Subject: Fahrenheit 9/11 Criticisms

From: "fenian" <fenian@start.ca>
Date: Sun, Jul 25, 2004

I'm hard pressed to find criticism of this movie that *doesn't* come from
right wing nut jobs. Everything I've found so far has at least 10 paragraphs
that go on YAMMERING about hateful evil leftist communists, and how Moore is
FAT and that his movie is full of LIES. Can anyone point me to something a
little more balanced?

Bissis nek.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>

Anachron wrote:
> Here is something that is certain: Bush did
> not say "We have strong evidence of WMDs" he
> told us with absolute certainty that Sadam had them.
> How do you start a preemptive war that sends hundreds
> of U.S. soldiers to their deaths, turns another nation
> into a permanent battle ground, racks up incredible
> debt, and then say to the world "Oppps, guess we were
> wrong about that?"

Thing was, he wasn't wrong.

First of all, the US has found ammo dumps full of
"pesticide" in 55 gallon drums, in concrete bunkers
covered with cammo net. We have also found rockets
and artillery shells capable of delivering chemical
weapons at these same locations. Note plural.

Then, after discovering them, we loudly came out and
said, "Oh, no! These *aren't* chemical weapons, they
are *just* pesticide!" (which just happens to be as
strong and lethal as military-grade nerve agent.)

You'll notice that even in the past week, we suddenly
discovered three nuclear-tipped missiles in a buried
concrete bunker designed to conceal them from isotope
detection.

Then, we immediately came out and said "Oh no! These
aren't nuclear tipped missiles. That would be
*stupid*". Making NO further comment about what they
actually are, if those things that look like nuclear
tipped missiles actually *aren't* nuclear tipped
missiles.

ARE YOU SEEING A PATTERN HERE, YET?

The *reason* the US keeps finding WMDs, then "unfinding"
them (and why the democratic candidates have shut up
like HELL on the subject, not wanting to look like
utter fools), is that WE MUST.

The US announced it was invading Iraq using an
*existing* UN Security Council resolution 1441.

1441, in essense, reaffirms the right of the members of
the Security Council to seek and eliminate WMDs in Iraq,
warning that Iraq will face "serious consequence" if it
tries to prevent them from doing this.

And the US "parsed" the heck out of this, to reach the
following conclusion:

The IAEA, and Mr Blix, are unable to search a land
mass the size of Idaho to find easily concealable WMDs.

--Therefore, the US is authorized to invade Iraq, NOT
to shoot at anybody, but strictly to *search* for WMDs.

--However, if the Iraqis shoot at the US forces, OR
OTHERWISE TRY TO PREVENT THEM FROM FINDING WMDs, then
the US can shoot back.

--BUT, and this is the important part, when the US
"finds" WMDs, the rest of the Security Council, *and*
the IAEA, and even the fucking General Assembly can
get involved in trying to keep Iraq fucked up.

--BUT, if the US *doesn't* find WMDs, it can keep
*searching* for them AS LONG AS IT WANTS TO, USING
THE EXISTING UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1441.

So, what's going to happen? In January, when the
Iraqis have their election, it will officially
"invite" the US to stay in Iraq. So the US will NO
LONGER need 1441, and can find, or probably not,
as many WMDs as it already has.

I say, "probably not", because finding WMDs at that
point would not help anyone, and might even cause
Iraq some grief, by international treaties and shit.

But, if John Kerry shoots off his mouth that there
"are no WMDs in Iraq", then Bush's people will let
him have it with both barrels. But Kerry *won't*,
because he knows the score.

--
Two headed people are the future.
Get used to it, single head.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Cosby <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>

"nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
>First of all, the US has found ammo dumps full of
>"pesticide" in 55 gallon drums, in concrete bunkers
>covered with cammo net. We have also found rockets
>and artillery shells capable of delivering chemical
>weapons at these same locations. Note plural.
>
>Then, after discovering them, we loudly came out and
>said, "Oh, no! These *aren't* chemical weapons, they
>are *just* pesticide!" (which just happens to be as
>strong and lethal as military-grade nerve agent.)
>
>You'll notice that even in the past week, we suddenly
>discovered three nuclear-tipped missiles in a buried
>concrete bunker designed to conceal them from isotope
>detection.
>
>Then, we immediately came out and said "Oh no! These
>aren't nuclear tipped missiles. That would be
>*stupid*". Making NO further comment about what they
>actually are, if those things that look like nuclear
>tipped missiles actually *aren't* nuclear tipped
>missiles.

