Is it time for Rhino to pay up?

[rhino 0]

Quote

You loaded this thread against him from the start.

yepppppppp... Ron has a point :)

[rhino 0]

Quote

If, after the war

And we all know the war isn't over yet..

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Pay up! DZ.COM BUSH & CO SUCKER #1!!!!!!!!!!

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[cloudseeker2001 0]

Quote

Quote

If, after the war

And we all know the war isn't over yet..

Yea, Bush still has time to PLANT SOME WMD!!!!!!!!!

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

WMD's were found. WMD's are still there. Do I need to elaborate?

ermm yes please... and perhaps you should tell G Dubbya Bush as I think hes still looking.... well claims to be at least..

[sic]In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing,

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[dorbie 0]

One more time, the wager was about links to terror, these have been found, see URL posted. The very existence of the wager also demonstrates that the attempt to characterize the justification for war as solely based on WMD is a revisionist fabrication.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

One more time, the wager was about links to terror, these have been found, see URL posted. The very existence of the wager also demonstrates that the attempt to characterize the justification for war as solely based on WMD is a revisionist fabrication.

I dont give a crap about the wager, thats between Rhino and Bill....... hense my post NOT being about the wager, but INFACT being about Rhino's comment, in which he offered to allaborate on the WMD being found...

However links to terror are not that hard to find, as anything that threatens the US standardised, centrally controlled, big brother version of freedom is considered terror..

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[dorbie 0]

Well I do, it's being used to impugn Rhino by some revisionists. There are two points in my post, the point you ignored is that the OP demonstrates that the war was not exclusively about the WMDs and that goes to the heart of your issues.

You're hyperbole about "big brother" doesn't impact the evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda.

It's refreshing that you want to debate the discovery of WMD's in the context of a discussion that proves that the war was not just about WMDs, despite a revisionist ploy by the Bush bashers.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

You're hyperbole about "big brother" doesn't impact the evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda.

correct, well if there was any evidence.. actually wasnt this the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction

Now not to divert this thread, but my comment was one i made in another post. in that IN THE mouths of Condoleezza Rice and George Bush, the word freedom has taken on a bad taste. Using it as justification to invade countries and lecture undemocratic regimes, they have succeeded in turning freedom into a threat, as if to say, "You will be free only if you live by our rules and follow our example."

This standardised, centrally controlled, big brother version of freedom seems to advance that only an American sense of freedom is the right one, that US freedom is good, and anything that threatens it is bad (Terror, Terrorist).


This notion of freedom is an ugly monster, turning a good word into justification for just about anything, even if it may be totally irrational in a modern context: such as war without end. Or love over 40. Or having twins at the age of 57

Quote

It's refreshing that you want to debate the discovery of WMD's in the context of a discussion that proves that the war was not just about WMDs, despite a revisionist ploy by the Bush bashers.

if you had read my post you would have noticed that Rhino stated [sic] WMD's were found. WMD's are still there. Do I need to elaborate? To which i replied yes please elaborate... as the statement is incorrect.....

thus the debate, or are we ignoring facts as part of this thread...

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[dorbie 0]

No, you've chosen to focus on a single aspect and resent the intrusion of conterpoints.

A rambling incoherent screed about America, freedom and the administration is related how?

I guess it's time to watch another thread degenerate into an hysterical diatribe by the frustrated minority railing against the evil oppressors.

There were many reasons for the war and most troubling was the convergence of; the historical proven pattern of seeking and using WMD, the ties to terrorism, the hindering of inspectors, the non conformance with the UN resolutions and the ceasefire agreement and the opening of the pandoras box of terrorists using unprecedented scale of violence in attacks against the American homeland. Longer term the geopolitical advantages of promoting democracy in a region of despots and dogma gives some hope of genuine reform rather than relentless hopelessness.

Like boiling a frog, we all got used to Saddam's escallating defiance. Unfortunately for Saddam the frog lept out of the pot. Get over it.

[br0k3n 0]

Ok let’s get back on track then…as you seem to be getting confused.

1 no evidence of WMD and none found to date
2 no evidence of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda and none found to date.

Quote

There were many reasons for the war and most troubling was the convergence of; the historical proven pattern of seeking and using WMD

This threat was removed with the first war in Iraq, there is not a reason or excuse for the second war.

Quote

the ties to terrorism

Incorrect, here you are trying to link Saddam and Al Qaeda, when there is no proven link.

Quote

the hindering of inspectors

This is hardly a reason to wage war on a country.

Quote

the opening of the pandoras box of terrorists using unprecedented scale of violence in attacks against the American homeland

Again here you are trying to link Saddam and Al Qaeda, when there is no proven link.

Quote

Longer term the geopolitical advantages of promoting democracy in a region of despots and dogma gives some hope of genuine reform rather than relentless hopelessness.

America is not the world police...it’s not their responsibility to invade a country to promote democracy.

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[dorbie 0]

If you dismiss all reports to the contrary then sure you'll find no evidence.

America has every right to with deal emerging situations it sees as a threat.

Your original thesis claimed America was unreasonably imposing it's brand of freedom implying Iraqis had freedom before, they did not.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

If you dismiss all reports to the contrary then sure you'll find no evidence.

what are your thoughts on the Charles A. Duelfer report?? he was even hired by the Bush administration.

[sic]Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program.The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons.

[sic]Duelfer concluded that Hussein was not motivated by a desire to strike the United States with banned weapons

[sic]All of that known, and Dick Cheney said again last night that he would have done everything the same. George Bush has said he would have done everything the same. . . . They are in a complete state of denial about what is happening in Iraq."

[sic]"We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday

Quote

Your original thesis claimed America was unreasonably imposing it's brand of freedom implying Iraqis had freedom before, they did not.

please point out in any of my posts where i claim the Iraqis had the kind of freedom that Americans have.

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[dorbie 0]

You keep banging on the same single issue, it's like a broken record. If Saddam hadn't played brinkmanship to breaking point the changed environment post 9-11 wouldn't have prompted the invasion. Once again, this was not just about WMD, it was about a pattern of behavior where he sought them and used them, you haven't denied this you just pound on a single issue. You can single issues out with hindsight and say it's insufficient justification, but ultimately it wasn't about any single issue. This isn't about dumbing down the justification post facto to a single issue soundbite. This thread started with a quote that directly contradicts the revisionist claim that this was about WMD.

What I said is clear you even quoted it so don't misrepresent it.

Despite the histrionics, Iraqis are selecting their own leaders and they are drawing up their constitution. It's not about imposed freedom at all.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

You keep banging on the same single issue, it's like a broken record. If Saddam hadn't played brinkmanship to breaking point the changed environment post 9-11 wouldn't have prompted the invasion. Once again, this was not just about WMD, it was about a pattern of behavior where he sought them and used them, you haven't denied this you just pound on a single issue. You can single issues out with hindsight and say it's insufficient justification, but ultimately it wasn't about any single issue. This isn't about dumbing down the justification post facto to a single issue soundbite. This thread started with a quote that directly contradicts the revisionist claim that this was about WMD.

What I said is clear you even quoted it so don't misrepresent it.

Despite the histrionics, Iraqis are selecting their own leaders and they are drawing up their constitution. It's not about imposed freedom at all.

your confusion is confusing to say the least.....
please point out in which, or where in any of my posts I state that the war in Iraq is to do a single issue....

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[mr2mk1g 10]

Exactly - there were other reasons given by some for the war beyond the possession of WMD. Anther reason was the claim that Iraq somehow had some connection with 9/11.

It is just such a claim that this thread references.

Rhino said there would be clear evidence of a link and if there was not he would cough up.

Beyond a very small hint of some connection by our front man in Iraq, Allawi; backed up with absolutely no evidence but his claim that according to Iraqi security services a member of Al-Qaeda once visited an international summit that was held in Iraq.

Now if you want to rely on the hearsay reiteration of evidence from a questionable source by an interested party that doesn't actually show anything in the first place, go ahead... but really... it's far from being of capable of description as "real and credible" by anybody but the most inept... and we all know what happened last time people tried to rely on "real and credible" information don't we.

[Ron 10]

Sure, but you ignore the Feith Memo:

Quote

Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith. It was forwarded to the intelligence panel last month in response to bipartisan questions put to him by the Committee’s top Republican and Democratic members, Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, respectively. The memo’s contents reflected years of reporting compiled by U.S. intelligence agencies from various sources.

According to Hayes, fifty individual items (which he infers must be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, since the bulk of materials seized from Iraqi files have yet to be analyzed) establish that Saddam Hussein collaborated extensively with bin Laden and his ilk in, for example, the following ways:

• Top Iraqi intelligence officials and other trusted representatives of Saddam Hussein met repeatedly with bin Laden and his subordinates. Since Saddam personally insisted that the relationship between the two be kept secret, the contents of their conversations have apparently not yet been discovered. It is a safe bet, though, that operational cooperation was among the topics discussed.

