You have got to be kidding me...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040920/ap_on_el_pr/politics_of_iraq

Kerry's idea of campaigning is to armchair quarter back plays after the whistle has been blown?

Well if that's the case then I wouldn't have made a handful of decisions in life and would be a very rich man with my psychic-like endeavors in the equity market.

NEW YORK - Staking out new ground on Iraq (news - web sites), Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) suggested Monday that he would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had he known what he knows now, and accused President Bush (news - web sites) of "stubborn incompetence," dishonesty and colossal failures of judgment. Bush said Kerry was flip-flopping.

Less than two years after voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, the Democratic candidate said that had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction and had he been president, he would not have followed Bush's path to war. Bush, also speaking hypothetically, says he would have invaded Iraq, even knowing what he knows now.

I just wish Kerry had a better team of advisors because this isn't going to cut it. :(

Furthermore, I have never seen a person, especially a public figure, be so quick to change their mind and stance about something in the past. Given Kerry’s new tactics from likely advisors, I wonder if he even knows what the hell he’s talking about -or- believes in anymore?

It actually makes perfect sense to me. We went to war because there were weapons of mass destruction right? So he votes for it. Finds out there are no weapons of mass destruction and that we were duped by the intelligence community and he says he wouldn't have went to war.

That seems perfectly logical to me. I actually like this about Kerry. He has the cajones to say that we were wrong and he would have done it differently knowing what he knows now. Hindsight always being 20/20 of course. All this crap about him flip flopping is just that. There is nothing wrong with adopting a new position as new information comes to light.

It's like this....

"I beat up this guy that I thought was stalking my girlfriend and then later found out that he wasn't stalking my girlfriend so maybe I shouldn't have beat him up."

Perfectly logical....Tough to grasp for some of you though I'm sure
:rolleyes:

Are you implying that Bush doesn't waffle?


Bush's waffle house....
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/waffle_house.htm

So he votes for it. Finds out there are no weapons of mass destruction and that we were duped by the intelligence community and he says he wouldn't have went to war.

Well duh... who wouldn't?

By the time we had testimony that intelligence was bunk we already had Saddam in custody and an Iraqi government in place (mission frago). The only way Kerry could have possibly changed his mind so soon is if he had "super intelligence" -or- realized he was going to be on the Democrat ticket for the Presidency. You can't go into an election with the same ideals as the running president, can you? He changed his story to please the masses of people that would be voting for him in November.

Are you implying that Bush doesn't waffle?


Bush's waffle house....
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/waffle_house.htm

syncopation,

I realize you're new to Teh Politics forum but you're preaching to the wrong choir. If you had any idea where I stood on the candidates you'd understand that this particular thread was directed toward Kerry, not Bush. You'd also know that I dislike both candidates and encourage you to make a "Bush waffle thread" for yourself instead of swaying the conversation off Kerry in this one.

This isn't the first time you've posted information I didn't already know. You just recently posted oil figures in another thread when I’ve mentioned those facts before. I never replied to your post in said thread because it's a dead, revolving argument.

So let me introduce you to search button seen above: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/iclubsearch.jpg (SEARCH LINK (http://www.i-club.com/forums/search.php?)) and be the first to welcome you to the forum :)

Well duh... who wouldn't?

Kerry has the balls to say that knowing what he knows now he wouldn't have invaded and Bush says knowing what he knows now he still would have.

"Less than two years after voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, the Democratic candidate said that had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction and had he been president, he would not have followed Bush's path to war. Bush, also speaking hypothetically, says he would have invaded Iraq, even knowing what he knows now."

So, DUH......thats who wouldn't - your beloved Bush. Thank you for making my point. ;)

syncopation,

I realize you're new to Teh Politics forum but you're preaching to the wrong choir. If you had any idea where I stood on the candidates you'd understand that this particular thread was directed toward Kerry, not Bush. You'd also know that I dislike both candidates and encourage you to make a "Bush waffle thread" for yourself instead of swaying the conversation off Kerry in this one.

This isn't the first time you've posted information I didn't already know. You just recently posted oil figures in another thread when I’ve mentioned those facts before. I never replied to your post in said thread because it's a dead, revolving argument.

So let me introduce you to search button seen above: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/iclubsearch.jpg (SEARCH LINK (http://www.i-club.com/forums/search.php?)) and be the first to welcome you to the forum :)

Thanks for the warm welcome!

Oh, so the point of the thread is only to bash Kerry. Sorry. That wasn't so explicit. My post isn't directed at you. Not in redirecting, but showing both sides. You are saying "Kerry changes his mind". I'm saying "Bush changes his mind". Big deal, yesterdays, news.

And my post was more in retort of this:
"Furthermore, I have never seen a person, especially a public figure, be so quick to change their mind and stance about something in the past."

You say you never saw anyone, I just gave you someone.

To reply regarding the Oil thread...If you knew the figures, then why would you make the satement that we were running out of oil? It's not a revolving argument. You clearly did not understand, and I was doing my best to help you.

And I don't like either of these two knuckelheads either!

Kerry has the balls to say that knowing what he knows now he wouldn't have invaded and Bush says knowing what he knows now he still would have.

"Less than two years after voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, the Democratic candidate said that had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction and had he been president, he would not have followed Bush's path to war. Bush, also speaking hypothetically, says he would have invaded Iraq, even knowing what he knows now."

So, DUH......thats who wouldn't - your beloved Bush. Thank you for making my point. ;)

I didn’t make any point for you.

If you had read my post you would have seen "(mission frago)" written:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=frago&r=67

Basically, Bush can't back down from what he's done because it'll make him look extremely worse. Instead, he suggests OIF is justified based on the riding of Saddam and his regime (hence "mission frago" which is basically a change in plans or order).

For Kerry to make a judgment after any fact is weak. It's like watching someone bet on black in roulette and saying "I would have bet red" after they loose. It's an argument that can never be won, but a very weak argument nonetheless. My point being that this isn't a strong campaign strategy.

syncopation,

I realize you're new to Teh Politics forum but you're preaching to the wrong choir. If you had any idea where I stood on the candidates you'd understand that this particular thread was directed toward Kerry, not Bush. You'd also know that I dislike both candidates and encourage you to make a "Bush waffle thread" for yourself instead of swaying the conversation off Kerry in this one.

This isn't the first time you've posted information I didn't already know. You just recently posted oil figures in another thread when I’ve mentioned those facts before. I never replied to your post in said thread because it's a dead, revolving argument.

So let me introduce you to search button seen above: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/sierra11b/iclubsearch.jpg (SEARCH LINK (http://www.i-club.com/forums/search.php?)) and be the first to welcome you to the forum :)


Don't get me wrong, I like you alot Eric, and I do understand that you claim to like neither Bush, nor Kerry, yet you rarely if ever post a thread devoted to bashing bush. I do notice that on occasion you will bash bush(well not actually bash, but agree that he has doen something wrong when someone else calls your attention to it) within another thread, but you never devote as much time and attention by posting a new thread as you do with Kerry on a daily basis. If you agree that Bush is known to "flip-flop" as you claim Kerry is doing, why do you not post a new thread about it, or at least let syncopation post his reply with out batting it down as I am confident that if he posted some "bush is waffling"thread yuo would surely post a reply with links to show Kerry waffles. You're by no means required to be "fair and balanced" but I don't understand why you often insist on claiming to be so. Sometimes you come of a bit O'riellyesque to me.

That being said, I don't understand why changing your mind is a bad thing, for either Bush or Kerry, if it is done with good intent, i.e. Kerry changes his stance on Iraq given false information from the White House, and Bush changes his view on using our military to overthrow another nations leader (which he specifically said he wouldn't do) given Sep. 11th and our new war on terror (if you think Sadaam/Terror are linked, which many people don't).

-Chris

I didn’t make any point for you.

If you had read my post you would have seen "(mission frago)" written:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=frago&r=67

Basically, Bush can't back down from what he's done because it'll make him look extremely worse. Instead, he suggests OIF is justified based on the riding of Saddam and his regime (hence "mission frago" which is basically a change in plans or order).

For Kerry to make a judgment after any fact is weak. It's like watching someone bet on black in roulette and saying "I would have bet red" after they loose. It's an argument that can never be won, but a very weak argument nonetheless. My point being that this isn't a strong campaign strategy.


Kerry changing his stance after the fact is not weak at all, he is infact, just saving face as Bush is doing. He is pointing out that although he did vote for war, he did so given certain extream information (WMD and a threat to us here at home) and that he would not have voted for war had he known that those specific and very extream threats did not exist. This is very important as most of the people who he hopes will vote for him are mostly anti-war and may decide to vote Nadar or another third party if they think that Kerry is no less a war monger than bush.

-Chris

Don't get me wrong, I like you alot Eric, and I do understand that you claim to like neither Bush, nor Kerry, yet you rarely if ever post a thread devoted to bashing bush. I do notice that on occasion you will bash bush(well not actually bash, but agree that he has doen something wrong when someone else calls your attention to it) within another thread, but you never devote as much time and attention by posting a new thread as you do with Kerry on a daily basis.

Listen... I’ve said "i’m still voting for Bush" a few times too so there's your answer for that.

I'm just trying to keep things interesting in the forum by posting current events for interpretation and discussion. Every time I post something it's not because I'm in bed with either candidate, it's because these current events are top stories and i'm anticipating a few bites from the members to keep it spicy.

Look at my post history for ****s sake! I have posted in damn near every thread in Teh Politics and am the primary thread starter of at least 80% of the threads. Do you think I'd do this otherwise? There's no question that I have more conservative views which is why we have Dre as a moderator too.

So to make everyone happy I’ll sit back and watch this forum die seeing how i can't type an unbiased post and be impartial as a moderator. I'll only post with solid facts and when a thread needs to be moderated. Good riddance to the whole damn thing and silly me for ever trying to promote it.

Kerry changing his stance after the fact is not weak at all, he is infact, just saving face as Bush is doing. He is pointing out that although he did vote for war, he did so given certain extream information (WMD and a threat to us here at home) and that he would not have voted for war had he known that those specific and very extream threats did not exist. This is very important as most of the people who he hopes will vote for him are mostly anti-war and may decide to vote Nadar or another third party if they think that Kerry is no less a war monger than bush.

-Chris

^^^What he said...Chris is fastaaar than me!

Would you perfer your son/daughter to admit they made a mistake after the fact and learn a lesson. Or do you want them to never admit that they could of been wrong for doing something?

I don't think you got what he ment Salty. You made it seem like you are not biased. And we all are to some extent. You lean to the right me to the left. And like you stated thats why we have Dre. No reason to get upset because it was pointed out at you.

So to make everyone happy I’ll sit back and watch this forum die seeing how i can't type an unbiased post and be impartial as a moderator. I'll only post with solid facts and when a thread needs to be moderated. Good riddance to the whole damn thing and silly me for ever trying to promote it.

Well don't do that because I enjoy our debates whether you be on the conservative side or not. And yes the place would die without your posts so don't go doing anything drastic. You do tend to promote yourself as a middle grounder but your posts kind of contradict that. That said I enjoy what you post and look forward to jumping into any debate that you start because I know you will do your homework on the subject and come back with some useful stuff. Unlike HellaDumb who doesn't really post anything useful (see http://www.i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73197 ) you post topics that we can all get into and debate.

I don't think you got what he ment Salty. You made it seem like you are not biased. And we all are to some extent. You lean to the right me to the left. And like you stated thats why we have Dre. No reason to get upset because it was pointed out at you.


Yeah, I was just pointing out that you are biased, not that it is bad. To be honest, I prefer you to be biased, it helps to balance out the board. I lean left, but if Dre's posts were all that were in the Politocs Forum I think I'd shoot myself. ;)

-Chris

I'll try to make it a habit to post an article and explain how it effects both sides. I have tried to post more Bush articles but none are debate worthy... they're all pretty cut and dry. Why don't you guys find some Bush topics to discuss if it bothers you so much? To tell you the truth, I get tired of digging for **** on both candidates.

I'll try to make it a habit to post an article and explain how it effects both sides. I have tried to post more Bush articles but none are debate worthy... they're all pretty cut and dry. Why don't you guys find some Bush topics to discuss if it bothers you so much? To tell you the truth, I get tired of digging for **** on both candidates.

Becasue I'm lazy. :) What we need is someone just a little less left than have Dre. Don't get me wrong, many of his articles are VERY interesting, but most come of as a little too tin hattish and outlandish. With one more frequent poster the spectrum would be filled. We would Dre and some others on the far left, some one in the moderate left, you, Salty, in the moderat right, and Helladumb and some others on the too far right. But again, I'm too lazy to be that person... anyone else want to volunteer?

-Chris

both parties waffle, its politics not bridge building for gods sake. This entire idea that kerry is a flip flopper is completley stupid and goes against what mordern politics is, this idea that bush is any better is even more ludicrious if you ask me. Situations change, being dynamic is a strength more then it is a disabliity.

Situations change, being dynamic is a strength more then it is a disabliity.

AMEN.

AMEN.


+1

Kerry has the balls to say that knowing what he knows now he wouldn't have invaded and Bush says knowing what he knows now he still would have.

"Less than two years after voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, the Democratic candidate said that had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction and had he been president, he would not have followed Bush's path to war. Bush, also speaking hypothetically, says he would have invaded Iraq, even knowing what he knows now."

