![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
So Chimpy McFuckstick doesn't think we're heading into a recession.
He thinks it's "patentedly" unfair if the telecom companies are actually held accountable for their illegal actions.
...
I can't even go on. My brain wants to implode from listening to that dipshit.
He thinks it's "patentedly" unfair if the telecom companies are actually held accountable for their illegal actions.
...
I can't even go on. My brain wants to implode from listening to that dipshit.
no subject
Sarin and Mustard gas hardly qualify.
1. They are primitive.
2. It took 5 men and one liter of Sarin (an artillery shell would hold 5 times as much) to kill 12 people packed into a fucking subway in 1995.
This is absolute ignorant, disingenuous and utterly wrong.
Mustard gas, a Blister Agent, is a NBC weapon. Specifically a Chemical weapon. Your adherence to WMD as the requirement is in fact you sticking to the poorly articulated requirements that you ascribe to me. (Cognitive dissonance at it's best I suppose.) It is a 1st World war technology. That is still a proscribed weapon according to the terms of the treaty, regardless of purity or age.
Sarin is a Nerve Agent. Specifically in the G-agent class, similar to Cyclosarin, Soman and Tabun. Your equivocation to make it seem less harmful is disingenuous. The delivery system which the Aum Shinrikyo cult used was primitive and poor. I guarantee you that with the same purity of agent, an explosive Chemical Shell, whether binary or unitary would be FAR more deadly over a much larger area. G and V agents are Cold War weapons and are QUITE deadly despite your characterizations to the contrary.
A functional chemical industry able to make pesticides and a foundry/machining complex to make shells is all that is required to manufacture G type chemical agents. Stocks of ANY of those components is a violation of the treaty that iraq was signatory to.
Filled and degraded or unfilled shells themselves, whether unitary (one chamber for a final product) or a binary (two chambers with a function on firing to mix the two components for a final chemical product) are a violation of the treaty.
The NBC weapons presence issue is a Binary function. There ARE or ARE NOT weapons there. The Fact is that weapons WERE found during ODS and the following years. That's a Positive, not a negative. You cannot hand wave that away by saying they were old or poorly kept or a bad design. They were in fact, extant NBC weapons in violation of the treaty. Inspection efforts showed a very clear and consistent to conceal extant programs over the 12 years following the 1st Gulf war war.
It's not like the region has a history of stubborn violence or anything, so I'm sure we heard the last gasps in 2003, deployed 300,000 Iraqi soldiers 2004 (right after the election it was supposed to be), turned the corner in 2005, stayed the course in 2006, deployed all the reserves in 2007 to victoriously get violence back down to the levels when we were winning back in 2005. Yeah, with failur-er successes like that, we would hate to just hand those shadowy bad-guys their victory.
Running away won't help us or any of the allies. We cannot loose, to do so is only going to be because we decided to fail. The most critical strategic goal is destroying Al Quaida's forces in Iraq and showing the Arab World that Iraq saw them up close and turned their backs on them. Witness how the Democrats have in fact stopped talking about iraq because the Success in areas like Al Anbar. Specifically due to the surge which you say is not or will not work. The Surge is in fact working.
Of course if you listen to Obama, the success is because Democrats were elected and that scared the terrorists off.
no subject
Don't presume to lecture me on what the weapons are.
"There ARE or ARE NOT weapons there."
This is true when discussing whether or not there was a treaty violation, but treaty violations were not the administration's stated purpose for invasion, and it is ignorant, disingenuous, and utterly wrong to imply that it was.
When discussing the case given for war, this statement is false dichotomy.
In fact, you make my point. The term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is an all-inclusive rhetorical trick where Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld could stand at the podium and talk about impending mushroom clouds, and later say "yeah this toxic chemical that many many orders of magnitude less destructive than an atomic bomb, yeah that is exactly the same thing as the nucs we were scaring the shit out of everyone with before the war." Which is, not to put too fine a point on it, equine excrement.
"We cannot loose [sic],"
Too late.
Don't forget the lies to go with that continued failure.
Incidentally, all of your victory rhetoric gets old after a few years.
no subject
Then don't try to say Sarin is not an NBC weapon because some Japanese Nuts couldn't aerosolize it. If they'd walked throughout he subway with a garden sprayer you'd have seen a ten fold increase in the deaths because people would have had significant lung and skin contact.
This is true when discussing whether or not there was a treaty violation, but treaty violations were not the administration's stated purpose for invasion, and it is ignorant, disingenuous, and utterly wrong to imply that it was.
Then why is that the ONLY thing that the antiwar BDS crowd latch onto? It was one of 14 Points. All of which were largely valid.
no subject
Aaaaaand, I didn't. Read all the words.
"Then why is that the ONLY thing that the antiwar BDS crowd latch onto?"
Because our administration has lied to us, utterly and completely. And, patsies like you continue to back those lies, for reasons that truly escape me.
The case was not "treaty violation" the case was "preemption due to clear and present danger," which was entirely false. Some sarin shells don't change that.
no subject
It's a binary question YES/NO. Not this 'NOT really' crap. You want to speak in Absolutes? Then guess what, your absolute position is full of holes.
Were there NBC weapons in Iraq? YES.
The case was not "treaty violation" the case was "preemption due to clear and present danger," which was entirely false. Some sarin shells don't change that.
It does when you say there were NO NBC weapons. Again, even unfilled shells are violations of the treaty. Further, there's the whole intent issue with regards to Iraq. And the support for terrorist going into the year 2000. Sweep it under the rug all you want. There's still a big bloody lump that you're going to trip over.
Even if we set aside that any functional programs were closed down or sufficiently hidden (I'd place money on scientists and data along with some production gear going to Syria) there was still intent which the post invasion teams found to be exactly in the direction that supported the case for war. Up to 2003 Iraq was making noises through diplomatic channels that it HAD a NBC program of some sort. It was a bluff, but it still supports authorization for war.
I guarantee you that if Jak was working as a bouncer and had a troublemaker come on to property that he'd seen armed before and the troublemaker gestured in his pocket as if he had a firearm, Jak would use deadly force on the troublemaker and wouldn't give a rats ass about his lack of a real weapon.
To me, the principle's the same. Iraq had warnings, it prevaricated and obfuscated as well as hindered the inspection process and never lived up to terms, when push came to shove and it tried to bluff again, we called the bluff.
no subject
The justification for war was a clear and present danger presented by an active, and possibly already productive, secret nuclear weapons program which was then artificially changed to the meaningless political weasel-term of "Weapons of Mass Destruction," which mystically has been downgraded to small amounts of obsolete chemical weapons. Which is presented as exactly the same thing as nuclear weapons because they are "WMDs" and by false dichotomy Conservative talking points pundits think they can just smugly shout down dissent.
Nope, a clear and present danger of nucs != WMD != to Sarin arty shells.
This is a rhetorical trick that amounts to little more than a lie.
The American people were told that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the United States. This was then and is now untrue, and the intelligence that supported the assertions was cynically manipulated to support the assertion of danger.
It was a lie, and you are either a fool or complicit to continue to support and re-tell this lie.