No, I deny it because "what-if" semantical games are not evidence —of anything.Axis Kast wrote:And what of it? It’s fucking true. You’re only denying it because it came out of my mouth.Let me make myself more clear. A poor nation is not an impotent nation. What the least have done, so too might others.
Token widows-and-orphans fund = Al-Qaeda level threat? Doesn't work, imbecile.What part of, “Saddam Hussein passed money into the hands of a known terrorist organization,” don’t you fucking comprehend? Jesus H. Christ. You’re a moron.All your handwaving does not erase the dishonesty this White House engaged in by constantly making the Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection. And there is absolutely zero evidence of Saddam doing anything other than making token payments to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, so you can just stop flogging this particular red herring of yours.
Nice Borg impression you're doing: "TRUTH IS IRRELEVANT. FACT IS IRRELEVANT.Whether the al-Qaeda connection panned out is irrelevant;
Riiiight... One "casual" mention of Iraq is enough all by itself to cause the American people to believe they were culpable with 9-11 or would inspire copycat actions. You really don't know how ridiculous you are at this point, do you?you first need to prove that the public wouldn’t have held Hussein responsible for 9/11 even had Iraq only been mentioned in passing as a potential source of copy-cat attacks.
I'm saying he neither had an inclination to be involved with anything like the September 11th attack and that his history demonstrates only token-level aid for small-scale actions and those aimed at its prime regional enemy, Israel. Do you even think before you type anything? Now kindly cease your what-if games and stick to the hard facts.Osama Bin Laden didn’t arm his men with a nuclear bomb. They were paid cash to act as hijackers. You’re telling me Saddam has no capability to do this whatsoever? Do you even read what you type before you click: “Reply”?!
Burden of Proof fallacy. You keep desperately trying to divert attention from the words and deeds of Bush and his flacks.You need to prove that the American public didn’t and wouldn’t have believed this anyway.
Yes, yes, yes... "could be/if/maybe/possibly/suppose/imagine". All your bullshit rhetorical games to try to say Saddam was involved where he clearly wasn't. What exactly is this aversion you have to facts?Cash for terrorists who could have used it any way they pleased. Don’t be a fucking moron. Just admit it: you only challenged the point because it was mine. You can’t actually be that much of an idiot.
Then he had the responsibility to not say anything until he had the facts in hand and verified. That is unless fact actually wasn't important to Bush.He was still responsible for pressing an ongoing investigation and looking into the possibility of copy-cat attacks.More handwaving on your part. The CIA already demonstrated that no such ties existed where Iraq was concerned.
Again, you're cute when you try to be clever. You were the one trying to argue that token financial relief for the families of suicide bombers was a sufficent cause for war, then tried to say that it may have been sufficent for Iraq but not necessarily for Saudi Arabia, which has engaged in similar token acts. That's not a false dilemma (do learn your logical fallacies), it's you contradicting yourself and trying to argue a double-standard.Because it was a false dilemma. What concession? Suddenly we have to go to war with anybody who fits a certain description? Nice one, jackass.What a pathetic comeback. And no answer to the question at hand. Concession accepted.
Good one, dumbass.
Pot. Kettle. Black.Do you need mental help?Sorry, but if the standard is that token payoffs to the families of suicide bombers constitutes state sponsorship of terrorism, then Saudi Arabia is an enemy the same as Iraq and justifies war against Saudi Arabia. If Saudi's actions aren't sufficent to justify war, then the argument that war against Iraq on those grounds was justified fails.
More so than you, it seems, since I know a military threat is only as good as the capability to actually carry it out.Do you know anything of military strategy?
It's difficult to manoeuver in a country which is mostly hundreds of miles of empty desert in all directions? That's comedy. In any case, I'm not arguing the case for war with Saudi Arabia. I'm mocking your double-standard in regards to Saudi and Iraq.Saudi Arabia is a major source of American oil and a major staging ground for American troops. What part of: “It’s difficult to fucking maneuver there,” can’t you wrap your empty head around?
I'm sure you would, since you are obviously insane.Legally? Absolutely. I’d love to see them try though.On that logic, Libya is justified in declaring war against the United States, since we tried to assasinate their sitting leader (but bungled it and killed his daughter instead).
Because you declare it? No, I don't think so. Nice Golden Mean fallacy, though.It makes you a liar.One American —and the plot was uncovered, thwarted, and due retaliation delivered which deterred any such future attempt. This does not point to wholesale terrorism targeting Americans indiscriminately.
But evidence is required to prove a case, shitwit.Launching an investigation requires suspicion, not evidence, SherlockNever mind that there is no evidence to back your contention in this regard.
And this justifies making the allegations after no supporting evidence how? Do tell us that one, imbecile.But it was a legitimate point of concern, you fucking moron.EXCEPT THAT NO SUCH IRAQ/AL-QAEDA ALLIANCE EXISTED. Neither directly nor indirectly, no matter how many what-if games you wish to indulge in to fill in the great gaping void where you have no evidence to back your contention.
