in a long list of reasons for going in.

[ctembreull]

Dragonlich:

Did you even read the article? The whole point of the thing was to state that we didn't "know" the things we said we knew. We made numerous claims regarding fairly specific quantities and types. Which leads me back to the point that we didn't actually know much of anything regarding putative WMDs in Iraq, but we claimed he had them anyway and told him to prove otherwise. Bam, instant logical fallacy. What amazes me is that it's taken so long for the national media to twig to something that millions and millions of Americans have been saying since February, if not earlier.

One more quick question: If it's been destroyed, how do you prove you destroyed it? Suppose, if he's as shoddy a leader as you and others have been claimed, that he didn't bother to write down that he did it, he just did it. How, then, does he go about proving it? And then, if the weapons were destroyed, with or without documentation, what was our justification? We had to invade to be sure? You don't kill 10,000 civilians over an uncertainty.

The grown-up thing (you remember, the grown-ups are *supposed* to be in charge now) to do would be to simply admit that the WMD argument and the attendant claims of al-Quaeda connections were equal parts ideology and bluster, calculated specifically to drum up popular suport for a war. Because that's really all it was. I'm saying nothing about other motives, but it's pretty much been established that Iraq's WMDs, along with its al-Quaeda connections, were nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

[BigGov]

According to Powell, unidentified sources said the Iraqis dispersed rocket launchers and warheads holding biological weapons to the western desert, hiding them in palm groves and moving them every one to four weeks.

Nothing has been reported found after months of searching by U.S. and Australian troops.

Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi, the Iraqi presidential science adviser, suggested that the story of palm groves and movement was lifted whole from an Iraqi general's written account of hiding missiles in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

So in four months the troops have dug up ALL of the desert? As I've said time and time again, UN Inspectors have said it is COMMON for Iraqi's to dig a hole, put the weapons in, put a tarp over it, and fill it back up.

In postwar interviews, with Hussein no longer in power, no Iraqi scientist is known to have confirmed any revived weapons program.

After most of their lives being brainwashed that if they tell anything to anyone, Saddam will hunt them, or their family down and kill them. Oh, and some of them could be loyalists.

Powell noted Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 liters of the biological agent anthrax before 1991, but U.N. inspectors estimated it could have made up to 25,000 liters. None has been "verifiably accounted for," he said.

No anthrax has been reported found.

COUGH Buried in desert COUGH

Powell said that defectors had told of "biological weapons factories" on trucks and in train cars. He displayed artists' conceptions of such vehicles.

After the invasion, U.S. authorities said they found two such truck trailers in Iraq, and the CIA said it concluded they were part of a bioweapons production line. But no trace of biological agents was found on them.

How does the USA decontaminate any Humvee that comes in contact with a biological agent? Sprays it down with a high-pressure hose. Nothing special, something you can find at any do-it-yourself car wash. Now, I don't know about YOU but I'd have the common sense to decontaminate any WMD filled car before I went for a nice Sunday drive.

Powell said 122 mm chemical warheads found by U.N. inspectors in January might be the "tip of an iceberg."

The warheads were empty, a fact Powell did not note.

Have you ever handled a gu? The first thing, the FIRST thing they teach you is to treat the gun as if it were loaded. These warheads are the same thing. A gun is a method of delivery, so is a missle, why else have them?

Powell said that "intelligence sources" indicated Iraq had a secret force of up to a few dozen prohibited Scud-type missiles. He said it also had a program to build newer, 600-mile-range missiles, and had put a roof over a test facility to block the view of spy satellites.

I'm sorry, what was shot at Kuwaities and Americans during the war? I forgot...

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by ctembreull
Dragonlich:

Did you even read the article? The whole point of the thing was to state that we didn't "know" the things we said we knew. We made numerous claims regarding fairly specific quantities and types. Which leads me back to the point that we didn't actually know much of anything regarding putative WMDs in Iraq, but we claimed he had them anyway and told him to prove otherwise. Bam, instant logical fallacy. What amazes me is that it's taken so long for the national media to twig to something that millions and millions of Americans have been saying since February, if not earlier.

Yes, I have read the article. The "evidence" provided to prove the US wrong is just as flimsy as the evidence it's trying to discredit. "No X has been reported found.", "UN inspectors found no evidence"... Are you suggesting that these claims are somehow less vague than the US' claims? We haven't found anything YET. UN inspectors might simply not have SEEN what the US said.

But okay, if we assume that the US has to prove their claims, reasonable doubt would "disprove" them; most of this is reasonable doubt, therefore the US claims *might* be wrong.

In some cases, however, it's not a matter of the US claiming things, it's a matter of Hans Blix saying Iraq has to answer questions. I don't give a rat's arse about what the US said or did not say; that's for US citizens to protest or approve.

One more quick question: If it's been destroyed, how do you prove you destroyed it? Suppose, if he's as shoddy a leader as you and others have been claimed, that he didn't bother to write down that he did it, he just did it. How, then, does he go about proving it? And then, if the weapons were destroyed, with or without documentation, what was our justification? We had to invade to be sure? You don't kill 10,000 civilians over an uncertainty.

How do you prove it? Simple: witnesses, paperwork, photographs... He documented pretty much everything, ranging from who said what about whom, who was tortured and how, who was executed and how (with videos). Are you suggesting he suddenly decided *not* to document the one thing that could keep him in power?

In the article mentioned, it is stated that shortly before the war, he decided to show UN inspectors "evidence" that bio agents had been destroyed. Why then? Why wait 12 years, and then wait until pretty much the last moment before an attack, to show evidence that should have been shown right away? Saddam knew these questions had not been answered, so he had plenty of time to do that. One might argue that this "proof" he wanted to show was in fact fabricated, or that he had only destroyed those weapons recently...

He had to prove the destruction, and failed to do that for some weapons. We had no reason whatsoever to trust him; not after the tons of lies and deceptions. So yes, the US invaded to be sure. The other way to be sure would be allowing Saddam to *use* those weapons again.

And sorry, you do kill 10,000 people over an uncertainty. In fact, nothing is ever certain in life; world leaders always end up taking decisions based on probability and rumours. If they don't, they just might miss that vital oppertunity. That is unfortunately the reality of today's world - you don't have time to wait, because that might just give your enemies time enough to strike. In this case, "killing 10,000 people" might actually save millions in the long run, if only because they won't be killed by Saddam's regime.

(That 10,000 people statistic hasn't been proven, by the way. Perhaps it was 5,000, perhaps even less... And as you know, it also includes the people killed by the Iraqi side.)

But all of that aside - the US did not *only* invade because they thought/claimed to think that Saddam had WMDs left; there were many other reasons, some humanitarian, some strategic, some political, and some just plain stupid. (and no, "stealing oil" most likely wasn't a reason. If you disagree, how's about *proving* it for a change...)

The grown-up thing (you remember, the grown-ups are *supposed* to be in charge now) to do would be to simply admit that the WMD argument and the attendant claims of al-Quaeda connections were equal parts ideology and bluster, calculated specifically to drum up popular suport for a war. Because that's really all it was. I'm saying nothing about other motives, but it's pretty much been established that Iraq's WMDs, along with its al-Quaeda connections, were nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

So grown-ups will ignore the fact that we have no proof either way, and will simply admit they were wrong, even though they might not be? It has *not* been established that the claims made were smoke and mirrors; it has been established that some claims haven't been proven true (yet). This does *not* mean that everything that has been claimed is automatically false.

The grown-up thing to do would be to admit that it is *possible* we may never find any proof of WMDs, nor of terror links. It is also possible that we will indeed find some evidence next week, or next year.

[j8ear]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Sorta makes "I did not have sex with that woman" seem a bit irrelevant, doesn't it?

Not at all.

Very poignant to the article you offered though ~roll eyes~.

[ctembreull]

Originally posted by Dragonlich
And sorry, you do kill 10,000 people over an uncertainty.

I think I'm going to frame that and put it on my wall. That's quite simply the most asinine statement I have yet to read on this board. Normally, I have to go to freerepublic to find this sort of sheer, unadulterated idiocy.

You and I will obviously never agree. Your intransigence awes me; your willingness to sacrifice as many as ten thousand people and possibly more upon the altar of political gain is the sort of attitude one expects from Saddam Hussein and his ilk, not the supposedly better-eduated, better-intentioned leaders of the West.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

[Nad Adam]

Originally posted by Dragonlich
repeating "no X has been found" again and again is hardly debunking.

Is it possible for you to see a pattern? I'll point it out for you: NO WMD AT ALL HAS BEEN FOUND.

