silent_jay

Invasion and liberation are two different things

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Strange Famous

China is a nuclear power, I dont think America will attack them just to defend Taiwan.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Superbelt

Pictures are always good rather than rely on rhetoric about them being viable.

Are these capable of mass destruction?

Tophat665

madp.
That's an interesting article. If it's true in all it's particulars, it certainly takes a small amount of the force out of some of the arguments about whether the Bush administration what dishonest or incompetent in handling intelligence data. That sounds a lot harsher than I mean it. Let's rephrase it as: whether the Bush administration deceived or was decieved. In any case, a couple, or even a couple hundred aging mortar rounds, while putting Iraq in violation of 1441, probably doesn't constitute <i>causus belli</i>.

That said, if, after this article has been kicking around a while, and spun and counterspun and analyzed to death, if it stays credible, it will be harder to argue that there were no WMDs in Iraq (to speak of).

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Superbelt

Tophat665. my last post on page 1 shows weapons matching these description were declared as being lost and as such do not violate resolution 1441.

madp

Superbelt:

In fairness, you have shown a photograph of a degraded artillery shell. The journalists on the scene reported that only "some" of the shells were leaking, so we can assume that the photo you have posted is not representative of the entire cache.

Having said that, "misplacing" or "losing" munitions (as you are suggesting may have happened to these, within the allowances of UN resolutions) means they're stacked in the back of a military warehouse somewhere and forgotten. . .not stored out in the desert hidden ten feet underground in shrinkwrap.

However, I agree that it is a valid point to question what the circumstances of this find are, and what it truly means in the big scheme of things.

Imho, the significance of this event has yet to be determined.

__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

Superbelt

The picture on the left is most of the entire catch. We only found a total of 36.

But we should wait for them to be analyzed. I don't want to take the word of a journalist on the condition of munitions. They can't tell in a cursory inspection if the weapons are leaking or rusted beyond the ability to fire.

I think, regardless of the condition of these weapons, this is not justification for invasion. And we have up to this point not found any real evidence to do so, at least on the viable weapons/weapons programs front. And that is the reason we invaded.

madp

Well, it's a pretty well-know, and frequently and explicitly stated position in spite of years of "strategic ambiguity."

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/...ush.taiwan.03/

As far as the nuclear threat is concerned:
China's missles <i>might</i> be accurate as far as the US west coast. However, the heartland and east coast are far out of China's range. On the other hand, the US has the resources to drop a nuke on every Chinese city and military installation within 2 hours.

Also, take into account that the US ABM missles have been successful in knocking out ICM's in over 2/3's of the tests conducted so far, and the success of this program is growing with each test.

Finally, the 7th Fleet and others have camped out at the Taiwan Straight since the end of the Korean War.

The US will not allow Taiwan to fall by force.

__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

Superbelt

Just disputing our abm abilities:

2/3rds in tests where we know exactly when and where the missiles are going to be at each precise moment in time and have days to do all the necessary mathematics to help the missiles hit.

In real life where we don't know any of the vital info of chinas missiles... We drop down to 0/3 success rate.

madp

Well, I don't have the expertise to confirm or deny what you're saying, but I would be very surprised if we didn't know what kinds of missles China has and where the nukes are deployed.
However, you are probably correct that the success rate would be less in a real battlefield scenario.

__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

Superbelt

"Vital info" meaning the velocity, angle and exact location for every moment of its flight. And having that vital info days ahead of time.

We hardly ever hit them when we know all this, we have never, and almost all of our scientific institutions agree that we will never, be able to hit a hostile ICBM out of the air.

madp

Again, I don't have the background or sources to dispute what you're saying superbelt. . .may I ask what you're sources are?

__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

Superbelt

For example: THIS Letter.

I think when this many Nobel Luareates tell us this, that it will not work and instead will place the United States in a more dangerous situation with hostile ICBM's waiting in "launch-on-warning" mode, we should listen to them.

Rekna

I tell you what how about we drain the chemical out of them and then throw the chemical around your house next christmas while your family is there. Then you can tell me if they still pose a danger. These could have easily been sold on the black market to anyone. Someone could have released the gas in a crowded subway station (Japan comes to mind) or at the superbowl.

Superbelt

Ooh I'm sure it's still nominally dangerous. though no longer useful in any military capacity. But it was known to have existed, Saddam admitted to it, so any discovery of it is not against UN resolutions and is not a justification for invasion.

Superbelt

I just read over the list of signatories again. It's just mindblowing the amount of brainpower that backs this letter. Mindpower that our nations leaders have no intentions of listening to.

Sad.

madp

This really has always been the crux of the issue for me so far as Hussein is concerned.

Excellent point, Rekna.

Their argument, as I understand it, is that deployment of the anti-missile systems would touch off an ICBM arms race that would produce technology that the defensive system would be incapable of keeping up with. . . NOT that the system is currently incapable of taking ICBM's in play right now.

I understand and appreciate their argument. . . but there's another side to the coin. But I digress. . . the feasibility and advisability of ABM systems are fodder for another thread, perhaps.

__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

madp

Brainpower with an agenda, perhaps?

I'm not saying that they are right or wrong. . . just that geniuses play politics too.

__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

madp

You're spinning the issue, Superbelt.

The fact is, we DON'T KNOW if these shells were part of those catelogued by the UN.

The fact is, they were hidden out in the desert, buried to prevent detection by satellite surveillance (i.e., the US), and they contained chemical agents.

Could these have commanded a high price from virtually any and every terrorist group in the world? Obviously. In the hands of a terrorist, could they have been used to kill and/or maim hundreds or thousands of people? Obviously.

Do these alone justify an invasion? No, but they don't exist in a vacuum. They exist in a larger context which to me makes a strong case for the threat Hussein posed.

This find is one more piece of the puzzle, and it begs the question of what else might be found in the weeks, months, and years to come.

__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

Tophat665

I stand corrected, but the point I was making reamins, if (and I don't grant this yet) this story holds up, the argument that there are no WMDs in Iraq will be less effective. That there will be no WMDs in Iraq to speak of will still be true; That there are no reliably effective WMDs in Iraq will be true; qualified arguments like that carry less weight than a flat denial, at least as far as the electorate goes.

See, when we find any amount of WMDs at all, useful or not, declared or not, the Administration can very easily make the argument that some part of the intelligence they used was a misappraisal of those WMDs. It puts the blame squarely on the intelligence service and deflects blame away from the Administration unless it is skillfully counterspun.

But I do apologize for missing your earlier post. I was juggling a half dozen things at the time I was reading this.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Lebell

If y'all want to talk about ABM systems, sounds to me like a good time to start another thread

As to this thread, I'll also take a wait and see.

Clearly Saddam violated the letter of the UN resolution.

As to if it was intentional or are there other surprises waiting to be dug up, we'll see.

Superbelt, a serious question: if Bush has said we were taking out Saddam because he was a mass murderer, would this have been sufficient justification, in your opinion?

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Superbelt

Honestly, yes.

I've said it here before that what we have done is noble. But the way we wen't about doing it was not.

Bush sold this war to us and Congress on the fear that we could be attacked by Saddam within 45 minutes.

If he had just ratcheted up his argument based on Saddam being a mass murderer and torturer of his own people who will leave that legacy for the Iraqi people long after he is gone, through his children, then yeah I could support it.

It would also have helped us build an actual broad coalition of international support as making the case for invasion based on that actually has a provable base. And a prescedent.

If we had achieved a real international coalition this wouldn't have been an american invasion, which would have severely limited the ongoing guerilla attacks against american troops we are seing now, and the cost to the United States would have been minimalized.

onetime2

The war wasn't sold solely on the threat of wmds.

The only way to have built a "coalition" like the one you argue for is to pay of Germany, France, Russia, and every other member of the security council because as soon as they heard about the deals their cohorts were getting the hands would have been out. You then probably would have been arguing that we "bought" their support. The simple fact is that Hussein did a very good job of driving a wedge between the countries who he did business with and the US. Should we have done a better job in preventing that wedge? Absolutely, but that is far from just a failure on the Bush Admins part. These relationships have been building since the UN imposed sanctions.

Back on the topic at hand, the shells. Certainly not a smoking gun. As others have pointed out, preliminary tests have been less than perfect. As far as whether these were from among the shells that were "lost", unless you can show me serial numbers for those lost and these that were found and they match up, that argument is worthless. Them being buried, likely for retrieval at another date, certainly raises suspicion.

In the end, what does this really tell us? Well, it tells us that Saddam more than likely lied about his weapons stockpiles. Not exactly earth shattering news here. No matter who you believe--those who think he had wmds or those who think he didn't--he certainly did all he could to hide the fact that he didn't have any if he didn't and he certainly hid the fact that he did if he did.

As to why the wmds that they allegedly had weren't used by the Iraqis during the invasion there are several very plausible reasons for it:

The first is that most of the soldiers weren't very loyal to Saddam and they may not have been willing to suffer the onslaught of munitions that would have followed their launching of a chemical/biologic attack. Those who were loyal were supposedly reduced to hit and run attacks because Saddam's sons had ordered them to change positions and they got caught way out of position.

The second is that the lines of communication and infrastructure were pretty well destroyed during the invasion making it difficult for such an attack to be authorized or to be followed.

The third is that Saddam may have decided to avoid using these weapons to hopefully influence world opinion and create doubt around Bush's wmd story.

There are plenty of reasons to think they had wmds and quite a few reasons to think they didn't. In the end, it doesn't matter. Hussein gambled by feigning to have them or by not offering up sufficient evidence of their destruction. That gamble failed.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Superbelt

I remember the posting I was doing on other boards in the months leading up to the Iraq war. I remember the only thing anyone was talking about was WMD, WMD and Iraq's capacity to kill americans with it. Specifically with drone aircraft fitted with nuclear weapons. I spent many long hours trying to disprove to anyone that Iraq was bereft of any wmd.
Then magically the debate turned to humanitarian just days before the invasion. I think, and this imo, that Bush&co realized their argument was built on quicksand.

I remember day in and day out being bombarded with the horrors of wmd and what Saddam was going to do to us with them.
I don't remember seeing pictures of kurdish and iranian bodies.

I also recall congressmen who have since said that the only reason they voted to give Bush the authority to attack was information he gave them on Iraq's capability to attack us within 45 minutes.

back to the topic: I can't show you serial numbers. But if these weapons get into the proper inspectors hands, hopefully they will be able to verify if these are the same weapons or not. I just offered an explanation of why they were there, and in the condition they were in. The circumstantial evidence certainly points in that direction at this time. It's a much better argument than they were lying in wait, with the militarys knowledge of their existence.

onetime2

Disarmament (through either presenting the weapons themselves or supplying evidence of the destruction) of both conventional weapons and chemical/biologic weapons banned under the agreement that ended the first gulf war, compliance with UN resolutions, firing on our troops in the no-fly zone, using the helicopters we allowed them to use for necessary transportation to kill/intimidate Hussein opposition, supporting terrorist activity by paying money to suicide bombers. These are just some of the reasons given long before the intelligence of possible attempts to acquire wmds in Africa.

Just because all you remember (or that you focused more on that one) is the wmd argument or that the boards you frequented latched onto that aspect doesn't mean that was the only reason. Can I ask how you "know" Iraq is bereft of wmds? Seems you took on an impossible task by trying to prove the case. Certainly you could make a reasonable case that they don't have much ability to use them or that they're unlikely to have any after the efforts that were made to destroy them or the technology they have available and/or the viability of certain weapon types, but there's no way you could prove they don't/didn't have them.

Anyway...

Circumstantial evidence points to these being among the "lost" weapons? Not even close, there's no direct link between this cache and the "lost" weapons. Just because there are some unaccounted for it does not mean that these were not buried to be retrieved later. Further, there are far better ways to destroy dangerous weapons than to simply dig a hole and stick them in. Unless this "destruction" was meant to take a couple of decades through degradation, it's ridiculous.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Superbelt

WMD wasn't the only reason given, but it was given so much more strongly and so much more frequently that the admin purposefully made it their reason to the nation and congress to go to war and made everything else seem almost irrelevant.

I'm not arguing they were buried to be destroyed. They were buried to be picked up again later, but were long since forgotten about.

Superbelt

Time will tell if these are mustard filled artillery shells of the same type. Lets just wait and see.
And as Tophat said, it may prove moot as the details of their existence will be forgotten to provide cover for the Presidents war.

onetime2

I'm still betting that the preliminary tests were wrong and that they aren't blister agent shells at all. I'm not sure that they were just forgotten about by the government but more likely that a situation requiring their use probably didn't materialize.

At this point I think the whole wmd debate is moot since there's no evidence that Bush purposefully lied about the intelligence and, in the end, we are there. The lead up to it doesn't change what's going on now and what needs to be done for the future of Iraq and the US.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Tophat665

In the final analysis, you are probably right, but by Rumsfeld's own logic, a lack of proof that the Bush administration lied about intelligence is, itself, indicative that they did.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Sparhawk

haha...

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

onetime2

Ahh yes,

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/falsean.php

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Rekna

Does anyone else wonder if there would have been any support at all if Bush had tried to go in under the pretences of humanitarian releif? The world doesn't exactly have a good track record in helping people for humanitarian reasons. It is easy to say that Bush should have went in under humanitarian reasons but I can't help but wonder if he would have gotten a lot less support if he had. It is sad really and unfortuantly probably true.

Mojo_PeiPei

He would have gotten ZERO support if it were about humanitarian reasons. Just look at the Sudan, 2+ million people dead plus the worlds most active slave trade perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists and not one thing has been done.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Rekna

Kindof sad isn't it?

Mojo_PeiPei

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
- attributed to Edmund Burke

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

nanofever

If humanitarian relief was our goal, which it isn't, our first stops should be Rwanda and Congo, not Iraq. I'm all for humanitarian relief but it sets a BAD prescident unless we want to invade an 1/8 of the world.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

madp

I completely agree with you on how lame the "justification" for the war appears, and I wish Bush had been brutally honest about all the reasons. However, because I believed that getting rid of Hussein was such a good idea, maybe I'm not as angry as I should be about the innuendo the administration used in lobbying for the war.

But I can't help it; I'm so damn glad that Hussein is gone, and that Syria, Iran, Libya, and N Korea saw that the US has the resolve to deal with rogue nations, that I just can't get too upset that the WMD's haven't played out the way our intelligence thought it would.

As for the last part, I really don't think anyone beside the countries with us right now would have signed up for this effort unless they were forced to through a completely undeniable moral imperative.

__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

nanofever

That's such a good quote, if only because by twisting the views of good and evil it can be used to justify anything.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

madp

Sorry. . .we got a little carried away!

__________________
why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

Mojo_PeiPei

Your right, how conservative bible bumping of me to think that 2+ million deaths by a sadistic maniacal sosciopath is evil.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.