Are you now contradicting your own arguments of the previous two debates on this subject?!Where the fuck did I say we had to go to war? I’m vindicating the President’s statements, not making a case for or against war on the basis of these analysis alone.You argued that because of WMDs which might exist, we had to go to war. You argued that because of Iraq's possible ties with Al-Qaeda, we had to go to war. Everytime you've failed the challenge to provide the hard evidence to back the war justifications, YOU argued that "we can't be sure it isn't so, therefore war". You've been trying to validate war based upon nothing but sheer speculation on three threads now.
Howzabout:Where did I say, “So therefore, war!”? Where? Where, you fucking liar?
"Once Bush made his statement and became embroiled with the UN politics, American diplomacy would have suffered an even greater blow had we not committed ourselves to invasion."
and
"Bush was correct: without régime-change, there could be no full accounting. How long would you have advocated the presence of people such as Hans Blix or their inspections teams?"
and
"When there is concern that he might be reconstituting his arsenal – and there was -, it becomes a question of whether we wish to deal with it now – on our terms – or later – possibly on his."
and
"Why is it, Vympel, that you always seem to harp on only one justification for war every time we debate, and then fall into the trap of assuming it stands completely alone?
Part of the reasoning behind the American position was doubtless fear that Hussein’s reconstitution would make him difficult to face down in the future – i.e. that he could expand his capability to approach that of a nation such as North Korea."
and
"quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this necessitated war over continuing deterrence and inspections how? Trusting Saddam's word for anything is not an issue and never was an issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the point of view of the British and American governments, inspections wouldn’t have worked because Blix could never be sure of anything even approaching complete, simultaneous coverage of the entire nation of Iraq. Deterrence was also considered flawed since one could never fully confirm whether or not it was actually effective in the first place without full, intrusive inspections (which themselves couldn’t be acknowledged as fully comprehensive unless there wasn’t a régime potentially capable of ongoing deception in the first place). Many “if then” requirements, but fully rational nonetheless."
and
"In this case, we’re talking about a man with chemical and biological agents whose clear agenda involves supporting violence against American allies. Yet it’s advocated that we wait for this man to kill hundreds of thousands of Israelis, Turks, or others before we topple his régime?:
and
"Iraq is by comparison a weakling easily disposed of before it grows too much in power."
and
"My point is that failing to attack Iraq at this point in time puts an American ally at serve risk. We will likely have to face down Saddam at one point or another over the next five years if we let him off the hook now and rely only on a United Nations inspectorate."
and
"And it’s right because if we don’t attack, we are convinced he will."
and
"The potential for Hussein to attack a neighbor and thus compel American action is enough reason for us. And régime-change for a purpose we deign important is always justification for us whether or not it is morally correct from a personal point of view. "
and
"quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, I see; disarmament's not happening fast enough to suit you, so let's go to war.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. I don’t think you will ever reach a point at which Hussein is adequately – or fully- disarmed no matter how much time we spend."
and
"Total disarmament and containment is impossibler without régime-change."
and
"Deterrence and containment have failed as a result of fumbling over the past twelve years and under sixteen separate resolutions. Today, Hussein has been able to take the first steps toward producing prohibited missiles, imports aluminum tubes (blah blah blah blahblahblah... —snip). Clearly, Hussein represents an imminent threat."
and
"You can in no way prove to me that Hussein won’t make a dangerous gamble involving Israel’s fate or his own – especially were we to withdraw from the Persian Gulf altogether."
From the Saddam Was Bluffing thread and the Our World Historical Gamble thread. Your own words, Comical Axi, in which you argued that it was either war or Israel dis, war or Saddam gets WMDs, war or Saddam's Vast Terrorist Armies will get us, war or Saddam conquers the Middle East tomorrow. All on record.
Your words, liar. Eat them.
Wrong. To make that assertion absent the facts or corroborative evidence is to lie. Facts and evidence. What exactly is your problem with these intellectual concepts?The argument is that he had to point out to the American people that Iraq could copy al-Qaeda, and was right to report an investigation. From that alone, Saddam would have been assumed guilty.No, he wasn't making mistakes, he was lying through his teeth. The CIA found no evidence to back his Iraq/Al-Qaeda/9-11 formulation. None. How long will you continue in your denial that the facts of the matter contradict the White House?
No, you're the one trying so desperately to deny that this was precisely what Bush did.I’m not the one trying to claim in roundabout ways that Bush made some kind of actual link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 without any concrete proof.
