General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Okay, we found a buried MiG-25, isn't that a "large and capable" air
force?

You need to calibrate your "humor" switch.

Why? One aircraft isn't an "air force", especially not one buried in
sand. Claiming "We said he had a massive air force! Look! See his air
force!" falls down somewhat.

I'm not really seeing anything funny - I've got family currently being
shot at because of this.

Yet which we knew he was working on.

Which he claimed was R&D only, with no weapons listed as produced from the
effort.

Of course, Iraqi accounting was always honest and believable?

Trouble is, R&D produces prototypes, which were "suspected" and not
accounted for, and one of which *may* have turned up. (But if this was a
serious WME threat, where's the rest of the stockpile, and the
production line?)

This was a weapon. It was not reported.

And the discrepancy was noted years ago.

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,

Of course he didn't! Trouble is, even *he* didn't know what he had.


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.

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?

You've got him in custody, ask him.

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.

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.

Perhaps yet again it might be wise to wait for the results of the
detailed analysis before making too many firm claims.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

So, where are the weapons? There was supposed to be a threat. Where is
it?

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?

I don't doctor quotes. 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.

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.

You don't think?

But that does not
change the FACT that Saddam was violating the requirements set forth before
him.

I'm sure he had some unpaid parking tickets too. 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...


There was meant to be a major threat. There was, allegedly, "solid
evidence" confirming it. There were significant quantities of weapons
and we claimed to know where they were.

Whoops.

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?).

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.

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?

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.

I'd be worried about the *confirmed* threats, but that's just me.

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?

The ones you won't state?

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)

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, 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 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.

Or perhaps I'm more interested in real issues than demonising Saddam
Hussein?

BTW, did you notice that the Saudis have again been in
AQ's target ring?

But how can this be? Aren't all the al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq? How can
there be terrorists in other countries?

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?

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?")


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

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Okay, we found a buried MiG-25, isn't that a "large and capable" air
force?

You need to calibrate your "humor" switch.

Why? One aircraft isn't an "air force", especially not one buried in
sand. Claiming "We said he had a massive air force! Look! See his air
force!" falls down somewhat.

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...


Yet which we knew he was working on.

Which he claimed was R&D only, with no weapons listed as produced from
the
effort.

Of course, Iraqi accounting was always honest and believable?

That is the point--it was not honest. Hence it was in violation. Case
closed.


Trouble is, R&D produces prototypes, which were "suspected" and not
accounted for, and one of which *may* have turned up. (But if this was a
serious WME threat, where's the rest of the stockpile, and the
production line?)

This was a weapon. It was not reported.

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?


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,

Of course he didn't! Trouble is, even *he* didn't know what he had.

Geeze, your attempts to defend him are unbelievable--now you want to claim
it was A-OK 'cause he did not know what he had? After you already
acknowledged he was not being "honest" with his disclosures? Which way is
it--was he dishonest, and therefore in violation, or inept, and therefore in
violation?



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.
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..."Well, he was only a
LITTLE bit guilty, not a *LOT* guilty! 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.


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?

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.


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 round
s.

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.


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--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? See what happens when you start
dissembling like that? Trust is a precious commodity, and you have tarnished
that quality in your own case.


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?

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? You
apparently don't think that his violating the proscriptions of 687 was basis
for doing what we did, that it had to be a violation on a truly large
scale--on that we will disagree. 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?


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?

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? 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? The troops who got hit were not
MOPP'ed up--it is a good thing that the yield was so poor, as otherwise
you'd have likely been in in the unenviable position of telling me that a
single round was no "threat" in spite of a few deaths caused by a nerve
agent.


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.

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". Was he in violation (repeatedly) or not? Do you claim
Kay was lying when he said an ongoing biotoxin program was found or not?


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?

I don't doctor quotes.

The hell you don't. 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."
When called on that you continued to try and wriggle into the claim that I
was saying that WMD's were *no* factor. Don't give me this "I have *never*
done such a thing!" crap--you got caught out in it.

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. You screwed up, Paul--admit it.
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. 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.


