General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

[WalterM140]

Here's some more good solid information on the war for BUFDRVR and his co-shill
Brooks to discount.

(CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken
military leaders of the past two decades.

From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central
Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same
job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.

Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought
so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts
-- special envoy to the Middle East.

But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in
his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty
of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll.
Correspondent Steve Kroft reports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
“There has been poor strategic thinking in this,� says Zinni. “There has
been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that
we are going to ‘stay the course,’ the course is headed over Niagara Falls.
I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody
responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure.�

Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and diplomat,
rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general with a
reputation for candor.

Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called "Battle
Ready," Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its
conduct of the war in Iraq.

In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later
conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility,
at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground
and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was
dereliction in lack of planning,� says Zinni. “The president is owed the
finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is
owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He
didn’t get the first two.�

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy.
And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the
war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress:
“This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it
needs to be done now.�

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion
of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former
Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and
former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war
the civilians wanted.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this
situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive
zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,� says Zinni.

“Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al
Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at 'cells' in 60
countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and
intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let's deal with this
one at a time. Let's deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.�

One of Zinni's responsibilities while commander-in-chief at Centcom was to
develop a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Like his predecessors, he subscribed
to the belief that you only enter battle with overwhelming force.

But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld thought the job could be done with
fewer troops and high-tech weapons.

How many troops did Zinni’s plan call for? “We were much in line with Gen.
Shinseki's view,� says Zinni. “We were talking about, you know, 300,000, in
that neighborhood.�

What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead
of 180,000?

“I think it's critical in the aftermath, if you're gonna go to resolve a
conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country,� says
Zinni.

“The first requirement is to freeze the situation, is to gain control of the
security. To patrol the streets. To prevent the looting. To prevent the
'revenge' killings that might occur. To prevent bands or gangs or militias that
might not have your best interests at heart from growing or developing.�
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Last month, Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged that he hadn't anticipated the
level of violence that would continue in Iraq a year after the war began.
Should he have been surprised?

“He should not have been surprised. You know, there were a number of people,
before we even engaged in this conflict, that felt strongly we were
underestimating the problems and the scope of the problems we would have in
there,� says Zinni. “Not just generals, but others -- diplomats, those in
the international community that understood the situation. Friends of ours in
the region that were cautioning us to be careful out there. I think he should
have known that.�

Instead, Zinni says the Pentagon relied on inflated intelligence information
about weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi exiles, like Ahmed Chalabi and
others, whose credibility was in doubt. Zinni claims there was no viable plan
or strategy in place for governing post-Saddam Iraq.

“As best I could see, I saw a pickup team, very small, insufficient in the
Pentagon with no detailed plans that walked onto the battlefield after the
major fighting stopped and tried to work it out in the huddle -- in effect to
create a seat-of-the-pants operation on reconstructing a country,� says
Zinni.

“I give all the credit in the world to Ambassador Bremer as a great American
who's serving his country, I think, with all the kind of sacrifice and spirit
you could expect. But he has made mistake after mistake after mistake.�
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
What mistakes?

“Disbanding the army,� says Zinni. “De-Baathifying, down to a level where
we removed people that were competent and didn’t have blood on their hands
that you needed in the aftermath of reconstruction – alienating certain
elements of that society.�

Zinni says he blames the Pentagon for what happened. “I blame the civilian
leadership of the Pentagon directly. Because if they were given the
responsibility, and if this was their war, and by everything that I understand,
they promoted it and pushed it - certain elements in there certainly - even to
the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs, then they
should bear the responsibility,� he says.

“But regardless of whose responsibility I think it is, somebody has screwed
up. And at this level and at this stage, it should be evident to everybody that
they've screwed up. And whose heads are rolling on this? That's what bothers me
most.�

Adds Zinni: “If you charge me with the responsibility of taking this nation
to war, if you charge me with implementing that policy with creating the
strategy which convinces me to go to war, and I fail you, then I ought to
go.�

Who specifically is he talking about?

“Well, it starts with at the top. If you're the secretary of defense and
you're responsible for that. If you're responsible for that planning and that
execution on the ground. If you've assumed responsibility for the other
elements, non-military, non-security, political, economic, social and
everything else, then you bear responsibility,� says Zinni. “Certainly
those in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly
they ought to be gone and replaced.�

Zinni is talking about a group of policymakers within the administration known
as "the neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize
American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They
include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense
Douglas Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle; National
Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President Cheney's chief of
staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy
in Iraq.

“I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody
I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and
what they were trying to do,� says Zinni.

“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe
themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know,
unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you
criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who
they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are.
And I'm not interested.�

Adds Zinni: “I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number
of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do.
And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader,
diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.�

Zinni said he believed their strategy was to change the Middle East and bring
it into the 21st century.

“All sounds very good, all very noble. The trouble is the way they saw to go
about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States - the
take down of Iraq as a priority,� adds Zinni. “And what we have become now
in the United States, how we're viewed in this region is not an entity that's
promising positive change. We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as
the modern colonial power in this part of the world.�
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Should all of those involved, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, resign?

“I believe that they should accept responsibility for that,� says Zinni.
“If I were the commander of a military organization that delivered this kind
of performance to the president, I certainly would tender my resignation. I
certainly would expect to be gone.�

“You say we need to change course -- that the current course is taking us
over Niagara Falls. What course do you think ought to be set,� Kroft asked
Zinni.

“Well, it's been evident from the beginning what the course is. We should
have gotten this U.N. resolution from the beginning. What does it take to sit
down with the members of the Security Council, the permanent members, and find
out what it takes,� says Zinni.

“What is it they want to get this resolution? Do they want a say in political
reconstruction? Do they want a piece of the pie economically? If that's the
cost, fine. What they’re gonna pay for up front is boots on the ground and
involvement in sharing the burden.�

Are there enough troops in Iraq now?

“Do I think there are other missions that should be taken on which would
cause the number of troops to go up, not just U.S., but international
participants? Yes,� says Zinni.

“We should be sealing off the borders, we should be protecting the road
networks. We're not only asking for combat troops, we’re looking for
trainers; we’re looking for engineers. We are looking for those who can
provide services in there.�

But has the time come to develop an exit strategy?

“There is a limit. I think it’s important to understand what the limit is.
Now do I think we are there yet? No, it is salvageable if you can convince the
Iraqis that what we're trying to do is in their benefit in the long run,�
says Zinni.

“Unless we change our communication and demonstrate a different image to the
people on the street, then we're gonna get to the point where we are going to
be looking for quick exits. I don't believe we're there now. And I wouldn't
want to see us fail here.�
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Zinni, who now teaches international relations at the College of William and
Mary, says he feels a responsibility to speak out, just as former Marine Corps
Commandant David Shoup voiced early concerns about the Vietnam war nearly 40
years ago.

“It is part of your duty. Look, there is one statement that bothers me more
than anything else. And that's the idea that when the troops are in combat,
everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty
rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result,�
says Zinni.

“I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up.
Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's getting
just as many troops killed? It’s leading down a path where we're not
succeeding and accomplishing the missions we've set out to do.�

60 Minutes asked Secretary Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfowitz to respond to
Zinni's remarks. The request for an interview was declined.

© MMIV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[WalterM140]

"In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later
conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility,
at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground
and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was
dereliction in lack of planning,� says Zinni. “The president is owed the
finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is
owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He
didn’t get the first two.�
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

Those ******* Republicans have got to go.

Walt

[Vaughn]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead
> of 180,000?
>
> "I think it's critical in the aftermath, if you're gonna go to resolve a
> conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country," says
> Zinni.
>
Judging from Bush's recent approval ratings, it is finally beginning to
sink in to the general public that we have somehow managed to snatch defeat from
the jaws of victory in Iraq. That we never should have gone there is the first
place is now quite academic.

Vaughn

[WalterM140]

> Judging from Bush's recent approval ratings, it is finally beginning to
>sink in to the general public that we have somehow managed to snatch defeat
>from
>the jaws of victory in Iraq. That we never should have gone there is the
>first
>place is now quite academic.
>


Not until those sorry *******s are out of office. I do take your point though.

Walt

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 5/24/04 3:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> Judging from Bush's recent approval ratings, it is finally beginning to
>>sink in to the general public that we have somehow managed to snatch defeat
>>from
>>the jaws of victory in Iraq. That we never should have gone there is the
>>first
>>place is now quite academic.
>>
>
>
>Not until those sorry *******s are out of office. I do take your point
>though.
>
>Walt


The day these guys are out of office will be a great day in American history.
It will mark the end of the worst government America has ever had. They can't
fool all of the people all of the time.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
> >From: (WalterM140)
> >Date: 5/24/04 3:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >> Judging from Bush's recent approval ratings, it is finally beginning to
> >>sink in to the general public that we have somehow managed to snatch
defeat
> >>from
> >>the jaws of victory in Iraq. That we never should have gone there is
the
> >>first
> >>place is now quite academic.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Not until those sorry *******s are out of office. I do take your point
> >though.
> >
> >Walt
>
>
> The day these guys are out of office will be a great day in American
history.
> It will mark the end of the worst government America has ever had. They
can't
> fool all of the people all of the time.

So far, your predictions vis a vis Iraq have been none too accurate:

"It will immediately take over all Iraqui property including the oil fields
and
refineries. These will be put under the control of companies like Exxon who
will run the entire Iraqui oil operation under the Alien Property
Custodian." (13 JAN 03)

"We've got their country and we have their oil. The rest doesn't matter."
(25 APR 03)

Funny, but it appears you were one of the bigger "go into Iraq" folks not
that long ago (and for widely differing reasons, according to your various
posts on the subject, everything from assuring the US a springboard in the
region to WMD's and "the oil"). The single constant thread was you animosity
towards the French regarding their behavior during the period leading up to
the war...

"The French will pay a price for their betrayal. And it won't be a pretty
sight." (28 MAR 03)

"At this moment the French veto makes them an ally of Iraq." (7 FEB 03)

"...they [the French] questioned the motives of the Bush
administration. Why should the French fight? They know the Americans and the

Brits will fight for them. As always. They are pobably drawing up surrender
documents just in case even as we speak.." (6 FEB 03)

And, to provide another Artian view of the war that seems to be a bit
(guffaw!) at odds with this latest blathering:

[when told 21 JAN 03 that OBL was not in Iraq] "Can't hurt to look."

And..."GO FORTH AND CONQUER !!!!!!" (11 FEB 03)

Either you are seriously delusional, to the point of exhibiting
multiple-personality disorder "Its the WMD's! No, it's not, it's the oil!
Trounce those danged Iraqis! Go! Go! Go! I mean, STOP! What the hell are you
doing, why are you GOING (into Iraq...)?" etc. etc., ad nauseum...

But now you are intent upon hanging Bush for Iraq, having been one of the
bigger cheerleaders behind our going in there in the first place? Must be
nice to have such a fluid sense of values which allows you to be "right" no
matter how things develop....

Brooks

>
> Arthur Kramer

[miso]

There are quotes floating around the net that Bush Senior (GHW Bush)
said going into Iraq would be the wrong thing to do. Of course, that
was at the end of the first Gulf War. Bush Junior (GW Bush) could say
things had changed. However, the reality is Sadam was weaker now than
after the first Gulf War, and the only thing that changed was the BS
dished out by Chalabi. I laught at the reversal for fortune that has
befell (sp) Chalabi. Note that Clinton paid Chalabi money as well, but
didn't fall for the BS.



"Vaughn" > wrote in message >...
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What difference would it have made if 300,000 troops had been sent in, instead
> > of 180,000?
> >
> > "I think it's critical in the aftermath, if you're gonna go to resolve a
> > conflict through the use of force, and then to rebuild the country," says
> > Zinni.
> >
> Judging from Bush's recent approval ratings, it is finally beginning to
> sink in to the general public that we have somehow managed to snatch defeat from
> the jaws of victory in Iraq. That we never should have gone there is the first
> place is now quite academic.
>
> Vaughn

[WalterM140]

Brooks sticks his toe in the water:

>Funny, but it appears you were one of the bigger "go into Iraq" folks not
>that long ago (and for widely differing reasons

So was I. But the Bush administration lied about the basis for the war and then
screwed it up, as General Zinni said.

Walt

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(WalterM140) wrote:

> Brooks sticks his toe in the water:
>
> >Funny, but it appears you were one of the bigger "go into Iraq"
> >folks not that long ago (and for widely differing reasons
>
> So was I.

Were you?

I can't seem to find any comments from you on the subject more than
about a month old, and those from the last month are all anti-invasion.

It seems that if you were "one of the bigger" folks, you would have said
something.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (WalterM140) wrote:
>
> > Brooks sticks his toe in the water:
> >
> > >Funny, but it appears you were one of the bigger "go into Iraq"
> > >folks not that long ago (and for widely differing reasons
> >
> > So was I.
>
> Were you?
>
> I can't seem to find any comments from you on the subject more than
> about a month old, and those from the last month are all anti-invasion.
>
> It seems that if you were "one of the bigger" folks, you would have said
> something.

He's another kook (witness his continual tapdancing attempts during his
engagement by BUFDRVR). He fits nicely into my killfile, too, along with the
Tarvernaut...

Brooks

>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[WalterM140]

>> >Funny, but it appears you were one of the bigger "go into Iraq"
>> >folks not that long ago (and for widely differing reasons
>>
>> So was I.
>
>Were you?
>
>I can't seem to find any comments from you on the subject more than
>about a month old, and those from the last month are all anti-invasion.
>
>It seems that if you were "one of the bigger" folks, you would have said
>something.
>


I wasn't posting on this NG in that time frame. I don't think you'll find any
posts from me at all on this NG from back then.

Yes, I was for the war, because I thought Powell and Cheney would be running
it, not the incompetents who are in fact running it.

Walt

[Ed Rasimus]

On 25 May 2004 01:08:00 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>
>So was I. But the Bush administration lied about the basis for the war and then
>screwed it up, as General Zinni said.
>
>Walt

Did we notice that the Berg beheading in Iraq was conducted by
Al-Zawhari, an Al-Qeada leader? No link to AQ and Iraq???

Or, the discovery last week of a 155mm shell with 3 LITERS of Sarin?
How much WMD does it take to make WMD? Got any estimate of what 3
liters of Sarin would do in downtown Manhattan? Or, how big that is?
How many needles can you hide in a haystack the size of California. We
found one so far.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:

>Did we notice that the Berg beheading in Iraq was conducted by
>Al-Zawhari, an Al-Qeada leader? No link to AQ and Iraq???

Uhhh, Ed there are reports that the presence of AQ is
post-invasion/occupation. That's if you believe folks like Karen
Kwiatkowski LtCol USAF (Ret). Nobody disputes AQ is now in Iraq, but
there is a wide credibility gap connecting AQ and Iraq pre-invasion.

Start here http://www.militaryweek.com/kk120103.shtml note that this
is reprinted from The American Conservative (not some Lefty Liberal
Everything America Does is Wrong periodical).

>Or, the discovery last week of a 155mm shell with 3 LITERS of Sarin?
>How much WMD does it take to make WMD? Got any estimate of what 3
>liters of Sarin would do in downtown Manhattan? Or, how big that is?
>How many needles can you hide in a haystack the size of California. We
>found one so far.

Fair enough, do we invade Iran and Syria next, then North Korea? I ask
that partially as a rhetorical question because I have cohorts that
honestly think Iran and Syria ARE next on the list...and these guys
believe everything GWB (Rove)/Cheney/Rumsfeld say, and yet they think
Colin Powell is something of a pussy. WTFO? Blind obedience is scary.
Neocon arrogance is dangerous.

One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed. I don't
dispute that SH used WMD against Iranians and Kurds over a decade ago.
I am curious why he didn't use them last year when we invaded, that
seems illogical NOT to use them in your last stand to keep control of
your country. Again you'll be hard pressed to present evidence that SH
was about to turn his WMD vast stockpiles (that even Clinton's folks
thought he had) or those remnants over to AQ.

I don't dispute that SH was a ruthless MF; I don't dispute Iraq will
eventually be better off with SH gone. I simply dispute the arguments
GWB chose to rationalize our invasion...I'm not alone. Are we going to
occupy all nations that are potential threats?

And just for the record, I voted against GWB in 2000 because he lacks
the gravitas IMO and the guy I wanted in the Oval Office, John McCain
wasn't in the running (Rove can take credit for the SC "push
polling.")...but I digress.

Juvat

[Jarg]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
> confessed the following:
>
> And just for the record, I voted against GWB in 2000 because he lacks
> the gravitas IMO and the guy I wanted in the Oval Office, John McCain
> wasn't in the running (Rove can take credit for the SC "push
> polling.")...but I digress.
>
> Juvat
>
>

And you thought Al Gore had said "gravitas'!!!!!!?

Jarg

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 20:57:07 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
>confessed the following:
>
>>Did we notice that the Berg beheading in Iraq was conducted by
>>Al-Zawhari, an Al-Qeada leader? No link to AQ and Iraq???
>
>Uhhh, Ed there are reports that the presence of AQ is
>post-invasion/occupation. That's if you believe folks like Karen
>Kwiatkowski LtCol USAF (Ret). Nobody disputes AQ is now in Iraq, but
>there is a wide credibility gap connecting AQ and Iraq pre-invasion.

That doesn't stand the "common sense" test. If there were no linkages
and AQ was not welcome in Saddam's Iraq, why would it be attractive to
come rushing into the potentially hazardous environment post conflict?
"Oh boy, the friendly regime is gone, I'd better buy a ticket to go
there and get my ass kicked...."?

>
>>Or, the discovery last week of a 155mm shell with 3 LITERS of Sarin?
>>How much WMD does it take to make WMD? Got any estimate of what 3
>>liters of Sarin would do in downtown Manhattan? Or, how big that is?
>>How many needles can you hide in a haystack the size of California. We
>>found one so far.
>
>Fair enough, do we invade Iran and Syria next, then North Korea? I ask
>that partially as a rhetorical question because I have cohorts that
>honestly think Iran and Syria ARE next on the list...and these guys
>believe everything GWB (Rove)/Cheney/Rumsfeld say, and yet they think
>Colin Powell is something of a pussy. WTFO? Blind obedience is scary.
>Neocon arrogance is dangerous.

I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal. The
implication of some sort of puppet-mastery, the labeling of the
administration with the "pejorative du jour"--neo-con, the attribution
of "arrogance" and the insertion of a clutch of red herrings like
Iran, Syria and NK.

Why do your cohorts "honestly think" (I question the verb and would
substitute "believe" rather than "think",) that Iran and Syria are
next? Most observers see a solid shift in Iran away from theocracy and
a desire by the population at large to return to a moderately pro-West
secularism. Good progress. Syria is still hostile but not as hostile
as they were during Dad's regime. They know what they can and cannot
get away with. Their concern is much more with Lebanon and Israel.
And, NK is seeking "face" but also discussing rapprochement with the
South.
>
>One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed. I don't
>dispute that SH used WMD against Iranians and Kurds over a decade ago.
>I am curious why he didn't use them last year when we invaded, that
>seems illogical NOT to use them in your last stand to keep control of
>your country. Again you'll be hard pressed to present evidence that SH
>was about to turn his WMD vast stockpiles (that even Clinton's folks
>thought he had) or those remnants over to AQ.

"Vast stockpiles" of WMD don't require lots of space. As noted, 3
liters of Sarin in a package the size of a half-gallon of milk and a
loaf of bread. How far can you disperse 200 such packages in a country
the size of Iraq. Why didn't Saddam use them? Maybe he felt it wasn't
worth it? Maybe he didn't get the chance? Maybe he had a CCC/I
breakdown and subordinates refused? Who knows.

The point of the discussion is that with the introduction of chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons in small packages into the hands of
non-national, and arguably irrational actors, the paradigm of war has
changed. We can't continue to subsribe to the 18th century
international law concept of justification for war being an invasion
or violent attack. We can't pre-empt, willy-nilly around the world,
but the complexities and interdependence of 21st century international
relations effectively constrain any superpowers actions.
>
>I don't dispute that SH was a ruthless MF; I don't dispute Iraq will
>eventually be better off with SH gone. I simply dispute the arguments
>GWB chose to rationalize our invasion...I'm not alone. Are we going to
>occupy all nations that are potential threats?

We haven't been known through out the last century for maintaining
occupation of any nations beyond the need to stablilize the situation.
>
>And just for the record, I voted against GWB in 2000 because he lacks
>the gravitas IMO and the guy I wanted in the Oval Office, John McCain
>wasn't in the running (Rove can take credit for the SC "push
>polling.")...but I digress.

I confess to supporting McCain as well, although once he lost the
nomination I had no difficulty with supporting GWB as the alternative
was much too frightening to contemplate.

(Just as an aside, how many times have you heard the word "gravitas"
used in any context before the summer of 2000? Can you say "talking
points" and "sound bite"? I knew that you could.)

As for gravitas, can we look at the administration of GWB and that of
his predecessor? Albright vs Powell? Cohen vs Rumsfeld? Carville and
26-year old "senior advisor" Stephanopolous? Gravitas in the closet of
the Oval Office with an intern? Reich? Elder? and lets not forget Ron
Brown.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[WalterM140]

>Did we notice that the Berg beheading in Iraq was conducted by
>Al-Zawhari, an Al-Qeada leader? No link to AQ and Iraq???

No one knows who beheaded Berg. There was no link between Al Quaida and Iraq
prior to 9/11.

>Or, the discovery last week of a 155mm shell with 3 LITERS of Sarin?

The Republican congressman on Meet the Press (can't remember his name) said it
was a 130 mm mortar shell, but no matter.

Three liters is a pretty poor take for a years' looking, Ed.

>How many needles can you hide in a haystack the size of California. We
>found one so far.

--One--, in a year. It's a non-story so far, Ed.

[WalterM140]

>I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal.

Already reduced to name calling, Ed?

General Zinni is not a liberal. He strongly urged that we not invade Iraq, Al
Quaida or no.

Walt

[Jim Yanik]

(WalterM140) wrote in
:

>>I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal.
>
> Already reduced to name calling, Ed?
>
> General Zinni is not a liberal. He strongly urged that we not invade
> Iraq, Al Quaida or no.
>
> Walt

I think Ed was referring to Mr. Robey Price's comments,not Zinni.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

(WalterM140) wrote in
:

>>Did we notice that the Berg beheading in Iraq was conducted by
>>Al-Zawhari, an Al-Qeada leader? No link to AQ and Iraq???
>
> No one knows who beheaded Berg. There was no link between Al Quaida
> and Iraq prior to 9/11.
>
>>Or, the discovery last week of a 155mm shell with 3 LITERS of Sarin?
>
> The Republican congressman on Meet the Press (can't remember his name)
> said it was a 130 mm mortar shell, but no matter.

Well,Iraq used mainly Soviet weaponry,so it could have been a 152mm
artillery round.
>
> Three liters is a pretty poor take for a years' looking, Ed.
>
>>How many needles can you hide in a haystack the size of California. We
>>found one so far.
>
> --One--, in a year. It's a non-story so far, Ed.
>

Like we haven't had other things to occupy the troops.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 May 2004 20:57:07 GMT, Robey Price >
> wrote:
>
> >After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
> >confessed the following:
> >
> >>Did we notice that the Berg beheading in Iraq was conducted by
> >>Al-Zawhari, an Al-Qeada leader? No link to AQ and Iraq???
> >
> >Uhhh, Ed there are reports that the presence of AQ is
> >post-invasion/occupation. That's if you believe folks like Karen
> >Kwiatkowski LtCol USAF (Ret). Nobody disputes AQ is now in Iraq, but
> >there is a wide credibility gap connecting AQ and Iraq pre-invasion.
>
> That doesn't stand the "common sense" test. If there were no linkages
> and AQ was not welcome in Saddam's Iraq, why would it be attractive to
> come rushing into the potentially hazardous environment post conflict?
> "Oh boy, the friendly regime is gone, I'd better buy a ticket to go
> there and get my ass kicked...."?

Consider also that confused situations are good times to insert
clandestine operators
>
> >
> >>Or, the discovery last week of a 155mm shell with 3 LITERS of Sarin?
> >>How much WMD does it take to make WMD? Got any estimate of what 3
> >>liters of Sarin would do in downtown Manhattan?

Probably contaminate a couple of blocks, or more fatalities if
_efficiently_ introduced in a ventilation system.

>>>Or, how big that is?
> >>How many needles can you hide in a haystack the size of California. We
> >>found one so far.
> >

>
> "Vast stockpiles" of WMD don't require lots of space.

Not trivial, though. The US Office of Technology Assessment defines 100
tons as militarily significant.
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1993/9344/93
4404.PDF

Of course, an individual terror attack does not need that much, but to
cause mass casualties, it needs to be disseminated efficiently -- not a
trivial process. Aum Shinyo's crude dispersion caused a minimum of
casualties, including two workers who physically handled the sarin bags.

Biological agents take smaller volumes, but, again the quantity needed
for mass casualties may be larger than expected. From open literature
sources, US munitions variously were spray tanks of seeral hundred
gallons, or cluster bombs,.

>As noted, 3
> liters of Sarin in a package the size of a half-gallon of milk and a
> loaf of bread. How far can you disperse 200 such packages in a country
> the size of Iraq. Why didn't Saddam use them? Maybe he felt it wasn't
> worth it? Maybe he didn't get the chance? Maybe he had a CCC/I
> breakdown and subordinates refused? Who knows.

[Robey Price]

I posited:

>>Uhhh, Ed there are reports that the presence of AQ is
>>post-invasion/occupation. That's if you believe folks like Karen
>>Kwiatkowski LtCol USAF (Ret). Nobody disputes AQ is now in Iraq, but
>>there is a wide credibility gap connecting AQ and Iraq pre-invasion.

To which Ed retorted:

>That doesn't stand the "common sense" test. If there were no linkages
>and AQ was not welcome in Saddam's Iraq, why would it be attractive to
>come rushing into the potentially hazardous environment post conflict?
>"Oh boy, the friendly regime is gone, I'd better buy a ticket to go
>there and get my ass kicked...."?

Ed, you're trying to apply western military "common sense" to maniacal
islamist ****S. That's like saying the Japanese wouldn't crash their
perfectly good airplanes into our ships. I think you're making a
terrible mistake.

So how about this for "common sense?" Porous borders, target rich
environment (that'd be our guys), and extremely friendly environment
to conduct a guerilla war (that'd be the native populace that doesn't
look like you or me). Tell us, what BETTER place to go kill the
infidels than Iraq? There is no EASIER nation to find places to hide
and kill Americans! And since when do islamist ****S that think
becoming martyrs and getting 72 virgins use COMMON SENSE that you and
I do?

[note to anybody thinking of using the example of Ansar al-Islam,
from a Washington TIMES not Post article on 21 Sep 2003, A military
source recently told The Washington Times that Ansar al-Islam
"certainly had al Qaeda ties," although it's "probably not correct" to
say the group collaborated with Saddam, because it was based north of
the "green line" - the border between Saddam's prewar Iraq and the
protected northern no-fly zone. ]

Further in a Mar 4 2004 Knight Ritter article..

Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that
Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism
network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings.

Moreover, the U.S. intelligence community never concluded that those
meetings produced an operational relationship, American officials
said. That verdict was in a secret report by the CIA's Directorate of
Intelligence that was updated in January 2003, on the eve of the war.

"We could find no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda," a
senior U.S. official acknowledged. He and others spoke on condition of
anonymity.

>I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal.

Ed...hate to burst your bubble (OK no I actually love it) read on.

> The implication of some sort of puppet-mastery, the labeling of the
>administration with the "pejorative du jour"--neo-con,

Help me out here, Scott McConnell http://www.amconmag.com/aboutus.html
the Executive Editor of The American Conservative is a dedicated
liberal? [Answer: No he is not a dedicated liberal]

Try this article on for size
http://www.amconmag.com/04_21_03/cover.html

Karen Kwiatkowski a dedicated liberal? How about this interview she
did with LA Weekly http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php

[quote] Kwiatkowski got there just as war fever was spreading, or
being spread as she would later argue, through the halls of
Washington. Indeed, shortly after her arrival, a piece of NESA was
broken off, expanded and re-dubbed with the Orwellian name of the
Office of Special Plans. The OSP’s task was, ostensibly, to help the
Pentagon develop policy around the Iraq crisis.

She would soon conclude that the OSP — a pet project of Vice President
Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld — was more akin to a
nerve center for what she now calls a “neoconservative coup, a
hijacking of the Pentagon.”

Though a lifelong ****conservative,*** Kwiatkowski found herself
appalled as the radical wing of the Bush administration, including her
superiors in the Pentagon planning department, bulldozed internal
dissent, overlooked its own intelligence and relentlessly pushed for
confrontation with Iraq. [uquote]

Ed you're gonna have to redefine liberal as anybody who opposes your
way of thinking. Or perhaps you could simply call us "unpatriotic."
Hows that for a pejorative du jour?

> the attribution of "arrogance" and the insertion of
> a clutch of red herrings like Iran, Syria and NK.

I do think it was arrogant to invade Iraq and then take umbrage that
long time allies/friends would deign to express opposition. "Old
europe" ring any bells? It reasonably sounds like Rumsfeld was
dismissing the opinions of old friends as irrelevant. That's not
arrogant behavior? Please, Ed.

>Why do your cohorts "honestly think" (I question the verb and would
>substitute "believe" rather than "think",) that Iran and Syria are
>next?

OK quibble with my grammar, give me an F on my next term paper 8-)

Red herring? My happy ass! I guess when guys tell me flat out, "Hell
yes once we finish in Iraq we gonna go for Iran and Syria." And these
same guys say we're gonna find lots (OK they said **** loads) of WMD
in Iraq I tend to think these guys think it. These are gentlemen that
rose to equal to or higher rank than you or me.

> Most observers see a solid shift in Iran away from theocracy and
>a desire by the population at large to return to a moderately pro-West
>secularism. Good progress.

Agreed and this was before 9/11, and who exactly enunciated "the Axis
of Evil?" And which three countries did this obvious liberal indicate?

>Syria is still hostile but not as hostile as they were during Dad's regime.
> They know what they can and cannot get away with.

So why does that last statement carry weight WRT to Syria, but SH kept
bottled up in a fraction of his country posed an imminent threat?

>"Vast stockpiles" of WMD don't require lots of space. As noted, 3
>liters of Sarin in a package the size of a half-gallon of milk and a
>loaf of bread. How far can you disperse 200 such packages in a country
>the size of Iraq.?

OK, and maybe lots of stuff had been destroyed. According to Tom
Brokaw's report tonight, this shell pre-dated Desert Storm.

> Why didn't Saddam use them? Maybe he felt it wasn't
>worth it? Maybe he didn't get the chance? Maybe he had a CCC/I
>breakdown and subordinates refused? Who knows.

So how does a guy that from 1991 to 2003 couldn't get his collective
**** together and coordinate "in the event of lost communications"
shoot this **** into Kuwait, ALSO present a threat to use WMD? ****
how much probable cause does somebody need? We invaded his country.

Oh Ed..."maybe he felt it wasn't worth it?" The man fought a long ass
war with Iran, he used WMD then. "Maybe he didn't get the chance?" My
first thought in response is YGBSM, but hey if that's what you think
OK.

>The point of the discussion is that with the introduction of chemical,
>biological and nuclear weapons in small packages into the hands of
>non-national, and arguably irrational actors, the paradigm of war has
>changed.

Indeed, **** happens.

>We can't continue to subsribe to the 18th century
>international law concept of justification for war being an invasion
>or violent attack.

Why not?

>We can't pre-empt, willy-nilly around the world,
>but the complexities and interdependence of 21st century international
>relations effectively constrain any superpowers actions.

Events from a year ago would clearly contradict that assertion. I
agree that we should not.

>We haven't been known through out the last century for maintaining
>occupation of any nations beyond the need to stablilize the situation.

The pedant in me would point to South Vietnam and our effort to
prevent the domino effect in SEA. I'd argue that domestic public
opposition and the resulting congressional termination of funding
(rather than stability) dictated our withdrawal.

>(Just as an aside, how many times have you heard the word "gravitas"
>used in any context before the summer of 2000? Can you say "talking
>points" and "sound bite"? I knew that you could.)

Sorry, I actually used it as an undergrad in political science, almost
30 years ago. [Later I had a Flight Surgeon friend that joked that
fighter pilots could handle multisyllabic words like mayonaisse]
Calling GWB a low C graduate of Yale and citing his Norm Crosby-isms
would have been jejune. If however you inferred that I meant to slight
GWB's intellectual prowess and his grasp of international relations,
well that is indeed what I implied.

>As for gravitas, can we look at the administration of GWB and that of
>his predecessor? Albright vs Powell? Cohen vs Rumsfeld? Carville and
>26-year old "senior advisor" Stephanopolous?

Indeed GWB has many sharp folks in his administration, but the guy
calling the shots...yeeesh.

>Gravitas in the closet of the Oval Office with an intern?

Ahhh, blowjobs bad, invasions good. Got it. FWIW I would never
introduce any female I admired or respected to Clinton, but I'd trust
him to get a bigger and more united coalition going before he invaded
Iraq. Not that I think he would have invaded Iraq.

Finally...a crusty old LtCol SEFE that I flew with 20 years ago liked
to ask," What's the BOLDFACE for A Bad Blowjob?"

To which I loudly replied, "There's no such thing as a Bad Blowjob."

"Shut up Robey!...now anybody else?"