He can either call Pearle into the Oval Office and tell him to shut the fuck up about issues he hasn't the full story on, or he can discredit Pearle on TV if he refuses to do so. It's happened before in the history of this country.He can forbid all he wants; Bush doesn’t control every single word or thought of a man named Richard Pearle.Are you trying to argue that Bush didn't realise the impact of his own words?!?! Are you trying to say that he was powerless to forbid his subordinates from making unsupported contentions in public? Are you going to stand there and say he didn't comprehend what his meaning was when, in the course of arguing for the war in his own State of the Union speech, he talked about the threat of Iraq and its alledged WMDs and openly speculated about the September 11th terrorists having nuclear weapons instead of "just" planes to do their damage? What part of "we had to go to war in Iraq because of September 11th" eludes you? And if Bush didn't intend or desire for such a formulation to be made, then why didn't he come right out last year and state unequivocally that Saddam Hussein had no connection to 9-11?
Sorry, Comical Axi, but the evidence is Bush's own words and his doing nothing to correct the impression they were forming with the public. The only alternatives to Bush being dishonest are that he is negligent or that he is an idiot.
Saddam Hussein was a pissant little thug with a decrepit war machine and unable to do dick. Osama binLaden was the clear Global Public Enemy n.1 and the demonstrated perpetrator of the WTC strike. There was no reason for the public to link BinLaden with Saddam Hussein absent a lot of prompting in that direction.No matter what Bush did, Saddam would have been painted a terrorist – even had he stopped at, “We’re investigating,” or, “There’s a potential Iraq could do something similar.” Saddam Hussein was virtually the embodiment of all evil in the world even after Osama Bin Laden stumbled onto the scene.
My but you just love parroting the Party Line, don't you? How about it was the wrong war not only because steamrolling Iraq does nothing to stop Al-Qaeda, but that it puts us in an increasingly untenable occupation which is draining the treasury, radicalising the Muslim world against America, and costing us one soldier per day? And also because 3/4 of the Army's combat strength is now tied down?What’s wrong with having to go to war with Iraq because of September 11th? The changing face of international security highlighted the importance of charging in on rogue nations while we still could – and that’s exclusive of the WMD. It was just good strategy.
You just keep excusing lie after lie after lie after lie. If Bush was as honest as you keep insisting he is, it was his responsibility to not keep putting Iraq and Al-Qaeda, Saddam and 9-11 in the same speeches. Your bullshit "the investigations weren't complete" chanting does not alter this.Why didn’t Bush say something before? Perhaps because investigations hadn’t run their course entirely? They didn’t just stop with the CIA.
Ignoring the attributions I've posted in this thread does not make your case. And since your opinion is based upon an edifice of lies, it isn't worth shit.No, you have no solid evidence. You have opinion. Mine’s just as good.Yes I have, actually. You just think that sticking your fingers in your erars and going "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" makes inconvenient facts go away.
Now in pell-mell denial. Insanity closes over you.Get it through your head. You’ve only proven that you have a strong opinion (which, apparently, you can’t back up with solid fact).
No, that's opinion. But we identified your confusion of the two concepts in our previous debate.No matter what, Hans Blix could never have been more comprehensive than an occupation. This is fact – regardless of your opinion of what it meant in terms of going to war.Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice both knew in February of 2001 that Iraq was disarmed and neutralised and John Pilger's video evidence on that score is the smoking gun. The evidence post-war has vindicated Blix. The WMD threat was a lie, and Iraq's utter inability to rebuild its war machine or threaten any of the neighbouring states in the region is the only fact that matters.
No, bullshit actually. Bush doing exactly what he's been accused of, and trying to use wild surmise and playing upon fear to whip up war fever.Extremely valid point."Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes."
The part where they're deliberate fucking lies. You really are too far gone to know the difference anymore, aren't you?I can’t speak for anybody else but Bush. His argument about the “four airplanes” was however quite valid. What part of: “He’s required to draw those kinds of connections and ask those kinds of questions!” can’t you accept?
Yes he could, actually. It's called "influence of the office". LBJ used that all the time. So did Truman. So did JFK.Bush could not stop Pearle from saying what he would.
Is there no end to the lies and sophistries you'll flog? Atta's alledged meeting in Prague with an Iraqi representative was discredited by both the Czechs (who, amazingly, happen to actually be in Prague) and the CIA. Fact. Not opinion.Spanish intelligence even confirmed that Atta spoke to an Iraqi, if I remember correctly. That had to be worth more than the Czech opinion, at the time. And the CIA’s failed to confirm, not proven that anybody lied outright.
You have a novel way of rationalising your insanity. No, it's just utterly inconceivable that masses of people could be led to the false conclusion about Saddam and 9-11 by the White House constantly saying such to the national press, the Sunday chat shows, on every interview, and in every public speech for a whole year.You’ve failed to prove that the opinions wouldn’t have materialized anyway. Hell, if 52% of people believe we found evidence that Hussein was involved – something that would have been difficult to intimate to anybody who doesn’t follow the news very, very closely
I guess 70% of the American people just had a collective dream one night. Yeah, that's the ticket...
Of course not. It's just inconceivable that Bush could have gone on TV anytime before March 2003 to tell the American people that no evidence for an Iraq/9-11 connection existed or stopped himself from constantly linking the two together in his speeches.there doesn’t appear to have been much Bush could have done either way.