So, DUH......thats who wouldn't - your beloved Bush. Thank you for making my point. ;)

Yeah, except that one month ago he wasn't saying that. It's strange to give Kerry kudos and say he has "balls" to come up with a position that is different from his previous position, which was different from the position before that, etc. The point is that Kerry's position is not based on new information; it's based on a new idea Kerry has to try and sell himself to the country. I distinctly remembering seeing Kerry say "I still would've voted to go to Iraq" not too long ago, when the WMD's were already out of the picture.

WMD's are a whole different matter...if you search the news, before Bush came into office and started talking war, there is literally NO ONE besides Saddam who claimed that Iraq was free of WMD's. All the inspectors, all the UN resolutions, and all the journalist pieces pointed to Saddam's non-cooperation with inspectors, to the bio/chemical weapons scientists he had hired, and to his previous use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. The "No wmd's in Iraq" is something that literally sprung out of the air as soon as Bush threatened war. There's something to consider.

.... before Bush came into office and started talking war, there is literally NO ONE besides Saddam who claimed that Iraq was free of WMD's. All the inspectors, all the UN resolutions, and all the journalist pieces pointed to Saddam's non-cooperation with inspectors, to the bio/chemical weapons scientists he had hired, and to his previous use of chemical weapons on the Kurds. The "No wmd's in Iraq" is something that literally sprung out of the air as soon as Bush threatened war. There's something to consider.


that is total BS, what about a weapons inspector named Scott Ritter?

There were lots of people who knew, and were trying to tell the world, but there was pretty much no one listening to them.

that is total BS, what about a weapons inspector named Scott Ritter?

There were lots of people who knew, and were trying to tell the world, but there was pretty much no one listening to them.


I'm glad you mentioned scott ritter. He's just one of the people who used to claim that Iraq's weapons program was going, and then after Bush started talking war switched his story.

Here's an article about Scott Ritter explaining why he changed his position on saddam, from saying that Clinton was too soft on him to saying that Bush was too hard.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html


I'm searching more articles now, this is to get you started. I'll post more here using the edit function as I go. This list is going to get long, so you might just want to read this first one and remove the "BS" part now :)


Edited to add: Here's a link to a search function on CNN. This makes the comparison very, very easy for you.

http://search.edition.cnn.com/pages/search/basic.jsp?QuerySubmit=true&Page=9&QueryText=Ritter+AND+Iraq&

Here's how you do it: Search through the articles....look at the ones dated before Bush comes into office and talks about war, and then look at articles with scott ritter after the war becomes an issue. Notice a difference?

Hint: the difference has to do with what he says about Iraq and WMD's.


Here's a favorite of mine from that search:

http://edition.cnn.com/books/news/9903/30/ritter/index.html

The best thing about this article is the title of Ritter's book:

"Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem -- Once and for All,"

Now does this sound like a guy who thinks Iraq is not a threat???

Do I smell ownage?

This last article is priceless...

To Scott Ritter, many countries and organizations are at fault for a failure to engage in a meaningful disarmament and security program with Iraq. Near the top of the list is the Clinton White House..."The guilt can be spread fairly evenly across the board," ...And the United States should be held accountable for perverting the weapons inspection process for its own narrow objective of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. There's plenty of blame for everybody."

The Time article says nothing supporting your contention, nor do the CNN articles;

"The problem," he said, "came when the United States government sought to take over control of some of these sensitive techniques for the purpose of pursuing U.S. policy objectives." Its main objective was "overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and not of furthering the disarmament work of the weapons inspectors."

He had plenty of criticism when it came to both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, but nowhere in any of the articles I read did he say that Iraq posed a threat.

"In his new book, "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem -- Once and For All?", he charges that U.S. intelligence agents who used UNSCOM as a cover for spying destroyed the inspection teams' credibility.

"The United States made it their policy to corrupt the U.N. disarmament process," Ritter told CNN.

Ritter resigned as chief weapons inspector for the U.N. in August 1998, claiming that both the U.N. Security Council and the U.S. government had fatally undermined his team's attempts to locate and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Ritter says that U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright undermined the only leverage the U.N. inspectors had in Iraq when she announced that the U.S. would keep economic sanctions against Iraq, not just until it had disarmed, but until Saddam Hussein was out of power."


The Cheney/bush administration was spouting BS when they took Chalabi at his word (he was the main source for all of their information) about Iraq's WMD and your saying no one disagreed with it- is in itself total BS.

The Time article says nothing supporting your contention, nor do the CNN articles;

"The problem," he said, "came when the United States government sought to take over control of some of these sensitive techniques for the purpose of pursuing U.S. policy objectives." Its main objective was "overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and not of furthering the disarmament work of the weapons inspectors."

He had plenty of criticism when it came to both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, but nowhere in any of the articles I read did he say that Iraq posed a threat.

"In his new book, "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem -- Once and For All?", he charges that U.S. intelligence agents who used UNSCOM as a cover for spying destroyed the inspection teams' credibility.

"The United States made it their policy to corrupt the U.N. disarmament process," Ritter told CNN.

Ritter resigned as chief weapons inspector for the U.N. in August 1998, claiming that both the U.N. Security Council and the U.S. government had fatally undermined his team's attempts to locate and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Ritter says that U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright undermined the only leverage the U.N. inspectors had in Iraq when she announced that the U.S. would keep economic sanctions against Iraq, not just until it had disarmed, but until Saddam Hussein was out of power."


The Cheney/bush administration was spouting BS when they took Chalabi at his word (he was the main source for all of their information) about Iraq's WMD and your saying no one disagreed with it- is in itself total BS.


Dude, there's evidence of Iraq being a threat in your own post!

"Ritter resigned as chief weapons inspector for the U.N. in August 1998, claiming that both the U.N. Security Council and the U.S. government had fatally undermined his team's attempts to locate and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Why was he so concerned with Iraq if it didn't have any!? Why does he in the third article I posted talk about how useless bombing only campaigns are and almost complain that the US doesn't have the will to use ground forces???

Psoper, you have to be kidding me. Read those articles again. There are about 20 on the link I posted that have Ritter complaining that not enough is being done to cleanse Saddam's Iraq of WMD's. They are ALL dated before the bush administration. Then, as soon as Bush comes in, Ritter starts declaring Iraq WMD free. That's what the first article from TIME is there to explain. Ritter's trying (and not doing a very good job of it) to explain why he did a 180 in his position on Iraq.


READ THE LINKS!!!!

I read the links, most of what I saw was his criticism of not being able to do his job on account of bad political decisions made back here, I really don't see how you interpret any of this to his saying that Iraq had WMD's.

I only see that his team was hampered in their efforts to find them- not by the Iraqi's but by our own government.

One more time in case you can't read:


"The problem," he said, "came when the United States government sought to take over control of some of these sensitive techniques for the purpose of pursuing U.S. policy objectives." Its main objective was "overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and not of furthering the disarmament work of the weapons inspectors."

But your mind is so boxed in to the Cheney/Bushco program you can't manage even a slight bit of rational thought anymore, so go ahead and believe what you want, but I contend that you're wrong.

I read the links, most of what I saw was his criticism of not being able to do his job on account of bad political decisions made back here, I really don't see how you interpret any of this to his saying that Iraq had WMD's.

I only see that his team was hampered in their efforts to find them- not by the Iraqi's but by our own government.

One more time in case you can't read:


"The problem," he said, "came when the United States government sought to take over control of some of these sensitive techniques for the purpose of pursuing U.S. policy objectives." Its main objective was "overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and not of furthering the disarmament work of the weapons inspectors."

But your mind is so boxed in to the Cheney/Bushco program you can't manage even a slight bit of rational thought anymore, so go ahead and believe what you want, but I contend that you're wrong.


hahah, well for the first part he's talking about Clinton there. But, if you really do believe what you're saying...explain what Ritter is so angry about. Why does Ritter want to go to Iraq? If there's no reason to suspect WMD's, why does Ritter want to lead a team there? And why did he accuse Clinton of ruining our chances at destroying WMD's in Iraq?

Please, for your own sake answer those questions. You've got a major cognitive issue here if you actually read even most of those articles and still think Ritter isn't claiming that Iraq's WMD programs are a threat that needs to be eliminated.

Psoper, you have to be kidding me. Read those articles again. There are about 20 on the link I posted that have Ritter complaining that not enough is being done to cleanse Saddam's Iraq of WMD's. They are ALL dated before the bush administration. Then, as soon as Bush comes in, Ritter starts declaring Iraq WMD free. That's what the first article from TIME is there to explain. Ritter's trying (and not doing a very good job of it) to explain why he did a 180 in his position on Iraq.


READ THE LINKS!!!!


What are you trying to say by that remark?

But your mind is so boxed in you can't manage even a slight bit of rational thought anymore, so go ahead and believe what you want, but I contend that you're wrong.

OMG speak for yourself!

Your location in your profile speaks volumes about what you just suggested!

I'm confused, if Iraq never posed a threat then why did they send weapons inspectors in the first place?

What are you trying to say by that remark?

I was implying that Ritter is driven by policy concerns, not by anything resembling an unbiased consideration of the evidence.

What are you trying to say by that remark?

He's trying to make the point that Ritter's thinking follows suit with Kerry's in regard to the Iraq stance flip-flop.

EDIT: *What Dave (subaruguru) ^said^*

I was implying that Ritter is driven by policy concerns, not by anything resembling an unbiased consideration of the evidence.

There you go again with the false dichotomy, you seem to imply that it is not possible that a person can weigh both policy trends and objective evidence, (and heck, even their personal value system) -on a matter before taking a position.

Apparently for you, that is the case, but most of us are able to think about things, and see value in differing perspectives.

The other main point thats been raised here again and again is the fact that situations change, and if a person cannot adjust their view or their position to deal with a changing situation, they will not be very well prepared to deal with reality.



to quote dre:
Situations change, being dynamic is a strength more then it is a disability.

and being a closed-minded butthead is definetly a shortcoming.

(not that I'm saying anyone here is.....)

OMG speak for yourself!

Your location in your profile speaks volumes about what you just suggested!

I'm confused, if Iraq never posed a threat then why did they send weapons inspectors in the first place?


possibly to make sure they never became an issue.

possibly to make sure they never became an issue.

But according to Ritter they were already a threat when he was inspector. He even suggested little was being done to cleanse Saddam's Iraq of WMD's pre-dubya. That’s the point of this argument!

There you go again with the false dichotomy, you seem to imply that it is not possible that a person can weigh both policy trends and objective evidence, (and heck, even their personal value system) -on a matter before taking a position.

Apparently for you, that is the case, but most of us are able to think about things, and see value in differing perspectives.

The other main point thats been raised here again and again is the fact that situations change, and if a person cannot adjust their view or their position to deal with a changing situation, they will not be very well prepared to deal with reality.



to quote dre:
Situations change, being dynamic is a strength more then it is a disability.

and being a closed-minded butthead is definetly a shortcoming.

(not that I'm saying anyone here is.....)

Yes, well, if that's the case, then what changed in Iraq? It would be hard to argue that this is what happened with Ritter, considering the fact that he didn't base his "No WMD" comments on an inspection in Iraq. He wasn't an inspector by that time anymore. And, I correlated his change in opinion to the change in administrations. Will you at least admit that? Before Bush, Ritter thinks Iraq and WMD's are a problem. After Bush, Ritter says Iraq doesn't have a program. That much should be settled fact from the articles.

Now, what else changed his mind? Show me that and I'll have to admit he didn't totally disregard the facts. As it stands, I'm not seeing him having too many justifications to change his mind when he did.

...my guess as to why Ritter changed his mind when the administrations changed is that Iraq used to have weapons, and then they got rid of them. That's what Iraq claimed from a while ago, and Ritter probably had good information that said Iraq had gotten rid of their weapons. No one ever claimed that Iraq never had WMDs...just that they haven't had them since BushJr's been in office and since we tore up Iraq looking for them.

...my guess as to why Ritter changed his mind when the administrations changed is that Iraq used to have weapons, and then they got rid of them. That's what Iraq claimed from a while ago, and Ritter probably had good information that said Iraq had gotten rid of their weapons. No one ever claimed that Iraq never had WMDs...just that they haven't had them since BushJr's been in office and since we tore up Iraq looking for them.

How would Ritter have come across this information? He was not on the inspection team anymore.

And, if Saddam had them then, then he had the ability to make them, right? Or did someone sell the weapons to him?

...Saddam did buy weapons...from the UNITED STATES! That's why BushJr. thought he had them...we literaly had receipts...but Iraq had since sold and dismantled them...all of this is not really debated, it's just the way it went...Saddam also had some factorys set up to makes some bioweapons...the equipment for those was also from the US...but everyone knows that those were scrapped and sold as scrap metal after the 1st Iraqi war because Iraq was damn near bankrupt at that point. Iraq has not been a threat to the US, or anyone else besides themselves, since Bush Sr. went to town on them the first time. They have had no WMDs since then, no NCBs since then...and still, there are people who believe going to Iraq for round two was justified...I guess it is, if you believe our armed forces should be the world's police...but that type of foreign policy usually leads to the downfall of a world power...

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.20.03/iraq-0308.html

And just because Ritter wasn't on the inspection team doesn't mean he couldn't have heard about something...like that another country had the weapons, or that the remaining inspectors found evidence that the weapons were removed...I still have hook ups from a job I had 5 years ago, you don't think Ritter kept in touch?