[Conclamo Ludus]

Choose a truth everybody. I'll take this one:

The War is over. Hussein is out of power. We had better find the weapons we know he had, not for legitimacy, but for safety's sake. And we better make Iraq a better place. All the post-war arguments are for what?
Maybe to learn from our mistakes? That would be fine, but our solution to that mistake would've left a ruthless dictator in place who can kick around international law, and human rights, while controlling the region through fear. We can speculate until our faces turn blue, but I'm an optimist and I want the rest of Iraq to be a healthy and happy place to live. I believe that this can be done and promote stability in an ever-increasingly important region.

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by ctembreull
I think I'm going to frame that and put it on my wall. That's quite simply the most asinine statement I have yet to read on this board. Normally, I have to go to freerepublic to find this sort of sheer, unadulterated idiocy.

You and I will obviously never agree. Your intransigence awes me; your willingness to sacrifice as many as ten thousand people and possibly more upon the altar of political gain is the sort of attitude one expects from Saddam Hussein and his ilk, not the supposedly better-eduated, better-intentioned leaders of the West.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

First of all, please keep it civil. Calling me or my statements "idiotic" is insulting. Second of all, you obviously have no idea whatsoever what I mean...

I did not say that I was willing to sacrifice 5000 people for "political gain". I am willing to sacrifice 5000 people to gain freedom and security for 20 million other Iraqis. And I'm certainly willing to sacrifice 5000 people to save the lives of millions more. If you want to see those two positive effects as mere "political gain", that is *your* problem.

Fact: Saddam killed some 20,000 people a year, on average.
Fact: We *accidentally* killed some civilians, as unfortunately happens in wars.
Fact: The Iraqi army and irregulars killed civilians ON PURPOSE.
Fact: 5000 people is NOT a large number in this respect, especially when compared to the intensity of the conflict, the amount of bombs dropped, and the sheer barbarity of the opponent.

One might say that by invading Iraq, we *saved* 20,000 people a year, on average. Therefore, the net effect is positive. Yes, it is sad for the families of those slain, whether they were hit by US troops or Iraqi troops, but at least the rest of them will be able to live in peace, as soon as the situation has calmed down.

If I remember correctly, *you* weren't willing to support this war, and wouldn't even like it if the UN were to go in. Does that mean that you would rather save these 5000 civilians, so that others (20000 a year!) may die at the hands of the Iraqi regime? Because that would be the result of not invading at all - inaction leading to *higher* civilian casualty numbers. Hardly moral, and most certainly asinine.

By the way: why do you keep inflating those numbers every time you mention them? It started with 5000, now it's definitely 10000, and perhaps even more... Do you have some independent statistics that I'm not aware of?

[Conclamo Ludus]

I thought the kill count was between 15,000 and 600,000.

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by Nad Adam
Is it possible for you to see a pattern? I'll point it out for you: NO WMD AT ALL HAS BEEN FOUND.

And this proves *what*, exactly? It most certainly does not prove that none existed, nor that there aren't any to be found. It merely proves itself: none have been found SO FAR. Quite normal for a country the size of Iraq, and for a former regime that spend decades perfecting their ability to hide weapons.

[The_Dunedan]

Ok. We have sattilites that can look down and tell you if your shoes are tied. We've been using high-res recon photos from Predator drones to hunt Taliban for two years now. Other sattilites are using ground-penetrating radar to look for landmines and buried pipes; objects a LOT smaller than a Scud. We have ECHELON monitoring electronig communication of all types, Carnivore on email servers, INFLICTION reading computer screens from 1/2 mile away, not to mentiont 45,000 guys in the desers with metal-detectors, mine-detectors, defectors, chemical sniffers sensitive enough to fine a liter of Botulinium from 100 meters. And you mean to tell me, with all this, after 3 months of looking with the most sophisticated HumInt and ElInt in the world, that we havn't found these things?
Give me a break. If we havn't found these bloody thing, after all this time, with all that capability, THEY AREN'T THERE.
Our sattilites told is that N. Korea was restarting it's nuke program, because they could 'smell' the chemical traces produced by refining Uranium in a hardened factory...FROM SPACE. You mean to tell me that those same sattilites couldn't find this stuff?
You mean to tell me that these sattilites, which watch every inch of the Northern Hemisphere ( the Russians and Chinese do this too ) wouldn't SEE this stuff being buried or moved to Syria?

Bottom line: if they havn't been found with all this, they're not there. If they in Syria or in the desert, it's because we LET THEM GO.

