Report: U.S. Finds Missiles with Chemical Weapons

[erik]

TRASK

 

I WAS JUST POSTING THE ARTICLE...

 

I MADE NO COMMENT ON WHAT I THOUGHT!!

 

BUT THANKS FOR THE INPUT!

[allthumbs]

...this is a good emoticon

[MtnGoat]

"China, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Iran, and North Korea are also suspected of having undeclared stockpiles of chemical weapons. "

 

Since we have relations with China, Egypt and Israel, there are other ways of dealing with this. N Korea is more problematic, but it, Iran, and Syria are next on the list, and justifiably so.

 

"Libya, Sudan, Pakistan, and India are also suspected of having chemical weapons facilities or capabilites."

 

Apply the above to whichever of these nations the former couple conditions apply to. To those we can work with in good faith, given our own proven record of destruction of our stockpiles, fully inspected and documented, great. To those who do not, and who participate in support Islamic fascism, they'll need a different route.

[MtnGoat]

"Just want to point out that the "smoking gun" they found was nothing more than pesticide."

 

You mean missiles containing Sarin are filled with pesticides? Weird. That's a hell of a pesticide, I guess it depends on how one defines pests!

 

"Until they find WMD, they're going to have a hard time convincing liberal wankers like me that the war was justified."

 

Does this mean that since they've found them, you can now be convinced? Doesn't look like it, since you're not noticing they *are* finding WMD right now.

 

 

[JGowans]

eternalX said:Two questions:

 

1. Even if the war was about oil (which it really isn't), won't the liberation of iraq happen as well? Are you against the liberation?

 

2. Wouldn't pulling out the troops now completely fuck the people of iraq? My response to all those "bring the troops back home" signs.

 

How the do you know it's not all about oil? Do you have some inside track that the rest of us don't? Let me guess, you're his daughter's "pharmacist" right? The two of you stay up late till the wee small hours popping prescription drugs talking about the war and how it's oh so not about oil but rather the vanquishing of evil, right?

 

Am I against liberation? Let me think long and hard about that one. If the U.S. were to invade Canada and "liberate" those poor desperate souls from the oppressive Canadian socialist government, I think I'd be against that. If you were to refer to let's say the allied forces liberating France from German occupation in WWII, then I'd support that. That in my mind constitutes liberation. Uni-lateral invasion of soverign nations however fucked up their governing structure is perceived to be does not connote "liberation" for me.

 

Would pulling out troops completely fuck the people of Iraq? Hmm, talk about self-fulfilling prophecies. Yes, pulling them out now would undoubtedly fuck them up. However, don't you think putting them there in the first place kind of fucked the people of Iraq first of all? That's akin to England saying that if they left N. Ireland, the protestants would be fucked. Of course they would! But if the English hadn't have gone there in the first place, there wouldn't be all the strife there is today. Let's not kid ourselves. The U.S. & Britain created the situation there is today.

 

To suggest that we're in there liberating folks like some fucking band of merry freedom fighters pitting the forces of good against evil is bullshit. There are plots, sub-plots, agendas hidden and not, and hush-hush business deals all consumated by the king-makers picking a puppet to put in place to give a nod and a wink and a swish of a pen auctioning off the wealth of a nation with their culture, and dignity not far behind.

 

Spray on numb nuts.

[MtnGoat]

"wouldn't want you conservatives bickering among yourselves. you need all the brain power you can muster to launch insults at anti-war pansies like me."

 

I doesn't take but a fraction of a brain's power to take care of that very effectively!

 

 

[JGowans]

MtnGoat said:

"Just want to point out that the "smoking gun" they found was nothing more than pesticide."

 

You mean missiles containing Sarin are filled with pesticides? Weird. That's a hell of a pesticide, I guess it depends on how one defines pests!

 

"Until they find WMD, they're going to have a hard time convincing liberal wankers like me that the war was justified."

 

Does this mean that since they've found them, you can now be convinced? Doesn't look like it, since you're not noticing they *are* finding WMD right now.

 

 

Are we talking about the same thing here? 'Cos this is what I'm talking about...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030407/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_wmd_030407175243

[MtnGoat]

"I believe MtnGoat is a Libertarian, which is not the same thing as conservative, though there will be some opinion overlap. Perhaps you meant to say MtnGoat is pro Iraq war. "

 

Thanks for the deft correction, Off White. May not agree with you often, but you're always a decent debate target.

 

Think of me as a conservilib, or a liberservative.

 

In any case, when a guy like Saddam has ties to Islamofacism, has violated the conditions of his ceasefire for 12 years, will do anything to anyone, and has weapons like these, yes, it's time to take him out.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"How the do you know it's not all about oil? Do you have some inside track that the rest of us don't?"