Wait. You are trying to tell me that they -did- find WMD, but then
they -lied- and said they didn't? Despite their getting huge heat for
failing to find it?

That doesn't set off the same BULLSHIT alarms in you that it does in
me?

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.com/
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
--Voltaire

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>

Joe Cosby wrote:
> Wait. You are trying to tell me that they -did-
> find WMD, but then they -lied- and said they didn't?
> Despite their getting huge heat for failing to find it?
>
> That doesn't set off the same BULLSHIT alarms in you
> that it does in me?

Absolutely. That is the very *definition* of diplomacy.

A lot of people just cannot deal with a simple paradox:

"If you lie there will be peace. If you tell the truth,
it will cause a war. It is better therefore to lie in
this circumstance."

"No!", many people insist. "It is *always* better to
tell the truth!"

Such people often end up getting killed in unneccessary
wars. But diplomacy strives to avoid war. It is war
BY OTHER MEANS. Even if that means telling the girl
that "no, honey, you don't look fat at all."

Now, this paradox can be adapted in any number of ways,
and most often, its consequences aren't as harsh as war,
but that does not mean that they are not serious.

People who see themselves as "adamantly truthful"
suffer from several problems:

1) They believe that they have "a right to know."

No, they do not. They elect politicians, who appoint
experts. They are appointed because they KNOW more about
the situation than someone who just picked up a newspaper
and read a story about it. MOST of these situations are
both terribly complex, and are interrelated with thousands
of other factors that the newspaper reader knows nothing
about, or could care less. Their "right to know" is just
uninformed tittilation, that accomplishes nothing positive
and can cause much harm.

2) They believe that they have "a right to become
involved."

No, they do not. There is even a law in the US which
should be enforced more often then it is, which prohibits
Americans from engaging in foreign policy activities,
which is a serious felony.

3) They believe that they have "a right to NOT be
lied to."

No, they do not. Because many imbeciles *demand* to know
what is going on in areas of considerable sensitivity,
like military strategy, it is *necessary* for the government
to lie. To lie directly by disseminating false facts, and
to lie by omission. Schwartzkopf lied to the media, and
saved many, many lives in the process.

So, where does this leave the US in the current situation:

a) France, Germany, Russia, China *and* the leadership of
the United Nations were engaged in dishonest, illegal, and
treacherous activities with Saddam when he was in power.

b) They ALL sought to STOP the US from stopping Saddam,
NOT for any higher good, but to keep alive their billion
dollar scams and SCREW everybody else. Even allowing him
to develop nuclear weapons which he BLOODY WELL MIGHT HAVE
USED either against US or against Israel.

c) THEY didn't fucking CARE that millions of people might
have died in nuclear war, not just from Iraq, but in
retaliation from the US or Israel. What ASSHOLES.

d) The US, however, had an angle, which despite the screams
of anguished greed denied, lets us IN to Iraq, to BUST UP
the fucking game. And to do this, it has to LIE.

e) "But lying is *BAD*, and you should *NEVER* *LIE*!!!"

Yeah right. Well, sanely enough, both US political parties
are in on the gag, so while the democrats might make hay
over any number of other, legitimate digs on Bush, they are
going to leave this one alone. Sure, if some out-of-the-loop
scumbag like Moore wants to shout it, big whoop-de-doo. But
no legitimate representative will talk about it.

And FUCK France, and Germany, and Russia, and China and
especially those corrupt fucks in the fucking United Nations.

--
"I can imagine a LOT when it comes
to unimaginable power."
-- nu-monet

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Cosby <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>

This is all a very long line of bullshit.

You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say any of what you are
saying I said. I didn't say anything about "right to know" and so on
and so on and so on.

There may be something of validity mixed in with that, but I am not
going to take up a side of the argument which you invented for me. If
you want to defend your point of view against what I said, do so, but
don't expect me to pick up some argument I have no part of. If that's
the best you can do I will take that as "no comment".

