Coalition of the Willing falling apart?

[Ben Kenobi]

we can say that Reagan had Kennedy shot..after all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, because they had evidence in favour of Osweld.

Unless of course, you are one of the conspiracy theorists, eh?

Again, just because we have not found them yet, does not mean they aren't there.

We have just as much evidence to presume that no weapons existed as we had that Saddam was dead, before he was captured.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

We have just as much evidence to presume that no weapons existed as we had that Saddam was dead, before he was captured.

Actually, NO. these dumb discussion have happened before and I will not rehash the points again: suffice it to say:

After 1 year of extensive search, the men in charged of finding things have said they no longer think there was anything there. There were plenty of experts who said there was nothing there before the war.

The plurality, if not the grand mayority of the evidence points towards no weapons still there. If you decide to discount the vast mayority of evidence that does exist and base you arguements on ignoring all existing evidence, well, your problem.

[Wezil]

How about addressing the actual points raised in my original post Ben? Quit the Bush tactic of diverting attention and address the issue I raised.

[Ben Kenobi]

After 1 year of extensive search, the men in charged of finding things have said they no longer think there was anything there. There were plenty of experts who said there was nothing there before the war.

And other 'experts' believed that some did exist.

What I am trying to say is that most people who believe there to be no connection between Iraq and terrorism, also do not believe that they had a weapons program.

They use this argument here as a smokescreen for their true position, that because we can't find WMD, they never existed. This begs the question.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wezil:

You are off-topic for the thread.

[Wezil]

Ben - I beg to differ.

From the article posted (near the top nso you don't have to read too far...)

"March 19, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's prized ``coalition of the willing'' -- the three dozen countries that are contributing military forces in Iraq -- appears suddenly to be losing some of its will."


I'm on-topic my friend.

[Wezil]

... and further

""Poland is a strong ally in the war on terrorism and we appreciate their strong support,'' McClellan said. "They reaffirmed they stand with us in the war on terror.''"

Now. Address the issue Ben.

edit - fix my Ben-grin smiley

[Ben Kenobi]

Cool.

Do you have an argument beyond 'there is no connection?'

Can you provide an alternative explanation, for the events, and why the US government would wish to fabricate such a connection?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


And other 'experts' believed that some did exist.

Yes, the 'experts' who hadn't actually been to Iraq and done the searching.

Of course, feel free to say who these 'experts' that you're relying on are, by whom they are employed, and with whom they are politically affiliated.

After all, 'experts' for companies who sell genetically modified foods say these foods aren't harmful in the long run, and the 'experts' who worked for the biochemical companies that produced Thalidomide and Opren undoubtedly thought their drugs were just peachy (or maybe they liked their salaries?), and you can get 'experts' from the sugar industry who will tell you that refined sugar is just super, too.

But of course what you have to do, is ask, what do these 'experts' have to gain from their 'expert' opinions and what do they base their alleged 'expertise' on?

[Wezil]

The US had other reasons for attacking Iraq but the "terrorism" card was required for domestic support.

Btw - I personally supported (and still do to some extent) the war. Just don't try to sell me bullshit reasons for it. I would have supported the "Saddam is a bad guy" motive. This was not the way it was sold.

[Ben Kenobi]

feel free to say who these 'experts' that you're relying on are, by whom they are employed, and with whom they are politically affiliated.

As soon as gepap reveals his.

[Ben Kenobi]

The US had other reasons for attacking Iraq but the "terrorism" card was required for domestic support.

Btw - I personally supported (and still do to some extent) the war. Just don't try to sell me bullshit reasons for it. I would have supported the "Saddam is a bad guy" motive. This was not the way it was sold.

If what you say is true, then don't you think others would have supported the argument against Saddam? Why is it necessary for public support to say that they had to have a link to terrorism?

Secondly, don't you believe that the existence of WMD had something to do with the connection between Iraq and terrorism?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


As soon as gepap reveals his.

Well, there is DAVID KAY, whom before the war was one of the people who said, even though he had not been part of the inspections for years and years (was not part of them in 1998), that Iraq did have WMD's. IN fact, the admin. rbough him in specifically becuase he had been a big supporter of their line-and gave him lots of money and let him hunt, as opposed to letting Blix and his people come back. And he has come back and said, well, Iraq didn't actually have any WMD's at the start of the war.

Now, if you would be so kind as to reveal who, besides Rummy, still thinks there were WMD's? This should be cute.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Secondly, don't you believe that the existence of WMD had something to do with the connection between Iraq and terrorism?

OMFG!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


As soon as gepap reveals his.

Try not to be obtuse- he's mentioned the weapons' inspectors- you know, the bit where he said 'the men in charge of finding things' in Iraq.

Now of course you could be particularly kenobist and say, 'oh, I think he means people supposed to look for the best kebabs in Basra' but as he also mentions experts who say there weren't weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war (and I think it's safe to assume he doesn't mean the Seven Years' War, or the Opium Wars) the context is clear.

So let's have your experts who claim (or who you claim) know more than the weapons' inspectors, and lets find out upon what they base their superior knowledge.

Otherwise, it's the old kenobist smoke and mirrors legerdemain.

