General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

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

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
You need to recalibrare your humour switch.

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

Your dishonesty is growing--

Why? You're the one who responded to argument with a version of "it was
a joke, son, a joke" a few posts back.

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?

Not particularly. You suggested a properly calibrated humour switch was
a necessary tool, now you're flying off the handle because it seems your
calibration is badly off.

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.

Sorry, we were talking about UNSCR687, not Congressional resolutions.
Unless you accept that Iraqi government resolutions that Kuwait was
actually the 19th Province and should be reunified immediately were also
binding?

Remind me again where the US congress has jurisdiction over Iraq?

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.

No mention of *industrial* production, meaning they had at best reached
prototype testing - and certainly not excluding prototype testing.

After all, we found evidence of the program: not the program itself.
(Which, despite apparently superb intelligence, remains elusive)

So your, "And the discrepancy was noted
years ago" is a bit off, as the UN never noted any evidence of binary rounds
*existing*,

No - just no evidence of a production line for the results of the
suspected research.

The first Archerfish prototype was built in a garage in personal time.
Now it's part of the US AMNS program. Doesn't mean the first few
hand-built prototypes never existed, or that Redfish didn't get lost
while surveying Brent Spar.

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?

To repeat,
"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."

So, evidence of studies but not of production lines. And in over a year
of searching based first on intelligence, then on prisoner
interrogation, there's no sign of any production line that could have
produced such a shell.

One option is that this was a pre-91 prototype round. Another is that it
was imported, from Syria or Iran as examples. Evidence that it's part of
a domestic production program is the thinnest of all - yet that's the
mast you've chosen to nail your colours to.

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.

Nice evasion. So why not invade Iraq properly in autumn 1991, when
they're thoroughly in violation?

UNSCR687 did *not* provide for immediate invasion, by whoever felt like
it, on the allegation of violation. It's taken well over a year for even
this slight proof of a technical violation to emerge: and from hundreds
of tons of missing weapons with vast factories producing more, we're
down to one

No wonder you're so terrified of discussing it and try to hide behind a
bland "case closed".

There was supposed to be a major, imminent threat. There wasn't,

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

You mean, "avoid all the issues you find too hard to deal with?"

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.

You mean, "avoid all the issues you find too hard to deal with?"

Of course he was in violation.

Good.

snip more materiel made meaningless by admission he was in violation

Let's remember that we British apparently used chemical weapons on the
Iraqis during the 1920s. Out of interest, would digging up a
1920s-vintage shell filled with mustard gas count as "a violation" and
be the complete, absolute justification you seem to consider it?

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",

I am not, and have said so to you repeatedly. Since you're fond of
invective, let me now call *you* a liar for repeatedly making false
claims despite contradiction.

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.

Pot, meet kettle.

Where have *I* ever mentioned a "standard playbook for international
affairs"? (Your words, this post) That is your own invention which you
have falsely, repeatedly, attributed to me. You are a liar.

Where have I ever stated that only "great numbers of rounds in massive
stockpiles" or "only massive amounts", (both you, this thread, June 05)
would be convincing? Again, your invention, falsely quoted as being my
words. You are a liar.

Shall I continue? I find your protestations of wounded honour extremely
amusing, since you so freely indulge in the conduct you claim to
deprecate.

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?

Well, it seems the director of your Central Intelligence Agency at least
felt he was wrong.

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.

Who's backtracking? Where's the danger posed by a horde of
umbrella-wielding Iraqis trying to get close enough to jab the legs of
their enemies? Dave Barry's expression "field mice under a rotary mower"
springs to mind against even the least competent opposition: I'll take a
DShK in a sangar or even an AK against a ricin-loaded umbrella any day.

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

"Lambasted"? When?

My, you're thin-skinned and touchy. Is that a side effect of habitial
lying?

for bringing humor into the equation,
but then you repeatedly do so yourself. Again, double standard much?

No, just amused.

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.

Then why did you say it if you're not certain?

Oh, I forgot - humour and sarcasm. Which are admirable rhetorical tools
in your hands, but deceitful lies when used against you. Just as
paraphrasing your debator's words is a perfectly acceptable tactic for
you, but a filthy deception when practiced against you.

Having fun yet?

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.

As I said, dig long and hard enough and you might find a 1920s chemical
munition. There you go - he's in violation.

See how meaningless this absolutism of yours is?

snip more tapdancing around the fact that he was in violation

Amused at the frantic evasion - "evasion of UNSCR687" now apparently
being the Holy Writ that required immediate invasion.

Of course, there's no playbook, which is why two Iraqi shells require
invasion and a prolonged occupation while hundreds of chemical-tipped
Syrian SCUDs are politely ignored. Makes perfect sense: two artillery
shells are obviously *much* more of a threat. Oh, yeah, and it "wasn't
all about the WMD", which makes the whole "violation of 687" rather
moot...?

Confusing, isn't it, once you stop thinking about what you're doing and
just decide to blindly follow?

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

Are you saying they are liars, or not?

No. Why do you suddenly find them credible, and why have you so
conspicuously failed to defend them?

Given your own record of recent
dishonesty,

You mean, like "massive quantities"? Go on, find me a post where I said
that - yet you attributed it to me. Or is it not lying when *you* do it?

It's curious that those who are most generous in flinging the charge of
"liar" are those who themselves are quite reckless with the truth.


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.

No, you rattled off a laundry-list of reasons. Were they in order? What
was the relative importance? *That* was what you were asked for and you
have *still* failed to provide.

That was why I asked for them in order and with an indication of their
relative importance, and I was unsurprised when you were unable to do
so.

Of course, you at least provided "the reasons", but you made sure you
had ample wriggle room. Out of your list, what at least were the top
three reasons? You weren't even able (or were too wary) to state that.
Doesn't indicate much trust in your judgement.

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"?

I'm being generous because you repeated the laundry list and still left
out the order and prioritisation I asked for.

Nope. The wording I used then was: "Here are a few, though--

Now, remember you've left out any priority and importance. Are these the
top slice of the list? The least important reasons that are safe for
public discussion? A random selection?

I gave you some more in this
thread. But you *kept* claiming I never answered your
question...

You didn't, because from the first the question was not just "list every
possible reason for war with Iraq" but "what was the order of
importance?"

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).

No, that would be another casual lie from you.

People *notice* dishonesty, Kevin.

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"?

Right - so we've gone from "I'm a liar because I misquoted you and
insisted I was right" to "I paraphrased you and immediately made it
clear this was so, and apologised for the misunderstanding" to "I'm a
liar because you don't like the tone of my apology"?

How bizarre. What, exactly, is the "lie" here?


Meanwhile, you repeatedly and blatantly conduct exactly the same false
attribution, invent bizarre positions such as "defending Hussein" and
claim they're mine. But this, presumably, is not lying? I've given you a
couple of examples, I'm curious to hear your explanation of how they are
an honest and accurate quotation of my words and where the originals can
be found for reference.

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

Why, does Fred have you properly pegged as well?

Depends what you mean - he disappeared in clouds of bluster and
killfiled me every time I proved he was talking out of his arse.

*He* started calling me a liar when I pointed out you could use
precision-guided weapons for close air support and he insisted that had
never happened, didn't happen now and could never be considered.
Apparently all those LGBs, JDAMs and Mavericks reported expended in CAS
missions were just fictions of the pilots' overheated imaginations.

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.

Where did I ever claim there was a "standard playbook for international
affairs"? You repeatedly use that phrase, in quotation marks, as if it
was my own words. Where did I mention the existence of such? Or did you
invent it and then falsely attribute it to me?

Where have I ever stated that only "great numbers of rounds in massive
stockpiles" or "only massive amounts", (both you, this thread, June 05)
would be convincing? Again, your invention, falsely placed in quotation
marks as though they were my own words. Where did I make those
statements? Citations, please.

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,

Which I immediately made clear was a paraphrase and apologised for - a
point you ignored, while indulging in the exact same conduct yourself.

or the
one about my actually repeatedly answering what you claimed I had never
answered?

You were asked for a *prioritised list*, not "some of the reasons" in no
particular order. You've still failed to provide it, though you've
rattled off some of the usual mantras.

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 where did UNSCR687 say "the suspicion (not proof) of a breach shall
justify immediate invasion"? Again, you need to actually *read* what you
cite.

One of the reason the UN wasn't hugely popular is precisely because a
breach of UNSCR687 isn't an instant casus belli, but grounds for a
follow-up motion to cover action under UN auspices (such as, 660 - "Iraq
is very naughty to invade Kuwait and should leave immediately" was
eventually followed by 678, which authorised member states to enforce
660 and implored all states to support the action.)

The US and UK decided to short-circuit the UN and go for a national
solution. Time will tell whether that was the correct option: and unless
the current operation ends in disaster then partisans on both sides will
insist that their way would have been *much* better.

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".

Don Quixote was sure he was riding at giants with flailing arms, too.

Saddam Hussein posed "a threat" because, after over a year of searching,
we've turned up two - count'em, TWO! - chemical shells of uncertain
vintage. You don't think that if WMEs were a factor, there were better
places to look?

Of course, "it's not all about WMDs", it's a completely flexible list -
so much so that you proudly boast of being unable to work out what order
the reasons might fall in. But then, Hussein wasn't the top threat on
any permutation of your list.

Still, the idea that you should deal with the most dangerous threats is
obviously foreign foolishness rooted in the notion that there's a
"handbook" containing basic wisdom like "biggest risk, biggest
response".

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.

Did he ever have the means to support one?

Tell you what - I'll guarantee to prevent your house being ruined by
rampaging bull elephants. Now it's only my kindness and generosity that
stands between you, and domestic ruin under a herd of crazed pachyderms.

Credible? Or silly? I'd say "silly" - similarly, if Iraq has no means to
produce a threat, then attacking them eliminates _nothing_ while leaving
*real* threats much more free to act. (You don't need elephant
insurance. Burglary, fire, et cetera are more credible risks... how much
would you take from those policies to build an elephant-proof fence
around your house?)


If Iraq *did* have the means to produce a significant WME threat, where
is it?

(To forestall the inevitable "ricin! ricin! scary!" it's something an
A-level chemist should be able to do with commercial glassware in a
domestic kitchen)

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"

Send a recce aircraft to photograph Syria's WMD factories and missile
bases and see what happens.

You can't fly there and will get a more effective response than Iraq
managed.

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,

Then you've failed to read. (Syria is Ba'athist just like Iraq was and
has similar policies about internal dissent)

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

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

Another lie, Kevin? They slip so easily from your lips.

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.

The public information to date suggests but is not firm that it was
spotted in time, and disabled: the process of disabling the rounds
caused the shell to break and the contents to mix.

Very vague and not much more has been coming. (Which is not hugely
suspicious - these things take time to analyse. I'm a little surprised
that more information about the details of the find haven't noticeably
emerged, but give them time)

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";

In other words, "not a binary round used as a IED", meaning "not what
was found".

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.

Or they could have killed themselves in the attempt, or just ruined the
shell. (Just because the ingredients of binary sarin aren't nerve
toxins, doesn't make them innocuous or easy to handle)

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.

Both putting most men outside the effective area. One shell doesn't do
that much - they're fired in barrages for a reason.

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.

Still gets you less casualties than using HE, as far as I can tell -
unless your guys really bunch up around the explosion point that
initiates an ambush.

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.

Plus, it appears from US reports to date, over a decade of deterioration
of the shell and its contents.

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

Your invention, not mine. Lying again? Please stick to my own words of
"militarily significant" when you wish to attribute a description of
required quantity to me.

