US Gov't Logic? Please explain.

[CuriousCanuck]

I am confused by the logic shown by the US Gov't... please help me understand. I figure that it will end up being pit worthy so I am starting it here...

Read this first (assuming it stays up long enough.. it is a CNN article)

The Article

Here's one quote in particular I do not understand:

"Rumsfeld said the United States and the United Nations have no obligation to prove that Iraq has continued efforts to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Instead, he said, Iraq must prove that it has abandoned them. "

My interpretation:

USA: Do you have weapons of mass destruction?

Iraq: No. We have stopped their development.

USA: Prove it by showing us no evidence of them.

Iraq: Prove by showing no evidence? Sure thing.

USA: Your lack of evidence proves you are uncooperative. We will bomb the crap out of you.

Iraq: But we did what you asked and you have no proof that we posess such weapons.

USA: We don't need to prove it. You need to prove to us that you do not posess them.

Iraq: By showing no evidence of their existence?

USA: Exactly.


Someone please tell me how this makes any sense at all...

[zev_steinhardt]

It probably depends on the original agreement that Iraq signed back at the end of the Gulf War.

It was known then that they had at least the potential for WoMD. Did the treaty require them to document the fact that they were properly destroyed? Also, were there provisions in the treaty that said that if Iraq did not allow inspections (as was the case for a few years) that the burden of proof would be on them to show that they do not have WoMD?

I'm not stating the above is true. I'm simply offering them as possibilities...

Zev Steinhardt

[CuriousCanuck]

OK. The part about properly documenting destruction I can buy, if it were true. (not sure one way or the other)

Can you explain now how they can prove that they have not started redevelopment? It is a logical fallacy. You cannot prove a negative. Yet this seems to be the justification for war. I am confused.

[Maeglin]

Can you explain now how they can prove that they have not started redevelopment? It is a logical fallacy. You cannot prove a negative.

The reports by the UN arms inspectors are a critical part of this proof. Iraq must furnish proof that it has disposed if the resources required to create nuclear weapons.

From armscontrol.org:

However, according to a 2001 Department of Defense report, Iraq still retains sufficiently skilled scientists, engineers, and weapons design information that could allow it to restart its nuclear program. While it has been two years since the December 1998 withdrawal of UNSCOM inspectors, the IAEA has been permitted to make periodic inspections to verify the dismantlement of Iraq's nuclear program (most recently in January 2001). However, given its past performance, it still remains likely that Iraq is continuing to furnish international inspectors with false and misleading information, in an attempt to hide certain aspects of its weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

[In Conceivable]

They can prove they haven't started redevelopment by allowing inspectors free access to the areas they want/need to inspect.

[CuriousCanuck]

Which they have done. And the UN reported no "smoking gun". The US Gov't says that this only proves that they are hiding WMDs. Do you not see the inherent flaws in their logic? It seems that no matter what there is going to be a war. Does this not bother anyone?

[World Eater]

Well you at least think the gov would want to clarify what they mean. I know tons of people scratching their heads over this prove a negative deal.

[In Conceivable]

The UN has reported that there is no smoking gun yet. I was under the impression that the inspections are not done and there has been no final report to the UN yet. I believe the inspectors are asking for more time to finish their job.

[Maeglin]

Do you not see the inherent flaws in their logic?

Yes, but part of the problem is that independent US intelligence exists. Iraq has accused the UN of allowing its inspectors to spy for the US in the past, so much of the intelligence must be kept separate. It's a real shame that the government can't simply divulge to the public its sources or its findings.

[CuriousCanuck]

And at the same time that they are doing that, the US wants them to push AHEAD their March deadline, presumably so that the soldiers wont have to fight in the summer heat. Which will not be enough time for the UN to do its job. Convenient though that with a rushed report the US can justify the war by saying that since they were rushed that the Iraqis had a chance to get away with weapon possession. Hence the need for the war...

sigh...

[happyheathen]

Yes, the "prove a negative" (accompanied by "we KNOW they're in there!") demand is recognized as impossible to satisfy - your basic "we reserve the right to destroy you - just because!" argument.

But hey! You expect Shrub II to talk about the economy, corporate scandal? Spending a couple of billion dollares to threaten a piss-poor country is much more popular!

[Jackmannii]

Part of the problem, previously recognized also by non-U.S. sources monitoring the inspections, is that Iraq's declaration about its WOMD programs leaves in doubt just what happened to certain materiels.

If anyone thinks that it's just Bush that's haranguing the Iraqis unfairly, try another CNN story that makes clear that there are major concerns elsewhere, even stated by Hans "I see noth-ing!" Blix.

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Maeglin
Yes, but part of the problem is that independent US intelligence exists.

Or so they say.

It's a real shame that the government can't simply divulge to the public its sources or its findings.

It's hard to divulge a bluff.

A lot of people are starting to feel this way, so you think they would incoporate it into their spin.

[CRorex]

Part of it was the pre-1991 situation. Iraq HAD WMD and has used them. Even after the gulf war there were reports of chemical weapons used on the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

Since the weapons were known to exist, and they had been used previously (and indications showed that a number of them were produced domestically). When you're dealing with someone who uses chemical weapons on his own populace you really have to ask yourself, "Do I trust him when he smiles at me?"

It would be insane to take Iraq at it's word and they have an entire country in which to hide and move around relatively small quantities of chemical/biological materials.

Because: Iraq doesn't have to hide 50 SCUD launchers and missiles. All they have to hide are enough chemical/biological weapons to FILL 50 SCUD missiles. Hell, you can store that in a sealed drum bury it in the sand and memorize the location. Then when you need it dig it up and fill warheads on the missiles then launch them. If this scenerio is possible (and I'm not going to type chemical weapon delivery systems into a google search at work) then explain to me how the crap you find the buried chemicals?

Even if you can't drain and refill a chemical weapon warhead. I imagine the production time on a chemical warhead would be relatively short, compared to production of suffecient chemical. So again you just bury a stockpile somewhere and maybe build a school over it and wait until you're attacked, dig up the chemical and churn out 15 warheads.

This is ofcourse neglecting the current political realities since a fucknut was elected who wants a war.

[El_Kabong]

Well, in reference to the OP's question, it doesn't make a lot of sense, and that's why many folks here in the States object to the saber-rattling coming from Washingtion.

Look, we don't know anything more than you do. The administration sez Iraq continues to develop WOMD, citing intelligence information that it will not reveal publically. The intelligence information may or may not exist, and there may or may not be other reasons that the administration wants to go to war with Iraq, but but anything we may come up with other than the administration's official line is just speculation.

It seems that no matter what there is going to be a war. Does this not bother anyone?

Well, it certainly bothers me, but my options for protest are limited. What course of action does the OP recommend?

[Wikkit]

Originally posted by Maeglin
The reports by the UN arms inspectors are a critical part of this proof. Iraq must furnish proof that it has disposed if the resources required to create nuclear weapons.

From armscontrol.org:

So you think they should start shooting scientists in the head? Run around in circles screaming "I don't remember I don't remember idontrememberidontremember" so they won't have any more design information?

[CuriousCanuck]

El_Kabong: Email ,regular mail, phone calls to your congressman, governor, mayor, federal reps. Get all on your side to do the same. Talk to everyone that protested Vietnam for advice. Protest. Write in to newspapers. State your concerns openly and as intelligently as possible. Co-ordinate efforts with other like minded people. Chances are that you won't be listened to, but make your voices heard. One voice might have little weight but a chorus can be seen and heard.

I do not know what the answer is. but at least make sure that you voiced your opinion to those in a position to maybe do something about it. The people that were voted into positions of power have a responsibility to their constituents to at the very least hear their concerns. If they do not listen, do not re-elect them. Hell, run for office of some sort. Do what it takes. Hell, even if you change one person's mind from war to peace then you did something positive.

Will you change the world with your one voice? Maybe you can.

[World Eater]

Originally posted by CRorex
Part of it was the pre-1991 situation. Iraq HAD WMD and has used them. Even after the gulf war there were reports of chemical weapons used on the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

Since the weapons were known to exist, and they had been used previously (and indications showed that a number of them were produced domestically). When you're dealing with someone who uses chemical weapons on his own populace you really have to ask yourself, "Do I trust him when he smiles at me?"

It would be insane to take Iraq at it's word and they have an entire country in which to hide and move around relatively small quantities of chemical/biological materials.

Because: Iraq doesn't have to hide 50 SCUD launchers and missiles. All they have to hide are enough chemical/biological weapons to FILL 50 SCUD missiles. Hell, you can store that in a sealed drum bury it in the sand and memorize the location. Then when you need it dig it up and fill warheads on the missiles then launch them. If this scenerio is possible (and I'm not going to type chemical weapon delivery systems into a google search at work) then explain to me how the crap you find the buried chemicals?

