Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Assad’s fall could solve Iraqi weapons mystery
CJH    1/22/2012 9:47:00 PM

Assad’s fall could solve Iraqi weapons mystery

"Western and Israeli intelligence suspect that Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria also owns weaponized nerve agents. Spy satellites tracked a large number of truck convoys moving from Iraq to Syria in the weeks before the 2003 invasion, raising suspicions that some carried weapons of mass destruction. The invading Americans never found stocks of such weapons in Iraq, despite two years of searching by the Iraq Survey Group. The result spurred the political left to attack President Bush with slogans such as “Bush lied, troops died,” but nonpartisan national security figures said there was evidence that material may have been moved to Syria. There was just no way to get inside the Iranian-supported dictatorship to take a look. Zuhdi Jasser, a Syrian-American physician who co-founded the group Save Syria Now, is working to bring an elected secular government to Damascus. He said the Assad regime, which has used brutal repression to remain in power, can fall within a year if the popular uprising comes to the capital."

 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
Plutarch    Smitty   4/26/2012 10:33:19 PM
The phrase "suspension of disbelief" came to be used more loosely in the later 20th century, often used to imply that the burden was on the reader, rather than the writer, to achieve it. This might be used to refer to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises.
 
Right, and you still defined it the exact opposite. What you defined was suspension of "belief" not disbelief.
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    Smitty Response 2   4/27/2012 12:34:45 AM

I try to live by a certain code, Plutarch.  It may seem quaint, but I believe that as a former soldier and a police officer it is important that I abide by certain personal standards.  The first is that I have courage.  I have to be willing to do things that other people normally wouldn't do.  Next I have to be honest, both to others and myself.  I come by my beliefs after sorting through the available information and making informed decisions based upon what I believe the fact are.  If I am proven wrong I am willing to change my mind, but it always irritates me when someone claims to have all the facts and declares a debate over.  Last, but not least, I try to treat others the way I would want to be treated.  Usually that means maintaining a good brain/mouth filter and being cognizant of how my words could impact others. 

 

It is human nature to believe that people that don't share your views must be less intelligent or less intuitive than you, but expressing those sentiments in what is supposed to be an exchange of ideas serves no useful purporse.  I doubt you would do so in a face to face discussion, because depending upon the person you could open yourself to a punch in the nose.  To do so over the Internet is cowardly.

 

 
 

Smitty, I am not saying you are less intelligent, I have only ever asked that you back up your arguments. What you have posted so far is easily refutable. For example, I am sure you probably know the difference between UNSCOM and UNMOVIC but you probably confused the timeline when bringing up Scott Ritter (UNSCOM) and Hans Blix (UNMOVIC) together, and what they said about weapons inspections.
 
 
Don't get mad because you cannot argue. Remember, I only posted here after you came across as a bitter partisan, saying WMDs were found and Bush was right, and Bush haters would never admit it. I said the proposal that WMDs found in Iraq was a myth, citing UN and US Government reports stating such, and you said I needed to "suspend my disbelief" (belief is what you were actually talking about).
 

 

Smitty, I am sorry if you think I was rude, but I am not going to hold your hand either. You made poor arguments, and debate is cutthroat. As I said before you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. If you had really compelling evidence of hidden Iraqi WMDs or of a WMD transfer to Syria maybe it would have been a better debate, and I might have changed my mind, but you did not have any evidence.

So, I presume this debate is now over, and we can get back to our respective lives, or do you want to continue?
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       4/29/2012 4:57:40 PM
 
You are right party affiliation doesn't have anything to do with the discussion, which is why I am curious why you keep bringing up what Clinton and Gore said in the 1990s, which does not bring much to the WMDs in Iraq/Syria argument. Obviously if Bush was wrong about WMDs Clinton was as well.

 
Well I'm glad you agree about partisan affiliation but I was remarking more about personal details being irrelevant here. I did not keep bringing them up. You brought them up because I posted the videos. I have explained why I did that already.
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    Plutarch Pt.1   4/29/2012 9:54:03 PM
Your ability to twist my words to mean the exact opposite of what I intended is a true gift.  I'm sure it serves you well.  I have no doubt that you count a large number of debate "wins", but I would dare say that most of those victories are most likely instances where people simply got tired of dealing with you and walked away.  That's not exactly a "victory."
 