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"?

So, you're now calling me a liar only because you didn't like the tone
of my apology? While multiply doing the exact same paraphrase on my
words?

Not good.

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

What else are you meant to do? I used a tactic you're fond of, you took
umbrage, I apologised and made it clear that I had paraphrased rather
than precisely quoted your words.

For this I'm called a liar while you repeatedly attribute false
statements to me.

Yes, I'm enormously impressed with your honour and integrity.

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"?

I asked you for a prioritised list. I got "some reasons" in no
particular order. Still haven't had any indication even of which is the
most and which the least important reason.

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.

So take it to the Security Council.

Oh, yes, they're irrelevant and incompetent? Then who cares about their
resolutions?

One needs to take one side, or the other, if one wishes to present as
having any integrity. Is the UNSC a significant body, or not? If it is,
why was it bypassed? If it is not, who *cares* what twaddle it passes?

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.

Take it to the Security Council.

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

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

So who was convicted, since the evidence was so solid?

Or is "diehard Saddam apologist" another one of those lies you're so
free with?

harboring a couple of known terrorists,

I offer you Brennan, Artt and Kirby.

Then declare war on us.

Why? Three fugitive murderers are proof of hypocrisy regarding "giving
sanctuary to terrorists", but hardly casus belli unless you're really
desperate.

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?

Well, after I gave up on you ever managing the "prioritised" part...

Still, half an answer's better than none and it's clear *you* have no
idea either what the relative importance might have been.

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.

As would your "standard playbook for international affairs" and "great
numbers of rounds in massive stockpiles" so falsely attributed to me.

Seems you're even more of an egregious liar than me, Kevin, and you've
never made clear that you were paraphrasing rather than quoting nor
apologised for the misattribution.

What's your excuse?

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.

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 asked for a list in order of priority, I got "some of the reasons" in
no order.

"I don't know the order." would, again, have been quite acceptable.
Instead, you've chosen to bluster rather than admit ignorance. (I'll be
much more charitable than you and refrain from claiming that you're
deliberately being dishonest in an attempt to conceal your ignorance)

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.

"standard playbook for international affairs"?

"great numbers of rounds in massive stockpiles"

Liar yourself, Mr Brooks.

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,

Well, to employ the same tactics as you.

Either we are both liars, or we are not.

to wit: in claiming that
you never attributed those statements to me, which you did, by your own
words,

Just as you have repeatedly done to me.

and in claiming that I have not given you those examples of "other
reasons", which I did last month.

As a partial and unprioritised assortment, when you were specifically
asked for relative importance.

Both have been presented to you. It is a
bit late to close the barn door--the cows are out.

Kevin, I keep horses in my stable, it's no surprise you won't find any
cows in there.


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

I am not running.

No, I will give you that credit.

I have given you your own words proving you are a liar
regarding your inaccurate paraphrase attributed to me,

And I have shown that you have lied even more generously about me -
except that I have publicly and repeatedly made clear that I was
paraphrasing your words, whereas you continue to blatantly and openly
peddle false quotations as if they were my own words.

along with my own
words proving you also lied about supposedly not having given you those
"other reasons".

You were asked for a prioritised list. You still have failed to provide
it, though you hide behind having mumbled some of the reasons in no
apparent order and then insist that it was a full and complete answer.

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.

Kevin, you have no standing from which to judge.

As I said, there was a time when such accusations you fling so cheaply
and casually were considered serious. Some of us still consider them so.
You, obviously, think them nothing more than petty tools to evade
difficult questions.

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...

Cite please, where I stated that humour was unacceptable in this thread.

Are you falsely attributing words to me *again*?

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).

So, where precisely did I state where it could be found?


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,

So, the issue is now merely whether you find the tone of my apology
acceptable?

This is some distance from the ferocious and determined dishonesty you
seem insistent on attributing to me, along with multiple other
inventions of yours.

Of course, none of that makes *you* a liar...


while at the same
time, as we can clearly see in this post, you continue to lie about ever
attributing the paraphrase to me.

Kevin, you're getting desperate.

Apparently, you can't hardly say much of
anything lately without lying.

Yes, quite. Go on, then, give me some examples.

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.

Then what you wrote is not what you meant.

"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

Just as you've falsely attributed words to me that I never said, and
evaded questions I repeatedly asked - and exploited my tolerance on your
evasions to pretend a wounded innocence when in fact you are still
fleeing the question.

Yes, you're a paragon of virtue and integrity, Mr Brooks.

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.

An apparently random selection of "some of the reasons" is not a
"prioritised list". You were asked one question, you answered another,
and you are now broadcasting that evasion as if it were a fine and noble
thing.

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.

Certainly. As I said, some of us don't treat these matters with the
casual disregard that you do.

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.

If you want to put it like that?

Fort Widley courtyard, dawn, Saturday 19 June.

Gauntlet's down.

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.

What order were those reasons in? How important was each? Given that
these were only "some" of the reasons, were there others more important?

No, sorry, you evaded and you kept evading.

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.

I thought I didn't apologise? When did your story change?

Then you now claim that
you never made such an attibution directly to me in the first place--but
your quoted words show otherwise.

Actually, they don't. Meanwhile you continue to freely and falsely
attribute claims and statements to me - presumably this is the least
important of your claims? Or else you have no regard for truth?

I had the integrity to immediately clarify that the words were a
paraphrase rather than a quotation, and apologise for any
misrepresentation: you've extended me no such courtesy in your multiple
false attributions to me.

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.

I asked for a list with an indication of order and relative importance.
I got a random selection of reasons.

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?

"Proven" in your febrile imagination, perhaps.

Meanwhile, the challenge is open if you choose to meet it. Will you back
your claims, or withdraw them? (Or will you make a weak excuse?)

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"?

When you ever find proof, let me know.

Meanwhile,

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,

Remind me, again, when I told you humour was not permitted?

I *did* tell you that I personally did not find one of your attempts at
a joke funny. Now, show me precisely where I told you that I had "the
right to declare when humor is allowed in a thread and when it is not".

Or are *you* lying, Kevin? Are *you* still inventing claims and then
falsely attributing them to me?

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

Uhmmm...who's running?

You are, on Saturday 19th.

--
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
...
You need to recalibrare your humour switch.

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

Your dishonesty is growing--

Why? You're the one who responded to argument with a version of "it was
a joke, son, a joke" a few posts back.

And you were the one who said that humor was inappropriate in this
thread--right up until you wanted to use it yourself. Typical.


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?

Not particularly. You suggested a properly calibrated humour switch was
a necessary tool, now you're flying off the handle because it seems your
calibration is badly off.

Only because you told us it was not allowed in this thread.


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.

Sorry, we were talking about UNSCR687, not Congressional resolutions.
Unless you accept that Iraqi government resolutions that Kuwait was
actually the 19th Province and should be reunified immediately were also
binding?

Sorry that you can't grasp that our congress decided to actually act in this
case, or you don't approve of that action. I am sure that I will lose much
sleep tonight over your displeasure.


Remind me again where the US congress has jurisdiction over Iraq?

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.

No mention of *industrial* production, meaning they had at best reached
prototype testing - and certainly not excluding prototype testing.

Actually, no mention of *any* production. Please point to where any
"non-industrial" production was mentioned in regards to these kind of
weapons?


After all, we found evidence of the program: not the program itself.
(Which, despite apparently superb intelligence, remains elusive)

So your, "And the discrepancy was noted
years ago" is a bit off, as the UN never noted any evidence of binary
rounds
*existing*,

No - just no evidence of a production line for the results of the
suspected research.

Again, please point to where the UN inspectors point to *any* binary rounds
being produced as part of this program. No? As I said--the UN never mentions
any evidence of *any* rounds being fabricated, nor did the Iraqis
acknowledge producing any such rounds, be they R&D products or not. Which is
what I have been saying all along--so your point would be...?


The first Archerfish prototype was built in a garage in personal time.
Now it's part of the US AMNS program. Doesn't mean the first few
hand-built prototypes never existed, or that Redfish didn't get lost
while surveying Brent Spar.

We are not talking about Archerfish--we are talking about Iraqi binary
rounds which you indicated the UN report addressed--but in fact the UN
reports did not ever mention any such rounds being in existance, and was
only aware that some form of R&D had occured.


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?

To repeat,
"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."

Wow. How many rounds are produced by the usual "study"? Why bother with
"industrial production" when you can apparently convene a few folks around a
table, produce a report or two regarding design requirments and feasibility,
and ...presto, rounds magically appear? The fact is that the UN never
mentioned the physical existance, or suspected existance, of *any* binary
rounds--as I told you before.


So, evidence of studies but not of production lines. And in over a year
of searching based first on intelligence, then on prisoner
interrogation, there's no sign of any production line that could have
produced such a shell.


One option is that this was a pre-91 prototype round. Another is that it
was imported, from Syria or Iran as examples. Evidence that it's part of
a domestic production program is the thinnest of all - yet that's the
mast you've chosen to nail your colours to.

You see Iran as a potential supplier of chemical munitions to Saddam?! Now
really, how realistic do you think that is? And where is your evidence that
Syria was a possible source? Paulian conjecture? OTOH, we do have the UN
acknowledging that the Iraqis were working on binary development, and geee,
what do you kniow, a binary round turns up in Iraq. Occam's razor says it
was probably of Iraqi manufacture.


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.

Nice evasion. So why not invade Iraq properly in autumn 1991, when
they're thoroughly in violation?

Because we were willing to give them a chance to meet the terms of the
ceasefire from our then-recent little dance in the desert. And we continued
to give them opportunities to meet those requirements for the next twelve
years. Many of us find that a more than reasonable time period during which
Saddam could have chosen to fully comply with the requirements. But he did
not do so, and was as you acknowledge in violation on some number of
issues--too bad for him.


UNSCR687 did *not* provide for immediate invasion, by whoever felt like
it, on the allegation of violation. It's taken well over a year for even
this slight proof of a technical violation to emerge: and from hundreds
of tons of missing weapons with vast factories producing more, we're
down to one

No wonder you're so terrified of discussing it and try to hide behind a
bland "case closed".

There is nothing more to discuss in this vein--you have acknowledged that
they were in violation. They were given ample opportunity to meet the
requirements, and they chose not to. I find that to be plenty of
justification for finally acting to remedy the situation--you don't. Too
bad.


There was supposed to be a major, imminent threat. There wasn't,

Not according to our case.


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

You mean, "avoid all the issues you find too hard to deal with?"

No, they have been dealt with--you just typically try to continually
reorient to this "immediate or imminent threat" from WMD that was, in fact,
not a requirement for our action per the case set forth by our leaders on
this side of the pond. Sorry, but that is just not an accurate portrayal of
what was required to justify action, as the White House report I pointed you
at made clear.

snip more materiel made meaningless by admission he was in violation


Let's remember that we British apparently used chemical weapons on the
Iraqis during the 1920s. Out of interest, would digging up a
1920s-vintage shell filled with mustard gas count as "a violation" and
be the complete, absolute justification you seem to consider it?

No. Now that you have that strawman off your chest, maybe you'd like to get
back to the subject at hand?


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",

I am not, and have said so to you repeatedly. Since you're fond of
invective, let me now call *you* a liar for repeatedly making false
claims despite contradiction.

Have you not continually stated that if we went into Iraq under the
justifications we have set forth, that we also should *have* to similarly
and simultaneously address every other WMD-holding state with similar,
either overt/government approved or covert/non-government sanctioned ties to
terrorism, etc., in the same manner as we have Iraq? If not, then just what
kind of point *have* you been trying to make with your repeated squeals
about why we have not acted similarly in regards to the DPRK, Iran,
Pakistan, Syria, etc.? I believe a relook at your past statements in this
regard will prove that you have indeed been saying repeatedly that we should
have to follow the same course we have set for ourself in regards to Iraq
with these other nations--

"Yeah, but so what? Syria has WMEs and the missiles to launch them. So?
Ditto North Korea and Iran. Why was Iraq such a massive and immediate
danger, and why ignore more
real and capable threats?" 18 Feb 04

"North Korea is mostly just a menace to North Koreans. They
seem to have more proven WME capability than Iraq, but they still can't
hit CONUS. If replacing North Korea's undoubtedly nasty leadership was
vital, why has it been left in the "too difficult" pile for fifty years?
Conversely, what did Iraq have that North Korea doesn't?" 11 Feb 04

"*Are* you after WMD? Iran has them, Syria has them, Israel has them.
North Korea has them, India has them, Pakistan has them, how long does
the list have to be? (North Korea in particular has WMD, a missile
production line, and a very flexible export policy provided the customer
has hard currency)" 17 Jan 03

"...while Iraq is being asked to roll over and play dead, North Korea is
indulged." 6 Jan 03

"Bush Jr. has nailed his colours to the mast that he'll go to war to
prevent WMD proliferation, as far as Iraq is concerned. It would at
least be consistent and understandable if he hit North Korea's nuclear
program, which is blatantly in violation of a long series of agreements
that NK voluntarily entered into and has been used to threaten the US....
What makes the US look inconsistent to me, is an apparent obsession with
Iraq - especially while North Korea is happily building bombs, Iran has
a weapons programme, and India and Pakistan are happily proliferating at
each other. (And what *is* the status of Israel's WMD programme these
days?)" (29 Dec 02)

And finally, and most damning in this case..."NK and Iran are much nearer
WME than Iraq, and Syria is widely alleged to have chemical warheads on over
a hundred Scud copies. Sounds like a threat to me - when do we go in? If it
was good enough for Iraq, it's good enough for them."

Yep, it does indeed appaear that you have a long and lusterous history
(there are oodles more examples in Google of your making very similar
statements over the past year or two, but I think the above is quite
sifficient to prove the accuracy of my characterization of your comments in
this regard) of advocating that we should have to be "consistent" (i.e.,
that euphamestic "standard playbook") in how we deal with all nations who
happen to have WMD, etc. So in this case, again, the paraphrase is pretty
danged accurate--your words again have left you hanging, this time with an
unsubstantiated claim that I have misrepresented what you have long been
crying.


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.

Pot, meet kettle.

Please show proof, as I did regarding your lies below (and now above, as
well).


Where have *I* ever mentioned a "standard playbook for international
affairs"? (Your words, this post) That is your own invention which you
have falsely, repeatedly, attributed to me. You are a liar.

The "standard playbook" is my accurate paraphrase of what you have long been
arguing--see that bit about being "consistent" andd the bit about "When do
we go in?" to those other nations that you wrote and I quoted above.

No, in your case you have repeatedly argued that we should have to follow
the same course with other nations that we have followed with Iraq, so that
paraphrase is accurate. Apparently, you have become so accustomed to lying
that you no longer have the capacity of recognizing the truth when you see
it. Again, quite sad.


Where have I ever stated that only "great numbers of rounds in massive
stockpiles" or "only massive amounts", (both you, this thread, June 05)
would be convincing? Again, your invention, falsely quoted as being my
words. You are a liar.

"A huge lethal pile of WME may still emerge, but the odds continue to
worsen." 12 Sep 03

"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." (In this very
thread)

So, it appears that you do indeed require "massive amounts" if you are only
willing to consider "tons of agent". Of course, you have also said recently,
"1998 and earlier, I'm willing to accept a few (call it three, offhand)
"WME stockpiles" that are - for a rule of thumb - a pallet or less of
shells, 122mm rockets, or precursors each. 1991 or earlier, I'd raise
the bar quite a lot higher, because they prepared to fight a defensive
war and then lost it massively and that's where large amounts of kit go
missing. (We're still occasionally digging up buried caches of 1940s No.
76 grenades here in the UK, which is a problem because they're beer
bottles filled with a benzene, rubber and white phosphorous mixture -
not nice to accidentally put a spade through one) Post-1998, "a pallet"
of filled basic munitions or of filler for them,
or a single weapon that was a significant advance on their previous
capability, would be conclusive proof. Less than that would be a very
unwelcome surprise, though not decisive (we know they *wanted* to keep
their programs going, but the claim was that the programs existed and
were an immediate threat)" 18 May 04

Which leaves one a bit perplexed as to what exactly you do require--it
ranges from the acceptance of one round of a type they were not known to
have (which you apparently no longer accept, being as this binary round no
longer makes your cut-off score), to multiple pallets of rounds, to the
claim that you have to have "tons of agent" in order to be measurable.


Shall I continue? I find your protestations of wounded honour extremely
amusing, since you so freely indulge in the conduct you claim to
deprecate.

Mine are pretty accurate--your's have been deplorably inaccurate, and proven
as such.


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?

Well, it seems the director of your Central Intelligence Agency at least
felt he was wrong.

Uhmmm...again, where in the White House's case against Iraq did you find
thaose descriptive terms? Eh?


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.

Who's backtracking? Where's the danger posed by a horde of
umbrella-wielding Iraqis trying to get close enough to jab the legs of
their enemies? Dave Barry's expression "field mice under a rotary mower"
springs to mind against even the least competent opposition: I'll take a
DShK in a sangar or even an AK against a ricin-loaded umbrella any day.

It's a violation.


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

"Lambasted"? When?

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


My, you're thin-skinned and touchy. Is that a side effect of habitial
lying?

I would not know--a question better addressed to yourself, as you have been
shown to be a proven liar.


for bringing humor into the equation,
but then you repeatedly do so yourself. Again, double standard much?

No, just amused.

Double standard.


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.

Then why did you say it if you're not certain?

Oh, I forgot - humour and sarcasm. Which are admirable rhetorical tools
in your hands, but deceitful lies when used against you. Just as
paraphrasing your debator's words is a perfectly acceptable tactic for
you, but a filthy deception when practiced against you.

No, you keep forgetting that it was you who took the "nothing humorous about
this subject" bent. Or do you factually remmeber that was the case, and just
choose to lie about it instead? Once you are proven to be a liar, none of
your words have much weight--sorry, but you just can't be trusted, can you?


Having fun yet?

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.

As I said, dig long and hard enough and you might find a 1920s chemical
munition. There you go - he's in violation.

You might try being a bit more realistic with your strawman erection.


See how meaningless this absolutism of yours is?

snip more tapdancing around the fact that he was in violation

Amused at the frantic evasion - "evasion of UNSCR687" now apparently
being the Holy Writ that required immediate invasion.

Of course, there's no playbook, which is why two Iraqi shells require
invasion and a prolonged occupation while hundreds of chemical-tipped
Syrian SCUDs are politely ignored. Makes perfect sense: two artillery
shells are obviously *much* more of a threat. Oh, yeah, and it "wasn't
all about the WMD", which makes the whole "violation of 687" rather
moot...?

Oooh, there you go again--not happy that we have dared to treat Iraq
differently from other nations (ones that are not subject to UN sanction
regarding WMD's, at that). Too bad.


Confusing, isn't it, once you stop thinking about what you're doing and
just decide to blindly follow?

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

Are you saying they are liars, or not?

No. Why do you suddenly find them credible, and why have you so
conspicuously failed to defend them?

What? I find Kay to be quite credible. So if you are not calling him a liar,
then you must accept his testimony that violations, to include that ricin
program, were indeed found.


Given your own record of recent
dishonesty,

You mean, like "massive quantities"? Go on, find me a post where I said
that - yet you attributed it to me. Or is it not lying when *you* do it?

See above--your own words always tend to let you down, don't they Paul?


It's curious that those who are most generous in flinging the charge of
"liar" are those who themselves are quite reckless with the truth.

Prove it, as I have in your case.



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.

No, you rattled off a laundry-list of reasons. Were they in order? What
was the relative importance? *That* was what you were asked for and you
have *still* failed to provide.

You asked for the reasons--you got them...again, and again.


That was why I asked for them in order and with an indication of their
relative importance, and I was unsurprised when you were unable to do
so.

Of course, you at least provided "the reasons", but you made sure you
had ample wriggle room. Out of your list, what at least were the top
three reasons? You weren't even able (or were too wary) to state that.
Doesn't indicate much trust in your judgement.

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"?

I'm being generous because you repeated the laundry list and still left
out the order and prioritisation I asked for.

Oh, so sorry! Why should I have bothered to prioritize them, when you
refused to even acknowledge they were given to you? Is there is
prioritization system required? No, not that I am aware of. And now you
wiggle and squirm, and try to claim that I never gave them to you in the
precise format that you (only later, after they were originally given to
you) requested.


Nope. The wording I used then was: "Here are a few, though--

Now, remember you've left out any priority and importance. Are these the
top slice of the list? The least important reasons that are safe for
public discussion? A random selection?

You asked "Out of interest, what *were* the reasons? Let us avoid future
misunderstandings." To which I gave you an answer. You then went on to ask
for them in a "rough order of importance", which I did not do, seeing as
there is no standard or approved "order of importance" for such things. You
got your list--you got it again when I gave you the bit about the White
House case (which, goshdang it, did not set forth an "order of importance",
either--how dare they not meet Paulian requirements, eh?!). And you
continued to claim you were never given these items. Hence in this case, you
are either stupid, or a liar--which is it?



I gave you some more in this
thread. But you *kept* claiming I never answered your
question...

You didn't, because from the first the question was not just "list every
possible reason for war with Iraq" but "what was the order of
importance?"

No, you asked two different versions of the same question--I gave you an
answer to the first and ignored the latter as being reptitiious and
meaningless (as there is no "order of importance", as even the White House
report indicated).


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).

No, that would be another casual lie from you.

People *notice* dishonesty, Kevin.

Then I'd say your reputation is in tatters.


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"?

Right - so we've gone from "I'm a liar because I misquoted you and
insisted I was right" to "I paraphrased you and immediately made it
clear this was so, and apologised for the misunderstanding" to "I'm a
liar because you don't like the tone of my apology"?

How bizarre. What, exactly, is the "lie" here?

You should be able to find your's quite easily, as they are getting to be so
darned common. And you left out the quote of your own words: ""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.



Meanwhile, you repeatedly and blatantly conduct exactly the same false
attribution, invent bizarre positions such as "defending Hussein" and
claim they're mine.

You have defended Hussein--not all of the time, but enough. That whole bit
about Saddam not knowing about his WMD programs, and presumably him being
therefore innocent of these violations, is a defense of Saddam. Come on, you
have wasted enough electrons in that sort of tapdance--you should at least
be able to admit that is a defense of Saddam.

But this, presumably, is not lying? I've given you a
couple of examples, I'm curious to hear your explanation of how they are
an honest and accurate quotation of my words and where the originals can
be found for reference.

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

Why, does Fred have you properly pegged as well?

Depends what you mean - he disappeared in clouds of bluster and
killfiled me every time I proved he was talking out of his arse.

*He* started calling me a liar when I pointed out you could use
precision-guided weapons for close air support and he insisted that had
never happened, didn't happen now and could never be considered.
Apparently all those LGBs, JDAMs and Mavericks reported expended in CAS
missions were just fictions of the pilots' overheated imaginations.

Well, in my case your own words have repeatedly shown you to be a liar.
Sounds like a bit of a different situation to me.


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.

Where did I ever claim there was a "standard playbook for international
affairs"? You repeatedly use that phrase, in quotation marks, as if it
was my own words. Where did I mention the existence of such? Or did you
invent it and then falsely attribute it to me?

As I said above, and backed up with repeated direct quotes from your
numerous posts on the subject, that is an accurate paraphrase--"NK and Iran
are much nearer WME than Iraq, and Syria is widely alleged to have chemical
warheads on over a hundred Scud copies. Sounds like a threat to me - when do
we go in? If it was good enough for Iraq, it's good enough for them." Your
words. I am guessing you are beginning to hate the long-term emeory quality
of Google about now; it must truly suck having to face your own words that
bear out the accuracy of how I characterized your argument in this regard,
huh?


Where have I ever stated that only "great numbers of rounds in massive
stockpiles" or "only massive amounts", (both you, this thread, June 05)
would be convincing? Again, your invention, falsely placed in quotation
marks as though they were my own words. Where did I make those
statements? Citations, please.

Already provided above.


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,

Which I immediately made clear was a paraphrase and apologised for - a
point you ignored, while indulging in the exact same conduct yourself.

No, go back and read the record--you did not immediately apologize. I
corrected you, rather politely, and you persisted in inaccurately portraying
my argument, going as far as presenting my actual quote that you claimed
proved your point. I *then* labled you a liar, and I pointed out that you
had ignored the "all" and its import to the meaning; only then did you
weakly apologize, but even that apology was less than full ("That was a
paraphrase, not a quote: I put the name and date on the quote so it could be
traced. My apologies if the distinction wasn't clear enough."). As if your
paraphrase was still accurate (and you know it was not--you do know that a
paraphrase can be either accurate or inaccurate, don't you?). Then you had
the unmitigated gall to come back in this thread and claim you *never*
attributed that paraphrase directly to me--which I proved was not the case
by again quoting your own words that proved you did indeed do that. Cripes,
at this point you have lied so much, and so repetitively, that they are now
piling up on each other.


or the
one about my actually repeatedly answering what you claimed I had never
answered?

You were asked for a *prioritised list*, not "some of the reasons" in no
particular order. You've still failed to provide it, though you've
rattled off some of the usual mantras.

You asked for twice for the same items, the latter being in a specific
format. One was realistic--the other was not.You got the answer to your
first query, and you won't get one to the unrealistic one.


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 where did UNSCR687 say "the suspicion (not proof) of a breach shall
justify immediate invasion"? Again, you need to actually *read* what you
cite.

Meaningless. The US chose to enforce 687, which was also, if you have
forgotten, the codification of the ceasefire terms for ODS.


One of the reason the UN wasn't hugely popular is precisely because a
breach of UNSCR687 isn't an instant casus belli, but grounds for a
follow-up motion to cover action under UN auspices (such as, 660 - "Iraq
is very naughty to invade Kuwait and should leave immediately" was
eventually followed by 678, which authorised member states to enforce
660 and implored all states to support the action.)

The US and UK decided to short-circuit the UN and go for a national
solution. Time will tell whether that was the correct option: and unless
the current operation ends in disaster then partisans on both sides will
insist that their way would have been *much* better.

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".

Don Quixote was sure he was riding at giants with flailing arms, too.

Saddam Hussein posed "a threat" because, after over a year of searching,
we've turned up two - count'em, TWO! - chemical shells of uncertain
vintage. You don't think that if WMEs were a factor, there were better
places to look?

No, Saddam posed a threat for a number of reasons (and no, I will not
"prioritize" them), among them his continued desire to pursue WMD programs
in spite of the terms imposed upon him to end the last combat operation we
launched against him.


Of course, "it's not all about WMDs", it's a completely flexible list -
so much so that you proudly boast of being unable to work out what order
the reasons might fall in. But then, Hussein wasn't the top threat on
any permutation of your list.

The White House did not prioritize them, either. I have yet to see any
prioritized declaration of war in any other historical conflict; is this
something new you are proposing for Paulian World? 'Cause it sure does not
seem to apply here on earth, nor has it ever applied.


Still, the idea that you should deal with the most dangerous threats is
obviously foreign foolishness rooted in the notion that there's a
"handbook" containing basic wisdom like "biggest risk, biggest
response".

I believe your words we "NK and Iran are much nearer WME than Iraq, and
Syria is widely alleged to have chemical warheads on over a hundred Scud
copies. Sounds like a threat to me - when do we go in? If it was good enough
for Iraq, it's good enough for them." Looks like you are grouping all
threats into one big pile and advocating equal treatment for all. Or were
you lying when you made that statement?


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.

Did he ever have the means to support one?

Yeah--those binary components of sarin included in that one round, a ricin
program, and worse, a demonstrated willingness to both use WMD's (setting
him apart from all other current national leaders) and to directly attack US
citizens (of which group that former US President and his entourage are
members).


Tell you what - I'll guarantee to prevent your house being ruined by
rampaging bull elephants. Now it's only my kindness and generosity that
stands between you, and domestic ruin under a herd of crazed pachyderms.

Credible? Or silly? I'd say "silly" - similarly, if Iraq has no means to
produce a threat, then attacking them eliminates _nothing_ while leaving
*real* threats much more free to act. (You don't need elephant
insurance. Burglary, fire, et cetera are more credible risks... how much
would you take from those policies to build an elephant-proof fence
around your house?)


If Iraq *did* have the means to produce a significant WME threat, where
is it?

(To forestall the inevitable "ricin! ricin! scary!" it's something an
A-level chemist should be able to do with commercial glassware in a
domestic kitchen)

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"

Send a recce aircraft to photograph Syria's WMD factories and missile
bases and see what happens.

If you have not noticed, Syria is not subject to NFZ restrictions. Again,
your argument is meaningless.


You can't fly there and will get a more effective response than Iraq
managed.

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,

Then you've failed to read. (Syria is Ba'athist just like Iraq was and
has similar policies about internal dissent)

Please point to the evidence that the current governments of either nation
are responsible for mass executions.


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

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

Another lie, Kevin? They slip so easily from your lips.

Provide proof.


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.

The public information to date suggests but is not firm that it was
spotted in time, and disabled: the process of disabling the rounds
caused the shell to break and the contents to mix.

Very vague and not much more has been coming. (Which is not hugely
suspicious - these things take time to analyse. I'm a little surprised
that more information about the details of the find haven't noticeably
emerged, but give them time)

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";

In other words, "not a binary round used as a IED", meaning "not what
was found".

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.

Or they could have killed themselves in the attempt, or just ruined the
shell. (Just because the ingredients of binary sarin aren't nerve
toxins, doesn't make them innocuous or easy to handle)

I am not aware that either isoproponol or DF are extraordinarily hazardous
by themselves.


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.

Both putting most men outside the effective area. One shell doesn't do
that much - they're fired in barrages for a reason.

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.

Still gets you less casualties than using HE, as far as I can tell -
unless your guys really bunch up around the explosion point that
initiates an ambush.

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.

Plus, it appears from US reports to date, over a decade of deterioration
of the shell and its contents.

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

Your invention, not mine. Lying again? Please stick to my own words of
"militarily significant" when you wish to attribute a description of
required quantity to me.

No. You are the one who has repeatedly claimed that "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." The US did
not claim that those were necessary conditions. You also have repeatedly
claimed that a "immediate or imminent threat" is required; again, the US
case did not use that verbage. Now either you will admit that these were not
lynchpins of the US's case, or you won't--at this point I could care less,
since I can't trust what you'll say anyway.


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"?

So, you're now calling me a liar only because you didn't like the tone
of my apology? While multiply doing the exact same paraphrase on my
words?

See the earlier details of this "aplogy " of your's (the one where you said,
"That was a paraphrase, not a quote: I put the name and date on the quote so
it could be traced. My apologies if the distinction wasn't clear enough." ).
Odd, nowhere in that statement do you agree the paraphrase was inaccurate.
In fact, it is hard to figure out just what if anything you *did* apologize
for in that case.


Not good.

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

What else are you meant to do? I used a tactic you're fond of, you took
umbrage, I apologised and made it clear that I had paraphrased rather
than precisely quoted your words.

See above.


For this I'm called a liar while you repeatedly attribute false
statements to me.

Prove it.


Yes, I'm enormously impressed with your honour and integrity.

I can see why, when compared to your own levels of both.


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"?

I asked you for a prioritised list. I got "some reasons" in no
particular order. Still haven't had any indication even of which is the
most and which the least important reason.

How many times are you going to trot this one out? You first asked for a
list, period. You got it. Stop quibbling--you are already enough of a liar
as is.


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.

So take it to the Security Council.

Nah, we took care of it ourselves.


Oh, yes, they're irrelevant and incompetent? Then who cares about their
resolutions?

One needs to take one side, or the other, if one wishes to present as
having any integrity. Is the UNSC a significant body, or not? If it is,
why was it bypassed? If it is not, who *cares* what twaddle it passes?

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.

Take it to the Security Council.

Ditto.


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

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

So who was convicted, since the evidence was so solid?

Can't recall, though I do believe the Kuwaitis had a couple of people in
jail over that one.


Or is "diehard Saddam apologist" another one of those lies you're so
free with?

Did I thus label you? No. I said, "Proven to the satisfaction of most,
except for diehard Saddam apologists." If you consider yourself a diehard
Saddam apologist, so be it. I would note that you have demonstrated a
tendency to project the image of someone who thinks the US did Saddam wrong,
based upon your defense of him in regards to his WMD violations.


harboring a couple of known terrorists,

I offer you Brennan, Artt and Kirby.

Then declare war on us.

Why? Three fugitive murderers are proof of hypocrisy regarding "giving
sanctuary to terrorists", but hardly casus belli unless you're really
desperate.

Two or three known terrorists receiving sanctuary from Iraq, along with one
reported terrorist training facility, and behavior such as supporting
suicide bombers does indeed constitute part of the casus belli.


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?

Well, after I gave up on you ever managing the "prioritised" part...

You got a list in reponse to your first query--be happy, and stop quibbling.


Still, half an answer's better than none and it's clear *you* have no
idea either what the relative importance might have been.

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.

As would your "standard playbook for international affairs" and "great
numbers of rounds in massive stockpiles" so falsely attributed to me.

No, those have been accurate, based upon your own words, as provided above.
You asked where you attributed it--the answer is right there. But you won't
admit it, ebven when faced with your own words? Figures. You are a lying
sack of ****.


Seems you're even more of an egregious liar than me, Kevin, and you've
never made clear that you were paraphrasing rather than quoting nor
apologised for the misattribution.

See where these baseless claims have been addressed earlier in this missive.
Now, again--you asked, "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?" I
gave you your answer, also in your own words. Again, you are proven to be a
liar.



What's your excuse?

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.

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 asked for a list in order of priority, I got "some of the reasons" in
no order.

No, you asked for a list, which you got. *Then* you asked for the ridiculous
order of priority--and I am still waiting for you to show me any casus belli
for any war where a "prioritized list" was published. I gave you a report on
our casus belli, as given by the White House (not prioritized). Go
ahead--knock yourself out and give me those historical examples.


"I don't know the order." would, again, have been quite acceptable.
Instead, you've chosen to bluster rather than admit ignorance. (I'll be
much more charitable than you and refrain from claiming that you're
deliberately being dishonest in an attempt to conceal your ignorance)

There is no order. Never has been. And not only in the case of this
conflict. Go ahead, I am waiting for you to provide those examples of other
conflicts where a nation has provided a prioritized list of causes.


