I Told You So

elucidator · November 11, 2004, 8:33pm

So many steaming loads, so little time!

But they didn’t. You know that, right? It was in all the papers, I believe it was even discussed at considerable length on these very boards. So you didn’t hear about it? Well, gosh, that’s a shame. Tell you what, Google on “David Kay” and get back to us when you are less woefully ignorant. Saves a lot of time.

War! Immediate war on any nation that fails to comply with UN Security Council resolutions! So who’s next, Moto? Israel or Pakistan? Or do we just flip a coin?

And a great deal of mischief is hidden in those innocent words “we are finding out”. Did you get that from Hannity and His Bitch? So far as I know, we are mostly relying on that stern paragon of truth and candor, Ahmed Chalabi. Permit us our skepticism as to his bona fides, or, to use your preferred form of innuendo and insinuation, we are “finding out” that he sold us out to the Iranians.

You can spell. He can think.

RedFury · November 11, 2004, 9:19pm

Oh the fuckin’ irony of it all! Obviously, you’re clueless – as with everything else – as to the origin of that intentional misspelling.

Never fear, I’m here to help, meet a fellow warmonger of yours.

Enjoy, m-o-r-a-n. (sic)

Nightime · November 11, 2004, 9:29pm

So which is it?

Did we believe Iraq had WMD, and then allow the WMD sites to be looted before we went to them, thus basically giving WMD to terrorists to attack us with?

Or did we not believe Iraq had WMD, and it was all a terrible lie?
And if you are now arguing that Iraq did in fact have WMD, then when do you expect us to get hit with the looted WMD?

RedFury · November 11, 2004, 9:37pm

PS- As for Mr Moto’s “evisceration” of my arguments, see 'luc’s post. Or the hundreds of similar ones that came before his. Your mantra is in dire need of revision. Hard to stay awake reading the same steaming pile over and over.

Hell, a potted plant qualifies as a sentient being compared to most of you lot.

World_Eater · November 11, 2004, 9:45pm

Bah, c’mon man. IIRC Haliburton does some backhanded business with Iran. I don’t think you want to go down that road, because the US companies have their hands in quite a few cookie jars as well.

Desmostylus · November 12, 2004, 10:45am

Where exactly did you get this quote from? I notice that you didn’t provide a cite for it, and that when sevastopol queried it, you referred to Resolution 697, which quite you say “used the phrase as generally defined above”. It does say things like:

Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons,

Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972,

<snip>

Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968,

Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East,

Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons,

So it’s certainly true that Resolution 687 discusses nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the context of “weapons of mass destruction”.

Yet you somehow take exception to me pointing out that because tear-gas is classified as a weapon of mass destruction, your “term of art” is pretty stupid.

The Chemical Weapons Convention, to which the US is a signatory, lists the following in the schedule of chemicals:

What’s chloropicrin?

Counsel is found in contempt, for making shit up as he goes along.

Desmostylus · November 12, 2004, 10:47am

which you say

RedFury · November 12, 2004, 6:40pm

Evisceration = crickets chirping

Bricker · November 12, 2004, 8:24pm

I was reciting the definition that appears in US law: 18 USC § 2332(a).

Yes, because US law does not agree with you. With respect to chemical weapons of mass detruction, they must be:

TonyF · November 13, 2004, 2:33am

I have a question, one asked out of sheer ignorance and naivete.

Do these US laws apply to UN matters?

RedFury · November 13, 2004, 5:46am

I’m sure you’ll be surprised to find out that the US does pretty much what it wants, when it wants to. The following article should give you a fairly comprehensive response to your query:

Donald Rumsfeld And Poison Gas

Teaser:

After and long pause, and the standard reminder about how Saddam Hussein “lies about every single thing he says,” Rumsfeld made a startling admission; the United States is planning for the use of gas against any Iraqis who resist the American invasion, and has already employed such illegal weapons in the War on Terror. Rumsfeld knows the law is not on his side. He admitted as much when he stated “With respect to the use of non-lethal riot agents I regret to say that we are in a very difficult situation. There is a treaty that the United States signed the Chemical Weapons Convention” Rumsfeld pauses, then “* …let me put it this way, absent a Presidential waiver… in many instances our forces are allowed to shoot somebody and kill them, but they are not allowed to use a non-lethal riot control agent.*”

No they are not allowed. The CWC outlaws the hostile use of chemistry, and in the case of ‘non-lethal’ riot control agents, forbids states “from using riot control agents as means of warfare.”

The laws of armed conflict are quite clear that weapons systems and the soldiers who employ them must discriminate between soldiers and civilians. Chemical weapons can’t tell the difference, which is one major reason why they’re illegal. A second reason was aptly demonstrated last October by Russian Special Forces at the Palace of Culture Theatre, who summarily executed 50 Chechen hostage takers, after the sedative gas put them to sleep. US troops employed tear gas in Vietnam to similar effect.

But Donald Rumsfeld wants to remove the ban on chemical weapons, the better to police the Pax Americana.

“We are doing our best to live within the straightjacket of that has been imposed on us on this subject [the Chemical Weapons Convention] that we can write things [rules of engagement for employing chemical weapons] in a way that people [US troops] can understand them and function and not break the law, and still in certain instances be able to use non-lethal riot agents,” he said. (my italics/bolding)

Now, I am not saying that they’ve used them as the article was implying they would, but that in answer to your question, although they not allowed by the CWC treaty the US is a signatory of, Rumsfeld was all for using them.

Much more at source. And yes, it is certainly a biased source – but then again, FreeRepublic and the SwiftVet gang, to name but two extremely partisan rightwing sites, have been cited extensively as of late. Beyond that, Rumsfeld’s quotes are a matter of record.

Trust that helps.

TonyF · November 13, 2004, 6:19am

Thanks for the article. I found it interesting.

It didn’t quite answer my question though. I was wondering, under what justification, that US definitions could be applied to something the UN drafted.

The way I see it argued is this:

The UN tells Iraq, no WMD! Having WMD means some sort of action against Iraq!

People on this board say, Iraq had WMD by some definition! War justified.

I wonder, why does that definition apply there, when it was the UN who says what’s what? This brings up the question, what justification is there that we can enforce UN policy without regard to the UN?

I’m pretty sure this has been discussed… I really don’t know the answers. I’m sure someone can give me a lot of reading about it…

RedFury · November 13, 2004, 7:11am

Pardon me for misinterpreting your query – I thought it referenced the discussion Bricker and Demo were having about the inclusion/exclusion of certain “non-lethal” chemicals in the definition of WMDs. Thus the linked article.

But if it’s homework you want, it’s homework you’ll get

You may want to start with this thread as a primer of sorts: Kofi says Iraq war was illegal under UN charter

And then move to this site, which might keep you busy for oh…days! Legality of Iraq War. About the most comprehensive resource on that particular topic as I’ve found on the Net.

Happy reading!

duffer · November 13, 2004, 7:26am

Well, RedFury, with those cites you have us dead to rights. Let’s see if I can find a few articles from NewsMax to refute them. :rolleyes:

JamesCarroll · November 13, 2004, 7:26am

Bricker:

Repeatedly.

Consistently.

Remember “You People Are Blind - I Told You Bush Would Win”?

Remember “Bush Wins Second Term in 2004!” (That one was posted 7-16-2002).

Remember explaining to me why I was wrong? (And evil and selfish?)

Listen: the SDMB is not at all like the real world. Here you have lots of lefties, telling each other what you want to hear. Out in the real world you have real voters. They’re not swayed by the knowledge that all progressive, enlightened people hate Bush and all he stands for. They should have woken you up, and made you understand - finally - that REASONABLE PEOPLE MAY DIFFER.

You never heard me bad-mouth Senator Kerry. I always called it like it was: he was a fine and honorable man, a war hero, and if elected would undoubtedly do a fine job. I simply didn’t think he was the best man for the job. But I didn’t demonize him.

You haven’t learned, have you, lefties? No, you’re still singing the same refrain, tinged now with desperation because it seems that enough Americans didn’t believe you to give Mr. Bush the largest popular vote count of any President in history. You’re still blaming everyone else for your failure to reach the American public.

Get it through your heads that your opinions may be honestly held, and carefully reasoned, but it doens’t make them (a) unalterably correct, or (b) universally held. The side of the aisle that’s supposed to celebrate tolerance and diversity has been remarkably INtolerant of any opinions that do not follow the Sacred Leftist Screed. This is the result. Continue down this path, and I’ll have a simialr message for you in 2006 at the mid-term elections. Start treating people with differing political priorities like PEOPLE and not demons, and my 2006 message to you will be congratulatory as you gain seats instead of gloating as you lose them.

Rick

Sorry, but the left is neither progressive or enlightened. They’re just dopes. They have no real solutions to any of today’s problems, only fear, uncertainty, and doubt. At best they offer America the same socialist malaise that infects Europe and Canada. At worst you advocate a special brand of isolationism that allows other countries to harm the US.

When will you get it through your thick heads? You’re WRONG!!!

Typo_Negative · November 13, 2004, 7:37am

So you’re saying that reasonable people may NOT differ?

RedFury · November 13, 2004, 7:59am

Like the rest of your warmogering cabal, it’s patently obvious that truth scares you, Duffer

The three sources I’ve provided

1-Article based on comments made by Donald Rumsfeld while testifying before the House Armed Services Committee

2-An SDMB thread. Imagine that!