1. HAIR-PULL
2. FACE-SLAP
3. HEAD-PUSH

[Marty Feldman]

(WalterM140) wrote in message >...
> >I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal.
>
> Already reduced to name calling, Ed?
>
> General Zinni is not a liberal.


apparently, he's a registered republican who's seen the light. a
recovering republican, you might say.

i just saw him on charlie rose and he did brilliantly, despite
charlie's insatiable need to interrupt with mindless blathering (add
is not an excuse). but i did disagree with him on one important
point, with regards to the likelyhood of civil war in iraq. he was
surprised that certain major attacks in the past months on the shiites
didn't incite civil war right then, and of the "restraint" they
showed, and worried that that restraint may disappear in the near
term. it's not so much restraint as it is APATHY, in my opinion.
from what i've read, this is the key byproduct from 3 decades of
saddam's trauma-inducing rule and while it's a factor preventing
democracy from taking to the sky in iraq right now, it's also a factor
that's inhibiting full-blown civil war. i think using terms like
"anarchy" is a much more accurate way of framing this issue.









He strongly urged that we not invade Iraq, Al
> Quaida or no.
>
> Walt

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Robey Price > wrote:

> One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed.

One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the
inspectors.

If they found this one, that means there were a *lot* more that were
never even supposed to exist.

Therefore, there's a place with a bunch more of these things, *not*
destroyed or accounted for. This one shell, by itself, shows that Iraq
*did* have a whole segment of its chemical weapons program that was
never even touched by the UN.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>(Just as an aside, how many times have you heard the word "gravitas"
>used in any context before the summer of 2000? Can you say "talking
>points" and "sound bite"? I knew that you could.)

Actually, if you're an Iain M. Banks fan, he got quite fond of
"gravitas" as a starship naming convention in his science fiction, and
that certainly predates 2000.


Interviewer: Do you have a favourite starship name?

Banks: "No I've got an entire class of starship names - the Gravitas
series!. Someone comments on starship names being somewhat lacking in
gravitas and suddenly you get all these ships - Stood Rather Far Back
When The Gravitas Was Handed Out. Not Very Much Gravitas Here and the
Zen one which is called Not Very Much "You Know What" Definitely a
Gravitas name, but it doesn't mention the word gravitas. They're
building up faster than I can use them." He laughs. "Gratuitous starship
naming - it is a problem, but I'm coping with it."


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Vaughn]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >,
> Robey Price > wrote:
>
> > One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed.
>
> One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the
> inspectors.

What inspectors? I don't really think we know much about that round.

>
> If they found this one, that means there were a *lot* more that were
> never even supposed to exist.

Perhaps, perhaps not.
>
> Therefore, there's a place with a bunch more of these things, *not*
> destroyed or accounted for. This one shell, by itself, shows that Iraq
> *did* have a whole segment of its chemical weapons program that was
> never even touched by the UN.

Or perhaps it was not even Iraqi and it came across those famously porous
borders sometime in the last 12 months or so. I don't really believe that; but
my point is, we just don't know, so therefore only a fool would try to draw a
conclusion from the meager information at hand.


Vaughn

[WalterM140]

>> One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed.
>
>One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the
>inspectors.

It's still -one- round in over a year of searching.

Even -if- you could buy off on a connection between Al Quaida and Iraq (before
9/11) and even -if- you thought Iraq had WMD, which they did not, you could
still, and should still -- hold the Bush administration culpable for their
gross mishandling of the conduct of the war.

More General Zinni, 5/12/2004:

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=2208&from_p
age=../program/document.cfm

Bullet points from above:

1. the first mistake that will be recorded in history, the belief that
containment as a policy doesn't work.

2. The second mistake I think history will record is that the strategy was
flawed.

3. The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to
create a false rationale for going in to get public support.

4. We failed in number four, to internationalize the effort.

5. I think the fifth mistake was that we underestimated the task.

6. The sixth mistake, and maybe the biggest one, was propping up and trusting
the exiles

7. The seventh problem has been the lack of planning.

8. The eighth problem was the insufficiency of military forces on the ground.

9. The ninth problem has been the ad hoc organization we threw in there.

10. the tenth mistake, and that's a series of bad decisions on the ground.

[end]

Walt

[George Z. Bush]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >> One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed.
> >
> >One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the
> >inspectors.
>
> It's still -one- round in over a year of searching.
>
> Even -if- you could buy off on a connection between Al Quaida and Iraq (before
> 9/11) and even -if- you thought Iraq had WMD, which they did not, you could
> still, and should still -- hold the Bush administration culpable for their
> gross mishandling of the conduct of the war.
>
> More General Zinni, 5/12/2004:
>
> http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=2208&from_p
> age=../program/document.cfm
>
> Bullet points from above:
>
> 1. the first mistake that will be recorded in history, the belief that
> containment as a policy doesn't work.
>
> 2. The second mistake I think history will record is that the strategy was
> flawed.
>
> 3. The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to
> create a false rationale for going in to get public support.
>
> 4. We failed in number four, to internationalize the effort.
>
> 5. I think the fifth mistake was that we underestimated the task.
>
> 6. The sixth mistake, and maybe the biggest one, was propping up and trusting
> the exiles
>
> 7. The seventh problem has been the lack of planning.
>
> 8. The eighth problem was the insufficiency of military forces on the ground.
>
> 9. The ninth problem has been the ad hoc organization we threw in there.
>
> 10. the tenth mistake, and that's a series of bad decisions on the ground.
>
> [end]

Walt, if that were the end, we could probably find some way to live with them,
but they'd like another four years in which to compound and add to the mess
they've collectively created. That'd be the 11th problem, because the public
hasn't fully perceived the danger to our nation in letting them get another bite
out of the apple.

George Z.
>
> Walt

[Ed Rasimus]

On 25 May 2004 22:56:12 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>>I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal.
>
>Already reduced to name calling, Ed?

Read more slowly, apply in context and try not to move your lips. I
called no names, but pointed out the emotionalism of Juvat's
statements. (Might I note, that a response that implies an ad hominem
attack when none was made is also a familiar gambit.)
>
>General Zinni is not a liberal. He strongly urged that we not invade Iraq, Al
>Quaida or no.

Read more slowly. Note the response is to Juvat, not a mention of
Zinni in the entire post.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Leslie Swartz]

Correction:

Zinni strongly supported the Clinton line (he helped develop it), and
continues to refuse to admit the line was wrong.

Surprising? No.

Steve Swartz

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> >I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal.
>
> Already reduced to name calling, Ed?
>
> General Zinni is not a liberal. He strongly urged that we not invade
Iraq, Al
> Quaida or no.
>
> Walt

[David Lesher]

Ed Rasimus > writes:

>>Uhhh, Ed there are reports that the presence of AQ is
>>post-invasion/occupation. That's if you believe folks like Karen
>>Kwiatkowski LtCol USAF (Ret). Nobody disputes AQ is now in Iraq, but
>>there is a wide credibility gap connecting AQ and Iraq pre-invasion.

>That doesn't stand the "common sense" test. If there were no linkages
>and AQ was not welcome in Saddam's Iraq, why would it be attractive to
>come rushing into the potentially hazardous environment post conflict?
>"Oh boy, the friendly regime is gone, I'd better buy a ticket to go
>there and get my ass kicked...."?

How about "That ruthless dictator is gone, as are his army & border guards.
Now we CAN move into Iraq, and as a plus, we can harass the Westerners that
are there as well.."

It sure does not look to me like the CPA has the lock on the country that
SH had...




--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Chad Irby
> wrote:

> In article >,
> Robey Price > wrote:
>
> > One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed.
>
> One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the
> inspectors.

Just as a point of information, the UNSCOM report does refer to "R&D",
but not deployment, of binary chemical rounds.

>
> If they found this one, that means there were a *lot* more that were
> never even supposed to exist.

Not necessarily a lot, if they were indeed only in the R&D phase for
this particular mission. We do know that program personnel took home,
and hid, nuclear and biological components.

>
> Therefore, there's a place with a bunch more of these things, *not*
> destroyed or accounted for. This one shell, by itself, shows that Iraq
> *did* have a whole segment of its chemical weapons program that was
> never even touched by the UN.

Again, specifically in the case of the binary artillery shell, possibly
R&D quantities only, with a few samples hidden. That would be
consistent both with the UNSCOM report and the few components we have
found in residences.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Vaughn" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > In article >,
> > Robey Price > wrote:
> >
> > > One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed.
> >
> > One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the
> > inspectors.
>
> What inspectors?

The UN inspectors.

> I don't really think we know much about that round.

....and that's the point. According to the agreements that Iraq was
supposed to adhere to, all of their CW munitions were supposed to be on
record. This type wasn't.

> > If they found this one, that means there were a *lot* more that were
> > never even supposed to exist.
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not.

But the smart money says "yes." You don't build *one* binary artillery
round and bury it in the desert.

> Or perhaps it was not even Iraqi and it came across those famously
> porous borders sometime in the last 12 months or so.

Possibly, but certainly not probably. It's funny how people will give
Iraq every benefit of the doubt when it comes to this sort of thing, but
will expect the highest standard of proof from the US as to what day of
the week it is.

> I don't really believe that;

Nobody does. It's a very silly "what if?"

> but my point is, we just don't know, so therefore only a fool would
> try to draw a conclusion from the meager information at hand.

No, a smart person would look at what's been presented, use a little
common sense, and realize that this round (like all of the other bits
and pieces we've been finding) shows, once again, they had stuff the UN
didn't know about.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Vaughn]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Vaughn" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > In article >,
> > > Robey Price > wrote:
> > >
> > > > One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed.
> > >
> > > One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the
> > > inspectors.
> >
> > What inspectors?
>
> The UN inspectors.

Reference?
>
> > I don't really think we know much about that round.
>
> ...and that's the point. According to the agreements that Iraq was
> supposed to adhere to, all of their CW munitions were supposed to be on
> record. This type wasn't.

Reference?
>
> > > If they found this one, that means there were a *lot* more that were
> > > never even supposed to exist.
> >
> > Perhaps, perhaps not.
>
> But the smart money says "yes." You don't build *one* binary artillery
> round and bury it in the desert.

Reference?

>
> > Or perhaps it was not even Iraqi and it came across those famously
> > porous borders sometime in the last 12 months or so.
>
> Possibly, but certainly not probably. It's funny how people will give
> Iraq every benefit of the doubt when it comes to this sort of thing, but
> will expect the highest standard of proof from the US as to what day of
> the week it is.

What sort of thing? Even the White House is not yet claiming WMD.

>
> > I don't really believe that;
>
> Nobody does. It's a very silly "what if?"

Great repartee, chilling insight.

>
> > but my point is, we just don't know, so therefore only a fool would
> > try to draw a conclusion from the meager information at hand.
>
> No, a smart person would look at what's been presented...

You have given me no reason to think I have been communicating with one.

>, use a little
> common sense, and realize that this round (like all of the other bits
> and pieces we've been finding) shows, once again, they had stuff the UN
> didn't know about.

Again; reference?

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
"Vaughn" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Vaughn" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Robey Price > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed.
> > > >
> > > > One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the
> > > > inspectors.
> > >
> > > What inspectors?
> >
> > The UN inspectors.
>
> Reference?

http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport/dis_chem.htm

> >
> > > I don't really think we know much about that round.

See Item 36 in the above report.

> >
> > ...and that's the point. According to the agreements that Iraq was
> > supposed to adhere to, all of their CW munitions were supposed to be on
> > record. This type wasn't.
>
> Reference?

Item 50 for the missing VX, if that helps.

[WalterM140]

Ed writes:

>>>I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal.
>>
>>Already reduced to name calling, Ed?
>
>Read more slowly, apply in context and try not to move your lips. I
>called no names

"dedicated liberal" is a name and a pejorative term you used to describe a
poster whom you couldn't gainsay.


> but pointed out the emotionalism of Juvat's
>statements.

And you called him a name.

I know you're a vet. You were in Viet Nam, right?

What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are
getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni
called --dereliction-- of-- duty--.

I just can't figure it.

I mean, irrespective of what General Zinni says, do you think that things are
going well in Iraq? We have @ 5,000 casualties now. I distinctly remember
Vice President Cheney saying on Meet The Press before the war that we would be
greeted as liberators. I don't need General Zinni to tell me that the Bush
administration has --totally-- mismanaged the war. They disbanded the army;
that's now seen as a mistake. They got rid of the Ba'athists, but now they are
bringing some of them back. I can see for myself that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,
Perle, Feith and those other neo-con bums are practically criminals.

Do you recall from @ two weeks ago, when Wolfowitz misrepresented the number of
KIA? He had no idea what it was. He missed the actual figure by 50%.
As a veteran, now. How does that make you feel?


> (Might I note, that a response that implies an ad hominem
>attack when none was made is also a familiar gambit.)

You mean like calling someone a "dedicated liberal"?

>>General Zinni is not a liberal. He strongly urged that we not invade Iraq,
>Al
>>Quaida or no.
>
>Read more slowly. Note the response is to Juvat, not a mention of
>Zinni in the entire post.
>

Read more slowly. General Zinni is not a liberal, whatever else this other
person may be.

I generally enjoy your posts a lot. But you need to step back from what you
believe and compare it to what is happening.

Walt

[WalterM140]

From: "Leslie Swartz"

>Zinni strongly supported the Clinton line (he helped develop it), and
>continues to refuse to admit the line was wrong.

Why wrong? I don't think the Clinton "line" produced 5,000 battle casualties.

We've been in Iraq for 14 months. To whom are we giving control of the country
on 6/30/04?

No one knows.

I don't need a 4 star general to tell me that this is a disaster.

Walt

[Ed Rasimus]

On 26 May 2004 22:30:43 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>Ed writes:
>
>>>>I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal.
>>>
>>>Already reduced to name calling, Ed?
>>
>>Read more slowly, apply in context and try not to move your lips. I
>>called no names
>
>"dedicated liberal" is a name and a pejorative term you used to describe a
>poster whom you couldn't gainsay.

A bit sensitive are we? Is "dedicated liberal" a pejorative? Here's
the quote as I wrote it:

I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal. The
implication of some sort of puppet-mastery, the labeling of the
administration with the "pejorative du jour"--neo-con, the attribution
of "arrogance" and the insertion of a clutch of red herrings like
Iran, Syria and NK.

Do you seem me assigning the term to Juvat, or am I pointing out the
rhetorical weaknesses of his argument? He failed to address the
question and he couched his comments in the terms I indicated.
>
>
>> but pointed out the emotionalism of Juvat's
>>statements.
>
>And you called him a name.

I'm a "traditional conservative". I'm not a "social conservative". I'm
definitely not a liberal. If someone is a liberal, they would welcome
the label as easily as I welcome it if someone calls me a
conservative. That isn't name calling, it is ideological
identification.
>
>I know you're a vet. You were in Viet Nam, right?

I did have the opportunity to visit regularly.
>
>What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are
>getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni
>called --dereliction-- of-- duty--.
>
>I just can't figure it.

Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform. I understand
very well the difficulty in being at the point of the spear of
national policy. I also understand very well the difficulty of being
out there at the point while nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and
"America-lasters" undermine the support of the mission. Been there,
experienced it first hand.
>
>I mean, irrespective of what General Zinni says, do you think that things are
>going well in Iraq? We have @ 5,000 casualties now. I distinctly remember
>Vice President Cheney saying on Meet The Press before the war that we would be
>greeted as liberators. I don't need General Zinni to tell me that the Bush
>administration has --totally-- mismanaged the war. They disbanded the army;
>that's now seen as a mistake. They got rid of the Ba'athists, but now they are
>bringing some of them back. I can see for myself that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,
>Perle, Feith and those other neo-con bums are practically criminals.

Let's go beyond the superficial. We've been in combat against a nation
of 25 million people. Many said there would be tens of thousands of
casualties in the intial battle. There weren't.

The Sadaam regime was toppled in ten days, not ten weeks, months or
years. If that equals mismanagement, then your standard is different
than mine.

Would you have maintained the werhmacht after the collapse of Hitler?
There's a recipe for disaster. Would you have propped up the Nazi
party during the reconstruction of Germany?

The situation in Iraq is not a made-for-TV scenario. There are three
distinct factions competing for supremacy--Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd. They
don't much like each other, and it isn't suprising that they also
don't like an occupation force trying to keep things balanced.

Have we heard from the opposition in America what they would
specifically do different? Cut and run? Turn it over to the UN--those
are the folks that gave us "oil-for-food" and made billionaires out of
several less than savory functionaries.
>
>Do you recall from @ two weeks ago, when Wolfowitz misrepresented the number of
>KIA? He had no idea what it was. He missed the actual figure by 50%.
>As a veteran, now. How does that make you feel?

Do I worry if he said 300 or 400 or 500? It doesn't really make a hill
of beans worth of difference. Why should that be particularly relevant
to the policy discussion?
>
>
>> (Might I note, that a response that implies an ad hominem
>>attack when none was made is also a familiar gambit.)
>
>You mean like calling someone a "dedicated liberal"?

See above regarding ideological identification. If the shoe fits....
>
>>>General Zinni is not a liberal. He strongly urged that we not invade Iraq,
>>Al
>>>Quaida or no.
>>
>>Read more slowly. Note the response is to Juvat, not a mention of
>>Zinni in the entire post.
>>
>
>Read more slowly. General Zinni is not a liberal, whatever else this other
>person may be.

It makes no difference what Zinni's ideology is. I was addressing the
points of Juvat. I wasn't discussing Zinni at all, at any time!
>
>I generally enjoy your posts a lot. But you need to step back from what you
>believe and compare it to what is happening.

Trust me. I teach political science at the local college. I teach
international relations as part of the job. I maintain an active
interest in the role of the military. I am not particularly prone to
emotionalism and I like to couch my political discourse in objective
analysis rather than this sort of language (from your post): "and
those other neo-con bums are practically criminals."


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(WalterM140) wrote:

> From: "Leslie Swartz"
>
> >Zinni strongly supported the Clinton line (he helped develop it), and
> >continues to refuse to admit the line was wrong.
>
> Why wrong? I don't think the Clinton "line" produced 5,000 battle
> casualties.
>
> We've been in Iraq for 14 months. To whom are we giving control of the
> country
> on 6/30/04?
>
> No one knows.
>
> I don't need a 4 star general to tell me that this is a disaster.

On the other hand, the folks who are telling us things like "this is a
disaster" are cut from the same cloth as the people who were telling us
that there would be upwards of a half-*million* dead during the conflict
and in the months afterwards, with the "smart money" coming in at over a
hundred thousand (the low estimate by most antiwar folks was 20,000 or
so dead, but that was the extreme lowball by the more optimistic folks),
with a half-million or more refugees flooding the neighboring countries.

UNHCR said there would be *900,000* refugees from the war, that all
health, food, and water distribution would be effectively shut down for
a long time, creating a huge humanitarian catastrophe with upwards of a
half-million direct physical casualties. Epidemics and pandemics of
cholera and dysentery were supposed to happen. Three million people
were supposed to be in need of "therapeutic" feedings due to food
shortages.

How about this little bit of prognostication?

<http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/200
3/0214grimpict.htm>

Note the complete lack of these events coming to pass...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[WalterM140]

Ed sends:

>I'm a "traditional conservative".

A traditional conservative apparently oblivious to the 5,000 casualties we've
suffered in carrying out the worst strategic blunder in living memory.

"Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory.
To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing
Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the
government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States
and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region
that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its
maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the
defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence."

-- James Webb


CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Was Iraq a blunder?

GEN. ANTHONY ZINNI: Yes, in my view, it was a blunder. The president was not
served well with strategy, planning, and decisions made from there. I think
they misled him on what to expect— the rationale, the elements for the
strategy, to the situation on the ground. It wasn't going to be a
pie-in-the-sky welcome in the streets with flowers. Anyone who knew the region
and knew the country knew what this was not going to happen.

MATTHEWS: The sales pitch was that it was for democracy, or that scarier still,
there were weapons of mass destruction. Was the salespitch, either of them,
honest?


ZINNI: Neither one was. Bush 41 knew Baghdad was going to be a problem. That's
why we went through a course of sanctions. To believe that Saddam was an
imminent threat was a real stretch for us who saw the intelligence.

MATTHEWS: When [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld was on ‘Hardball' he
expressed that he wasn't expecting us to be viewed as occupiers. Anyone who
spends three seconds in a foreign country knows this could be the case. How
could they believe that Iraq would welcome us?
ZINNI: It is hard to believe. We're viewed as colonial power, especially when
we don't come in under a U.N. mandate that shows a international cooperation.
It plays into the hands of extremists who want to use it against us on the
streets of Baghdad.

I think we owe the American people the straight show. If you're doing this for
a strategic reason, you need to lay it out. We bought into the exiles and their
stories.

MATTHEWS: Why is that?


ZINNI: It's the desire to believe in it. They had a strategy. Except for those
of us who know the region and had experience out there, we knew this was a
disaster in the long run.

I think it's the fault of the planners at the Pentagon who were responsible for
the construction phase. They didn't understand the depth and complexity, and
dumped this problem onto the military. But there was enough of us who had
experience that expressed our worries and voiced our concerns.

I have tremendous respect for [Secretary of State] Colin Powell… I don't know
what went on in the inner workings of the admininstration. Colin was on the
right track on Resolution 1441 in the U.N. that would internationalize this…
why not wait for the inspections that would make it take a couple of months
longer?

MATTHEWS: Why did the president and the vice-president go together in this war
with Iraq?

ZINNI: The president was hit hard with 9/11 as we all were. He saw the need to
make sure there were no threats that would materialize. He thought, “If this
is a big threat as I'm being told, we need to do something about it.� I
believe he was misled.

MATTHEWS: If we were misled in terms of how easy it would be for us to go into
Iraq? Who should be accountable? [Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Stephen] Cambone, [Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas] Feith, [Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld?


ZINNI: Somebody ought to be held accountable. The president, the country, and
the troops weren't served well. Why not all of them?

MATTHEWS: What should we do with Iraq now?


ZINNI: Its going to take time, hardwork, help from us, and insistence, that
they execute the reform. To do it in one stroke in an intervention like this is
absolutely the wrong way.

We're trying to create something for Iraq it's never known. These people are
confused and don't understand where you're taking them.

There's suspicion on the streets that we're after oil and resources. This is
diffuclt. This is not a one-year project. I think we need to convince them
we're there for their futures. We have to create within them the willingness
and desire to reform government and their economic system. It's not going to
work with us paying it for them on the dole.

We need to secure borders, road networks, troops on the ground. It's not only
an issue of security. While you en-place security, that's the only way you get
economic and infrastructure reconstruction to develop. Or else insurgents will
blow it up every chance they get.

[WalterM140]

I wrote:

>>What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are
>>getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni
>>called --dereliction-- of-- duty--.
>>
>>I just can't figure it.

Ed:

>Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform.

Then act like it.

General Zinni:

"My son is a Marine Officer in the infantry. I lost a member of my family in
Iraq, the son of my cousin, already. So, it’s become very personal. Not to
mention, just every one of those faces I see, I recognize. I mean, not
directly, but these are, I mean, knew those sergeants and corporals and PFCs
after 40 years, that paid a price for this, you know?"

You might consider that sort of thing yourself.

The former SecNav and the former CG of Centcom are calling this a blunder -- a
blunder attended with 5,000 casualties, and all you do is spout the Bushco
blather.

Walt

[George Z. Bush]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> I wrote:
>
> >>What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are
> >>getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni
> >>called --dereliction-- of-- duty--.
> >>
> >>I just can't figure it.
>
> Ed:
>
> >Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform.
>
> Then act like it.
>
> General Zinni:
>
> "My son is a Marine Officer in the infantry. I lost a member of my family in
> Iraq, the son of my cousin, already. So, it's become very personal. Not to
> mention, just every one of those faces I see, I recognize. I mean, not
> directly, but these are, I mean, knew those sergeants and corporals and PFCs
> after 40 years, that paid a price for this, you know?"
>
> You might consider that sort of thing yourself.
>
> The former SecNav and the former CG of Centcom are calling this a blunder -- a
> blunder attended with 5,000 casualties, and all you do is spout the Bushco
> blather.

While we're at it, let's give the other critics who also knew a little about
wars their due. No need to omit Brent Scowcroft, Norman Scwarzkopf, or Wesley
Clark from the list of those who gave long years of service to their country and
who, like Anthony Zinni, think this war was a disaster from the gitgo. All of
the fishing around looking for excuses to go to war that the public might buy
done by our leaders tells us that this was a war fought to satisfy their
visceral needs far more than it served our nation's needs. They just couldn't
resist satisfying the need to be heroes if they could find a way to do it
without risk to their skins. That explains going to war a lot more than the
phony excuses they tried to foist off on us, one after another as they failed to
hold water on presentation.

George Z.
>
> Walt
>

[Ed Rasimus]

On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>I wrote:
>
>>>What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are
>>>getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni
>>>called --dereliction-- of-- duty--.
>>>
>>>I just can't figure it.
>
>Ed:
>
>>Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform.
>
>Then act like it.
>
>Walt

Walt,

I have no trouble with my opinions or my actions. I don't have a clue
who you are nor how you might be justified to comment on my positions
on the issues. I've got a long career of service to country and have
no need to apologize for anything.

General Zinni is entitled to his position on the situation, but it
doesn't determine mine and if we disagree it doesn't mean I don't care
for folks in uniform.

As for the war on terror, it leads me to recall Sean Connery's
comments in "The Untouchables". Let me roughly paraphrase. If you
threaten me, I will hurt you. If you threaten my family, I will kill
you. If you threaten my nation, I will kill you by the thousands. I
will determine the level of force used and it will be decisive,
possibly even viewed as extreme, but I will win. I know too well the
cost of gradualism in a war.

Who are the French to tell us how to deal with terrorism? We saved
their bacon at great cost twice during the last century. Who are the
Germans to tell us when and where to get involved? We kicked their ass
twice on behalf of the French last century. Who is the UN to make
policy decisions by majority rule of 190+ countries like Ghana,
Guinnea Bissau, Cameroon, etc, that are binding on the US.

America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
terrorist organization responsible. We didn't lob a few cruise
missiles from afar, destroy an aspirin factory and go back to the
hallway adjacent to the Oval Office with our intern. We rolled up our
sleeves and took on the thankless task of rooting the *******s out.

We have suffered losses in the military. They are all regretable, each
and every one. But, when we raised our hands and swore the oath, we
knew that was a possibility. We will be well served by establishment
of a democracy in the middle East. We will benefit from the removal of
Saddam. We are doing what is necessary and the price is steep, but not
as steep as it could have been.

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>From: Ed Rasimus

>On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
>act?
>

Now Ed, be nice. Remember you are an officer and a gentleman. (grin)





Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Denyav]

>Who are the
>Germans to tell us when and where to get involved? We kicked their ass
>twice on behalf of the French last century.

Alone?,As far as I could remember US was the part of a global alliance.
In spite of all numerical odds,Germans would still have kicked ass of the
Global Alliance if they had a couple of months more time.

Reality is that Brzezinkis ambitious "Eurasia" plan has been defeated and US is
being pushed out of Eurasia to Cyprus-Turkey-Iran-Afghanistan line without
firing one shot in Anger.
Some nations have plenty of military power ,some others plenty of Brainpower.
Nations with Brainpower can create a formidable military within very short
time,but nations with military power but no Brainpower may need centuries to to
build Brainpower.

>America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
>terrorist organization responsible

Nobody attacked US,it was another domestic PSYOP designed to "vaccinate" US
aganist future threats and natural disasters.
(I hope you know why and how medical professionals use vaccines)

>We will be well served by establishment
>of a democracy in the middle East. We will benefit from the removal of
>Saddam. We are doing what is

US interests are best served by the installation of Saddam 2.0 version of
Operating system.
(I cant imagine why a democracy or voters in a democracy should or would
approve the colonization of their countries ,examples Philippines,Turkey and
recently India)

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
>act?

Beginning of a healthy and democratic discussion.

[George Z. Bush]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>
>>>> What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are
>>>> getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni
>>>> called --dereliction-- of-- duty--.
>>>>
>>>> I just can't figure it.
>>
>> Ed:
>>
>>> Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform.
>>
>> Then act like it.
>>
>> Walt
>
> Walt,
>
> I have no trouble with my opinions or my actions. I don't have a clue
> who you are nor how you might be justified to comment on my positions
> on the issues. I've got a long career of service to country and have
> no need to apologize for anything.
>
> General Zinni is entitled to his position on the situation, but it
> doesn't determine mine and if we disagree it doesn't mean I don't care
> for folks in uniform.
>
> As for the war on terror, it leads me to recall Sean Connery's
> comments in "The Untouchables". Let me roughly paraphrase. If you
> threaten me, I will hurt you. If you threaten my family, I will kill
> you. If you threaten my nation, I will kill you by the thousands. I
> will determine the level of force used and it will be decisive,
> possibly even viewed as extreme, but I will win. I know too well the
> cost of gradualism in a war.
>
> Who are the French to tell us how to deal with terrorism? We saved
> their bacon at great cost twice during the last century. Who are the
> Germans to tell us when and where to get involved? We kicked their ass
> twice on behalf of the French last century. Who is the UN to make
> policy decisions by majority rule of 190+ countries like Ghana,
> Guinnea Bissau, Cameroon, etc, that are binding on the US.
>
> America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
> terrorist organization responsible. We didn't lob a few cruise
> missiles from afar, destroy an aspirin factory and go back to the
> hallway adjacent to the Oval Office with our intern. We rolled up our
> sleeves and took on the thankless task of rooting the *******s out.
>
> We have suffered losses in the military. They are all regretable, each
> and every one. But, when we raised our hands and swore the oath, we
> knew that was a possibility. We will be well served by establishment
> of a democracy in the middle East. We will benefit from the removal of
> Saddam. We are doing what is necessary and the price is steep, but not
> as steep as it could have been.
>
> Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
> act?

Tsk. Tsk. You lose the high ground when you lose your temper. He's entitled to
disagree with you, as you are with him, but there's no need for anyone to be
disagreeable about it. Let's keep the discussion on a civil plane, please.

BTW, your comment on the French was ill advised, IMHO. They were exposed to
Islamic terrorism long before we were when Algeria blew up in their faces after
WWII. It might benefit us to try to learn something from their experiences with
it instead of trying to put them down because they refuse to dance to our tune.
In addition, their current contributions to our efforts against terrorism in
Afghanistan is somewhat larger than many of those of our vaunted coalition
allies in Iraq. They deserve somewhat better than the condescension with which
you deal with them. But that's just my opinion, and I hope you will allow me
that without tearing me a new asshole for daring to make that point.

George Z.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 27 May 2004 14:12:14 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>
>>On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>
>>Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
>>act?
>>
>
>Now Ed, be nice. Remember you are an officer and a gentleman. (grin)
>

And a warrior. And a bunch of other things as well.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 10:59:43 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>>>
>>> Ed:
>>>
>>>> Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform.
>>>
>>> Then act like it.
>>>
>>> Walt
>
>Tsk. Tsk. You lose the high ground when you lose your temper. He's entitled to
>disagree with you, as you are with him, but there's no need for anyone to be
>disagreeable about it. Let's keep the discussion on a civil plane, please.

I don't lose my temper, however I also have a deep reluctance to
suffer fools, gladly or not. Until someone offers credentials, I won't
be told whether or not I value our troops nor how to act.
>
>BTW, your comment on the French was ill advised, IMHO. They were exposed to
>Islamic terrorism long before we were when Algeria blew up in their faces after
>WWII. It might benefit us to try to learn something from their experiences with
>it instead of trying to put them down because they refuse to dance to our tune.
>In addition, their current contributions to our efforts against terrorism in
>Afghanistan is somewhat larger than many of those of our vaunted coalition
>allies in Iraq. They deserve somewhat better than the condescension with which
>you deal with them. But that's just my opinion, and I hope you will allow me
>that without tearing me a new asshole for daring to make that point.

It wasn't condescension, it was merely statement of fact. There is
hardly a nation in the world that hasn't suffered terrorism in one
form or another--much of it isn't muslim extremist. But, it is
difficult to deny the fact that failure to respond to terrorism
doesn't offer much in the way of results. To abjectly declare that we
are somehow responsible for it and that if we simply understand their
pain, join hands and sing Kumbaya together it will all go away is
foolishness of the highest order.

Simply declining to participate would have been a choice available to
the French, however undermining our diplomatic efforts, duplicity in
the UN and a clear economic linkage to the Saddam regime have combined
to make the French involvement in the Iraq question less than
reasonable behavior.

As for any rending, tearing or surgical rearrangement of your
posterior, I will refrain since you have demonstrated your bona fides
on numerous occasions. While we disagree on some issues, the
discussion is on the issue itself and not what you should or should
not be doing in regard to a particular sense of values.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>"George Z. Bush" > wrote:

>>Tsk. Tsk. You lose the high ground when you lose your temper. He's entitled to
>>disagree with you, as you are with him, but there's no need for anyone to be
>>disagreeable about it. Let's keep the discussion on a civil plane, please.

>I don't lose my temper, however I also have a deep reluctance to
>suffer fools, gladly or not. Until someone offers credentials, I won't
>be told whether or not I value our troops nor how to act.

I'm in agreement with everything you wrote and I knew that you didn't
lose your temper. Even if you had, fighter pilots are entitled to spew
a little napalm from time to time.

[Leslie Swartz]

Walt:

You do understand that when you change the subject (as with this
sub-thread), most of us assume you are ceding the original point. Just
thought I'd remind you. The new issue you introduce ("wrongness" of Clinton
policy) has already been handled elsewhere.

As to Zinni's credentials/opinion (the original point), are you ceding
that his participation in creating the "Other" policy (failed or not) has
more to do with his current opinion than any rational analysis of the facts?
You know, the "Clarke Effect?"

Steve Swartz


"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> From: "Leslie Swartz"
>
> >Zinni strongly supported the Clinton line (he helped develop it), and
> >continues to refuse to admit the line was wrong.
>
> Why wrong? I don't think the Clinton "line" produced 5,000 battle
casualties.
>
> We've been in Iraq for 14 months. To whom are we giving control of the
country
> on 6/30/04?
>
> No one knows.
>
> I don't need a 4 star general to tell me that this is a disaster.
>
> Walt

[Leslie Swartz]

Chad:

"Cut from the same cloth" is a little too polite. These are (mainly?
all?) the same damn people *directly* responsible for the failed policies
that made our current effort in large part necessary.

