Naysayers: Wrong On All Counts

[MMMMMM]

In this article, Mansoor Ijaz recounts events thus far in Iraq, lists the WMD finds, and outlines Iraq's clear connections to organized terror. And, more is sure still to come.

As Mr. Ijaz puts it, the naysayers have nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Facts refute erroneous viewpoints.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-ijaz041003.asp


By the way, after the mess in Iraq is mopped up and well in hand, it will be time to go get those Baath party officials hiding in Syria, and al Qaeda kingpin Zarqawi's men hiding just over the border in Iran. And our brave troops will be right in position to do it. I guess you could say that's another meaning of "nowhere to run and nowhere to hide." The days of dictators and terrorists increasingly appear to be numbered. And Bush's policies and actions are looking smarter and smarter every day.

[Cyrus]

Thanks for the link. The article describes Saddam Hussein as a "sadomasochist". This is quite intriguing. There's of course ample evidence that Saddam is a sadist -- but also a masochist?!

This cannot be metaphorical, in the sense that Saddam has repeatedly invited "punishment" by attacking Iran or invading Kuwait. Since the sadist part is obviously not metaphorical, the same should apply to the masochist part.

So. Are there any revealing pictures out there that show Saddam going both ways? I feel such an ignoramus. Links, please.

[MMMMMM]

I wondered the same as you about this, Cyrus. However there was a website which just might have such pictures of Saddam and his cronies, and I'm going to check it out now--if I can remember what it was called.

[IrishHand]

And to think they announced on CNN not an hour ago that the US and UK were preparing for the international fallout which might result from their having found absolutely no WMD to date. Of course, your link doesn't really dispute this either:

1. Weapons-grade plutonium: The writer claims that Marines found abnormally high radiation levels - and in an Atomic Energy Agency, no less. That should come as a huge surprise. He then disclaims is by acknowledging that it must be confirmed (by someone a little more scientically-inclined than a Marine, I would imagine) whether this is from weapons-grade plutonium.

2. Biological weapons: "Fox News' embedded reporter, Rick Leventhal, downloaded incredible video of what may be the first of Saddam's bioweapons labs on wheels." Sounds pretty conclusive to me. The writer again acknowledges that we'll actually have to examine the truck before we can conclude what might have been in it.

3. Chemical warheads: Curious both that they weren't used and that this isn't major international news. One would have to imagine that if the US found anything resembling WMD - and certainly chemical warheads "ready to fire" would qualify - they'd shout this news out to anyone who'll listen as that have done for the past two weeks every time they find baby powder or funny-colored sand.

4. Al Qaeda links. Refer you to #3 above, only substitute "supporting terrorists" for "WMD".

5. Terror toxins. Oh my God! They found evidence of WMDs in a terrorist camp. We should probably bomb that camp to oblivion and then claim it was somehow connected to Hussein even though it existed in a part of Iraq he didn't control and was idelogically opposed to him.

Sorry - it'll take a hell of a lot more than some random New Yorker's speculations about WMD and conjecture about terrorist connections to make me (or any other thoughtful individual, one would hope) that Iraq was any sort of threat to the US, thereby justifying the invasion and destruction of that nation. Of course, it sure is heartening to see all those liberated Iraqis looting every store, school and building they can lay their hands on.

[MMMMMM]

The vanilla:

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=9439
http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=9468
http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=9406
http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=6275
http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=8375
http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=8964

and the damning:

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=9145
http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=8988
http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=8268

[Cyrus]

"It'll take a hell of a lot more than some random New Yorker's speculations about WMD and conjecture about terrorist connections to make me (or any other thoughtful individual, one would hope) that Iraq was any sort of threat to the US, thereby justifying the invasion and destruction of that nation."

Please note that the article's writer is an investment banker.

[MMMMMM]

Speculations? 20 missiles found armed with sarin and ready to fire are speculations about WMD???

Cyrus, as you may not know, IrishHand is on my ignore list so I have read only your post, not his. Yet he insists on responding to my posts, knowing full well I won't rebut him. Actually, I grew tired of rebutting him, as he tended to post spuriously and with intent to troll--thus he gained the honor of being the only person on M's ignore list--ever. There is no point in continually rebutting poor arguments especially if the other person is not truly interested in a meaningful debate or discussion. His primary motivations, in my opinion and in the opinion of some other respected posters, are to inflame and to listen to himself speak.

I'm surprised if you haven't yet picked up on the poor quality of his arguments or on his trolling purposes.

That he calls recent discoveries of actual WMD speculations, and dismisses other relevant information while impugning the credentials of the article's author--as if that somehow changes the facts or arguments--should have alerted you.