...Saddam did buy weapons...from the UNITED STATES! That's why BushJr. thought he had them...we literaly had receipts...but Iraq had since sold and dismantled them...all of this is not really debated, it's just the way it went...Saddam also had some factorys set up to makes some bioweapons...the equipment for those was also from the US...but everyone knows that those were scrapped and sold as scrap metal after the 1st Iraqi war because Iraq was damn near bankrupt at that point. Iraq has not been a threat to the US, or anyone else besides themselves, since Bush Sr. went to town on them the first time. They have had no WMDs since then, no NCBs since then...and still, there are people who believe going to Iraq for round two was justified...I guess it is, if you believe our armed forces should be the world's police...but that type of foreign policy usually leads to the downfall of a world power...

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.20.03/iraq-0308.html

And just because Ritter wasn't on the inspection team doesn't mean he couldn't have heard about something...like that another country had the weapons, or that the remaining inspectors found evidence that the weapons were removed...I still have hook ups from a job I had 5 years ago, you don't think Ritter kept in touch?

Well, the remaining inspectors didn't inspect. That was the precipitation to the entire war; Iraq did not allow a UN mission to complete its inspection.

Now, about your weapons sold to Iraq...you're even more wrong about that than you were about Chile. The US did not, has not, and will never sell chemical, biological, or any other weapons of that magnitude to third world/middle eastern governments. There are no receipts for bio weapons sales to Iraq because no one has sold bio weapons to Iraq. Iraq had its own chemical weapons program, most likely supported from several sources (soviets top the list of suspects there) in the 80's which it used to beat Iran. (Before it used them on Iran, Iran was winning the war despite Iraq having the largest army in the arab world.) The supposed "weapons" you're talking about sold to the Iraq by the US were CONVENTIONAL weapons of the same sort that were illegally being sold to Iran at the same time.

Get your facts straight. Geez, I mean, I don't like to get personal in debates ever...but it's not that hard to just google this stuff.

...Saddam did buy weapons...from the UNITED STATES! That's why BushJr. thought he had them...we literaly had receipts...but Iraq had since sold and dismantled them...all of this is not really debated, it's just the way it went...Saddam also had some factorys set up to makes some bioweapons...the equipment for those was also from the US...but everyone knows that those were scrapped and sold as scrap metal after the 1st Iraqi war because Iraq was damn near bankrupt at that point.

At ease, William Shatner...

That has to be the most poorly constructed sentence I have ever seen in my entire life. Hasn’t anyone told you that it’s hard present a credible argument with elementary grammar? (http://www.hop.com/)

Anyways… what kind of conspiracy has you selling WMD's to prime enemies?! That's like accusing Kerry of secretly funneling money to the bush campaign!

Hahaha, alright...first of all Salty, even if I didn't use proper punctuation the sentence(s) make sense (but the Shatner line and the link are hilarious so props for that). I apologize for mutating the common syntactical norms. Second of all, did either of you read the link I posted? We did sell them conventional weapons (a lot of them). But if you look at the list of US companies that have confirmed sales to Iraq, you see companies that specialize in biological and chemical warfare development in addition to the companies that supplied conventional weapons. It isn't a conspiracy; the United States definatly supplied Saddam with some of the weapons that we thought we would find in Iraq. The weapons are gone now because Iraq has been in no shape to be thinking about international conflicts for a while, so they've been sold or recycled. The ONLY thing that Saddam/Iraq did recently was to treat their own people horribly.

Maybe I was unclear the first time; the US hasn't sold weapons to Iraq in years, and we're not currently doing so, but in the past Saddam and his Iraq were looked at not as enemys but as a lesser evil when compared to his neighbors. So we sold them weapons.

Hahaha, alright...first of all Salty, even if I didn't use proper punctuation the sentence(s) make sense (but the Shatner line and the link are hilarious so props for that). I apologize for mutating the common syntactical norms. Second of all, did either of you read the link I posted? We did sell them conventional weapons (a lot of them). But if you look at the list of US companies that have confirmed sales to Iraq, you see companies that specialize in biological and chemical warfare development in addition to the companies that supplied conventional weapons. It isn't a conspiracy; the United States definatly supplied Saddam with some of the weapons that we thought we would find in Iraq. The weapons are gone now because Iraq has been in no shape to be thinking about international conflicts for a while, so they've been sold or recycled. The ONLY thing that Saddam/Iraq did recently was to treat their own people horribly.

Maybe I was unclear the first time; the US hasn't sold weapons to Iraq in years, and we're not currently doing so, but in the past Saddam and his Iraq were looked at not as enemys but as a lesser evil when compared to his neighbors. So we sold them weapons.

Defense corporations are normally HUGE. So, a company that might have a part that works on biological/chemical weapons working somewhere else is pretty much meaningless. I'm sure Hughes has worked on delivery systems that can be adapted to nuclear warheads; does that mean everywhere hughes does business is getting nuclear warhead delivery secrets????

Now, where are these receipts you mentioned for chemical weapons? And, what on earth would make you think that the US would WANT to sell chemical weapons to a government that it never liked in the first place!? See Salty's post on Kerry.

Edited to add:

That source is lousy. I forgot to comment on it because it's so full of conjecture. It's based on a deleted section of a UN report, so, the source material is no longer available for anyone to see. And, it cites articles all over...without providing any links or dates. It's a standard piece of geocities journalism from what I see. And, it doesn't give any direct evidence of the biological weapons...it just lists companies that encompass thousands of Defense functions, and then assumes that because some fucntions of some companies are biological/chemical, that that's what they were doing in Iraq.

Not even close to a substantiating source.

Guru, read the link I posted...you think a company called "American Type Culture Collection" makes conventional weapons too? NO, they make biological cultures of various microbes. Most of which have military applications. How about DuPont? They made chemicals and have for years and years. They don't make anything that could be considered a conventional weapon. But they do happen to make napalm and other chemicals that have military applications. And why would the US want to sell weapons to a gov't they didn't like? Because they didn't like them less than they didn't like other countries Iraq was at odds with. So Iraq got weapons, and some training, and we expected them to take out our enemies and then chill out. As we all know, they didn't chill out they invaded Kuwait. So we stepped in and sent them home. But since then, they haven't done a damn thing to anyone but themselves; they've been scrabling to stabilize their economy, and they've been murdering thousands of their own citizens. That's all.

Edit: Yeah, I'm not proud of that link as a source...but I've read the same list before from better sources, I just can't find it right now.

http://www.rense.com/general32/suppe.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true


"The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague." _WashPost

Guru, read the link I posted...you think a company called "American Type Culture Collection" makes conventional weapons too? NO, they make biological cultures of various microbes. Most of which have military applications. How about DuPont? They made chemicals and have for years and years. They don't make anything that could be considered a conventional weapon. But they do happen to make napalm and other chemicals that have military applications. And why would the US want to sell weapons to a gov't they didn't like? Because they didn't like them less than they didn't like other countries Iraq was at odds with. So Iraq got weapons, and some training, and we expected them to take out our enemies and then chill out. As we all know, they didn't chill out they invaded Kuwait. So we stepped in and sent them home. But since then, they haven't done a damn thing to anyone but themselves; they've been scrabling to stabilize their economy, and they've been murdering thousands of their own citizens. That's all.

Edit: Yeah, I'm not proud of that link as a source...but I've read the same list before from better sources, I just can't find it right now.

Dupont? Creator of the stain master carpet? They only make chemical weapons????

Yes, I found the washington post source that your original source quotes extensively without citation. That washington post source is also, curiously, without much citation. Here's a really good one, read this report:

cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol08/81/81ali.pdf


The washington post article, btw, talks about insecticides and then draws this sinister conclusion from it.

...I didn't say DuPont made only chemical weapons...and if you knew enough Organic Chemistry, you'd know that your precious StainMaster is chemical more than anything else. DuPont is very dedicated to chemicals of all kinds...Nylon, Rayon, Napalm, Kevlar, Mylar...Agent Orange (and all the other color-coded defoliants of the VietNam era), various gasses that work on the central nervous system...etc.

The insecticide thing...I read that as the Iraqi using a metaphore. Any 'insects' (insert invading force here) that invaded Iraq would be killed using 'insecticide' (insert chemical warfare agent here). And the quote I threw out there from that article is this: "The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague." _WashPost
Is the plague an insecticide? Anthrax isn't, it's a pathogen not a chemical designed to kill bugs...why can't you just accept that BushSr was bedbuddies with Saddam? It's not a conspiracy...unless you're talking about the fact that this has been swept under the rug during our most recent Iraq war...that could be considered a conspiracy.

Here's a nice photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983. We supplied Iraq with arms becasue we wanted him to win the fight with Iran, the greater of two evels, much like we trained Osama bin Laden and his goons in hopes that they would beat the USSR in Afganistan. I didn't realize people even debated that anymore.

-Chris

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

...I didn't say DuPont made only chemical weapons...and if you knew enough Organic Chemistry, you'd know that your precious StainMaster is chemical more than anything else. DuPont is very dedicated to chemicals of all kinds...Nylon, Rayon, Napalm, Kevlar, Mylar...Agent Orange (and all the other color-coded defoliants of the VietNam era), various gasses that work on the central nervous system...etc.

The insecticide thing...I read that as the Iraqi using a metaphore. Any 'insects' (insert invading force here) that invaded Iraq would be killed using 'insecticide' (insert chemical warfare agent here). And the quote I threw out there from that article is this: "The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague." _WashPost
Is the plague an insecticide? Anthrax isn't, it's a pathogen not a chemical designed to kill bugs...why can't you just accept that BushSr was bedbuddies with Saddam? It's not a conspiracy...unless you're talking about the fact that this has been swept under the rug during our most recent Iraq war...that could be considered a conspiracy.

Requoting the same piece of unsubstantiated press doesn't make the point more true. Now, I most readily admitted that the US sold weapons to Saddam. That's in my first post, and there's no dispute there. Rumsfeld is in pictures shaking Saddam's hand. My point, and the point you have yet to prove, is that the US DID NOT sell Saddam Chemical/Biological weapons. Read the scholarly article that I posted to you. That goes into good detail about the problems Iraq had in obtaining chemical and biological weapons during the 80's.

The problem with your argument as it stands is that you get a list of companies, a "dual role" claim on the chemicals that were transferred, and then conclude a transfer of chemical weapons. There is no civillian use for mustard gas. For all we know, ATCC was selling cultures that would be used to produce anti-biotics and various other medical chemicals in Iraq. (That's one of the main uses of cultures.)

And yes, I'm aware that my stainmaster is chemical in nature. So you did know that dupont made more than chemical weapons, but you claimed that dupont selling something to Iraq was by itself sinister anyway???

I think that last fact is telling. You can see the facts for what they are, but you choose only to read them in such a way that they support some pre-conceived idea about the situation. That is despite the fact that it doesn't make any sense strategically in this case. Iraq and Iran were BOTH receiving arms from the US at this period...why would the US be selling to Iran if it was that worried about Iran winning at the time? And, why do you think the US needed to sell chemical weapons to Iraq to get the job done?

It's one thing to accuse the government of supporting an evil dictator. That it did beyond a doubt. It sent money and conventional weapons to Saddam. That does not mean that the government is retarded, and sells WMD's to nations that it considered terrorist states just a few years before the alleged sale.

Here's a nice photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983. We supplied Iraq with arms becasue we wanted him to win the fight with Iran, the greater of two evels, much like we trained Osama bin Laden and his goons in hopes that they would beat the USSR in Afganistan. I didn't realize people even debated that anymore.

-Chris

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Yes, you posted as I was typing my last response. Is there a Sarin gas canister somewhere in that picture though?

And...remember that the US was selling arms to Iran at the same time. So it was NOT just a concern of stopping Iran. Unless you think Reagan and Bush were innocent of Iran-contra dealings, of course, but I'm not betting on that. If the US was supporting Iraq solely to get Iran beaten, and was so afraid of Iranian victory that it would sell chemical weapons, why was it selling arms to Iran at the same time???

Here's a nice photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983. We supplied Iraq with arms becasue we wanted him to win the fight with Iran, the greater of two evels, much like we trained Osama bin Laden and his goons in hopes that they would beat the USSR in Afganistan. I didn't realize people even debated that anymore.

-Chris

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

But MVWRX is automatically assuming that chemical weapons and other WMDs are one and the same when they aren't.

I'm not assuming WMDs=Chem weapons. I AM assuming that anthrax and the bubonic plague are sinister. The fact that chem weapons were used in the Iraq-Iran war is clear; thinking about the world powers at the time, and knowing that DuPont sent SOMETHING to Iraq, don't you think it's reasonable to assume they sent some chem weapons? Same line of logic for the cell culture company and bio weapons. BTW, cell cultures are used in research to identify vaccines and cures for disease, but companies that create cell cultures almost never do such research. Vaccines are almost never alive anymore, they are either attenuated or dead. So if we were to send a vaccine to a country, it would be from a company that made drugs and the like, not from a cell culture company. If you want to debate biochem with me, that's fine, but it IS what I do for a living.

why was it selling arms to Iran at the same time???


Uh, they weren't supposed to be, that's why there was an Iran Contra scandal.

People were convicted of purgery and misleading congress, remember?

or maybe you weren't old enough to be aware of what was going on, but Bush Sr and Reagan were up to their eyeballs in criminal doings back then, supporting Saddam was the "official" policy, selling weapons to Iran was explicitly forbidden by law.

Don't forget that as Chris pointed out; Saddam was put in power by a CIA backed coup in the first place.

And that Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

Practically all of this "terrorist" stuff we're dealing with is a result of what the folks in the intelligence racket call blow-back, you mess around with people long enough and they'll mess you back.

An afterthought: chemical weapons are perfect to sell to two opposing countries far away from us because they are efficient killers and their effects are short range and dissipate after a short time. But I never brought up motivation in the first place...we sold the weapons (biological, chemical, and conventional) to Iraq because it made American companies money. WMD's? Probably not in the strict definition of the term...but if they could get a hold of an ICBM from an ex-USSR state and put it together with the bugs and chemicals we sold them, that would be a WMD wouldn't it.

I'm not assuming WMDs=Chem weapons. I AM assuming that anthrax and the bubonic plague are sinister. The fact that chem weapons were used in the Iraq-Iran war is clear; thinking about the world powers at the time, and knowing that DuPont sent SOMETHING to Iraq, don't you think it's reasonable to assume they sent some chem weapons? Same line of logic for the cell culture company and bio weapons. BTW, cell cultures are used in research to identify vaccines and cures for disease, but companies that create cell cultures almost never do such research. Vaccines are almost never alive anymore, they are either attenuated or dead. So if we were to send a vaccine to a country, it would be from a company that made drugs and the like, not from a cell culture company. If you want to debate biochem with me, that's fine, but it IS what I do for a living.

Fine, then you know how antibiotics are manufactured. Tell us, how are antibiotics manufactured?

Now, why on earth is the fact that dupont is sending something to Iraq indication that it is sending chemical weapons to Iraq??? Why is that reasonable? Considering that the US had just recently considered Iraq a terrorist nation, what makes you think it would have been reasonable for the government to let Dupont send weapons along with whatever other chemicals it sent? Are most chemical transactions internationally involving weapons?

Dupont sent something. Therefore it sent chemical weapons. That's the most I'm getting from you at this point.

Now considering the issue with Iran at the time....rethink that one and get back to me.

Uh, they weren't supposed to be, that's why there was an Iran Contra scandal.

People were convicted of purgery and misleading congress, remember?

or maybe you weren't old enough to be aware of what was going on, but Bush Sr and Reagan were up to their eyeballs in criminal doings back then, supporting Saddam was the "official" policy, selling weapons to Iran was explicitly forbidden by law.

Don't forget that as Chris pointed out; Saddam was put in power by a CIA backed coup in the first place.

And that Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

Practically all of this "terrorist" stuff we're dealing with is a result of what the folks in the intelligence racket call blow-back, you mess around with people long enough and they'll mess you back.

Well, you're supporting my point there and this is something MVWRX is ignoring for the moment. Yes, Iran was getting arms illegaly from the US. Now, if the US was so grossly concerned with Iranian victory that it was willing to throw caution into the wind and sell Chemical weapons to Iraq, then why did it sell weapons to Iran at the same time??? Do you see the contradiction there?

The US was happy with Iraq and Iran wearing each other out. I'm sure Washington made no serious effort to stop Saddam from employing the chemical weapons that he did illegally obtain. That is not, however, proof of the US selling chemical weapons to Iraq.

Now, I'm going to brush up my history of the pan arab baathist rebellions that brought Saddam's party to power...but are you sure of what you're saying there? CIA installed Saddam, that's a big claim. You might want to justify it yourself before I get into this.

[QUOTE=subaruguru]..... if the US was so grossly concerned with Iranian victory that it was willing to throw caution into the wind and sell Chemical weapons to Iraq, then why did it sell weapons to Iran at the same time??? Do you see the contradiction there?
[\QUOTE]

did you even read my reply?

I said: "selling weapons to Iran was explicitly forbidden by law."

The US DID NOT legally "sell weapons to Iran at the same time" !!!!

CRIMINAL elements within the administration DID, but that is clearly not the same as the US doing it.

The US DID "legally" and above board provide Saddam Hussein with components that his regime used to build chemical weapons, as part of our outward support of his effort in fighting Iran.


As for our involvement with his coming to power;

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/features98/saddam.htm

http://www.unknownnews.net/saddam.html

pretty old news for anyone whos looked into it at all......

Wow...ok I'll spell out the logic.
First point: why would we sell chem and bio weapons to a country we think is terrorist? WHY WOULD WE SEND MONEY AND CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TO A COUNTRY WE THINK IS TERRORIST? Both can be used against us, so your argument on that point is fairly weak
Second Point: My logic is NOT this: DuPont (or any other co. that makes military and civilian applications) sent Iraq somthing so it must be a weapon. My logic is this: Iraq had chemical weapons. They were the same chemical weapons that DuPont had openly manufactured at the time. Iraq was getting money and conventional weapons from the US and US companies. Iraq was spending a lot of money on war, almost none on vaccinating it's own people or ridding the desert of flies. When you look at that situation as a whole, the simplest answer is that DuPont sent chemical weapons to Iraq. And the simplest explanation is almost always correct (Occam’s razor). So logically speaking, how do you get off saying DuPont definatly did NOT send chemical weapons?

[QUOTE=subaruguru]..... if the US was so grossly concerned with Iranian victory that it was willing to throw caution into the wind and sell Chemical weapons to Iraq, then why did it sell weapons to Iran at the same time??? Do you see the contradiction there?
[\QUOTE]

did you even read my reply?

I said: "selling weapons to Iran was explicitly forbidden by law."

The US DID NOT legally "sell weapons to Iran at the same time" !!!!

CRIMINAL elements within the administration DID, but that is clearly not the same as the US doing it.

The US DID "legally" and above board provide Saddam Hussein with components that his regime used to build chemical weapons, as part of our outward support of his effort in fighting Iran.


As for our involvement with his coming to power;

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r

http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/features98/saddam.htm

http://www.unknownnews.net/saddam.html

pretty old news for anyone whos looked into it at all......

hahah, top notch sources. I'm citing those in my next history term paper. Not.

Now, as for the illegal...yes, but the SAME executive arm that made the policy on Iraq made the policy on Iran! Congress had forbidden the sale of arms to Iran. But the very sampe people who make the foreign policy were the ones selling arms to Iran and Iraq at the same time. So why, if they were really worried about Iran? That's my question.