Zinni, Clark, Clarke, Clinton, Gore, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum ad vomitum.

To hear them now spouting off about the current effort to clean up their
mess is indeed quite "ironical," isn't it? I mean, like Jamie Gorelick
spoutning off about intelligence failures because the FBI and CIA didn't
share enough information . . .

TWILIGHT ZONE!

Steve Swartz



"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> (WalterM140) wrote:
>
> > From: "Leslie Swartz"
> >
> > >Zinni strongly supported the Clinton line (he helped develop it), and
> > >continues to refuse to admit the line was wrong.
> >
> > Why wrong? I don't think the Clinton "line" produced 5,000 battle
> > casualties.
> >
> > We've been in Iraq for 14 months. To whom are we giving control of the
> > country
> > on 6/30/04?
> >
> > No one knows.
> >
> > I don't need a 4 star general to tell me that this is a disaster.
>
> On the other hand, the folks who are telling us things like "this is a
> disaster" are cut from the same cloth as the people who were telling us
> that there would be upwards of a half-*million* dead during the conflict
> and in the months afterwards, with the "smart money" coming in at over a
> hundred thousand (the low estimate by most antiwar folks was 20,000 or
> so dead, but that was the extreme lowball by the more optimistic folks),
> with a half-million or more refugees flooding the neighboring countries.
>
> UNHCR said there would be *900,000* refugees from the war, that all
> health, food, and water distribution would be effectively shut down for
> a long time, creating a huge humanitarian catastrophe with upwards of a
> half-million direct physical casualties. Epidemics and pandemics of
> cholera and dysentery were supposed to happen. Three million people
> were supposed to be in need of "therapeutic" feedings due to food
> shortages.
>
> How about this little bit of prognostication?
>
> <http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/200
> 3/0214grimpict.htm>
>
> Note the complete lack of these events coming to pass...
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
> >From: Ed Rasimus
>
> >On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>
> >Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
> >act?
> >
>
> Now Ed, be nice. Remember you are an officer and a gentleman. (grin)
>

That used to confuse the Army. My mother's commissions called her an
officer and gentleman until she made major.

She confused the system in general -- WWII Chief Aviation Metalsmith
running the airframe maintenance school at Pensacola, went to school on
the GI bill where they wouldn't let her enroll to teach shop, so she
would up with a master's in social work.

She remained an inactive Navy reservist throughout her education, and
somebody marked it down somewhere. When the Korean War broke out, she
tended not to think they needed a lot of airframe people.

They didn't. They needed, however, mental health professionals. She
wasn't just activated as an individual, but was involuntarily
direct-commissioned as 1LT, USAR, and sent off to a hospital in
Heidelberg.

I've never run across this before or since. Drove the personnel people
absolutely nuts.

[George Z. Bush]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 10:59:43 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>> On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ed:
>>>>
>>>>> Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform.
>>>>
>>>> Then act like it.
>>>>
>>>> Walt
>>
>> Tsk. Tsk. You lose the high ground when you lose your temper. He's
>> entitled to disagree with you, as you are with him, but there's no need for
>> anyone to be disagreeable about it. Let's keep the discussion on a civil
>> plane, please.
>
> I don't lose my temper, however I also have a deep reluctance to
> suffer fools, gladly or not.

I believe you introduced a four letter expletive that starts with the letter "F"
into the exchange. Since I don't recall it being in response to similar
language from Walt, I'm sure you'll forgive me for thinking that you had gotten
a tad ****ed off to the point of sort of losing it. If not, then you sure as
hell fooled me.

> .....Until someone offers credentials, I won't
> be told whether or not I value our troops nor how to act.

Since I'm not the one who started the discussion, I'm going to stay out of it
and let Walt deal with that.
>>
>> BTW, your comment on the French was ill advised, IMHO. They were exposed to
>> Islamic terrorism long before we were when Algeria blew up in their faces
>> after WWII. It might benefit us to try to learn something from their
>> experiences with it instead of trying to put them down because they refuse
>> to dance to our tune. In addition, their current contributions to our
>> efforts against terrorism in Afghanistan is somewhat larger than many of
>> those of our vaunted coalition allies in Iraq. They deserve somewhat better
>> than the condescension with which you deal with them. But that's just my
>> opinion, and I hope you will allow me that without tearing me a new asshole
>> for daring to make that point.
>
> It wasn't condescension, it was merely statement of fact.

C'mon, Ed, be honest....it was a deliberate put down and you know it. In the
early part of our engagement in Afghanistan, the French sent a carrier to the
Middle East and committed their entire air complement to our initial efforts
against AQ and the Taliban. I don't know how long they stayed and took part in
the operation, but we didn't tell them to go home and take their dolls and
dishes with them. From what I understand, they still have some of their
equivalent of our special forces committed in Afghanistan as we speak, although
I must admit that I have no idea of how many troops we're talking about.

> .....There is hardly a nation in the world that hasn't suffered terrorism in
one
> form or another--much of it isn't muslim extremist. But, it is
> difficult to deny the fact that failure to respond to terrorism
> doesn't offer much in the way of results.

I don't recall that I made that suggestion, so refuting it to me is sort of
wasted effort.

> .....To abjectly declare that we are somehow responsible for it and that if we
simply
> understand their pain, join hands and sing Kumbaya together it will all go
away is
> foolishness of the highest order.

Again, I'm not the one who may have suggested that we are somehow responsible
for the terrorism inflicted on us so I don't understand why you felt obliged to
direct that remark to me. IAC, your use of the "Kumbaya" crack was clearly
racist if unintended, and I thought somewhat beneath you. You surely know
perfectly well that "Kumbaya" is a black South African folk song and introducing
it into the discussion didn't seem warranted to me.
>
> Simply declining to participate would have been a choice available to
> the French, however undermining our diplomatic efforts, duplicity in
> the UN and a clear economic linkage to the Saddam regime have combined
> to make the French involvement in the Iraq question less than
> reasonable behavior.

Is there some way for the French to say "no" to our efforts to get them and the
rest of the UN to participate with us other than saying "no"? Maybe, if we
didn't want them to run their chops, we'd have been better advised to stop
pushing them to sign on. French political leaders, too, have a public that they
have to justify their actions to, as we do and, as I recall, their public was
not in favor of them joining in with us at the time.
>
> As for any rending, tearing or surgical rearrangement of your
> posterior, I will refrain since you have demonstrated your bona fides
> on numerous occasions. While we disagree on some issues, the
> discussion is on the issue itself and not what you should or should
> not be doing in regard to a particular sense of values.

No argument there, Ed.

George Z.

[Ron]

>> .....To abjectly declare that we are somehow responsible for it and that if
>we
>simply
>> understand their pain, join hands and sing Kumbaya together it will all go
>away is
>> foolishness of the highest order.
>
>Again, I'm not the one who may have suggested that we are somehow responsible
>for the terrorism inflicted on us so I don't understand why you felt obliged
>to
>direct that remark to me. IAC, your use of the "Kumbaya" crack was clearly
>racist if unintended, and I thought somewhat beneath you. You surely know
>perfectly well that "Kumbaya" is a black South African folk song and
>introducing
>it into the discussion didn't seem warranted to me

I think you are grossly misinterpreting this "Kumbaya" statement. Most
wouldnt know it is a south african folk song, I sure didnt. It was probably
more illustrative of those peace activist types who have a mindset that we
really can all just get along with terrorists if we are nice to them/peace at
any cost/lets dont make the terrorists mad at us even more.

Its rather silly to call what he said racist, since he was not injecting race
into it in any manner.

Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

[OXMORON1]

George came out with:
> IAC, your use of the "Kumbaya" crack was clearly
>racist if unintended, and I thought somewhat beneath you. You surely know
>perfectly well that "Kumbaya" is a black South African folk song and
>introducing

Come on George, "Kumbaya" was learned by more people in the US as a church camp
or peace activist song. Most of us learned it without the racial intent that
you propose. Southern Baptist or Methodist church camps in the 50's would not
allow a black song. I doubt that Ed learned it in a peace demonstration either,
unless he was the guy in back wearing a mask and wig.

Oxmoron1
MFE

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 5/27/04 9:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>> >From: Ed Rasimus
>>
>> >On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>>
>> >Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
>> >act?
>> >
>>
>> Now Ed, be nice. Remember you are an officer and a gentleman. (grin)
>>
>
>That used to confuse the Army. My mother's commissions called her an
>officer and gentleman until she made major.
>
>She confused the system in general -- WWII Chief Aviation Metalsmith
>running the airframe maintenance school at Pensacola, went to school on
>the GI bill where they wouldn't let her enroll to teach shop, so she
>would up with a master's in social work.
>
>She remained an inactive Navy reservist throughout her education, and
>somebody marked it down somewhere. When the Korean War broke out, she
>tended not to think they needed a lot of airframe people.
>
>They didn't. They needed, however, mental health professionals. She
>wasn't just activated as an individual, but was involuntarily
>direct-commissioned as 1LT, USAR, and sent off to a hospital in
>Heidelberg.
>
>I've never run across this before or since. Drove the personnel people
>absolutely nuts.


She is indeed an officer and a gentleman.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[John S. Shinal]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

>Trust me. I teach political science at the local college. I teach
>international relations as part of the job. I maintain an active
>interest in the role of the military. I am not particularly prone to
>emotionalism and I like to couch my political discourse in objective
>analysis...

You may like this link to a most scholarly and unbiased
analysis of US policy, where the various citizen viewpoints came from,
how they contrast to European policy (and why), the Constitutional
aspect of it, pragmatism, idealism, neoconservatism (what it's
intended to mean, what it actually represents and why), liberalism
(what it used to mean and what it means today), conspiracy theories,
and all the rest.

It's about the most interesting thing politically that I have
read in ten years. Well thought out, unslanted, and guaranteed to make
you think, no matter what side your views are on.

Sorry about the formatting, it's just quickie HTML.

http://jshinal.tripod.com/analysis_21c_USPolicy.html




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>From: (John S. Shinal)
>Date: 5/27/04 12:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>>Trust me. I teach political science at the local college. I teach
>>international relations as part of the job. I maintain an active
>>interest in the role of the military. I am not particularly prone to
>>emotionalism and I like to couch my political discourse in objective
>>analysis...
>
> You may like this link to a most scholarly and unbiased
>analysis of US policy, where the various citizen viewpoints came from,
>how they contrast to European policy (and why), the Constitutional
>aspect of it, pragmatism, idealism, neoconservatism (what it's
>intended to mean, what it actually represents and why), liberalism
>(what it used to mean and what it means today), conspiracy theories,
>and all the rest.
>
> It's about the most interesting thing politically that I have
>read in ten years. Well thought out, unslanted, and guaranteed to make
>you think, no matter what side your views are on.
>

And le'ts not overlook Wagnleiter's "The Foreign Politics of American Popular
Culture"
..
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[George Z. Bush]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >> .....To abjectly declare that we are somehow responsible for it and that if
> >we
> >simply
> >> understand their pain, join hands and sing Kumbaya together it will all go
> >away is
> >> foolishness of the highest order.
> >
> >Again, I'm not the one who may have suggested that we are somehow responsible
> >for the terrorism inflicted on us so I don't understand why you felt obliged
> >to
> >direct that remark to me. IAC, your use of the "Kumbaya" crack was clearly
> >racist if unintended, and I thought somewhat beneath you. You surely know
> >perfectly well that "Kumbaya" is a black South African folk song and
> >introducing
> >it into the discussion didn't seem warranted to me
>
> I think you are grossly misinterpreting this "Kumbaya" statement. Most
> wouldnt know it is a south african folk song, I sure didnt. It was probably
> more illustrative of those peace activist types who have a mindset that we
> really can all just get along with terrorists if we are nice to them/peace at
> any cost/lets dont make the terrorists mad at us even more.
>
> Its rather silly to call what he said racist, since he was not injecting race
> into it in any manner.

Point taken. Thanks.

George Z.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:54:48 GMT,
(John S. Shinal) wrote:

> You may like this link to a most scholarly and unbiased
>analysis of US policy, where the various citizen viewpoints came from,
>how they contrast to European policy (and why), the Constitutional
>aspect of it, pragmatism, idealism, neoconservatism (what it's
>intended to mean, what it actually represents and why), liberalism
>(what it used to mean and what it means today), conspiracy theories,
>and all the rest.
>
> It's about the most interesting thing politically that I have
>read in ten years. Well thought out, unslanted, and guaranteed to make
>you think, no matter what side your views are on.
>
> Sorry about the formatting, it's just quickie HTML.
>
> http://jshinal.tripod.com/analysis_21c_USPolicy.html

That is, indeed, an excellent overview of US foreign policy. It
condenses the entire introductory course of International Relations
down into a single readable newspaper article. The insights into
America's world view are little short of profound.

I would only note, however, that when applied to international
relations, the terms liberal and conservative take on a different
meaning than they do when applied to the American political parties
and their respective ideological positions.

In IR, the term "liberal" is usually applied to a moralistic view of
the interactions between nations. It is the view that nations are
"moral" players and there are good guys and bad guys. We, the US,
usually like to consider ourselves as the good guys.

The term "conservative" in IR is the more modern "realpolitik" view
that nations act strictly to serve their national self-interest and
they are essentially amoral. Machiavellian, if you will.

Clearly the shift (a fairly minor one according to the article) of the
Bush administration is to the moralist view--arguably Wilsonian, and
away from the Morganthau/Kissinger realpolitik self-interest
perspective. Strangely enough, in IR terms, that makes Bush a liberal!



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[George Z. Bush]

"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
...
> George came out with:
> > IAC, your use of the "Kumbaya" crack was clearly
> >racist if unintended, and I thought somewhat beneath you. You surely know
> >perfectly well that "Kumbaya" is a black South African folk song and
> >introducing
>
> Come on George, "Kumbaya" was learned by more people in the US as a church
camp
> or peace activist song. Most of us learned it without the racial intent that
> you propose. Southern Baptist or Methodist church camps in the 50's would not
> allow a black song. I doubt that Ed learned it in a peace demonstration
either,
> unless he was the guy in back wearing a mask and wig.

I see your point. I was looking at it from my own vantage point, having first
heard it at a time when apartheid was alive and well in South Africa and when it
represented their black citizens who were struggling for some measure of
equality there at the time. When it was originally introduced into our country,
it was a sort of anthem of South Africa's black "freedom fighters", hence my
equating it with racism. It was not a song of peaceniks at that time.

However, as I said, I see your point and concede that Ed may have used it in the
same context you did.

George Z.
>
> Oxmoron1
> MFE

[Yeff]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:13:58 -0400, George Z. Bush wrote:

> When it was originally introduced into our country, it was a sort of
> anthem of South Africa's black "freedom fighters", hence my equating it
> with racism.

It wasn't introduced into America, it originated here. "Kumbya" is from
the Gullah dialect of South Carolina and means "come by here."

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Dav1936531]

>From: Jim Yanik
>

>>(WalterM140) wrote in
>> The Republican congressman on Meet the Press (can't remember his name) said
it was a 130 mm mortar shell, but no matter.<<

>Well,Iraq used mainly Soviet weaponry,so it could have been a 152mm
artillery round.<

Probably a 155 though. At least as late as the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was using
artillery designed by Gerold Bull that was built in South Africa. The guns were
155mm and were designated as the G5 model.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rsa/g5.htm

I am not completely sure how many of these survived operation Desert Storm
however, but Iraqi designers were most probably designing rounds to fit that
particular gun.
Dave

[Stephen Harding]

George Z. Bush wrote:

> direct that remark to me. IAC, your use of the "Kumbaya" crack was clearly
> racist if unintended, and I thought somewhat beneath you. You surely know
> perfectly well that "Kumbaya" is a black South African folk song and introducing
> it into the discussion didn't seem warranted to me.

I think you've wandered "off the reservation" again on this (if you'll
excuse the racist idiom).

Perhaps holding hands to sing "Give Peace A Chance", or "Blowin' In
The Wind" might have been better musical selections?


SMH

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "OXMORON1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > George came out with:
> > > IAC, your use of the "Kumbaya" crack was clearly
> > >racist if unintended, and I thought somewhat beneath you. You surely
know
> > >perfectly well that "Kumbaya" is a black South African folk song and
> > >introducing
> >
> > Come on George, "Kumbaya" was learned by more people in the US as a
church
> camp
> > or peace activist song. Most of us learned it without the racial intent
that
> > you propose. Southern Baptist or Methodist church camps in the 50's
would not
> > allow a black song. I doubt that Ed learned it in a peace demonstration
> either,
> > unless he was the guy in back wearing a mask and wig.
>
> I see your point. I was looking at it from my own vantage point, having
first
> heard it at a time when apartheid was alive and well in South Africa and
when it
> represented their black citizens who were struggling for some measure of
> equality there at the time. When it was originally introduced into our
country,
> it was a sort of anthem of South Africa's black "freedom fighters", hence
my
> equating it with racism. It was not a song of peaceniks at that time.

What? You might want to look into the history of that song a bit more before
you make yourself out to be a larger horse's posterior than you already
have--just about every utterance you have made in regards to that tune has
been demonstrably *wrong*.

>
> However, as I said, I see your point and concede that Ed may have used it
in the
> same context you did.

Sounds like you would be about the only fellow using it in any other
context, being as your description of the song's lineage has been apparently
created solely in your own mind. Reference:

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Kumbayah

It is of American origin, and was a common camp song for decades--heck, we
used to sing it on long trips in the car when I was a little brat back in
the early sixties. Where you came up with the idea that "when it was
originally introduced into our country..." etc. is a mystery.

Brooks

>
> George Z.
> >
> > Oxmoron1
> > MFE
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

Yeff wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:13:58 -0400, George Z. Bush wrote:
>
>> When it was originally introduced into our country, it was a sort of
>> anthem of South Africa's black "freedom fighters", hence my equating it
>> with racism.
>
> It wasn't introduced into America, it originated here. "Kumbya" is from
> the Gullah dialect of South Carolina and means "come by here."

Some people, like you, claim it originated from the Gullah people of South
Carolina, others claim its origin is from Angola and/or Nigeria. I just say
that the first time I heard it, it was introduced as a folk song from South
Africa. I don't know which story is the right one, so you stick to your story
if you want.....I'll stick to mine.

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Yeff wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:13:58 -0400, George Z. Bush wrote:
> >
> >> When it was originally introduced into our country, it was a sort of
> >> anthem of South Africa's black "freedom fighters", hence my equating it
> >> with racism.
> >
> > It wasn't introduced into America, it originated here. "Kumbya" is from
> > the Gullah dialect of South Carolina and means "come by here."
>
> Some people, like you, claim it originated from the Gullah people of
South
> Carolina, others claim its origin is from Angola and/or Nigeria. I just
say
> that the first time I heard it, it was introduced as a folk song from
South
> Africa. I don't know which story is the right one, so you stick to your
story
> if you want.....I'll stick to mine.

Nothing new about you sticking to the wrong story...

"And of course there's kumbayah. According to ethnomusicologist Thomas
Miller, the song we know began as a Gullah spiritual. Some recordings of it
were made in the 1920s, but no doubt it goes back earlier. Published
versions began appearing in the 1930s. It's believed an American missionary
couple taught the song to the locals in Angola, where its origins were
forgotten. The song was then rediscovered in Angola and brought back here in
time for the folksinging revival of the 50s and 60s."

www.straightdope.com/classics/a980911a.html

Also, note that Angola is not South Africa?

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

[WalterM140]

> Zinni, Clark, Clarke, Clinton, Gore, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum ad vomitum.
>
> To hear them now spouting off about the current effort to clean up their
>mess is indeed quite "ironical," isn't it? I mean, like Jamie Gorelick
>spoutning off about intelligence failures because the FBI and CIA didn't
>share enough information . . .
>
>TWILIGHT ZONE!
>
>Steve Swartz
>

They weren't arrogant and stupid enough to invade Iraq.

"Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory.
To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing
Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the
government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States
and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region
that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its
maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the
defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence."

-- James Webb

[WalterM140]

> You do understand that when you change the subject (as with this
>sub-thread), most of us assume you are ceding the original point.

Which was what?

>Just
>thought I'd remind you.

Just thought I'd remind -you- that the Bush administration is arrogant and
incompetent.

George Bush Jr. is the -worst- president we've ever had.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
>act?

Gee, Ed. It's a newsgroup.

You came on my thread and spouted a bunch of crap in no way supported by the
available evidence.

Don't forget to direct your class to this thread.

The Bush administration is arrogant and incompetent. Bush is the -worst-
president we've -ever- had.

Walt

[WalterM140]

Ed allows:

>I have no trouble with my opinions or my actions. I don't have a clue
>who you are nor how you might be justified to comment on my positions
>on the issues.

I could say the same thing about you, couldn't I, Ed?

I'm a veteran too. I was on Desert Storm.

But you don't have to be a veteran, or even an American, to see that we have
5,000 casualties because of the arrogant, maladroit actions of the Bush
administration.

Now I've cited General Zinni of course. He cites Former General and National
Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf,
former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric
Shinseki.

I also cited James Webb. I'd say altogether I've made a pretty good case. Bush
and his minions are incompetent.

We have guys dying in Iraq due --directly-- to their incompetence.

You're blowing that off.

Now you may have some emotional attachment to Bush, you probably voted for him.
But it's time to wake up. I was for the war. I've always thought Bush just a
puppet. He sounds like a retard to me. But I knew that Cheney and Powell were
savvy and experienced. But what we have is a -disaster-.

It's a catastrophe, just like former VP Gore said.

What's also plain as day is that the good name of the United States has been
dragged through the mud by the Bush administration.

As you probably know, the White Counsel wrote for Bush two years ago a paper in
which he said we could (secretly of course) dispense with the Geneva
Convention.

Bush is in charge, and oh yes, he is definitely responsible. He's practically
a criminal.

Don't forget to direct your poly sci class to this thread.

>I've got a long career of service to country and have
>no need to apologize for anything.

Oh, yes you do. You need to apologize for this fantasy rant that excuses the
Bush admnistration.

Robert E. Lee had a long career of service too. But he chucked it and went with
the traitors. Not to compare you to Lee. "Dick" Cheney has a long career of
service. He's practically a criminal too.

>General Zinni is entitled to his position on the situation, but it
>doesn't determine mine and if we disagree it doesn't mean I don't care
>for folks in uniform.

Your position is --so-- not based in fact, that I respectfully disagree.

>As for the war on terror, it leads me to recall Sean Connery's
>comments in "The Untouchables". Let me roughly paraphrase. If you
>threaten me, I will hurt you. If you threaten my family, I will kill
>you. If you threaten my nation, I will kill you by the thousands.

Whooo hoooo.

Too bad Iraq was the wrong target, huh?

It's as if in "The Untouchables" that Ness had set up his ambush to catch the
mob bringing in bootleg liquor from Canada --- somewhere near El Paso.

>I
>will determine the level of force used and it will be decisive,
>possibly even viewed as extreme, but I will win. I know too well the
>cost of gradualism in a war.

Iraq was the wrong target. Ask General Zinni. Ask James Webb.

>America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
>terrorist organization responsible.

Which had nothing to do with Iraq. Atacking Iraq was the worst strategic
blunder in memory.

>We didn't lob a few cruise
>missiles from afar, destroy an aspirin factory and go back to the
>hallway adjacent to the Oval Office with our intern. We rolled up our
>sleeves and took on the thankless task of rooting the *******s out.

As General Zinni has indicated, containment worked. At least the Clinton
administration didn't generate 5,000 battle casualties -- and several thousand
civilian deaths --- unlike the disastrous and maladroit Bush administration.
They didn't trust Chalabi. They didn't manufacture from whole cloth an excuse
to go to war.

And don't forget:

LONDON - The U.S.-led war on terror has produced the most sustained attack on
human rights and international law in 50 years, Amnesty International said in
its annual report Wednesday.

Irene Khan, secretary general of the human rights group, condemned terrorist
assaults by groups such as al-Qaida, saying they posed a threat to security
around the world.

But she criticized the response of the U.S.-led "coalition of the willing,"
saying its powerful governments were ignoring international laws by sacrificing
human rights in the "blind pursuit" of security.

"The global security agenda promoted by the U.S. administration is bankrupt of
vision and bereft of principle," Khan said in a statement. "Violating rights at
home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, and using pre-emptive military
force where and when it chooses have damaged justice and freedom, and made the
world a more dangerous place."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040526/ap_on_re_eu/bri
tain_amnesty_report_1

Be sure and direct your class to this thread, Ed.

That's "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle," in case you missed it.

Bush is the -worst- president we've ever had, and the blood of those service
people killed in Iraq is -red- on his hands.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
>act?

You got torqued off, didn't you Ed?

The -reason- you got torqued off, I would suggest, is that you have no basis
whatsoever for your support of Bush administration policies.

Walt

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following as a follow-up to Walt:

>Do you seem me assigning the term to Juvat, or am I pointing out the
>rhetorical weaknesses of his argument?

Uhhh, well I actually thought you were calling me a "dedicated
liberal." But I am not offended by that at all. I confess I also
thought you meant it in a pejorative context. Which made me laugh, "If
Ed thinks that'll hurt my feeling, he's crazier than I thought!"

>He failed to address the question and he couched
> his comments in the terms I indicated.

Pffft. Ed you must have missed my long retort on 25 May (that you
didn't respond to) where I clearly disabused you of the notion that
ONLY liberals refer to Bush's elite as neocons. I cited The American
Conservative magazine (which you **should be aware of** if you are
indeed a "dedicated conservative" as you profess) and Karen
Kwiatkowski (LtCol USAF-Ret). Neocon is a term used by Pat Buchanan...

March 24, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative

[title]Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of
wars that are not in America’s interest.

"Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends.
Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by
these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to
forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations
in the Cold War."

Hmmm, Ed it would appear that you were not aware that some
"traditional conservatives," consider gwb's top advisors NEOCONS.

>Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform. I understand
>very well the difficulty in being at the point of the spear of
>national policy. I also understand very well the difficulty of being
>out there at the point while nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and
>"America-lasters" undermine the support of the mission. Been there,
>experienced it first hand.

This is where I'll raise the BULL**** flag. It's BULL**** to say
opposition to flawed foreign policy should take the blame for that
flawed policy. Next you're gonna tell us that our negative thoughts
are gonna get troops killed (like we're holding an RPG aimed at US
troops). That is just so intellectually weak. Blame the French, blame
the Germans, blame the liberals and the folks at The American
Conservative.

That is so friggin lame to blame voters for this **** up...okay let me
rephrase that, you're right to blame the voters that voted gwb into
office for this ****ed up foreign policy. But don't blame folks like
me that oppose gwb (and his neocons as described by the American
Conservative).

Our military is undefeated on the battlefield since Korea. We'll kick
ass and take names (and strip'em, cuff 'em, pose them in sexual
positions etc) but we won't lose on the battlefield. Ten thousand
attaboys and one "aw-****" wipes the entire slate clean. This is a big
"aw-****!"

>The Sadaam regime was toppled in ten days, not ten weeks, months or
>years. If that equals mismanagement, then your standard is different
>than mine.

I'm pretty sure he was addressing the events following those
fortuitous 10 days. Things like the looting in cities to which
Rumsfeld correctly observed, "Democracy is messy." Sure but Iraq is
not a democracy yet...not even close. The USA is a democracy, it's
messy, and it surely beats all of us singing the praises of gwb and
the neocon advisors.

>The situation in Iraq is not a made-for-TV scenario. There are three
>distinct factions competing for supremacy--Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd. They
>don't much like each other, and it isn't suprising that they also
>don't like an occupation force trying to keep things balanced.

So Ed, did you assume that we would be greeted as liberators? I
didn't. Nor did I expect to see photos of US troops abusing prisoners
(another "aw-****")

>Have we heard from the opposition in America what they would
>specifically do different? Cut and run? Turn it over to the UN--those
>are the folks that gave us "oil-for-food" and made billionaires out of
>several less than savory functionaries.

Well during the 2000 campaign gwb expressed the opinion that the USA
should not be in the business of "nation building." And yet here we
are. I think he was right...that we should not be in the business of
nation building.

Sincerely. I don't think any of us, (what were the terms you used for
us? oh yeah) nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and "America-lasters"
would have invaded Iraq. So to ask what we would do NOW...good
question. Kinda hard to blame us for opposing a course of action that
we wouldn't have taken (I personally wanted UN support before we
kicked SH's ass). gwb squandered all that international goodwill we
had earned becasue of 9/11...poor diplomatic skills.

>Trust me. I teach political science at the local college. I teach
>international relations as part of the job....
>I am not particularly prone to emotionalism...

But like all of us, you are not without this personal failing from
time to time regardless of what you might wish.

>and I like to couch my political discourse in objective
>analysis...

Interestingly enough, you give the short shrift to mere mortals here
but gladly acknowledge that Generals (Zinni, Clark) can have a
difference of opinion (offering the same critiques).

I respect you, I respect you're opinion. I'll not change your opinion,
nor will you change mine.

Have a Great Weekend.

Robey

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:16:14 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
>confessed the following as a follow-up to Walt:

>Uhhh, well I actually thought you were calling me a "dedicated
>liberal." But I am not offended by that at all. I confess I also
>thought you meant it in a pejorative context. Which made me laugh, "If
>Ed thinks that'll hurt my feeling, he's crazier than I thought!"

I suggested you were using the rhetorical techiques of the dedicated
liberal, not that you were one yourself. I'm not sure whether calling
you a liberal would be as great an affront as you're characterization
of me as crazy.
>
>>He failed to address the question and he couched
>> his comments in the terms I indicated.
>
>Pffft. Ed you must have missed my long retort on 25 May (that you
>didn't respond to) where I clearly disabused you of the notion that
>ONLY liberals refer to Bush's elite as neocons. I cited The American
>Conservative magazine (which you **should be aware of** if you are
>indeed a "dedicated conservative" as you profess) and Karen
>Kwiatkowski (LtCol USAF-Ret). Neocon is a term used by Pat Buchanan...

John Shinal posted a link to an excellent Wall Street Journal piece
that explains where the neo-con terminology came from. No, I don't
read "The American Conservative", nor do I regularly peruse The
American Spectator or the New Republic. Ms Kwiatkowski has enjoyed her
fifteen minutes of Wharolian fame, but brought no great distinction to
the debate other than adding to the the list of women in the military
who seem to be rising to the surface of infamy. As for Pat Buchanan,
the less we say, the better.
>
>March 24, 2003 issue
>Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative
>
>[title]Whose War?
>
>A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of
>wars that are not in America’s interest.

See, I really have a difficulty with work that starts out with "A
neoconservative clique..." Doesn't that seem that the author's first
intent is to inflame rather than enlighten?
>
>"Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends.
>Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by
>these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to
>forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations
>in the Cold War."

Excuse me, but did I miss something on 9/11/01? Or at Khobar Tower? Or
the USS Cole? Or the Marine Barracks in Beirut? Or Mogadishu? Is that
the years of peace we are forfeiting by not turning the other cheek?
>
>Hmmm, Ed it would appear that you were not aware that some
>"traditional conservatives," consider gwb's top advisors NEOCONS.

If you went beyond your single citation to explore neo-conservatives,
you might expand from the pejorative to a greater understanding of the
work of Straus and Kristol. But, that would endanger your strawman.
>
>>Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform. I understand
>>very well the difficulty in being at the point of the spear of
>>national policy. I also understand very well the difficulty of being
>>out there at the point while nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and
>>"America-lasters" undermine the support of the mission. Been there,
>>experienced it first hand.
>
>This is where I'll raise the BULL**** flag. It's BULL**** to say
>opposition to flawed foreign policy should take the blame for that
>flawed policy. Next you're gonna tell us that our negative thoughts
>are gonna get troops killed (like we're holding an RPG aimed at US
>troops). That is just so intellectually weak. Blame the French, blame
>the Germans, blame the liberals and the folks at The American
>Conservative.

You stretch my argument a bit. I don't "blame the French,....et.al." I
don't think "negative thoughts" will get us killed. I don't even seek
unanimity in the national policy debate. I merely acknowledge that
there are some who will oppose war regardless of the circumstances.
We've become a nation of McNews and MTV. We want instant solutions to
complex problems and aren't willing to offer the blood, sweat and
treasure it takes to get there.
>
>That is so friggin lame to blame voters for this **** up...okay let me
>rephrase that, you're right to blame the voters that voted gwb into
>office for this ****ed up foreign policy. But don't blame folks like
>me that oppose gwb (and his neocons as described by the American
>Conservative).

So, you'd prefer the steady, well-reasoned leadership of Al Gore that
we heard this week?
>
>Our military is undefeated on the battlefield since Korea. We'll kick
>ass and take names (and strip'em, cuff 'em, pose them in sexual
>positions etc) but we won't lose on the battlefield. Ten thousand
>attaboys and one "aw-****" wipes the entire slate clean. This is a big
>"aw-****!"

Does that herring stink? We were talking about the correctness of
response to terrorism and whether a democracy replacing Saddam in Iraq
was a worthy foreign policy goal. The Abu Ghraib prison atrocities are
not in any way excusable. (But, extending responsibility above the
brigade commander level is going to take a stretch. It might happen,
but I doubt it.)
>
>>The Sadaam regime was toppled in ten days, not ten weeks, months or
>>years. If that equals mismanagement, then your standard is different
>>than mine.
>
>I'm pretty sure he was addressing the events following those
>fortuitous 10 days. Things like the looting in cities to which
>Rumsfeld correctly observed, "Democracy is messy." Sure but Iraq is
>not a democracy yet...not even close. The USA is a democracy, it's
>messy, and it surely beats all of us singing the praises of gwb and
>the neocon advisors.