[Dr Wogga]

....perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't recall you ever commenting when blacks loot and riot? Not being selective with your looting observations are you?

[Cyrus]

"Speculations? 20 missiles found armed with sarin and ready to fire are speculations about WMD???"

1. There has been no verifiable and official discovery of WMDs yet.
2. As I already wrote, them WMDs will be found, no doubt it.

"IrishHand is on my ignore list"

Lots of "ignore lists" going around! For the record, I ignore no one, not even Wogga-type posters. This is an educational website, if I didn't take a wrong turn somewhere.

[IrishHand]

Don't mind him Cyrus...he just got frustrated at being unable to come up with anything resembling counter-arguments to my posts - the exchanges tended to be:
Irish: the evidence is this.
M: my opinion is this.
Irish: how do you square that with the lack of evidence supporting it?
M: my opinion is this.
When I kept pointing out to him the senselessness of his "arguments", he decided to do the most mature thing possible and put his fingers in his ears and say "babababababa I'm not lissening! babababa". /forums/images/icons/smile.gif Of course, there is no "Ignore List" so he's just amusing himself on that count.

[IrishHand]

When have blacks looted and rioted? Actually, I'm pretty sure that nobody's looted and rioted on a large scale in the 6 or so months that I've been posting here so I'm sure you'll see how pointless your comment was. (Nevermind the fact that it's got nothing to do with Iraqis looting every commercial establishment in sight as a result of our "liberation" efforts.) I'll chalk your post up to ignorance rather than something less kind.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

Even you must admit that whatever has been found thus far amounts to more than mere "speculations." Even if you are disputing the sarin-headed missiles find, you must still acknowledge the difference between mere speculations and the findings of evidence--even inconclusive evidence.

There is a progressive chain of degree used in discussing such things: speculations being at the very bottom rung. Next come increasing degrees of evidence--and somewhere in that range is at least where you must admit we are (though we are probably beyond that with the 20 missiles find). Next comes complete irrefutable proof. For IrishHand to dismissively categorize all pieces of evidence as mere "speculation" is indeed intellectually dishonest, and this is an example of his commonly appled tactics in argument. It may stem from habitual intellectual dishonesty in the courtroom as he claims to be a lawyer. However I am not going to engage in regular discussion with someone who consistently mischaracterizes things in efforts to advance his side of the arguments. This forum is, for me at least, for educational purposes and genuine exchanges of ideas, not for intellectual dishonesty in order to further one's stance. And I've responded to and rebutted enough of his nonsense before, and more than that I'm not willing to waste time on.

[Clarkmeister]

I don't recall you commenting when whites loot and riot in places like Michigan State U. or Denver Colorado after their teams win or lose big sports games.

[Clarkmeister]

M,

The problem is that we have cried "wolf" a few too many times regarding potential WMD findings since this conflict began. Thus "inconclusive reports" have indeed become the same as mere speculation. Given that we haven't officially announced any WMD findings, its likely very safe to assume that we haven't discovered WMD yet. We would surely trumpet the fact to the world if we had found any.

That said, like Cyrus says, we WILL find WMD one way or another, and yes, I am suggesting that if we don't find some, we will plant some. Frankly it doesn't matter to me one way or another if we find any, but I suppose it does to some.

[Chris Alger]

There are probably hundreds of junk articles like these floating around the right-wing fringe. Most people that follow the press can through them, but since you think it's so obviously right, here are two quick points:

1. Weapons-grade plutonium. Your article claims that "an embedded journalist for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported on Thursday that Marine battalions had detected weapons-grade plutonium." It's a lie. The original article says nothing about detecting "weapons-grade plutonium." It's sole focus was on high levels of radiation being found in an underground series of bomb-proof buildings at a site IAEA inspectors had gone through several times. High radiation at the former site of two nuclear reactors hardly proves much.

The same event was reported in the other press, which raises the question of why your writer turned to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. One clue is that the Pittsburgh article is replete with speculation, although properly qualified about "perhaps" the underground portion of the site was unknown to inspectors (unreacahble for comment), "perhaps" a smoking gun lurks there, and so forth. It's a common propaganda pattern. Someone writes about a preliminary look into something interesting, speculates about what it could portend, and a committed propagandist exaggerates to make the speculation sound like truth, citing but not quoting his "source." The original article is at http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/iraq/s_128200.html

And why so much radiation? The Washington Post provides a more mundane explanation: "Since the early 1990s, large quantities of uranium and dozens of radioactive devices used in medicine and research have been stored at the site in warehouses that are sealed and monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog." Some "smoking gun." This is worst than the "terrorist training camp" with the airliner mock-up.

2. Ties to terrorists. The only "evidence" for this is your (now discredited) writer's conclusion that "In the north, Coalition troops found paperwork early in the campaign after bombing the Sargat camp that indisputably tied the terrorists of Ansar al-Islam." And what acts of "international terrorism" has Ansar committed outside Iraq? He can't say. What was the nature of the "tie?" He can't say. What lanuage in the documents warrants his conclusion? He can't say.

Here's the take on Ansar from the International Crisis Group: "ICG Middle East Project Director Joost Hiltermann said:
"Profound ideological differences and a history of atrocities committed by the regime against the Kurds make a strong connection between Saddam Hussein and Ansar al-Islam extremely unlikely. If there is support from Baghdad, it is likely to be in the form of financial assistance, motivated by a desire to keep a finger in the pot, stir up trouble among the Kurds and keep the PUK on the defensive, rather than a strategic alliance with Ansar's cause."
http://216.239.53.100/custom?q=cache:LBu-A60-gZoC:www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/590331+ansar+al-islam&hl=en&start=2&ie=UTF-8

Your guy can't offer a thing to refute this analysis. Let's assume, however, that Baghdad provided some sort of financial assistance to Ansar due to the presence of a common foe. The argument for invading Iraq because of its ties to international terrorism was that Saddam was not only inclined but likely to help terrorist attack the US. If Ansar al-Islam is the best that you war promoters can come up with, you're probably better advised to stick with the merits of nation building.

[Dr Wogga]

....but I haven't commented on any looting that I'm aware of. By Irish hand only commenting on Iraqi looting (to obviously support his anti-Bush, anti-USA rhetoric) I am asking if he has commented on any rioting and looting done by other groups e.g. blacks, latinos after soccer matches, canadian drunks up in Vancouver B.C. after a stanley cup series, and multi-ethnic (yes including, if not the majority being whites)looting and rioting in just about any city in the US that wins some major sporting championship. But then again, perhaps I did? The point is Irish hand is being a typical liberal "parser" of information, only using that information that suits his agenda.

[andyfox]

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Friday characterized widespread looting in Iraq as a period of "untidiness" and suggested it was only a transitional phase on the way to freedom from Saddam Hussein's rule.

"We do feel an obligation to assist in providing security, and coalition forces are doing that," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference. "Where they see looting, they are stopping it."

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression," he said.

[B-Man]

It's really just a sale... a "100% off" sale. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[TimTimSalabim]

One thing's for certain, we may not find any WMDs or terrorist links, but we will find lots of a certain substance of great interest to the Bush administration over there. That's why it's called Operation Iraqi Liberation.

[IrishHand]

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression," he said.
Yeah...every time I feel repressed, I jack a computer and cart it away down the street so CNN can have something interesting to air. I can only assume that logic would likewise condone the Rodney King riots or any other flagrant violation of property rights. I wonder how many Iraqi business owners are feeling liberated of anything other than their inventory?

[jacobl]

Heh. I prefer "the redistribution of wealth".

[adios]

"There are probably hundreds of junk articles like these floating around the right-wing fringe."

Well Chris it's all a matter of one's perspective but I'd guess the right-wing fringe for you would be a little to the right of Edward Kennedy /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif .

[andyfox]

The National Review is certainly right of mainstream conservative politics, and thus would definitely qualify as the right-wing fringe.

[Chris Alger]

The poles are sort of reversed when it comes to foreign policy. So-called radicals like me are prefer limited government, local autonomy and respect for tradition and individual rights. We are skeptical of government claims about things that are not apparent, particularly those likey to inspire fear or hatred, and demand officials and governments to account for an accept full responsiblity for their acts. We emphasize the costs and risks of intervention and the ability of local actors to resolve their problems over time. For us, dissidence is both rationally self-serving and socially responsible.

So-called "conservatives" tend to be state-worshipping cultists when the topic turns to war. Look at the people who denounce "social engineering" and "political correctness" and who demand compelling reasons for domestic regulation, spending and taxes. On these matters, conservatives believe that dissidence is both self-serving and socially responsible. But when it comes to the scariest and most extreme powers possessed by "big government," the same people demand maximum deference to the state, take it on faith that national leaders have the best interests of "the people" at heart -- in fact, they can't imagine any interest leaders might have that doesn't sound sophomoric or conspiratorial -- and find dissidence, even rational skepticism, over these matters to be destructive and at least vaguely disloyal.