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.

You don't think?

So what? Was Saddam in violation or not? Was he still running at least one
biotoxin program or not?


But that does not
change the FACT that Saddam was violating the requirements set forth
before
him.

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?

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. Nor is your attempt
to draw Iran into the framework of much use. Again, was he in violation of
687, on numerous accounts, or not?



There was meant to be a major threat. There was, allegedly, "solid
evidence" confirming it. There were significant quantities of weapons
and we claimed to know where they were.

Whoops.

I see you are still confused by the difference between the questions, "Was
he in violation of 687?", and "Have we found massive stockpiles of chemical
weapons". I'd offer the following answers to those--yes and no. In order, so
you don't have any future problem with twisting them into something else you
might claim I said on the matter.


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?).

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?


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.


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.

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.


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?

The ones you won't state?

No, the ones I have repeatedly stated-- I even gave them to you in that last
missive regarding your twisting of my statenment, and I gave them to you
earlier in this message again...and IIRC, I gave them to you long before
this--you just keep ignoring them and thenm subsequently claiming I never
gave them to you. And you wonder why your integrity is being questioned?!


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.


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, 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.


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.

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"
question with your "only massive amounts fit the bill" bit. Then above you
presented a seeming case for why he should have been continuing to developm
WMD's...so yeah, you do seem to be going out of your way to defend him..


BTW, did you notice that the Saudis have again been in
AQ's target ring?

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.


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?

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. Nice strawman, though.

Brooks

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

That's the trouble with looking at real life rather than political
slogans.


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.

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.

"Well, he was only a
LITTLE bit guilty, not a *LOT* guilty!

There was supposed to be a imminent and serious threat.

Not "cultures hidden in refrigerators", not "centrifuges buried for a
decade", not single decade-old munitions.


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.

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.

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?

Lots of possibilities: you're drawing extremely firm conclusions from
very limited data.

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?

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)

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.

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.

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?


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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

I don't doctor quotes.

The hell you don't.

No, I don't, and I'm tiring of explaining this to you.

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".

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.

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 screwed up, Paul--admit it.

I did. I apologised. Several times. Either you didn't read, or didn't
reply.

I'm beginning to consider that you're using this as an invented
diversion.

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?

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.

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 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

"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

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.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:
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.

You mean, like "you need to recalibrate your humor switch"?

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

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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? )

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.

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".

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?

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.



*One* round each of mustard and sarin shell? Yes, I can really see the
US and UK and allies abandoning the entire operation to invade Iraq, and
even fleeing the entire Middle East in terror, because Saddam promised
to fire "his shell" at them.

To be a significant program, you need not one shell but hundreds, which
means production, storage and distribution (which in turn mean *people*)

These two rounds have turned up over a year after we arrived, kicked
seven shades of ****e out of any Iraqi who opposed our coming, and said
that we now run the country. You honestly think that Saddam Hussein
formulated a cunning master plan that said "If we're invaded, let me
hide in a miserable hole in the ground for months and eventually be
captured by the Americans before you ever reveal a single round of our
Miracle Weapons?"

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.

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. Even if he'd turned every factory over
and surrendered every WME he could lay hands on, a week or two along the
Iranian border with a metal detector, a JCB and some NBC kit (just in
case) would have produced a violation.

Trouble is, "a violation" is not "a threat", nor even "an imminent
threat".

Now, where was the actual WME threat from Iraq? Even you should be able
to answer that 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!

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?"

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

That's a very generous understatement.

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

Answered, repeatedly.

Out of interest, where did UN687 require or authorise immediate military
action in response to an alleged violation (after all, these violations
have taken some time to produce proof...) Or did violation point to UN
deliberations about "further action"?

I'm less a fan of the UN than some knee-jerkers might expect, but I do
find it amusing that an organisation derided as incompetent, corrupt and
useless in one breath is claimed as justification for action in the
next...

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUT...NR059623.pdf?O
penElement refers.

Where in there is there anything saying "and if the Iraqis don't behave,
then anyone who feels like it can just storm right in"?

There were reasons to go in, but you're not making them and neither is
Resolution 687.

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,

See above.

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.

Now, is that "twelve years of violations" making him the most
threatening country in the world?

Or just "twelve years of violations" because he was careless enough in
1990 to get the entire world willing to see him smacked hard, lose much
of his military, and get subjected to UNSC687?

If you've avoided being subject to a UNSCR, are you blameless and
innocent? Or have you just avoided that particular form of scrutiny?


"Paulian World" doesn't rely on UN resolutions or US domestic opinion as
its yardsticks. My world looks at real threats and real dangers. I'm
sorry you find it so inconvenient and uncongenial.

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.

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?

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!')

None of that is an immediate or imminent threat.

Was he in violation in these regards? Yes.

Did 687 say "and violation means anyone who feels inclined should just
roll in there?" No.

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'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.

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).

FROM: Paul J. Adam
TO: Nebraska Agricultural Supply Inc.

Dear Sirs,

I beg you, as a charity case, to provide a generous consignment of clean
fresh straw to one Kevin Brooks, a countryman of yours. He delights in
constructing 'straw men', and does so with an almost frightening zeal: I
am concerned that he may soon exhaust his supplies of straw, and what
might happen then?

Why,
he should be nominated for sainthood...nah, on second thought, all of that
sounds pretty darned hokey.

Are you sure your humour switch isn't just sticking a little?

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?

Or should I just look at what ricin can actually do, and how "a ricin
program' can be not that much more than a bag of castorbeans, a saucepan
and a stove?

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.

This all hangs on "violation on UNSC687" being a tripwire for "execute
unrestricted land, sea and air warfare against Iraq", doesn't it?

So where can I find that or anything like it in the resolution?

Or did the US short-circuit the "report the alleged breach, have it
assessed, move a resolution for action, get it approved, then act"?

(Worked okay in 1990/1, but then the world was simpler then)

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.

So where in UNSC687 is invasion of Iraq authorisied on violation of the
resolution?

You're claiming it makes your point, I read it and it doesn't.

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

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

And where did it say "IF 687 = VIOLATION THEN GOSUB INVASION"?

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.

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.


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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.
..
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.

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.

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.

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

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.

What "threat"? He's going to get 155mm howitzers into range of major US
targets undetected and then fire decades-old shells at them? This was
entertaining but stretching credibility when Clive Cussler wrote it as a
novel. ('Vixen 03' - a fun read, IMO)

He's going to send out armies of umbrella-wielding Fedayeen to jab
millions of Americans in the leg?

Where *is* the threat?

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.

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.

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

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.

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*.

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.

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.

So answer it.

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.

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.

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,

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

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!

one assasination attempt on a
former US President,

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

(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.

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)

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.

'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.

Oddly, now I have your reasons, it seems I no longer have you

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?

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?

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.

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".

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.

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

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.

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

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.


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.

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."

Simple easy rule.

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"?

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!

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)

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

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.

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.


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.

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

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

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Paul J.
Adam" confessed the following:

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

[tweeeet.....] Right! That'll do...yellow card for you my good man
insulting Fred McCall!
http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/200...ation/m091.htm

By the by...if you have not heard of, or read Devon Largio's thesis on
the 27 rationales for the invasion of Iraq give this a look.

http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio_abstract.pdf

For the whole thesis

http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio_thesis.pdf

Oh...that first bit was humour. And as always enjoy your posts (just
like Keith Willsaw even if he and I don't see eye to eye on this Iraq
thing).

Robey

In message , Robey Price
writes
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Paul J.
Adam" confessed the following:

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

[tweeeet.....] Right! That'll do...yellow card for you my good man
insulting Fred McCall!
http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/200...llections/avia
tion/m091.htm

I apologise for any dismay caused to that fine Mr McCall

By the by...if you have not heard of, or read Devon Largio's thesis on
the 27 rationales for the invasion of Iraq give this a look.

Hadn't seen it, but it confirms some suspicions. Thanks.

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

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"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