soc.culture.iraq

"Zeno" wrote in message
news:1d14e3h512bj72gup1jqlp47d148ecrdvj@ ...
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:42:38 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:27:27 -0500, Zeno wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:58:28 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>He would've come to the conclusion that Iraq had no WMD.
>>>
>>>Do others have a tendency to not take you seriously ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If Hans Blix and UNMOVIC had searched Iraq for a few more months for
>>the WMD in 2003 instead of Bush invading, then what conclusion do YOU
>>think they would've come to based on the fact that no WMD were ever
>>found?
>
> Your argument is after the fact.

No actually it isnt! In fact Blix/UNMOVIC was in Iraq just before the US
invaded. He couldnt find ANY WMD then! He accepted that it was possible
there might be since he/UNMOVIC had only verified 99 percent or so of the
WMD so he didnt know about the one percent since he hadnt seen it destroyed.
But this is wholly apart from US claims as to the whereabouts of loads and
loads of WMD ready for launch and that the US knew where these WMD were.


>
> One doesn't know that no one in Iraq will confess to not having WMD
> until you take over the country and allow an Iraqi to confess to such.
>
> Without the double negative...
>
> One doesn't know that an Iraqi will confess to having WMD until you
> take over the country and allow an Iraqis to confess to such.

But this is the kernel of the issue. ONE DOES NOT KNOW! when one does not
know one does not assume guilt! One assumes innocence! based on your
principle every person accused of any crime should be punished since one
does not know if they are innocent!

Then you continue in your persumption of guilt by suggesting Iraq should be
allowed to confess. How can they confess if there are no WMD?


Furthermore, as it seems you have been warned about several times you fall
into the logically fallacies of provinga negative and also of shifting the
burden.

One can not prove WMD are NOT in Iraq it is the positive that is to be
proven and not the negative, ie the positive claim being "WMD ARE in Iraq".

Secondly it is for the one making the positive claim . YOU to prove it!
You cant shift the burden onto other people and suggest that people that
don't even believe something and for which there is no evidence should prove
for you?




>
>
> Beyond that logic, Chalabi (and crew) were lying to the US.
>
> /wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi#Invasion_of_Iraq
>
>
> Beyond that, Saddam was playing games with Blix.

yes we know Saddam was dragging his heels in decommissioning WMD but about
99 per cent had been actually destroyed and that had already been verified!

> As I mentioned
> before, one has to err on attack / invasion when some one is playing
> games about do-we-or-don't-we have WMD.

This is a completly farcical comment! It presumes guilt and justifies
actions on such presumption. based on such a principle the Nazis could have
claimed the Jews and gypsies were involved in a conspiracy and justified the
holocaust. Indeed the annexation of Sudatenland Rhineland and the Danzig
corridoor could all be done based on similar logic!



> Saddam was, in effect, on
> leadership "probation" since Kuwait. He wasn't a good boy - out the
> door he goes.

THe US does not have the juristiction to unilaterally decide who is a "good
boy" or not! Nor did the Nazis the Japenese The French British or any other
cuntry in the past which acted unilaterally in their own interest! In fact
this is the sort of thing one might have expected from a dictator like
Saddam!



>
> There are more reasons but I suspect what I've said is probably going
> to be ignored.


What other reasons are there? And far from ignoring your comments the
argument you have made has been shown up to fly in the face of international
jurisprudence.