Re: Israel knew Iraq had no nuclear weapons

Andreas Pour wrote:
> James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> 
>>Andreas Pour wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.itechnology.co.za/index.php?click_id=123&art_id=qw1075852801225B262&set_id=1c
>>>
>>>Particularly interesting is the claim that Israel knew Iraq had no WMDs at all,
>>>yet warned its population to don gas masks at the start of the war purely to
>>>keep up the facade of a threat from Iraq (i.e., for propaganda purposes).
>>>
>>>"By way of deception, thou shalt do war."
>>>  -- Mossad Logo
>>>
>>>Another interesting thing is that eventually the truth usually comes out, but
>>>the next time, the so-called "conservatives" believe the same old lies yet
>>>again.  Being "conservative", I suppose, can include being steeped in the
>>>tradition of being habitually duped . . . and calling anyone not equally stupid
>>>a "traitor".
>>
>>The article is titled: 'Israel knew Iraq had no nuclear weapons'.  This is
>>true.  The USA knew that Iraq had no "nuclear" weapons.  However, it is
>>also a fact that Saddam wanted to obtain atomic weapons and had taken some
>>steps to try to develop them.
> 
> 
> So?

So, the facts are not in dispute.  He is using old news as a straw man.
> 
> BTW, Bush wants to develop a whole new range of nuclear weapons.  Regime change
> by military invasion?
> 
No, actually, he wants to restore small atomic weapons to our arsenal -- we 
used to have them -- and add a bunker buster with an atomic warhead.  This 
should deter despots such as Saddam from trying to build even stronger bunkers.
> 
>>Then the article switches to poison gas.  We know that Iraq had poison gas.
>>  They used it on their own people
> 
> First, if you are referring to the Kurdish village, it has not been proven, it
> is not even up to the "preponderance of the evidence
> " level, it's a "maybe" that Iraq and not Iran is responsible for that (given
> the type of gas used it would seem to be Iran; I have yet to find any basis for
> blaming Iraq, other than neo-con propaganda).

Anti-Communists used to call this type of argument: "pseudo-liberal". 
Saying something that is probably true has not been actually proved because 
the proper evidence to prove it doesn't exist and therefore we shouldn't 
presume that it was true but rather regard it as an up substantiated 
allegation.  In this case, it doesn't even have to be "probable", it only 
needs to be: "possible".

> Beyond the question of who released the gas, there is the further question of
> who was it intended to hit.  There was at the time a battle raging in the area;
> presumptively, since in the past gas had been used as a battlefield denial
> weapon, one of the sides was using it for that battle.
> 
You make my case.  Poison gas was used in Iraq.  The presumption from that 
FACT should be obvious unless we have conclusive evidence to the contrary.
> 
>>and they used it against Iran.  The
>>reasonable presumption would be that they still had it.
> 
> Actually that is unreasonable given that (a) the US destroyed a lot of it in
> 1991 Gulf War; and (b) it has a limited shelf life; and (c) after the end of the
> Iran war the US stopped providing Iraq with the materials to manufacture
> chemical weapons.

(a) How could we know that we destroyed all of it?

(b) US chemical weapons (binary) don't have a limited shelf life.

(c) Like you can't buy the stuff other places.
> 
>>Therefore, from a logical point of view, the article makes no sense since
>>there is no evidence offered that Iraq had stopped producing poison gas.
> 
> It is funny to hear you speak of logic, but, since you seem to at least
> superficially grant it some weight, let me ask, how is someone to prove a
> negative?  I.e., how can I give you evidence that I "stopped producing poison
> gas" - obviously my word is not enough, and if I show you the factories where
> you think I am making it, you just accuse me of "hiding" my production and being
> a "liar"?  How is it possible in this scenario to win - oh, never mind, it is
> obvious one cannot prove a negative if one's word is doubted.
> 
Yes it is impossible to deductively prove a negative.  You can however 
gather evidence to establish the hypothesis to a certain standard.  You 
would need to establish a fairly high standard with poison gas since if you 
were wrong, you might wind up dead.  My point -- which you appear to ignore 
-- is that the fact that poison gas was used in Iraq should suggest that a 
higher standard of evidence should be required.

But, my original point is that the original article appears to reason as 
follows:

	Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons.

	<unknown minor premise>

	Therefore, Iraq didn't have chemical weapons.

The rules of classical logic have no ideology, and there isn't any way 
anybody is going to make that syllogism work.

> And beyond that thorny logical question of requiring the impossible as a
> condition to avoid war and destruction, isn't it incumbent for the invading army
> to prove there is a reason to invade?  Or should any country be able to invade
> the US or Israel b/c it allegedly has some WMDs - wait, they do!  Is the test if
> the country has used WMDs or chemical weapons?  Wait, the US has, and even when
> its own sovereignty was not directly at risk!

You are setting up another straw man -- or another pseudo-liberal argument.

I believe it was Ronald Reagan that made this clear.  We wouldn't worry at 
all if Canada developed nuclear weapons.

But, yes, again a certain standard of evidence should be necessary. 
However, now it is your side that must prove the case that Saddam had 
changed and was no longer a danger to his own people or the neighboring 
countries.  Good luck proving that.

But even if you could prove it, is that enough?  You don't claim that he 
isn't guilty of crimes against humanity, do you?

--
JRT

Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.