Even if you can't drain and refill a chemical weapon warhead. I imagine the production time on a chemical warhead would be relatively short, compared to production of suffecient chemical. So again you just bury a stockpile somewhere and maybe build a school over it and wait until you're attacked, dig up the chemical and churn out 15 warheads.

This is ofcourse neglecting the current political realities since a fucknut was elected who wants a war.

I agree, but why can't the administration say it like that? That's all I'm wondering.

[Maeglin]

Originally posted by World Eater
Or so they say.

It's hard to divulge a bluff.

A lot of people are starting to feel this way, so you think they would incoporate it into their spin. [/b]

I agree, though it might in fact be reasonable, it's a dubious claim. But lacking any real information one way or another, it is a claim which I am in no position to evaluate.

So you think they should start shooting scientists in the head? Run around in circles screaming "I don't remember I don't remember idontrememberidontremember" so they won't have any more design information?

No, Wikkit, I think they should harvest the slivers of the Iraqi scientists' brains that contain the offending information, paste them to slides, and send them straightaway to the United States to confirm that they no longer have the intellectual wherewithal to oversee a nuclear program.

Satisfied?

[Jackmannii]

Originally posted by Maeglin
No, Wikkit, I think they should harvest the slivers of the Iraqi scientists' brains that contain the offending information, paste them to slides, and send them straightaway to the United States to confirm that they no longer have the intellectual wherewithal to oversee a nuclear program.

Satisfied?

Pasting doesn't work. You need to fix the brain biopsies in an appropriate preservative and run them through dehydration and clearing steps, embed them in paraffin, cut ultrathin sections and stain them for light microscopy. And I'd be safety-minded and disinfect the whole batch thoroughly first.

If examination reveals odd holes in the brain tissue, the differential diagnosis includes kuru (and other spongiform encephalopathies), or just plain holes in the head as an explanation for why you're jeopardizing your country on behalf of Saddam.

[UncleBill]

I know a person who knows more about this situation than approximately 100% of the US Population (so damn close it doesn't matter). I feel he is convinced, from what he has said.

I would certainly feel better if there WERE justifications, that enough would be made public to ease my misgivings.

[Monty]

Honestly, I don't get what hte big deal is about whether he's violating the peace terms in this particular manner. After all, he's violating them daily in a number of other ways (starving his people, firing at allied aircraft, etc.).

[Maeglin]

You almost make me want to be a biologist, [b]Jackmannii/b].

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Monty
Honestly, I don't get what hte big deal is about whether he's violating the peace terms in this particular manner. After all, he's violating them daily in a number of other ways (starving his people, firing at allied aircraft, etc.).

Which makes the vague facts we can't reveal, saber rattling, and current spin even more bizarre.

It seems like they could achieve the same result, simply by bringing the things you mentioned more to the forefront.

[UncleBill]

FWIW, FoxNEWS is now reporting the UN Inspectors have found shell casings that normally contain chemical weapons. 12 empty chemical warheads 122mm sized (artillery delivered). 11 empty, now checking to see if the 12th has traces. This seems to be a direct violation of the rules.

[Brutus]

More about the 12(11?) warheads here.

[CRorex]

Well FUCK I was right.

Empty warheads so you can claim, "We have no chemical weapons, see the warheads are empty!" And god knows how many barrels of refined chemicals buried in the sand.

Hrrm I think it's time to contact the NSA again. Government job for me.

[ElvisL1ves]

It isn't widely reported, in these times, but the US does know how much chemical weaponry it sent to Iraq in the 80's for use against Iran. If they can't account for it all, that isn't exactly demanding the proof of a negative.

[Cervaise]

> show no tea to door

The door is impressed, but refuses to open.

[SPOOFE]

Which makes the vague facts we can't reveal, saber rattling, and current spin even more bizarre.

Not really. It's a lot easier to point to the threat of WMD's in order to stir up public dissent... it's an attempt to drum up images of 9/11 and terrorist attacks on the United States.

I do believe that Iraq has violated its agreement, and should be punished. I DON'T believe that it's only because of WMD's.

[tcdaniel]

Sounds to me like "a country of interest"

Perhaps mr hatfill can assist iraq on how to handle these allegations