 

For one thing, increased oil supplies mean lower chances of high prices, which isn't something a profit driven oil company would be interested in. Especially since the number of economic reserves *increases* as oil prices go up and marginal fields become valuable, thus increasing supply and placing downward pressure on prices again.

 

Secondly, if we wanted the oil, it would be far easier, and cheaper, to simply press to drop the sanctions.

[JGowans]

Does that mean it's also justified to topple the governments of China, N. Korea, Cuba, and all Arab nations in the name of liberation from oppression? Where does this end? Is the lesson to be learned "If we don't agree with you, consider yourself fucked and prepare for liberation muthafucka."?

[MtnGoat]

"Are we talking about the same thing here? 'Cos this is what I'm talking about..."

 

No, I'm talking about the missiles found, posted in the starting post for this thread.

 

[j_b]

what about getting back to the topic? what is it that they found?

[JGowans]

MtnGoat said:

"How the do you know it's not all about oil? Do you have some inside track that the rest of us don't?"

 

For one thing, increased oil supplies mean lower chances of high prices, which isn't something a profit driven oil company would be interested in. Especially since the number of economic reserves *increases* as oil prices go up and marginal fields become valuable, thus increasing supply and placing downward pressure on prices again.

 

Secondly, if we wanted the oil, it would be far easier, and cheaper, to simply press to drop the sanctions.

 

On the other hand, if the U.S. controls the oil wells, it's therefore part of OPEC and thus the laws of supply and demand don't apply. When you are a cartel, you control the supply and pricing. Supply and demand only works in an open market. Got any other "justification"?

[eternalX]

JGowans said:

eternalX said:Two questions:

 

1. Even if the war was about oil (which it really isn't), won't the liberation of iraq happen as well? Are you against the liberation?

 

2. Wouldn't pulling out the troops now completely fuck the people of iraq? My response to all those "bring the troops back home" signs.

 

How the do you know it's not all about oil? Do you have some inside track that the rest of us don't? Let me guess, you're his daughter's "pharmacist" right? The two of you stay up late till the wee small hours popping prescription drugs talking about the war and how it's oh so not about oil but rather the vanquishing of evil, right?

 

 

 

Am I against liberation? Let me think long and hard about that one. If the U.S. were to invade Canada and "liberate" those poor desperate souls from the oppressive Canadian socialist government, I think I'd be against that. If you were to refer to let's say the allied forces liberating France from German occupation in WWII, then I'd support that. That in my mind constitutes liberation. Uni-lateral invasion of soverign nations however fucked up their governing structure is perceived to be does not connote "liberation" for me.

 

Would pulling out troops completely fuck the people of Iraq? Hmm, talk about self-fulfilling prophecies. Yes, pulling them out now would undoubtedly fuck them up. However, don't you think putting them there in the first place kind of fucked the people of Iraq first of all? That's akin to England saying that if they left N. Ireland, the protestants would be fucked. Of course they would! But if the English hadn't have gone there in the first place, there wouldn't be all the strife there is today. Let's not kid ourselves. The U.S. & Britain created the situation there is today.

 

To suggest that we're in there liberating folks like some fucking band of merry freedom fighters pitting the forces of good against evil is bullshit. There are plots, sub-plots, agendas hidden and not, and hush-hush business deals all consumated by the king-makers picking a puppet to put in place to give a nod and a wink and a swish of a pen auctioning off the wealth of a nation with their culture, and dignity not far behind.

 

Spray on numb nuts.

 

ah yes....respond with name calling . woohoo! that really makes your point. That's as funny as the violent anti-war marches. That really shows how violence never solved anything.

 

And yes...I have thought a lot about it and read quite a bit of news on the subject and while I'm not 100% certain of what weighs highest on the administration's mind, i do believe it is a combination of these primary factors:

 

1. Eliminate Iraq as a threat to the U.S. by either direct or indirect (selling/sponsoring nuclear/chemical/etc weapons to terrorists) means.

2. Liberate the people of Iraq from a repressive dictator that has gassed his own people, threatened Isreal, and continues to make war in the region

3. Send a message to other countries in the region that if you allow state-sponsored terrorism and engage in nuclear/chemical weapon production and research the U.S. will not hestitate to destroy your government as well (same motivation as Afghanistan).

4. Lend the UN and US some credibility in its decision making. In other words, not allow countries to think they UN's threats are at all idle.

