Dixie ignoring my illistrative analogy!

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
Dixie said:

"The 1939 Ford was a fine automobile, and a rusted out carcass of a 1939 Ford, is still a fine automobile, although it's condition is no longer fine. You can't drive the rusty car, but it's not a rock or a tree, it's still a car. The car is no longer able to perform it's original function, but that doesn't mean it used to be a car. Until the 1939 Ford becomes a pile of indistinguishable rust particles, it will be "a car" and nothing else. Now, after this, some pinhead scientist might examine the pile of rust powder, and determine it "used to be" a car, but as long as we can tell it's a 1939 Ford, it's a car. The same logic applies to WMD's."
---------------------------


To that I said...

"No Dixie you are confused.. you see, Using your vehicle example... A WMD is a type of weapon defined by what it is capable of doing. A 1939 ford is a Car defined for being a car. Now if you wanted to use a vehicle example you could use a hotrod.... it would go like this...

Last year Jimmy owned a "hotrod" capable of reaching excessive speeds on the local streets. The police were conserned about this because they felt the "hotrod" was a danger to the community. The police are no longer conserned however, because the block on Jimmy's car has been cracked and it no longer runs, the car is no longer a "hotrod". You see Jimmy's vehicle in this example was defined by what it was capable of, much like WMD's. Its not that Jimmy ownes a car that upset the police, its what that car was capable of!"



So far I have had no response....
I have illistrated the flaw in Dixie's thinking!
 
Show me where the Chemical Weapons Convention or the United Nations, considers whether something is a WMD based on an assumption of capability.

I think I have sufficiently presented evidence to show that the criteria for WMD's, as set forth by the CWC and UN, is not subject to arbitrary evaluation of what a given weapon is capable of at any point in time, rather the lethal components and intention of the weapon in question, at the time it is produced. If you have something to the contrary to offer, now is the time to present it, because as it stands, you've presented nothing more than you unfounded and unsupportable opinion on the matter.
 
Stop responding to him Dixie, this has to been his 20th post on the same lame ass topic taken out of context. Jarod is a fool and a child. Let it slide.
 
toby said:
Stop responding to him Dixie, this has to been his 20th post on the same lame ass topic taken out of context. Jarod is a fool and a child. Let it slide.
Click to expand...


It's okay, I am content with allowing the idiot to continue posting new threads to illustrate his stupidity. How else am I supposed to harvest pinhead quotes of the moment?
 
You have a point there Dixie. I did get a real laugh at Jarods asking you if tacks were a WMD.
 
Unless you are a pinhead you can clearly see that a weapon is not a weapon of mass destruction unless it is capable of massive destruction...


Not if it was once capable of massive destruction!
 
a really big tack, say the size of the moon, if held in the wrong hands could become a weapon of mass destruction.
 
Jarod said:
Unless you are a pinhead you can clearly see that a weapon is not a weapon of mass destruction unless it is capable of massive destruction...


Not if it was once capable of massive destruction!
Click to expand...

This is a rather simple-minded observation, and on the surface, seems to be rooted in somewhat sound logic. However, the people who came up with the terminology we are debating, did not have such a simplistic outlook on WMD's. They realized that crafty and clever dictators and purveyors of such weaponry, would certainly exploit any loopholes in the arbitrary definition of WMD's, and therefore, they saw fit to establish criteria other than age or assumed effectiveness of the WMD's. In fact, the Chemical Weapons Convention was established because the wording in the Geneva Conventions was vague, and there was a need to better define what constituted a WMD.

The CWC set forth guidelines for determining what is a WMD, and how to handle and dispose of them. The initial intent and purpose of the weapon, is what makes it a WMD, not the perceived effectiveness or lack thereof, not the age or condition, and not some arbitrary judgement on what would or wouldn't cause legitimately subjective massive destruction. Weaponized Sarin is a WMD, and since Sarin begins to degrade as soon as it's produced, the WMD status does not decline because of this degradation, it has nothing to do with the intent and purpose of the weapon or its classification as a WMD.
 
Lets change the name to "Weapons once capable of Mass Destruction" then Id be with you...

But of corse, American wont follow Bush into a war over WOCMD!
 
Jarod said:
Lets change the name to "Weapons once capable of Mass Destruction" then Id be with you...

But of corse, American wont follow Bush into a war over WOCMD!
Click to expand...

I don't know of anyone who "followed Bush into a war over" WMD's or WOCMD's, I certainly didn't, and neither did you. For me, the issue wasn't ever Saddam's capacity to cause mass destruction on the US with WMD's, it was the existence of WMD's which Saddam lied about repeatedly. But, back to the point, WMD's are not determined by your perception of what they may or may not be capable of, or the apparent age and condition of them when they are discovered.
 
A WMD is a type of weapon defined by what it is capable of doing.

Not according to the Chemical Weapons Convention. A Schedule 1 Chemical Weapon, is a weapon produced with agents and components solely created for use in genocidal weapons of death, and is indeed, a Weapon of Mass Destruction, as defined by the words of the Convention preamble.

A simplistic and myopic pinhead viewpoint of a WMD, is "a type of weapon defined by what it is capable of doing." Using this logic, there is no such thing as a WMD, because an inanimate weapon is not capable of any destruction, and is incapable of doing anything on its own. A binary Sarin bomb is not a WMD, because it only contains harmless chemical component A and harmless chemical component B, and a munition, nothing inherently threatening to anyone, including the forbidden component Sarin, because the Sarin doesn't yet exist within the bomb. So, there is a reason the CWC and GC are worded as they are, and have been agreed to by the nations who've ratified them, because they define the parameters of what is considered to be a WMD, and it didn't leave it open and subjective to loophole exploitation by pinheads, sorry.
 
Dixie said:
A WMD is a type of weapon defined by what it is capable of doing.

Not according to the Chemical Weapons Convention. A Schedule 1 Chemical Weapon, is a weapon produced with agents and components solely created for use in genocidal weapons of death, and is indeed, a Weapon of Mass Destruction, as defined by the words of the Convention preamble.

A simplistic and myopic pinhead viewpoint of a WMD, is "a type of weapon defined by what it is capable of doing." Using this logic, there is no such thing as a WMD, because an inanimate weapon is not capable of any destruction, and is incapable of doing anything on its own. A binary Sarin bomb is not a WMD, because it only contains harmless chemical component A and harmless chemical component B, and a munition, nothing inherently threatening to anyone, including the forbidden component Sarin, because the Sarin doesn't yet exist within the bomb. So, there is a reason the CWC and GC are worded as they are, and have been agreed to by the nations who've ratified them, because they define the parameters of what is considered to be a WMD, and it didn't leave it open and subjective to loophole exploitation by pinheads, sorry.
Click to expand...


While the CWC discusses chemical weapons and WMD you keep intentionally confusing the two...

AKA idiotic!
 
Jarod said:
While the CWC discusses chemical weapons and WMD you keep intentionally confusing the two...

AKA idiotic!
Click to expand...

WMD's are defined as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons made for the purpose of imposing mass destruction and death. Sarin bombs fit this criteria, under Schedule 1, as the most deserving chemical weapon of the term WMD. I'm not confused at all, any chemical weapon produced for the purpose of imposing mass destruction and death, is a WMD, according to the CWC.
 
Dixie said:
Show me where the Chemical Weapons Convention or the United Nations, considers whether something is a WMD based on an assumption of capability.

I think I have sufficiently presented evidence to show that the criteria for WMD's, as set forth by the CWC and UN, is not subject to arbitrary evaluation of what a given weapon is capable of at any point in time, rather the lethal components and intention of the weapon in question, at the time it is produced. If you have something to the contrary to offer, now is the time to present it, because as it stands, you've presented nothing more than you unfounded and unsupportable opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

A WMD should be classified soley on capability of destruction (obviously, a weapon of mass destruction should be able to cause mass destruction). I do realize what path you're on, however. You're saying that because Sadam has produced WMD's in the past, he should be punished now? Why don't you just go out and state it?

He was, however, no threat to us whenever we attacked him, or really even whenever he created the weapons that he never used. Also, chemical weapons are far less powerful than nuclear weapons. They could only really be effective if launched at population centers, and even then they would cause less than 1 thousand deaths.
 
Dixie will twist anything to maintain his position that this war in Iraq was a great idea....he'll twist anything to maintain his position that everything there continues to play out in ways that are great for America.