Dare I say "faulty syllogism"? Because the sun comes up post-rooster,
doesn't imply cause/effect. There was looting after the fall of Hitler
as well. Ditto fall of Saigon. Unfortunate, but you might recall that
some of the reports were exaggerated as well--remember the
archeological artifacts in the tens of thousands that were
looted....oops, they were in the basement.
>
>>The situation in Iraq is not a made-for-TV scenario. There are three
>>distinct factions competing for supremacy--Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd. They
>>don't much like each other, and it isn't suprising that they also
>>don't like an occupation force trying to keep things balanced.
>
>So Ed, did you assume that we would be greeted as liberators? I
>didn't. Nor did I expect to see photos of US troops abusing prisoners
>(another "aw-****")

There's a disconnect between what I see on CNN and what I'm getting
from "boots on the ground" sources. In fact, I do see (hear, actually)
a lot of greeting as liberators. There is also a lot of competition
for political power.

Have you considered the disconnect in the rhetoric between the demands
for us to withdraw and turn over sovereignty from the left and the
simultaneous questioning of how could Bush possibly keep the June 30
deadline for just that?
>
>>Have we heard from the opposition in America what they would
>>specifically do different? Cut and run? Turn it over to the UN--those
>>are the folks that gave us "oil-for-food" and made billionaires out of
>>several less than savory functionaries.
>
>Well during the 2000 campaign gwb expressed the opinion that the USA
>should not be in the business of "nation building." And yet here we
>are. I think he was right...that we should not be in the business of
>nation building.

Must I point out again that there was a significant event intervening
between Campaign 2000 and today? I think we all agree that
"nation-building" is not a desireable role. But, we must also agree
that in this small, inter-connected, increasingly inter-dependent
world, we must participate in efforts to enhance stability. We can't
be everywhere in the Wilsonian sense, but there are some places we
must get involved.
>
>Sincerely. I don't think any of us, (what were the terms you used for
>us? oh yeah) nay-sayers, pacifists, defeatists and "America-lasters"
>would have invaded Iraq. So to ask what we would do NOW...good
>question. Kinda hard to blame us for opposing a course of action that
>we wouldn't have taken (I personally wanted UN support before we
>kicked SH's ass). gwb squandered all that international goodwill we
>had earned becasue of 9/11...poor diplomatic skills.

That's an opinion. Personally, I'll take Colin Powell over Madeline
Albright any day. Ditto Condi Rice in preference to Sandy Berger.
Appeasement on all fronts may seem warm and friendly, but it isn't
always the best course, Mr. Chamberlain.
>
>>Trust me. I teach political science at the local college. I teach
>>international relations as part of the job....
>>I am not particularly prone to emotionalism...
>
>But like all of us, you are not without this personal failing from
>time to time regardless of what you might wish.

I confess to the flaw of convictions.
>
>>and I like to couch my political discourse in objective
>>analysis...
>
>Interestingly enough, you give the short shrift to mere mortals here
>but gladly acknowledge that Generals (Zinni, Clark) can have a
>difference of opinion (offering the same critiques).

Certainly Zinni and Clark have much to thank Bill Clinton for in their
successful careers. I respect their opinion, even if I find it in
Clark's case to continue to be politically driven rather than
objective. I also like to consider other Generals' opinion as
well--guys like Dick Myers, Hugh Shelton, Norm Shwartzkopf, Chuck
Horner, Tommy Franks, etc. They differ from Zinni and Clark in their
estimations.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 28 May 2004 17:16:14 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:


>Pffft. Ed you must have missed my long retort on 25 May (that you
>didn't respond to) where I clearly disabused you of the notion that
>ONLY liberals refer to Bush's elite as neocons. I cited The American
>Conservative magazine (which you **should be aware of** if you are
>indeed a "dedicated conservative" as you profess) and Karen
>Kwiatkowski (LtCol USAF-Ret). Neocon is a term used by Pat Buchanan...
>
>March 24, 2003 issue
>Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative
>
>[title]Whose War?
>
>A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of
>wars that are not in America’s interest.

For your further edification as you seem to enjoy throwing the neocon
label around, here is some info on what neo-conservatives are really
all about. (one might note that Kristol started the movement in the
'70s.)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
> confessed the following:

>John Shinal posted a link to an excellent Wall Street Journal piece
>that explains where the neo-con terminology came from. No, I don't
>read "The American Conservative",>

Interestingly enough it appears that at least one small passage in
Zelden's article is "lifted" without attribution from Buchanan's
article that appeared a month earlier. No biggee, just an observation.

> Ms Kwiatkowski has enjoyed her fifteen minutes of
>Wharolian fame, but brought no great distinction to
>the debate other than adding to the the list of women in the military
>who seem to be rising to the surface of infamy.

I gather from your cursory dismissal that you did not read her three
part description of events in the Pentagon. ad hominem anyone? Nah not
you Ed.

> As for Pat Buchanan, the less we say, the better.

Two for two...any you boys seen a definition of ad hominem around
here?

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or
argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the
author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically,
this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the
character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her
actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the
person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be
evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is
making (or presenting).

But you would never dismiss an argument simply for something weak like
that.

>Excuse me, but did I miss something on 9/11/01? Or at Khobar Tower? Or
>the USS Cole? Or the Marine Barracks in Beirut? Or Mogadishu? Is that
>the years of peace we are forfeiting by not turning the other cheek?

You did omit Timothy McVeigh.

So these terrorists events/attacks prove...what? That Buchanan's claim
about the peace won from the COLD WAR (that'd be the Big One you and I
fought in Europe) is in error? You mean we didn't win the COLD WAR?
I'm pretty sure that Treaty in 1991 that allowed Germany to re-unite
was part of that victory/peace. Buchanan was not presenting a Theory
of Everything...but that the cold war was a success.

But I'd say YES we were at peace up to 9/11. We chose to have our
troops or ships in dangerous parts of the world (foreign countries),
I'm not surprised there were terrorist attacks overseas...our friends
have had them for years. Remember the RV explosion at Ramstein in
front of USAFE HQ? I do.

>If you went beyond your single citation to explore neo-conservatives,
>you might expand from the pejorative to a greater understanding of the
>work of Straus and Kristol. But, that would endanger your strawman.

Straw man fallacy? I don't think so. You missed (or ignored) my 25 May
epistle with other citations. I've read Perle (note the date)
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/americawar.20011130.perle.nextstopiraq.html

I've also read

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic
and Political Studies' "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward
2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a
discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle,
James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert
Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The
report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on
strategy. [snipped for SOME brevity]

etc...

>So, you'd prefer the steady, well-reasoned leadership of Al Gore that
>we heard this week?

Ummm, here's a basic difference. If Al Bore (you read that right) were
in the Oval Office the war on terror would be different, SH would
probably still have his iron-fisted grip on Iraq. I've got no problem
with that.

>Does that herring stink?

You failed to grasp the intent. In very basic terms, we won the war in
Iraq, but poor conduct or bad decisions by the "good guys" in the
aftermath can lose the peace. And it won't be because folks like me
opposed "pre-emptive, nation-building, 800 pound gorilla" foreign
policy. We didn't plan to fail, but we certainly failed to plan (for
the peace).

>We were talking about the correctness of response to terrorism and
> whether a democracy replacing Saddam in Iraq was a worthy
> foreign policy goal.

Foregoing my snappy repartee for a moment. I don't recall democracy
building as a goal for taking down SH, it was the THREAT he presented
to the USA. The democracy notion was ancillary to the ANNOUNCED
reasons. [Yes I have the text of all gwb's State of the Unions]

When the ties to AQ weren't found and the WMD stockpiles weren't
found, democracy took center stage...worthwhile but not quite the
sizzle of discovering WMD stocks. Afterall we have friends that are
not democracies...so it doesn't fit neatly into the war on terrorism
rhetoric.

>Dare I say "faulty syllogism"? Because the sun comes up post-rooster,
>doesn't imply cause/effect. There was looting after the fall of Hitler
>as well. Ditto fall of Saigon. Unfortunate, but you might recall that
>some of the reports were exaggerated as well--remember the
>archeological artifacts in the tens of thousands that were
>looted....oops, they were in the basement.

Again you failed to grasp the message, not that everything should be
perfect; rather the clear demonstration that Rumsfeld and the
architects of this nation building experience did not have a plan for
post war. Oh yeah, I'm sure there was something they call "a plan" but
I suspect it was predicated on Cheney's claim we'd be greeted as
liberators.

>Have you considered the disconnect in the rhetoric between the demands
>for us to withdraw and turn over sovereignty from the left and the
>simultaneous questioning of how could Bush possibly keep the June 30
>deadline for just that?

Most definitely. I've considered the desire to give Iraq back to
Iraqis and not leave it as damaged goods now that we've "broken it" to
paraphrase Colin Powell's counsel (ala Woodward's book). Rock and a
Hard Place, Deep Kimchee, Up to our Ass in Alligators...

>Must I point out again that there was a significant event intervening
>between Campaign 2000 and today? I think we all agree that
>"nation-building" is not a desireable role. But, we must also agree
>that in this small, inter-connected, increasingly inter-dependent
>world, we must participate in efforts to enhance stability. We can't
>be everywhere in the Wilsonian sense, but there are some places we
>must get involved.

Again I go back to the raison d'être promulgated in gwb's 2002 State
of the Union and the absence of a smoking gun (oh yeah, one sarin
round) to show our friends and allies..."here I told you he had all
this ****, and was linked to al-Qaeda." Clearly I have a higher
threshold of proof. In the information age I expect the proof.

>Appeasement on all fronts may seem warm and friendly, but it isn't
>always the best course, Mr. Chamberlain.

Ed, kicking al-Qaeda ass in Afghanistan is NOT appeasement. Containing
SH's ass in a small portion of his country is NOT appeasement.
Tracking down terrorist cells with the assistance of our allies is not
appeasement.

This notion that folks like me would do NOTHING is poor comprehension
on your part, and a frequent error by bush supporters that label my
ilk as "unpatriotic.". I would not have invaded Iraq. I would kill AQ
****s where I found them. Iraq was taking our eye off the ball so to
speak.

>I confess to the flaw of convictions.

I do not envy the student that writes a paper opposing your
convictions. Believe me when I say that is NOT ad hominem...simply
they way I see your debating style...not your message.

Robey

[Mike Dargan]

WalterM140 wrote:
>>Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
>>act?
>
>
> Gee, Ed. It's a newsgroup.
>
> You came on my thread and spouted a bunch of crap in no way supported by the
> available evidence.
>
> Don't forget to direct your class to this thread.
>
> The Bush administration is arrogant and incompetent. Bush is the -worst-
> president we've -ever- had.

Worse than Reagan? Come now, let's not forget the godfather of the
mujahadin. Not so very long ago, most of these terrorists were proxies
for RR and his boy Bill Casey. When they video taped the throat
slittings of Russian draftees, they were freedom fighters.

Cheers

--mike


>
> Walt

[Mike Dargan]

WalterM140 wrote:

> Ed allows:
>
>
>>I have no trouble with my opinions or my actions. I don't have a clue
>>who you are nor how you might be justified to comment on my positions
>>on the issues.
>
>
> I could say the same thing about you, couldn't I, Ed?
>
> I'm a veteran too. I was on Desert Storm.
>
> But you don't have to be a veteran, or even an American, to see that we have
> 5,000 casualties because of the arrogant, maladroit actions of the Bush
> administration.
>
> Now I've cited General Zinni of course. He cites Former General and National
> Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf,
> former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric
> Shinseki.

True, but Dr. Ed is a very prominent "professor" at a very exclusive
junior college. Let's show some respect for the professoriat.

>
> I also cited James Webb. I'd say altogether I've made a pretty good case. Bush
> and his minions are incompetent.

They'd probably ace Dr. Ed's "Intro to Political Science."


Cheers

--mike

>
> We have guys dying in Iraq due --directly-- to their incompetence.
>
> You're blowing that off.
>
> Now you may have some emotional attachment to Bush, you probably voted for him.
> But it's time to wake up. I was for the war. I've always thought Bush just a
> puppet. He sounds like a retard to me. But I knew that Cheney and Powell were
> savvy and experienced. But what we have is a -disaster-.
>
> It's a catastrophe, just like former VP Gore said.
>
> What's also plain as day is that the good name of the United States has been
> dragged through the mud by the Bush administration.
>
> As you probably know, the White Counsel wrote for Bush two years ago a paper in
> which he said we could (secretly of course) dispense with the Geneva
> Convention.
>
> Bush is in charge, and oh yes, he is definitely responsible. He's practically
> a criminal.
>
> Don't forget to direct your poly sci class to this thread.
>
>
>>I've got a long career of service to country and have
>>no need to apologize for anything.
>
>
> Oh, yes you do. You need to apologize for this fantasy rant that excuses the
> Bush admnistration.
>
> Robert E. Lee had a long career of service too. But he chucked it and went with
> the traitors. Not to compare you to Lee. "Dick" Cheney has a long career of
> service. He's practically a criminal too.
>
>
>>General Zinni is entitled to his position on the situation, but it
>>doesn't determine mine and if we disagree it doesn't mean I don't care
>>for folks in uniform.
>
>
> Your position is --so-- not based in fact, that I respectfully disagree.
>
>
>>As for the war on terror, it leads me to recall Sean Connery's
>>comments in "The Untouchables". Let me roughly paraphrase. If you
>>threaten me, I will hurt you. If you threaten my family, I will kill
>>you. If you threaten my nation, I will kill you by the thousands.
>
>
> Whooo hoooo.
>
> Too bad Iraq was the wrong target, huh?
>
> It's as if in "The Untouchables" that Ness had set up his ambush to catch the
> mob bringing in bootleg liquor from Canada --- somewhere near El Paso.
>
>
>>I
>>will determine the level of force used and it will be decisive,
>>possibly even viewed as extreme, but I will win. I know too well the
>>cost of gradualism in a war.
>
>
> Iraq was the wrong target. Ask General Zinni. Ask James Webb.
>
>
>>America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
>>terrorist organization responsible.
>
>
> Which had nothing to do with Iraq. Atacking Iraq was the worst strategic
> blunder in memory.
>
>
>>We didn't lob a few cruise
>>missiles from afar, destroy an aspirin factory and go back to the
>>hallway adjacent to the Oval Office with our intern. We rolled up our
>>sleeves and took on the thankless task of rooting the *******s out.
>
>
> As General Zinni has indicated, containment worked. At least the Clinton
> administration didn't generate 5,000 battle casualties -- and several thousand
> civilian deaths --- unlike the disastrous and maladroit Bush administration.
> They didn't trust Chalabi. They didn't manufacture from whole cloth an excuse
> to go to war.
>
> And don't forget:
>
> LONDON - The U.S.-led war on terror has produced the most sustained attack on
> human rights and international law in 50 years, Amnesty International said in
> its annual report Wednesday.
>
> Irene Khan, secretary general of the human rights group, condemned terrorist
> assaults by groups such as al-Qaida, saying they posed a threat to security
> around the world.
>
> But she criticized the response of the U.S.-led "coalition of the willing,"
> saying its powerful governments were ignoring international laws by sacrificing
> human rights in the "blind pursuit" of security.
>
> "The global security agenda promoted by the U.S. administration is bankrupt of
> vision and bereft of principle," Khan said in a statement. "Violating rights at
> home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, and using pre-emptive military
> force where and when it chooses have damaged justice and freedom, and made the
> world a more dangerous place."
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040526/ap_on_re_eu/bri
> tain_amnesty_report_1
>
> Be sure and direct your class to this thread, Ed.
>
> That's "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle," in case you missed it.
>
> Bush is the -worst- president we've ever had, and the blood of those service
> people killed in Iraq is -red- on his hands.
>
> Walt

[Grantland]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>For your further edification as you seem to enjoy throwing the neocon
>label around, here is some info on what neo-conservatives are really
>all about. (one might note that Kristol started the movement in the
>'70s.)
Keep sucking on that Jewish cock, Ed, you fruity old traitor. Maybe
one day you'll wet your leathery, treasonous old tonsils. ****ing
quisling. Cocksucker.

Grantland

treasonous
>http://www.weeklystandard. old com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 28 May 2004 23:06:51 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
>
>> As for Pat Buchanan, the less we say, the better.
>
>Two for two...any you boys seen a definition of ad hominem around
>here?

I didn't say that Buchanan was old or balding or even "crazy"--I
merely mentioned that his radical right, America-first, ultra
conservatism has made his pronouncements less than reliable. If I
don't find Buchanan particularly credible (his abandonment of the
Republican Party when he couldn't get a start on his quest for the
presidential nomination is an example of his self-serving attitude,)
it doesn't mean I am attacking ad hominem. I similarly might disregard
the pronouncements of Minister Farrakhan.
>
Here's a link you might find interesting--it's a balanced (rare that!)
discussion of the possibility of an AQ-Iraq connection.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=1

>But I'd say YES we were at peace up to 9/11. We chose to have our
>troops or ships in dangerous parts of the world (foreign countries),
>I'm not surprised there were terrorist attacks overseas...our friends
>have had them for years. Remember the RV explosion at Ramstein in
>front of USAFE HQ? I do.

Your first sentence says "YES" and your last sentence says "no". I
remember the explosion quite well. It occurred three weeks after I
PCS'd from Ramstein and the injured LtC was out of my shop.
>

>You failed to grasp the intent. In very basic terms, we won the war in
>Iraq, but poor conduct or bad decisions by the "good guys" in the
>aftermath can lose the peace. And it won't be because folks like me
>opposed "pre-emptive, nation-building, 800 pound gorilla" foreign
>policy. We didn't plan to fail, but we certainly failed to plan (for
>the peace).

I won't disagree on the "bad decisions" at Abu Ghraib. Lots of
failures of leadership at all levels up to brigade commander.

But the continued assertion that there was no plan for transition is
tougher to accept. Of course there was a plan--an essential element of
the Powell Doctrine is "exit strategy". The problem is that events
don't always flow exactly the way the plan predicts. If that is a
failure of leadership, then every plan ever devised exhibits the same
problem.
>
>When the ties to AQ weren't found and the WMD stockpiles weren't
>found, democracy took center stage...worthwhile but not quite the
>sizzle of discovering WMD stocks. Afterall we have friends that are
>not democracies...so it doesn't fit neatly into the war on terrorism
>rhetoric.

Again, take a look at this:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=1

>>Must I point out again that there was a significant event intervening
>>between Campaign 2000 and today? I think we all agree that
>>"nation-building" is not a desireable role. But, we must also agree
>>that in this small, inter-connected, increasingly inter-dependent
>>world, we must participate in efforts to enhance stability. We can't
>>be everywhere in the Wilsonian sense, but there are some places we
>>must get involved.
>
>Again I go back to the raison d'être promulgated in gwb's 2002 State
>of the Union and the absence of a smoking gun (oh yeah, one sarin
>round) to show our friends and allies..."here I told you he had all
>this ****, and was linked to al-Qaeda." Clearly I have a higher
>threshold of proof. In the information age I expect the proof.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=1

>>I confess to the flaw of convictions.
>
>I do not envy the student that writes a paper opposing your
>convictions. Believe me when I say that is NOT ad hominem...simply
>they way I see your debating style...not your message.

I suspect you would need to talk to my students regarding that
assertion. It is a leap to unsupported conclusions. For you to extend
my debate with you on this topic to some sort of student intimidation
or doctrinaire requirements for successful grades is ridiculous.

Students are taught to think, reason, consider the various aspects of
complex political situations. They should recognize that knee-jerk
acceptance of sound-bite solutions and slogans from either the right
or the left are not accurate. As political science students they
should be learning to find the middle ground, evaluate the compromises
and build the concensus to create effective policy. They are
discouraged from exercising emotional screeds.

Probably not the way it is taught in the Ivy League, but it's what
happens where I work.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 29 May 2004 11:45:17 GMT, (Grantland)
wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>>For your further edification as you seem to enjoy throwing the neocon
>>label around, here is some info on what neo-conservatives are really
>>all about. (one might note that Kristol started the movement in the
>>'70s.)
>Keep sucking on that Jewish cock, Ed, you fruity old traitor. Maybe
>one day you'll wet your leathery, treasonous old tonsils. ****ing
>quisling. Cocksucker.
>
>Grantland

Thank you for sharing that. You've added immeasurably to the
discussion.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Denyav]

>I suspect you would need to talk to my students regarding that
>assertion. It is a leap to unsupported conclusions. For you to extend

Your students might want to check out following too:
"The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012".

The award for this study was presented by,well,by a General named Colin Powell.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:


>For your further edification as you seem to enjoy throwing the neocon
>label around, here is some info on what neo-conservatives are really
>all about. (one might note that Kristol started the movement in the
>'70s.)

First off...how 'bout dropping this notion that I'm "throwing the
neocon label around," you've finally taken the time to see that it's
NOT simply a liberal pejorative.

Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a
geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and
environmental regulation.

Not surprising that the guys in power will always get to define what
"national interest" is at any given moment. Pursuing a foreign policy,
i.e. pre-emptive wars on the other side of the globe while couching it
in terms of self-defense, does NOT pass the common sense test to me
(nor would it pass this test to most inhabitants of this planet).

A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large
nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of
yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological
interests in addition to more material concerns.

I take this to be more in the vein of Hobbes' "Leviathan," rather than
Locke's "Second Treatise of Civil Government." Simply being the
Superpower du jour is not license to discard the moral principals your
nation built its reputation on. I suspect gwb & co are now trying to
get the UN involved because he recognizes that he could lose the
election in Nov, IOW just to save his political ass.

Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always
feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack
from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in
our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in
World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today,
when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical
calculations of national interest are necessary.

And yet these same forward thinking standard bearers for truth,
justice and the american way, are livid that democratic nations would
oppose the "american view," of how the world should be. I call that
arrogance, but will amend that to hubris for the sake of polite
conversation.

The older, traditional elements in the Republican party have
difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs,
just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and
cultural conservatism.

Clearly talking about Buchanan...notice the quote said "traditional
element?" It would appear that you have incorrectly identified
yourself as "traditional [conservative]" according to Kristol.

But by one of those accidents historians ponder, our current
president and his administration turn out to be quite at home in this
new political environment, although it is clear they did not
anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did.

In my previous posts there are citations containing links (IOW URLs
within the citations) to writings by neocons during Clinton's
administration where they called for taking SH down "on principal."

For Kristol to suggest that gwb & co did not "anticipate this role" at
all or specifically WRT to Iraq is false. That is simply political
nonsense.

But thanks for the cite.

Robey

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:

>Here's a link you might find interesting--it's a balanced (rare that!)
>discussion of the possibility of an AQ-Iraq connection.
>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=1

Read it...Tenet reports'credible evidence, reliable information,
etc...IOW a "slam dunk." But nobody can produce this evidence.

Hayes contradicts Clarke. LtCol Kwiatkowski reported that the
political neocon appointees that setup shop in the Pentagon
cherry-picked the bits that fit their pre-determined outcome.

I suppose Pakastani Intelligence officers that happen to be muslim and
provided assistance to AQ and Taliban in Afghanistan are proof of Pres
Musharraf's support of AQ? The logic follows the same as Mr Hayes
article. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia allows wahhabi islam (OBL's
particular brand) to be openly taught so that makes them
co-conspirators? Hey we've got evidence to support attacking current
allies.

We bring democracy to Iraq to fight terrorism while closely allied
with the monarchy of SA...common sense...not to me. Goes back to the
nation building theme.

Regarding my contention that we were at peace up until 9/11...

>Your first sentence says "YES" and your last sentence says "no". I
>remember the explosion quite well.

Who the enemy was that bombed USAFE HQ? Who did Reagan declare war on?
Did Waco, Ruby Ridge, or McVeigh's bombing in OKC mean we were in a
civil war? Not at all.

If you chose to use Beirut, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole as evidence of
war, does it seem logical that we were at war (or should be) with the
entire Middle East except for Israel and maybe Jordan?

Before you answer you should recall that gwb said in his 2003 SOTU,
"As we fight this war, we will remember where it began -- here, in our
own country." I'm guessing the gwb thought we were at peace.

>I won't disagree on the "bad decisions" at Abu Ghraib. Lots of
>failures of leadership at all levels up to brigade commander.

Ummm, SecDef Rumsfeld confessed that he was responsible. And this is
one time I believe him. Dep SecDef Wolfowitz' visit to Abu Ghraib in
Oct 2003 (photographed with the Bridgade CO) was probably a
coincidence, he wouldn't actually learn anything about the operation
(strictly need to know I guess). Plausible deniability.

>But the continued assertion that there was no plan for transition is
>tougher to accept. Of course there was a plan--an essential element of
>the Powell Doctrine is "exit strategy". The problem is that events
>don't always flow exactly the way the plan predicts. If that is a
>failure of leadership, then every plan ever devised exhibits the same
>problem.

The bulk of our armed forces are not equipped for rebuilding or
caretaker operations, absent civil affairs, MP, civil engineering. I
dont' think gwb & co looked much beyond being greeted as liberators.

I'm not disputing the great things our folks are doing to make life
better for Iraqis. It just appears to be the sincere efforts of good
guys rather than "the plan."

>I suspect you would need to talk to my students regarding that
>assertion. It is a leap to unsupported conclusions.

No it was simply an observation, you gave no indication that you read
any cite I provided (I've read all of yours...both?); but you did
kinda give me the wave of the hand and the virtual "pfffttt." This
post has been the most honest IMO exchange on this subject. I
appreciate the effort.

> For you to extend my debate with you on this topic to some
> sort of student intimidation or doctrinaire requirements
> for successful grades is ridiculous.

Not really, my political science advisor was a WWII infantry officer
(Normandy to the Rhine) he came to dislike the military. He often
initially dismissed opposing views without considering the message.

Snip an excellent approach to thinking, but then there's this...

>Probably not the way it is taught in the Ivy League, but it's what
>happens where I work.

Oh boy...

[WalterM140]

Just for Ed:

"The Bush Administration has not made it easy on its supporters. David Brooks
now admits that he was gripped with a "childish fantasy" about Iraq. Tucker
Carlson is "ashamed" and "enraged" at himself. Tom Friedman, admitting to being
"a little slow," is finally off the reservation. Die-hard Republican publicist
William Kristol admits of Bush, "He did drive us into a ditch." The neocon
fantasist and sometime Republican speechwriter Mark Helprin complains on the
Wall Street Journal editorial page--the movement's Pravda--of "the inescapable
fact that the war has been run incompetently, with an apparently deliberate
contempt for history, strategy, and thought, and with too little regard for the
American soldier, whose mounting casualties seem to have no effect on the
boastfulness of the civilian leadership."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040607&s=alterman

Walt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> Just for Ed:
>
> "The Bush Administration has not made it easy on its supporters. David
Brooks
> now admits that he was gripped with a "childish fantasy" about Iraq.
Tucker
> Carlson is "ashamed" and "enraged" at himself. Tom Friedman, admitting to
being
> "a little slow," is finally off the reservation. Die-hard Republican
publicist
> William Kristol admits of Bush, "He did drive us into a ditch." The neocon
> fantasist and sometime Republican speechwriter Mark Helprin complains on
the
> Wall Street Journal editorial page--the movement's Pravda--of "the
inescapable
> fact that the war has been run incompetently, with an apparently
deliberate
> contempt for history, strategy, and thought, and with too little regard
for the
> American soldier, whose mounting casualties seem to have no effect on the
> boastfulness of the civilian leadership."
>

Casualties have been light.

[Mike Dargan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Just for Ed:
>>
>>"The Bush Administration has not made it easy on its supporters. David
>
> Brooks
>
>>now admits that he was gripped with a "childish fantasy" about Iraq.
>
> Tucker
>
>>Carlson is "ashamed" and "enraged" at himself. Tom Friedman, admitting to
>
> being
>
>>"a little slow," is finally off the reservation. Die-hard Republican
>
> publicist
>
>>William Kristol admits of Bush, "He did drive us into a ditch." The neocon
>>fantasist and sometime Republican speechwriter Mark Helprin complains on
>
> the
>
>>Wall Street Journal editorial page--the movement's Pravda--of "the
>
> inescapable
>
>>fact that the war has been run incompetently, with an apparently
>
> deliberate
>
>>contempt for history, strategy, and thought, and with too little regard
>
> for the
>
>>American soldier, whose mounting casualties seem to have no effect on the
>>boastfulness of the civilian leadership."
>>
>
>
> Casualties have been light.
>
More than 5,000 moms would disagree.

Cheers

--mike

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:Hwcuc.16394$js4.14628@attbi_s51...
>
> More than 5,000 moms would disagree.
>

Then more than 5,000 moms would be wrong.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:Hwcuc.16394$js4.14628@attbi_s51...
>
> More than 5,000 moms would disagree.
>

5,000 out of millions is a very small percentage.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:Hwcuc.16394$js4.14628@attbi_s51...
>
> More than 5,000 moms would disagree.
>

Which 5,000 moms do you speak for?

[Mike Dargan]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:Hwcuc.16394$js4.14628@attbi_s51...
> >
>
>>More than 5,000 moms would disagree.
>>
>
>
> Which 5,000 moms do you speak for?
>
>

Are you getting poli-sci credit for these postings?

Cheers

--mike

[Jim Thomas]

>IAC, your use of the "Kumbaya" crack was clearly
> racist if unintended, and I thought somewhat beneath you. You surely know
> perfectly well that "Kumbaya" is a black South African folk song and introducing
> it into the discussion didn't seem warranted to me.

"Kumbaya" is a Christian South African folk song, and is in many
Christian hymn books. Ed didn't insult me by referrring to this
Christian song. Why do you feel insulted because it is also a "black"
song?

Jim Thomas

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:eBduc.16454$eY2.14365@attbi_s02...
>
> Are you getting poli-sci credit for these postings?
>

No. Do you think I should?

[WalterM140]

>Then more than 5,000 moms would be wrong.
>

We got back from Desert Storm with every body okay.

About a year later Corporal Larry Hazelwood was murdered in a random act.

He was 22.

I went to the funeral home and saw this fine young man laid out in his coffin
in his dress blues. His mother was so disconsolate that three ladies had to
help her sit in a chair. Her weeping for her dead son was the saddest thing
that I have ever witnessed.

Those 5,000 mothers deserve your sympathy, not your contempt.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>> Are you getting poli-sci credit for these postings?
>>
>
>No. Do you think I should?

Presumably, Ed Rasimus thinks you should.

Walt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> We got back from Desert Storm with every body okay.
>

There were casualties in Desert Storm.


>
> Those 5,000 mothers deserve your sympathy, not your contempt.
>

What contempt? I was merely stating a fact.

[WalterM140]

>> The Bush administration is arrogant and incompetent. Bush is the -worst-
>> president we've -ever- had.
>
>Worse than Reagan? Come now, let's not forget the godfather of the
>mujahadin. Not so very long ago, most of these terrorists were proxies
>for RR and his boy Bill Casey. When they video taped the throat
>slittings of Russian draftees, they were freedom fighters.
>

I thought Reagan a very bad president also. I don't think he ever made a tough
decision. And like Bush, he was a puppet of his handlers. The one thing he
can claim is egging his staff on into what became Iran-Contra, while claiming
he would never negociate with terrorists.

Walt

[Ed Rasimus]

On 30 May 2004 12:27:45 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>I thought Reagan a very bad president also. I don't think he ever made a tough
>decision. And like Bush, he was a puppet of his handlers. The one thing he
>can claim is egging his staff on into what became Iran-Contra, while claiming
>he would never negociate with terrorists.
>
>Walt

Your opinion, is of course, your's. But, might you be willing to
consider the greatest tax cut since JFK as an achievment? Or, maybe
the reduction of Carter's 21% annual inflation and 18% interest rates
in less than two years to a more realistic 6% inflation and 10.5%
interest as worthwhile? Maybe the destruction of the Berlin Wall and
the collapse of the Soviet Union might be good things? You might even
want to consider the economic theories of Laffer--the idea that a
reduction in tax rates can lead to an increase in tax revenue because
the money in consumer's hands gets spent to create demand for goods
and services--a better choice than socialistic redistribution of
wealth in my opinion, but then I work for a living.

And, while Iran-Contra was certainly questionable, you might consider
that it was the result of the Congress first putting anti-communist
forces in the field in Nicaragua and then cutting the funds for their
support after they are in harm's way. While I freely agree that ends
should not justify means, it was a solution to a problem.

Have you noticed that while everyone says, "we never negotiate with
terrorists", that the first individual that shows up in a terrorist
hostage situtation is the negotiator?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On 30 May 2004 02:28:58 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>Just for Ed:
>
>"The Bush Administration has not made it easy on its supporters. David Brooks
>now admits that he was gripped with a "childish fantasy" about Iraq. Tucker
>Carlson is "ashamed" and "enraged" at himself. Tom Friedman, admitting to being
>"a little slow," is finally off the reservation. Die-hard Republican publicist
>William Kristol admits of Bush, "He did drive us into a ditch." The neocon
>fantasist and sometime Republican speechwriter Mark Helprin complains on the
>Wall Street Journal editorial page--the movement's Pravda--of "the inescapable
>fact that the war has been run incompetently, with an apparently deliberate
>contempt for history, strategy, and thought, and with too little regard for the
>American soldier, whose mounting casualties seem to have no effect on the
>boastfulness of the civilian leadership."
>
>http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040607&s=alterman
>
>Walt

You know what? I agree with you. The Bush administration has not made
it easy on its supporters! But, you can say the same thing about other
administrations as well. Did Clinton make it easy on his supporters?
George Stephanopolous, one of the early true believers, resigned to
write his memoir "All Too Human" when he discovered his savior had
feet of clay. It's part of the process of politics in America.

Gotta confess though, that the characterization of the WSJ as some
version of Pravda is a bet of hyperbole.

And, let's put the "mounting casualties" thing into perspective this
weekend as we recall 400,000 from WWII and 58,000 KIA from SEA. Any
casualties are regretable, but they are part of the price to be paid
for defense of the things we value. Different folks will set the price
at different levels, but there will always be a price.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[WalterM140]

>And, let's put the "mounting casualties" thing into perspective this
>weekend as we recall 400,000 from WWII and 58,000 KIA from SEA.

Big difference--

The 5,000 casualties we have now are totally unnecessary.

This is the next hurdle for you to get over, Ed.


Walt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Big difference--
>
> The 5,000 casualties we have now are totally unnecessary.
>

One cannot fight a war without casualties.

[WalterM140]

>> Big difference--
>>
>> The 5,000 casualties we have now are totally unnecessary.
>>
>
>One cannot fight a war without casualties.
>

If we had to incur 5,000 casualties in the war on terror, they should not have
been incurred in Iraq. I don't know why you can't get that.

Walt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> If we had to incur 5,000 casualties in the war on terror, they should not
have
> been incurred in Iraq. I don't know why you can't get that.
>

The war on terror is being fought in Iraq. Why can't you get that?

[WalterM140]

I wrote, knowing that it wouldn't go unchallenged:

>>I thought Reagan a very bad president also. I don't think he ever made a
>tough
>>decision. And like Bush, he was a puppet of his handlers. The one thing he
>>can claim is egging his staff on into what became Iran-Contra, while
>claiming
>>he would never negociate with terrorists.
>>
>>Walt
>
>Your opinion, is of course, your's. But, might you be willing to
>consider the greatest tax cut since JFK as an achievment?

It -sure- takes a lot of courage for a politician to call for tax cuts. C'mon,
Ed.

As I am sure you recall, Reagan called Carter to task during the 1980 campaign
on budget deficits. They he like quintupled them. Reagan -never- made a tough
decision. He always took the easy way out. Always.

As an aside, do you recall Reagan saying that he understood what it was like to
be separated from loved ones during war? Shortly thereafter, someone pointed
out that Reagan lived in the same house for three years during WWII.


Or, maybe
>the reduction of Carter's 21% annual inflation and 18% interest rates

Do you recall the 1979 oil embargo? Gee whiz, Ed. I'm not real impressed
here.

Reagan, I will give him credit -- was shot full of luck. Saddam Hussein
attacked Iran in September, 1980. Both those countries became beholden to us.
And we, I guess with some skill played them off against each other. But they
needed cash and the oil flowed in a way that Carter couldn't count on. With
the exception of some hostage taking, Islamic militancy largely feasted on
itself while Reagan was in office.

>in less than two years to a more realistic 6% inflation and 10.5%
>interest as worthwhile? Maybe the destruction of the Berlin Wall and
>the collapse of the Soviet Union might be good things?

So........when you were flying missions over Viet Nam, that had nothing to do
with the containment of the USSR?

The containment of the USSR was a 40 year process pursued by every U.S.
president. Reagan just happened to be in office when the balloon went up, the
same way Nixon got to talk to the Apollo 11 astronauts. The groundwork was
already laid -- mostly by Democratic presidents.

You might even
>want to consider the economic theories of Laffer--the idea that a
>reduction in tax rates can lead to an increase in tax revenue because
>the money in consumer's hands gets spent to create demand for goods
>and services--a better choice than socialistic redistribution of
>wealth in my opinion, but then I work for a living.

I think the consensus is that Laffer is a laugher. I don't claim to know much
about it. I do think that not paying your bills -- the course that Reagan
chose, does not denote any particular courage. Reagan -never- made a tough
decision. He always took the easy way out.

>
>And, while Iran-Contra was certainly questionable, you might consider
>that it was the result of the Congress first putting anti-communist
>forces in the field in Nicaragua and then cutting the funds for their
>support after they are in harm's way.

Puh-Leaze. That's what happened in Viet Nam too, right? Was Viet Nam the
right thing to do? --If-- the Congress did as you said, Reagan, still
-cowardly- went in secret and funded his own private army, helped by that
scumbag Olliver North.

While I freely agree that ends
>should not justify means, it was a solution to a problem.

So was beheading Nick Berg, I guess.

>
>Have you noticed that while everyone says, "we never negotiate with
>terrorists", that the first individual that shows up in a terrorist
>hostage situtation is the negotiator?

Who, like Jesse Jackson?

Listen, Reagan said --I remember this distinctly -- "this government will
never negotiate with terrorists", when he knew full well that exact thing was
happening.

And -this- is REALLY important. A democracy can only function if the people
have information to make informed choices.

In the case of supporting the Contras, it was entirely within the purview of
the voters to be presented with the question:

"Should we fund the Contras or not?"

But the Reagan adminstration went behind the backs of the voters, sold off
government property they had no title to, and used the money on a cause that
the people had indicated (through their representatives in Congress) that they
didn't care for.

My God, Reagan was SUCH a bum. Okay, maybe it's a toss-up between Bush 43 and
Reagan for worst president ever.

You know, President Lincoln said that:

"By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have
wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with
equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very
short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no
Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure
the Government in the short space of four years."

As long as the people retain their virtue, charlatans like Bush 43 and Reagan
will be held up to the ridicule they so richly deserve.


Walt

[WalterM140]

>> If we had to incur 5,000 casualties in the war on terror, they should not
>have
>> been incurred in Iraq. I don't know why you can't get that.
>>
>
>The war on terror is being fought in Iraq. Why can't you get that?

I certainly don't know that -just- because you and that near moron George Bush
Jr. say it.

I know that the former SecNav James Webb have said that it is a strategic
blunder, and General Zinni says it was a strategic blunder, and many other
jefes of national policy experience say that.

Just because that moron Bush says it, doesn't make it so. That's the first
lesson you need to learn in order to shrug off your Orwellian reliance on
someone elses' unsupported opinion.

Now, as I've said, I don't need a general to tell me that Iraq is a ****ing
mess. All I need do is note that the head of the Iraqi Governing Counsel was
blown up --right outside-- the US enclave to get a glimmer that things are not
going right. You can do that too.

You can also -- "look ma, no hands!" make your own determination that when the
attourney general says we can expect a major terrorist act in this country
before the election, that invading Iraq and incurring 5,000 casualties didn't
-exactly- bring about the outcome we thought it would.

Walt

[Vaughn]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If we had to incur 5,000 casualties in the war on terror, they should not
> have
> > been incurred in Iraq. I don't know why you can't get that.
> >
>
> The war on terror is being fought in Iraq. Why can't you get that?

Finally I've got it! Since actual terrorists are sort of hard to find,
Iraq is some sort of a surrogate for the real thing; a whipping boy so to speak.
But if we can go anywhere we want to fight this war on terror, (even if it makes
no sense) then why not choose some place more convenient than Iraq? How about:
Cuba? Canada? Chicago?


>
>

[Ed Rasimus]

On 30 May 2004 17:57:21 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>I wrote, knowing that it wouldn't go unchallenged:
>
>>>I thought Reagan a very bad president also. I don't think he ever made a
>>tough decision.
>>>
>>>Walt
>>
>>Your opinion, is of course, your's. But, might you be willing to
>>consider the greatest tax cut since JFK as an achievment?
>
>It -sure- takes a lot of courage for a politician to call for tax cuts. C'mon,
>Ed.

It takes a lot of courage to stand up to an electorate in which the
lowest 40% of wage earners pay NO taxes and the top 5% of wage earners
pay 40% of the total federal revenue and say that the economy will
benefit from cutting taxes and no, you folks who don't pay any taxes
won't be getting a cut.
>
>As I am sure you recall, Reagan called Carter to task during the 1980 campaign
>on budget deficits. They he like quintupled them. Reagan -never- made a tough
>decision. He always took the easy way out. Always.

Yes, Reagan was pointing out that an economy suffering 21% inflation
was increasingly paying more interest and less principle and therefore
providing fewer services to the people for much more money.
>
>Or, maybe
>>the reduction of Carter's 21% annual inflation and 18% interest rates
>
>Do you recall the 1979 oil embargo? Gee whiz, Ed. I'm not real impressed
>here.

Actually, the oil shortages started much closer to 1976. I was in
Spain at the time where gas was selling for $1.45/LITER!. In '79 I was
in Germany where it was becoming increasingly expensive as the Carter
economic policies had driven the dollar/mark exchange rate from 2.5
marks to the dollar to 1.45 marks per dollar. Each month my rent was
going up another $30/month. In the first eight months after Reagan's
election, my rent dropped nearly $400/month because of the rapidly
increasing strength of the US dollar. Similarly, after four years of
military pay freezes, I got a 22% pay raise which almost returned my
income to what it would have been with the suspended cost-of-living
increases that Carter withheld.
>
>Reagan, I will give him credit -- was shot full of luck. Saddam Hussein
>attacked Iran in September, 1980. Both those countries became beholden to us.

That would have been Iraq, the Soviet client-state vs Iran, the
capturer of our embassy in 1979 (whose hostages were released upon
Reagan taking office.) I've got to say I notice very little "beholden
to us" from either nation in 1980.

>And we, I guess with some skill played them off against each other. But they
>needed cash and the oil flowed in a way that Carter couldn't count on. With
>the exception of some hostage taking, Islamic militancy largely feasted on
>itself while Reagan was in office.

So, Islamic militancy that drove the Shah out in 1978 only became
successful after Reagan took office? I think your chronology is
asynchronous.
>
>>in less than two years to a more realistic 6% inflation and 10.5%
>>interest as worthwhile? Maybe the destruction of the Berlin Wall and
>>the collapse of the Soviet Union might be good things?
>
>So........when you were flying missions over Viet Nam, that had nothing to do
>with the containment of the USSR?

It would be hard to attribute my (or anyone else' effort) in Vietnam
with the collapse of the Soviet Union 15 years later. Most analysts
relate it to the economic pressure place on the SU by Reagan's
reversal of the Carter disarmament policies. They couldn't maintain
the guns over butter economic choices they were being driven to by
competition.
>
>The containment of the USSR was a 40 year process pursued by every U.S.
>president. Reagan just happened to be in office when the balloon went up, the
>same way Nixon got to talk to the Apollo 11 astronauts. The groundwork was
>already laid -- mostly by Democratic presidents.

Containment was an outgrowth of George F. Kennan's advice to Truman (a
Dem.), implemented by Eisenhower continuation of the policies of
military anti-Communist alliances with Dulles (Reps), then sustained
by JFK/LBJ (Dems) and furthered by Nixon (Rep.) Hard to ascribe the
policy to "mostly Democratic presidents".
>
> You might even
>>want to consider the economic theories of Laffer--the idea that a
>>reduction in tax rates can lead to an increase in tax revenue because
>>the money in consumer's hands gets spent to create demand for goods
>>and services--a better choice than socialistic redistribution of
>>wealth in my opinion, but then I work for a living.
>
>I think the consensus is that Laffer is a laugher. I don't claim to know much
>about it. I do think that not paying your bills -- the course that Reagan
>chose, does not denote any particular courage. Reagan -never- made a tough
>decision. He always took the easy way out.

Laughing at what you "don't claim to know much about" is one available
course of action. Reagan submitted balanced budgets, but unfortunately
for most of his tenure a Democratic controlled congress chose to spend
the increased revenues. The budget comes from a two-branch of
government process and without the line item veto which Reagan lobbied
for strenuously, the President doesn't get a lot of flexibility in how
the money is appropriated.
>
>>
>>And, while Iran-Contra was certainly questionable, you might consider
>>that it was the result of the Congress first putting anti-communist
>>forces in the field in Nicaragua and then cutting the funds for their
>>support after they are in harm's way.
>
>Puh-Leaze. That's what happened in Viet Nam too, right? Was Viet Nam the
>right thing to do? --If-- the Congress did as you said, Reagan, still
>-cowardly- went in secret and funded his own private army, helped by that
>scumbag Olliver North.

No, that's not what happened in Vietnam. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution
provided funding throughout. (Debate about the correctness of that is
still ongoing, but that's the fact.) Certainly a strong case can be
made that Iran-Contra was wrong, but simply throwing the term out
without knowing the background does little to enhance understanding.

Ditto for labeling and name-calling.
>
>While I freely agree that ends
>>should not justify means, it was a solution to a problem.
>
>So was beheading Nick Berg, I guess.

Red herring, non-sequitur. Unrelated. Inflammatory.
>
>>
>>Have you noticed that while everyone says, "we never negotiate with
>>terrorists", that the first individual that shows up in a terrorist
>>hostage situtation is the negotiator?
>
>Who, like Jesse Jackson?
>
>Listen, Reagan said --I remember this distinctly -- "this government will
>never negotiate with terrorists", when he knew full well that exact thing was
>happening.
>
>And -this- is REALLY important. A democracy can only function if the people
>have information to make informed choices.

And -this- is REALLY important too! We are a constitutional republic
based on democratic principles. We are organized to have
representation, not majority rule by the electorate. We elect
representatives to become informed on incredibly complex choices.
That's what the founding fathers understood very well. The common man
has neither the resources nor the time nor the interest in many
political questions. We all like to think differently, ascribing great
wisdom to "we the people" but the fact is that we the people are
remarkably ill-equipped to deal with most of it.
>
>In the case of supporting the Contras, it was entirely within the purview of
>the voters to be presented with the question:
>
>"Should we fund the Contras or not?"

No. The voters choose the government to make the decision in
consideration of the priorities, the available resources and the
alternatives. Your question, if placed before the voters, will always
get a "no". That isn't the way to conduct foreign or domestic policy.
>


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[WalterM140]

>>Reagan, I will give him credit -- was shot full of luck. Saddam Hussein
>>attacked Iran in September, 1980. Both those countries became beholden to
>us.
>
>That would have been Iraq...

Do I read this right? We had an arms-for-hostages deal with Iraq? I always
thought it was --Iran--. Silly me.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>Containment was an outgrowth of George F. Kennan's advice to Truman (a
>Dem.), implemented by Eisenhower continuation of the policies of
>military anti-Communist alliances with Dulles (Reps), then sustained
>by JFK/LBJ (Dems) and furthered
by Nixon (Rep.) Hard to ascribe the
>policy to "mostly Democratic presidents".

Dulles was president? See, that's just -flat- dishonest on your part.

Ummmm....Lessee. Truman, JFK and LBJ. That's three. Eisenhower and Nixon --
that seems to be two.

Throw in Carter and Reagan and it's still 4 to 3. I'd say -- I like
precision-- that 4 is bigger than 3.

This is it, Ed? Your best shot? No wonder people wail about the state of
American edcuation.


Walt

Walt

[WalterM140]

> Reagan submitted balanced budgets...

What year was that?

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>Puh-Leaze. That's what happened in Viet Nam too, right? Was Viet Nam the
>>right thing to do? --If-- the Congress did as you said, Reagan, still
>>-cowardly- went in secret and funded his own private army, helped by that
>>scumbag Olliver North.
>
>No, that's not what happened in Vietnam. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution
>provided funding throughout.

The TGR provided funding from 1965 -- 1975? That's flatly in contradiction of
the United States Constitution which prohibits any appropriations covering more
than two years.

Article One, Section 8, para 12 reads:

"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall
be for a longer term than two years"

So you are flatly wrong, and not for the first time. Precision -- it's
precision you want, lad. Great thing for an educator, don't you know.

You should read the Constitution, Ed. It's a fabulous document.

Sorta odd for a military man and patriot like yourself not to be more familiar
with the parts of that document that impinge so directly on the military. But
I digress.

So.

Are you saying that President Ford -didn't- try to get Congress to throw some
-more- money/assets at Viet Nam?

They refused right? It's the same thing that happened in Iran-Contra. The
principle is the same. Now, had Gerald Ford gotten first LT North to sell TOW
missiles to some third party and then sent that money to the S. Viets, then
you'd have the same -principle- in action as what Reagan did.

Reagan was a bum. Olliver North is a scumbag. He dragged the good name of
the Marine Corps through the mud just like these "re-cycled hillbillies" have
done to the Army at Abu Ghraib. Of course these natioanl guardsmen had the
blessing of the SecDef. If you recall, Ed, Weinburger and George Shultz
opposed trading arms for hostages, but it went ahead any way.
"Poppy" said he wasn't in the loop, but that was a lie.



Walt

[WalterM140]

>It takes a lot of courage to stand up to an electorate in which the
>lowest 40% of wage earners pay NO taxes and the top 5% of wage earners
>pay 40% of the total federal revenue and say that the economy will benefit
from cutting taxes and no, you folks who don't pay any taxes
>won't be getting a cut.

Ed, please.

Those poor voters have exactly the same voting power individually as the rich
voters (except maybe in Florida when Jeb Bush is governor).

Walt

[Ed Rasimus]

On 30 May 2004 19:03:37 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>>Containment was an outgrowth of George F. Kennan's advice to Truman (a
>>Dem.), implemented by Eisenhower continuation of the policies of
>>military anti-Communist alliances with Dulles (Reps), then sustained
>>by JFK/LBJ (Dems) and furthered
>by Nixon (Rep.) Hard to ascribe the
>>policy to "mostly Democratic presidents".
>
>Dulles was president? See, that's just -flat- dishonest on your part.

You seem to be having a reading comprehension problem which may be the
cause of your poor view of history--Kennan wasn't a president either.
Kennan was an advisor to Truman. Dulles was the Sec/State for
Eisenhower.
>
>Ummmm....Lessee. Truman, JFK and LBJ. That's three. Eisenhower and Nixon --
>that seems to be two.

So now 3-to-2 equals "mostly Democratic presidents"? Let's add Ford
(R) (very short term, but no change in policy) then Carter (D), then
Reagan (R) and we get 4-to-4.
>
>Throw in Carter and Reagan and it's still 4 to 3. I'd say -- I like
>precision-- that 4 is bigger than 3.

Your history is failing you again. But, I digress. The fact of the
matter is that US containment policy was consistent from Truman
through the collapse of the SU in 1989. To ascribe it to one party or
the other is definitely revisionist.

But, that approach to defense and policies on disarmament varied over
time. Reagan's policy of strong defense and "trust but verify" did
more to defeat the SU than Carter's unilateral disarmament efforts.
>
>This is it, Ed? Your best shot? No wonder people wail about the state of
>American edcuation.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On 30 May 2004 19:22:14 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>>>Puh-Leaze. That's what happened in Viet Nam too, right? Was Viet Nam the
>>>right thing to do? --If-- the Congress did as you said, Reagan, still
>>>-cowardly- went in secret and funded his own private army, helped by that
>>>scumbag Olliver North.
>>
>>No, that's not what happened in Vietnam. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution
>>provided funding throughout.
>
>The TGR provided funding from 1965 -- 1975? That's flatly in contradiction of
>the United States Constitution which prohibits any appropriations covering more
>than two years.

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution gave the president the authority to conduct
military operations. It wasn't an appropriation act, it was an
authorization.

On aspect of the political process is that even though
Congress-critters may oppose a war, it is very difficult for them to
get re-elected if they are denying beans and bullets to the youth of
America placed in harm's way.

A causative factor in the choice of LBJ to not run in '68 was just
that. The loss of McGovern and then Mondale was a result of a similar
political conundrum--how to oppose a war and still support our troops.
Nixon solved the problem with the concept of Vietnamization, i.e.
turning the defense over to the Viets themselves. (It didn't work
well.)
>
>Article One, Section 8, para 12 reads:
>
>"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall
>be for a longer term than two years"
>
>So you are flatly wrong, and not for the first time. Precision -- it's
>precision you want, lad. Great thing for an educator, don't you know.

I think that those who have been following this thread will make their
own judgements on sequence of events, chronology and rationale.
>
>Are you saying that President Ford -didn't- try to get Congress to throw some
>-more- money/assets at Viet Nam?

The limit of Ford's desire for funds to support Vietnam was strictly
foreign military sales. We suspended operations in Vietnam in '73,
well before Ford was President.

For an excellent review of what was between the lines of the Paris
Peace Accords, you might want to read Frank Snepp's "Decent Interval."
>
>Reagan was a bum. Olliver North is a scumbag. He dragged the good name of
>the Marine Corps through the mud just like these "re-cycled hillbillies" have
>done to the Army at Abu Ghraib. Of course these natioanl guardsmen had the
>blessing of the SecDef. If you recall, Ed, Weinburger and George Shultz
>opposed trading arms for hostages, but it went ahead any way.
>"Poppy" said he wasn't in the loop, but that was a lie.

North seems to be well respected by all of the Corps that I know. And,
he seems to fit in quite nicely in his "embedded" news role with the
current active duty troops.

The Brigade at Abu Ghraib is a disaster. No argument there, but
"blessing of the SecDef" remains to be proven.

By "Poppy" I assume you mean Bush 41, who was VP under Reagan. Shultz
and Weinburger were cabinet members, as such they can voice opposition
to a policy and the policy can still be enacted.


>
>
>
>Walt

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On 30 May 2004 18:13:31 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>>The war on terror is being fought in Iraq. Why can't you get that?
>
>I certainly don't know that -just- because you and that near moron George Bush
>Jr. say it.

If we seek accuracy, you might begin by noting the George W. Bush is
not a "Jr." (But he does have a Bachelor's from Yale and an MBA from
Harvard.)
>
>I know that the former SecNav James Webb have said that it is a strategic
>blunder, and General Zinni says it was a strategic blunder, and many other
>jefes of national policy experience say that.
>
>Just because that moron Bush says it, doesn't make it so. That's the first
>lesson you need to learn in order to shrug off your Orwellian reliance on
>someone elses' unsupported opinion.

And, using your rationale, just becasue Webb and Zinni say it doesn't
make it so either.
>
>Now, as I've said, I don't need a general to tell me that Iraq is a ****ing
>mess. All I need do is note that the head of the Iraqi Governing Counsel was
>blown up --right outside-- the US enclave to get a glimmer that things are not
>going right. You can do that too.

And, JFK was killed in downtown Dallas in the middle of a police
motorcade. What's your point?
>
>You can also -- "look ma, no hands!" make your own determination that when the
>attourney general says we can expect a major terrorist act in this country
>before the election, that invading Iraq and incurring 5,000 casualties didn't
>-exactly- bring about the outcome we thought it would.

And, had we not invaded Iraq we would not have a major terrorist
threat today? Seems like 9/11 occured prior to the invasion of Iraq as
well as Khobar, Cole, Beirut, etc.

What would you do differently to relieve the terrorist threat??


>

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(WalterM140) wrote:

> >Containment was an outgrowth of George F. Kennan's advice to Truman (a
> >Dem.), implemented by Eisenhower continuation of the policies of
> >military anti-Communist alliances with Dulles (Reps), then sustained
> >by JFK/LBJ (Dems) and furthered
> by Nixon (Rep.) Hard to ascribe the
> >policy to "mostly Democratic presidents".
>
> Dulles was president? See, that's just -flat- dishonest on your part.

I am no fan of the Brothers Dulles, but it seemed fairly obvious that
the reference was to SecState John Foster and DCI Allen carrying out the
details of containment (i.e., the Kennan "X-article" of 1947, developed
in Acheson's State Department under Truman).

Although I don't agree with some of Ed's positions, I am finding
increasingly that you are leaping to any possible miswording to take
cheap shots.

[WalterM140]

>Your history is failing you again. But, I digress. The fact of the
>matter is that US containment policy was consistent from Truman
>through the collapse of the SU in 1989. To ascribe it to one party or
>the other is definitely revisionist.
>

But to give credit to Reagan alone -- per you- is not.

Surely you can do better than this.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>>No, that's not what happened in Vietnam. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution
>>>provided funding throughout.
>>
>>The TGR provided funding from 1965 -- 1975? That's flatly in contradiction
>of
>>the United States Constitution which prohibits any appropriations covering
>more
>>than two years.
>
>The Tonkin Gulf Resolution gave the president the authority to conduct
>military operations. It wasn't an appropriation act, it was an
>authorization.

Ah, but Ed. You used the word -funding-. That's why I said you lack precision
in your thinking.

You just don't seem to have a very good idea of what exactly is in the
Constitution.

Why did you swear an oath to defend it, then?

This is actually getting pretty boring. Can't you do better?

Walt

[Brett]

"WalterM140" > wrote:> >>Reagan, I will give him
credit -- was shot full of luck. Saddam Hussein
> >>attacked Iran in September, 1980. Both those countries became beholden
to
> >us.
> >
> >That would have been Iraq...
>
> Do I read this right?

Since you only left a small section of his comment you obviously didn't.

[WalterM140]

>I am no fan of the Brothers Dulles, but it seemed fairly obvious that
>the reference was to SecState John Foster and DCI Allen carrying out the
>details of containment (i.e., the Kennan "X-article" of 1947, developed
>in Acheson's State Department under Truman).

Sure. But to suggest that they were part of the "Republicans" who brought down
the USSR to me seems dishonest. Can't I name dean Rusk, then? He was SecState
under Johnson.

In point of fact, in fairness, the Republicans held the White House for more
years from Kenan's call to arms in 1948 until 1990. On the other hand, the
Democrats held the Congress for most of those years. They had to provide the
Jing.

>Although I don't agree with some of Ed's positions, I am finding
>increasingly that you are leaping to any possible miswording to take
>cheap shots.
>

Maybe. It's hard to resist. :)

But Jiminy Crickett. He said the Tonkin Gulf Resloution provided the
--funding-- for the war in Viet Nam. It's hard to pass by when he's serving
up these plums.

I mean, he is a college professor, after all.

Walt

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(WalterM140) wrote:

> >And, let's put the "mounting casualties" thing into perspective this
> >weekend as we recall 400,000 from WWII and 58,000 KIA from SEA.
>
> Big difference--
>
> The 5,000 casualties we have now are totally unnecessary.

Wait a sec... is this just the casualties from Iraq, or did you include
the first three thousand from a couple of years back?

A lot of people keep forgetting those, for some reason.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[WalterM140]

>>>The war on terror is being fought in Iraq. Why can't you get that?
>>
>>I certainly don't know that -just- because you and that near moron George
>Bush
>>Jr. say it.

>If we seek accuracy, you might begin by noting the George W. Bush is
>not a "Jr." (But he does have a Bachelor's from Yale and an MBA from
>Harvard.)

That's odd, itsn't it? George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush? Is
that right? So he's not styled as a Junior? Thanks for the correction.

>>I know that the former SecNav James Webb have said that it is a strategic
>>blunder, and General Zinni says it was a strategic blunder, and many other
>>jefes of national policy experience say that.
>>

>>Just because that moron Bush says it, doesn't make it so. That's the first
>>lesson you need to learn in order to shrug off your Orwellian reliance on
>>someone elses' unsupported opinion.
>

>And, using your rationale, just becasue Webb and Zinni say it doesn't
>make it so either.
>>

So I'm reduced to accepting your analysis or theirs. Now, I could accept Rummy
and Junior's analysis, and that would, for weight, surely counter a retired 4
star and a guy who was SecDef 15 years ago. The fly in the buttermilk is that
all the jefes currently in power, in my judgment, have shown they don't know
their ass from a hole in the ground.


As I've indicated on several occasions, I can decide for myself. I was
pushing the "Bush administration actions in Iraq a disaster" well before
General Zinni went public.

To General Zinni's great credit, he said today on CCN that he couldn't vote for
Bush as things stand now -- Bush has to fire Rumsfeld and others first.

>>Now, as I've said, I don't need a general to tell me that Iraq is a ****ing
>>mess. All I need do is note that the head of the Iraqi Governing Counsel
>was
>>blown up --right outside-- the US enclave to get a glimmer that things are
>not
>>going right. You can do that too.
>
>And, JFK was killed in downtown Dallas in the middle of a police
>motorcade. What's your point?

My point would be that 135,000 US soldiers weren't deployed around Dealy Plaza
and hadn't been trying to pacify the place for over a year before JFK arrived.

I -know- you can make these inferences.

>>
>>You can also -- "look ma, no hands!" make your own determination that when
>the
>>attourney general says we can expect a major terrorist act in this country
>>before the election, that invading Iraq and incurring 5,000 casualties
>didn't
>>-exactly- bring about the outcome we thought it would.
>
>And, had we not invaded Iraq we would not have a major terrorist
>threat today? Seems like 9/11 occured prior to the invasion of Iraq as
>well as Khobar, Cole, Beirut, etc.

We would probably still have a terrorist threat, sure. We'd also have 5,000
more troops with which to fight it (as many as half the wounded have rerturned
to duty I know, but the point remains).

>
>What would you do differently to relieve the terrorist threat??
>

I dunno. I was for the war. Imagine my surprise that the Bush administration
had no plan beyond rolling some tanks up to Baghdad.

One thing that might be a good start would be to slice off the top leaders like
General Marshall did after he was named Chief of Staff in 1940. Get rid of all
that deadwood at the top, cancel all the turf battles and get some people in
there who want to crush these sorry Islamic militants like so many bugs.

Walt

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(WalterM140) wrote:

> If we had to incur 5,000 casualties in the war on terror, they should
> not have been incurred in Iraq.

Well, besides the fact that it's been one of the big financial and
logistical supporters of worldwide terror for a long, long time, and
since it's right in the middle of a bunch of other countries that are
currently in the same nasty business, and since the secondary effects of
kicking out Saddam are really bloody obvious (Libya's change of heart
and the lack of Iraqi funds for Hamas are the two most glaring
examples)...

> I don't know why you can't get that.

Because you're just wrong.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> I certainly don't know that -
>

That's because you're uninformed.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> Finally I've got it!
>

No you don't.


>
> Since actual terrorists are sort of hard to find,
> Iraq is some sort of a surrogate for the real thing; a whipping boy so to
speak.
> But if we can go anywhere we want to fight this war on terror, (even if it
makes
> no sense) then why not choose some place more convenient than Iraq? How
about:
> Cuba? Canada? Chicago?
>

We are fighting terrorists in Iraq.

[Mike Dargan]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On 30 May 2004 12:27:45 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:
>
>
>>I thought Reagan a very bad president also. I don't think he ever made a tough
>>decision. And like Bush, he was a puppet of his handlers. The one thing he
>>can claim is egging his staff on into what became Iran-Contra, while claiming
>>he would never negociate with terrorists.
>>
>>Walt
>
>
> Your opinion, is of course, your's.

Mine too.

But, might you be willing to
> consider the greatest tax cut since JFK as an achievment?

Economic conditions in the early 1960s were quite different. Low
inflation, low growth, small deficits, much excess capacity in the
economy. The early 1980s saw large deficits and high inflation.
Different problems require different solutions.

Or, maybe
> the reduction of Carter's 21% annual inflation and 18% interest rates
> in less than two years to a more realistic 6% inflation and 10.5%
> interest as worthwhile?

Richard Nixon imposed wage/price controls in August of 1971 thereby
fostering shortages and inflationary expectations. He then bungled
relations with OPEC and IRAN causing a series of supply-side oil shocks.
It was Gerald Ford who gave us the WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons
as the economy spiraled out of control. The notion that Carter created
stagflation is absurd. His policies provided the ultimate remedies.

Maybe the destruction of the Berlin Wall and
> the collapse of the Soviet Union might be good things?

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Even as Reagan and the chicken hawks
prattled on about the red menace and squandered treasure on the B1B,
battleships, and Star Wars, the Russian economy declined to the point
that its GNP was less than Italy's. If Bill Casey's CIA had been
focused on gathering and analyzing intelligence rather than mining the
harbors, we could have saved a lot of money--however, since the
Reaganauts put the cost off on to future generations, why should you care?

You might even
> want to consider the economic theories of Laffer

It was the high interest policy of Paul Volcker (a Carter appointment)
that brought down inflation. When the recovery finally happened, it was
demand driven, not supply-side. It's no coincidence that as Reagan
became more addled by Alzheimer's he became enamored with kookier ideas.
The Laffer Curve is about as realistic as the death rays that Reagan
imagined could zap incoming warheads.

--the idea that a
> reduction in tax rates can lead to an increase in tax revenue because
> the money in consumer's hands gets spent to create demand for goods
> and services--a better choice than socialistic redistribution of
> wealth in my opinion, but then I work for a living.

>
> And, while Iran-Contra was certainly questionable,

A felony's a felony.

you might consider
> that it was the result of the Congress first putting anti-communist
> forces in the field in Nicaragua and then cutting the funds for their
> support after they are in harm's way. While I freely agree that ends
> should not justify means, it was a solution to a problem.

It was a series of crimes.

>
> Have you noticed that while everyone says, "we never negotiate with
> terrorists", that the first individual that shows up in a terrorist
> hostage situtation is the negotiator?

Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages after complaining about European
allies conducting conventional trade. George Shultz, hardly a liberal,
claims to have told Reagan to his face that he traded arms for hostages.
Why did Reagan deny it? Was he a fool or a knave?

Cheers

--mike
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:6Dxuc.22383$eY2.3247@attbi_s02...
>
> Richard Nixon imposed wage/price controls in August of 1971 thereby
> fostering shortages and inflationary expectations. He then bungled
> relations with OPEC and IRAN causing a series of supply-side oil shocks.
> It was Gerald Ford who gave us the WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons
> as the economy spiraled out of control. The notion that Carter created
> stagflation is absurd. His policies provided the ultimate remedies.
>

What policies were those?

[Denyav]

>Richard Nixon imposed wage/price controls in August of 1971 thereby
>fostering shortages and inflationary expectations. He then bungled
>relations with OPEC and IRAN causing a series of supply-side oil shocks.
> It was Gerald Ford who gave us the WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons
>as the economy spiraled out of

Nixon made also a capital mistake and scrapped Bretton Woods.
That was a serious blow to the plans of Global Financial Power so Nixon had to
pay the price.

[Denyav]

>We are fighting terrorists in Iraq.
>

Really?
I guess US is trying to build 21st century version of Atlantic Wall,this time
stretching from Cyprus to Afghanistan.
But the question is:Will the new Atlantic wall be more effective than the
original?

[Mike Dargan]

Denyav wrote:
>>Richard Nixon imposed wage/price controls in August of 1971 thereby
>>fostering shortages and inflationary expectations. He then bungled
>>relations with OPEC and IRAN causing a series of supply-side oil shocks.
>> It was Gerald Ford who gave us the WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons
>>as the economy spiraled out of
>
>
> Nixon made also a capital mistake and scrapped Bretton Woods.
> That was a serious blow to the plans of Global Financial Power so Nixon had to
> pay the price.

Interestng point. However, its significance is probably lost on the
yahoos. They probably think Bretton Woods is a real estate development
on Long Island.

Oddly, despite my disparaging comments about Nixon, his record on civil
rights and the environment was quite good. He appointed quite a few
minorities and women and had much to do with the EPA and OSHA. He
started out with a couple of Supreme Court nominations that were
clinkers (Haynesworth and Carswell!) but then gave us the core of the
Burger Court which turned out surprisingly well.

Some say he was the last liberal President. Too bad he had to be so
paranoid.

Cheers

--mike

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>
> Really?
>

Really.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article <77yuc.21588$js4.11193@attbi_s51>, Mike Dargan
> wrote:

>
> Oddly, despite my disparaging comments about Nixon, his record on civil
> rights and the environment was quite good. He appointed quite a few
> minorities and women and had much to do with the EPA and OSHA. He
> started out with a couple of Supreme Court nominations that were
> clinkers (Haynesworth and Carswell!) but then gave us the core of the
> Burger Court which turned out surprisingly well.

At least Carswell led to one of the truly wondrous statements by a
senator, Roman Hruska: "There are a lot of mediocre people in this
country. Don't they deserve representation too?"

[Vaughn]

>
> We are fighting terrorists in Iraq.

Have you been suffering from these delusions long? What is the next
"terrorist" country that we are going to invade?

Vaughn
>
>

[WalterM140]

>> The 5,000 casualties we have now are totally unnecessary.
>
>Wait a sec... is this just the casualties from Iraq, or did you include
>the first three thousand from a couple of years back?

We have @ 800 KIA and @ 4,000 WIA, just in Iraq. We have had 85 KIA in
Afghanistan.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>> If we had to incur 5,000 casualties in the war on terror, they should
>> not have been incurred in Iraq.
>
>Well, besides the fact that it's been one of the big financial and
>logistical supporters of worldwide terror for a long, long time,

Source?


and
>since it's right in the middle of a bunch of other countries that are
>currently in the same nasty business, and since the secondary effects of
>kicking out Saddam are really bloody obvious (Libya's change of heart
>and the lack of Iraqi funds for Hamas are the two most glaring
>examples)...
>
>> I don't know why you can't get that.
>
>Because you're just wrong.
>

I don't know that just because you say it.

Many senior oficials are on the record saying something different from what you
say.

General Zinni:

"But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion
of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former
Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and
former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want - but it was a war the
civilians wanted.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this
situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive
zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,� says Zinni."


Those 5,000 casualties are unnecessary.

Walt

[George Z. Bush]

Mike Dargan wrote:
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages after complaining about European
> allies conducting conventional trade. George Shultz, hardly a liberal,
> claims to have told Reagan to his face that he traded arms for hostages.
> Why did Reagan deny it? Was he a fool or a knave?

Are they mutually exclusive? Could have been both, IMHO.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

Vaughn wrote:
>> We are fighting terrorists in Iraq.
>
> Have you been suffering from these delusions long? What is the next
> "terrorist" country that we are going to invade?

Since Rummy has devised our new lean, mean, military machine, we're going to
have to finish with the one we're in right now, because we don't have either the
hardware assets or the people to handle more than one third rate terrorist
nation at a time. Knocking down their armies is the easy part.....it's making
the losers realize that they lost that eats us up.

What a come down for the world's only superpower!

George Z.

[Vaughn]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Knocking down their armies is the easy part.....it's making
> the losers realize that they lost that eats us up.

Yes! They keep comparing Iraq to Vietnam, when they should really be
comparing it to the Soviet-Afhgan war. Just substitute buildings for mountains
and you have it.

>
> What a come down for the world's only superpower!

If we keep acting like the Soviets, it is only natural that we will share
their history.

Vaughn


>
> George Z.
>
>

[Vaughn]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> That's because you're uninformed.

This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight terrorists?

Vaughn


>
>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(WalterM140) wrote:

> >> The 5,000 casualties we have now are totally unnecessary.
> >
> >Wait a sec... is this just the casualties from Iraq, or did you include
> >the first three thousand from a couple of years back?
>
> We have @ 800 KIA and @ 4,000 WIA, just in Iraq. We have had 85 KIA in
> Afghanistan.

So the answer was "no, you didn't."

Figures.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(WalterM140) wrote:

> >> If we had to incur 5,000 casualties in the war on terror, they should
> >> not have been incurred in Iraq.
> >
> >Well, besides the fact that it's been one of the big financial and
> >logistical supporters of worldwide terror for a long, long time,
>
> Source?

Saddam Hussein. He used to take loud personal credit for his support of
terror groups like Hamas (giving cash to families of people who sent
kids off to be suicide bombers) and sheltering (for example) one of the
fugitives from the first WTC attack.

Since you claim that you don't know this, you are so completely
uneducated on the subject you should just stop posting on it right now.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 30 May 2004 21:36:46 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

>>Your history is failing you again. But, I digress. The fact of the
>>matter is that US containment policy was consistent from Truman
>>through the collapse of the SU in 1989. To ascribe it to one party or
>>the other is definitely revisionist.
>>
>
>But to give credit to Reagan alone -- per you- is not.
>
>Surely you can do better than this.
>
>Walt
>

I think that most readers would say I did do better. You started by
saying that Reagan was the worst president (a near tie, according to
you with Bush 43.) You asserted that he always took the easy way out.

I responded with a number of Reagan policies that were significant. I
did not say that the SU collapsed because of a policy of
containment--you did.

I DID say that Reagan's reversal of the demilitarization, disarmament
policies of Carter were instrumental in the collapse. The reversal of
the trend started by Carter caused the Soviet response to demand more
than their strained economy could sustain. That was the Reagan policy
that I referred to.

One should also note that the generational shift in Soviet leadership
from the 80-year old Stalinists to the new generation Gorbachev also
led to reforms that hastened the collapse. Glasnost and perestroika
opened the door to interactions that raised the expectations of the
Soviet people and created demand for change.

Once again, complexity over simplicity leads to understanding of what
went on.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Denyav]

> What a come down for the world's only superpower!

More precisely:
"world's only self proclaimed superpower!"

[Denyav]

> Yes! They keep comparing Iraq to Vietnam, when they should really be
>comparing it to the Soviet-Afhgan war. Just substitute buildings for
>mountains
>and you have it.
>

Afghanistan was Brezezinkis trap for Soviet Union (Afghanistan trap)


> If we keep acting like the Soviets, it is only natural that we will share
>their history.
>

Check out my post dated 1/27/03;
I wrote:
"I think 21st century version of 1776 is in making with roles reversed this is
the gravest danger to US".

The trap prepared for US is not an Afghanistan or Iraq trap its an Global Trap
and the projected "Atlantic Wall" between Cyprus and Afghanistan wont be
useful.

Thats the reason why a civil war erupted inside US goverment and between some
US gov't agencies.

This is just another chapter of "The Great Game" and the opponents of US in
this game are not Terrorists,Insurgents,Rag top armies etc. but the most
sophisticated and most experienced great game players of the history.

[WalterM140]

>Check out my post dated 1/27/03;
>I wrote:
>"I think 21st century version of 1776 is in making with roles reversed this
>is
>the gravest danger to US".
>

Well, after the Revolution the Brits went on to secure their "second" empire
and even greater wealth and power.

We'd need to stumble on our equivalent of the Somme to **** what we have away.

A bigger problem for the US is that everything you buy now seems to be marked
"made in China."

These are dangerous times, no doubt about it.

Walt

[Denyav]

>Well, after the Revolution the Brits went on to secure their "second" empire
>and even greater wealth and power.

They tried consolidate the empire but 1776 was the beginning of the end in
other words an hidden turning point of history.
Till 1872 Great Britain was #1 official enemy of US.

>A bigger problem for the US is that everything you buy now seems to be marked
>"made in China."
>

True,moreover the products Made in USA usualy designed by imported talent and
manufactured actually in some place outside US.
Heck,Mahan's ideas did not find many followers outside the Navy,if US society
had accepted Mahan's ideas US today would be an advanced nation without too
much dependence on foreign brainpower and goods.

>These are dangerous times, no doubt about it.

If lots of people are not happy with the direction of gov;t and worry about
their own or their kids future, "united we stand" bumper stickers alone might
not be very helpful to maintain unity.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> Have you been suffering from these delusions long? What is the next
> "terrorist" country that we are going to invade?
>

You need to find better sources of information.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight terrorists?
>

Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq.

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
"Vaughn" > wrote:

> >
> > We are fighting terrorists in Iraq.
>
> Have you been suffering from these delusions long? What is the next
> "terrorist" country that we are going to invade?

Iraqis themselves blame much of the current fighting on foreign jihadis
from Syria, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

[Vaughn]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight terrorists?
> >
>
> Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq.

I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in Iraq
now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to Iraq
because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local
recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism activity
in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab countries.
Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now thrown open
the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work.

I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't 9-11 and
it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed to have
something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission accomplished"),
but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect.

Vaughn


>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't
9-11 and
> it has little or nothing to do with terrorism.
>

It had everything to do with terrorism.

[Vaughn]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't
> 9-11 and
> > it has little or nothing to do with terrorism.
> >
>
> It had everything to do with terrorism.

I notice that all you ever seem to offer is a blank assertion; never logic,
never an example, never even a cogent argument, and certainly never a reference.
Only blankness.

Bye
Vaughn


>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> I notice that all you ever seem to offer is a blank assertion; never
logic,
> never an example, never even a cogent argument, and certainly never a
reference.
> Only blankness.
>

Have you also noticed that those that insist Iraq had nothing to do with
terrorism simply offer blank assertions; never logic, never an example,
never even a hint of a cogent argument, and certainly never a reference?

No, of course you haven't.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>From: "Vaughn"
>Date: 5/31/04 6:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight terrorists?
>> >
>>
>> Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq.
>
> I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in Iraq
>now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to Iraq
>because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local
>recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism
>activity
>in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab
>countries.
>Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now thrown
>open
>the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work.
>
> I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't 9-11
>and
>it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed to
>have
>something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission
>accomplished"),
>but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect.
>
>Vaughn
>

Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. So we invaded
Iraq. Makes sense to me. (sheesh)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Mike Dargan]

ArtKramr wrote:
>>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>>From: "Vaughn"
>>Date: 5/31/04 6:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>>>"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>> This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight terrorists?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq.
>>
>> I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in Iraq
>>now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to Iraq
>>because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local
>>recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism
>>activity
>>in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab
>>countries.
>>Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now thrown
>>open
>>the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work.
>>
>> I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't 9-11
>>and
>>it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed to
>>have
>>something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission
>>accomplished"),
>>but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect.
>>
>>Vaughn
>>
>
>
> Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.

Weren't a couple either Egyptians or Palestinians?

So we invaded
> Iraq.

Don't forget all the old ladies who had to be fondled in airports.

Makes sense to me. (sheesh)

Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have
conquered Mexico City by June of '42.

Cheers

--mike
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.

....working for an organization based out of Afghanistan. So we promptly
invaded Afghanistan.

Then, since Iraq wasn't complying with UN sanctions imposed after the
first Gulf War, and since they were a major facilitator of terrorism as
well:

> So we invaded Iraq. Makes sense to me. (sheesh)

Well, it does when you don't leave out the intermediate steps.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>From: Mike Dargan
>Date: 5/31/04 7:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51>
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>>>From: "Vaughn"
>>>Date: 5/31/04 6:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>
>>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>>
>>>>"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>> This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight terrorists?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq.
>>>
>>> I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in
>Iraq
>>>now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to
>Iraq
>>>because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local
>>>recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism
>>>activity
>>>in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab
>>>countries.
>>>Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now thrown
>>>open
>>>the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work.
>>>
>>> I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't 9-11
>>>and
>>>it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed to
>>>have
>>>something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission
>>>accomplished"),
>>>but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect.
>>>
>>>Vaughn
>>>
>>
>>
>> Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.
>
>Weren't a couple either Egyptians or Palestinians?
>
> So we invaded
>> Iraq.
>
>Don't forget all the old ladies who had to be fondled in airports.
>
>Makes sense to me. (sheesh)
>
>Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have
>conquered Mexico City by June of '42.
>
>Cheers
>
>--mike
>>

And lost the Hispanic vote? Never!

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
> >From: "Vaughn"
> >Date: 5/31/04 6:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >>
> >> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight
terrorists?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq.
> >
> > I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in
Iraq
> >now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to
Iraq
> >because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local
> >recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism
> >activity
> >in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab
> >countries.
> >Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now
thrown
> >open
> >the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work.
> >
> > I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't
9-11
> >and
> >it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed
to
> >have
> >something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission
> >accomplished"),
> >but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect.
> >
> >Vaughn
> >
>
> Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. So we
invaded
> Iraq. Makes sense to me. (sheesh)

Then why were you one of the louder "Yeah, let's do it!" and "Screw the
French for not supporting us" types a year ago?

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 6/1/04 1:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>> >From: "Vaughn"
>> >Date: 5/31/04 6:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight
>terrorists?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq.
>> >
>> > I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in
>Iraq
>> >now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to
>Iraq
>> >because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local
>> >recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism
>> >activity
>> >in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab
>> >countries.
>> >Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now
>thrown
>> >open
>> >the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work.
>> >
>> > I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't
>9-11
>> >and
>> >it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed
>to
>> >have
>> >something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission
>> >accomplished"),
>> >but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect.
>> >
>> >Vaughn
>> >
>>
>> Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. So we
>invaded
>> Iraq. Makes sense to me. (sheesh)
>
>Then why were you one of the louder "Yeah, let's do it!" and "Screw the
>French for not supporting us" types a year ago?
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>
>
Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should have believed that
bum and his neocon liars..


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[WalterM140]

>>Then why were you one of the louder "Yeah, let's do it!" and "Screw the
>>French for not supporting us" types a year ago?
>>
>>Brooks
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arthur Kramer
>>
>>
> Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should have believed
>that
>bum and his neocon liars..
>

A lot of people, including me, supported the war but we were played for fools.

I was watching "Meet the Press" @ six weeks ago and Tim Russert asked Bremer to
whom were we turning over control on 30 June.

Bremer's answer:

"That's a good question, Tim."

Five thousand casualties, and that's the answer?

I don't need a general to tell me that the Busihes screwed up.

Art, you were damned lucky to go to war under a great president like FDR.

Walt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should
> have believed that bum and his neocon liars..
>

To date, nobody has shown any statement made by the Bush administration in
support of the war to be a lie.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 01 Jun 2004 10:09:37 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>
>>
> Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should have believed that
>bum and his neocon liars..

Conveniently overlooking the recent Sarin discovery in Iraq and the
presence of Al-Zawaheri at the beheading of Nick Berg.

If it doesn't fit the perconception simply ignore it.

We all might start at this point by acknowledging that Islamic
fundamentalist terrorism is NOT a national movement. The repetition of
things like "why Iraq" or "the 9/11 perps were all Saudi" ignores the
fact that the terrorists don't represent a particular country but
rather a particular ideology that is inimical to democracy and
Judeo/Christian societies. It isn't Afghanistan or Iraq or Somalia or
Sudan or Yemen or Saudi that is the core threat, it's the
fundamentalist Islamic movement.

A brief review of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" might
be in order.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 6/1/04 4:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>>Then why were you one of the louder "Yeah, let's do it!" and "Screw the
>>>French for not supporting us" types a year ago?
>>>
>>>Brooks
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Arthur Kramer
>>>
>>>
>> Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should have believed
>>that
>>bum and his neocon liars..
>>
>
>A lot of people, including me, supported the war but we were played for
>fools.
>
>I was watching "Meet the Press" @ six weeks ago and Tim Russert asked Bremer
>to
>whom were we turning over control on 30 June.
>
>Bremer's answer:
>
>"That's a good question, Tim."
>
>Five thousand casualties, and that's the answer?
>
>I don't need a general to tell me that the Busihes screwed up.
>
>Art, you were damned lucky to go to war under a great president like FDR.
>
>Walt
>

I was damn lucky to go to war in a war we all believed in with all our hearts.
This is a war nobody believes in any more. And the liar has been exposed for
what he is. He sends men to fight and die which is something he was never
willing to do.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 6/1/04 7:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 01 Jun 2004 10:09:37 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>> Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should have believed
>that
>>bum and his neocon liars..
>
>Conveniently overlooking the recent Sarin discovery in Iraq and the
>presence of Al-Zawaheri at the beheading of Nick Berg.
>
>If it doesn't fit the perconception simply ignore it.
>
>We all might start at this point by acknowledging that Islamic
>fundamentalist terrorism is NOT a national movement. The repetition of
>things like "why Iraq" or "the 9/11 perps were all Saudi" ignores the
>fact that the terrorists don't represent a particular country but
>rather a particular ideology that is inimical to democracy and
>Judeo/Christian societies. It isn't Afghanistan or Iraq or Somalia or
>Sudan or Yemen or Saudi that is the core threat, it's the
>fundamentalist Islamic movement.
>
>A brief review of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" might
>be in order.

I think "All Quiet on the Western Front" might be more in order. And as far as
the Sarin goes that is just clutching at straws.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is a war nobody believes in any more.
>

This war is universally supported by informed, intelligent people.


>
> And the liar has been exposed for what he is.
>

You're referring to Bush, of course. Nobody has identified any Bush
statement about the war to be a lie.


>
> He sends men to fight and die which is something he was never
> willing to do.
>

Bush served in the military voluntarily.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 01 Jun 2004 14:29:39 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:


>I was damn lucky to go to war in a war we all believed in with all our hearts.
>This is a war nobody believes in any more. And the liar has been exposed for
>what he is. He sends men to fight and die which is something he was never
>willing to do.
>
>Arthur Kramer

There are some veterans, educated, and knowledgeable folks who clearly
understand the necessity for this war and the goals that need to be
achieved to develop a sustainable peace in the Middle East and
security in the homeland. You can't generalize your opinion and apply
it wholesale to the world.

What lies? Sarin found last week. Al-Qaeda involved in the beheading
of Nick Berg. Turn-over to the Iraqi provisional goverment by the end
of this month....

As for the willingness to die for the nation, I've got to support a
guy who chose to spend four and a half years becoming an AF pilot and
qualifying operationally in a single-seat, single-engine jet. You may
recall, Art, that tactical aircraft can kill you quite easily on any
given day. Lemme see, four years in jets or four months in
rowboats.....



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On 01 Jun 2004 14:33:11 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>
>>A brief review of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" might
>>be in order.
>
>I think "All Quiet on the Western Front" might be more in order. And as far as
>the Sarin goes that is just clutching at straws.

Art, we are talking about political facts not classical fiction here.

And, regarding the Sarin, you are proving exactly what I said. If it
doesn't fit your preconception, you'll simply ignore or deny it. No
elephants here, snap, snap, snap.....
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
> As for the willingness to die for the nation, I've got to support a
> guy who chose to spend four and a half years becoming an AF pilot and
> qualifying operationally in a single-seat, single-engine jet. You may
> recall, Art, that tactical aircraft can kill you quite easily on any
> given day. Lemme see, four years in jets or four months in
> rowboats.....
>

Well, his Navy service was more than just those four months he spent on
river boats. But it was four months of a twelve month tour. Why didn't he
complete that tour? The Kerry campaign likes to point out that Kerry
volunteered for Vietnam duty, and that he was awarded three Purple Hearts
while performing that duty. He used those medals, which were awarded under
rather dubious circumstances, to cut short his tour. Why volunteer for
something you don't intend to complete?

Kerry states he was proud to serve in Vietnam every chance he gets. In his
1971 testimony before Congress he stated he committed war crimes in Vietnam.
He gave a short list of atrocities he and others committed. Just what is he
proud of?

If the media had examined Kerry's Vietnam era military service the same way
they examined Bush's, the Democrats would have dropped Vietnam as a campaign
issue months ago.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>On 01 Jun 2004 10:09:37 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>> Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should have believed that
>>bum and his neocon liars..
>
>Conveniently overlooking the recent Sarin discovery in Iraq

One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)

>and the
>presence of Al-Zawaheri at the beheading of Nick Berg.

Alleged - weren't the killers hooded?

Note also that at one point there was a declared "flypaper strategy" of
using Iraq as bait to draw in and destroy terrorists - was al-Zawaheri
in Iraq before 2003, or did he (or his adherents) go there to kill
Americans post-war?

>If it doesn't fit the perconception simply ignore it.

On the other hand, don't latch too solidly onto it just because it's
comfortable.

>We all might start at this point by acknowledging that Islamic
>fundamentalist terrorism is NOT a national movement. The repetition of
>things like "why Iraq" or "the 9/11 perps were all Saudi" ignores the
>fact that the terrorists don't represent a particular country but
>rather a particular ideology that is inimical to democracy and
>Judeo/Christian societies.

However, the al-Qaeda movement in particular and the Wahabbi ideology in
general are both solidly based in and funded from Saudi Arabia. (Where
al-Qaeda terrorists are still operating)

>A brief review of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" might
>be in order.

So you attack fundamentalist Islam by invading one of the more secular
states in the Middle East? Does not compute...

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
> >From: Ed Rasimus
> >Date: 6/1/04 7:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On 01 Jun 2004 10:09:37 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should have believed
> >that
> >>bum and his neocon liars..
> >
> >Conveniently overlooking the recent Sarin discovery in Iraq and the
> >presence of Al-Zawaheri at the beheading of Nick Berg.
> >
> >If it doesn't fit the perconception simply ignore it.
> >
> >We all might start at this point by acknowledging that Islamic
> >fundamentalist terrorism is NOT a national movement. The repetition of
> >things like "why Iraq" or "the 9/11 perps were all Saudi" ignores the
> >fact that the terrorists don't represent a particular country but
> >rather a particular ideology that is inimical to democracy and
> >Judeo/Christian societies. It isn't Afghanistan or Iraq or Somalia or
> >Sudan or Yemen or Saudi that is the core threat, it's the
> >fundamentalist Islamic movement.
> >
> >A brief review of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" might
> >be in order.
>
> I think "All Quiet on the Western Front" might be more in order. And as
far as
> the Sarin goes that is just clutching at straws.

Oh, boy, another, "It is not WMD unless it meets my (ever changing)
definition of the *amount* required!" advocate, eh? I guess you will also
disregard the reported find of another chemical round (yet to be finally
verified, AFAIK) a week earlier (a mustard round that time), not to mention
Kay's final testimony that the Iraqis were in violation of Res 687 in
numerous ways, to include continuing to work on development of ricin (a
biotoxin) right up until we hit them? Ed's dead-on-target--you are going to
disregard anything that does not fit into your preconceived framework of
"Bush is evil".

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[George Z. Bush]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

(Snip)

How about considering that we are quick to disavow the outrageous behavior of a
handful of our sadistic jailers as being representative of us as a nation, but
we deny the Iraqis the same right to disavow the existence of a single artillery
shell of dubious age filled with Sarin as being representative of an arsenal of
WMDs they would have used on us if they had existed.

One sadistic jailer doesn't mean that all of our jailers are sadistic any more
than one Sarin-filled artillery shell means that all of the artillery shells the
Iraqis had were filled with Sarin. It took us a whole year to find (or 'fess up
to) one of each.

George Z.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:55:05 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

First, let's note that I said or wrote none of which "George Z. Bush"
has posted here below the attibution header!
>
>(Snip)
>
>How about considering that we are quick to disavow the outrageous behavior of a
>handful of our sadistic jailers as being representative of us as a nation, but
>we deny the Iraqis the same right to disavow the existence of a single artillery
>shell of dubious age filled with Sarin as being representative of an arsenal of
>WMDs they would have used on us if they had existed.
>
>One sadistic jailer doesn't mean that all of our jailers are sadistic any more
>than one Sarin-filled artillery shell means that all of the artillery shells the
>Iraqis had were filled with Sarin. It took us a whole year to find (or 'fess up
>to) one of each.
>
>George Z.
>

By your rationale the only way a nation possesses WMD is if ALL of
their weapons fit the class? We've found one Sarin filled shell in a
country the size of California. Saddam had twelve years of experience
in hiding WMD from UN inspectors. He had a couple of years of warning
regarding build-up to invasion. He had almost a year after expelling
the UN inspectors to dismantle, export, hide or decommission WMDs.

Is Sarin a chemical weapon? Would the components of a binary weapon by
a chemical weapon if they were held in two separate locations? Is a
biological weapon only a biological weapon when it is employed,
otherwise it's just a case of the sniffles?

I baby-sat a B-61 Y-1 at 345KT was that a WMD? If we only had Fat Man
and Little Boy (which is all we had) and then we dropped them on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did we then no longer have WMD? Or, since
those two weapons were only 20-25KT were they not even WMD at all?

The relationship between the jailers and WMD isn't a very rational
argument. How much Sarin will you allow to be deployed in New York
City before you take offense? Would it be more acceptable to use it in
Jerusalem? Would it be alright to spread three liters of Sarin in
Kuwait City?

How many WMD rounds does it take to equal possession of WMD in your
convoluted logic? Would two be better than one? Or will you hold out
for exclusive WMD rounds and no conventional? Then, one conventional
round would prove the non-existance of WMD, despite the other rounds?

C'mon George, confess that you didn't think it through when you wrote
that/


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(WalterM140) wrote:


>
> Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want - but it was a
> war the
> civilians wanted.
>
> “I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that
> this
> situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly,
> no-drive
> zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,� says Zinni."

I have been unable to avoid paraphrasing this, but I fear I must do it
to stop it bouncing around my skull.

"General Zinni said that he generally avoids generalizations about the
general belief of all generals, but, in this case, he believes the
general consensus of generals is that the general policy of containment
was, in general, effective."

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> (Snip)
>
> How about considering that we are quick to disavow the outrageous behavior
of a
> handful of our sadistic jailers as being representative of us as a nation,
but
> we deny the Iraqis the same right to disavow the existence of a single
artillery
> shell of dubious age filled with Sarin as being representative of an
arsenal of
> WMDs they would have used on us if they had existed.

Bad logic. We never declared, as part of a ceasefire agreement from the
*last* conflict, that we had no individuals who could/would commit criminal
acts in our military services. And you seem to be forgetting the other round
reported (mustard), the hiding of equipment and documents related to WMD
development (as reported by Kay in his report), the continuing development
work on ricin (also testified to by Kay), etc....


>
> One sadistic jailer doesn't mean that all of our jailers are sadistic any
more
> than one Sarin-filled artillery shell means that all of the artillery
shells the
> Iraqis had were filled with Sarin. It took us a whole year to find (or
'fess up
> to) one of each.

You are the only ignoramus who has claimed that "all of the artillery shells
the Iraqis had were filled with Sarin". To be completely honest (something
you are, I know, loathe to be), AFAIK we have not found *any* shells "filled
with Sarin". What we have found is the remains of one shell that was filled
with the binary components of sarin (another wee problem, since the Iraqis
never acknowledged having *any* such shells in their possession, at *any*
time--which is another violation...), evidence of their attempting to hide
equipment, documents, and cultures related to bio/chemical warfare programs,
a continuing ricin development effort, etc. But I am quite sure that if it
suits your purpose (being the damning of GWB at all costs, of course), you
will soon assign the "all of the artillery shells" quote to *him* at the
nearest opportunity--who cares if it is accurate, right? Just as you
obviously don't care about accuracy in regards to your "single artillery
shell...filled with Sarin" statement, eh?

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:55:05 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...

>
> By your rationale the only way a nation possesses WMD is if ALL of
> their weapons fit the class? We've found one Sarin filled shell in a
> country the size of California. Saddam had twelve years of experience
> in hiding WMD from UN inspectors. He had a couple of years of warning
> regarding build-up to invasion. He had almost a year after expelling
> the UN inspectors to dismantle, export, hide or decommission WMDs.
>
> Is Sarin a chemical weapon? Would the components of a binary weapon by
> a chemical weapon if they were held in two separate locations?

Under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the Australia Group
agreements, and the US Militarily Critical Technologies list, unitary
sarin is definitely a chemical weapon, as are the phosphofluoro
precursors. The latter are in the same Class I category as GB (Sarin).
Plain isopropanol and elemental sulfur, the basic second components of
GB and VX, are only "dual use" by a generous interpretation --
isopropanol is common rubbing alcohol. A better binary precursor (OPA)
mixes diisopropylamine with isopropanol; if there is at least 30%
diisopropylamine, the mixture is considered a dual use material not
explicitly classifed by the Australia Group.

>Is a
> biological weapon only a biological weapon when it is employed,
> otherwise it's just a case of the sniffles?

I would say that it has to be weaponized and associated with a plausible
disposal system. The same botulinus toxin used in medical Botox is a
weapon when in much larger quantities and associated with a dispersion
system.

>
> I baby-sat a B-61 Y-1 at 345KT was that a WMD? If we only had Fat Man
> and Little Boy (which is all we had) and then we dropped them on
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did we then no longer have WMD? Or, since
> those two weapons were only 20-25KT were they not even WMD at all?

For simplicity, any nuclear explosive should be considered WMD. That
being said, PGMs may be as or more useful for a given application as
were tactical nuclear weapons with much less accurate delivery.

>
> The relationship between the jailers and WMD isn't a very rational
> argument. How much Sarin will you allow to be deployed in New York
> City before you take offense?

Let me speak to the more general case of cholinesterase inhibitors
("nerve gasses"). Diisopropyl fluorophosphate was one of the first such
agents considered by the US, but also has perfectly legitimate
applications in opthalmology. How much does the local distributor have
in its warehouse? I don't know.

Research laboratories may legitimately have small quantities of nerve
agent precursors or actual agents. Increasingly, there are licensing
and quantity restrictions. Certainly, any laboratory that needs to check
detectors needs some quantity, and a reference laboratory that confirms
particular agents will need samples. Quantity limits on biological
toxins are much more stringent.

Some sample regulations based on Federal regulations, this example from
the University of Pennsylvania:

> The medical use of toxins for patient treatment is exempt.
>
> The following select agent toxins are exempt if the aggregate amount
> under the control of one principal investigator does not, at any time,
> exceed:
> - 0.5 mg of Botulinum neurotoxins
> - 5 mg of Staphylococcal enterotoxins
> - 100 mg of abrin, Clostridium perfringens epsilon toxin, conotoxin,
> ricin, saxitoxin, shigatoxin, shiga-like ribosome inactivating protein,
> and tetrodotoxin
> - 1,000 mg of diacetoxyscirpenol and T-2 toxin
>
> The following select agent organisms or toxins are also exempt:
> - Any agent or toxin that is in its naturally occurring environment
> provided it has not been intentionally introduced, cultivated, collected,
> or otherwise extracted from its natural source.
> - Non-viable select agent organisms or nonfunctional toxins.
> - The vaccine strains of Junin virus (Candid #1), Rift Valley fever virus
> (MP-12), Venezuelan Equine encephalitis virus vaccine strain TC-83

So, the bottom line is that an acceptable quantity is greater than zero.

>Would it be more acceptable to use it in
> Jerusalem? Would it be alright to spread three liters of Sarin in
> Kuwait City?
>
> How many WMD rounds does it take to equal possession of WMD in your
> convoluted logic? Would two be better than one? Or will you hold out
> for exclusive WMD rounds and no conventional? Then, one conventional
> round would prove the non-existance of WMD, despite the other rounds?

Let us focus on the "mass" in mass destruction. Aside from the aspect
of fear (personally, I'd far rather die of sarin than napalm), to be a
WMD, the weapons have to be available in militarily significant
quantity, such that they cause more destruction/effect than an
equivalent quantity of conventional weapons. I'm certainly willing to
bend this rule to include active R&D or manufacturing programs.

The rule of thumb for a militarily significant amount of G-agents is in
the tons. Yes, with skilled dispersion, a chemical weapon can cause far
more casualties than conventional weapons. In our one terrorist example,
compared to the massive quantities used in WWI, Aum Shinryo managed
about a dozen deaths. Casualties numbered in the hundreds to low
thousands, but a significant proportion of cases were trauma caused by a
panicking crowd, or psychosomatic. Several Claymore mines on a subway
platform would almost certainly cause more casualties.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
> danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)
>

Didn't the Iraqis claim they never had any Sarin at all? If that's the
case, doesn't the presence of even one shell prove they did not abide by the
1991 agreement?


>
> Note also that at one point there was a declared "flypaper strategy" of
> using Iraq as bait to draw in and destroy terrorists -
>

That seems to be happening now.

[Denyav]

>So you attack fundamentalist Islam by invading one of the more secular
>states in the Middle East? Does not compute...

For the US:
1)Iraq is tactical target
2)Saudi Kingdom is strategic target
3)Egypt is the trophy.

Unfortunately US planners forgat something that some others might have
different great game plans (like following):
1)Iraq is nothing
2)Saudi Kingdom is tactical target
3)Iran and Turkey are strategic targets
4)USA is the trophy

[Paul J. Adam]

In message et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
>> danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)
>
>Didn't the Iraqis claim they never had any Sarin at all?

No, they claimed that they'd had a fair amount pre-1991 and had since
destroyed almost all of it, apart from some odds and ends that had gone
adrift in the course of two wars, a short sharp shower of ****e and a
prolonged game of hide-the-programs.

The inspectors who audited their claims found some discrepancies, like
the alleged binary shell R&D program that *may* have produced this round
and thirty to forty like it, for further study: however, the further
study was pre-empted.

>If that's the
>case, doesn't the presence of even one shell prove they did not abide by the
>1991 agreement?

The US and UK still turn up chemical and (occasionally in the US)
biological munitions here and there - does that prove we're in violation
of treaties? Or just that accounting down to individual rounds is a
tricky process?

Significant quantities of sarin are measured in the hundreds of kilos,
at least, for military effects. I'd be looking for a significant and
recent stockpile, or better yet a recent production program.

One shell, over a decade old, whose users seem to have had little idea
what it was, isn't particularly persuasive that there was a significant
threat.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>How many WMD rounds does it take to equal possession of WMD in your
>convoluted logic?

To quote something I wrote earlier...

Let's - for the sake of simplicity - assume the munitions and facilities
have a trustworthy date stamp, however ascertained. Hard to do, but it
simplifies the terms.

1998 and earlier, I'm willing to accept a few (call it three, offhand)
"WME stockpiles" that are - for a rule of thumb - a pallet or less of
shells, 122mm rockets, or precursors each. 1991 or earlier, I'd raise
the bar quite a lot higher, because they prepared to fight a defensive
war and then lost it massively and that's where large amounts of kit go
missing. (We're still occasionally digging up buried caches of 1940s No.
76 grenades here in the UK, which is a problem because they're beer
bottles filled with a benzene, rubber and white phosphorous mixture -
not nice to accidentally put a spade through one)

Post-1998, "a pallet" of filled basic munitions or of filler for them,
or a single weapon that was a significant advance on their previous
capability, would be conclusive proof. Less than that would be a very
unwelcome surprise, though not decisive (we know they *wanted* to keep
their programs going, but the claim was that the programs existed and
were an immediate threat)



Opinion, assayed at $0.02 exact.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Chad Irby]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
> > danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)
> >
>
> Didn't the Iraqis claim they never had any Sarin at all? If that's
> the case, doesn't the presence of even one shell prove they did not
> abide by the 1991 agreement?

They supposedly only did "research" on binary sarin rounds, and that
*after* 1991.

The existence of this round, at *all*, shows that they weren't complying
with their obligations by informing the UN of the research program.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> Let's - for the sake of simplicity - assume the munitions and facilities
> have a trustworthy date stamp, however ascertained. Hard to do, but it
> simplifies the terms.
>
> 1998 and earlier, I'm willing to accept a few (call it three, offhand)
> "WME stockpiles" that are - for a rule of thumb - a pallet or less of
> shells, 122mm rockets, or precursors each.

....that could be found, accidentally, by militias? When there are
*millions* of similar pallets of conventional weapons floating around in
Iraq right now?

The math is way against you here. Literally millions-to-one odds.

On the other hand, if there were a lot of unreported and uncatalogued
chemical weapons in the mix, you'd have a much better chance of someone
turning up one or two out of a random ammo dump. Which is what seems to
have happened.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>
> They supposedly only did "research" on binary sarin rounds, and that
> *after* 1991.
>

Well, Mr. Adam says they had a "fair amount pre-1991 and had since
destroyed almost all of it". At least one of you is wrong.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:55:05 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> First, let's note that I said or wrote none of which "George Z. Bush"
> has posted here below the attibution header!
> >
> >(Snip)

I took out all of an exchange you were having with someone else which was
irrelevant to what I wanted to say. No need for you to be so defensive about
it....it just wasn't pertinent, so I deleted it.
> >
> >How about considering that we are quick to disavow the outrageous behavior of
a
> >handful of our sadistic jailers as being representative of us as a nation,
but
> >we deny the Iraqis the same right to disavow the existence of a single
artillery
> >shell of dubious age filled with Sarin as being representative of an arsenal
of
> >WMDs they would have used on us if they had existed.
> >
> >One sadistic jailer doesn't mean that all of our jailers are sadistic any
more
> >than one Sarin-filled artillery shell means that all of the artillery shells
the
> >Iraqis had were filled with Sarin. It took us a whole year to find (or 'fess
up
> >to) one of each.
> >
> >George Z.
> >
>
> By your rationale the only way a nation possesses WMD is if ALL of
> their weapons fit the class? We've found one Sarin filled shell in a
> country the size of California. Saddam had twelve years of experience
> in hiding WMD from UN inspectors. He had a couple of years of warning
> regarding build-up to invasion. He had almost a year after expelling
> the UN inspectors to dismantle, export, hide or decommission WMDs.

WMD is an acronym for Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is "weapons"
(plural)....and One of anything does not make it plural. You want to make a
federal case out of finding one artillery shell after a year of intense looking
by thousands of troops, go right ahead. I'll just rest my case on the theory
that one weapon does not an arsenal make, and you can pooh-pooh me if it makes
you feel better.
>
> Is Sarin a chemical weapon? Would the components of a binary weapon by
> a chemical weapon if they were held in two separate locations? Is a
> biological weapon only a biological weapon when it is employed,
> otherwise it's just a case of the sniffles?

Of course it's a chemical weapon. But one artillery shell does not constitute a
threat that warrants embarking on an active war over. Not only that, but we
didn't even know for a fact that they had that one weapon when we started the
war....we apparently started it on some Mickey-Mouse intelligence information
that it took us a year to find out wasn't accurate.

By your logic, we probably ought to be at war with half the world if those
nations possessed one chemical or biological weapon that they might someday
consider using against someone for some reason somewhere down the road. Tell me
the Chinese don't have one or more, or the Pakistanis (who, you will recall,
sold nuclear know-how to the Libyans), or the Russians, or the Israelis or, for
that matter, even the Saudis. Numerous countrys, many of whom we have
disagreements with, have WMDs, but we don't go to war with them because of it.
>
> I baby-sat a B-61 Y-1 at 345KT was that a WMD? If we only had Fat Man
> and Little Boy (which is all we had) and then we dropped them on
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did we then no longer have WMD? Or, since
> those two weapons were only 20-25KT were they not even WMD at all?

Sounds like you want to refight WWII because we had and used nukes. That's a
bit more nonsensical that I care to bother with. Or are you suggesting that we
were the bad guys because we developed them and used them?
>
> The relationship between the jailers and WMD isn't a very rational
> argument. How much Sarin will you allow to be deployed in New York
> City before you take offense? Would it be more acceptable to use it in
> Jerusalem? Would it be alright to spread three liters of Sarin in
> Kuwait City?
>
> How many WMD rounds does it take to equal possession of WMD in your
> convoluted logic? Would two be better than one? Or will you hold out
> for exclusive WMD rounds and no conventional? Then, one conventional
> round would prove the non-existance of WMD, despite the other rounds?

When all is said and done, your arguments are sophomoric and thoroughly
unconvincing. They're not worthy of individual responses.
>
> C'mon George, confess that you didn't think it through when you wrote
> that/

Ed, it's all in the eye of the beholder, and I like to think that my arguments
were more logical and convincing than your efforts to belittle them.

Perhaps it's one of those times when we need to agree to disagree and simply
move on.

George Z.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Denyav]

>Conveniently overlooking the recent Sarin discovery in Iraq

I am sure we wont be overlooking when somebody discovers ex-Bulgarian Scuds
with chemical warheads on right time.
(Saddam never received any Scuds from Bulgaria,but it is only a small detail)

>A brief review of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" might
>be in order.

Samuel Huntingtons ties to some semi-secret but very powerful societies explain
why he wrote that book.
The motto of this organization is
"Ordo Ab Chao"


This organisation is actually aganist ALL major religions fights for centuries
to destroy every religion and replace them with Paganism.
The fight between major religions is an excellent tool realize their final
goal.


>resence of Al-Zawaheri at the beheading of Nick Berg.

Who is Mr.Al-Whatever?

>ings like "why Iraq" or "the 9/11 perps were all Saudi" ignores the

Everbody who thinks that 9/11 was not a domestic vaccination operation ignores
works and findings of the Office of Net Assesment and the existence of an
organization in US with more executive powers than US President !.
(The name of this organization is NOT FBI or CIA)

You are totally wrong.
According to the findings of Marshall&Co paradigm shift in warfare and
predicted natural disasters (some of them with the help of HPM weapons of
course) could create a chaos situation in US that could not be controlled by
existing (pre-9/11) structures.
So,the country needed more military like structures and organizations in other
words US needed more military style discipline and less liberalism.

How could you implement neccesary changes?
1)You tell everything to the public and call for their support.
(But if you do that the chaos predicted to take place 15-20 later might start
tomorrow,so not a good idea)

2)You create an imaginary enemy and implement all neccesary measures that you
will need to face challenges of next decade and after,under pretext of fighting
an (imaginary) enemy.

US will be a much more militaristic and disciplined society in near and medium
term future,but the President still be a civilian.
But US citizens wont be able to elect their presidents in foreseable future,as
all Presidents in foreseable future will be "selected" not "elected".

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Chad Irby
> wrote:

> In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
> > > danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)
> > >
> >
> > Didn't the Iraqis claim they never had any Sarin at all? If that's
> > the case, doesn't the presence of even one shell prove they did not
> > abide by the 1991 agreement?
>
> They supposedly only did "research" on binary sarin rounds, and that
> *after* 1991.
>
> The existence of this round, at *all*, shows that they weren't complying
> with their obligations by informing the UN of the research program.

I'm a little confused. The R&D program is in the UNSCOM report. Are you
saying they did work on this program after 1991? If so, how do we know
the vintage of this shell? Not challenging, not sure I'm reading you
correctly.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Chad Irby
> wrote:

> In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
> > Let's - for the sake of simplicity - assume the munitions and
> > facilities
> > have a trustworthy date stamp, however ascertained. Hard to do, but it
> > simplifies the terms.
> >
> > 1998 and earlier, I'm willing to accept a few (call it three, offhand)
> > "WME stockpiles" that are - for a rule of thumb - a pallet or less of
> > shells, 122mm rockets, or precursors each.
>
> ...that could be found, accidentally, by militias? When there are
> *millions* of similar pallets of conventional weapons floating around in
> Iraq right now?
>
> The math is way against you here. Literally millions-to-one odds.
>
> On the other hand, if there were a lot of unreported and uncatalogued
> chemical weapons in the mix, you'd have a much better chance of someone
> turning up one or two out of a random ammo dump. Which is what seems to
> have happened.


If more don't show up, I'd be inclined to suspect some participant in
the research program that took one, or a few, prototypes home for
safekeeping. We know this was done for some nuclear and biological
components. Said somebody may have decided he didn't want this in his
backyard, and gave it to insurgents, possibly with an explanation they
didn't understand.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>> Let's - for the sake of simplicity - assume the munitions and facilities
>> have a trustworthy date stamp, however ascertained. Hard to do, but it
>> simplifies the terms.
>>
>> 1998 and earlier, I'm willing to accept a few (call it three, offhand)
>> "WME stockpiles" that are - for a rule of thumb - a pallet or less of
>> shells, 122mm rockets, or precursors each.
>
>...that could be found, accidentally, by militias? When there are
>*millions* of similar pallets of conventional weapons floating around in
>Iraq right now?

Yep. Note that this was apparently employed in a standard roadside IED,
as if it was just an ordinary HE shell - about as suboptimal an
employment as you can get, if you assume the insurgents knew what they
had.

>The math is way against you here. Literally millions-to-one odds.

Thousands-to-one odds, anyway. The existence of that round is a pretty
good fact: so is the absence of any source for it, or any stockpile of
its brothers and sisters.

>On the other hand, if there were a lot of unreported and uncatalogued
>chemical weapons in the mix, you'd have a much better chance of someone
>turning up one or two out of a random ammo dump. Which is what seems to
>have happened.

Trouble is, that doesn't say "significant organised and controlled
stockpile", it just says "bad bookkeeping".

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course it's a chemical weapon. But one artillery shell does not
constitute
> a threat that warrants embarking on an active war over. Not only that,
but
> we didn't even know for a fact that they had that one weapon when we
> started the war....we apparently started it on some Mickey-Mouse
> intelligence information that it took us a year to find out wasn't
accurate.
>

Prior to the invasion of Iraq the one point on which there was near
universal agreement was that Iraq had significant WMD. The only group
claimimg they did not was the Iraqi government, which is what they'd be
expected to say whether they had them or not.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
>> > danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)
>> >
>>
>> Didn't the Iraqis claim they never had any Sarin at all? If that's
>> the case, doesn't the presence of even one shell prove they did not
>> abide by the 1991 agreement?
>
>They supposedly only did "research" on binary sarin rounds, and that
>*after* 1991.

"36. However, it was not possible to verify the full extent of several
R& D projects carried out by Iraq from 1989 to 1990, due to the absence
of sufficient data from documents and other verifiable evidence. Those
include the research on new chemical warfare agents, BZ and Soman. These
also include Iraq's efforts to develop new delivery means for CW-agents,
such as special warheads other than for Al-Hussein missiles, i.e. FROG
missile, and real binary artillery munitions and aerial bombs. Evidence
of such studies was found in the documents from the Haider farm. On the
other hand, the Commission did not find evidence that Iraq had reached
the stage of industrial production of these materials and items.

http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport/dis_chem.htm is the first
source to hand.


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > writes
>"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Of course it's a chemical weapon. But one artillery shell does not
>constitute
>> a threat that warrants embarking on an active war over. Not only that,
>but
>> we didn't even know for a fact that they had that one weapon when we
>> started the war....we apparently started it on some Mickey-Mouse
>> intelligence information that it took us a year to find out wasn't
>accurate.
>>
>
>Prior to the invasion of Iraq the one point on which there was near
>universal agreement was that Iraq had significant WMD.

I guess "near universal" can exclude a lot of people, then.

>The only group
>claimimg they did not was the Iraqi government,

And a few other folks with knowledge of the subject.

>which is what they'd be
>expected to say whether they had them or not.

When an Iraqi government source told you it was sunny, bring an
umbrella.

But even liars are right sometimes, even by mistake (institutionalised
falsehood has some interesting effects)
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> I guess "near universal" can exclude a lot of people, then.
>

Such as?


>
> And a few other folks with knowledge of the subject.
>

Such as?


>
> When an Iraqi government source told you it was sunny, bring an
> umbrella.
>

Exactly.

[Mike Dargan]

ArtKramr wrote:
>>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>>Date: 6/1/04 1:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>>>>From: "Vaughn"
>>>>Date: 5/31/04 6:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>>Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>>>
>>>>>"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>> This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight
>>
>>terrorists?
>>
>>>>>Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in
>>
>>Iraq
>>
>>>>now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to
>>
>>Iraq
>>
>>>>because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local
>>>>recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism
>>>>activity
>>>>in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab
>>>>countries.
>>>>Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now
>>
>>thrown
>>
>>>>open
>>>>the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work.
>>>>
>>>> I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't
>>
>>9-11
>>
>>>>and
>>>>it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed
>>
>>to
>>
>>>>have
>>>>something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission
>>>>accomplished"),
>>>>but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect.
>>>>
>>>>Vaughn
>>>>
>>>
>>>Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. So we
>>
>>invaded
>>
>>>Iraq. Makes sense to me. (sheesh)
>>
>>Then why were you one of the louder "Yeah, let's do it!" and "Screw the
>>French for not supporting us" types a year ago?
>>
>>Brooks
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Arthur Kramer
>>
>>
> Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should have believed that
> bum and his neocon liars..

It's not clear to me that they were lying, though they are certainly
capable of it. Iraq is a classic case of what Barbara Tuchman
characterized as "woodenheadedness."

Cheers

--mike

>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>
> When an Iraqi government source told you it was sunny, bring an
> umbrella.
>
> But even liars are right sometimes, even by mistake (institutionalised
> falsehood has some interesting effects)

Credit where credit is due. When Baghdad Bob lied, it was usually
entertaining. I still think he has potential for a job in Redmond.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>From: Mike Dargan
>Date: 6/1/04 3:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <mq7vc.28861$IB.2083@attbi_s04>
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>>>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>>>Date: 6/1/04 1:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>
>>>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>>>>>From: "Vaughn"
>>>>>Date: 5/31/04 6:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>>>Message-id: >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight
>>>
>>>terrorists?
>>>
>>>>>>Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in
>>>
>>>Iraq
>>>
>>>>>now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to
>>>
>>>Iraq
>>>
>>>>>because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local
>>>>>recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism
>>>>>activity
>>>>>in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab
>>>>>countries.
>>>>>Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now
>>>
>>>thrown
>>>
>>>>>open
>>>>>the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't
>>>
>>>9-11
>>>
>>>>>and
>>>>>it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>>>have
>>>>>something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission
>>>>>accomplished"),
>>>>>but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect.
>>>>>
>>>>>Vaughn
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. So we
>>>
>>>invaded
>>>
>>>>Iraq. Makes sense to me. (sheesh)
>>>
>>>Then why were you one of the louder "Yeah, let's do it!" and "Screw the
>>>French for not supporting us" types a year ago?
>>>
>>>Brooks
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Arthur Kramer
>>>
>>>
>> Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should have believed
>that
>> bum and his neocon liars..
>
>It's not clear to me that they were lying, though they are certainly
>capable of it. Iraq is a classic case of what Barbara Tuchman
>characterized as "woodenheadedness."
>
>Cheers
>
>--mike
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


And Tuchman was one of the great ones. They don't make historians like that
anymore. (sigh)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[WalterM140]

>Conveniently overlooking the recent Sarin discovery in Iraq and the
>presence of Al-Zawaheri at the beheading of Nick Berg.

Are you serious?

That's -one- round in -one- year. It's a non-story.

And there is no proof Al-Zawaheri was there. It was reported a few days ago
that 2 of the perps of Berg's murder had been captured. That story dropped out
of sight. I wonder why?

Walt

[Chad Irby]

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > They supposedly only did "research" on binary sarin rounds, and that
> > *after* 1991.
>
> Well, Mr. Adam says they had a "fair amount pre-1991 and had since
> destroyed almost all of it". At least one of you is wrong.

The "wrong" person is the one who doesn't know there are different kinds
of "binary" rounds (i.e., you).

They had "binary sarin," which was pre-mixed and poured into the shell
immediately before firing, and which led to a high number of accidental
exposures by gun crews. They did *not* have a binary shell that mixed
in flight, like the one found recently (according to the reports they
made to the UN).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Howard Berkowitz > wrote:

> If more don't show up, I'd be inclined to suspect some participant in
> the research program that took one, or a few, prototypes home for
> safekeeping. We know this was done for some nuclear and biological
> components. Said somebody may have decided he didn't want this in his
> backyard, and gave it to insurgents, possibly with an explanation they
> didn't understand.

But someone from the research program would know that this sort of round
needs to be fired so the chemicals would mix correctly, and wouldn't set
it off the way they did.

So it was someone *outside* of the program who had this one at hand.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
>
> Yep. Note that this was apparently employed in a standard roadside IED,
> as if it was just an ordinary HE shell - about as suboptimal an
> employment as you can get, if you assume the insurgents knew what they
> had.
>
> >The math is way against you here. Literally millions-to-one odds.
>
> Thousands-to-one odds, anyway.

Nope. Millions. Out of the couple of dozen artillery rounds that have
been set as roadside IEDs, versus the tens of millions of rounds of
artillery shells they had available.

At worst, hundreds of thousands to one.

Not very much in your favor...

So which is more likely? That someone hid a pile of chemical weapons (a
medium-sized arsenal of the things would fit in a building the size of a
house) in a country the size of California, versus your contention that
they didn't have any and were complying with the UN sanctions?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>
> The "wrong" person is the one who doesn't know there are different kinds
> of "binary" rounds (i.e., you).
>

Hmmm..., how can I be wrong about something I did not comment on?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >
> >They supposedly only did "research" on binary sarin rounds, and that
> >*after* 1991.
>
> "36. However, it was not possible to verify the full extent of several
> R& D projects carried out by Iraq from 1989 to 1990, due to the absence
> of sufficient data from documents and other verifiable evidence. Those
> include the research on new chemical warfare agents, BZ and Soman. These
> also include Iraq's efforts to develop new delivery means for CW-agents,
> such as special warheads other than for Al-Hussein missiles, i.e. FROG
> missile, and real binary artillery munitions and aerial bombs. Evidence
> of such studies was found in the documents from the Haider farm. On the
> other hand, the Commission did not find evidence that Iraq had reached
> the stage of industrial production of these materials and items.
>
> http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport/dis_chem.htm is the first
> source to hand.

So we found one of your production rounds. 155mm sarin. Thanks.

The UN inspectors screwed up. What a shock, coming from the same folks
who told us that Libya didn't have a nuke program, and that Iran doesn't
have one (while the Iranians admit they do to everyone *except* the UN
inspectors)...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Chad Irby
> wrote:

> In article t>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > They supposedly only did "research" on binary sarin rounds, and that
> > > *after* 1991.
> >
> > Well, Mr. Adam says they had a "fair amount pre-1991 and had since
> > destroyed almost all of it". At least one of you is wrong.
>
> The "wrong" person is the one who doesn't know there are different kinds
> of "binary" rounds (i.e., you).
>
> They had "binary sarin," which was pre-mixed and poured into the shell
> immediately before firing, and which led to a high number of accidental
> exposures by gun crews. They did *not* have a binary shell that mixed
> in flight, like the one found recently (according to the reports they
> made to the UN).

Not precisely. They had the field-mixed binary operational. Item 36 of
the UNSCOM report identifies an R&D program on true in-flight mixing
binary. Presumably, some actual shells were made as part of the R&D.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Chad Irby
> wrote:

> In article >,
> Howard Berkowitz > wrote:
>
> > If more don't show up, I'd be inclined to suspect some participant in
> > the research program that took one, or a few, prototypes home for
> > safekeeping. We know this was done for some nuclear and biological
> > components. Said somebody may have decided he didn't want this in his
> > backyard, and gave it to insurgents, possibly with an explanation they
> > didn't understand.
>
> But someone from the research program would know that this sort of round
> needs to be fired so the chemicals would mix correctly, and wouldn't set
> it off the way they did.
>
> So it was someone *outside* of the program who had this one at hand.

Or, someone inside the research program, first and foremost wanting to
get it out of his closet, and is anti-American, gives it to an insurgent
on the theory it MIGHT do something. Not everyone in a program fully
understands the details -- consider a cross between a Dilbertian
pointy-haired boss and Saddams second cousin's third cousin's
brother-in-law.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 12:55:05 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > First, let's note that I said or wrote none of which "George Z. Bush"
> > has posted here below the attibution header!
> > >
> > >(Snip)
>
> I took out all of an exchange you were having with someone else which was
> irrelevant to what I wanted to say. No need for you to be so defensive
about
> it....it just wasn't pertinent, so I deleted it.
> > >
> > >How about considering that we are quick to disavow the outrageous
behavior of
> a
> > >handful of our sadistic jailers as being representative of us as a
nation,
> but
> > >we deny the Iraqis the same right to disavow the existence of a single
> artillery
> > >shell of dubious age filled with Sarin as being representative of an
arsenal
> of
> > >WMDs they would have used on us if they had existed.
> > >
> > >One sadistic jailer doesn't mean that all of our jailers are sadistic
any
> more
> > >than one Sarin-filled artillery shell means that all of the artillery
shells
> the
> > >Iraqis had were filled with Sarin. It took us a whole year to find (or
'fess
> up
> > >to) one of each.
> > >
> > >George Z.
> > >
> >
> > By your rationale the only way a nation possesses WMD is if ALL of
> > their weapons fit the class? We've found one Sarin filled shell in a
> > country the size of California. Saddam had twelve years of experience
> > in hiding WMD from UN inspectors. He had a couple of years of warning
> > regarding build-up to invasion. He had almost a year after expelling
> > the UN inspectors to dismantle, export, hide or decommission WMDs.
>
> WMD is an acronym for Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is "weapons"
> (plural)....and One of anything does not make it plural. You want to make
a
> federal case out of finding one artillery shell after a year of intense
looking
> by thousands of troops, go right ahead. I'll just rest my case on the
theory
> that one weapon does not an arsenal make, and you can pooh-pooh me if it
makes
> you feel better.

You keep forgetting that other reported mustard round, the ricin program,
etc. That should satisfy your shaky resort to the "weapons" vs. "weapon"
debate.

> >
> > Is Sarin a chemical weapon? Would the components of a binary weapon by
> > a chemical weapon if they were held in two separate locations? Is a
> > biological weapon only a biological weapon when it is employed,
> > otherwise it's just a case of the sniffles?
>
> Of course it's a chemical weapon. But one artillery shell does not
constitute a
> threat that warrants embarking on an active war over. Not only that, but
we
> didn't even know for a fact that they had that one weapon when we started
the
> war....we apparently started it on some Mickey-Mouse intelligence
information
> that it took us a year to find out wasn't accurate.

One artillery weapon constitutes a violation of 687. Two weapons constitutes
a violation of 687. Two weapons, a ricin development program, the hiding of
cultures, equipment, and documents related to other WMD programs is also a
violation. 687 codified the requirements of the ceasefire agreement from
ODS--the Iraqis were in violation of it. They were also in violation of the
NFZ requirements, and the limitation on maximum range of surface-to-surface
missile systems. They further were in violation of the requirments of the
"oil for food" program. Add to that one attmpted assassination of a former
US President, continuing support for terrorists, to include financial
support to the families of suicide bombers and providing refuge to a couple
of rather nasty terrorist types, one of whom was directly implicated in an a
ttack that left one US citizen dead. But you think *all* of these
allegations are *wrong*?

>
> By your logic, we probably ought to be at war with half the world if those
> nations possessed one chemical or biological weapon that they might
someday
> consider using against someone for some reason somewhere down the road.
Tell me
> the Chinese don't have one or more, or the Pakistanis (who, you will
recall,
> sold nuclear know-how to the Libyans), or the Russians, or the Israelis
or, for
> that matter, even the Saudis. Numerous countrys, many of whom we have
> disagreements with, have WMDs, but we don't go to war with them because of
it.

Strawman--nice try, but it won't fly.

> >
> > I baby-sat a B-61 Y-1 at 345KT was that a WMD? If we only had Fat Man
> > and Little Boy (which is all we had) and then we dropped them on
> > Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did we then no longer have WMD? Or, since
> > those two weapons were only 20-25KT were they not even WMD at all?
>
> Sounds like you want to refight WWII because we had and used nukes.
That's a
> bit more nonsensical that I care to bother with. Or are you suggesting
that we
> were the bad guys because we developed them and used them?
> >
> > The relationship between the jailers and WMD isn't a very rational
> > argument. How much Sarin will you allow to be deployed in New York
> > City before you take offense? Would it be more acceptable to use it in
> > Jerusalem? Would it be alright to spread three liters of Sarin in
> > Kuwait City?
> >
> > How many WMD rounds does it take to equal possession of WMD in your
> > convoluted logic? Would two be better than one? Or will you hold out
> > for exclusive WMD rounds and no conventional? Then, one conventional
> > round would prove the non-existance of WMD, despite the other rounds?
>
> When all is said and done, your arguments are sophomoric and thoroughly
> unconvincing. They're not worthy of individual responses.

Better than your's, which are based upon knowing half-truths (unless you are
going to profess you had heard nothing of other reported WMD/WMD program
finds, which would be a bit startling given that they have been discussed at
length in this and other forums you have visited of late--one of which you
even dared to use your *real* name in--talk about "Shock and Awe"!). If the
latter is your claim, you are just very dim-witted.

Brooks

> >
> > C'mon George, confess that you didn't think it through when you wrote
> > that/
>
> Ed, it's all in the eye of the beholder, and I like to think that my
arguments
> were more logical and convincing than your efforts to belittle them.

You'd be *very* wrong.

Brooks

>
> Perhaps it's one of those times when we need to agree to disagree and
simply
> move on.
>
> George Z.
> >
> >
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > "When Thunder Rolled"
> > Smithsonian Institution Press
> > ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message et>,
> Steven P. McNicoll > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
> >> danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)
> >
> >Didn't the Iraqis claim they never had any Sarin at all?
>
> No, they claimed that they'd had a fair amount pre-1991 and had since
> destroyed almost all of it, apart from some odds and ends that had gone
> adrift in the course of two wars, a short sharp shower of ****e and a
> prolonged game of hide-the-programs.
>
> The inspectors who audited their claims found some discrepancies, like
> the alleged binary shell R&D program that *may* have produced this round
> and thirty to forty like it, for further study: however, the further
> study was pre-empted.

Where do you get that from? Based upon what i read of the UNSCOM report,
there was no mention of *any* production of true binary weapons, and the R&D
effort was mentioned only in passing with no figures like "thirty to forty"
included. Which of course takes you back to the argument of what constitutes
a violation--one round, two rounds, forty rounds? An ongoing ricin
development program? Various cultures and equipment hidden away and *never*
discovered by UNSCOM?

Brooks

<snip>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(WalterM140) wrote:

> >Conveniently overlooking the recent Sarin discovery in Iraq and the
> >presence of Al-Zawaheri at the beheading of Nick Berg.
>
> Are you serious?
>
> That's -one- round in -one- year. It's a non-story.

....out of the millions of rounds to go through, versus the number that
have been set off, it's a *huge* story. Struck by lightning or needle
in the haystack time.

Especially since it's of a type that, according to the inspectors,
wasn't supposed to exist at all outside of a terminated research program.

So the folks who told us it didn't exist in the first place are now
telling us that even though it *does* exist, it's not a problem. And
when more turn up, you'll tell us that they aren't problems either...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...

> In article t>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > They supposedly only did "research" on binary sarin rounds, and that
> > > *after* 1991.
> >
> > Well, Mr. Adam says they had a "fair amount pre-1991 and had since
> > destroyed almost all of it". At least one of you is wrong.
> >
> > The "wrong" person is the one who doesn't know there are different kinds
> > of "binary" rounds (i.e., you).
>
> Hmmm..., how can I be wrong about something I did not comment on?

Original comments restored to show just how dishonest you are.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Chad Irby
> wrote:

> In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
> > In message >, Chad Irby
> > > writes
> > >
> > >They supposedly only did "research" on binary sarin rounds, and that
> > >*after* 1991.
> >
> > "36. However, it was not possible to verify the full extent of several
> > R& D projects carried out by Iraq from 1989 to 1990, due to the absence
> > of sufficient data from documents and other verifiable evidence. Those
> > include the research on new chemical warfare agents, BZ and Soman.
> > These
> > also include Iraq's efforts to develop new delivery means for
> > CW-agents,
> > such as special warheads other than for Al-Hussein missiles, i.e. FROG
> > missile, and real binary artillery munitions and aerial bombs. Evidence
> > of such studies was found in the documents from the Haider farm. On the
> > other hand, the Commission did not find evidence that Iraq had reached
> > the stage of industrial production of these materials and items.
> >
> > http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport/dis_chem.htm is the first
> > source to hand.
>
> So we found one of your production rounds. 155mm sarin. Thanks.

How do you know, one way or the other, that round was production or a
shop-made prototype?

>
> The UN inspectors screwed up.

If it was a prototype, they might not have. Are you sure you aren't
stretching the limited data to assume incompetent inspectors? I can
generalize too -- I know one person who was on the UNSCOM team, and
since Jack is thoroughly competent, everyone must be, right?

Given a bunch of chemically hazardous fragments, the technical
intelligence people aren't going to have a complete analysis of this
round overnight.

>What a shock, coming from the same folks
> who told us that Libya didn't have a nuke program, and that Iran doesn't
> have one (while the Iranians admit they do to everyone *except* the UN
> inspectors)...

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Chad Irby
> wrote:

....
>
> So which is more likely? That someone hid a pile of chemical weapons (a
> medium-sized arsenal of the things would fit in a building the size of a
> house) in a country the size of California, versus your contention that
> they didn't have any and were complying with the UN sanctions?

Or something in between. There were some prototypes hidden away, and one
or more was given to people setting up IEDs. We know prototypes or
samples of nuclear and biological components were hidden in residential
areas; why not chemical?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Original comments restored to show just how dishonest you are.
>

Actually, that's a quote of Mr. Adams' comment.

[Pete]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote

> Various cultures and equipment hidden away and *never*
> discovered by UNSCOM?

If they could bury an entire MiG-25 (found only by the shifting sands
revealing a tail), what else is buried out there?

Pete

[Mike Dargan]

Pete wrote:
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
>
>
>>Various cultures and equipment hidden away and *never*
>>discovered by UNSCOM?
>
>
> If they could bury an entire MiG-25 (found only by the shifting sands
> revealing a tail), what else is buried out there?

I dunno--a couple of P-39s, maybe?

Cheers

--mike

>
> Pete
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
>
> > Various cultures and equipment hidden away and *never*
> > discovered by UNSCOM?
>
> If they could bury an entire MiG-25 (found only by the shifting sands
> revealing a tail), what else is buried out there?

Ah, but if we use the analysis method employed by those folks claiming that
Saddam was not violating the requirements regarding WMD's, then those Migs
are not evidence of "aircraft", 'cause you have to have at least one hundred
of them, or more, before you can even *consider* them being "aircraft",
right? A chemical round of a type that Saddam never revealed having *any*
of, maybe developed as a product of an R&D effort that post-dated 687, an
alleged mustard round, along with other "undiscovered" things like the ricin
program, the hidden cultures, equipment, documents, and even *people*, don't
equal his violation of the requirements of 687 and evidence his continued
efforts to develop WMD's in spite of the restrictions, now do they? :-)

Brooks

>
> Pete
>
>

[Pete]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pete" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> >
> > > Various cultures and equipment hidden away and *never*
> > > discovered by UNSCOM?
> >
> > If they could bury an entire MiG-25 (found only by the shifting sands
> > revealing a tail), what else is buried out there?
>
> Ah, but if we use the analysis method employed by those folks claiming
that
> Saddam was not violating the requirements regarding WMD's, then those Migs
> are not evidence of "aircraft", 'cause you have to have at least one
hundred
> of them, or more, before you can even *consider* them being "aircraft",
> right? A chemical round of a type that Saddam never revealed having *any*
> of, maybe developed as a product of an R&D effort that post-dated 687, an
> alleged mustard round, along with other "undiscovered" things like the
ricin
> program, the hidden cultures, equipment, documents, and even *people*,
don't
> equal his violation of the requirements of 687 and evidence his continued
> efforts to develop WMD's in spite of the restrictions, now do they? :-)
>

Exactly. We hear the oft repeated chant "There were no WMD's! Bush lied!"

Ok...*when* were there none? Evidently, in between 1988 (documented use) and
Dec 2002, we're supposed to believe that all WMD's ceased to exist in Iraq.

Why was this not found out, and why didn't whoever was in power at the time
sing it from the rooftops? Seems that would have been a slam dunk for the
then current ruling party.

Pete

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Howard Berkowitz > wrote:

> In article >, Chad Irby
> > wrote:
>
> > So which is more likely? That someone hid a pile of chemical weapons (a
> > medium-sized arsenal of the things would fit in a building the size of a
> > house) in a country the size of California, versus your contention that
> > they didn't have any and were complying with the UN sanctions?
>
> Or something in between. There were some prototypes hidden away, and one
> or more was given to people setting up IEDs.

....but the people handing them out didn't bother to mention that they
needed to be fired out of a cannon to work?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Original comments restored to show just how dishonest you are.
>
> Actually, that's a quote of Mr. Adams' comment.

....and since you quoted it, you commented on it.

That's two low-quality lies in a row.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Chad Irby
> wrote:

> In article >,
> Howard Berkowitz > wrote:
>
> > In article >, Chad Irby
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > So which is more likely? That someone hid a pile of chemical weapons
> > > (a
> > > medium-sized arsenal of the things would fit in a building the size
> > > of a
> > > house) in a country the size of California, versus your contention
> > > that
> > > they didn't have any and were complying with the UN sanctions?
> >
> > Or something in between. There were some prototypes hidden away, and
> > one
> > or more was given to people setting up IEDs.
>
> ...but the people handing them out didn't bother to mention that they
> needed to be fired out of a cannon to work?


Quite possibly not, if it was a manager that didn't understand the
details.

If I had an engineering knowledge of the weapon, and wanted to throw
fear into the Americans, I might suggest they use a small charge --
really just a burster, and hope for some local mixing. GB is more
likely to work that way than VX -- binary VX is far more likely to burn.
Again, my purpose is terror, not wiping out a large force.

[WalterM140]

>>>Your history is failing you again. But, I digress. The fact of the
>>>matter is that US containment policy was consistent from Truman
>>>through the collapse of the SU in 1989. To ascribe it to one party or
>>>the other is definitely revisionist.
>>>
>>
>>But to give credit to Reagan alone -- per you- is not.
>>
>>Surely you can do better than this.
>>
>>Walt
>>
>
>I think that most readers would say I did do better. You started by
>saying that Reagan was the worst president (a near tie, according to
>you with Bush 43.) You asserted that he always took the easy way out.

That's all true.

Reagan approved illegal activity. He should have been impeached and convicted.

>
>I responded with a number of Reagan policies that were significant.

Tax cuts don't show courage. Trading arms for hostages doesn't show courage.
Going behind Congress and the People's back doesn't show courage.

I
>did not say that the SU collapsed because of a policy of
>containment--you did.

You indicated that Reagan could take credit, which is simplistic and wrong.

>
>I DID say that Reagan's reversal of the demilitarization, disarmament
>policies of Carter were instrumental in the collapse.

Carter was only president for 4 years.

The reversal of
>the trend started by Carter caused the Soviet response to demand more
>than their strained economy could sustain. That was the Reagan policy
>that I referred to.

The Minuteman missiles, the B-52 force, and the SSBN force were all in place
well before Carter took office. It was those type systems that the Soviets
couldn't match. It's true they finally imploded from trying to match us, but
Reagan just build on what went before -- and it wasn't a tough choice for him
to make. What would have been tough would have been to eschew the huge budget
deficits his policies produced -- but he didn't have the courage to do that. He
- always took the easy way out.

>
>One should also note that the generational shift in Soviet leadership
>from the 80-year old Stalinists to the new generation Gorbachev also
>led to reforms that hastened the collapse.

Reagan's luck.

Glasnost and perestroika
>opened the door to interactions that raised the expectations of the
>Soviet people and created demand for change.
>

Thanks for suggesting it had little to do with Reagan.


>Once again, complexity over simplicity leads to understanding of what
>went on.
>

I'm quite familiar with all those themes.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>> >> If we had to incur 5,000 casualties in the war on terror, they should
>> >> not have been incurred in Iraq.
>> >
>> >Well, besides the fact that it's been one of the big financial and
>> >logistical supporters of worldwide terror for a long, long time,
>>
>> Source?
>
>Saddam Hussein.

Quotes? You're edging up on something, but I don't know what.

He used to take loud personal credit for his support of
>terror groups like Hamas (giving cash to families of people who sent
>kids off to be suicide bombers) and sheltering (for example) one of the
>fugitives from the first WTC attack.

Whatever Saddam did or said, wiser heads than yours have said the invasion of
Iraq was unncessary. You might could gainsay those wiser heads, but you
haven't done it yet.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>"General Zinni said that he generally avoids generalizations about the
>general belief of all generals, but, in this case, he believes the
>general consensus of generals is that the general policy of containment
>was, in general, effective."
>

That's generally true. His lieutenants have called the invasion a major
mistake. The Bush administration needs corporal punishment.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>> Who knew we were being lied to about WMD? We never should
>> have believed that bum and his neocon liars..
>>
>
>To date, nobody has shown any statement made by the Bush administration in
>support of the war to be a lie.
>

They've told a number of lies.

They lied about the rationale for the war. There were never any WMD. That's
been well shown and Bush has admitted it himself.

They lied about, or were wrong about:

How the Iraqis would react to our invasion. We didn't get the flowers and
adulation they suggested.

That the Iraqi oil industry could pay for rebuilding the country.

They decided to suspend the Geneva Convention in Iraq. But they didn't bother
to tell anyone.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>Oh, boy, another, "It is not WMD unless it meets my (ever changing)
>definition of the *amount* required!"

We're talking -one- shell in -one- year.

Can you cite someone who said, "here is my criterion"? That would the only way
you could show an "ever changing" definition.

Is the Bush campaign paying you?

[WalterM140]

>When all is said and done, your arguments are sophomoric and thoroughly
>unconvincing. They're not worthy of individual responses.

That -is- pretty much the deal with Ed Rasimus, I agree.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>>I was damn lucky to go to war in a war we all believed in with all our
>hearts.
>>This is a war nobody believes in any more. And the liar has been exposed for
>>what he is. He sends men to fight and die which is something he was never
>>willing to do.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>There are some veterans, educated, and knowledgeable folks who clearly
>understand the necessity for this war and the goals that need to be
>achieved to develop a sustainable peace in the Middle East and
>security in the homeland.

Here's another case of your not being able to express yourself with precision,
Ed.

No one is denying that we need to fight a war on terror. Many much more
credible persons than yourself have said attacking Iraq was a mistake. And it
was. We are no safer for it.

You can't generalize your opinion and apply
>it wholesale to the world.
>
>What lies? Sarin found last week.

That's pitiful. One round.

Al-Qaeda involved in the beheading
>of Nick Berg.

Alleged, as someone else said.

Turn-over to the Iraqi provisional goverment by the end
>of this month....
>
>As for the willingness to die for the nation, I've got to support a
>guy who chose to spend four and a half years becoming an AF pilot and
>qualifying operationally in a single-seat, single-engine jet.

One who was AWOL for eight months.

GWB didn't even go to OCS. He skipped it. And one who mysteriously didn't
take a flight physical and lost his flying status after the tax payers had
shelled out a lot of money to get him where he -could- fly.

You may
>recall, Art, that tactical aircraft can kill you quite easily on any
>given day. Lemme see, four years in jets or four months in
>rowboats.....

That's pathetic. John Kerry was wounded three times. He volunteered to go to
war. GWB avoided going to war. Even Al Gore got as far as Saigon.

Walt

[WalterM140]

>If the media had examined Kerry's Vietnam era military service the same way
>they examined Bush's, the Democrats would have dropped Vietnam as a campaign
>issue months ago.
>

Bush was AWOL for eight months.

Walt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bush was AWOL for eight months.
>

Prove it.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 6/2/04 4:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>If the media had examined Kerry's Vietnam era military service the same way
>>they examined Bush's, the Democrats would have dropped Vietnam as a campaign
>>issue months ago.
>>
>
>Bush was AWOL for eight months.
>
>Walt
>

If you or I were AWOL for 8 months it would have been 20 years at Levenworth.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
>From: (WalterM140)
>Date: 6/2/04 3:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>"General Zinni said that he generally avoids generalizations about the
>>general belief of all generals, but, in this case, he believes the
>>general consensus of generals is that the general policy of containment
>>was, in general, effective."
>>
>
>That's generally true. His lieutenants have called the invasion a major
>mistake. The Bush administration needs corporal punishment.
>
>Walt
>

They will get it in November.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[George Z. Bush]

Pete wrote:
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Pete" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Various cultures and equipment hidden away and *never*
>>>> discovered by UNSCOM?
>>>
>>> If they could bury an entire MiG-25 (found only by the shifting sands
>>> revealing a tail), what else is buried out there?

If you were an Iraqi pilot, would you want to fly a plane that had been buried
in the desert sand for two or more years with all of its electrical systems
cooked and dried out by the searing heat?
Any pilot stupid enough to do that might be a bold pilot, but he'd never make it
long enough to become an old one.
>>
>> Ah, but if we use the analysis method employed by those folks claiming that
>> Saddam was not violating the requirements regarding WMD's, then those Migs
>> are not evidence of "aircraft", 'cause you have to have at least one hundred
>> of them, or more, before you can even *consider* them being "aircraft",
>> right? A chemical round of a type that Saddam never revealed having *any*
>> of, maybe developed as a product of an R&D effort that post-dated 687, an
>> alleged mustard round, along with other "undiscovered" things like the ricin
>> program, the hidden cultures, equipment, documents, and even *people*, don't
>> equal his violation of the requirements of 687 and evidence his continued
>> efforts to develop WMD's in spite of the restrictions, now do they? :-)

Everybody knows that Sadaam had chemical weapons back in the 80s....he used them
against the Iranis and against his own rebellious Kurds, and we are the ones who
sent people over there to teach his troops how to do it without killing
themselves. So, we found ONE left-over, after a year of searching, out of all
of the thousands he may have had at one time. So what? It was no threat to our
nation or to our troops as our leaders well knew when they started the war.
>>
>
> Exactly. We hear the oft repeated chant "There were no WMD's! Bush lied!"
>
> Ok...*when* were there none? Evidently, in between 1988 (documented use) and
> Dec 2002, we're supposed to believe that all WMD's ceased to exist in Iraq.
>
> Why was this not found out, and why didn't whoever was in power at the time
> sing it from the rooftops? Seems that would have been a slam dunk for the
> then current ruling party.

You want the Iraqis to prove that they didn't have what they said they didn't
have. If you think proving a negative is so easy, why don't you try proving
that our sadistic jailers didn't know how to provide humane treatment to their
prisoners? You'd not only have to prove that they signed off on getting such
training, but you'd also have to prove that they didn't just sign off on
it.....that they actually received the training and that they were paying
attention and understood what they were being taught. How do you do that? I
dunno....you tell me! A lot easier said than done, isn't it?

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

WalterM140 wrote:
>> If the media had examined Kerry's Vietnam era military service the same way
>> they examined Bush's, the Democrats would have dropped Vietnam as a campaign
>> issue months ago.
>>
>
> Bush was AWOL for eight months.

Walt, I have to wonder why that slack media doesn't get credit for reporting
that one of Kerry's supervisors in Viet Nam who had written a glowing fitness
report on him at the time and who now, thirty plus years later, came out from
under his rock whining that he didn't really mean it and that Kerry really did a
lousy job. Doesn't that kind of examination and reporting of minutia count? I
think Vietnam IS an issue and it'll remain one.

George Z.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> They will get it in November.
>

Bush will be reelected.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Pete wrote:
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Pete" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> >>>
> >>>> Various cultures and equipment hidden away and *never*
> >>>> discovered by UNSCOM?
> >>>
> >>> If they could bury an entire MiG-25 (found only by the shifting sands
> >>> revealing a tail), what else is buried out there?
>
> If you were an Iraqi pilot, would you want to fly a plane that had been
buried
> in the desert sand for two or more years with all of its electrical
systems
> cooked and dried out by the searing heat?
> Any pilot stupid enough to do that might be a bold pilot, but he'd never
make it
> long enough to become an old one.
> >>
> >> Ah, but if we use the analysis method employed by those folks claiming
that
> >> Saddam was not violating the requirements regarding WMD's, then those
Migs
> >> are not evidence of "aircraft", 'cause you have to have at least one
hundred
> >> of them, or more, before you can even *consider* them being "aircraft",
> >> right? A chemical round of a type that Saddam never revealed having
*any*
> >> of, maybe developed as a product of an R&D effort that post-dated 687,
an
> >> alleged mustard round, along with other "undiscovered" things like the
ricin
> >> program, the hidden cultures, equipment, documents, and even *people*,
don't
> >> equal his violation of the requirements of 687 and evidence his
continued
> >> efforts to develop WMD's in spite of the restrictions, now do they? :-)
>
> Everybody knows that Sadaam had chemical weapons back in the 80s....he
used them
> against the Iranis and against his own rebellious Kurds, and we are the
ones who
> sent people over there to teach his troops how to do it without killing
> themselves. So, we found ONE left-over, after a year of searching, out
of all
> of the thousands he may have had at one time. So what? It was no threat
to our
> nation or to our troops as our leaders well knew when they started the
war.

ONE? Sorry, Georgie/Hal, but that little fabrication is getting a bit weak,
even for you. One binary sarin round, apparently one mustard round, a ricin
development program, hiding of bio cultures and equipment...are you
beginning to see the error isn the "one" bit?

> >>
> >
> > Exactly. We hear the oft repeated chant "There were no WMD's! Bush
lied!"
> >
> > Ok...*when* were there none? Evidently, in between 1988 (documented use)
and
> > Dec 2002, we're supposed to believe that all WMD's ceased to exist in
Iraq.
> >
> > Why was this not found out, and why didn't whoever was in power at the
time
> > sing it from the rooftops? Seems that would have been a slam dunk for
the
> > then current ruling party.
>
> You want the Iraqis to prove that they didn't have what they said they
didn't
> have.

No, even YOU have to now admit they DID have some remaining, as that sarin
round indicates (they only acknowledged performing some R&D towards such
rounds, no production whatsoever), not to mention the mustard round. The
issue of their other prohibited activities (ricin, hiding of
ultures/equipment/documents) just reinforces the fact that they were in
violation. I guess you find it completely excusable that EACH of Saddam's
various "full, final, and complete" disclosures to the UN over the
intervening years proved to be neither full, final, or complete--in each
case he grudgingly added any items dug up by the inspectors after his
previous "full, final, and complete" disclosure. But now you want to defend
them as being forthright and honest about their WMD programs? God, it must
really stink that the facts are not falling into line with your own
sentiments and preconceived notions in this case, which is perhaps why you
just choose to ignore them?

Brooks


If you think proving a negative is so easy, why don't you try proving
> that our sadistic jailers didn't know how to provide humane treatment to
their
> prisoners? You'd not only have to prove that they signed off on getting
such
> training, but you'd also have to prove that they didn't just sign off on
> it.....that they actually received the training and that they were paying
> attention and understood what they were being taught. How do you do that?
I
> dunno....you tell me! A lot easier said than done, isn't it?
>
> George Z.
>
>

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(WalterM140) wrote:

> >>>Your history is failing you again. But, I digress. The fact of the
> >>>matter is that US containment policy was consistent from Truman
> >>>through the collapse of the SU in 1989. To ascribe it to one party or
> >>>the other is definitely revisionist.
> >>>
> >>
> >>But to give credit to Reagan alone -- per you- is not.
> >>
> >>Surely you can do better than this.
> >>
> >>Walt
> >>
> >
> >I think that most readers would say I did do better. You started by
> >saying that Reagan was the worst president (a near tie, according to
> >you with Bush 43.) You asserted that he always took the easy way out.
>
> That's all true.
>
> Reagan approved illegal activity. He should have been impeached and
> convicted.

Aside from the reality with Clinton, I've now heard suggestions that
LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 43 be impeached. We've had the California
circus of recall.

Impeachment and recall are the large thermonuclear weapons, approaching
doomsday machines, of American politics. Polarized views and the
demonizing of dissent are, at least, cluster munitions.

There comes a point where real-time revenge, and real-time investigative
journalism and partisan witch-hunts become an inherent danger to the
viability of the political process. Most Presidents have approved some
form of illegal activity. For "thermonuclear release", there needs to
be a clear and present danger to the Constitution. While Nixon, for
whom I actively campaigned, was showing a fairly extensive pattern of
violations, I can find Reagan's Iran-Contra and Clinton's zipper worthy,
perhaps, of censure. I find it very difficult to see these events of an
importance that has a significant chance of inhibiting the rest of
government, as all eyes focus on the center ring.

[William Wright]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51...
<snip>
> Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have
> conquered Mexico City by June of '42.


And yet we in reality attacked FRENCH North Africa in November 1942. Since
we were not at war with the French at the time and they had nothing what
ever to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, with your simple reasoning that was
a bad. Perhaps you should leave strategy and grand strategy to the people
who actually formulate it.

>
> Cheers
>
> --mike
> >
> >

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article <IImvc.32080$3x.1788@attbi_s54>, "William Wright"
> wrote:

> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51...
> <snip>
> > Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have
> > conquered Mexico City by June of '42.
>
>
> And yet we in reality attacked FRENCH North Africa in November 1942.
> Since
> we were not at war with the French at the time and they had nothing what
> ever to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, with your simple reasoning that
> was
> a bad. Perhaps you should leave strategy and grand strategy to the people
> who actually formulate it.

Before the TORCH invasions, Vichy had been given a British ultimatum to
have the North African fleet sail to a neutral or allied port, scuttle
them, or suffer the consequences of having them destroyed. Britain was
at war with Germany, and had substantial concerns that the French
vessels might be taken by the Axis.

By 1942, of course, the US was also at war with Germany. The French
were sheltering and supporting German forces. Neutrality becomes
stretched or violated when one side is providing protection or support
to the others. The principal purpose of TORCH was to go after German and
Italian forces that happened to be in French territory. The US and UK
also had not recognized Vichy. Much the same as recently in
Afghanistan, where the Taliban were told they would be left alone if
they stopped providing al-Qaeda with sanctuary.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>
> They've told a number of lies.
>

Prove it.


>
> They lied about the rationale for the war.
>

They didn't.


>
> There were never any WMD.
>

A great many Kurds would disagree with you on that. Unfortunately, they
can't. They were killed by Iraqi WMD.


>
> That's been well shown and Bush has admitted it himself.
>

Nonsense. It hasn't been shown at all and Bush certainly didn't "admit"
anything.


>
> They lied about, or were wrong about:
>
> How the Iraqis would react to our invasion. We didn't get the flowers and
> adulation they suggested.
>
> That the Iraqi oil industry could pay for rebuilding the country.
>
> They decided to suspend the Geneva Convention in Iraq. But they didn't
bother
> to tell anyone.
>

So which of these are lies and which are errors?

[Ron]

>
>They've told a number of lies.
>
>They lied about the rationale for the war. There were never any WMD. That's
>been well shown and Bush has admitted it himself.
>

So did they know that beforehand?

And if it was a lie, was it a lie too when Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy and Albright
said there were WMD?


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>
> ...and since you quoted it, you commented on it.
>
> That's two low-quality lies in a row.
>

com·ment Pronunciation Key (kmnt)
n.
1..
1.. A written note intended as an explanation, illustration, or
criticism of a passage in a book or other writing; an annotation.
2.. A series of annotations or explanations.
2..
1.. A statement of fact or opinion, especially a remark that expresses a
personal reaction or attitude.
2.. An implied conclusion or judgment: a novel that is a comment on
contemporary lawlessness.
3.. Talk; gossip: a divorce that caused much comment.
4.. Computer Science. A string of text in a program that does not function
in the program itself but is used by the programmer to explain instructions.
5.. Linguistics. The part of a sentence that provides new information
about the topic. Also called rheme.

v. com·ment·ed, com·ment·ing, com·ments
v. intr.
1.. To make a comment; remark.
2.. To serve as a judgmental commentary: "Her demise comments on [the
Upper East Side's] entire way of life" (Mark Muro).

[Paul J. Adam]

In message et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I guess "near universal" can exclude a lot of people, then.

>Such as?

Porton Down.

>> And a few other folks with knowledge of the subject.
>>
>
>Such as?

See above.

>> When an Iraqi government source told you it was sunny, bring an
>> umbrella.
>>
>
>Exactly.

But even liars can sometimes be correct.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> Porton Down.
>

I never heard of this person. Who is he?

[Brett]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Porton Down.
> >
>
> I never heard of this person. Who is he?

It isn't a "he", it is the primary chemical and biological weapons research
establishment in the UK, and it has been since 1916.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> It isn't a "he", it is the primary chemical and biological weapons
research
> establishment in the UK, and it has been since 1916.
>

Doh! And here I was thinking, for a guy who claimed there were "a lot of
people" that disputed prewar Iraq had significant WMD, how odd he could only
name one. Now it turns out he couldn't name any!

[Paul J. Adam]

In message et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > writes
>
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Porton Down.
>>
>
>I never heard of this person. Who is he?

It's a place, not a person - and if the name means nothing to you, then
you're too ignorant to talk to. Which would be a shame.

It's where the UK does its chemical, biological and radiological warfare
work. Purely defensive, of course, and a side-effect is some
marvellously preserved downland that hasn't seen a farmer for over a
century.

Colleagues who work there were students on the same "train for field
deployment" course as me: but they were hauled off in mid-course to be
sent to Iraq to look for WMEs. They didn't find any despite being told
exactly where to look and what to look for.

This inspires a certain cynicism about our marvellous intelligence
picture of Iraqi operations.



--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Mike Dargan]

William Wright wrote:
> "Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
> news:E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51...
> <snip>
>
>>Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have
>>conquered Mexico City by June of '42.
>
>
>
> And yet we in reality attacked FRENCH

Vichy France.

Cheers

--mike
North Africa in November 1942. Since
> we were not at war with the French at the time and they had nothing what
> ever to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, with your simple reasoning that was
> a bad. Perhaps you should leave strategy and grand strategy to the people
> who actually formulate it.
>
>
>>Cheers
>>
>>--mike
>>
>>>
>
>

[WalterM140]

>> Bush was AWOL for eight months.
>>
>
>Prove it.

"Yeah, the mainstream media have really kept a lid on this one. We wouldn't
know anything about Bush going AWOL if it hadn't been for that obscure
underground newspaper the Boston Globe, which broke the story nationally in May
2000. But you're right that coverage has been pretty thin. A few months after
the 2000 election, former Bill Clinton adviser Paul Begala said he'd done a
Nexis search and found 13,641 stories about Clinton's alleged draft dodging
versus 49 about George W. Bush's military record. Why the disparity? We'll get
to that.

First the basics: Yes, it's true, Bush didn't report to his guard unit for an
extended period--17 months, by one account. It wasn't considered that serious
an offense at the time, and if circumstances were different now I'd be inclined
to write it off as youthful irresponsibility. However, given the
none-too-subtle suggestion by the Bush administration that opponents of our
Iraqi excursion lack martial valor, I have to say: You guys should talk.

Here's the story as generally agreed upon: In January 1968, with the Vietnam
war in full swing, Bush was due to graduate from Yale. Knowing he'd soon be
eligible for the draft, he took an air force officers' test hoping to secure a
billet with the Texas Air National Guard, which would allow him to do his
military service at home. Bush didn't do particularly well on the test--on the
pilot aptitude section, he scored in the 25th percentile, the lowest possible
passing grade. But Bush's father, George H.W., was then a U.S. congressman from
Houston, and strings were pulled. The younger Bush vaulted to the head of a
long waiting list--a year and a half long, by some estimates--and in May of '68
he was inducted into the guard.

By all accounts Bush was an excellent pilot, but apparently his enthusiasm
cooled. In 1972, four years into his six-year guard commitment, he was asked to
work for the campaign of Bush family friend Winton Blount, who was running for
the U.S. Senate in Alabama. In May Bush requested a transfer to an Alabama Air
National Guard unit with no planes and minimal duties. Bush's immediate
superiors approved the transfer, but higher-ups said no. The matter was delayed
for months. In August Bush missed his annual flight physical and was grounded.
(Some have speculated that he was worried about failing a drug test--the
Pentagon had instituted random screening in April.) In September he was ordered
to report to a different unit of the Alabama guard, the 187th Tactical
Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush says he did so, but his nominal
superiors say they never saw the guy, there's no documentation he ever showed
up, and not one of the six or seven hundred soldiers then in the unit has
stepped forward to corroborate Bush's story.

After the November election Bush returned to Texas, but apparently didn't
notify his old Texas guard unit for quite a while, if ever. The Boston Globe
initially reported that he started putting in some serious duty time in May,
June, and July of 1973 to make up for what he'd missed. But according to a
piece in the New Republic, there's no evidence Bush did even that. Whatever the
case, even though his superiors knew he'd blown off his duties, they never
disciplined him. (No one's ever been shot at dawn for missing a weekend guard
drill, but policy at the time was to put shirkers on active duty.) Indeed, when
Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of 1973, he
requested and got an honorable discharge--eight months before his service was
scheduled to end.

Bush's enemies say all this proves he was a cowardly deserter. Nonsense. He was
a pampered rich kid who took advantage. Why wasn't he called on it in a serious
way during the 2000 election? Probably because Democrats figured they'd get
Clinton's draft-dodging thing thrown back at them. Not that it matters. If
history judges Bush harshly--and it probably will--it won't be for screwing up
as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war.

--CECIL ADAMS

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>> If they could bury an entire MiG-25 (found only by the shifting sands
>> revealing a tail), what else is buried out there?
>
>Ah, but if we use the analysis method employed by those folks claiming that
>Saddam was not violating the requirements regarding WMD's, then those Migs
>are not evidence of "aircraft", 'cause you have to have at least one hundred
>of them, or more, before you can even *consider* them being "aircraft",
>right?

Iraq's large and capable air force is a major and pressing threat that
must be neutralised immediately...

Okay, we found a buried MiG-25, isn't that a "large and capable" air
force?

>A chemical round of a type that Saddam never revealed having *any*
>of,

Yet which we knew he was working on.

>maybe developed as a product of an R&D effort that post-dated 687,

Or that predated 687.

>an
>alleged mustard round,

Because out of 200,000 rounds produced, one round turning up is absolute
proof?

Do I scent desperation here?


From "Hussein may be exporting kilotons of WME to his US-hating
neigbbours" we're down to "we've found one or two decade-old shells".

There were supposedly vast factories and stockpiles of chemical and/or
biological weapons. It seems our intelligence was incorrect, since those
vast stockpiles and the factories that produced them remain elusive.


The claim was that there was a clear and obvious threat. Where was it?
What made Iraq so special compared to more evident proliferators and
producers of WME?

I asked eighteen months ago and never got an answer.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> Thousands-to-one odds, anyway.
>
>Nope. Millions. Out of the couple of dozen artillery rounds

How many shells do you think have been used as IEDs? It's not 'dozens'.

>that have
>been set as roadside IEDs, versus the tens of millions of rounds of
>artillery shells they had available.

Trouble is, you're into sample size. They might have umpty-squadrillion
shells still sitting in depots (and probably do - Iraq has some _huge_
arms depots that still defy proper securing) but only one shell so far
has been filled with sarin instead of HE.

(Out of interest, has anyone *reported* cases where IEDs were rigged
with smoke shells, leaflet shells, or blue practice shells? If you think
only a few dozen shells have been used for IEDs, you have a serious
learning curve to climb)

>So which is more likely? That someone hid a pile of chemical weapons (a
>medium-sized arsenal of the things would fit in a building the size of a
>house) in a country the size of California, versus your contention that
>they didn't have any and were complying with the UN sanctions?

Where was that my contention?

You want a debate, you need to stop telling me what I think.


If they *had* a decent chemical weapon stockpile, why have they waited
so long to use it, why have they used it in such an ineffective manner,
and why weren't we able to find it in the last year-plus since our
leaders claimed to know that these weapons existed and exactly where
they were?


If there's a lesson here, it's "don't overrrule the analysts".

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

> In message >, Kevin Brooks
> > writes
> >"Pete" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> If they could bury an entire MiG-25 (found only by the shifting sands
> >> revealing a tail), what else is buried out there?
> >
> >Ah, but if we use the analysis method employed by those folks claiming
> >that
> >Saddam was not violating the requirements regarding WMD's, then those
> >Migs
> >are not evidence of "aircraft", 'cause you have to have at least one
> >hundred
> >of them, or more, before you can even *consider* them being "aircraft",
> >right?
>
> Iraq's large and capable air force is a major and pressing threat that
> must be neutralised immediately...
>
> Okay, we found a buried MiG-25, isn't that a "large and capable" air
> force?
>

Do not ignore the threat to anyone standing behind the fighter when the
engine starts blowing out the sand.

[Pete]

"WalterM140" > wrote

>
> They've told a number of lies.
>
> They lied about the rationale for the war. There were never any WMD.

At what point between 1991 and today did that statement become true? What
day was it that?

Pete

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Kevin Brooks
> > writes
> >"Pete" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> If they could bury an entire MiG-25 (found only by the shifting sands
> >> revealing a tail), what else is buried out there?
> >
> >Ah, but if we use the analysis method employed by those folks claiming
that
> >Saddam was not violating the requirements regarding WMD's, then those
Migs
> >are not evidence of "aircraft", 'cause you have to have at least one
hundred
> >of them, or more, before you can even *consider* them being "aircraft",
> >right?
>
> Iraq's large and capable air force is a major and pressing threat that
> must be neutralised immediately...
>
> Okay, we found a buried MiG-25, isn't that a "large and capable" air
> force?

You need to calibrate your "humor" switch.

>
> >A chemical round of a type that Saddam never revealed having *any*
> >of,
>
> Yet which we knew he was working on.

Which he claimed was R&D only, with no weapons listed as produced from the
effort. This was a weapon. It was not reported. Bad on him; you can defend
Saddam all you want in this regard, but it is clear he did not provide a
"full, final, and complete" accounting of all WMD's he had built, since he
did not report this one. Hence a violation of the terms he was supposed to
be operating under.

>
> >maybe developed as a product of an R&D effort that post-dated 687,
>
> Or that predated 687.

Big question mark. Saddam did not declare any rounds produced of this nature
at any time--being as his disclosures did include some pretty "low density"
items (numbers in the single and double digits for other systems), then why
was this left out? Neither UNSCOM nor the later UNMOVIC were able to reach
any kind of definitive conclusion about exactly *what* the Iraqis had or had
not been able to do, or did, in terms of manufacturing 155mm binary rounds.
Interestingly, Saddam did not see fitt to even acknowledge the R&D effort
(which he was required to do) until after it was discovered via some
documentaion by UNSCOM inspectors. But hey, you still want to defend him
here, right?

>
> >an
> >alleged mustard round,
>
> Because out of 200,000 rounds produced, one round turning up is absolute
> proof?

Back to the old, "How many weapons does a violation make?" argument, eh?

>
> Do I scent desperation here?

No, you scent disbelief that folks are still trying to defend Saddam and
claim that he was not guilty of continuing proscribed WMD activities, or of
hiding those that he had already conducted and wanted to keep out of sight.

>
>
> From "Hussein may be exporting kilotons of WME to his US-hating
> neigbbours" we're down to "we've found one or two decade-old shells".

That would be your quote, I presume? I mean, we all now know how willing you
are to doctor/create a quote and assign it to another poster, right?

>
> There were supposedly vast factories and stockpiles of chemical and/or
> biological weapons. It seems our intelligence was incorrect, since those
> vast stockpiles and the factories that produced them remain elusive.

Our intel in those regards may indeed have been incorrect. But that does not
change the FACT that Saddam was violating the requirements set forth before
him. Gee, I wonder *why* he was so interested in ricin, which is admittedly
not likely to be the best of battlefield agents, but would likely perform
nicely if used by terrorist types, or his own intel folks (you remember, the
same guys who were implicated in that kill-the-former-President scheme?).

>
>
> The claim was that there was a clear and obvious threat. Where was it?

Saddam continuing to work towards proscribed goals is good enough for me. I
personally don't think he was the kind of guy I'd want to be controlling
*any* WMD's, in whatever quantities; you may differ, but I could care less
to be honest. Then of course there were the other (non-WMD) related reasons
for conducting this operation--the ones that you can't seem to understand do
indeed exist?

> What made Iraq so special compared to more evident proliferators and
> producers of WME?
>
> I asked eighteen months ago and never got an answer.

Because your question remains as stupid now as it was then--and yes, you got
an answer, you just can't seem to (or more accurately don't want to) grasp
it. No standard playbook for handling threats/potential threats in the
geopolitical realm--it is all situationally dependent. I suspect you can
understand that, but apparently as usual you just find it easier to ignore
the obvious in your quest to, for some unknown reason, defend Saddam as the
poor whipping boy. BTW, did you notice that the Saudis have again been in
AQ's target ring? You remember--the country that IIRC you were claiming was
more of a threat to the US and more deserving of US action than Iraq?

Brooks

[Chad Irby]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > ...and since you quoted it, you commented on it.
> >
> > That's two low-quality lies in a row.
> >
>
> com·ment Pronunciation Key (kmnt)
> n.
> 1..
> 1.. A written note intended as an explanation, illustration, or
> criticism of a passage in a book or other writing; an annotation.

In other words, what you did.

And then denied you did.

That's three.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message et>,
> Steven P. McNicoll > writes
> >
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Porton Down.
> >
> >I never heard of this person. Who is he?
>
> It's a place, not a person - and if the name means nothing to you, then
> you're too ignorant to talk to. Which would be a shame.

Not in this case. McNicoll is one of those folks who thinks that
nothing he says really matters as long as he can keep denying it when
he's caught, after cutting out the relevant parts of his own posts.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.