3-A nonpartisan British site, fabulously sourced - Eurolegal Services. With an excellent mission statement to boot:

**This non-profit site seeks to provide public affairs and legal information for the area shown in dark blue on the map comprising all Member States of the European Union, together with Candidate States, Associated States and other States in the European Economic Area.

We also cover events in other countries, which impact on Europe.

Much of the site is devoted to the Middle East and to international terrorism . We believe that that salafist (islamist) terrorism represents the biggest current threat to peace and stability, not only in Europe, but world-wide.

Our site is not affiliated to any political party or interest group. But we have a viewpoint - which is that of commitment to the great liberal principles of democracy, liberty under the law, and the human rights values expressed in the European Convention on Human Rights

We had believed that the long term interests of the USA and the EU demanded that the two largest economic powers in the world should work together to promote what we thought were the common values of the peoples of America and Europe. This site sought to promote that objective.

Now that the American people have seen fit to return George Walker Bush to the White House for a further four years, we believe the time has come for Europeans to reconsider their attitude to the USA and its citizens. It seems that our hope that Americans shared our values was sorely misplaced.

**
Sad, but true. America’s broken in half, and until the current bloodthirsty radicals, masquerading as compassionate conservatives, are booted from power the odds of reconciliation remains somewhere between slim and none.

Then again, reality’s always found a way of coming back and biting those that dare deny it, right in the ass. Meantime, sure, go right back to NewsMax for your daily fix of delusions.

Iraq couldn’t be coming along any better. Too bad there might not be that many Iraqis left alive to enjoy your handiwork and the ensuing Pax Americana.

Typo_Negative · November 13, 2004, 8:42am

I don’t really have much hope for reconcilliation then, either.

TonyF · November 13, 2004, 10:17am

No problem at all… that makes for a good point as well.

Thanks for the reading. I have a headache, but things are a little clearer.

I still don’t see a good justification for the war, or any evidence of the war being a good thing. The rest of the issues don’t weigh in much to me, nor do I think history will pay them much mind either. So, I really can’t fathom why Bush got the support he did, unless perhaps people were more focused on other issues. This doesn’t make much sense to me either, as the war is going to affect us all, perhaps as the first one did.

But I mean, the silence is dreadful. As much as I dislike the propaganda from the left, it’s nice to be engaged - even if the debate is dirty and bitter. But my voice goes unheard by those on the right, and in a democracy this means powerlessness.

That’s the core, here, really. I think that’s why a lot of us on the left are upset - we aren’t heard, and then we get the “I Told You So” attitude.

Desmostylus · November 13, 2004, 1:04pm

Bricker:

Desmostylus:

Where exactly did you get this quote from? I notice that you didn’t provide a cite for it, and that when sevastopol queried it, you referred to Resolution 697, which quite you say “used the phrase as generally defined above”.

I was reciting the definition that appears in US law: 18 USC § 2332(a).

Desmostylus:

Yet you somehow take exception to me pointing out that because tear-gas is classified as a weapon of mass destruction, your “term of art” is pretty stupid.

Yes, because US law does not agree with you. With respect to chemical weapons of mass detruction, they must be:

…any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals…

I assume that you must have looked up that section, since you quoted from it twice. It wouldn’t be any kind of stretch to assume that you read this part, 'coz, like, it’s the very first sentence:

So what does § 229F say?

§ 229F. Definitions

In this chapter:
(1) Chemical weapon. - The term ‘‘chemical weapon’’ means the following, together or separately:
(A) A toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this chapter as long as the type and quantity is consistent with such a purpose.
(B) A munition or device, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (A), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munition or device.
(C) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in subparagraph (B).
(2) Chemical weapons convention; convention. - The terms ‘‘Chemical Weapons Convention’’ and ‘‘Convention’’ mean the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, opened for signature on January 13, 1993.

<snip>
 (8) **Toxic chemical.** -
      (A) In general. - The term ''toxic chemical'' means any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.  The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
      (B) **List of toxic chemicals.** - Toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures under Article VI of the Convention are listed in schedules contained in the **Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention.**

Counsel’s pants are on fire.

Topic		Replies	Views
You People Are Blind - I Told You Bush Would Win The BBQ Pit	116	5414	February 11, 2004
If Bush's flaws are so blindingly obvious... why is he even in the running? Great Debates	212	7525	October 4, 2004
How Can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb? The BBQ Pit	167	5980	November 5, 2004
Liberal attitude did NOT cost the election The BBQ Pit	104	3201	November 5, 2004
Conciliation My Ass: I Still Think Bush Is Satan The BBQ Pit	49	2289	November 6, 2004

I Told You So

Related topics