• According to the memo, U.S. intelligence received reports that Iraq provided safe havens, money, weapons and fraudulent Iraqi and Syrian passports to al Qaeda. It also provided training in the manufacture and use of sophisticated explosives. In that connection, bin Laden reportedly specifically requested that “[Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed,] Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker – especially skilled in making car bombs – remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.”

Those seem like ties to terrorism to me.

Also, please, bring up Duelfer:

Quote

Duelfer told me, "We kept pressing the Iraqis to discuss the concept of use for aflatoxin. We learned that the origin of the biological-weapons program is in the security services, not in the military—meaning that it really came out of the assassinations program." The Iraqis, Duelfer said, admitted something else: they had loaded aflatoxin into two Scud-ready warheads, and also mixed aflatoxin with tear gas. They wouldn't say why.

This was 1995...anf BTW thats AFTER 1991.

Quote

In early August, Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamel had defected to Jordan, and had then spoken publicly about Iraq's offensive biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities. (Kamel later returned to Iraq and was killed almost immediately, on his father-in-law's orders.) The regime's credibility was badly damaged by Kamel's revelations, and during these meetings the Iraqi representatives decided to tell Duelfer and his team more than they had ever revealed before. "This was the first time Iraq actually agreed to discuss the Presidential origins of these programs," Duelfer recalled. Among the most startling admissions made by the Iraqi scientists was that they had weaponized the biological agent aflatoxin.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[dorbie 0]

Quote

please point out in which, or where in any of my posts I state that the war in Iraq is to do a single issue....

Where did I say you said? It's not my fault you keep pounding a single issue you just do and the record shows it.

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

Quote

please point out in which, or where in any of my posts I state that the war in Iraq is to do a single issue....

Where did I say you said? It's not my fault you keep pounding a single issue you just do and the record shows it.

ok, i give up, which single issue do i keep "pounding" on about???????

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Exactly - there were other reasons given by some for the war beyond the possession of WMD. Anther reason was the claim that Iraq somehow had some connection with 9/11.

It is just such a claim that this thread references.

The wager was about Saddam's links to Al Qaida not to the 9-11 attack and so was the discussion, trace it back to a post by boudy. The wording is absolutely unambiguous, so is the evidence of a link. w.r.t. It's a truism and a scientific principal that you can never prove anything, especially in politics. Evidence is there even if you don't see it as proof.

Moreover the contemporary comments from the administration talked of a "War on Terror", with lots of talk of shadowy overlapping networks.

[mr2mk1g 10]

The goal of the administration at the time was to have the public believe that a link to AQ = a link to 9/11. That was achieved without actually having to tell the public that there was a link.

Look at the polls taken at the time - a majority of the American public actually believed that SH himself was behind 9/11. I've said it before - GWB's greatest feat was convincing the US public that SH was behind 9/11. It was very well done.

BTW, the wager referenced "substantial further evidence". The wager didn't require proof, only "substantial further evidence". Credibility and weight go to substance.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

The goal of the administration at the time was to have the public believe that a link to AQ = a link to 9/11. That was achieved without actually having to tell the public that there was a link.

What actual evidence do you have of that goal? I mean you admit that they never told the public this (AFAIK Cheney actually did once ).

You place such a premium on evidence, yet you throw sweeping assertions out there against the administration based on nothing.

[mr2mk1g 10]

GWB reportedly wished to attack Iraq and take out SH. This in my opinion was a good goal but there was not the political justification for it when GWB came to power, or rather there was not the justification to do it and to remain in power. However, if the public were allowed to believe that SH had a hand in 9/11 there would be the justification required to abate national objection.

It was therefore in the administrations best interests to allow this belief to go unchecked. They did nothing to stop the concept growing. If they did not want it to grow they could easily have stopped it by simply making a statement that SH did not have a hand in 9/11. Thus a willful decision to not prevent the spread of the concept in the minds of their electorate is evidence in itself that the idea suited the administration.

Plus there's the fact that the speeches given at the time make a lot of use classic techniques to implant and foster this idea in the audiences head. Such techniques are not used by accident but for a reason. For example see this article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

At the end of the day though - this is merely my belief. As I'm neither running a country nor entering a wager I need not adduce any evidence to back up my beliefs, it is sufficient that I alone am secure in their origin.

[Ron 10]

From your own source:

Quote

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rhino 0]

Quote

From your own source:

bwahahahahahahahaha!