[Nad Adam]

Originally posted by Dragonlich
And this proves *what*, exactly? It most certainly does not prove that none existed, nor that there aren't any to be found. It merely proves itself: none have been found SO FAR. Quite normal for a country the size of Iraq, and for a former regime that spend decades perfecting their ability to hide weapons.

It proves that the threat that was painted by the Bush administration wasn't there. It can't be proven as stated before, all you can do is to look at the facts around it and try to se a pattern.

And while we're at it, would you explain how you would go about proving that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by Nad Adam
And while we're at it, would you explain how you would go about proving that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

What do you mean he doesn't exist? Do you mean NORAD *lies* to us every year?

Seriously... there's a difference between a made-up creature like Santa Claus and a batch of WMDs that *did exist at one time*, and has not ever been shown to be destroyed.

Again: it did not disappear into thin air. Either it was destroyed, or it wasn't. If it was, there should be some evidence left, and it was Saddam's job to show that evidence.

[Phaenx]

Hey guys, I just lost my remote, I looked for it, but no dice. About to go to the store to get a new one, since this one obviously doesn't exist anymore.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Seriously... there's a difference between a made-up creature like Santa Claus and a batch of WMDs that *did exist at one time*, and has not ever been shown to be destroyed.

And there is a difference between responding to the evidence cited in the article, which shows that most of the evidence cited by Powell as justification to go to war was based on bad intelligence or just plain made-up, and repeating the same tired old line over and over again.

Bush and company made up justification to go to war using whatever rumors they could grab, pressuring the intelligence community when necessary, and just making stuff up when they had to. The article above pretty much states that as a fact. Most of the rest of the UN agreed that Iraq was a threat that needed to be dealt with, but that a slower approach using a coalition of nations would work better and cause less distress to both the Iraqi citizens and the world.

Now, several months after the "end of hostilities", Iraq is a mess, soldiers are dying every day, electricity and water are still not restored, and the USA is spending a billion a week on a war that was billed as only taking a few months.

Bush lied, soldiers died. Maybe you don't think that fact is important, but I do. Clinton got roasted and nearly impeached for lying about a blowjob. Bush's lies got a lot of people killed. I expect Bush to get at least as much scrutiny in the press and from Congress as Clinton's blowjob.

[Stare At The Sun]

Just a side note, we killed 50,000 people there a year because of bombings and embargos, i dont have the source for that, but i've heard it many times, i know someone here can find it, im just to lazy. However, i really agree that bush should be getting flamed for this, as he took us to WAR for no reason. None. It just doesnt make sense to me how clinton almost gets impeached cause of a BJ, but bush can send our nation to war, heighten tensions all around the world, and kill our boys, and yet, he is praised as a hero. Damn our media for brainwashing the masses, as they have their heads way to far up bush's ass. -_-

[Zeld2.0]

The flaw with that analogy Phaenx with the WMD is not that the WMD don't exist anymore - its the fact that they might've been destroyed or taken out before and hence don't exist now.

Unless your remote got blown up or something and hence doesn't exist now.

the fact now though is, we KNOW that Saddam had them before - its a fact that eveyrone agrees upon.

What we are arguing over now is whether he had them as reasons for the war - obviously people beg to differ.

You can't say that just because we haven't found them now they never existed. At the same token, you can't say that just because we haven't found any yet that they are defenitely there.

The key is whether the WMD were destroyed or not. If they were destroyed, this search is by god pointless.

And i will say that right now with the numerous intelligence blunders, the entire WMD reason is going down.

[Phaenx]

That was my point. I believed people were challenging (albeit indirectly) the fact that Saddam had a weapons program and various weapons he wasn't supposed to have. That's what I have a problem with.

[ctembreull]

Originally posted by Dragonlich
First of all, please keep it civil. Calling me or my statements "idiotic" is insulting.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I stand by my statement. Note that I haven't yet called you an idiot, merely your arguments.

I did not say that I was willing to sacrifice 5000 people for "political gain".

But that's exactly what this war was. With the Bush Administration's justifications for this war falling like a hard rain, it becomes increasingly clear that whatever other supposed reasons we had to go to war, political and economic gain ranked highly among them. After all, the WMD argument has gotten hazier and hazier with each passing week, the nuclear weapons argument has been quite thoroughly debunked, and the al-Quaeda connection theory has been essentially gutted.

