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 bull**** 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 bull**** 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.