[Ben Kenobi]

the bit where he said 'the men in charge of finding things' in Iraq.

Finding what? Kurds?

It's rather vague...

Inspectors would make things more clear, which he has now provided his argument for.

[Wezil]

No Ben - WMD was not connected to terrorism.

Why terrorism argument? Because it would have been hard to convince Americans on either the "bad guy" argument (see Bush's trouble with that argument now), or the "war for oil" (or Haliburton if you prefer) argument.

[GePap]

Lets hope ben you are never allowed in a jury, either civil or criminal, becuase your understanding of evidence seems slim at best.

[Ben Kenobi]

What's wrong with Rummy? He's an expert.

David Kay?

Interesting fellow.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/

"We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material."

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What's wrong with Rummy?

What isn't?

[Ben Kenobi]

Wezil:

I just have to lay a base first.

You agree than, that WMDs have nothing to do with terrorism?

Good.

What do you think of this?

Iraq-al Qaeda link

We have obtained a document discovered in Iraq from the files of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). The report provides new evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
The 1993 document, in Arabic, bears the logo of the Iraqi intelligence agency and is labeled "top secret" on each of its 20 pages.

The report is a list of IIS agents who are described as "collaborators."

On page 14, the report states that among the collaborators is "the Saudi Osama bin Laden."
The document states that bin Laden is a "Saudi businessman and is in charge of the Saudi opposition in Afghanistan."

"And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria," the document states, under the signature "Jabar."

The document was obtained by the Iraqi National Congress and first disclosed on the CBS program "60 Minutes" by INC leader Ahmed Chalabi.
A U.S. official said the document appears authentic.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap
Lets hope ben you are never allowed in a jury, either civil or criminal, becuase your understanding of evidence seems slim at best.

They'll also have to find simultaneous translators for Kenobic-English and English-Kenobic.

Imagine the protracted deliberations in the room where the jury is sequestered, otherwise....

Oh and Obi Gyn- partial quoting AGAIN?

Haven't you been told about that many times before? It's a nasty habit- do a penance and read some David Hume or Nietzsche.

[Ben Kenobi]

What isn't?

I can hardly wait until Easter.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh and Obi Gyn- partial quoting AGAIN?

Haven't you been told about that many times before? It's a nasty habit- do a penance and read some David Hume or Nietzsche.

You want the whole article?

Look it up yourself. I'm not going to torture the poor eyes of people reading that whole testimony.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What's wrong with Rummy? He's an expert.

In some thing, perhaps, in examining the evidence to see if WMD's existed? No.

David Kay?

Interesting fellow.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/

"We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material."

OH, ben , its so cute to think you don;t know that not only were making weapons banned, but doing anything that MIGHT be used down the line to make weapons was also banned or the Iraqis had to report.

I am sorry, but if this is your level of knowledge on the issue, I have to say that is really sad.

The million dollar question Ben is: does Kay say "I found weapons"? or "I found evidence of the existance of weapons"? Oh, wait NO, you didn't. Too bad.

[Ben Kenobi]

don;t know that not only were making weapons banned, but doing anything that MIGHT be used down the line to make weapons was also banned or the Iraqis had to report.

Still in violation of UN regulations. Do you agree that Iraq should just flaunt the UN, or should they be held accountable?

does Kay say "I found weapons"? or "I found evidence of the existance of weapons"? Oh, wait NO, you didn't. Too bad.

So far we have not. I admit this in my very first post.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


You want the whole article?

Look it up yourself. I'm not going to torture the poor eyes of people reading that whole testimony.

That's what I get for not having instantaneous Kenobic translation on.

Your habit of using partial quotes from other people's posts- it's clear (at least to those not conversing in Kenobic) from the context of GePap's posts and the thread itself, what he was referring to.

Unless you're interesed in making a career out of being wilfully obtuse it should have been clear to you too- but then, you wouldn't have had a chance to be facetious, would you, and I imagined I had pre-empted that sort of tedios response with my remark about Basra and kebabs.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your habit of using partial quotes from other people's posts- it's clear (at least to those not conversing in Kenobic) from the context of GePap's posts and the thread itself, what he was referring to.

Why is that a problem? I'm not going to waste my time quoting all of the post, since I think that I am getting the essence of what he is trying to say.

Would you prefer the systematic approach of Berz where he goes through someone's post line by line, targetting the first sentence before having read the entirety of the post?

Secondly, your complaint of my call for source is already a dead issue. Gepap provided a name, and I have already started talking about his source.

If you have any further complaints about my style, start a thread.

I may even post in it.

[MOBIUS]

All the other countries are waking up to the fact that they've just been roped in as human shields and walking targets for the US...

After all, if a Pole dies in Iraq that means that a US soldier doesn't.

If a bomb goes of in Madrid, that means that one is less likely to go off in the US.

That's all we are folks, substitute bodybags and apologists for the very US foreign policy that has got huge sections of the world hating them enough to commit suicide if they can take some Americans (and us now) with them...

Yep, George Bush would far rather a European die than an American - if he really cared he wouldn't have been stiffing the EU with an unfair trade war at the very same time we were all embarking on this madness...

Some ally the US is!

[Solly]