I also believe that GW Bush is a good man guided by principles, and I believe he conceded that there were no WMDs in Iraq for the good of the country.  The issue was becoming a distraction, and the military needed to shift its emphasis on fighting the growing counterinsurgency.  Lives were at stake, and there was a much greater chance of troops or civilians being killed by insurgents than by Iraqi WMDs.  That threat had been effectively neutralized when Saddam was deposed.  If he had intelligence that the WMDs had been moved to Syria, exposing that intelligence would have only escalated the campaign.  I realize you don't trust my memory, but do you remember news reports at the time saying that Syria could be next?  We had our hands full at the time, and Syria would not have been a pushover.  Maybe Bush will one day be exonerated on this issue, maybe he won't.  Only time will tell. 
 
I will reiterate my main point for the last time.  For some people (including you) the Iraqi WMD issue has become an article of faith.  Chemical weapons were found in Iraq after 2003, and the ISG did report that Iraq was in violation of UN mandates (yes, I did read a summary of the reports), but Bush critics dismiss any of this.  NOTHING will persuade them otherwise.  That was my point, and you haven't really dissuaded me from that belief.  If anything, you've reinforced it.  I guess we'll see what happens in Syria.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    Plutarch Wrap Up   4/29/2012 10:01:13 PM
I don't need your backhanded apologies, and I don't need you or anyone else to hold my hand.  One thing you are absolutely wrong about is debate being cutthroat.  It is supposed to be about exchanging ideas, not questioning your opponent's intelligence or integrity just because they have different beliefs.  You do a good job of presenting your arguments, but for  some reason feel it is necessary to resort to personal attacks, which is unfortunate.  If you want to participate in a bloodsport, take up MMA.  You may not be my kind of guy, Plutarch, but after this I'm not going to give you another thought.  After all I don't really know you, and this is only the internet. 
 
Congrats on the new baby.  You can have the last word if you want it. 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    Smitty   4/29/2012 11:45:46 PM

Your ability to twist my words to mean the exact opposite of what I intended is a true gift.  I'm sure it serves you well.  I have no doubt that you count a large number of debate "wins", but I would dare say that most of those victories are most likely instances where people simply got tired of dealing with you and walked away.  That's not exactly a "victory."

 

 

 
Winning and losing is irrelevant on the Internet, nobody admits they are wrong. I participated in competitive parliamentary debate as an undergrad, I won some debates and I lost some debates. It is a cutthroat business and sometimes that reflects in my online posts. Also, I am not really twisting your words, I am just pointing out your inconsistencies.:)

 

 

I also believe that GW Bush is a good man guided by principles, and I believe he conceded that there were no WMDs in Iraq for the good of the country.  The issue was becoming a distraction, and the military needed to shift its emphasis on fighting the growing counterinsurgency.  Lives were at stake, and there was a much greater chance of troops or civilians being killed by insurgents than by Iraqi WMDs. 

 

 

 

According to some of his advisers, Bush really withdrew mentally after WMDs were not found. Ari Fleischer said Bush was not as engaged as he was prior to that. I think Bush was a little overwhelmed by the insurgency, which he did not really tackle right away, and depressed that WMDs were not found.

 

 

That threat had been effectively neutralized when Saddam was deposed.  If he had intelligence that the WMDs had been moved to Syria, exposing that intelligence would have only escalated the campaign.  I realize you don't trust my memory, but do you remember news reports at the time saying that Syria could be next?  We had our hands full at the time, and Syria would not have been a pushover.  Maybe Bush will one day be exonerated on this issue, maybe he won't.  Only time will tell. 

 

 
 Syria was singled out because of its dictatorship not because the Administration thought it had Iraq's WMDs. Bolton said Syria should reform and become democratic.

 

 

I will reiterate my main point for the last time.  For some people (including you) the Iraqi WMD issue has become an article of faith.  Chemical weapons were found in Iraq after 2003, and the ISG did report that Iraq was in violation of UN mandates (yes, I did read a summary of the reports), but Bush critics dismiss any of this.  NOTHING will persuade them otherwise.  That was my point, and you haven't really dissuaded me from that belief.  If anything, you've reinforced it.  I guess we'll see what happens in Syria.

 

 

Smitty, the ISG also said that the discovery of those chemical munitions was irrelevant to their findings that Iraq had effectively disarmed by 1991. Regime intent was to disarm not to hide weapons or send them to another country. I fully acknowledge that some residual, and accounted for, munitions were "found", but that does not change the fact that Saddam had disarmed. You talk about WMDs as an article of faith, but you never brought any evidence that Saddam  had  hidden weapons, only an assumption (faith based). Also, the ISG report has been out nearly 8 years so I hope you did not read the report for the first time during this debate. Oh, and as for Iraq being found in violation of UN mandates, that determination was up to the UN Security Council to make, not for the US alone to make.

 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    Smitty Wrap-Up   4/30/2012 12:14:09 AM

I don't need your backhanded apologies, and I don't need you or anyone else to hold my hand.  One thing you are absolutely wrong about is debate being cutthroat.  It is supposed to be about exchanging ideas, not questioning your opponent's intelligence or integrity just because they have different beliefs.  You do a good job of presenting your arguments, but for  some reason feel it is necessary to resort to personal attacks, which is unfortunate.  If you want to participate in a bloodsport, take up MMA.  You may not be my kind of guy, Plutarch, but after this I'm not going to give you another thought.  After all I don't really know you, and this is only the internet. 

 

 

Competitive debate is cutthroat but we probably approached this differently. Was this really about exchanging ideas? Because from your first post you came across as someone unwilling to change his views, you talked about “Bush haters”, “Bush was right”, Plutarch already proved my point, etc. I provided evidence, and you dismissed it out of hand. What do you really know about Iraqi WMDs that does not come originally from UN or Iraqi documents, or post-war interviews with regime officials?  My guess is nothing.  

 
You can cling to your own article of faith, and if Assad falls and no Iraqi WMDs are found you can come up with another excuse as to what happened to them. It is sad Smitty that you will probably go to your grave convinced that Saddam had WMDs while nearly everyone else in the world is convinced he did not have them. If you were just an isolated case, some random, bitter partisan who could not accept the truth then it would be easy to dismiss your views. Unfortunately, I think, your view is widely held by some in the extreme right-wing who supported the war-especially SP posters-due to misinformation, which is why the view itself needs to be confronted and its believers be forced to defend their viewpoint.

 

My intent was not to ridicule you Smitty, I just wanted you to provide evidence of your belief, i.e. back up your argument. I told you where I got my evidence from, even Bush himself agrees with that evidence. Yet, you are so blinded by partisanship, you will not even admit that Bush himself admits he was wrong about WMDs.


 Anyway, this issue has been beat into the ground now. I am not holding my breath that Assad will fall, of course that gives you years and years of speculation about Iraqi WMDs.   Thanks for the congratulations on my baby. Well, good luck in life. 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    CJH   5/1/2012 9:08:13 AM
Well I'm glad you agree about partisan affiliation but I was remarking more about personal details being irrelevant here. I did not keep bringing them up. You brought them up because I posted the videos. I have explained why I did that already.
 
 
You made a personal assumption about me, implied by putting up irrelevant videos of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, I corrected you. If my personal details are irrelevant then so are assumptions about me, so keep them to yourself. If you have questions about my politics then ask, but don't take the cowardly route and put up videos of politicians that were not mentioned, without comments, and then try to weasel out by saying they were not directed to me. I am the only other poster on this thread so it was obvious what you were trying to do.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       5/28/2012 1:01:43 PM
You made a personal assumption about me, implied by putting up irrelevant videos of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, I corrected you. If my personal details are irrelevant then so are assumptions about me, so keep them to yourself. If you have questions about my politics then ask, but don't take the cowardly route and put up videos of politicians that were not mentioned, without comments, and then try to weasel out by saying they were not directed to me. I am the only other poster on this thread so it was obvious what you were trying to do.

 
Wrong, still. I did not put them up because of you alone. You are not the only critic of Bushes policies here.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       5/28/2012 1:03:18 PM
All I have seen from you so far concerning the article is opinion. Your opinions are no more valid than any others here. And the UN's opinions are just that.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics