If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#351
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Berkowitz wrote: In article , Chad Irby wrote: In article , Robey Price wrote: Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom? "Liberals" think we should leave nasty dictators in place forever and let them kill and abuse millions, while "conservatives" think we should kick out folks like Hussein and free those folks. Tell us again about that "freedom" thing. Tell us again about coherent, non-binary, non-demonizing definitions of "conservative" or of "liberal". I'd rather just use the self-applied labels that many politicians and their supporters use. Most of the folks who call themselves "liberals" or are called that by their friends are, when you get right down to it, not very "liberal" at all outside of a few, narrowly-defined opinions. An old-time "liberal" would have been right in the forefront when sending troops to fight a fascist dictator like Saddam Hussein, while the modern breed is quite content to leave them be. But you're right: when you get right down to it, "liberal" and "conservative" have become effectively meaningless when referring to the Democrat/Republican divide. You can get bizarre commonalities between people like Jeremy Rifkin and Pat Buchanan, for example, who have very similar opinions on much of the economy and foreign trade, but have some sharp discontinuities on many other social beliefs. Responses of I'm an XXX and everyone who disagrees with me is a YYY are not responsive. Neither is "define something for me and I'll nitpick it for a couple of days." For extra credit, reconcile your above statement with the ideas of Jeremy Bentham. So how many graduate-level credits do I get for it, who's doing the grading, and what are their credentials? -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#352
|
|||
|
|||
|
#353
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"WalterM140" wrote in message ... "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. Alleged? Something is alleged when it is represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved. There's nothing alleged about Clinton's draft-dodging. Clinton's real daddy was dead and his step-daddy a dud. Without a sponsor, what chance did he have of getting a cushy billet in TANG or any other country club? Clinton used his brains and work ethic to get ahead. Clinton's grades got him into graduate school and earned a Rhodes scholarship. The shrub's draft dodging was handled by daddy Bush as was his entry into an Ivy League MBA program. Clinton earned his way in life, the shrub had it handed to him on a platter. Cheers --mike Why the disparity? Probably because there had been eight more years to file stories on Clinton at that time. 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 So where's the proof? |
#354
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote I'd rather just use the self-applied labels that many politicians and their supporters use. Most of the folks who call themselves "liberals" or are called that by their friends are, when you get right down to it, not very "liberal" at all outside of a few, narrowly-defined opinions. An old-time "liberal" would have been right in the forefront when sending troops to fight a fascist dictator like Saddam Hussein, while the modern breed is quite content to leave them be. I think the modern breed, on both sides, is: "Whatever the other guy does is wrong. (even if it *is* the right thing to do)" "Whatever we do is right (even if it turns out to be badly wrong)" Pete |
#355
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Kevin Brooks writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... I'm not really seeing anything funny - I've got family currently being shot at because of this. Oh, spare us the attempt at gravity--you have often used sarcasm and ridicule when arguing this same subject. Yet now I am supposed to prostrate myself before you because "you've got family..."? Please... Fine, let me know so I can laugh when a relative of yours becomes a casualty. Wouldn't *that* be funny? Or would you need your "humor switch" recalibrating? Odd how you turned your humor switch back on when it came to postulating about "parking tickets" below--I guess you and only you set the rules for when it is appropriate? Or is it OK for you to make light of the situation, but noone else can? Heck of an opinion of yourself you have there... Of course, Iraqi accounting was always honest and believable? That is the point--it was not honest. Hence it was in violation. Case closed. In other words, war with Iraq was inevitable and unstoppable because of one shell? Impressive. He was in violation. On more than one count. Deal with it. And the discrepancy was noted years ago. Really? Can you point to where these unaccounted for binary weapons are mentioned in the UNSCOM or UNMOVIC reports? How many did they say were unaccounted for? Read the reports yourself, I've already cited them and given you URLs. I did read the reports--and oddly, I