THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Lola wrote:

If we were to bet, you'd have to be able to prove it.....and I don't think you have the data to do that. It's not there.

You are right about my not now having the data [i.e., sufficient evidence] to prove to a certainty Saddam's sponsorship of Terrorism.

However, I bet I am right that you don't now have the data [i.e., sufficient evidence] to prove the contrary position to a certainty, else you would have provided it days ago.

So how shall such a bet be adjudicated? The same way bettors adjudicate almost all bets. They wait for future events to provide evidence one way or the other. When people bet on a poker hand, they do not know at the time of the bet whether or not their hand is the winning hand. They merely judge that it is, (or judge it isn't and fold), and then wait for the hand to play out. So shall it be in this case when the truth or falsity of Saddam's sponsorship will out. So place your bets, if you dare. I bet you a dual instruction (by me) flight hour for you or your designee in a new Cessna 172 (worth about $150). I admit it; that allows me to win either way. :wink: What do you bet?

Lola wrote:

I doubt the CIA is so dysfunctional that it couldn't get this proof if it were there to be gotten. So I think it isn't so.......but even if it is, what about all the other countries who are doing this? Why Iraq? It still comes down to that question.

Yes, there are several alleged nation state sponsors of al Qaeda et al. But that does not affect the truth or falsity of whether Saddam's state was one of those sponsors. So "what about all the other countries who are doing this?" We can discuss them as well if you like. For example, I am disappointed about Bush's failure so far to counterattack Syria and Iran for their sponsorship of the current terrorist invasion of Iraq.

Lola wrote:

Perhaps it would be a good idea to consider what those who were inside have to tell us about what went on. We should all consider the source, i.e. how credible were these people before they began to speak out?

We have, Paul O'Neill, Sec. of the Treasury and through him we have Alan Greenspan, we all know who he is; Richard Clarke, Terrorism Czar, Colin Powell, Secretary of State, former aide to the Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, and Head of the Joint Chiefs.

O'Neill et al were/are aware of what has been perpetrated by the UN, Saddam et al in the UN Oil-for-Food program Question

Incredible Exclamation

I don't think so (err, pardon, I don't bet so). If they did, they would have called attention to Saddam's fraud months perhaps years ago. I bet the truth of what Saddam did with his defrauded funds was probably not known to these gentlemen until recently.

Lola wrote:

That's a pretty impressive list of folks, so far, all of whom were well known, over many years for their honestly and integrity, Republicans all. Compare that data to this hunch of yours.

Yes, I bet their reputations for "honesty and integrity" are justified. The problem is they along with many other fine people apparently know nothing of what Saddam's state financed with the money Saddam's state stole from the Oil-for-Food program--they seemed to have learned only recently, like the rest of us, of Saddam's larceny and investments. Therefore, I bet that any opinions they might venture on the topic are less likely to be supported by valid data than are Ms. Claudia Rossett's opinions in her article "Oil-for-Terror", as published in today's WSJ, and excerpted by me, above.

It is alleged at the end of Ms. Rossett's article that Ms. Rosett is "an OpinionJournal.com columnist, and is a fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy and the Hudson Institute.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Lola, Very good points all; wonder what the rebuff is gonna be.

Well at least that has been cleared up (I assume you meant rebuttal not rebuff). Now you know! :wink:

0 Replies

By the way, O'Neill et al never said they have evidence that Saddam's state was not a sponsor of al Qaeda. They all stated one way or another (I paraphrase) that they did not have evidence that proves to a certainty that Saddam's state was a sponsor of al Qaeda et al. I am unaware of their stating what they bet is true about this matter.

0 Replies

ican, We have "no evidence that proves to a certainty that you are a sponser of al Qaeda." And I won't bet that this statement is true.