None of it changes the fact that what you are proposing is completely
fucking idiotic. There is no reason that the current administration,
getting hammered and likely to lose power because of it over the
failure to find WMD and the clear indication that the whole WMD
accusation was bullshit, would have no sane reason to lie and say they
HADN'T found WMD if they HAD.

You are kind of vaguely insinuating that they did it to avert war, in
response to which I would point out, THEY FUCKING WENT TO WAR ANYWAY,
DIDN'T THEY?

You have invented a long, and to you, convincing-sounding
justification for the administration's potentially lying about WMD,
lying "the other way". But it's INVENTED. You know that as well as I
do. It's like watching Christians invent reasons why God would allow
suffering in the world. They might be coherent. They might be more
ore less defensible. But they are MADE UP.

In any event, your apologia just makes no sense in terms of reality.

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.com/
Gnothi Seauton

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>

Joe Cosby wrote:
> In any event, your apologia just makes no sense
> in terms of reality.

1) Fact: Saddam had made, used, deployed to
battlefield locations and wanted to use WMDs again.

2) Fact: We have found tons (literally) of WMD
chemicals, ready to use, and now nuclear weapons.

3) Fact: We consistently have, and continue to
deny that these WMDs are WMDs. The ONLY WMDs that
we cannot say FOR CERTAIN that they are WMDs are the
nuclear tipped missiles found in the last week. And
yet we still persist in the fantasy.

4) Fact: France, Germany, Russia and other countries
sold prohibited weapons and WMD manufacturing equipment
to Iraq *when* it was forbidden to do so. In exchange
they again *illegally* received money from Saddam.

Okay, so what in this "reality" doesn't make sense?

And I wouldn't even go so far as to call it an
"apologia", because it is a rather straightforward
diplomatic deception of the type that goes on ALL
THE TIME.

For example: Why doesn't *any* nation refer to the
genocide in the Sudan as "genocide"?

A: because calling it a "genocide" involks
international rules that require action that none
of those countries are willing to take. So they
use euphamisms, instead. LIES.

This shit, and you can call it that, has a reason,
and it happens all the time.

France, Germany, Russia, China and the UN all know
that Iraq had WMDs, no matter what that jackass Blix
says; and they also know that the US is lying that
it doesn't; and they know *why* the US is lying about
it. Nobody is being fooled here, except those who
wish to be.

It's just a single hand of poker, in a game that's
been played frequently for all of human history.

Being a diplomat is the 3rd oldest career, right
after prostitute and soldier. I think policeman is
4th, followed by doughnut maker.

--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"

--Kino Beman, brand name

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>

Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
> nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
>
> > For example: Why doesn't *any* nation refer to the
> > genocide in the Sudan as "genocide"?
>
> The US does, as of last Thursday.
>
> "U.S. Congress Votes to Declare Genocide in Sudan,"
> Reuters.
> http://tinyurl.com/7yega

At that point, I have no idea what impact that has
on our foreign policy. I suspect that it is a
"non-binding" resolution, since Congress has no
constitutional power to conduct foreign policy
(except Senate treaty approval).

In other words, the US hasn't "officially" called
Darfur a "genocide", and thus invoked the genocide
agreements and treaties.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

Which intentionally have a 'legalistic' composition.

Actually, it's sort of bizarre. Like with the US
Congress, treaties, including UN treaties, are not
written by or generally understood by delegates.
In other words, diplomats have to be trained to
*not* use certain words, like "genocide", unless it
represents a policy change authorized by their
government. I imagine by now there are hundreds of
words and expressions that are prohibited (especially
when discussing Taiwan.) Basically, diplomats are
trained parrots that are given words by their foreign
offices.

Years ago, Saturday Night Live even made a joke out
of diplomatspeak, by turning it into a correspondence
course. The gag was, that no matter how offensive or
inflammatory some foreigner sneered at you, you would
respond only with "Please pass the sweet and sour
shrimp."

But under NO circumstances are you permitted to speak
the "truth", "off the cuff", or "off the record."

--
Rev. nu-monet
Founder and High Priest
Church of Kali, U.S.A. (Reformed)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Cosby <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>

"nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
>1) Fact: Saddam had made, used, deployed to
>battlefield locations and wanted to use WMDs again.

I've heard that line of bullshit too many times for it to even be
funny anymore. Fact: the US made, used, deployed to battlefield
locations WMD's. Should the world gather together and invade us,
then?

But don't give me this shit about what Saddam "wanted to do". You
have no idea what Saddam "wanted to do". I am sick of people claiming
to know what Saddam "wanted to do" and calling that a "Fact:" is just
that much more irritating and full of shit.

>2) Fact: We have found tons (literally) of WMD
>chemicals, ready to use, and now nuclear weapons.
>
>3) Fact: We consistently have, and continue to
>deny that these WMDs are WMDs. The ONLY WMDs that
>we cannot say FOR CERTAIN that they are WMDs are the
>nuclear tipped missiles found in the last week. And
>yet we still persist in the fantasy.
>

What proof do you have for this?

I know I have heard "kinda, somewhere, I think I remember" that WMD
were found, and were later declared to be pesticides. If you are
going to say that pesticides should count as WMD because they -could-
be used as nerve agents, then fine, let's go ahead and invade every
country in the world who has pesticides. MAKES SENSE TO ME.

You claim earlier that the pesticides were deployed in a distinctly
military way. I'd like to see that claim proven. Rush Limbaugh's
instincts or visions of Jesus would not be convincing to me.

Lacking proof of that, what remains is that the idea that they would
find WMD then lie and say they didn't is completely fucking
RIDICULOUS.

A point which I have raised several times now, and which you are
ignoring. I am inclined to guess you are ignoring it because you
realize it -is- ridiculous.

>4) Fact: France, Germany, Russia and other countries
>sold prohibited weapons and WMD manufacturing equipment
>to Iraq *when* it was forbidden to do so. In exchange
>they again *illegally* received money from Saddam.

I would be happy to look at whatever proof you have of that, but it
really has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

You are implying that the international community conspired to allow
Saddam WMD with which he could strike the US so they wouldn't lose
their WMD contract with Iraq.

I would really like to see proof of that, it really sounds like a
pretty unlikely scenario to me.

>France, Germany, Russia, China and the UN all know
>that Iraq had WMDs, no matter what that jackass Blix
>says; and they also know that the US is lying that
>it doesn't; and they know *why* the US is lying about
>it. Nobody is being fooled here, except those who
>wish to be.

Well, you seem to "know" quite a few things that I have yet to see in
evidence.

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.com/
Doctor: Who told you you are Napoleon Bonaparte?
Patient: God did.
Voice from next cell: I DID NOT!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>

John Starrett wrote:
> nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> > 2) Fact: We have found tons (literally) of WMD
> > chemicals, ready to use, and now nuclear weapons.
>
> That is not a fact at all. What evidence do you have
> that we have found nuclear weapons?

You should have read the next paragraph. #3. The
one just below the one you quoted.

Unlike chemical weapons, which can be described as
"pesticide" and yet be just as lethal as "chemical
weapons", so you let everybody know you just found
chemical weapons without *admitting* you just found
chemical weapons, *nuclear* weapons have to be shown
to be nuclear weapons. You can't show that they are
anything other than nuclear weapons.

But you don't want to do that. So therefore, they
are the one WMD that has not been *certified* as a
WMD-that-isn't-a-WMD-because-we-say-it-isn't-a-WMD,
EVEN THOUGH it was stored in a special below ground
concrete bunker deep enough to avoid radiological
detection from the surface, which would be a damn
waste of money to build for just three ordinary
missiles.

--
"It is already like a government job,"
he said, "but with goats."
-- Iranian goat smuggler

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>

Joe Cosby wrote:
> You claim earlier that the pesticides were
> deployed in a distinctly military way. I'd
> like to see that claim proven. Rush Limbaugh's
> instincts or visions of Jesus would not be
> convincing to me.

***********

Wall Street Journal:

U.S. forces in Karabala have also recently uncovered
55-gallon drums loaded with chemicals that were said
to be "pesticide," some of which were stored in what
military sources described as a "camouflaged bunker
complex."

Why camouflage insect spray?

The alleged agricultural site just happened to be
located alongside a military ammunition dump, reports
Insight Magazine.

According to the Journal, Iraq Survey Group head Charles
Duelfer recently told Congress that some of Saddam's WMD
facilities were newly built and contained "stockpiled"
raw materials that would have allowed him to "produce
such weapons on a moment's notice."

***********

And, as to Saddam's "state of mind" about the use of
WMDs:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/19/1047749804880.html

Iraq's field-level commanders have been given authority
to use chemical weapons on their own initiative in a US
led war to topple Saddam Hussein, Pentagon officials
said today...

************

But GODDAMMIT! IT'S THE US MILITARY! THEY *ALWAYS* LIE!!!

Granted, they may be more reliable than either
Rush Limbaugh or Jesus, but I would take them
more at face value than I would claims that Iraq
"had no WMDs", by whatever low cred individuals
would make such claims.

Oh, and I might add, a friend relayed me a story from
the Iran/Iraq war about a chemical weapons survey team
from the UN, who described artillery rounds FROM IRAQ,
filled with chemical agent JUST LIKE YOU WOULD GET if
you put the "pesticide" into the empty artillery shells
found beside them in this case.

Sorry there's no link, he told me in person.

--
"Money can't buy you happiness,
but when you're poor, you can't
buy shit, and nobody will loan
you happiness."
--nu-monet

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Cosby <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>

"nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
>Wall Street Journal:
>
>U.S. forces in Karabala have also recently uncovered
>55-gallon drums loaded with chemicals that were said
>to be "pesticide," some of which were stored in what
>military sources described as a "camouflaged bunker
>complex."

Ah, so the rock-solid proof of all you have said is unimpeachable Mr.
Military Sources?

Boy, he sure gets around, doesn't he?

So basically, the proof of this is "Some guy said".

Now, considering how much they have to gain and how much to lose on
this issue, with the whole world domestic and international watching
closely to see how the cliams of WMD resolved, don't you think that if
this had been solid, it might have crossed the mind of ONE SINGLE
PERSON in the military or in the administration to TAKE ONE SINGLE
PHOTOGRAPH of this "camouflaged bunker complex" loaded with WMD's?

Look at me with a straight face and say "no". I hate usenet
sometimes.

Now be realistic. We are deailng with "some thing" that "some guy"
said. It doesn't strike you as conceivable, that when "some guy" saw
that there were pesticides in a basement, with the incredible pressure
they were all under to produce these WMD's, to describe that as a
"camouflaged bunker"?

I think we have two at least realistic scenarios.

The problem with yours remains, if they found WMD, WHY WOULD THEY LIE
AND SAY THEY DIDN'T?

>Why camouflage insect spray?
>
>The alleged agricultural site just happened to be
>located alongside a military ammunition dump, reports
>Insight Magazine.

And their source was? Some guy? Would "alongside" mean "in the same
village"?

I Googled Insight Magazine and the top items on their front page were
two attacks on Kerry as a hippy scumbag and an attack on Michael
Moore, so I am guessing they are fairly pro-republican.

As such, I would be curious to see how solid their source for this
claim is. Again, primarily, because if we had found such unambiguous
WMD deployments, it's insane to think the administration would not
have trumpeted the news joyously on the evening news.

>According to the Journal, Iraq Survey Group head Charles
>Duelfer recently told Congress that some of Saddam's WMD
>facilities were newly built and contained "stockpiled"
>raw materials that would have allowed him to "produce
>such weapons on a moment's notice."

Well, so first we have pesticides, that Some Guy said were really WMD,
and now they have stockpiles of raw material?

So they have stockpiles of raw material, completely justifying our war
with Iraq which is extremely unpopular, but nobody took any pictures,
nobody passed the news along to the public?

Seems likely to you, nu-monet?

>And, as to Saddam's "state of mind" about the use of
>WMDs:
>
>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/19/1047749804880.html
>
>Iraq's field-level commanders have been given authority
>to use chemical weapons on their own initiative in a US
>led war to topple Saddam Hussein, Pentagon officials
>said today...

Oh wait a goddam minute, slam on the brakes. The whole justification
of the war in Iraq was that Saddam had (or was trying to obtain, at
least in this context I'll accept that) WMD and that he would use them
on us. This was linked unambiguously with terrorism.

And you are presenting this, instructions to use them on invading
troops on a battlefield, as relevant?

Just go ahead and flame yourself for that one.

>But GODDAMMIT! IT'S THE US MILITARY! THEY *ALWAYS* LIE!!!

That's just knee-jerk. What you're saying above, implicitly, is
"that's what THE LEFT always say!" (ie, the left always say "But
GODDAMMIT! IT'S THE US MILITARY! THEY *ALWAYS* LIE!!!")

-I- didn't say it. You are just sucking into the typical knee-jerk
Left Vs. Right Spy Vs. Spy bullshit that keeps most politics idiotic.

>Granted, they may be more reliable than either
>Rush Limbaugh or Jesus, but I would take them
>more at face value than I would claims that Iraq
>"had no WMDs", by whatever low cred individuals
>would make such claims.
>

In this case, the claim that Iraq HAD WMDs was the justification for a
war of aggression.

The honus of proof, unquestionably, is on the person making the claim.

>Oh, and I might add, a friend relayed me a story from
>the Iran/Iraq war about a chemical weapons survey team
>from the UN, who described artillery rounds FROM IRAQ,
>filled with chemical agent JUST LIKE YOU WOULD GET if
>you put the "pesticide" into the empty artillery shells
>found beside them in this case.
>
>Sorry there's no link, he told me in person.

Is that the same Some Guy or is this a different Some Guy?

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.com/
Libertarians are just survivalists who don't know how to survive.
- Niall

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>

Joe Cosby wrote:
>

It's just like those right wing wackos at Common Dreams
to go around posting (probably photoshopped) pictures of
OBVIOUSLY FAKE drums that couldn't POSSIBLY hold chemical
weapons and were *really* just pesticide:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/0408-04.jpg

And those Rush Limbaugh supporters at Infowars (same pic):

http://www.infowars.com/archives/2003/April/04-08-03.htm

"The US military said fears that five soldiers, who suffered
blisters while on duty near the central Iraqi town of Najaf,
had been exposed to mustard gas were believed to be a "false
alarm".

But IT'S ALL A DAMN LIE! SADDAM NEVER HAD CHEMICAL WEAPONS!

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

Go ahead, enjoy.

DAMMIT! YOU ARE NOT SEEING THIS:

http://www.un.org/Photos/unscom.html

It's ALL A DAMN LIE! By RIGHT-WING KOOKS AND LYING
PENTAGON LIARS!

--
Rev. nu-monet
Founder and High Priest
Church of Kali, U.S.A. (Reformed)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Cosby <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>

"nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
>Joe Cosby wrote:
>It's just like those right wing wackos at Common Dreams
>to go around posting (probably photoshopped) pictures of
>OBVIOUSLY FAKE drums that couldn't POSSIBLY hold chemical
>weapons and were *really* just pesticide:
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/0408-04.jpg
>
>And those Rush Limbaugh supporters at Infowars (same pic):
>
>http://www.infowars.com/archives/2003/April/04-08-03.htm
>
>"The US military said fears that five soldiers, who suffered
>blisters while on duty near the central Iraqi town of Najaf,
>had been exposed to mustard gas were believed to be a "false
>alarm".
>
>But IT'S ALL A DAMN LIE! SADDAM NEVER HAD CHEMICAL WEAPONS!
>
>http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
>
>Go ahead, enjoy.
>
>DAMMIT! YOU ARE NOT SEEING THIS:
>
>http://www.un.org/Photos/unscom.html
>
>
>It's ALL A DAMN LIE! By RIGHT-WING KOOKS AND LYING
>PENTAGON LIARS!

Look, if you want to go off waving your arms and shrieking and putting
words in my mouth and equating me with everybody who has annoyed you
as a left-wing wacko, fine I guess, why even bother reading what I
say.

I have asked some fairly straightforward questions, which you still
haven't answered.

Yes, that picture sure looks like a military stockpile of nerve gas to
me. Why then, did the US military say it was a false alarm? You're
saying they're lying and saying they didn't find WMD even though they
did?

But you seem to have abandoned even the pretense of a real response.
If you want to go on waving your arms and shrieking and parroting
whatever you think you have heard from whoever else you have been
arguing with and pretending I'm saying it, heavens to Betsy don't let
me stand in your way.

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.com/
I do not take orders, Will Robinson! I give them!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>

Joe Cosby wrote:
> Yes, that picture sure looks like a military
> stockpile of nerve gas to me. Why then, did
> the US military say it was a false alarm?
> You're saying they're lying and saying they
> didn't find WMD even though they did?

Yes, I am saying that they are lying when they
find WMDs and then they come out and say they
haven't found them.

To start with, it is a simple problem of logic.

First of all, *every* modern country uses large
amounts of chemicals every bit as deadly as
military chemical weapons. The precursers to
binary chemical weapons have legitimate uses,
too. So, if we *wanted* to find "chemical
weapons", or even "military chemical weapons",
we could have found them all over the place.

But say that finding the actual chemicals
themselves isn't good enough. Well, the #1
military delivery system for chemical weapons,
and one which Iraq used extensively in the
Iran/Iraq war are simply empty artillery shells.

But what if that isn't good enough? Well, we
have also found lots of both rockets and missiles
capable of delivering these chemicals. And, we
have found chemical weapons stored in the same
depots that these delivery systems were stored
in.

And, last but not least, we have the "release"
order, issued in the name of Saddam, authorizing
field commanders to use chemical weapons.

So even without 1441, we know there are WMDs
in Iraq. Even the *new* government of Iraq
could slap together chemical weapons in 24 hours,
starting from scratch.

Okay, this explains clearly *that they lied*, but
it doesn't explain *why* they lied.

The US used UNSC 1441 to justify the invasion.
The purpose of the invasion was to insure
compliance with existing UNSC resolutions, by
breaking the ceasefire to stop the Iraqis from
concealing their WMDs. From that point on, the
US could do anything it wanted to in Iraq, as
long as its mission was to "seek and find WMDs".

And everything, even replacing the Iraqi
government, returns to that one thing that the
US harps on, that "we are still looking for WMDs."

If the US "finds" WMDs, lots of stupid arguments
can be made: that the Saddam government must now
be returned to power, as Iraq is in compliance;
that the US must leave immediately, no longer
having UNSC authorization *by its own definition*
to be in Iraq; and that the only foreigners still
allowed in Iraq should be the inspection regime.

The first argument is that the resolution didn't
authorize the US to depose Saddam and his boys.
Very arguable. The second argument could be made
by France, Russia and China in the SC, if they
felt like it, possibly threatening the US with
the label of "aggressor nation" if it stayed.
The third argument once again goes back to the
idea that the IAEA and UNMOVIC are all that is
*really* needed to insure compliance--them and
the threat of embargo.

Granted, all of these arguments sound dumbass,
but there are huge numbers of lawyers who would
want to pursue them.

--
"I think that policemen are the
best-est fun, next to rhubarb pie!"
--Pippi Longstocking

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Cosby <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>

"nu-monet v7.0"<nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
>Yes, I am saying that they are lying when they
>find WMDs and then they come out and say they
>haven't found them.
>
>To start with, it is a simple problem of logic.
>
>First of all, *every* modern country uses large
>amounts of chemicals every bit as deadly as
>military chemical weapons. The precursers to
>binary chemical weapons have legitimate uses,
>too. So, if we *wanted* to find "chemical
>weapons", or even "military chemical weapons",
>we could have found them all over the place.
>
>But say that finding the actual chemicals
>themselves isn't good enough. Well, the #1
>military delivery system for chemical weapons,
>and one which Iraq used extensively in the
>Iran/Iraq war are simply empty artillery shells.
>
>But what if that isn't good enough? Well, we
>have also found lots of both rockets and missiles
>capable of delivering these chemicals. And, we
>have found chemical weapons stored in the same
>depots that these delivery systems were stored
>in.

That remains an open question.

So far you have:

1. Iraq has chemicals which could, concevably, be used as weapons;
the same as any other country, as you say.

2. Iraq has missiles which could be used to deliver chemical weapons;
the same as any other country, as you say.

3. There are some claims that chemical weapons were found, which are
contradicted by other claims.

>And, last but not least, we have the "release"
>order, issued in the name of Saddam, authorizing
>field commanders to use chemical weapons.
>
>So even without 1441, we know there are WMDs
>in Iraq. Even the *new* government of Iraq
>could slap together chemical weapons in 24 hours,
>starting from scratch.
>
>Okay, this explains clearly *that they lied*, but
>it doesn't explain *why* they lied.
>
>The US used UNSC 1441 to justify the invasion.
>The purpose of the invasion was to insure
>compliance with existing UNSC resolutions, by
>breaking the ceasefire to stop the Iraqis from
>concealing their WMDs. From that point on, the
>US could do anything it wanted to in Iraq, as
>long as its mission was to "seek and find WMDs".
>
>And everything, even replacing the Iraqi
>government, returns to that one thing that the
>US harps on, that "we are still looking for WMDs."
>
>If the US "finds" WMDs, lots of stupid arguments
>can be made: that the Saddam government must now
>be returned to power, as Iraq is in compliance;
>that the US must leave immediately, no longer
>having UNSC authorization *by its own definition*
>to be in Iraq; and that the only foreigners still
>allowed in Iraq should be the inspection regime.
>
>The first argument is that the resolution didn't
>authorize the US to depose Saddam and his boys.
>Very arguable. The second argument could be made
>by France, Russia and China in the SC, if they
>felt like it, possibly threatening the US with
>the label of "aggressor nation" if it stayed.
>The third argument once again goes back to the
>idea that the IAEA and UNMOVIC are all that is
>*really* needed to insure compliance--them and
>the threat of embargo.
>
>Granted, all of these arguments sound dumbass,
>but there are huge numbers of lawyers who would
>want to pursue them.

It's a conceivable scenario. We definitely did not go in to find WMD,
so I can accept that actually finding them would be contrary to what
they are trying to accomplish there. The problems with this
motivation is:

1. The failure to find WMD is very dangerous to the administration.
If a politician knows one thing, it's the importance of staying in
office. Justifying the war to the public as a search for WMD, and
then suppressing evidence of WMD, would be bad politics. And any
other goal they have in Iraq depends first and foremost on staying in
power.

2. I can see the argument that once WMD were found, that would weaken
their case for occupation. The problem with that is, even with the
justification for invasion, we don't have a mandate for regime change.
We have to say "fuck off" to both domestic and international critics
of the invasion whether we are still searching for WMD or not. Given
that, it doesn't make sense to sacrifice the political damage inherent
in #1 above.

It is a believable motivation, anyway.

Which leads me to ask: if you had a decent answer to the question
"why would they lie and say they didn't find WMD if they did?" why the
FUCK didn't you say so in the first place?

I mean that was my entrance into this thread ... it would have saved a
lot of pointless flaming.

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.com/
I like to make people either think, throw up, or both

- Joe Cosby

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>

fenian wrote:
> nu-monet --
>
> You write scary shit. I like it. The suggestion
> you've made, that the US has found and then lied
> about finding weapons - what are your sources of
> information that bring you to this idea?

The key is in the language of UNSC Resolution 1441,

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

which is what the US used to justify its invasion.

Here are some selected tidbits, but maybe *not* the
legalisms the US is using to stay in there, and keep
everybody else out. [my caps]

... Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with
Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to
international peace and security,...[the UN recognizes
that Iraq has WMDs *and* delivery systems.]

...Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized
Member States to use ALL NECESSARY MEANS to uphold and
implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990
and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution
660 (1990) and to restore international peace and
security in the area,...

...Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the
Council declared that a CEASEFIRE would be based on
acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution,
including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,...

But since the *recognized* or de jure government of Iraq
has been overthrown, the majority of 1441, concerning
Iraqi government acceptance of inspections by the IAEA
and UNMOVIC, can't be brought about until after the
January elections. However, if the US government says
that it has *found* WMDs, this would be an invitation
to the IAEA, UNMOVIC and the other Security Council
members to send in their own "WMD survey teams." And,
of course, these "WMD survey teams" would be involved in
all sorts of mischief, none of which has anything to do
with WMDs.

In the meantime, the US and the other Security Council
members are working on a "friendly and stable Iraq"
resolution that would supercede all these hostile ones.
From that point on, the government of Iraq will have to
"invite" the US to stay in their country, through a
status of forces agreement, and any IAEA or UNMOVIC
inspections will become moot.

Personally, I would bet that we will *never* "find" any
WMDs. No reason to.

--
Baksheesh makes the world go round.

Up one level
Back to document index

Original file name: 11 Criticisms.txt - converted on Saturday, 25 September 2004, 02:05