don't recall any discussion of true binary rounds being fabricated or unaccounted for. Can you point to the *specific* paragraph(s)? No? Of course he didn't! Trouble is, even *he* didn't know what he had. Geeze, your attempts to defend him are unbelievable-- Of course they're unbelieveable, because I'm not defending him. However, you go on building strawmen all you like. now you want to claim it was A-OK 'cause he did not know what he had? How does Hussein pose a threat with weapons he does not know about? That would actually be your strawman--you have a totalitarian leader who played games with the inspection process through the years, and now that things like a sarin round, a ricin development program, hidden equipment/cultures/documents, and maybe a mustard round to boot turn up, you postulate that, "Well, Saddam may not have known about them..." Weak--very weak. After you already acknowledged he was not being "honest" with his disclosures? Absolutely not. Some were complete fantasy: "production programs" were cited at places that were just empty desert, because the officer in charge had grabbed the money and absconded. I guess you missed the examples of his having overlooked weapons and programs thet *were* in place and not disclosed, eh? Which way is it--was he dishonest, and therefore in violation, or inept, and therefore in violation? Both - he was both dishonest and inept. And yet he didn't pose a WME threat. Was he in violation--yes or no? Simple question--even you should be able to answer it without too much quibbling. That's the trouble with looking at real life rather than political slogans. LOL! The guy who has advocated that we HAVE to handle ALL international problems in the EXACT same manner, regardless of individual circumstances, now wants to lecture about "real life"?! Now that's a good one! And it was claimed that he was hiding hundreds of tons of chemicals and entire production lines, and that was why we had to invade and secure that threat Right Now. Forty-five minutes from order to firing, with weapons able to reach as far as Cyprus - the UK Government claimed that was its experts' judgement. (Trouble is, when analysts say 'probably not' and the political advisors suggest 'can we delete that "not" to tighten up the sentence?' then the message changes a little in transit...) As it turns out... "whoops", to date. Wow. Faulty intel that does not reflect an accurate scope of the violations. That's a very generous understatement. Was he in violation? You really don't want to answer that question, do you? Who'd have thunk it? Of course, to use that hammer you have to ignore the fact that he was in violation in the first place... Indeed, he owned at least two chemical munitions. Of course, we can't go setting firm criteria for action, which may explain why two Iraqi shells demand immediate invasion while _real_ WME threats in the hands of proven terrorist supporters and weapons proliferators are politely ignored. Oh, joy! In the above you have not only managed to ignore his other numerous violations of 687, but have also managed to bring your "standard playbook for international crisis" back into play...and you want to talk about "real life"? Newsflash--"real life" does not equal Paulian World. Real life is twelve years of violations, some of which continued right up until he was attacked last spring, real life is understanding that different situations require different courses of action, real life is where all final courses of action do not have to occur simultaneously, and yes, real life is where "intelligence" and "intel analysis" are often faulty, though in this case that does not change the fact that yes, he was in violation on a number of issues. "Well, he was only a LITTLE bit guilty, not a *LOT* guilty! There was supposed to be a imminent and serious threat. Those seem to be your words. I just read a 2002 CNN report that outlines the then-just-released report from the White House which outlined the "case against Iraq". It does not claim that Saddam definitely had major stockpiles of chemical weapons, nor did it credit them with having any major delivery systems capable of handling such weapons. It *did* accuse Saddam of hiding biological warfare programs (that ricin development effort fits the bill there), notes his numerous violations of UN resolutions over the years, discrepancies in the accounting of chemical munitions as reported UNSCOM/UNMOVIC, human rights violations on a large scale, support for two terrorist groups (and no, AQ was not named as one of them), his support for suicide bombers, etc. You can peruse the report yourself at: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/iraq.report/ Not "cultures hidden in refrigerators", not "centrifuges buried for a decade", not single decade-old munitions. Actually, we said hidden biological warfare programs. That has proved to be true in the case of the ricin, not to mention those hidden cultures. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant... Now, you seem to believe that if Saddam Hussein owned a pair of used nail scissors then those could qualify as a weapon of mass effect (just imagine what you could catch if someone jabbed you with them! Plus you could have someone's *eye* out with those!). I'm more minded to stick to realistic definitions of the threat. OH, GOD! You are using HUMOR! How DARE you--don't you know some of your family members could be dying over there right NOW? Again, I sarcastically note your use of humor is A-OK...but the rest of us can't use that approach, eh? And that hidden equipment, cultures, documentation, etc....nah, he could *never* have been using that as a way of trying to preserve his program..." is not a reasonable approach, IMO. None of that is an immediate or imminent threat. Was he in violation in these regards? Yes. You've got him in custody, ask him. So, you can't come up with an excuse for the fact that he reported other low-density/R&D products, but not the one that we subsequently had used against us. Odd, that. I don't have access to the man to question him. Did he *know* he had binary sarin research underway? Or, just for giggles, what if it's a Syrian or Iranian import and not Iraqi at all? Yeah, he is obviously innocent of all charges because he had NO IDEA that his nation had been working on WMD efforts over the years, was completely unaware of Res 687, and just for good measure, he probably was completely unaware of those mass graves (and the poor souls who went into them). Why, he should be nominated for sainthood...nah, on second thought, all of that sounds pretty darned hokey. Lots of possibilities: you're drawing extremely firm conclusions from very limited data. He had a ricin program--firm data (unless you want to call Kay and his inspectors liars). That is a violation. He had a sarin round of a type that was never acknowledged as having been fabricated--another violation. he had cultures and equipment hidden away--another violation. Conclusion: He was in violation. You claim he did/may not know about any of this--too bad, they are still violations. End of story. Which makes insisting that they must be recent, something of a stretch, no? They were strongly suspected of having a R&D effort aimed at such rounds, and Iraq denied it, but then if you believe the Hussein regime then the US military was exterminated outside Baghdad and are currently having their bellies barbecued in Hell. Nobody has said they "must be recent"; OTOH, it does call into question the applicability of stating beyond a doubt that they predated ODS. I'm wary of turning speculation into certainty too quickly. What *is* certain is that we've still not found anything capable of producing those rounds in Iraq - and it's harder to hide production lines than individual munitions. Perhaps yet again it might be wise to wait for the results of the detailed analysis before making too many firm claims. Which is why I have not, AFAIK, made any "firm claims" that these rounds *had* to be of recent manufacture-- Oh, but Saddam was in violation by their mere existence regardless of their date, remember? That is true. Sorry, but that is the case. or are you going to resort to your doctoring-of-statements to put those words in my mouth, as you did a week or two ago when you falsely claimed that I had said that WMD's were not a factor in the decision to go to war? Stop bull****ting, Kevin. You repeatedly claimed that it wasn't just about WMEs - but yet you won't say what it *was* about. (When asked, you go very, very shy) Bull****. You have REPEATEDLY been given the other reasons--I gave them to you again and again. At least THIS time you got my statement regarding "it wasn't just about the WME's" correct--nice of you to include the freakin' *just* in the sentence THIS time. Inventing false accusations is a poor distraction. This is the third time I've explained that if there isn't a name and attribution to let it be traced, it's not a quote: it's the third time I've apologised for the misunderstanding: and I'm beginning to believe that you're more interested in histrionics than facts. You have yet to acknowledge that you got it wrong when you claimed I have been saying that WMD's were not a factor. See what happens when you start dissembling like that? Trust is a precious commodity, and you have tarnished that quality in your own case. Too bad, how sad, because you're failing to distinguish yourself by the integrity of your conduct here. Unlike you, I have not played footloose and fancy free with your statements and twisted them to say something completely different from what you actually said--you did. Unlike you, I have not completely ignored your answer to a question and then repeatedly claimed you never answered it in the first place. Those would be YOUR faults in this argument, not mine. Remember, we've gone from "significant and imminent" Iraqi WMEs, the evidence of which was reliable and solid (but of course too secret to share)... to odds and ends buried in gardens, hidden in fridges and used by insurgents in roadside IEDs. Yet you're insisting that nothing has changed? That "significant