First let me say I like Simon, this man takes time to show real evidence to support his argument and is very adapt at picking apart his opponents arguments at angles his poor opponent never thought of when stating their original argument. I like that because when we lock horns he makes me double check everything and then shows me how the other side can be argued in a very coherent and intelligent manner without resorting to name calling or out right lies. So three cheers for Simon, I may not agree with him, but at least he gives me pause to consider what I believe to be true. So let’s see what I can do to defend my stance.
Simon-“Alas and alack, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is not a "professional intel agency" either. Nor did they say that Iraq was likely to use them offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy).”
Well can we agree that the U.S. Department of Defense probably makes it a habit of getting it’s info from a "professional intel agency"?
“A Defense Department paper for the Camp David briefing book on the strategic concept for the war on terrorism specified three priority targets for initial action: al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq. It argued that of the three, al Qaeda and Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States. Iraq’s long-standing involvement in terrorism was cited, along with its interest in weapons of mass destruction.”65
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
I believe the statement “Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States” qualifies as a "professional intel agency" stating that they believed Iraq to be a threat. But the report only said Iraq had “interest” in WMD’s so we mustn’t believe that this “interest” is proof of possession nor does it show the threat being WMDs.
Then again maybe we can’t rely on the DOD using “professional intel agency” so instead lets turn our attention to the UN, now maybe, just maybe they used a “professional intel agency” to gather the information needed to make this statement; “U.N. weapons experts have said Iraq may have stockpiled more than 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and saran. Some 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells with chemical agents are also unaccounted for, the experts said.”
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/02/iraq.weapons/index.html
Simon-“Re-examine the nouns more closely. As excited and breathless as these things seem to make some folks, none of these things are weapons.
FYI Brucella and CCHF are endemic to Iraq. Try again.”
Did the last statement there provide the nouns you requested? Are these agencies known to use “professional intel agencies”?
Let’s continue.
So the UN believed in 2002 that “Some 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells with chemical agents are also unaccounted for” well according to that statement we had knowledge of these weapons existing and when they tried to find them again they were gone. Damn those mirages. But again unless we use the two reports together we can not make a connection between the threat identified by the DOD and the WMDs identified by the UN, neither while viewed alone shows a threat of WMDs. So if you only take each at its face value and do not play connect the dots you will never see a threat of WMDs being used. I would prefer to gather all info and make the correlations between the gathered intelligence to form my conclusion, but then again that might make to much sense to some and too little to others.
As Simon points out none of this is actual proof, I mean we know they had the weapons, we know that Saddam could not show proof that the weapons that were tagged for destruction were in fact destroyed, and we know at least a few “professional intel agencies” agreed that there was a possibility of WMD’s, but until we find the materials in sufficient amounts, and those materials having been made into finished weapons, then all of this evidence is inadmissible on the grounds that it only shows what we knew and does not contain a stockpile of physical evidence.
So lets run through this one more time for clarity,
“We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002”. All of this is just mumbo jumbo in no way is it proof because the ISG is not a “professional intel agency” and we never found the weapons that were concealed only the factories, scientists, reference material, Reference strains of biological organisms, areas that could be used for human testing, a few left over vials of sarin and mustard gas armed artillery shells buried in the sand. None of this is proof that Saddam could have had WMD’s because we didn’t find an entire bunker full of armed missiles pointed at our allies, maybe we should have given him those three months to finish up his work.
Simon-“David Kelly is not a "professional intel agency" either. Nor did he say that Iraq was likely to use them offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy).
Hang in there. Keep trying, g.”
"Even if they're not actually filled and deployed today, the capability exists to get them filled and deployed within a matter of days and weeks. So yes, there is a threat." David Kelly, again not a “professional intel agency” just simply one of the worlds leading experts on weaponry and Iraq. You see when Kelly said “yes, there is a threat.” He didn’t mean that anyone was in any danger, no he used the word “threat” to demonstrate that we all were indeed safe.:roll:
Simon-“Further, the essential part of the point that you're pretending you're refute is this:
"... likely to use them offensively against the US (either directly or by proxy);"
not this:
" ... had the weapons and was a threat."
Please remind me to hire you as my lawyer if I find myself in need of a great defense.
If we show Saddam as holding a favorable view of the terrorist who have attacked America, and we show Saddam had the intention, ability, and means to produce weapons (and that little fact of the known weapons that were not shown to be destroyed) that are not defensive in nature, then we must conclude that in this time of war (remember the war began before Iraq) Saddam was a legitimate threat and there for a legitimate target.
Simon-“g, don't give up. Just double check what you're arguing against and stay at it. You're bound to get something.”
Just let me know what you think. :2wave: