General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"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?

Hey, you turn rules on and off as you see fit, why can't I?

Or is it OK for you to make light of the situation,
but noone else can?

You need to recalibrare your humour switch.

(Now, where did I recently hear something on those lines? )

Your dishonesty is growing-- you are the fellow who has taken the "this is
no laughing matter" approach, yet when *you* see fit, you toss in the witty
remarks. Double standard much?


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 resolution authorised immediate invasion in the event of alleged
violation?

Trouble with resolutions is looking at what they actually say.

The resolution passed by our congress did.


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?

Yes (Again). Did you not read the last two times I showed you this, or
did you just not bother to reply?


First source found at
http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport/dis_chem.htm

+++++
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.
+++++

No production, that's agreed by the UN inspectors. (Mind you, apparently
they're all useless incompetents, so who knows what pre-1991 projects
they overlooked). Development alleged but not found, though pointers
were certainly seen. Not proven, but strongly alleged, that research was
underway: just stated confidence that "industrial production was not
found".

So what you are saying is that there is no mention of any
production/fabrication--as I said. So your, "And the discrepancy was noted
years ago" is a bit off, as the UN never noted any evidence of binary rounds
*existing*, and the Iraqis never acknowledged their existance--again, as I
have been saying.


Of course, US search teams - much more honest and reliable than the UN,
and free to move as they willed led by their excellent intelligence -
would *surely* not miss such a significant project?

I guess the shell found just materialized from thin air, then?


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.

No, simple fact. The ricin program? Let's assume it basked in the
Glorious Leader's favour. So what is it going to _do_? If you can get an
enemy soldier or civilian subdued enough to inject them with ricin, you
could just have cut their throat much more cheaply and effectively. (And
unless you're building James Bond-style autoloading umbrellas or Van
Helsing-style dartguns, an AK-47 is just as effective for spray-and-pray
on a crowd and suicide bombers' vests even more so). But it's a "deadly
toxin" and you can boast - with complete truth - that you hold "the
deaths of ten thousand Americans" in one test-tube and have succeeded
where so many others have failed. (Administering it is the problem, but
that's the difference between salesmanship and engineering)

A violation, it is. A threat, it isn't.

Finally, you admit it is a violation. Case closed.

snip meaningless material, since you now admit he was in violation

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?

Go and find a dictionary. Look up the definitions of "some" and "all".
Notice that they are not identical.

Then carry out a careful count of the WME production programs found to
date in Iraq since the occupation. Having found that it tends towards a
round number, count again to confirm.

He was in violation, you mean. Glad you now understand that.


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.

Of course he was in violation.

Good.

snip more materiel made meaningless by admission he was in violation


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!

No, just the guy who wonders why "if violations of A, B, C and D are all
'urgent grounds for action' in Iraq, then why are more serious
violations of all four not important elsewhere?"

Obviously you are completely hung up on this "Standard Playbook for
International Affairs", so pointing out to you that such an approach is
completely and utterly unrealistic is a wasted effort.


Don't worry about it, Kevin. Just call me "a liberal" and forget about
it.

I don't believe I have thus labled you (at least not in recent memory)--but
don't let that stop you from claiming I have, or would, given your
demonstrated ability to make false attributions.


That's a very generous understatement.

Was he in violation? You really don't want to answer that question, do
you?

Answered, repeatedly.

Finally, you mean.

snip more materiel made meaningless by belated admission that Saddam was
indeed in violation


There was supposed to be a imminent and serious threat.

Those seem to be your words.

Actually, our Prime Minister signed off on them, which may prove to have
been unwise.

I have not seen them attibuted to our own leader. So what you are saying is
that your guy was wrong, and outrs was right?


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...

Indeed. Why, the US Army is regularly called upon to fend off hordes of
umbrella-wielding assailants, is it not?

You have already admitted he was in violation in this regard, as we claimed.
Don't try backtracking now.


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?

Chose to mount *your* high horse? After you called me a cynical liar for
such a thing?

(I believe the phrase is 'Ker-CHING!')

I can see that sarcasm is beyond your comprehension; you seem to keep
forgetting it was you who lambasted me for bringing humor into the equation,
but then you repeatedly do so yourself. Again, double standard much?

snip a sidestep of the fact that he was in violation, which you have
already admitted to


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,

I'm impressed that you can say this with such certainty.

I don't.


I'd be more impressed if you could show me how what he *believed* he
owned or might soon own, related to what he actually *did* possess.

Meaningless--you have already admitted he was indeed in violation.

snip more tapdancing around the fact that he was in violation

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).

Your countrymen have called them much worse than liars - should I
disbelieve them?

Are you saying they are liars, or not? Given your own record of recent
dishonesty, I'd say you might want to be a bit careful throwing stones from
your glass house...

snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed
in violation


That is a violation. He had a sarin round of a type that
was never acknowledged as having been fabricated-

Not in production quantities, on that we agree, but then we've only
found one.

he had
cultures and equipment hidden away--another violation.


snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed
in 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.


snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed
in violation


Oh, but Saddam was in violation by their mere existence regardless of
their date, remember?

That is true. Sorry, but that is the case.


snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed
in violation


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.

Well, twice and eventually. (Overlapping requests, but mea culpa)

I never did get the prioritisation or the sort of detail that turned
them from "political manifesto" to "actually useful", but then I didn't
expect to.

You got them, repeatedly. ISTR giving them to you a few weeks ago after you
pulled your "you said it had nothing to do with WMD's" bull****? Try my 18
May post in reponse to you--the subject was "Sarin in a 155mm Artillery
Round". Now you claim I just gave them to you in "overlapping requests"?
Nope. The wording I used then was: "Here are a few, though--desire to bring
the whole Iraqi situation to a finite end, as opposed to continuing with the
interminable
inspection/NFZ/reinforce-Kuwait-every-time-Saddam-sends-IRGC-troops-in-stren
gth-southwards, etc.; the terrorist connections (Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Al
Zarqawi, etc.); oil supplies and removing a regional threat to same; other
(non"WMD" proscribed weapons violations (i.e., that AS II missile), etc. And
yes, WMD violations, both perceived (at the time) and actual (like that
illegal ricin weaponization program). Etc." I gave you some more in this
thread. But you *kept* claiming I never answered your
question...tsk-tsk-tsk, that would be another false accusation on your part
(unfortunately, that is getting to be about par for the course with you).



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.

No, Kevin, I've said so three times at least. That you choose not to
read, does not mean words are not posted.

Now, the first time you called me a liar, I replied to you
paragraph-by-paragraph, explained and apologised for the
misunderstanding... only to find that at the end of the article, you
claimed you would read no more on the matter. (In which case why bother
making a significant accusation of untruth?)

I've repeated the explanation and the apology twice already, and still
you claim to have missed it.

For a fourth time, I was about to repeat... but on a hunch, I checked
the end of your message and realised you had fled the field *yet again*.

I'd ask "Why are you so willing to fling accusations, yet so reluctant
to even discuss apologies?" but apparently you won't read this either.

Bull****. Is this your idea of an "apology"? ""It's not about the WMD". I
can only go by what you say, Kevin...Your claiming they were irrelevant was
something of a hint." (Both are direct quotes from your comments last month)
Gee, that does not sound like much of an apology to me--more like a
continued effort to falsely claim that I had made that very statement.



Kevin, you're not a sockpuppet for Fred McCall, are you?

Why, does Fred have you properly pegged as well? You are making me suspect
Fred has more going for him than I gave him credit for...


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.

Actually, you have, but I've accepted it as the rough-and-tumble of
debate rather than using them as an excuse to avoid awkward issues.

Please show me where I have done so in this (or last month's) debate. Show
me where I have claimed, "You said..." something that you have not.


Unlike you, I have not completely ignored your
answer to a question and then repeatedly claimed you never answered it in
the first place.

Kevin, you're the one who has FOUR times made an accusation and then
refused to respond to the reply.

Which accusation? The one about you lying about what I actually said, or the
one about my actually repeatedly answering what you claimed I had never
answered?


Those would be YOUR faults in this argument, not mine.

The religious among us would say there's a higher power who will judge.

In the here and now I have to go off of the record--and the record does not
look very good for you right now.


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?

If you were still reading this, I'd give you the URLs.

Did you see those words in the White House's case for Iraq put out in late
2002? No? Then obviously you are not talking about attibuting those words to
us in this case?


Since you're apparently not, why bother?

Of course - now, where are the threats?

You are really going to avoid admitting he was in violation on numerous
counts, aren't you?

Yes. When "one shell" is a violation, then "violation" becomes
meaningless. By that argument, most of Europe plus the USA would be "in
violation" if you dug long enough in the right places.

Nope. Only Iraq was subject to the proscriptions of 687. Nice try, though.

.
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.

You complain about "high horses" and write this rubbish? Hypocrisy,
'Kevin Brooks' is thy name.

What hypocrisy? Saddam has been removed, so he no longer poses any threat,
present or future. A lot of folks think that is a "good thing".


The only WME attack on the US to date has been home-grown: I earnestly
hope there are no more (disbelieve that as much as it pleases you to do
so) but I have neither belief nor evidence to show that the occupation
of Iraq has reduced the risk in any detectable fashion.

It has removed the possibility of Saddam supporting one. Case closed.


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.

And when you provided them, I explained how all were business as usual
throughout the Middle East. Refute my points, or run away.

Your points are meaningless; NFZ violations are not "business as usual in
the Middle East"--they applied only to Iraq, as did the limitation on
missile range. And as much as I dislike and distrust the Iranians and
Syrians, I have yet to read any realistic accounts of mass graves attributed
to their current leaders, nor to the leaders of any other nations in the
Middle East. Neither have any of those governement's leaders been tied to an
attempted assasination of a former US President. Again, your sophomoric
observation about "business as usual" was therefore meaningless--it did not
accurately address the points made by the White House in its case, or the
ones I mentioned earlier to you.


Oh, I forgot - I read ahead and you ran away.

There is nothing to run away *from*. You are blowing hot air--as usual.


Perhaps I should draw a conclusion from that?

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.

snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed
in violation

Less than a 155mm HE in that particular case.

Not sure about that.

You're standing by it when it goes off? That seems to be the most usual
description to date. It didn't detonate on command, it was found and
defused or - this is my guess and only that - disabled by controlled
detonation.

I am assuming the IED was detonated as a convoy went by, as is the usual
case.


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

Not from a proper binary round with no setback and centrifugal effects,
actuated on the ground by a fuzewell full of plastic explosive. Poor
mixing, poor performance.

I said, "with fully cooked sarin"; i.e., the guys who did the deed would
have been smart enough to remove the burster, remove the two chemical
components and mix them seperately, and then reassemble the round with
properly mixed sarin. The outcome could have been MUCH worse.


Plus, how many US troops are in the "downwind effects" of a roadside IED
whose owners didn't know what they had?

The typical IED is targeted against a moving convoy. With no previous
indication that chemical rounds might be used, it is easy to assume that the
remaining vehicles would either herrringbone and dismount, or drive through
the KZ.


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.

Now consider quantity of agent - produced by the munition, and exposure
for the troops.

You are basing this on what actually happened vis a vis the failure of the
bad guys to account for this being a true binary weapon; I am looking at it
in a worst case, but still realistic, scenario.


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.

I'm lowering my opinion of your competence, sadly, if this is *really*
your opinion and not just bad temper.

This shell didn't even kill the EOD team (not in NBC as far as I can
tell) and yet it's meant to massacre a convoy? How much gas from a
roadside source do you think passengers actually in moving vehicles
absorb? You're absolutely right that the best protection for the
intended victims would be to drive through at best speed, but the notion
that this shell posed a serious threat to troops in fast-moving motor
vehicles is just *ludicrous*.

Again, we are looking at this from two different viewpoints. If you would
care to go back and review my posts in the other threads on this subject,
you will n ote that I said early on that the way this one was set off,
versus the normal cannon launch, was to be thanked for the relatively low
yield.


If nothing else, there's a 50-50 chance that the shell (rigged as a HE
IED, remember?) was planted *downwind* of the road. And then there's the
problem that you may drive past someone's roadside rose... but how often
do you smell them?

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.

Well, gee golly whillikers, Kevin, it might amaze you that we're run by
the UK government not the US.

Well, in that case stop acting as if we over here had to be claiming massive
stockpiles of the stuff were required in order to justify our action--that
is not what we claimed, as that White House report made clear.


Seems just a little inattentive of you to overlook that detail, but
never mind - you've gone off in a huff anyway.

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.


snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed
in violation


I answer yours, however insultingly put.

Oh, I forgot - if I hadn't read ahead I would still think this was a
debate.

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.

No. I quoted you precisely complete with cite. I paraphrased you and
when challenged that the paraphrase was distorting your actual position,
I publicly withdrew the paraphrase and apologised for the error.

To repeat what I wrote above: Bull****. Is this your idea of an "apology"?
""It's not about the WMD". I can only go by what you say, Kevin...Your
claiming they were irrelevant was something of a hint." (Both are direct
quotes from your comments last month) Both came after I told you that was
not an accurate statement.


I'd call that
doctoring--it sure as hell was not honest.

I'd call it considerably more honest than your tactics here, Mr Brooks.
Be very wary of claiming "you never did X" when in fact you just chose
to never find out.