He really is pathetic.
 
Definition...
Four-wheeled automotive vehicle designed for passenger transportation, commonly propelled by an internal combustion engine using a volatile fuel.

So...if it is no longer capable of passenger transportation...its no longer an automobile.....right Jarod...?
 
Dixie said:
WMD's are defined as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons made for the purpose of imposing mass destruction and death. Sarin bombs fit this criteria, under Schedule 1, as the most deserving chemical weapon of the term WMD. I'm not confused at all, any chemical weapon produced for the purpose of imposing mass destruction and death, is a WMD, according to the CWC.
Click to expand...

Defined this way by who, you? Your mother? Who?
 
Watermark said:
A WMD should be classified soley on capability of destruction (obviously, a weapon of mass destruction should be able to cause mass destruction). I do realize what path you're on, however. You're saying that because Sadam has produced WMD's in the past, he should be punished now? Why don't you just go out and state it?

He was, however, no threat to us whenever we attacked him, or really even whenever he created the weapons that he never used. Also, chemical weapons are far less powerful than nuclear weapons. They could only really be effective if launched at population centers, and even then they would cause less than 1 thousand deaths.
Click to expand...


Your last point is the very reason WMD's are not defined by perception of destruction they might be capable of. This method of determining WMD's is so subjective, you could virtually eliminate all weapons from consideration, depending on your defined value of "mass destruction" in a given scenario. WMD's are defined by the CWC, as any NBC weapon made to cause mass destruction or death, and not by some arbitrary measure of what people might think them capable of.

As I analogized earlier, what if 2% (10) of these 500 degraded Sarin bombs, were to explode across America tomorrow, in malls, schools, venues, etc.? Would your attitude towards the potential destruction be the same as it is today? What if only a few people got sick, but the CDC was telling us to return to the areas, there wasn't any real threat from the degraded Sarin? How many news stories would MSNBC doing, telling us of all the underlying and dormant potential effects the degraded Sarin might have on our health? Do you honestly not think this would be categorized as "mass destruction" to some degree, in America? Now, it's not like having 2-3 million people vaporized by a nuke, granted... but that is a really tough threshold for "mass destruction" in my opinion. I think, to some degree, such an attack would be massively destructive, and most Americans would agree with that, should it be a reality.


I've never said that Saddam posed a direct threat to the US, with or without these WMD's. That has never been the argument, although, it is the argument liberals like to attack and counter, obviously, because it is so easy to do, and there is really no defense.

As for what I am saying, it's really simple, Sarin bombs are WMD's, they are illegal to produce and stockpile, and were not supposed to be in Iraq, period. Not even the precursors, or the munitions themselves, were allowed to be in Iraq, according to the CWC and UN. In fact, we were told repeatedly, that these weapons had long-since been destroyed. It is one of many lies Saddam told the world, as he deceptively planned to reconstitute his programs.

If pinheads can logically make an argument that terror training camps were acceptable in Iraq because they were in an area out of Saddam's control, why can the same pinheads not comprehend this logic with regard to these dangerous munitions all over Iraq? How was Saddam to prevent alQaeda from confiscating some of these (or any other) weapons, and smuggling them into the US or Europe? When the point is raised about WMD's falling into the hands of terrorists, you always hear pinheads say... Saddam would have never given alQaeda WMD's... well, he didn't have to give them anything, he wasn't in control of these WMD's or alQaeda, they were just running around loose in his country with no one minding the store. Somehow, pinheads miss the threat of this and focus on the myopic point that Saddam posed no direct military threat to the US.
 
As for what I am saying, it's really simple, Sarin bombs are WMD's, they are illegal to produce and stockpile, and were not supposed to be in Iraq, period. Not even the precursors, or the munitions themselves, were allowed to be in Iraq, according to the CWC and UN. In fact, we were told repeatedly, that these weapons had long-since been destroyed. It is one of many lies Saddam told the world, as he deceptively planned to reconstitute his programs.

even if all of that were of any real significance, do you honestly think that invading, conquering and occupying Iraq, stirring up this horrific sectarian violence, allowing Iranian hegemony to flourish, and making America the laughingstock of the world was the appropriate response to Saddam illegally possessing degraded sarin cannisters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top