Posted by
timothy
on from the absence-of-evidence dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Severalnewsoutlets are reporting that the United States has officially ended the The Iraq Survey Group's search for WMDs. Prior to the war, WMDs were named as a justification for a 'preemptive' invasion."
Surprising some were not faked
by
justanyone
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It has surprised me that WMD were not faked by CIA / DIA / etc. (insert random agency name here). Getting a hold of some generic sarin, anthrax, botulinin, chlorine gas, etc. would be easy for any U.S. agency determined to do so. Placing it in a couple of buried shipping containers in the desert that we 'accidentally' discovered the location to would have been very easy.
The fact that this was not done says to me: * maybe some was found but they can't talk about it (doubtful); * most of the people in the U.S. armed forces are basically ethical (encouraging); * no one thought of faking it (highly doubtful); * there are too many checks and balances within the agency structures to allow a fake to succeed (highly likely).
The checks-balances scenario is this: CIA decides to fake it. 1. They create the agent/material, bury it, fake up docs, release info about it, "find" it, make news. 2. FBI decides, Hey, let's test it and figure out where it really came from and how it was made. 3. UN / Brits request samples to test, start interviewing all their people about the subject and get nothing or actual denials. 4. FBI figures out this isn't genuine and points fingers, or: 5. ATF decides to test it independently, or: 6. Secret service / Treasury tests it independently, or: 7. GAO / Congressional subcommittee asks lots of questions, or: 8. UN figures it out, points fingers, or: 9. Iraq former-regime muckety-mucks say, "hey, wait, we didn't do that... it's cool, but we didn't do it."
Just some thoughts. I like having multiple levels of power structures all competing for the truth. The whole CIA reorg bill concentrates power too much in my opinion. It'll allow for this kind of potential fakery to succeed.
SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Your post says you are angry, but then you sigh and heave and -- inevitably -- you give up, shut up, and go on with your life. Your opposition to the war consists of posting on Slashdot about it, in a section that nobody reads.
LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! If you want people to be outraged, then BE OUTRAGED YOURSELF and DO SOMETHING WITH THAT ANGER. There are still anti-war speeches taking place -- go and listen to one. Go take part in a rally, hell, START a rally yourself. Get your friends and neighbors to go, and be an ACTIVE citizen, instead of someone who sits back, complains, and votes democrat. Write editorials, get in touch with the public, and get people to channel their own anger with yours.
You talk about the election being 50/50. Well guess what, buddy: BOTH MAJOR CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THE WAR. You think voting for them sent any kind of message? The democrats are the ones that gave Bush the power in the first place. The democrats are the ones that still won't take a stand against it. Why are YOU content to vote for a party that you don't agree with on this incredibly important issue??
Now is the time to start acting, not yet another four years from now when it's too late to change anything. Look up your local Green Party and become an active member of it.
It's worth several hours of my weekend to protest the war and go to political meetings. I don't understand when you say you're too busy watching sitcoms and playing World of Warcraft.
Re:Great...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No, the media spin given over and over was that WMD was the reason America attacked Iraq.
Conjecture. Bush and his administration have gone on record numerous times, in some cases going so far as to claim they actually knew where the weapons were, to say that the justification for invasion was, in fact, WMDs.
The report stated that Saddam had a complete bioweapons infrastructure in place and ready to ramp up to full production within a 6 month period
WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
Knowing now just how rotten and corrupt the oil for food program was, it was only a short matter of time before Saddam was once again cranking out bioweapons.
Pure conjecture. No basis in fact. In addition, you're suggesting that you are psychic by making a statement of fact about something which never happened when you come to the conclusion at the end.
Now, would you rather get the mad man out of there before he was making them or only after they were stockpiled?
The false dillema fallacy. Not only have you have not proven they would ever have been stockpiled, you fail to consider a large number of legitimate options such as the forceful reinstatement of weapons inspectors.
You also criticize Bush because he didn't do enough to prevent 9/11.
Straw man. I haven't said that. Even if I had said it, it would still be immaterial.
Probably in the same breath you attack him for pre-emptively preventing Saddam from hitting this country.
You have not proven this would happen.
I suggest a good duct tape around the temples to prevent your head exploding from the cognitive dissonance.
Concluded strong with a nice argumentum ad hominem.
Needless to say, you have not even begun to convince me, and you're argument needs some serious work.
Slashdot Mirror
It has surprised me that WMD were not faked by CIA / DIA / etc. (insert random agency name here). Getting a hold of some generic sarin, anthrax, botulinin, chlorine gas, etc. would be easy for any U.S. agency determined to do so. Placing it in a couple of buried shipping containers in the desert that we 'accidentally' discovered the location to would have been very easy.
The fact that this was not done says to me:
* maybe some was found but they can't talk about it (doubtful);
* most of the people in the U.S. armed forces are basically ethical (encouraging);
* no one thought of faking it (highly doubtful);
* there are too many checks and balances within the agency structures to allow a fake to succeed (highly likely).
The checks-balances scenario is this: CIA decides to fake it.
1. They create the agent/material, bury it, fake up docs, release info about it, "find" it, make news.
2. FBI decides, Hey, let's test it and figure out where it really came from and how it was made.
3. UN / Brits request samples to test, start interviewing all their people about the subject and get nothing or actual denials.
4. FBI figures out this isn't genuine and points fingers, or:
5. ATF decides to test it independently, or:
6. Secret service / Treasury tests it independently, or:
7. GAO / Congressional subcommittee asks lots of questions, or:
8. UN figures it out, points fingers, or:
9. Iraq former-regime muckety-mucks say, "hey, wait, we didn't do that... it's cool, but we didn't do it."
Just some thoughts.
I like having multiple levels of power structures all competing for the truth. The whole CIA reorg bill concentrates power too much in my opinion. It'll allow for this kind of potential fakery to succeed.
-- Kevin
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
Your post says you are angry, but then you sigh and heave and -- inevitably -- you give up, shut up, and go on with your life. Your opposition to the war consists of posting on Slashdot about it, in a section that nobody reads.
LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! If you want people to be outraged, then BE OUTRAGED YOURSELF and DO SOMETHING WITH THAT ANGER. There are still anti-war speeches taking place -- go and listen to one. Go take part in a rally, hell, START a rally yourself. Get your friends and neighbors to go, and be an ACTIVE citizen, instead of someone who sits back, complains, and votes democrat. Write editorials, get in touch with the public, and get people to channel their own anger with yours.
You talk about the election being 50/50. Well guess what, buddy: BOTH MAJOR CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THE WAR. You think voting for them sent any kind of message? The democrats are the ones that gave Bush the power in the first place. The democrats are the ones that still won't take a stand against it. Why are YOU content to vote for a party that you don't agree with on this incredibly important issue??
Now is the time to start acting, not yet another four years from now when it's too late to change anything. Look up your local Green Party and become an active member of it.
It's worth several hours of my weekend to protest the war and go to political meetings. I don't understand when you say you're too busy watching sitcoms and playing World of Warcraft.
No, the media spin given over and over was that WMD was the reason America attacked Iraq.
Conjecture. Bush and his administration have gone on record numerous times, in some cases going so far as to claim they actually knew where the weapons were, to say that the justification for invasion was, in fact, WMDs.
The report stated that Saddam had a complete bioweapons infrastructure in place and ready to ramp up to full production within a 6 month period
WHICH report? In fact, provide the page number, because I want to see the exact text, in context.
Knowing now just how rotten and corrupt the oil for food program was, it was only a short matter of time before Saddam was once again cranking out bioweapons.
Pure conjecture. No basis in fact. In addition, you're suggesting that you are psychic by making a statement of fact about something which never happened when you come to the conclusion at the end.
Now, would you rather get the mad man out of there before he was making them or only after they were stockpiled?
The false dillema fallacy. Not only have you have not proven they would ever have been stockpiled, you fail to consider a large number of legitimate options such as the forceful reinstatement of weapons inspectors.
You also criticize Bush because he didn't do enough to prevent 9/11.
Straw man. I haven't said that. Even if I had said it, it would still be immaterial.
Probably in the same breath you attack him for pre-emptively preventing Saddam from hitting this country.
You have not proven this would happen.
I suggest a good duct tape around the temples to prevent your head exploding from the cognitive dissonance.
Concluded strong with a nice argumentum ad hominem.
Needless to say, you have not even begun to convince me, and you're argument needs some serious work.
~TxMxP