Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

schwern (1528)

schwern
  (email not shown publicly)
http://schwern.net/
AOL IM: MichaelSchwern (Add Buddy, Send Message)
Jabber: schwern@gmail.com

Schwern can destroy CPAN at his whim.

Journal of schwern (1528)

Wednesday May 28, 2003
04:01 PM

The logic escapes me.

[ #12484 ]
Rummy's at it again

In an effort to explain why no chemical or biological weapons had been found in Iraq, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said yesterday the regime may have destroyed them before the war.

Speaking to the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations thinktank, he said the speed of U.S. advance may have caught Iraq by surprise, but added: "It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."

Somewhere deep in an Iraqi bunker... The Americans are coming! Quickly, destroy all the weapons we've been hiding from them so history won't look bad on us... but we'll all be dead from a smart bomb anyway... and we're destroying the weapons we were hiding which is the reason they're coming... and we're disarming in the face of an invasion. Does anyone think this plan has a few flaws?

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Over in Great Britain, Tony Blair is taking a lot of heat because those weapons were the primary reason for our unpopular invasion. Over here in "love it or leave it" America, you don't hear a lot about it. Colin Powell cites plagiarized intelligence reports (which Britain later admitted) and forged documents (that no one claims to know the origin of) and yet no seems to care.

    So we're going after Saddam for the weapons but we couldn't find them. Eh, maybe we were going after him for his role in 9/11.

    • Careful; I seem to remember believing that the threat of force is a credible deterrant and I'm rather displeased by the feeble apologetics of a shifting justification. If there's no serious evidence of a credible threat, the action was unjustified. I think a lot of people are better off, but a lot of people are dead and still more are suffering through a lot of chaos. Someone ought to answer for that.

      Then again, I have serious doubts that an intelligence agency that couldn't even find its pants to have

    • The justification to invade Iraq was that Iraq didn't live up to their commitment to 'fully, proactively and immediately' disarm as required by Resolution 1441. Everyone who signed on to Resolution 1441, the entire UN Security council, was clear on the fact that Iraq did possess such weapons.

      It was clear that they were playing games with the UN Inspectors. It's also clear from what we are finding that they had an active program to develop or research WMDs.

      The fact that they may have been busy destroying

      • Also consider there are at least a few other countries that have WMD and are not considered a threat to world peace by the US and its allies?

        You're not going to break into the house of someone living across town because you suspect he has a weapon (while all he has is some fire crackers) and you're afraid he is going to break into your extremly well protected mansion, while other people in your neighbourhood do have weapons and brag about it?

        Yes, Saddam probably has broken Geneva Convention regulations,
      • You know, when I read a news story about Iraq on Arab News [arabnews.com], I am painfully aware that they have their own agenda and will see things from a different viewpoint. I think this is an important thing to remember, particularly when I notice (and I have on more than one occassion) that their coverage of an event is often radically different from US coverage.

        If one accepts that to be a reasonable point of view, then it's also fair to point out that a news site such as News Max [newsmax.com] (linked to by you) which does not

        • CBS News impartial! Give me a break. Read former CBS news reporter Bernard Goldberg's book Bias about the extreme liberal bias at CBS.

          Hey, maybe you should become a journalist, the way you spin the facts and selectively quote. First, you impune Woolsey as being a former CIA Director (under Clinton, BTW, so that should help to eliminate Republican slant). Then you take that one quote out of the article and spin it to make it seem like Woolsey only supports my point tangentially or weakly.

          You said that

          • jordan, I try write carefully, so please read it carefully and do not accuse me of saying things that I did not say. I'm a pretty easy going person and I don't mind at all if you disagree with me. I do mind if you misrepresent what I say. I did not write that CBS is impartial. I wrote that CBS is 'allegedly' impartial. Further, I pointed out that Woolsey was no longer the director of the CIA because you did not and I felt that it was relevant to whether or not he is privy to current information. Howev

              • I did not write that CBS is impartial. I wrote that CBS is 'allegedly' impartial.

              Oh, come on, if you weren't presenting CBS as impartial in contradistinction to Arab News, what were you doing? I thought the use of 'allegedly' was just an attempt at irony. It seems that there is support for this as you imply below that CBS could only be expected to have a conservative slant due to their ownership.

              • Further, I pointed out that Woolsey was no longer the director of the CIA because you did not and I felt th
      • It was clear that they were playing games with the UN Inspectors.

        You don't invade a country because they're playing parliamentary games.

        Certainly, if Iraq had no WMD, they could have fully cooperated with the UN Inspectors and made a mockery of the US and probably gotten the sanctions lifted in no time.

        I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment). Just th

          • I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment).

          The US didn't lose a war where one of the conditions of Armistice was full accounting and destruction of their Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iraq signed on to conditions of inspections in 1992, thus no sovereignty was being violated. We were just enforcing the terms of that Armistice.

          No matter how hard you try to spin

          • I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment).

            The US didn't lose a war where one of the conditions of Armistice was full accounting and destruction of their Weapons of Mass Destruction.

            You miss the point. You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt. Consider the hypothectical situation of UN weapon inspectors in the US. Yo

              • You miss the point. You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt.

              When Resolution 1441 required 'full, immediate and proactive disarmament' and a full accounting for weapons that previous UN inspectors had identified and they play games, that is not an admission of guilt, that is, in itself, a violation.

              I think you miss the point our insisting on the language of Resolution 1441 requiring "full, immediate and proactive disarmament". You see, inspections have never worked

            • You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt.

              I don't. I think it is very fishy, but not necessarily a sign of guilt.

              Consider the hypothectical situation of UN weapon inspectors in the US. You know the US would scream bloody murder if they came into our country, regardless of the reason.

              So? Then we would be wrong too. Look, Iraq was stated as guilty by the UN Security Council, and that guilty verdict was reaffirmed more than a dozen times in a dozen years; Iraq itself
              • You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt.

                I don't. I think it is very fishy, but not necessarily a sign of guilt.

                To clarify ... yes, it IS absolute guilt under Resolution 1441, Resolution 687, etc. Iraq was guilty, without any doubt, of breaching those resolutions, which Resolution 1441 said would result in serious consequences, and Resolution 687 said would require the UN Security Council to take further steps (which it refused to do).

                Iraq was absolutely guilty of
            • See, here's the problem with that: That Armistice was signed with the UN, not the US and Britian. We can't charge in under the pretext of enforcing an argreement signed with a different political body.

              That is an eminently fair point to make, but it misses something, IMO. Resolution 687 was not merely a warning to Iraq to comply or else; it was a promise to the United States that the UN Security Concil would handle the situation. It was a cease-fire between Iraq, Kuwait, and the other nations involved.

              T
        • Does it really matter how they destroyed them as long as they got destroyed?

          Yes, it does. There is a reason that Resolution 687 says that the destruction of biological and chemical weapons must be conducted under UN supervision: verification. We cannot trust their word.

          Same result either way, weapons destroyed.

          Assuming they actually are destroyed ... something we logically cannot do, without verification.

          Hans Blix was clear on the point that it is, absolutely, Iraq's obligation to account for all t
    • Colin Powell cites plagiarized intelligence reports (which Britain later admitted) and forged documents (that no one claims to know the origin of) and yet no seems to care.

      First, there is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that Powell or the Bush cabinet had any knowledge that these were forged. Second, I'd wager more people know that they were forged than knew that they ever existed in the first place ... it's not exactly important in the grand scheme of things, as they were never a major component to
  • From Arundhati Roy:

    «Of course, there’ll be no answers. True Believers will make do with those fuzzy TV reports about the discovery of a few barrels of banned chemicals in an old shed. There seems to be no consensus yet about whether they are really chemicals, whether they are actually banned, and whether the vessels they’re contained in can technically be called barrels. (There were unconfirmed rumours that a teaspoonful of potassium permanganate and an old harmonica w