and immenent" would apparently be your words? I did not see either of them in that report about our case for Iraq? No, I'm just accustomed to the fact that he was both an accomplished liar and that he may not have known as much as he believed about the projects he sponsored. Shades of the Hitler days: you can report "encouraging progress" on the 250,000-ton fantasy battleship and get more funding to stay in Kiel, or you can admit it's a ludicrous pipedream and you and your entire design team can pick up your rifles and go fight on the Eastern Front. We're stuck with what we can find after a year and a half of searching, for the "true picture" of what he had. Is the US so grossly incompetent that, having much of the regime's top staff in custody and under interrogation, that it can't get *one* of them to admit to one of the Vast Concealed Stockpiles or the Hidden Underground Factories? It has shown that he continued to run at least one bio program up until the time we attacked. That is another violation. Are you noting that the number of violations keeps increasing as we go through this discussion? Of course - now, where are the threats? You are really going to avoid admitting he was in violation on numerous counts, aren't you? And as i said elsewhere, I see Saddam with any form of WMD program, or products thereof, as a serious threat. You don't. Luckily, you'll now never have to go through the agony of being proved wrong on that since Saddam has been removed from the equation. He had twelve years to get his act straight in terms of meeting the requirements of 687 (*all* of them), and we now know that he refused to do so even under threat of attack, yielding a justification the the area of WMD in my view--add to that the "other" reasons (missiles that exceeded the allowed range, continual NFZ violations, one assasination attempt on a former US President, harboring a couple of known terrorists, supporting suicide bombers, etc.)--you know, the ones I have given you before, but you claimed I never provided to you? In other words, pretty much business as ususal for the Middle East. Those are many of the reasons given in that White House report--you have repeatedly been given them , and you repeatedly claim I have not given any of them to you. Yep. One elderly shell isn't a threat. That's a fact we can both agree on. You measure chemical weapons in terms of tons of agent. Is it a violation? Sure. Is "a violation" a good enough reason to tie us down in Iraq for the next few years? See my comment above regarding Saddam and threat. And had you been on the ground that day when it went off (thankfully without acheiving a full yield of sarin), how much of a "threat" do you suppose it would have been to you? Less than a 155mm HE in that particular case. Not sure about that. 155 HE round goes off and, if they were following a normal convoy interval, based upon lethal burst radius of a 155mm HE, one vehicle with occupants gets whacked. A 155mm sarin round with a few liters of fully-cooked sarin goes off, and you have to consider downwind effects and you also have those folks who subsequently drove into the immediate area. These troops were not MOPPED up, and seeing what would appear (compared to the usual IED) to be a misfired IED going off (that burster charge is not that big) on the roadside would likely lead to them either immediately herringboning and dismounting, or even worse driving through the ambush point (which was our first choice when I was a CO--avoid stopping in the KZ at all costs). Which would have meant a fair number of exposed troops likely getting exposed to the agent. I think your analysis of how bad this could have been is about as accurate as the rest of your analysis in this discussion--not very. So, where are the weapons? There was supposed to be a threat. Where is it? You have been told this numerous times, but apparently you keep wanting to insert "great numbers of rounds in massive stockpiles" for the term "violations of 687". Read the UK government dossiers. Compare them to the reality on the ground. Wonder at the discrepancies between the case made for the operation, and the facts made on the ground. Maybe your government based its whole claim solely on "massive stockpiles"--our's did not, as that report I cited to you indicates. Uncle Tom Cobbley and all knew that Iraq was in violation of 687, would continue to try to violate 687, and even if by some miracle they renounced WME and tried to clean up their act, some stray munitions would still be adrift - therefore they could *never* fully, completely satisfy 687. The question is, were they so thoroughly in violation that they had produced workable weapons in effective quantities? No, that is YOUR question. Our contention is that they were in violation of numerous requirements, to include hiding bio warfare programs that were still ongoing, which proved to be true. I don't doctor quotes. The hell you don't. No, I don't, and I'm tiring of explaining this to you. You paraphrased me inaccurately, and when called upon it you trotted out my correct quote and then argued that the inclusion of *all* in it really did not change what you had claimed I had been saying. I'd call that doctoring--it sure as hell was not honest. Hence your past assertion that I was claiming WMD's were not a factor, when what I actually said was, "It is not *all* about WMD's." I'm noting your continued evasion on the "other factors". You are blind then. They have been given to you again..and again..and again. See the above: "...add to that the "other" reasons (missiles that exceeded the allowed range, continual NFZ violations, one assasination attempt on a former US President, harboring a couple of known terrorists, supporting suicide bombers, etc.)--you know, the ones I have given you before, but you claimed I never provided to you?" The fact that you claim they have still not been given to you at this point is just an example now of you now lying, 'cause sure as God made little green apples they have been given to you again, and again, and again... If I quote, I make it properly attributable so it can be checked. If you don't see a name on it, then it's not a quote. (Who would I be quoting? If I write "Kevin Brooks is a big fat poopie head" then who, precisely, is supposed to have said this and how could you challenge them?) I told you this already - I'm willing to be charitable and accept you ignored it in a fit of pique, but if you prefer I'll find a less amiable interpretation. I find false accusations unpleasant, personally, but again you may just have been indulging in histrionics and refused to read it. This one was a very true accusation. You had my quote, and you chose to leave out the "all" when you paraphrased it. And I didn't attribute it to you, or insist it was your exact wording, because *even you* immediately recognised it as a paraphrase rather than a quotation. Bull****. You sure as heel did attribute that to me. Do I have to go Google and restate your exact words to you?You claimed I said that WMD's were not a factor--that was wrong. Interestingly, you chose then - and continued to choose - to shriek about your wounded pride, rather than address the issue of "then what *were* the other factors"? You are lying again, I see--some of those other factors have repeatedly been given to you (see above). You screwed up, Paul--admit it. I did. I apologised. Several times. Either you didn't read, or didn't reply. Bull****--you are still denying in this very message that you ever even attributed the incorrect statement to me! You then compound that by lying again and again that I have never provided you any of the "other reasons" for going to war--when lists of those reasons have been provided to you repeatedly! In this very same thread, no less! I'm beginning to consider that you're using this as an invented diversion. Why is that not surprising, given that you are repeatedly lying? heck, you could have said, "Oops, I am sorry--I missed the "all" in that statement, my apologies, you did not claim that WMD were no facor in the decision." But no, you couldn't bring yourself to do that--you had to start wriggling, in the best traditions of your hero, Vkince. Your internal fantasy life must be very interesting to behold. Apparently I have a shrine to Saddam Hussein and worship the name of Brannigan? You have been acting a lot like him over this issue--if the shoe fits, wear it. Prior to that I held you in some regard--we might disagree, but you were honest and respectable. Now I place you somewhere just above Vkince on the honor scale--and that ain't real high, let me tell you. Well, Kevin, let me tell you just how hurt, wounded and mortified I feel that in between accusing me of being a Hussein appeaser you've decided you don't like me as much as you once did. You just don't get it, do you? It is your lying that I find offensive--the fact that you can't seem to get beyond defending Saddam is trivial in comparison. I'm sure he had some unpaid parking tickets too. "I'm not really seeing anything funny - I've got family currently being shot at because of this." Got off your high horse in a hurry there, didn't you? Absolutely. I can decide when to ride it and when not to, not you. So you really DO think you have the right decide when humor is allowed and when it is not? Could you maybe post the rules the rest of us have to follow, since they don't apply to you? And on that note I'll close this out; I can take only so much of your repetitive lies, your belief that it is OK for you to use tongue-in-cheek humor "but by-golly if the other guy does I'll set him straight!" bull****, your inane "I apoligized...but in actuality, I never said that, so no apology is due!" rants, etc. I could easily deal with you disagreeing with me as to the justifications for military action in this case--but I just can't stomach your lack of integrity, and I am really sorry I had misjudged you in that regard prior to the last couple of discussions revealing what you are truly like. You say that does not bother you-- to have such a "disposable" view in regards to one's