If you want to see those two positive effects as mere "political gain", that is *your* problem.

It's called a "jaundiced eye." I note with some amusement, however, your staunch reliance upon one and only one valid argument: liberation. This might serve quite well for you, but it does not serve well for the international community or for the facts of the case laid by the United States before the United Nations. Our case was based entirely upon the putative existence of weapons of mass destruction; a case which has since been proven to be more ideology than substantive fact. Where was Colin Powell standing before the General Assembly pleading for the liberation of Iraq? Where were the impassioned appeals to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights? They were nowhere, which tells me that if liberation was among the reasons for this invasion, it was pretty damned far down the totem pole.

Why do I bring this point up? Because you consistently play the "liberation card." But this war and the public support behind it was never, not ever based upon the prospective liberation of Iraq. It was all about the weapons of mass destruction. With that justification having been revealed as deeply flawed with an increasing likelihood of deliberate deceit, the evidence clearly and increasingly weighs in favor of the attempted gain of political and economic capital by the Bush Administration.

Fact: Saddam killed some 20,000 people a year, on average.
Fact: We *accidentally* killed some civilians, as unfortunately happens in wars.

And we killed between 6087 and 7798 (the most well-researched estimates I'm aware of), in three months. And those are just the confirmed dead. There are also estimated to be more than 20,000 wounded. That's an overall casualty rate approaching 30,000 in three months. Would you like me to help you with the math? Your other statistics, by the way, do nothing whatsoever to exculpate the United States for these deaths and injuries.

One might say that by invading Iraq, we *saved* 20,000 people a year, on average.

What an absolutely repugnant attempt at justification. Tell me: how, exactly, does that make the ones we killed any less dead?

If I remember correctly, *you* weren't willing to support this war, and wouldn't even like it if the UN were to go in.

Actually, what I said was that I would have been disappointed had the U.N. passed a resolution authorizing force. But I would have held my peace and accepted what the world wished to see done. As such, your insulting accusations have been trimmed, and will not be spoken of again, save to say that you've got a rather skewed notion of civility.

By the way: why do you keep inflating those numbers every time you mention them?

To balance out your consistent lowballing, that's why.

You've still not addressed my central point. We declared that Saddam Hussein possessed several hundred tons in total of multiple, specific types of weapons of mass destruction, including VX, sarin, and botulinum toxin, as well as the means to fabricate and deploy nuclear weapons. We required him to prove that he did not, in fact, possess them. Given that we did not actually know what we claimed to know, how is our demand that Saddam Hussein produce evidence of the destruction of these materials anything less than a logical fallacy? After all, if he didn't actually have it, if we were in fact incorrect as the current preponderance of evidence would suggest, then he couldn't bloody well prove that he'd destroyed it, now, could he?

Nobody can prove a negative. Saddam Hussein cannot prove something has been destroyed if it never existed in the first place. I'm not saying this isn't the case, but I am saying that it very well may be, given the revelations of the weakness in and erroneousness of our WMD arguments.

Whereas you appear to be stating that it doesn't matter if we know what he has or not; all we need do is state our best guess as a fact and leave the burden of proof upon him. This is a logical fallacy and an invalid reason to invade a sovereign nation.

Have a nice day!

[omnigod]

I didnt read the entire thing but I still believe every damn word Powell said. From the half that I read, all it stated was nothing was found, and the UN inspectors didnt find anything- we already know that.

The only real way of telling if there were any wmd is to use metal detectors and other sonar-style devices on the entire surface of iraq... it shouldnt be too hard to build a few LARGE ROBOTIC trucks to do the work, and Bamo it wouldnt be too costly for obvious reasons... unless Ford builds them

[ctembreull]

omnigod:

You still believe what he said, in spite of all the specific evidence countering it, and the lack of evidence for the rest? That's what I'm having trouble with here: you claim you believe every word he said. How is this possible given the extensive refutation of many of his claims?

[Lebell]

Gentlemen,

Tempers are getting short.

Please tone it down a notch and stick to the points of your arguements.

None of this is worth getting worked up for.


Thanks,

The Management

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by ctembreull

But that's exactly what this war was. With the Bush Administration's justifications for this war falling like a hard rain, it becomes increasingly clear that whatever other supposed reasons we had to go to war, political and economic gain ranked highly among them. After all, the WMD argument has gotten hazier and hazier with each passing week, the nuclear weapons argument has been quite thoroughly debunked, and the al-Quaeda connection theory has been essentially gutted.