0 Replies

Well, ican...........you may be able to, but I can't. :wink:

That is, I don't want to bet, not because I might lose, which I might, but because it misses the point...entirely. I seriously doubt Saddam spent any of his loot on anyone but himself. It's his personality type that gives me this idea. I know a little bit about personality types. Usually personality types are not necessarily predictive of behavior, but in the case of an out and out psychopath of this proportion, I feel pretty confident my prediction is correct. Granted, some psychopaths do adopt a religious cause through which to channel their wishes.........but in Saddam's case, I see no evidence that he has ever been inclined in this way. His way seems to have been, "take what you can get and feel no remorse whatsoever." But this is really all beside the point.

I think the point is summed up in these questions. Did this administration approach the problem of terrorism with an open mind? Did they seek to solve this dangerous and difficult problem after careful study of what approach would be best? Or did they plan from the beginning to attack Iraq because of some theory they had developed? Were they so intent on proving themselves right that they ignored the national interest (not to mention the world's)?

Now we do have some credible evidence (not conclusive, of course) that the answer to questions 3 and 4 is yes. And what we have been able to learn about the time period when these decisions (going to war with Iraq) were being made is that not only do they have no proof that Saddam was supporting terrorism, but that the evidence available at the time did not indicate it at all.

_________________

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, We have "no evidence that proves to a certainty that you are a sponser of al Qaeda." And I won't bet that this statement is true.

Gad, you sure like to avoid issues for which your logic lapses. Cool

O'Neill et al said in effect: "We have "no evidence that proves to a certainty that Saddam was a sponser of al Qaeda."

The question I raised here is whether or not O'Neill et al had evidence that Saddam was probably not a sponsor of al Qaeda et al. I am not aware that they have made such a claim.

Ms. Rossett alleges evidence that Saddam was probably a sponsor of al Qaeda et al.

I'm betting Ms. Rossett is correct. I'm betting that way because of evidence I have encountered separately from Ms. Rossett's article.

I'll repeat that evidence here again, "if you ask me nicely." Smile

0 Replies

Et Al al qaida et tu ican

What the **** are you et alling about? El Al?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

I seriously doubt Saddam spent any of his loot on anyone but himself. It's his personality type that gives me this idea. I know a little bit about personality types. Usually personality types are not necessarily predictive of behavior, but in the case of an out and out psychopath of this proportion, I feel pretty confident my prediction is correct. Granted, some psychopaths do adopt a religious cause through which to channel their wishes.........but in Saddam's case, I see no evidence that he has ever been inclined in this way. His way seems to have been, "take what you can get and feel no remorse whatsoever."

Lola, I think your argument may be valid. I think my argument may be valid. So the question for me is which argument is more likely to be the valid argument. I use the phrase I bet X is true as a metaphor for the phrase I think X is more probably true than NOT X. So, I bet X is true where X in this context = Saddam was a sponsor of al Qaeda et al.
You are in effect betting NOT X is true.

Here's only one example that Saddam has publicly sponsored religious terrorists. Saddam is alleged to have paid many Palestinian families of suicide bombers of innocent Israelies (arab as well as jew). A suicide bomber is motivated to be such by the promise of an alleged reward by Allah in Paradise. This dastardly promise was reinforced by reference to the interpretations by some Muslim clerics of the Qu'ran. So here we have evidence that Saddam sponsored religious terrorists when it suited him to.

Lola wrote:

I think the point is summed up in these questions. Did this administration approach the problem of terrorism with an open mind? Did they seek to solve this dangerous and difficult problem after careful study of what approach would be best? Or did they plan from the beginning to attack Iraq because of some theory they had developed? Were they so intent on proving themselves right that they ignored the national interest (not to mention the world's)?

Lola, I can make up the same kind of irrational questions about the prior administration:
Did Clinton's administration approach the problem of terrorism with an open mind? Did they seek to solve this dangerous and difficult problem after careful study of what approach would be best? Or did they plan from the beginning to not make a pre-emptive strike attack Iraq because of some theory they had developed? Were they so intent on proving themselves right that they ignored the national interest (not to mention the world's)?

Lola wrote:

ola"]Now we do have some credible evidence (not conclusive, of course) that the answer to questions 3 and 4 is yes. And what we have been able to learn about the time period when these decisions (going to war with Iraq) were being made is that not only do they have no proof that Saddam was supporting terrorism, but that the evidence available at the time did not indicate it at all.

I do not believe your alleged credible evidence is credible. It's based on hearsay from individuals who have said one thing in writing and another thing under oath.

I agree that "they have no proof that Saddam was supporting terrorism." By proof, I infer you mean evidence that proves something to a certainty.

You claim that "the evidence available at the time did not indicate it at all" that Saddam was supporting terrorism. I disagree per the above evidence regarding Sadam's support of Palestinian terrorists. There is more evidence that Sadam was supporting terrorists (e.g., training facilities). It would be logical for you to claim that such evidence is insufficient (that's a subjective judgement like mine), but illogical for you to claim it is zero.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Et Al al qaida et tu ican

What the **** are you et alling about? El Al?

www.m-w.com

Quote:

Main Entry: et al
Function: abbreviation
Etymology: Latin et alii (masc.), et aliae (fem.), or et alia (neut.)
and others

0 Replies

Well, ican, you perhaps forgot from your Latin classes how to use capital letters in Latin :wink:

0 Replies

Quote:

Resistance fighters in the Iraqi city of Falluja have placed a $15 million bounty on the heads of key US occupation figures, including Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, ican, you perhaps forgot from your Latin classes how to use capital letters in Latin :wink:

I could blame it on my memory if I could remember whether that's what failed.

I could blame it on my typing if I could remember that's to blame.

I could blame it on Merriam-Webster, but I won't.

Since it happened on Bush's watch, I'll blame it on Bush. Laughing

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
Resistance fighters in the Iraqi city of Falluja have placed a $15 million bounty on the heads of key US occupation figures, including Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld.

From what source did they get the money?

0 Replies

Quote:

Et Al al qaida et tu ican

What the **** are you et alling about? El Al?

0 Replies

Definition of "rebuff - 1. A blunt or abrupt repulse or refusal, as to an offer; a snub. 2. Any check or abrupt setback to progress or action." Makes sense to me!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Definition of "rebuff - 1. A blunt or abrupt repulse or refusal, as to an offer; a snub. 2. Any check or abrupt setback to progress or action." Makes sense to me!

What dictionary is your source? OK, so I won't spare you their definitions.

www.m-w.com

Quote:

Main Entry: re·buff
Pronunciation: ri-'b&f
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle French rebuffer, from Old Italian ribuffare to reprimand, from ribuffo reprimand
: to reject or criticize sharply : SNUB
- rebuff noun

www.m-w.com

Quote:

Main Entry: re·but
Pronunciation: ri-'b&t
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): re·but·ted; re·but·ting
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French reboter, from re- + boter to butt -- more at BUTT
transitive senses
1 : to drive or beat back : REPEL
2 a : to contradict or oppose by formal legal argument, plea, or countervailing proof b : to expose the falsity of : REFUTE
intransitive senses : to make or furnish an answer or counter proof
- re·but·ta·ble /-'b&-t&-b&l/ adjective

"Close but no cigar"

0 Replies

You'll have to take your argument, if you have one, to the publishers of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

You'll have to take your argument, if you have one, to the publishers of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

To accomplish what?

0 Replies

Quote:

Lola, I can make up the same kind of irrational questions about the prior administration:
Did Clinton's administration approach the problem of terrorism with an open mind? Did they seek to solve this dangerous and difficult problem after careful study of what approach would be best? Or did they plan from the beginning to not make a pre-emptive strike attack Iraq because of some theory they had developed? Were they so intent on proving themselves right that they ignored the national interest (not to mention the world's)?

Now ican, read what you've written here......you don't really think this illustrates any point do you? You don't....surely you don't. The situations are not even close. They certainly can't be compared. They're apples and oranges. Did anyone working in the Clinton Admin write any position papers? Did they have any meetings, 10 days into the administration, discussing something like a need to avoid a pre-emptive strike on Iraq? The answer, as you know, is nope.......or at least if they did, no one came forward to disclose it.......

Really!

0 Replies

Whatever you seem to relish from questioning their definition of "rebuff."

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know