reputation with others is kind of a sad situation. Brooks So what? Less than a ton is "research quantities" for other nations interested in self-defence against chemical weapons, and there's the minor _realpolitik_ that Iraq still has a border and a recent bloody war with Iran, who is *also* an enthusiastic producer of chemical weapons. Tricky to handle that one, unless you want to commit US troops to protecting the Shi'a south against an Iranian rescue from Iraq's hateful oppression... Sounds like you are making a case for justifying Saddam continuing WMD programs there--not going to get too far with that one. Just interested to know what the US position would be if the Iranians decide to stage Anschluss with Basra and the southern oilfields, using chemical weapons generously (claiming, of course, that it's just retaliation for Iraq's first use). Nor is your attempt to draw Iran into the framework of much use. You don't consider Iran to be a factor in the Middle East? Just what are you smoking and where can it be bought? Again, was he in violation of 687, on numerous accounts, or not? Of course he was. How could he *not* be in violation, with a sufficiently detailed and dogmatic accounting? Out of interest, since you're suddenly so fond of the UN, when was military action in response to the breach of 687 authorised? Because it's cheap and easy. You can cook up ricin in a domestic kitchen (we arrested a group doing just that in London). You can talk up how hugely lethal it is and how many thousands you could kill with Just This Test-Tube! While carefully skipping over the inconvenient problems of administration (best-known ricin victim is Georgi Markov - you're going to get an agent close enough to a President to jab an umbrella in his leg?) Ricin just needs castorbeans and some commercial equipment to produce. So in Paulian World, ricin is A-OK for Saddam to continue working on, and if he did acheive weaponization--oh, well, too bad, right? And in Paulian World work on ricin was not a violation of the terms of 687? No, and no, as you know well - but then who *has* achieved weaponised ricin? It's a vicious toxin when correctly administered, but the administration remains a massive and unsolved problem. (I have this vision of Iraqi troops with umbrellas trying to close with their enemies under fire...) Handy if you need an excuse, but not a serious threat. Chicken and egg - were they after ricin for its enormous battlefield effectiveness, or were they proudly developing a hugely lethal biological weapon for the glory of Saddam Hussein (may blessings rain from Heaven on His name) with resources they could easily get hold of and which they'd get funding and prestige for? It does not matter--it was a violation. And because it was "not just about the WMEs" then the least violation of 687 is complete casus belli? I'd be worried about the *confirmed* threats, but that's just me. You might want to look into the definition of "threat". IMO, Saddam with any amount of proscribed WMD's, or programs in search of same, constituted a definite "threat". Your mileage may differ. I'm more worried about the North Koreans, who have the weapons and the habit of exporting anything to anyone for cash; the Syrians, who also have the weapons and are enthusiastic terrorist supporters; the Iranians, who *also* have WMEs in significant quantity and a solid track record of sponsoring anti-US terrorism... need I go on? The ones you won't state? No, the ones I have repeatedly stated-- At last and after much prodding. You mean, Hussein sponsors suicide bombers against Israel - like Syria, like Iran, and like some of the more enthusiastic Saudi madrassahs? "Missiles that exceed the allowed range" - yes, that's a real one. They jerry-rigged some SA-2 engines together and produced a missile that, without payload, exceeded their maximum allowed range. (Give it a payload and it met the limit, but that's life) "continual NFZ violations" - how *dare* they defend their own airspace? And just how effective were those "violations"? When was the last time they fired a SAM with guidance, for instance? (The air defence teams had to put up a fight, so they lofted unguided missiles up and tried not to be where the retaliation landed) "one assasination attempt on a former US President" - this one's often asserted but the proof is lacking. Wasn't this while Bush Sr. was in Kuwait or Saudi, which are much more al-Qaeda's stamping grounds? Which of these pose any significant threat to the US and require an immediate invasion? Which of these isn't topped by other states in the region? (The US can't fly over Syria, who has many TBMs with chemical warheads and generously sponsors terrorists operating against Israel... but, of course, we must judge each case on its merits) Or perhaps I'm mistaken and you *did* state them - in which case I apologise (again) for missing them. Could you point me to them, please? (asked again) Asked and answered--repeatedly. Thank you. No, I didn't. "It's Iraq and it's a special case." was the best summary. Which may be true, but the evasiveness is an automatic hackle-raiser. No evasiveness required--just situational dependent, something you obviously refuse to grasp. So what made Iraq more of a threat than Syria? Or perhaps I'm more interested in real issues than demonising Saddam Hussein? Apparently no, since you keep tapdancing around the "was he in violation" Other nations are in violation, except that they weren't defeated and had 687 enacted upon them, question with your "only massive amounts fit the bill" bit. Militarily significant quanties. Are you claiming I ever said "massive amounts" or will you retract this heinous and dishonourable misquotation of my words? But how can this be? Aren't all the al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq? How can there be terrorists in other countries? Newsflash, but they are in lots of places. So it seems. Not quite what's been claimed, but then so much has been claimed it's often hard to keep track. That's okay - the hugely efficient Saudi military and security services will handle the problem. If they can't, the large US presence in the country will handle it. (Your last sentence is extremely troubling, though. How much do you actually understand about the general situation in Saudi Arabia, and the particulars of the House of Saud's relationship with the Wahabbi sect and al-Qaeda's reaction to all the above? Or do you really believe that "because al-Qaeda attacks in Saudi then the house of Saud must be their sworn enemies and our true and trusted allies?") Apparently my understanding is plenty realistic, unlike your's, which was IIRC a "why have you not attacked Saudid Arabia if you are attacking Iraq" gambit. You understand incorrectly, it seems. -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#356
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Chad Irby
writes "Liberals" think we should leave nasty dictators in place forever and let them kill and abuse millions, while "conservatives" think we should kick out folks like Hussein and free those folks. I got a degree from University College London, and have seen Jeremy Bentham's preserved body (he sits in one of the hallways, and is a required presence at meetings of the governing body). I'm not sure that you mean by "liberal" what many other people understand by "liberal". -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#357
|
|||
|
|||
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. Alleged? Something is alleged when it is represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved. There's nothing alleged about Clinton's draft-dodging. Clinton's not running. Follow this link to see a document that shows conclusively that Bush did not get the requisite 50 points for a satisfctory year of service: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/g...-73arfspe1.pdf So the record shows that Bush was dodging his commitment in Texas, Kerry was in contact with the NVA in the Mekong Delta. Walt |
#358
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"WalterM140" wrote in message ... "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. Alleged? Something is alleged when it is represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved. There's nothing alleged about Clinton's draft-dodging. Really? In that case, would you mind producing some proof that there was a court proceeding that found Clinton guilty of violating some portion of the Selective Service Act? You know, my dictionary defines "allege" as "to declare or assert without proof". If you have no proof, there's no other word you could use about the object of your affections than allege. You can't turn him into a criminal just because you don't like his politics or sex life. By way of example, many of Bush's critics think he was an unprosecuted AWOL or maybe even a deserter but, lacking proof and/or evidence of a successful prosecution, many amongst them refrain from making unsubstantiated charges like that. Don't you think it's time both Bush and Clinton got a vacation from having mud thrown at them for stuff nobody has yet proved that they did? It's unseemly to treat our presidents that way, even the ones we don't like. George Z. |
#360
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... Fine, let me know so I can laugh when a relative of yours becomes a casualty. Wouldn't *that* be funny? Or would you need your "humor switch" recalibrating? Odd how you turned your humor switch back on when it came to postulating about "parking tickets" below--I guess you and only you set the rules for when it is appropriate? Or is it OK for you to make light of the situation, but noone else can? Heck of an opinion of yourself you have there... That's a standard tactic with some folks. Say something obnoxious or dumb, and when someone calls them on it, accuse them of "not having a sense of humor" or something similar. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Home Built | 3 | May 14th 04 11:55 AM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 10th 04 11:06 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |