Iraqi WMDs in Syria?

[Goobieman]

You'd have to prove that the WMDs existed in the first place which would be contrary to the ISG's conclusions. This "hypothetical" is based on a false premise ie that there were wmds to move.

A hypothetical question is based on a "what if".
You're dodging the question based on the idea that the "what if", isnt.
But, the questions, being a hypothetical, postulates that the "what if", is.
Don't argue the given.

You can't proove a negative. There is no evidence of any black market so that is enough.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Its too bad that your claim requires you to prove a negative -- but, indeed, thats what you have to do.
You argue that the 'fact' that Iraq had no WMDs is poof that they had no contacts -- but finding those WMDs eliminates your proof.

So, if the WMDs are found, what's your proof that Iraq had no black market connections?

I'm not taking your word for it. Provide proof that Saddam was directly involved.

First, your stonewalling here is pathetic.
Second, as the action was taken by the Iraq government, and thus by the state of Iraq, I don;t -have- to show that Saddam was directly involved.

I never said that Bush should be tried for war crimes. Don't put words in my mouth.

I never said YOU did. Don't put words in MY mouth.

No, it's relevant if those organizations were operating within the no-fly zone.

Its YOUR contention that they were and because of this Saddam could not have been supporting them.
Show that they were operating in the NFZ and that Saddam could not support them (with ground assets) because of it.

Hammas didn't attack us on 9/11.

That's relevant, because...?

1) Yes it is and
2) Yes I did.

More stonewalling.

Well YES because we could have used those troops to invade NK.

That would keep NK from launching, because...?
Any WMD missile attack from NK will result is a US response that has little to do with a ground invasion.
So, 1CAV being in Iraq or in Texas is meaningless in the equation, as it can't keep NK from launching, it can't stop the missile(s) and it won't likely be needed for a response.

See above and by the way tell me why having our soldiers hanging out for no apparent reason in Germany is helping anything.

Hmm... troops 'doing nothing' in Germany....
And yet, Iraq has stretched us "too thin".

The GBI/NMB have been proven to be relatively useless and have never been subjected to real life scenarios.

However self-contradicting your statement is, this shows we don't need it to face the NK threat because...?

*Shrug* Even if they do have 100 nukes they're not stupid. They wouldn't launch all of them.

Because...?
2 nukes will effectively eliminate Israel as a state.
Why would they NOT use all their nukes?

Such exageration. We wouldn't need to buy oil from Iran if we'd stop selling our Alaskan oil to China, Japan, and North Korea. And by the way..what do you think the oil reserve is for?

We havent bought oil from Iran since before 1990.

Aside from that, you plainly didnt read what I said:
1) The loss of Iranian oil, and potentially almost all ME oil, will cause a worldwide shortage. A worldwide shortage will drive up the price of oil no matter where it comes from.

By "shortage" I mean a long-term contraction in production and supply.

The problem now is that we're importing more crude than we have the capcity to refine. Having more refineries would drive the cost down and we could make up the loss by doing the above. We don't get that much of our oil from the M.E.

There is some truth to this, but in a scenario where there is a contraction in worldwide oil production/supply, having more refining capacity will do nothing to improve the scarcity (and thus, the price) of oil, and little in anything, to lower the price of its derivatives.

I don't think anyone can say for sure. OPEC would probably pump out more to make up for the loss..it's not like we need oil from Iran.

Again, you're making a mistake by looking at just the US demand for Iranian oil, for which there is none.

Iran produces almost 4M BPD, which is 16% of the total ME production and about 5% of total world production. More importantly, Iran also sits on 18% of the ME reserves and 11% of the world's reserves. Taking the production away won't make that much long-term difference as other countries can take up the slack (if they chose to do so) but removing the Iranian oil reserve from future markets will have a HUGE effect, short and long-term.

Never mind thet fact that if Israel chose to do so, it could cut off almost the entire supply of oil from the ME, even by only sending nukes into Iran.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

A hypothetical question is based on a "what if".
You're dodging the question based on the idea that the "what if", isnt.
But, the questions, being a hypothetical, postulates that the "what if", is.
Don't argue the given.

This is not a hypothetical this is a hypothesis and it's based on a false premise.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

It's enough when negatives are involved.

Its too bad that your claim requires you to prove a negative -- but, indeed, thats what you have to do.

If you believe there was a black market the burden of proof is on you. There is no evidence a black market and no wmds. Thats enough. Go that? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A BLACK MARKET SO DON'T CLAIM ONE EXISTED. This line of questioning is equall to me telling you to prove that a dinosaur with 1 leg didn't exist 500 million years ago.

You argue that the 'fact' that Iraq had no WMDs is poof that they had no contacts -- but finding those WMDs eliminates your proof.

No it doesn't.

So, if the WMDs are found, what's your proof that Iraq had no black market connections?

There is no evidence of them and no wmds will be found because no wmds existed in Iraq after 1991.

Second, as the action was taken by the Iraq government, and thus by the state of Iraq, I don;t -have- to show that Saddam was directly involved.

Burden of proof is on you. The Iraqi government did not carry out those attacks.

I never said YOU did. Don't put words in MY mouth.

You implied.

Its YOUR contention that they were and because of this Saddam could not have been supporting them. Show that they were operating in the NFZ and that Saddam could not support them (with ground assets) because of it.

There's not enough data to know for sure but it is very likely that they were operating within the NFZ. Read page 61 of the 9/11 Comission report.

That's relevant, because...?

Because Saddam was not supporting Al Qaeda nor was he supporting Hammas for that matter. He gave money to the families of dead men. We're supposed to be avenging the deaths on 9/11 not playing team america world police and invading nations which have nothing to do with what happened on 9/11. The U.S. has supported terrorism far longer than Saddam...especially Hammas.

That would keep NK from launching, because...?

Simple. Bomb his facilities so he can't launch anything.

Any WMD missile attack from NK will result is a US response that has little to do with a ground invasion.

We'd need ground troops to end the war you pinhead. You can't just lob missiles at eachother and hope someone chickens out.
.

And yet, Iraq has stretched us "too thin".

Yes, we have been stretched too thin. The U.S. is occupying many countries throughout the world and old Rummy doesn't want to shuffle them around a bit because of the risk that without our troops present in some areas ie South Korea etc war will break out.

However self-contradicting your statement is, this shows we don't need it to face the NK threat because...?

It's not contradictory..they've never been tested in a real life scenario and the APS concluded via extensive research, calculation, and experimentation that the system would ultimatley fail in a real life scenario. We don't need it because it doesn't work.

Because...?
2 nukes will effectively eliminate Israel as a state.
Why would they NOT use all their nukes?

Because of the nuclear fall out which would probably drift back towards Israel. That many nukes would affect the entire M.E. maybe even the world and Israel knows that. They would need to use all of their nukes anyway because the U.S. would get involved.

Aside from that, you plainly didnt read what I said

You plainly don't know what you're talking about.

1. We don't need the oil.
2. Europe needs it however with Iraq back in buisiness they can make up the loss.
3. We have an oil reserve that can last several hundred years.
4. Gasoline will not be more expensive for us because building refineries will make up for the extra money spent on oil.
5. We will be able to use more of our own oil by stopping the sale of it to China, North Korea, and Japan.
6. Europe is not that dependant on oil to begin with. Take Sweden for example..almost 80% of it's power is generated via hydropower and nuclear power.
Etc Etc.

The need for Iran is exagerated especially now that Iraq is in play.

 

[Goobieman]

This is not a hypothetical this is a hypothesis and it's based on a false premise.

Its a HYPOTHETICAL question, not a hypothesis. No one has claimed that weapons are in Syria - the question asks IF the questions are there, then...

It's enough when negatives are involved.

Absence of proof proves nothing. Nothing.

If you believe there was a black market the burden of proof is on you. There is no evidence a black market and no wmds.

I didnt ever say there was a market, I asked you to prove your claim that there wasn't. Got that?

Is up to youto support your claim.

No it doesn't.

OK... so whats your OTHER proof for there being no market connection?

There is no evidence of them and no wmds will be found because no wmds existed in Iraq after 1991.

You're arguing the given again.

Burden of proof is on you. The Iraqi government did not carry out those attacks.

What attacks did I claim the Iraqi government carried out?
I said that Iraq supported terrorism and I gave you examples. YOU said that these organizations were in the NFZ and therefore didnt count because they were not under Iraqi control. YOU need to show that to be true, and that Iraq could not support them w/ ground assets.

You implied.

You infered.

There's not enough data to know for sure but it is very likely that they were operating within the NFZ. Read page 61 of the 9/11 Comission report.

YOU said that these organizations were in the NFZ and therefore didnt count because they were not under Iraqi control. YOU need to show that to be true, and that Iraq could not support them w/ ground assets.

Because Saddam was not supporting Al Qaeda nor was he supporting Hammas for that matter. He gave money to the families of dead men. We're supposed to be avenging the deaths on 9/11 not playing team america world police and invading nations which have nothing to do with what happened on 9/11. The U.S. has supported terrorism far longer than Saddam...especially Hammas.

The war on terrorism is against terrorists everywhere and the states that support them -- there doesnt NEED to be a connection between 9/11 and any given organization and a state that supports them. Iraq supported terrorism and therefore was a legitimate target in the war.

Simple. Bomb his facilities so he can't launch anything

Why can't we do that w/ our forces deployed as they are, right now?
Why do we need ground troops for this?

We'd need ground troops to end the war you pinhead. You can't just lob missiles at eachother and hope someone chickens out.

Ah - personal insults. I'll be sure to let the mods know. You're a liberal so you'll be safe.

Didn't you just say "Bomb his facilities so he can't launch anything"?
Why do we suddenly need ground troops?

Yes, we have been stretched too thin. The U.S. is occupying many countries throughout the world and old Rummy doesn't want to shuffle them around a bit because of the risk that without our troops present in some areas ie South Korea etc war will break out.

Hmm. All those troops in Germany "doing nothing".
How are we "too thin", again?

It's not contradictory..they've never been tested in a real life scenario and the APS concluded via extensive research, calculation, and experimentation that the system would ultimatley fail in a real life scenario. We don't need it because it doesn't work.

Its never been tested in a real-world scenario, and yet proven that in a real world scenario, it would fail.
How is that NOT contradictory?

Please -- show me how the GBI/NMD currently in place has been proven to ultimately "not work". This should be good.

Because of the nuclear fall out which would probably drift back towards Israel. That many nukes would affect the entire M.E. maybe even the world and Israel knows that. They would need to use all of their nukes anyway because the U.S. would get involved.

Given that Israel has just been destroyed -- why would they care?

Israel is well known to respond in like and kind - when you wipe them out, what do you think they will do in response?

You plainly don't know what you're talking about.

As the desert said to the grain of sand.

1. We don't need the oil.
2. Europe needs it however with Iraq back in buisiness they can make up the loss.

Thats right -- and with less oil on the market, and less available in the groud, the market price will go up.

3. We have an oil reserve that can last several hundred years.

The US consumes about 21M BPD. A houndrd year reserve, assuming that consumption doesnt go up, is 766,500,000,000 barrels.
Please show me that we have that in "reserve".

4. Gasoline will not be more expensive for us because building refineries will make up for the extra money spent on oil.

Really.
Show that additional refineries will compensate for the cost of doubling or even tripling the price of oil.

5. We will be able to use more of our own oil by stopping the sale of it to China, North Korea, and Japan.

This will not affect the PRICE of the oil -- no mwtter where its bought, the market price is (about) the same.
And... you don't suppose the collapse of the Japan's economy will have a world-wide effect, do you?

6. Europe is not that dependant on oil to begin with. Take Sweden for example..almost 80% of it's power is generated via hydropower and nuclear power.

Wait... i thought yousaid "Europe needs [the oil]"?
Europe consumes ~16M BPD.
Europe produces ~ 5.6M BPD.

The need for Iran is exagerated especially now that Iraq is in play.

The CURRENT supply and demand already has Iraq 'in play'.

 

[akyron]

This thread has no merit nor validity until the WMD's in question are produced. End of story.
.

And yet the debate continues.....

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by akyron
And yet the debate continues.....

I guess my public speaking needs to come up a notch.

 

[Saboteur]

It's alright to be irritable, it's not ok to call names and in general just be a jerk. I mean if you want to debate please do so, if you want to behave like a child please take your act down the road.

You're welcome for the fish, but I thought dolphins were smart.

Hi,

Thanks for the warning, I'll keep it on the up and up from now on.

And yes dolphins are smart... they don't build weapons that can destroy the planet.

 

[Goobieman]

And yes dolphins are smart... they don't build weapons that can destroy the planet.

By that rationale, plankton are smart.

 

[Saboteur]

By that rationale, plankton are smart.

You have some evidence to prove that plankton are not smart?

 

[Goobieman]

You have some evidence to prove that plankton are not smart?

You can't be serious.

But then, you DID say "dolphins are smart... they don't build weapons that can destroy the planet" - so maybe you are.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Absence of proof proves nothing. Nothing.

Yes it does.

I didnt ever say there was a market, I asked you to prove your claim that there wasn't.

There's no evidence of a black market, theres no evidence of any contacts with any other black market, and there were no materials for him to trade on a black market. Therein lies the proof.

Is up to youto support your claim.

Prove that a dinosaur with 1 leg didn't exist 500 million years ago.

You're arguing the given again.

It's a valid argument. The so called "given" is not a given at all because it is not a fact.

What attacks did I claim the Iraqi government carried out?

Read your last post.

The war on terrorism is against terrorists everywhere and the states that support them -- there doesnt NEED to be a connection between 9/11 and any given organization and a state that supports them. Iraq supported terrorism and therefore was a legitimate target in the war.

No it wasn't. You can't fight a war against a tactic.

Why can't we do that w/ our forces deployed as they are, right now? Why do we need ground troops for this?

Why couldn't we contain Saddam without ground troops?

Hmm. All those troops in Germany "doing nothing".
How are we "too thin", again?

I've already explained this to you. A good portion of our troops are stationed in regions of the world that require our presence in order to avoid conflict.

Its never been tested in a real-world scenario, and yet proven that in a real world scenario, it would fail.
How is that NOT contradictory?

It's not contradictory because it has been proven via extensive calculation and simulation that it would fail though there haven't been any real life tests in a real life scenario.

Please -- show me how the GBI/NMD currently in place has been proven to ultimately "not work".

You can read the report here:

http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/popa/reports/nmd03.cfm


Given that Israel has just been destroyed -- why would they care?

Israel is well known to respond in like and kind - when you wipe them out, what do you think they will do in response?

If they were wiped out then they wouldn't have the ability to respond.

Thats right -- and with less oil on the market, and less available in the groud, the market price will go up.

No it wouldn't. Iraq would make up the difference.

 

[Goobieman]

Yes it does.

More stonewalling.
Or total lack on intellectual honesty.
Or both.

Something can only be proven through evidence.
If there is no evidence, there can be no proof.
YOU ar citing that a lack of evidence IS proof, which is logically unsound.

There's no evidence of a black market, theres no evidence of any contacts with any other black market, and there were no materials for him to trade on a black market. Therein lies the proof.

See above. You've proven nothing.

Prove that a dinosaur with 1 leg didn't exist 500 million years ago.

I didnt claim one did.
YOU, however, claimed that black market WMD trade did not exist, and you havent provided a shred of evidence to support it.

It's a valid argument. The so called "given" is not a given at all because it is not a fact.

When you ask a hypothetical question, the givens are assumed to be true.
"If the light were green, would you go or stop" -- the question isnt dependent on if the light is actually green or not.

You;re trying to avoid the question my arguing the given -- just more stonewalling and/or intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Read your last post.

I know what I said.
Cite me.

No it wasn't. You can't fight a war against a tactic.

You CAN fight it against the people that perpetrate the acts and the states (and NGOs) that support them. Thats what we're doing.
And thats why Iraq, a state sponsor of terrorism, was a legitimate target in the war.

Why couldn't we contain Saddam without ground troops?

You arent answering the question.
First, you say: "Bomb his facilities so he can't launch anything"
Then you say: "We'd need ground troops to end the war. You can't just lob missiles at each other and hope someone chickens out."
So, which is it? Do we need to bomb them or invade them?

I've already explained this to you. A good portion of our troops are stationed in regions of the world that require our presence in order to avoid conflict.

YOU said the troops in Germany are "doing nothing". Deterring conflict is not "doing nothing".

It's not contradictory because it has been proven via extensive calculation and simulation that it would fail though there haven't been any real life tests in a real life scenario.

I see. So, its been proven to fail under the conditions it is expected to operate, even thought it hasnt been tested under the conditions it is expected to operate.
:rofl

You can read the report here:
http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/popa/reports/nmd03.cfm

Did you actually read this source?
This is a report regarding boost phase intercept systems.
"Report of the APS Study Group on Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense"

Intercepting missiles while their rockets are still burning would not be an effective approach for defending the U.S. against attacks by an important type of enemy missile. This conclusion comes from an independent study by the American Physical Society into the scientific and technical feasibility of boost-phase defense, focusing on potential missile threats from North Korea and Iran.

There's nothing here that "proves" anything regarding the GBI/NMD currentlly deoplyed.

So, you were saying...?

Given that Israel has just been destroyed -- why would they care?

Exactly. Why would they care about depleting their nuke stocks or killing shloads of people (in the countrie(s) that attacked them)?
If they don't care, they're more likely to do it.

If they were wiped out then they wouldn't have the ability to respond.

You're operating under the assumption that they do not have a second-strike capability. Given that until I told you, you have a clue as to how manynukes they have, I'd be VERY interested in you telling me how you know they dont have the ability to respond in a 2nd strike scenario.

No it wouldn't. Iraq would make up the difference.

Based on...?