It's called a "jaundiced eye." I note with some amusement, however, your staunch reliance upon one and only one valid argument: liberation. This might serve quite well for you, but it does not serve well for the international community or for the facts of the case laid by the United States before the United Nations. Our case was based entirely upon the putative existence of weapons of mass destruction; a case which has since been proven to be more ideology than substantive fact. Where was Colin Powell standing before the General Assembly pleading for the liberation of Iraq? Where were the impassioned appeals to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights? They were nowhere, which tells me that if liberation was among the reasons for this invasion, it was pretty damned far down the totem pole.

Why do I bring this point up? Because you consistently play the "liberation card." But this war and the public support behind it was never, not ever based upon the prospective liberation of Iraq. It was all about the weapons of mass destruction. With that justification having been revealed as deeply flawed with an increasing likelihood of deliberate deceit, the evidence clearly and increasingly weighs in favor of the attempted gain of political and economic capital by the Bush Administration.

To *me*, it was about liberation; ignoring UN resolutions; blaming the US for starving Iraqi kids, while at the same time spending tons of money that should have been used for food on building palaces everywhere... well, the list goes on and on, but I won't bore you with it. You seem to imply that each and every person that supported this war *only* did it because of the WMD issue. That's simply incorrect, if only because your talking about a large group of people, each with their own thoughts. Likewise, the US case was not *only* about the WMDs. The WMDs were highlighted because they seemed like a good way to get popular support. The rest of the arguments were still there for everyone to see.

And we killed between 6087 and 7798 (the most well-researched estimates I'm aware of), in three months. And those are just the confirmed dead. There are also estimated to be more than 20,000 wounded. That's an overall casualty rate approaching 30,000 in three months. Would you like me to help you with the math? Your other statistics, by the way, do nothing whatsoever to exculpate the United States for these deaths and injuries.

What an absolutely repugnant attempt at justification. Tell me: how, exactly, does that make the ones we killed any less dead?

Wrong. WE didn't kill some 6000 to 8000 civilians. A total of 6000 to 8000 were killed by BOTH SIDES. Quite a difference. If you want to know *why* it is different, I suggest you read back a bit, and look at my statements regarding the Iraqis shooting their own people.

And the fact that we saved 20,000 a year does not make anyone less dead. I never claimed that, nor would I ever claim that. I already stated that I feel sorry for the families of the victims. However, how do *you* justify not invading Iraq? How do *you* justify standing at the side-line watching Saddam kill 20,000 a year? How exactly would you explain to the families of *those* victims that you oppose intervention because of international law or "sovereignty"?

To balance out your consistent lowballing, that's why.

Funny - my consistent lowballing was designed to balance out your consistent exaggeration.

You've still not addressed my central point. We declared that Saddam Hussein possessed several hundred tons in total of multiple, specific types of weapons of mass destruction, including VX, sarin, and botulinum toxin, as well as the means to fabricate and deploy nuclear weapons. We required him to prove that he did not, in fact, possess them. Given that we did not actually know what we claimed to know, how is our demand that Saddam Hussein produce evidence of the destruction of these materials anything less than a logical fallacy? After all, if he didn't actually have it, if we were in fact incorrect as the current preponderance of evidence would suggest, then he couldn't bloody well prove that he'd destroyed it, now, could he?

Nobody can prove a negative. Saddam Hussein cannot prove something has been destroyed if it never existed in the first place. I'm not saying this isn't the case, but I am saying that it very well may be, given the revelations of the weakness in and erroneousness of our WMD arguments.

I did address that. You see, the UN had a list of weapons that Saddam had after the Gulf War. Shortly before the war, we had a list of what was destroyed. The two lists do not match - there are items that were there to begin with, which might not have been destroyed, because Saddam couldn't prove it. That is something the US knew, the UN knew, Hans Blix knew, and Saddam knew. It was up to Saddam to prove that he had indeed destroyed those remaining WMDs, because the UN had *no* reason whatsoever to trust him on his word.

And there you go again: the "logical fallacy" card... it's simply not true!

Let me restate my counter-argument:

We know he had certain amounts of certain WMDs. He has *proven* he destroyed some of it. Therefore, he still had to prove the destruction of the remainder of those WMDs. There is not one bit of "proving a negative" in there. It's in fact proving a positive: Saddam has to prove that he destroyed *everything* that he had.

Now, if the US suddenly demands that Saddam destroys "the uranium he bought from country X", it is up to the US to prove that he actually bought that. It turned out to be false, therefore Saddam didn't have to prove that. If he *was* supposed to prove that, *then* we would have a logical fallacy. As it stands, we don't.

[Nad Adam]

Just for arguments sake, how much time are you willing to give the US troops searching for the WMD to come up with ONE single piece of evidence that Saddam was a threat to the western world before you start to think they wasn't? Three more months? Six? A year? Ten? If you say that they should have indefinite time this discussion is pointless.


EDIT: It's probably pointless anyway, but I like it

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by Nad Adam
Just for arguments sake, how much time are you willing to give the US troops searching for the WMD to come up with ONE single piece of evidence that Saddam was a threat to the western world before you start to think they wasn't? Three more months? Six? A year? Ten? If you say that they should have indefinite time this discussion is pointless.

Well, at least 12 years, because that's what people were willing to give the UN.

I expect to see some evidence emerging as soon as Saddam is dead, and calm is restored. Then the witnesses (if they weren't murdered by Saddam before) might come forward.

[ctembreull]

Originally posted by Dragonlich
To *me*, it was about liberation;

Stop right there. This thread isn't about your personal reasons for supporting the war. It's about the reasons that the United States, through offical envoys of its government, laid before the world. Liberation was not included in the case presented to the United Nations, nor did it figure even remotely prominently in the case presented to the American and world public. You have *your* reasons and you're welcome to them, but this thread deals specifically with the distortions, assumptions, and falsehoods contained in the American government's stated case for invading Iraq.

I did address that. You see, the UN had a list of weapons that Saddam had after the Gulf War. Shortly before the war, we had a list of what was destroyed. The two lists do not match - there are items that were there to begin with, which might not have been destroyed, because Saddam couldn't prove it.

All right, I'll try this again. You're proving my point, but you don't seem to realize it. The United States laid out a specific case to the United Nations and the world, one which hinged upon specific claims of quantities, types, and delivery methods of weapons of mass destruction. However those claims were arrived at, they have since been proven to be wildly inaccurate at best. I'll lay this out in more of a step-by-step form.

The United States claims that Saddam Hussein possesses X tons of Y substance. The United States cannot verify that the quantity or type are correct for whatever reason.

The United States demands that Saddam Hussein prove that he has destroyed X tons of Y substance.

If Saddam only has (X - 5) tons of Y substance, it will be impossible to prove that he has destroyed X tons.

Hence, a logical fallacy. Given that our estimates of his WMD capacity were so wildly erroneous, it becomes apparent that it would be impossible for Saddam to comply with the demand that he disclose destruction.

I'm surprised I have to keep explaining this; it's logic that a high-school student should be capable of grasping.

the UN had *no* reason whatsoever to trust him on his word.

Trouble is, it wasn't his word they were working from - it was ours. And ours, as you can plainly see, wasn't worth a whole hell of a lot.

We know he had certain amounts of certain WMDs.

No, we know he has or had at one unspecified point in time an unknown quantity within a range of certain WMDs. How on earth are we to expect him to prove he's destroyed it all if we can't prove - that is, prove the quantities he supposedly had?

Do they teach formal logic in the Netherlands? I'm curious now, because this shouldn't be such a difficult point to grasp.

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Bush lied, soldiers died. Maybe you don't think that fact is important, but I do. Clinton got roasted and nearly impeached for lying about a blowjob. Bush's lies got a lot of people killed. I expect Bush to get at least as much scrutiny in the press and from Congress as Clinton's blowjob.

This is my feeling, exactly. Seeing it become a reality would be welcome, but let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

[Dragonlich]

ctembreull, again you're drawing dangerously close to insulting me and, in this case, my country. And again I'm getting fed up with your refusal to even accept you might be wrong.

I wanted Iraq to prove the destruction of what we KNEW he had. I already stated that if the US says he has something, they should bloody well prove it. In some cases in the past, they did, and in some of *those* cases, Iraq could not/would not prove the destruction of said weapons.

If Hans Blix has questions regarding certain amounts of WMDs, do you suppose he just makes them up as he goes along? No, he looks at the available evidence (including lists provided by the Iraqi government themselves), and concludes there's a problem. IF the Iraqis couldn't prove the non-existence of certain weapons, as you claim, why would they have suggested that the UN inspectors visit the area where Iraq claims to have destroyed those same weapons? Apparently there was some truth in the claims Blix made...

And to be totally blunt: I don't think formal logic has anything to do with this... What you apparently seem to forget is that Iraq has repeatedly kicked out the inspectors in the past 12 years, and has repeatedly refused to cooperate even if the UN inspectors *weren't* kicked out. That will obviously lead one to question their sincerity. It will also invariably lead to questions regarding the truthfulness of their claims. Any resulting problems are directly the result of this refusal of the Iraqi government to cooperate.

If they had cooperated fully, we wouldn't be having this discussion today - Saddam might still be in power, the sanctions would have been lifted years ago, and Iraq would have been free to develop *new* WMDs without those pesky UN inspectors breathing down their necks. (note: this scenario isn't very likely, I know. Read on to know why I say this.)

As I already stated: in the real world, nobody has access to full information. That means we have to weigh the evidence we do have, and decide if we trust it enough to act on it. This is where formal logic fucks up. In the case of these WMDs, we could not prove that Saddam had anything left, yet we could not dismiss the claim either. Given Saddam's character and history, it is *likely* he could be lying about it.

If you want to bring formal logic into it, we could take a look at North-Korea's example: when the proof emerges about their nukes, and we *know* they have them, there's preciously little we can do about it. The same goes for Iraq: the only real proof would have been the use of a chemical weapon on his enemies (the US, Israel), killing thousands of lives. That result is so dangerous and nasty, that we should minimize the risks of that ever happening, which means: deciding to distrust Saddam, and to demand proof that he has no WMDs now and will never make them again. He could not provide that proof. Note that "proof" in this case wouldn't be the logical mathematical thing, it'd be simply: "pretty damn sure".

In essence, this means that Saddam could never, ever have complied with our demands, simply because he was a murderous, lying POS, with a history of developing, making *and* using chemical weapons. There was simply no way to be sure he wouldn't do that again; his actions during the inspection rounds only made that more evident. So perhaps we agree on this (Saddam's inability to prove his case) after all, if for different reasons. (Note: *I* would have supported his removal in '91, but the UN disagreed...)

Now, formal logic (or not) aside... I'll repeat my previous statement: Iraq *had* to comply with the law. Failure to comply for whatever reason is still failure to comply. That's the political reality of the UN deciding to compromise.

[Loki]

hmm... Did anyone bother asking the Iraqi people if they wanted to be liberated? Or did we all see the statistics of what Saddam reportedly does/has done and assume that they would love foreign intervention/invasion?

Incidentally, judging by what is being reported by the media regarding whats going on in iraq, i don't think that they appreciated foreign intervention.

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by Loki
hmm... Did anyone bother asking the Iraqi people if they wanted to be liberated? Or did we all see the statistics of what Saddam reportedly does/has done and assume that they would love foreign intervention/invasion?

Incidentally, judging by what is being reported by the media regarding whats going on in iraq, i don't think that they appreciated foreign intervention.

No, they obviously *loved* being repressed by Saddam. They're all masochists, and like being tortured, raped, mutilated, blown up and executed...

FYI, after the '91 Gulf War, the Shiites were *begging* the US to come and liberate them. The US did not do that, unfortunately, and the rebels were slaughtered by the thousands. Remember all those mass-graves popping up all over the place? That's them.

Before the current war, there were many Iraqis living in the west that were quite pleased with the fact that their families were about to be liberated, as were the Kurds in the north of Iraq. Many Shiites don't really like the US anymore; not after the betrayal of '91. That this betrayal was in fact caused by the UN and not the US is something they cannot accept, and perhaps they're right on that issue...

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that foreign extremists, Saddam's followers, and extremist religious leaders are somehow representative of the Iraqi popular opinion. The common Iraqis don't hate the US; they simply don't like the fact that there's *still* no power, oil and water, even though the US said they'd provide that. The US is doing the best it can, but is limited by the terrible state of the Iraqi infrastructure, and the morons that keep blowing things up.

[Sparhawk]

Dragonlich,

You are, in essence if not in fact, saying that there is no way that Saddam could have mollified the international community, since you are completely pre-disposed to not believing a single thing he says.

Now, I have no intention of debating your position, but I do want to ask you a question: since nothing short of having Saddam removed from power would have satisfied you, why do you persist in these internet debates? It seems entirely fruitless and beyond a waste of time.