Toldjaso! - WMDs in Iraq

[Seth]

He did use them, to kill his own people, the Kurds. That's precisely why taking him down was necessary and lawful.

Didn't seem to be a big problem for the US at that time.

Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'

By WILLIAM LOWTHER, Daily Mail

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.


As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.


The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.


They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.

The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.


At the very least, it is highly embarrassing for 70-year-old Mr Rumsfeld, who is the most powerful and vocal of all the hawks surrounding President Bush.


He bitterly condemns Saddam as a ruthless and brutal monster and frequently backs up his words by citing the use of the very weapons which it now appears he helped to supply.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3H4368Iyr

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... apons.html


Quite a Selective Memory you have there, Seth.

Not relevant at all and yet another fallacy. The only thing that is relevant is that Saddam invaded Kuwait, was kicked out and signed a cease fire agreement which he then blatantly violated for 12 years, leading to his ouster by force.

You want to try Rumsfeld for supplying WMDs, go right ahead. That changes absolutely nothing about the justifications for taking him out.

[pErvinalia]

So when will the US be invading Israel?

[Seth]

So when will the US be invading Israel?

Not my department, and yet another lame evasion.

[mistermack]

It's you who doesn't know the difference between a weapon and ammunition. All ammunition are components of projectile weapons, but not all weapons are ammunition, nor are all weapons projectiles. And in this case, what was both ammunition and weapons ceased to be functional projectile ammunition but remained functional weapons of mass destruction.

Ha, dancing on the head of a pin.
I love to see you squirm. You still didn't answer the very first point.
Is a bullet a weapon? WITHOUT the gun that fires it?

Simple enough question, even for you.

[Seth]

It's you who doesn't know the difference between a weapon and ammunition. All ammunition are components of projectile weapons, but not all weapons are ammunition, nor are all weapons projectiles. And in this case, what was both ammunition and weapons ceased to be functional projectile ammunition but remained functional weapons of mass destruction.

Ha, dancing on the head of a pin.
I love to see you squirm. You still didn't answer the very first point.
Is a bullet a weapon? WITHOUT the gun that fires it?

Simple enough question, even for you.

Compositional fallacy:

Fallacy: Composition

Description of Composition

The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).

The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the "reasoning" would look something like this.

Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics.

It is important to note that drawing an inference about the characteristics of a class based on the characteristics of its individual members is not always fallacious. In some cases, sufficient justification can be provided to warrant the conclusion. For example, it is true that an individual rich person has more wealth than an individual poor person. In some nations (such as the US) it is true that the class of wealthy people has more wealth as a whole than does the class of poor people. In this case, the evidence used would warrant the inference and the fallacy of Composition would not be committed.

The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the whole without there being adequate justification for the claim. More formally, the line of "reasoning" would be as follows:

The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.

That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those properties. This is especially clear in math: The numbers 1 and 3 are both odd. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore, the number 4 is odd.

It must be noted that reasoning from the properties of the parts to the properties of the whole is not always fallacious. If there is justification for the inference from parts to whole, then the reasoning is not fallacious. For example, if every part of the human body is made of matter, then it would not be an error in reasoning to conclude that the whole human body is made of matter. Similiarly, if every part of a structure is made of brick, there is no fallacy comitted when one concludes that the whole structure is made of brick.
Examples of Composition

A main battle tank uses more fuel than a car. Therefore, the main battle tanks use up more of the available fuel in the world than do all the cars.

A tiger eats more food than a human being. Therefore, tigers, as a group, eat more food than do all the humans on the earth.

Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless.

"Every player on the team is a superstar and a great player, so the team is a great team." This is fallacious since the superstars might not be able to play together very well and hence they could be a lousy team.

"Each part of the show, from the special effects to the acting is a masterpiece. So, the whole show is a masterpiece." This is fallacious since a show could have great acting, great special effects and such, yet still fail to "come together" to make a masterpiece.

"Come on, you like beef, potatoes, and green beens, so you will like this beef, potato, and green been casserole." This is fallacious for the same reason that the following is fallacious: "You like eggs, icecream, pizza, cake, fish, jello, chicken, taco sauce, soda, oranges, milk, egg rolls, and yogurt so you must like this yummy dish made out of all of them."

Sodium and Chloride are both dangerous to humans. Therefore any combination of sodium and chloride will be dangerous to humans.

A solid projectile as in a rifle bullet is not in and of itself a weapon (usually...I suppose one could throw a rifle round as a weapon). The actual "weapon" in a rifle bullet is the bullet's mass and velocity delivered to the target, which is to say the energy imparted to the target upon impact.

A projectile filled with explosives however is a weapon even if not fired from a barrel or tube because the destructive power is not merely the projectile's velocity and mass, as it is in a rifle round, it's destructive power is the explosive charge within the projectile which can be released without firing the projectile through a tube or barrel. Firing the explosive projectile is merely a means of delivering the explosive charge to the target.

Sarin is a chemical weapon that is deadly to humans regardless of how it is delivered.

Sarin-filled artillery shells are weapons of mass destruction whether or not they are capable of being used as projectile delivery devices.

The failure in your reasoning is assuming that a rifle bullet is the same thing as a Sarin-filled artillery shell merely because the two things look roughly the same and are usually fired from a rifle or field piece, and that this makes them equivalent as "weapons".

[Seth]

After A Quarter Century, Department Of Defense Still Denies That US Troops Were Hit By Nerve Gas
5:02 PM 03/27/2015



Photo of Jonah Bennett
Jonah Bennett
Reporter, Daily Caller News Foundation

See All Articles
Send Email
Subscribe to RSS
Follow on Twitter

More than 200,000 of the 700,000 U.S. troops sent to Iraq and Kuwait during the Gulf War were hit by nerve gas, a fact the Department of Defense continues to deny and cover up.

But the effects of the nerve gas are undeniable, Newsweek reports. Troops who were nearest the nerve gas are suffering at non-trivial rates which seemingly can’t be chalked up to randomness. A clear pattern is emerging.

Medical experts are recording cancer rates at two or three times above average for the exposed troop population. In 2013, Jim Tuite and Dr. Robert Haley published an article in the journal Neuroepidemiology, finding that “large numbers of U.S. and Coalition military personnel were exposed to levels of sarin … high enough to cause irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects.”

Neurologist Dr. Linda Chao, based at the University of California Medical School in San Francisco, delved into just some of the specifics.

“Because part of their brains, the hippocampus, has shrunk, they’re at greater risk for Alzheimer’s and other degenerative diseases,” Chao told Newsweek.

At the time of exposure in the early 1990s, concerns were brushed under the table. Some lawmakers, like Democratic Sen. Donald Riegle, were suspicious, holding hearings in 1993 and 1994 to get to the bottom of the matter. Riegle interviewed over 600 veterans on their exposure to chemical weapons in a report he prepared. But Secretary of Defense William Perry and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs John Shalikashvili quickly wrote a memo in 1994 to squash the rumors circulating, saying to 20,000 veterans of Desert Storm that “No information…indicates that chemical or biological weapons were used in the Persian Gulf.”

But while the memo is technically correct, in that no chemical weapons were directly employed, it ignores the fact that exposure resulted from the release of the nerve agent sarin after U.S. bombs struck weapons facilities in Iraq. The strikes occurred sometime between January and February of 1991.

Veterans recalled that sirens capable of detecting noxious chemicals would regularly ring, but the only reply from the officers in charge was that the sirens were faulty and so should be shut off completely.

[jamest]

Even if that is true, the WMD issue relates to the 2nd war in Iraq. So what you need to do is find evidence for their existence in Iraq a decade or so later.

[Ian]

Are you assuming people don't read, Seth? That talks about 1991. The whole world knows there were chemical weapons in Iraq prior to and almost certainly during the Gulf War. Sadam had already used them against the Kurds and against Iran.

Now, prove there was still an active program in 2003.

You accuse others of being Hillary sycophants and such - does it cross your mind that you're a Bush sycophant? Because you're bending over backwards and looking pretty stupid trying to prop up bullshit.

[pErvinalia]

Even if that is true, the WMD issue relates to the 2nd war in Iraq. So what you need to do is find evidence for their existence in Iraq a decade or so later.

Exactly. Everyone knows they had WMD early on, as it was sold to them by the Brits and US (and maybe Germans too, I think). The question is, did they have them later on, as the "justification" for the second invasion went.

[Seth]

Even if that is true, the WMD issue relates to the 2nd war in Iraq. So what you need to do is find evidence for their existence in Iraq a decade or so later.

Let's see, Saddam used Sarin on the Kurds in the late 80s and on the Iranians during that war, invaded Kuwait, whereupon we defended our ally as required by our agreement with Kuwait, pushed Saddam's forces back to Baghdad, exposed troops to WMDs in the process, stopped short of killing the fucker the first time, gave him 14 years to comply with 12 UN resolutions to permit unrestricted WMD inspections, played shell games observed by satellite with WMD inspectors by moving WMDs out the back door as Saddam's minders delayed the UN convoys till the site was clear, obstructed UN investigations in every way possible, created fake nuclear and biological processing facilities to convince the rest of the world he was going nuke and biowar capable, was successful at his charade, shipped out thousands of tons of WMDs (sarin-filled artillery shells) to Syria just before the 2nd invasion on 747s and truck convoys under the guise of "earthquake relief", and then fought to the bitter end, winding up in a hole in the ground, which I'd have just bulldozed over, was convicted of war crimes by his own country and was hung by the neck until dead, dead, dead.

That's plenty of causus belli for any sane person to decide to take him out.

[pErvinalia]

Interesting theory there...

[Seth]

Even if that is true, the WMD issue relates to the 2nd war in Iraq. So what you need to do is find evidence for their existence in Iraq a decade or so later.

Exactly. Everyone knows they had WMD early on,

Exactly. Everyone knew this, and Saddam obstructed and denied every single attempt to verify that he had disposed of them.

as it was sold to them by the Brits and US (and maybe Germans too, I think).

It was Germany and France who supplied him with the components for Sarin, not the US.

The question is, did they have them later on, as the "justification" for the second invasion went.

Sure he did. And even if he didn't, his refusal to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors and his other efforts to prevent verification that he did NOT have them any longer is sufficient cause to re-open hostilities after HIS violation of the cease-fire agreement that kept him in power the first time around.

But it doesn't matter if he did nor did not, because the causus belli was that he was known to have WMDs, appeared to be manufacturing new WMDs including biological and nuclear weapons, and he refused to allow inspections to ensure he was obeying the terms of the cease-fire agreement. Those factors alone fully justify the 2nd invasion, which was about 13 years too late. We should have gone back in the instant he interfered with UN inspectors the very first time.

[Seth]

Interesting theory there...

Not a theory, it's a fact.

[pErvinalia]

Even if that is true, the WMD issue relates to the 2nd war in Iraq. So what you need to do is find evidence for their existence in Iraq a decade or so later.

Exactly. Everyone knows they had WMD early on,

Exactly. Everyone knew this, and Saddam obstructed and denied every single attempt to verify that he had disposed of them.

as it was sold to them by the Brits and US (and maybe Germans too, I think).

It was Germany and France who supplied him with the components for Sarin, not the US.

The question is, did they have them later on, as the "justification" for the second invasion went.

Sure he did. And even if he didn't, his refusal to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors and his other efforts to prevent verification that he did NOT have them any longer is sufficient cause to re-open hostilities after HIS violation of the cease-fire agreement that kept him in power the first time around.

So, when will you be calling for the invasion of Israel?

[pErvinalia]

Interesting theory there...

Not a theory, it's a fact.

So how come the actual weapons inspectors didn't believe he had WMD's? Marxists, I suppose.

And why did the US have to lie and make up evidence for the invasion? Prolly the Marxists again?