Wow...ok I'll spell out the logic.
First point: why would we sell chem and bio weapons to a country we think is terrorist? WHY WOULD WE SEND MONEY AND CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TO A COUNTRY WE THINK IS TERRORIST? Both can be used against us, so your argument on that point is fairly weak
Second Point: My logic is NOT this: DuPont (or any other co. that makes military and civilian applications) sent Iraq somthing so it must be a weapon. My logic is this: Iraq had chemical weapons. They were the same chemical weapons that DuPont had openly manufactured at the time. Iraq was getting money and conventional weapons from the US and US companies. Iraq was spending a lot of money on war, almost none on vaccinating it's own people or ridding the desert of flies. When you look at that situation as a whole, the simplest answer is that DuPont sent chemical weapons to Iraq. And the simplest explanation is almost always correct (Occam’s razor). So logically speaking, how do you get off saying DuPont definatly did NOT send chemical weapons?

Dupont makes MANY MORE CHEMICALS than just those in chemical weapons. Stop pretending that dupont only gets involved where chemical weapons happen. The stuff that's in bombs comes from dupont too. Gunpowder comes from dupont. ALL KINDS of military equipment chemical in nature that is not chemical weapons material comes from dupont. So there's no logical link there at all.

I'm still waiting on your answer for antibiotics.

The dupont answer is not the simplest one, either. The simplest answer is that Iraq developed its own chemical weapons with help from the Soviets. Now, considering that, can you explain away your earlier comment that wmd's (which chemical weapons are legally) to Iraq was done to stop the Iranians? Why were we selling arms to Iran at the same time?

Occam's razor, if you took philosophy 101, is about the most over-used, misunderstood piece of logical hardware ever invented. You owe an apology to all your humanities teachers for that one. "Simplest is most true" has absolutely zero statistical or logical validity in politics and humanities. It's virtually worthless in that context. And you also don't know what it is, but that's besides the point.

I'm hoping in this next post that you'll answer some of my challenges, instead of just repeating yourself and pretending that all evidence means what you want it to mean.

I can't deal with your rhetoric man...you argue things that are irrelevent (why we would sell to Iran and Iraq at the same time? who the f*** cares it has nothing to do with the fact that we DID sell weapons to both of them...selling to both sides was for money), you insult my logic even though the application of Occam's razor is used everyday in analytical thinking (regardless of weather it's applied to humanities or social sciences or life sciences or physical sciences). You claim soviet involvment but haven't presented a damn bit of evidence that they were involved at all. And best of all, you're argument has no form or point (other than the point that everything I say is wrong). Why do I repeat arguments and restate facts? Because they help my point. I have no idea what you're arguing...that the US didn't send weapons to Iraq? That we sent weapons, but not 'real bad ones'? That we're justified in this recent war because we didn't send chemical and biological weapons decades ago? That, because we sent weapons to both Iran and Iraq then the weapons must have been conventional? Instead of flamming everyone else's posts, links, and evidence why don't you look some up yourself. At least then I'd have something to respond to other than you're "I'm the s***, what now punk" posts.

I can't deal with your rhetoric man...you argue things that are irrelevent (why we would sell to Iran and Iraq at the same time? who the f*** cares it has nothing to do with the fact that we DID sell weapons to both of them...selling to both sides was for money), you insult my logic even though the application of Occam's razor is used everyday in analytical thinking (regardless of weather it's applied to humanities or social sciences or life sciences or physical sciences). You claim soviet involvment but haven't presented a damn bit of evidence that they were involved at all. And best of all, you're argument has no form or point (other than the point that everything I say is wrong). Why do I repeat arguments and restate facts? Because they help my point. I have no idea what you're arguing...that the US didn't send weapons to Iraq? That we sent weapons, but not 'real bad ones'? That we're justified in this recent war because we didn't send chemical and biological weapons decades ago? That, because we sent weapons to both Iran and Iraq then the weapons must have been conventional? Instead of flamming everyone else's posts, links, and evidence why don't you look some up yourself. At least then I'd have something to respond to other than you're "I'm the s***, what now punk" posts.


Well, I did give evidence which you obviously did not read. But, I'll respond to this one point by poitn like before:

First of all, my point is easy to see: Yes, we sold weapons to iraq. Conventional weapons. Go back and count how many times I said that.
My second point: the fact that we sold conventional weapons to iraq, doesn't mean we sold chemical weapons.
Third point: There's no evidence we sold chemical weapons.
Fourth: If, as you say, we had a reason to sell chemical weapons to Iraq because we wanted to stop Iran...(you claimed that, remember?), then why were we selling arms to Iran at the same time? If the point is to stop Iran, why sell them arms? Oh, that's right...because the point wasn't just to stop Iran. It was to let them fight each other as long as possible. Which is a count against chemical weapons, which end fights sooner.

Now, on Occam's razor: I clearly implied that it's used everyday. My point is that it is used every day, wrongly so. That's the problem with it. It doesn't take too much thinking to see how "the simplest is most likely correct" makes any damn sense at all in a discussion of politics (which is a humanities discipline, btw) or anything else that involves people.

Now, what evidence do I have of soviet involvement in Iraq? Hmmm....I don't know, maybe a fleet of Soviet tanks, soviet small arms, soviet RPG's, Soviet MiG fighter jets, and Soviet-missile inspired ScUD missiles. How's that for evidence of soviet involvement?

Or do you need some pictures?

When was it ever in doubt that we sold him chemical weapons? Thats news to me. If I remembered right he used some on his own people. Wasn't that a example, after we didn't find WMB, that we used to illiustrate how bad he was?

Oh and the Russia thing, how old are all those things that he had? ;)

When was it ever in doubt that we sold him chemical weapons? Thats news to me. If I remembered right he used some on his own people. Wasn't that a example, after we didn't find WMB, that we used to illiustrate how bad he was?

Oh and the Russia thing, how old are all those things that he had? ;)

The russian things at the time period we're talking about were pretty darn new. Russia was still going fairly strong in the early 80's.

You're right that there's no doubt that Saddam used weapons. What's never been established that we sold him the chemical weapons he used. The fact that Saddam used them, doesn't mean the US sold them to him. It puzzles me how people get from "Saddam used chemical weapons" to "the US sold saddam chemical weapons." I'm not sure why everyone assumes that everything Saddam ever had he got from the US. The soviet tanks, south african designed artillery, and french aircraft would all seem to indicate a convincing list of other possible sources for his technology relating to chemical/biological weapons. Don't you agree?

Yes I agree (even though I think you're asking Unregistered), there are other possibilities for places Saddam could have gotten the chem and bio weapons. However it is still my opinion that the US was the most likely source due to our superiority over those other countries in terms of chemical/biological warfare. Of course, like guru has pointed out, I can't find any direct evidence that Iraq bought any chem/bio weapons other than the fact that he had them and used them. So I conceed that there's no way to proove my point...with the knowledge that there's no way for Guru to proove his point either (that the US did NOT sell Saddam any chem/bio weapons). At this point, we're both just speculating.