 

Secondary motives might possibly be

1. Oil - they have a lot of it and even though GB is actually an exporter of oil, we don't want the regime to have access to that sort of money

 

I really don't think that if England left Northern Ireland the Irish would start killing every protestant left in the country. and No, I don't believe we are some bunch of merry freedom fighters, but we do have that track history. We've been involved in how manf skirmishes/wars now and how much more land do we occupy then at the turn of the century? none

 

[JGowans]

eternalX said:

ah yes....respond with name calling . woohoo! that really makes your point. That's as funny as the violent anti-war marches. That really shows how violence never solved anything.

Umm, I'm not sure that name-calling can be categorized as being violent nor do I recognize the correlation between me calling you numb-nuts and violent anti-war demonstrations. So, I suppose I don't have a comment for that one. I would agree that violent anti-war demonstrations are idiotic though.

 

1. Eliminate Iraq as a threat to the U.S. by either direct or indirect (selling/sponsoring nuclear/chemical/etc weapons to terrorists) means.

Does this mean that we're going to invade, whoops, I mean liberate Russia next? Btw, no proof exists (that I know of at least) that Iraq sold weapons to terrorists or sponsored terrorism. There were a couple of forged documents but that's the extent of it as far as I know. Am I missing something?

 

2. Liberate the people of Iraq from a repressive dictator that has gassed his own people, threatened Isreal, and continues to make war in the region

This is a tough one. I really do feel terrible for those poor people, but who are we to judge the rest of the world and assert our morals and ideals? As for Israel, I'm not going say too much other than they continue to instigate and escalate much of the region's woes.

3. Send a message to other countries in the region that if you allow state-sponsored terrorism and engage in nuclear/chemical weapon production and research the U.S. will not hestitate to destroy your government as well (same motivation as Afghanistan).

Again, no proof exists that Iraq sponsors terrorism. Just to clarify your stance, are you saying that only the U.S. should be allowed to produce WMD and that any other country that produces WMD should be invaded, er, liberated?

4. Lend the UN and US some credibility in its decision making. In other words, not allow countries to think they UN's threats are at all idle.

Any credbility that the U.N. may have had was completely eradicated the day the U.S. & Britain set foot in Iraq. That organization has been rendered irrelevant by these 2 countries ignoring the opinion and will of the democratized world and doing whatever the fuck they want.

 

Secondary motives might possibly be

1. Oil - they have a lot of it and even though GB is actually an exporter of oil, we don't want the regime to have access to that sort of money

A rich nation is a dangerous nation. Is that the thought process here? A poor country can be more readily manipulated by having carrots dangled in front of it?

 

I really don't think that if England left Northern Ireland the Irish would start killing every protestant left in the country. and No, I don't believe we are some bunch of merry freedom fighters, but we do have that track history. We've been involved in how manf skirmishes/wars now and how much more land do we occupy then at the turn of the century? none

We don't need to occupy anything to cotrol it right? That's the name of the game...control and contain. Maintain the veneer that these countries control their own destiny to pacify the masses but behind the scenes manipulate them as you see fit.

 

[Peter_Puget]

Peace

[erik]

j_b said:

what about getting back to the topic? what is it that they found?

 

PESTICIDES

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"what about getting back to the topic? what is it that they found?"

 

Warheads filled with Sarin and other treats.

 

The guy who keeps repeating "pesticides" is a prime example of why some people did not accept that this possession was already proven, and then ignored, by the UN. No matter what turns up, no proof is enough.

 

[MtnGoat]

"On the other hand, if the U.S. controls the oil wells, it's therefore part of OPEC and thus the laws of supply and demand don't apply."

 

The US is not an OPEC nation.

 

"When you are a cartel, you control the supply and pricing."

 

Of the oil in your cartel. You do not control the pricing of those not in your cartel.

 

 

"Supply and demand only works in an open market."

 

There are many other oil producing nations not in OPEC. The existence of multiple sources means OPEC is not in control of the pricing.

 

"Got any other "justification"?"

 

I don't believe I provided any, nor need to. Oil is not a justification for this war, as I've demonstrated. If oil was the goal, why not just eliminate the sanctions? What will happen to your theory when the oilfields remain owned by Iraq?

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"I really do feel terrible for those poor people, but who are we to judge the rest of the world and assert our morals and ideals?"

 

You have no problem judging the US. You have no problem judging it's political parties, or the actions of it's citizens, or deciding they should follow morals and ideals you support the imposition of by force.

 

Why doesn't your respect for the choices of people in other places, extend to your neighbor?

Edited April 8, 2003 by MtnGoat

[MtnGoat]

"Does that mean it's also justified to topple the governments of China, N. Korea, Cuba, and all Arab nations in the name of liberation from oppression?"

 

Not unless they present a threat to the security of the US and it's citizens.

 

 

"Where does this end?"

 

When nations do not present a danger to us and we have normalized relations with them so we can discuss with trust things we disagree on. You don't see us bombing france, or germany, or Sweden, or Turkey simply because they disagree. We get along fine with lots of nations we don't agree with.

 

"Is the lesson to be learned "If we don't agree with you, consider yourself fucked and prepare for liberation muthafucka."?"

 

No, it's "if you a part of the islamo fascist support system, and you have no track record of working with us on this, and show no signs of changing, and possess ties with suicide bombing organizations and the means to make their attacks far more lethal, and you're a madman who can't be trusted, you'd better think twice". It's pretty straightforwards.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"Again, no proof exists that Iraq sponsors terrorism."

 

False. Saddam proudly signed checks to the families of Islamic suicide bombers as bounties for killing Israelis. Saddam was a known supporter of Abu Nidal and provided cash, training, and sanctuary for him.

 

The only proof we don't have is any direct ties to Al Queda, and I'll be surprised if that doesn't turn up too.

 

"Just to clarify your stance, are you saying that only the U.S. should be allowed to produce WMD and that any other country that produces WMD should be invaded, er, liberated?"

 

The US and other signatory nations are in the process of destroying, verifiably, all bio and chemical weapons stocks.

 

You do not see us demanding France or England disarm, and they have nukes.

 

"Any credbility that the U.N. may have had was completely eradicated the day the U.S. & Britain set foot in Iraq."

 

 

Entirely true. And of their own making. That they would not carry out the hammer part of their own resolutions made them useless and pointless.

 

"That organization has been rendered irrelevant by these 2 countries ignoring the opinion and will of the democratized world and doing whatever the fuck they want."

 

That organization has been near useless for decades and it's performance in the last 15 years has sealed it's decline. It's now a debating society, which is more interested in having everyone debating, than actually making right decisions. The fact that Iraq was about to head up the disarmament branch is a case in point.

 

 

[JayB]

JGowans said:

 

How the do you know it's not all about oil? Do you have some inside track that the rest of us don't? Let me guess, you're his daughter's "pharmacist" right? The two of you stay up late till the wee small hours popping prescription drugs talking about the war and how it's oh so not about oil but rather the vanquishing of evil, right?

 

I think I'm trotting this stuff out for like the fourth time, but...If all we wanted out of Iraq was the oil and we were not the least bit worried about what Saddam and Co would use the money for, we would have never even attempted to put sanctions on his regime, and would have simply bought all of the oil the guy could pump, and shipped him all of the hardware he needed to do so. The increasing volume coming to market would serve our interest by keeping a lid on prices, not to mention saving us the 100 billion plus it would take to invade and occupy the country. Moreover, why did we not simply occupy and or seize the Iraqi oilfields under the guise of liberating them back in 1991, if oil is in fact the only strategic consideration which precipitated this attack on Iraq? Do you really think that its likely that the US's perception of its strategic interests has changed that drastically in a dozen years?

 

Am I against liberation? Let me think long and hard about that one.....If you were to refer to let's say the allied forces liberating France from German occupation in WWII, then I'd support that. That in my mind constitutes liberation. Uni-lateral invasion of soverign nations however fucked up their governing structure is perceived to be does not connote "liberation" for me.

 

So by this logic if there had been only one nation left that was capable of defeating the Nazis and liberating Europe you would have opposed this on principle?

 

Would pulling out troops completely fuck the people of Iraq? Hmm, talk about self-fulfilling prophecies. Yes, pulling them out now would undoubtedly fuck them up. However, don't you think putting them there in the first place kind of fucked the people of Iraq first of all? That's akin to England saying that if they left N. Ireland, the protestants would be fucked. Of course they would! But if the English hadn't have gone there in the first place, there wouldn't be all the strife there is today. Let's not kid ourselves. The U.S. & Britain created the situation there is today.

 

Are you seriously saying that everything was A-Okay in Iraq until about three weeks ago? If we hadn't invaded, Saddam's regime would have miraculously ceased to murder anyone that dared oppose the regime?

 

Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to figure out where you are coming from.

 

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

Do you really think that its likely that the US's perception of its strategic interests has changed that drastically in a dozen years?

 

no, it has not changed. It's just that the neo-cons have a very different way of achieving geo-political control of the region with the largest known oil reserves.

 

by the way: http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392.asp?0dm=-234N

 

so what is mtngoat going to say now?

[vegetablebelay]

Fuckin A, get it straight! MtnGoat is talking about 20 missiles, you are talking about barrels found South of Baghdad!