Odd way you have of "apologizing" after an inaccuracy is pointed out (see
above quote of your response to my telling you that was an incorrect
paraphrase).


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,

Hey, you have been claiming I never gave any of these to you...but as we
have seen, I did last month, and again in this thread... Where is your big
"apology"? Oh, yeah--you offered a half-assed mea-culpa that neglected the
fact that I gave you most of these a few weeks ago...


With or without payload? That technicality aside, plot the 'allowed
range' on a map and see where it gets Iraq.

It is a violation. Even UNMOVIC reluctantly admitted as much.


continual NFZ violations,

Yep, that's a clear reason to invade. I mean, *look* how many aircraft
and aircrew we've lost policing those No Fly Zones!

They were violations.


one assasination attempt on a
former US President,

Alleged or proven? Who was convicted for it, out of interest?

Proven to the satisfaction of most, except for diehard Saddam apologists.


(These issues are very mutable: the fact of the attempt is indisputable,
the reality of the who and why much more difficult)

harboring a couple of known terrorists,

I offer you Brennan, Artt and Kirby.

Then declare war on us.


supporting
suicide bombers, etc.)--you know, the ones I have given you before, but
you
claimed I never provided to you?"

And have since accepted - in the very post to which you reply, if memory
serves - that you have finally provided. (Since you've claimed you won't
read this, it might be churlish to add 'after much prodding' and for a
debator still on the floor, it would be downright rude to comment how
you flung them behind you as you fled)

They were "flung" last month, to you. Short memory, eh?


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,

No, you have finally given them. I accepted them and thanked you for
them, at least.

Another lie. Not "finally"--they were given to you last month. You just
conveniently forgot about that, huh? Odd, after you making such a big-to-do
about supposedly asking the question *eighteen months* ago and (supposedly)
"never getting an answer".


'cause sure as God made little green apples they have been given to you
again, and again, and again...

No, they have not: but they have at least been given.

Ys, they have. Do a Google on the date and subject I gave to you earlier and
you will find them just as I quoted. Shucks, I guess that makes you a
liar--again?

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?

Yes, you do. Which post of yours did I attribute it to? Where did I say
that the words in those inverted commas were yours and yours alone?

"It's not about the WMD". I can only go by what you say, Kevin...Your
claiming they were irrelevant was something of a hint." Your words. That
seems like a pretty direct attribution to me. Which would make you a
liar...again. The date was 18 May, the subject: "Sarin in a 155mm round".
same thread that I *also* provided you some of those "other reasons" that
you have coninued to claim up unitl today I never gave you.


Please show any evidence at all that would suggest that those words were
yours. When I quoted you, I left an audit trail: when I paraphrased the
'there wuz WMD!' crowd, I did not.

Oh, I forgot - your case is so strong and your confidence so high, you
already ran away. (See end of post)

You claimed I said that WMD's were not a
factor--that was wrong.

You claimed they were not a major factor. I asked you to name and rank
the major factors and got a laundry list, which I imagine will have to
do. "I don't know" would, by the way, have been an honourable and
acceptable response.

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).

No, they have been finally extracted after much pressure and still in an
unranked straggle. However, even that seems to be too much pressure for
you to bear.

See above. They were given to you on 18 May. Which puts you in the position
of lying...again.


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!

Indeed, because at no point did I claim to anyone that Kevin Brooks said
at TIME on DATE that "QUOTE".

See above. ""It's not about the WMD". I can only go by what you say,
Kevin...Your claiming they were irrelevant was something of a hint." Liar.


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!

Well, eventually, though twice (overlapping) and without the
prioritisation asked for.

Again ignoring their provision last month...liar.


But we must be grateful for what we get, and be grateful when we finally
get it.

Again ignoring their provision last month...liar.


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?

There was an age when that allegation would have required you to bring a
friend (if you could rent one - from your conduct here it seems you must
have few) and a pair of good swords (assuming you owned them) to a
discreet dawn rendezvous where the matter could be settled in a
traditional style.

You have by this point been proven to be a liar, to wit: in claiming that
you never attributed those statements to me, which you did, by your own
words, and in claiming that I have not given you those examples of "other
reasons", which I did last month. Both have been presented to you. It is a
bit late to close the barn door--the cows are out.


Usenet would perhaps be a better place if it were less easy to fling
accusations and run away.

I am not running. I have given you your own words proving you are a liar
regarding your inaccurate paraphrase attributed to me, along with my own
words proving you also lied about supposedly not having given you those
"other reasons".


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.

I'm not even offering you a foot, Kevin.

It is acvtually harder to catch Brannigan in a lie--he does a better job of
obfuscating than you do, as we have seen above.



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.

Whereas I find your cowardice disappointing. Go cosy up to Fred McCall,
he's more your type.

What cowardice? Not that such an accusation from a proven liar is much to
really worry about--your integrity is shot, Paul, and getting it back is
going to be hard enough without your resorting to baseless accusations.


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?

Don't we all?

Could you maybe post the rules the rest of us have to
follow, since they don't apply to you?

Sure. "Use humour when you want to. If people don't get it, be ready to
explain."

You did not ask for an explanation--you just declared it unacceptable in
this thread...that is, until it suited you to try and use it.


Simple easy rule.

Which you apparently don't follow.


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****,

You mean, "I can paraphrase but you are a liar"?

That paraphrase is accurate; you yourself said, "I can decide when to ride
it and when not to, not you." Which is a bit different from your paraphrase
that has been in question, and was proven to be most inaccurate (not to
mention that you did quite clearly attribute it directly to me, something
you now deny, but which the record shows you did do).


You mean "I can use humour for fun but you are evading"?

your inane "I apoligized...but in actuality, I never said that, so no
apology is due!" rants,

You mean you *did* see the apologies? I thought you claimed I never
mentioned it!

I was referring to your inane claim that you apologized, while at the same
time, as we can clearly see in this post, you continue to lie about ever
attributing the paraphrase to me. Apparently, you can't hardly say much of
anything lately without lying.


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,

Brave words from someone who proclaims he's not even reading the reply.
(And who trumpeted that he wouldn't read the replies to his previous
allegations)

Uhmmm... I did not say that. I was indeed fed up with you by that point when
I posted my last response, but I did not say that I was not going to read
your response or post in reply; I have slept and gotten my "second wind"
now, though. Your claiming otherwise is apparently another lie on your
part--you do have a proven track record of falsely, or at least
incompletely, paraphrasing what others have said.


"Integrity" my arse. Any cowardly chicken**** can fling false
accusations and run for cover.

Every accusation I have made has been covered with direct quotes of your own
words, cited by day and subject, or by my offering proof that I did indeed
give you an answer that you claimed I had not given you, again by day and
subject. That means they are TRUE...but you would probably have a bit of a
problem understanding that, given your now proven propensity to resort to
lying. As to cowardly, the next time you are in the area drop me a
line--I'll be more than happy to let you address that issue in person, in
any form you may so choose, if that is what you really want. In my
experience, a fellow like you who has to resort to repeatedly lying in order
to try and cover his own missteps, usually is the sort who lacks the courage
for such encounters--but you are welcome to prove otherwise.

I'm here to talk about it and defend
myself, I'm replying to your claims, you're running away as fast as you
can. Shall we ask the audience to decide?

If the audience has read your claims in this posts, and then compared them
to the quotes I took from those 18 May exchanges, then I am pretty sure they
can reach the same conclusion I have reached--you were lying on both counts.


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.

Well, Kevin, I'm *really* worried about your bad opinion of me, because
you've clearly shown how open to debate you are and how carefully you
consider your positions, and your hostility could do *terrible* things
to my career prospects - because you're *so* right on all these issues.

Hey, it has thus been proven that you are a liar. First, you claimed I said
something that I did not say. That was the first lie, which you say was just
a misunderstanding and that you apologized about. Then you now claim that
you never made such an attibution directly to me in the first place--but
your quoted words show otherwise. Finally, you repeatedly claimed that I
never gave you those "other reasons"; but the record shows you were given a
list of them last month, and again during this exchange. Three lies right
there.


I get *paid* to do this ****, and Usenet is light relief from it. I'm
actually genuinely sorry that someone I thought was an irascible but
intelligent poster turned out to be a mindless political knee-jerker,
but that's life.

Does any of that change the fact that you are a proven liar?



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.

Oh, **** off and die, Kevin. I can take a lot but this sort of
sanctimonious rant should be posted at the top, not the bottom.

Ah. So proving you are a liar is "sanctimonious"? Shouldn't be surprised, I
guess--anyone who can claim they do indeed have the right to declare when
humor is allowed in a thread and when it is not, and their opponent does not
have the same right, would indeed likely be apt to be of that belief as
well...especially if he was a proven liar, as you have been shown to be.


Besides, isn't your entire paragraph redundant if you're just going to
run away?

Uhmmm...who's running?

Brooks