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.

"standard playbook for international affairs"?

Asked and answered, repeatedly, with your own words proving you again to be
a liar. Now, you said, "at no point did I claim to anyone that Kevin Brooks
said at TIME on DATE that "QUOTE". But as we can see from your
own words, to wit, ""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", you
are lying again. Proven rather conclusively, too.


"great numbers of rounds in massive stockpiles"

See your own words that I quoted earlier (above).


Liar yourself, Mr Brooks.

Prove it.


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,

Well, to employ the same tactics as you.

Either we are both liars, or we are not.

No, "we" are not--you are. And proven conclusively, as you can see again
from that claim of your's that you *never* directly attributed such a
statement to me--when in fact you have been shown to have done exactly that.
That is called *proof*. Now, go back and prove your allegations about me.


to wit: in claiming that
you never attributed those statements to me, which you did, by your own
words,

Just as you have repeatedly done to me.

Mine have been accurate, as your own quotes demonstrate. Google sucks, huh?


and in claiming that I have not given you those examples of "other
reasons", which I did last month.

As a partial and unprioritised assortment, when you were specifically
asked for relative importance.

Both have been presented to you. It is a
bit late to close the barn door--the cows are out.

Kevin, I keep horses in my stable, it's no surprise you won't find any
cows in there.


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

I am not running.

No, I will give you that credit.

I have given you your own words proving you are a liar
regarding your inaccurate paraphrase attributed to me,

And I have shown that you have lied even more generously about me -
except that I have publicly and repeatedly made clear that I was
paraphrasing your words, whereas you continue to blatantly and openly
peddle false quotations as if they were my own words.

No, you have not, as your own words show, again, and again, and again...
read those quotes of your own words I have provided to you.


along with my own
words proving you also lied about supposedly not having given you those
"other reasons".

You were asked for a prioritised list. You still have failed to provide
it, though you hide behind having mumbled some of the reasons in no
apparent order and then insist that it was a full and complete answer.

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.

Kevin, you have no standing from which to judge.

As I said, there was a time when such accusations you fling so cheaply
and casually were considered serious. Some of us still consider them so.
You, obviously, think them nothing more than petty tools to evade
difficult questions.

No, I find them quite serious, which is why I did not lable you a liar until
after I had pointed out the inaccuracy of your statement attributed directly
to me, and then watched you try to continue to argue that claim. And the
repeated proofs of your lying in this thread are piling up, higher and
higher, while you sink lower and lower.


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...

Cite please, where I stated that humour was unacceptable in this thread.

See earlier quote of your response to my initial humorous remark.


Are you falsely attributing words to me *again*?

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).

So, where precisely did I state where it could be found?

Paul, 18 May 04: ""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" Note the
original quotation marks around the initial statement--they were your's.
Keep on piling up that evidence of your lying, Paul.



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,

So, the issue is now merely whether you find the tone of my apology
acceptable?

Asked and answered earlier.


This is some distance from the ferocious and determined dishonesty you
seem insistent on attributing to me, along with multiple other
inventions of yours.

Of course, none of that makes *you* a liar...


while at the same
time, as we can clearly see in this post, you continue to lie about ever
attributing the paraphrase to me.

Kevin, you're getting desperate.

Apparently, you can't hardly say much of
anything lately without lying.

Yes, quite. Go on, then, give me some examples.

They are quite evident in this thread--see above (starting waaaay above).


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.

Then what you wrote is not what you meant.

Please prove that. Go back and read what I wrote, and demonstrate that I
said I was not going to read your reply. What I said was I was closing this
out--i.e., I was finishing my response at that point because I was about
full of your lies for one day. Go ahead--show where I said otherwise.


"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

Just as you've falsely attributed words to me that I never said, and
evaded questions I repeatedly asked - and exploited my tolerance on your
evasions to pretend a wounded innocence when in fact you are still
fleeing the question.

You have offered no proof; you have not challenged the evidence offered that
demonstrates again and again your own lies.


Yes, you're a paragon of virtue and integrity, Mr Brooks.

Compared to you, I doubtless am. heck, at this point, Peter Skelton is a
paragon of virtue compared to you--and that is saying a lot.


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.

An apparently random selection of "some of the reasons" is not a
"prioritised list". You were asked one question, you answered another,
and you are now broadcasting that evasion as if it were a fine and noble
thing.

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.

Certainly. As I said, some of us don't treat these matters with the
casual disregard that you do.

Anytime.


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.

If you want to put it like that?

Fort Widley courtyard, dawn, Saturday 19 June.

Gauntlet's down.

I said when you are in the area; I have never been to the UK, and don't see
any chance of going. You, OTOH have indicated that you make periodic visits
to the DC area, right? That is close enough for me--I am more than willing
to do a little drivetime if it makes you happy. Seriously. I believe that
makes it "put up or shut up" time to you, does it not?


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.

What order were those reasons in? How important was each? Given that
these were only "some" of the reasons, were there others more important?

No, sorry, you evaded and you kept evading.

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.

I thought I didn't apologise? When did your story change?

I said, "..which you say..." No, you really did not apologize for it, as we
can see from reading the excerpts I included earlier in that regard.


Then you now claim that
you never made such an attibution directly to me in the first place--but
your quoted words show otherwise.

Actually, they don't.

Yes, they do. ""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". Or are
you now going to say that Google mysteriously created those words in your
name?

Meanwhile you continue to freely and falsely
attribute claims and statements to me - presumably this is the least
important of your claims? Or else you have no regard for truth?

Those paraphrased attributions have proven to be true, based upon your own
voluminous past rumminations on those subjects.


I had the integrity to immediately clarify that the words were a
paraphrase rather than a quotation, and apologise for any
misrepresentation: you've extended me no such courtesy in your multiple
false attributions to me.

No, you did not, and by this point I have repeatedly shown you did not.


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.

I asked for a list with an indication of order and relative importance.
I got a random selection of reasons.

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?

"Proven" in your febrile imagination, perhaps.

No, proven by your own conflicting claims, quoted in this post.


Meanwhile, the challenge is open if you choose to meet it. Will you back
your claims, or withdraw them? (Or will you make a weak excuse?)

Already have backed them; you are the only one who has provided zero
evidence.


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"?

When you ever find proof, let me know.

Meanwhile,

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,

Remind me, again, when I told you humour was not permitted?

I *did* tell you that I personally did not find one of your attempts at
a joke funny. Now, show me precisely where I told you that I had "the
right to declare when humor is allowed in a thread and when it is not".

Or are *you* lying, Kevin? Are *you* still inventing claims and then
falsely attributing them to me?

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

Uhmmm...who's running?

You are, on Saturday 19th.

Come on, run to me baby. Anytime, just let me know when. You sad sack of
excrement.

Brooks

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Why? You're the one who responded to argument with a version of "it was
a joke, son, a joke" a few posts back.

And you were the one who said that humor was inappropriate in this
thread--right up until you wanted to use it yourself. Typical.

No, I didn't - I thought misquotation was a Bad Thing?

I *did* say I didn't find it amusing, but show me where I tried to deny
you permission.

Not particularly. You suggested a properly calibrated humour switch was
a necessary tool, now you're flying off the handle because it seems your
calibration is badly off.

Only because you told us it was not allowed in this thread.

Where? Are you merely confused, or just mendacious?

Sorry, we were talking about UNSCR687, not Congressional resolutions.
Unless you accept that Iraqi government resolutions that Kuwait was
actually the 19th Province and should be reunified immediately were also
binding?

Sorry that you can't grasp that our congress decided to actually act in this
case,

So, UN resolutions are irrelevant? Why are you discussing them, in that
case?

No mention of *industrial* production, meaning they had at best reached
prototype testing - and certainly not excluding prototype testing.

Actually, no mention of *any* production. Please point to where any
"non-industrial" production was mentioned in regards to these kind of
weapons?

So these shells were never produced?

No - just no evidence of a production line for the results of the
suspected research.

Again, please point to where the UN inspectors point to *any* binary rounds
being produced as part of this program. No?

Find evidence of *any* binary rounds being produced in Iraq.

As I said--the UN never mentions
any evidence of *any* rounds being fabricated,

Despite an apparent research program.

nor did the Iraqis
acknowledge producing any such rounds, be they R&D products or not. Which is
what I have been saying all along--so your point would be...?

That this was a prototype (not production), or even an import. Certainly
no evidence that Iraq produced it, according to you.

The first Archerfish prototype was built in a garage in personal time.
Now it's part of the US AMNS program. Doesn't mean the first few
hand-built prototypes never existed, or that Redfish didn't get lost
while surveying Brent Spar.

We are not talking about Archerfish--we are talking about Iraqi binary
rounds which you indicated the UN report addressed--but in fact the UN
reports did not ever mention any such rounds being in existance, and was
only aware that some form of R&D had occured.

How much R&D? Enough for a few prototypes, for example? (Pretty basic
R&D if they didn't even get to basic prototype testing...)

To repeat,
"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."

Wow. How many rounds are produced by the usual "study"?

Between five and fifty, in my direct experience - those were guided
weapons, though, so artillery shells would likely be rather higher. Can
be a hundred or more for an experimental round (thinking of the L15
shell as the one I heard about, and that was just an improved HE round)

Why bother with
"industrial production" when you can apparently convene a few folks around a
table, produce a report or two regarding design requirments and feasibility,
and ...presto, rounds magically appear?

How many rounds, taking how long? (Remember you fire these by the pallet
load in action - prototypes are fine for development but you then freeze
the design and set up a line for mass production)

The fact is that the UN never
mentioned the physical existance, or suspected existance, of *any* binary
rounds--as I told you before.

And they also were explicit that there was no Iraqi production facility
for binary sarin shells found (confirmed by subsequent events).

So I guess that proves the shell can't be Iraqi, if your logic is
correct.

So, evidence of studies but not of production lines. And in over a year
of searching based first on intelligence, then on prisoner
interrogation, there's no sign of any production line that could have
produced such a shell.


One option is that this was a pre-91 prototype round. Another is that it
was imported, from Syria or Iran as examples. Evidence that it's part of
a domestic production program is the thinnest of all - yet that's the
mast you've chosen to nail your colours to.

You see Iran as a potential supplier of chemical munitions to Saddam?!

Absolutely not - the concept's ludicrous.

But he's been gone over a year, and I can see Iran (or factions within
Iran) supplying Shi'a resistance with weapons.

And where is your evidence that
Syria was a possible source?

Same place as your evidence that the round came from an Iraqi mass
production line

Paulian conjecture? OTOH, we do have the UN
acknowledging that the Iraqis were working on binary development, and geee,
what do you kniow, a binary round turns up in Iraq. Occam's razor says it
was probably of Iraqi manufacture.

Isn't that what I keep saying? If they had a development program, they'd
have had a few hand-built rounds to test the concept... except,
according to you, they must have managed to go directly from paper
concept to frozen design without a single prototype, and then made the
production line and everyone who knew about it disappear into thin air
before the US arrived.

The UN found hard evidence of neither R&D rounds nor mass production,
but you cannot get to mass production without the development & proving
trials, for which you need R&D rounds. I think you need to look again at
Occam's razor and try wielding it properly.

Nice evasion. So why not invade Iraq properly in autumn 1991, when
they're thoroughly in violation?

Because we were willing to give them a chance to meet the terms of the
ceasefire from our then-recent little dance in the desert. And we continued
to give them opportunities to meet those requirements for the next twelve
years. Many of us find that a more than reasonable time period during which
Saddam could have chosen to fully comply with the requirements. But he did
not do so, and was as you acknowledge in violation on some number of
issues--too bad for him.

So, go to the UN and get a resolution authorising action and imploring
all member nations to lend assistance.

Or is the UN only relevant when it suits you? If it's not relevant, then
neither is 687. If it *is* relevant, then you need authorisation or
self-defence to invade another member country.

There was supposed to be a major, imminent threat. There wasn't,

Not according to our case.

Your case turned out to be badly in error.

You mean, "avoid all the issues you find too hard to deal with?"

No, they have been dealt with--you just typically try to continually
reorient to this "immediate or imminent threat" from WMD that was, in fact,
not a requirement for our action per the case set forth by our leaders on
this side of the pond. Sorry, but that is just not an accurate portrayal of
what was required to justify action, as the White House report I pointed you
at made clear.

"Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents,
probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Its capability
was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections and is probably more limited
now than it was at the time of the Gulf war, although VX production and
agent storage life probably have been improved.


Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents."
http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq...q_Oct_2002.htm

Let's remember that we British apparently used chemical weapons on the
Iraqis during the 1920s. Out of interest, would digging up a
1920s-vintage shell filled with mustard gas count as "a violation" and
be the complete, absolute justification you seem to consider it?

No.

So is it one shell, two shells or three shells that become the
violation?

I am not, and have said so to you repeatedly. Since you're fond of
invective, let me now call *you* a liar for repeatedly making false
claims despite contradiction.

Have you not continually stated that if we went into Iraq under the
justifications we have set forth, that we also should *have* to similarly
and simultaneously address every other WMD-holding state with similar,
either overt/government approved or covert/non-government sanctioned ties to
terrorism, etc., in the same manner as we have Iraq?

No. Your fantasy, not mine, falsely attributed to me.

I expressed concern that Iraq presented a much lower threat than several
other nations, and represented a significant diversion of resources
since even the US can only undertake one such operation at a time.

That bears no resemblance to the nonsense you claim I espouse. In
particular, point to when I demanded *simultaneous* action - that
addition is your invention, not mine. (The US doesn't have the available
resources to deal with Sudan at the moment, let alone Iran or Syria...)


Where have *I* ever mentioned a "standard playbook for international
affairs"? (Your words, this post) That is your own invention which you
have falsely, repeatedly, attributed to me. You are a liar.

The "standard playbook" is my accurate paraphrase

"I accurately paraphrase, you're a filthy liar". Yes, extremely
consistent.

I ask why greater apparent threats are considered less urgent (and why
the US is so extending itself with Iraq as to preclude any significant
action against those threats), and you claim I espouse a rigidly
standardised approach that must be undertaken in parallel?

Hardly an "accurate paraphrase", in fact I'd call it a deliberate
distortion.

Go through your list of quotes. When do I say that the US *must* invade
anyone else? I ask when other threats will get the same treatment: I do
not demand parallel operations.


But I suppose only you get to define what "accurate paraphrase" is.

Where have I ever stated that only "great numbers of rounds in massive
stockpiles" or "only massive amounts", (both you, this thread, June 05)
would be convincing? Again, your invention, falsely quoted as being my
words. You are a liar.

"A huge lethal pile of WME may still emerge, but the odds continue to
worsen." 12 Sep 03

Nothing about how much would be *necessary*.

"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." (In this very
thread)

And completely true - read your Joint Warfare Publications, or whatever
the US equivalent is.

So, it appears that you do indeed require "massive amounts" if you are only
willing to consider "tons of agent".

I'd accept "Militarily significant". "Massive amounts" is simply
dishonest: you're presenting it as a direct quotation of my words, when
in fact it's your distortion.

But again, when you do this it's just "accurate paraphrasing".

Of course, you have also said recently,
"1998 and earlier, I'm willing to accept a few (call it three, offhand)
"WME stockpiles" that are - for a rule of thumb - a pallet or less of
shells, 122mm rockets, or precursors each. 1991 or earlier, I'd raise
the bar quite a lot higher, because they prepared to fight a defensive
war and then lost it massively and that's where large amounts of kit go
missing. (We're still occasionally digging up buried caches of 1940s No.
76 grenades here in the UK, which is a problem because they're beer
bottles filled with a benzene, rubber and white phosphorous mixture -
not nice to accidentally put a spade through one) Post-1998, "a pallet"
of filled basic munitions or of filler for them,
or a single weapon that was a significant advance on their previous
capability, would be conclusive proof. Less than that would be a very
unwelcome surprise, though not decisive (we know they *wanted* to keep
their programs going, but the claim was that the programs existed and
were an immediate threat)" 18 May 04

Which leaves one a bit perplexed as to what exactly you do require-

I thought the above was perfectly clear.

-it
ranges from the acceptance of one round of a type they were not known to
have (which you apparently no longer accept, being as this binary round no
longer makes your cut-off score),

They were known to be working on it, remember? Weaponised VX, or an
effective BW agent with workable dispersal means, would be appropriate.
Going from "binary lite" to "true binary" with sarin would not.

to multiple pallets of rounds, to the
claim that you have to have "tons of agent" in order to be measurable.

Basically, we're looking for evidence that there was an Iraqi threat.
The older the munitions are, the more production they had back then. One
estimate is that Iraq produced something over 200,000 chemical
munitions, of which maybe half were expended during the war with Iraq
(try proving *that* claim solidly).

From 1991 onwards his NBCR facilities were under inspection and
occasional attack, and "it was lost in 1987" or "it was overrun in 1991"
becomes infeasable.

Shall I continue? I find your protestations of wounded honour extremely
amusing, since you so freely indulge in the conduct you claim to
deprecate.

Mine are pretty accurate--your's have been deplorably inaccurate, and proven
as such.

Your definition of "accurate" here is as incorrect as when you use it to
describe your paraphrasing.

Well, it seems the director of your Central Intelligence Agency at least
felt he was wrong.

Uhmmm...again, where in the White House's case against Iraq did you find
thaose descriptive terms? Eh?

Quoted the CIA's white paper at you.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised." President G W Bush, March 17 2003

"The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses
and produces chemical and biological weapons...

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger
is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know
Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do...

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical
weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists...

Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is
increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer
to developing a nuclear weapon...." President G W Bush, October 17, 2002

Shame about the lack of production lines, isn't it?

"Lambasted"? When?

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

Lambast, verb. Beat with a cane [syn: cane, flog, lambaste] 2: censure
severely or angrily; "The mother scolded the child for entering the
stranger's car"; "The deputy ragged the Prime Minister"; "The customer
dressed down the waiter for bringing cold soup";

I told you your joke wasn't funny to me, and you call it "severe or
angry censure"? Either you're ignorant, lying or mentally unstable.

Then why did you say it if you're not certain?

Oh, I forgot - humour and sarcasm. Which are admirable rhetorical tools
in your hands, but deceitful lies when used against you. Just as
paraphrasing your debator's words is a perfectly acceptable tactic for
you, but a filthy deception when practiced against you.

No, you keep forgetting that it was you who took the "nothing humorous about
this subject" bent.

I thought you claimed I forbade you from using humour?

(Or are you finally withdrawing that false claim?)

Once you are proven to be a liar, none of
your words have much weight

Let me know if you ever find any proof, then.

No. Why do you suddenly find them credible, and why have you so
conspicuously failed to defend them?

What? I find Kay to be quite credible. So if you are not calling him a liar,
then you must accept his testimony that violations, to include that ricin
program, were indeed found.

+++++
Weapons of mass destruction do not exist in Iraq and it is "delusional"
to think they will be found, says former chief US weapons inspector
David Kay.

Mr Kay told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that British and American
leaders should simply apologise and admit that they were wrong....

"There were clearly illegal activities, clear violations of UN Security
Council resolutions. We have accumulated that evidence and really have
accumulated that evidence to a considerable degree four months ago.

"There are not actual stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass
destruction."
+++++
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3778987.stm

Still find him credible?

You mean, like "massive quantities"? Go on, find me a post where I said
that - yet you attributed it to me. Or is it not lying when *you* do it?

See above--your own words always tend to let you down, don't they Paul?

So, you've proved I *never* said "massive quantities" and your claiming
I did, is a lie. (You paraphrased it and passed it off as a direct
quotation, while claiming that doing so is a lie)

It's curious that those who are most generous in flinging the charge of
"liar" are those who themselves are quite reckless with the truth.

Prove it, as I have in your case.

Done, repeatedly.

No, you rattled off a laundry-list of reasons. Were they in order? What
was the relative importance? *That* was what you were asked for and you
have *still* failed to provide.

You asked for the reasons--you got them...again, and again.

I asked for the reasons and their relative importance. You provided
"some" of the reasons and refused to prioritise them. Again, and again,
and again.

I'm being generous because you repeated the laundry list and still left
out the order and prioritisation I asked for.

Oh, so sorry!

Thank you.

Why should I have bothered to prioritize them, when you
refused to even acknowledge they were given to you?

Because a partial list without the prioritisation is meaningless.

Is there is
prioritization system required? No, not that I am aware of.

It was asked for, you repeatedly refuse to provide it, and now you claim
you fully and completely answered the question.

Curious definition of honesty you use over there, Kevin.

And now you
wiggle and squirm, and try to claim that I never gave them to you in the
precise format that you (only later, after they were originally given to
you) requested.

I don't need to *claim* you refused, you proudly boast of doing so.

Now, remember you've left out any priority and importance. Are these the
top slice of the list? The least important reasons that are safe for
public discussion? A random selection?

You asked "Out of interest, what *were* the reasons? Let us avoid future
misunderstandings." To which I gave you an answer. You then went on to ask
for them in a "rough order of importance", which I did not do, seeing as
there is no standard or approved "order of importance" for such things.

I see - so, in other words even you admit you never answered the
question, providing a partial evasion which you then hid behind
repeatedly.


How bizarre. What, exactly, is the "lie" here?

You should be able to find your's quite easily, as they are getting to be so
darned common. And you left out the quote of your own words: ""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.

From: Paul J. Adam )
Subject: Sarin in a 155 artillery round
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Date: 2004-05-19 13:51:14 PST

"That was a paraphrase, not a quote: I put the name and date on the
quote so it could be traced.

My apologies if the distinction wasn't clear enough."

Now, is that not an apology?

Meanwhile, you repeatedly and blatantly conduct exactly the same false
attribution, invent bizarre positions such as "defending Hussein" and
claim they're mine.

You have defended Hussein--not all of the time, but enough.

When, precisely?

That whole bit
about Saddam not knowing about his WMD programs,

Actually, having a grossly exaggerated idea of them.


+++++
From: Paul J. Adam )
Subject: Truman: the buck stops here
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Date: 2003-07-15 14:46:54 PST

"I'm personally inclined to believe that Saddam's stated chemical and
biological weapon production was close kin to Soviet-era food harvests:
every Five-Year Plan reports record yields of grain, milk and meat,
while mysteriously food rations are cut (again) - only because
Western-inspired 'revisionists', 'capitalists' and 'hooligans' are
sabotaging the distribution of these bumper crops."
+++++

and presumably him being
therefore innocent of these violations,

I don't follow you here. Saddam wrongly believed he had potent
stockpiles of WME and this renders him *innocent*?

How does this constitute "defending him"?

is a defense of Saddam. Come on, you
have wasted enough electrons in that sort of tapdance--you should at least
be able to admit that is a defense of Saddam.

No, I'm afraid you're either mendacious or confused again.


Depends what you mean - he disappeared in clouds of bluster and
killfiled me every time I proved he was talking out of his arse.

*He* started calling me a liar when I pointed out you could use
precision-guided weapons for close air support and he insisted that had
never happened, didn't happen now and could never be considered.
Apparently all those LGBs, JDAMs and Mavericks reported expended in CAS
missions were just fictions of the pilots' overheated imaginations.

Well, in my case your own words have repeatedly shown you to be a liar.

That's what he said as well. Oh, and he's fond of the tactical
paraphrase too.

Sounds like a bit of a different situation to me.

No, I think it's remarkably similar. Can't argue the issues? Call your
opponent a liar. Don't get anywhere with that? Resort to invective.

Where did I ever claim there was a "standard playbook for international
affairs"? You repeatedly use that phrase, in quotation marks, as if it
was my own words. Where did I mention the existence of such? Or did you
invent it and then falsely attribute it to me?

As I said above, and backed up with repeated direct quotes from your
numerous posts on the subject, that is an accurate paraphrase--

You presented it in a manner which you claimed made it a quotation. It
is not a quotation, it's a paraphrase, and not even an accurate one.

So, you're passing off your words as mine with intent to deceive? Your
rules, not mine - but they make you a liar.

And a much more determined one, since I *immediately* made clear that
the disputed words were not a direct quotation and apologised for the
error: while you continue to insist that peddling a distortion of my
words as if they were my own, is a fair and decent thing to do.



"NK and Iran
are much nearer WME than Iraq, and Syria is widely alleged to have chemical
warheads on over a hundred Scud copies. Sounds like a threat to me - when do
we go in? If it was good enough for Iraq, it's good enough for them."

If Iraq is such a threat, why is

Your
words. I am guessing you are beginning to hate the long-term emeory quality
of Google about now; it must truly suck having to face your own words that
bear out the accuracy of how I characterized your argument in this regard,
huh?

Indeed: it's very useful to compare your quotes - sorry, when *you* do
it they're just paraphrases - with what I actually wrote and to see how
vague your definition of "accurate paraphrase" is.

Now, if you weren't so in arms about this being a gross and malicious
falsehood when done to *you*, this wouldn't be an issue: your enthusiasm
for distorting positions is obvious and hardly new. It's your
self-righteous hypocrisy that it's perfectly acceptable for *you*, but
malicious falsehood from anyone else, that's so curious.

Where have I ever stated that only "great numbers of rounds in massive
stockpiles" or "only massive amounts", (both you, this thread, June 05)
would be convincing? Again, your invention, falsely placed in quotation
marks as though they were my own words. Where did I make those
statements? Citations, please.

Already provided above.

No, you posted how I described quantities. You then falsely quoted me as
requiring "great numbers of rounds in massive quantities", words you
yourself have proved I never used.

Oh, I forgot - when *you* change people's words it's just an "accurate
paraphrase".

Which I immediately made clear was a paraphrase and apologised for - a
point you ignored, while indulging in the exact same conduct yourself.

No, go back and read the record--you did not immediately apologize.


Google shows you raised your protest at 18:38:40 PST on May 18, and I
apologised at 13:51:14 PST on May 19.

How much more "immediately" do you want on Usenet?

I
corrected you, rather politely, and you persisted in inaccurately portraying
my argument,

I'm sorry, it's now that I "inaccurately portrayed your argument"? This
from the person who claims that Hussein's ignorance of his WME programs
is "protecting him"? Who routinely and regularly distorts - sorry,
"accurately paraphrases" - positions he disagrees with and then presents
them as if they were his opponent's own words?


I accept that I paraphrased your words, and that I made it
insufficiently clear that it was a paraphrase rather than a quotation.

going as far as presenting my actual quote that you claimed
proved your point. I *then* labled you a liar, and I pointed out that you
had ignored the "all" and its import to the meaning; only then did you
weakly apologize, but even that apology was less than full

S it's now not that I'm a liar, but that you didn't like the apology?

("That was a
paraphrase, not a quote: I put the name and date on the quote so it could be
traced. My apologies if the distinction wasn't clear enough.").

As if your
paraphrase was still accurate (and you know it was not--you do know that a
paraphrase can be either accurate or inaccurate, don't you?).

I'm using your standards of accuracy - are they incorrect?

Then you had
the unmitigated gall to come back in this thread and claim you *never*
attributed that paraphrase directly to me--

No, I didn't. Where did I claim you said it? Remember, if it's a quote
then it's traceable.

Cripes,
at this point you have lied so much, and so repetitively, that they are now
piling up on each other.

Or maybe you're just flailing.

And where did UNSCR687 say "the suspicion (not proof) of a breach shall
justify immediate invasion"? Again, you need to actually *read* what you
cite.

Meaningless. The US chose to enforce 687, which was also, if you have
forgotten, the codification of the ceasefire terms for ODS.

To do so required a further resolution authorising armed force, in the
same way that 660 was followed by 687 as the enabling action for
military force.

That's UN rules, anyway: either go with the UN or not, but don't pick
and mix.

Of course, "it's not all about WMDs", it's a completely flexible list -
so much so that you proudly boast of being unable to work out what order
the reasons might fall in. But then, Hussein wasn't the top threat on
any permutation of your list.

The White House did not prioritize them, either. I have yet to see any
prioritized declaration of war in any other historical conflict; is this
something new you are proposing for Paulian World? 'Cause it sure does not
seem to apply here on earth, nor has it ever applied.

Generally there's no need, because there's a simple clear reason. "Get
Germany out of Poland", "Get North Korea out of South Korea", "push the
Germans back out of France and liberate Belgium".

Still, the idea that you should deal with the most dangerous threats is
obviously foreign foolishness rooted in the notion that there's a
"handbook" containing basic wisdom like "biggest risk, biggest
response".

I believe your words we "NK and Iran are much nearer WME than Iraq, and
Syria is widely alleged to have chemical warheads on over a hundred Scud
copies. Sounds like a threat to me - when do we go in? If it was good enough
for Iraq, it's good enough for them." Looks like you are grouping all
threats into one big pile and advocating equal treatment for all.

No, just comparing threats and wondering why Iraq seemed so urgent when
greater dangers lay elsewhere.

The idea of "one big pile" and "equal treatment for all" is your own
fantasy, nothing I've ever advocated or stated: you continue to falsely
attribute it to me, conduct you clearly state is an unacceptable
falsehood.

Or were
you lying when you made that statement?

No, I was asking a question (The question marks indicate that it's a
"question" not a "statement".) The 'Good enough' followup is rhetorical
rather than analytical.

Did he ever have the means to support one?

Yeah--those binary components of sarin included in that one round,

Well, that's going to really slaughter thousands.

a ricin
program,

Which a competent student could replicate in a domestic kitchen.

and worse, a demonstrated willingness to both use WMD's (setting
him apart from all other current national leaders)

Sure, but only because it was the President of Syria's father who used
HCN at Hama in 1982. I'm sure the son is a much nicer man.

and to directly attack US
citizens (of which group that former US President and his entourage are
members).

Oh, tragic. So you've captured his stockpile of WMEs and attacks on US
citizens have stopped?

If those really were reasons, they've both failed to succeed...

Send a recce aircraft to photograph Syria's WMD factories and missile
bases and see what happens.

If you have not noticed, Syria is not subject to NFZ restrictions.

Can the US fly aircraft freely through Syrian airspace without being at
least intercepted, and if they don't co-operate being engaged?

Then you've failed to read. (Syria is Ba'athist just like Iraq was and
has similar policies about internal dissent)

Please point to the evidence that the current governments of either nation
are responsible for mass executions.

Quote of a quote, since Amnesty's web site is down.

+++++
“Some monitors stated: old streets of the city were bombed from the
air to facilitate the introduction of military forces and tanks through
the narrow streets, like the al-Hader street, where homes were crushed
by tanks during the first four days of fighting. On February 15th,
after days of intense bombardment, Defence Minister General Mustafa
Tlass announced that the rebellion was put out, but the city remained
under siege and surrounded. Door-to-door searches along with extensive
arrests continued during the next two following weeks, while various
news leaks talked about atrocities committed by the security forces and
mass killings of innocent city residents. It is not easy to know what
did exactly occur, but Amnesty International mentioned news of a mass
execution of some 70 people outside the city hospital on February 19th
and the annihilation of all residents of the al-Hader area on the hands
of the Defense Brigades (Saraya el-Defaa) on the same day. Other reports
talk of using containers of cyanide gas to kill all inhabitants of
buildings, where rebels were suspected of residing. Also, people were
grouped in the military airport, city stadium, and military camps and
were left there without shelter or food for days.�

The mass murders and mass executions over-step the laws and constitute a
grave violation of the right to live, which is the same sacred right
mentioned in the universal declaration of human rights and the
International treaty regarding human and civil rights (Article 16):
every human has the natural right to live, which is protected by this
law and it is not allowed to take this right from any individual
oppressively. This was an excerpt of a report sent by Amnesty
International addressing Syrian President Hafiz Assad in 1983.
+++++
http://www.shrc.org.uk/data/aspx/d0/1260.aspx

"Other things to see in Hama include the Grand Mosque, which was
destroyed during a 1982 uprising. The uprising was started by the Muslim
Brotherhood and quashed by 8000 troops, supported by air force and tank
assaults. Up to 25,000 people died in the fighting and in following
executions and atrocities. Evidence of the uprising has been hidden by
widespread restoration - the mosque is among the buildings that have had
a facelift."
http://www.lloydstsb.lonelyplanet.co...syria/obt.html



For Iran,

+++++
In July 1981, members of the Union of Communists tried to seize control
of the Caspian town of Amol. At least seventy guerrillas and Pasdaran
members were killed before the uprising was put down. The government
responded to the armed challenge of the guerrilla groups by expanded use
of the Pasdaran in counterintelligence activities and by widespread
arrests, jailings, and executions. The executions were facilitated by a
September 1981, Supreme Judicial Council circular to the revolutionary
courts permitting death sentences for "active members" of guerrilla
groups. Fifty executions a day became routine; there were days when more
than 100 persons were executed. Amnesty International documented 2,946
executions in the 12 months following Bani Sadr's impeachment, a
conservative figure because the authorities did not report all
executions.
+++++
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ir0034)

Presumably, 3,000 Iranians and 30,000 Syrians will now not count as
sufficiently "mass" for you.

Or they could have killed themselves in the attempt, or just ruined the
shell. (Just because the ingredients of binary sarin aren't nerve
toxins, doesn't make them innocuous or easy to handle)

I am not aware that either isoproponol or DF are extraordinarily hazardous
by themselves.

Wouldn't like to be holding the burster charge if it went off
unexpectedly.

Probably wouldn't be fun if I was taking it apart and ruptured the
containers (bet they don't come out easily...) You'd *probably* only
start a leak in one...

Your invention, not mine. Lying again? Please stick to my own words of
"militarily significant" when you wish to attribute a description of
required quantity to me.

No. You are the one who has repeatedly claimed that "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." The US did
not claim that those were necessary conditions.

They did, however, claim that this was the case. Even your own President
said so.

"It[Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons."
President G W Bush, October 7 2002

You also have repeatedly
claimed that a "immediate or imminent threat" is required; again, the US
case did not use that verbage.

"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger
is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know
Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make
any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even
stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?...

....regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great
danger to our nation."
President G W Bush, October 7 2002.

So, you're now calling me a liar only because you didn't like the tone
of my apology? While multiply doing the exact same paraphrase on my
words?

See the earlier details of this "aplogy " of your's (the one where you said,
"That was a paraphrase, not a quote: I put the name and date on the quote so
it could be traced. My apologies if the distinction wasn't clear enough." ).
Odd, nowhere in that statement do you agree the paraphrase was inaccurate.

I'm sorry, I was judging by the standards of accuracy you use when you
"paraphrase" other people's positions.


However, if *that* is what has you so wound up, then I immediately
apologise for the way my paraphrase changed the meaning of your original
quote, as well as for the possibility that it might have been taken as a
direct quotation of your words.

For this I'm called a liar while you repeatedly attribute false
statements to me.

Prove it.

Have done.

So take it to the Security Council.

Nah, we took care of it ourselves.

So the UNSC and its resolutions are irrelevant - so stop mumbling about
them.

So who was convicted, since the evidence was so solid?

Can't recall, though I do believe the Kuwaitis had a couple of people in
jail over that one.

Well, that's thorough, complete and conclusive.

Or is "diehard Saddam apologist" another one of those lies you're so
free with?

Did I thus label you? No. I said, "Proven to the satisfaction of most,
except for diehard Saddam apologists."

It was not proven to my satisfaction, therefore you call me a diehard
Saddam apologist.

However, there's a grey area between "Probably him, but not actually
proven" and "Proven" which you are either ignorant of, or choose to
igno and whose occupants you describe as "diehard Saddam apologists".

If you consider yourself a diehard
Saddam apologist, so be it. I would note that you have demonstrated a
tendency to project the image of someone who thinks the US did Saddam wrong,
based upon your defense of him in regards to his WMD violations.

Your fantasy - shame it doesn't connect to reality.

Why? Three fugitive murderers are proof of hypocrisy regarding "giving
sanctuary to terrorists", but hardly casus belli unless you're really
desperate.

Two or three known terrorists receiving sanctuary from Iraq, along with one
reported terrorist training facility, and behavior such as supporting
suicide bombers does indeed constitute part of the casus belli.

Funny, that... "supporting terrorism" really is a flexible term when you
use it, isn't it?

As would your "standard playbook for international affairs" and "great
numbers of rounds in massive stockpiles" so falsely attributed to me.

No, those have been accurate, based upon your own words, as provided above.

No, they are distortions falsely attributed to me.

You asked where you attributed it--the answer is right there.

You showed how you took my words, twisted them to suit yourself, and
falsely attributed them.

But you won't
admit it, ebven when faced with your own words? Figures. You are a lying
sack of ****.

Is that a reflective screen, Kevin? Looking at yourself, perchance?


Seems you're even more of an egregious liar than me, Kevin, and you've
never made clear that you were paraphrasing rather than quoting nor
apologised for the misattribution.

See where these baseless claims have been addressed earlier in this missive.
Now, again--you asked, "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?" I
gave you your answer, also in your own words.

And proved conclusively that you're attributing statements to me that I
never made.

Again, you are proven to be a
liar.

Only in your imagination.

Cite please, where I stated that humour was unacceptable in this thread.

See earlier quote of your response to my initial humorous remark.

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

What part of that can be read as "Humour is unacceptable"? I just
pointed out that it's not a funny joke. (My cousin turned out to be OK,
in case you wondered)

So, where precisely did I state where it could be found?

Paul, 18 May 04: ""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" Note the
original quotation marks around the initial statement--they were your's.

Just as you routinely put quotation marks around your own words and
peddle them as mine.

Keep on piling up that evidence of your lying, Paul.

Don't need to, Kevin: you're digging yourself deeper with every post.

Just as you've falsely attributed words to me that I never said, and
evaded questions I repeatedly asked - and exploited my tolerance on your
evasions to pretend a wounded innocence when in fact you are still
fleeing the question.

You have offered no proof; you have not challenged the evidence offered that
demonstrates again and again your own lies.

Offered and demonstrated.

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.

If you want to put it like that?

Fort Widley courtyard, dawn, Saturday 19 June.

Gauntlet's down.

I said when you are in the area; I have never been to the UK, and don't see
any chance of going.

Oh, how *marvellously* convenient for you.

You, OTOH have indicated that you make periodic visits
to the DC area, right?

No, but I was on holiday there in 2000.

I'll be in New York on the 5th of July, though.

That is close enough for me--I am more than willing
to do a little drivetime if it makes you happy. Seriously. I believe that
makes it "put up or shut up" time to you, does it not?

Certainly does. Shall I see you on the 5th? And will it be swords or
pistols?

I thought I didn't apologise? When did your story change?

I said, "..which you say..." No, you really did not apologize for it, as we
can see from reading the excerpts I included earlier in that regard.

In other words, you missed it and are now scrambling?

Actually, they don't.

Yes, they do. ""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". Or are
you now going to say that Google mysteriously created those words in your
name?

That's a paraphrase of your position, no less inaccurate than your
"accurate paraphrases" of my words.

I had the integrity to immediately clarify that the words were a
paraphrase rather than a quotation, and apologise for any
misrepresentation: you've extended me no such courtesy in your multiple
false attributions to me.

No, you did not,

From: Paul J. Adam )
Subject: Sarin in a 155 artillery round
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Date: 2004-05-19 13:51:14 PST
+++++
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
BZZZ! Now you are lying. You already provided the quote in
question,

That was a paraphrase, not a quote: I put the name and date on the quote
so it could be traced.

My apologies if the distinction wasn't clear enough.
+++++

and by this point I have repeatedly shown you did not.

Google sucks, doesn't it, when you lie and get found out?


Meanwhile, the challenge is open if you choose to meet it. Will you back
your claims, or withdraw them? (Or will you make a weak excuse?)

Already have backed them; you are the only one who has provided zero
evidence.

No, Kevin. I offered you a challenge and you immediately claimed that
you couldn't meet it but had terrible travel constraints.

Still, I'll meet you in New York on the 5th if you prefer.

You are, on Saturday 19th.

Come on, run to me baby. Anytime, just let me know when.

July 5th. I'll pass more details as I have them.

You sad sack of
excrement.

Yes, that *really* sums up your intellectual calibre, doesn't it?


--
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
...

snip

Since you saw fit to snip most of the quotes of your own words I presented
to you to support the accuracy of the "standard playbook" characterization
of your argument, it is obvious there is little reason to continue showing
you where your own words do indeed repeatedly convey that thought; it also
points to the fact that continuing this discussion any further is a waste of
effort, since you will just snip those items that prove your basic
dishonesty. But...

Then you had
the unmitigated gall to come back in this thread and claim you *never*
attributed that paraphrase directly to me--

No, I didn't. Where did I claim you said it? Remember, if it's a quote
then it's traceable.

""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 meaning was quite clear, and your subsequent
"apology" did not really address your misstep. The fact that you *continue*
to claim yopu never did this is just topping on top of the cake.

snip


See where these baseless claims have been addressed earlier in this
missive.
Now, again--you asked, "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?" I
gave you your answer, also in your own words.

And proved conclusively that you're attributing statements to me that I
never made.

So you are now saying that the Google record of your 18 May statement,
""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" was not your words. Fine. Some nefarious fellow intent
upon defaming your name must have jumped in and made that statement.

snip

And, getting to the root of the matter, and about the only thing left to be
determined, as it is apparent that continual verbal discourse is a wasted
effort...


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.

If you want to put it like that?

Fort Widley courtyard, dawn, Saturday 19 June.

Gauntlet's down.

I said when you are in the area; I have never been to the UK, and don't
see
any chance of going.

Oh, how *marvellously* convenient for you.

I told you where this would have to occur up front--odd how you then
lieterally *jumped* at the opportunity of making your invitation one that
you already knew was beyond my reach. Gosh, how gutsy you are!


You, OTOH have indicated that you make periodic visits
to the DC area, right?

No, but I was on holiday there in 2000.

I'll be in New York on the 5th of July, though.

That is close enough for me--I am more than willing
to do a little drivetime if it makes you happy. Seriously. I believe that
makes it "put up or shut up" time to you, does it not?

Certainly does. Shall I see you on the 5th? And will it be swords or
pistols?

As I said before, anytime--and I mean *anytime*, you screw up the courage
and can get to the DC environs, let me know. You are the fellow who
introduced this invitation--so I am assuming you will be quite happy to
drive down for the show...unless you maybe lack the moral fibre to actually
follow through?

snip


Meanwhile, the challenge is open if you choose to meet it. Will you
back
your claims, or withdraw them? (Or will you make a weak excuse?)

Already have backed them; you are the only one who has provided zero
evidence.

No, Kevin. I offered you a challenge and you immediately claimed that
you couldn't meet it but had terrible travel constraints.

LOL! Yeah, right... sure. The response to your initial invite stands.


Still, I'll meet you in New York on the 5th if you prefer.

You are, on Saturday 19th.

Come on, run to me baby. Anytime, just let me know when.

July 5th. I'll pass more details as I have them.

So you are not willing to follow through on your initial invite. Figures.
But hey, as I said when you first brought this up, if you make it to the DC
environs, let me know--only takes me an hour or two to get there.

You sad sack of
excrement.

Yes, that *really* sums up your intellectual calibre, doesn't it?

No, it more accurately sums up your situation. Drop by anytime.

Brooks

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

snip

Since you saw fit to snip most of the quotes of your own words I presented
to you to support the accuracy of the "standard playbook" characterization
of your argument, it is obvious there is little reason to continue showing
you where your own words do indeed repeatedly convey that thought; it also
points to the fact that continuing this discussion any further is a waste of
effort, since you will just snip those items that prove your basic
dishonesty.

What Kevin "accurately paraphrased" is that he alleged, I answered: he
alleged, I answered: he alleged and I answered: and he has no reply.


But...
Then you had
the unmitigated gall to come back in this thread and claim you *never*
attributed that paraphrase directly to me--

No, I didn't. Where did I claim you said it? Remember, if it's a quote
then it's traceable.

""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 meaning was quite clear, and your subsequent
"apology" did not really address your misstep. The fact that you *continue*
to claim yopu never did this is just topping on top of the cake.

And I replied, within 24 hours, that it was not a direct quotation any
more than your "accurate paraphrases" (pshaw!) of other folks' words
are, and apologised immediately for any misunderstanding.

(Note that Kevin has wriggled around and eventually claimed I insulted
and lied some other way from his original claim - and snipped out
without reply the immediate retraction and apology for that, too)

snip

And proved conclusively that you're attributing statements to me that I
never made.

So you are now saying that the Google record of your 18 May statement,
""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" was not your words.

No, I've never denied those words, and I've already apologised for any
possible misinterpretation.

Now, I note *you* have snipped out multiple examples of where you have
falsely attributed words to me... how *remarkably* convenient!

I notice, also, you've neatly elided your repeated claims of "Nobody
said this!" where they were met with published speeches, and "This never
happened!" with the cites that it did.

So, just who's being dishonest here, Kevin?

If you want to put it like that?

Fort Widley courtyard, dawn, Saturday 19 June.

Gauntlet's down.

I said when you are in the area; I have never been to the UK, and don't
see
any chance of going.

Oh, how *marvellously* convenient for you.

I told you where this would have to occur up front-

Kevin, you issued the challenge.

"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." Kevin
Brooks, June 8 2004.

By rule and tradition, the challengee gets to choose time, place and
weapons. There is a sizeable body of tradition on the matter. That you
are as ignorant as you are dishonest is no surprise.

It is also no surprise that you avoid the first invitation, and now the
second. Indeed, when it turns out I'm willing to cross the Atlantic to
meet you, you're suddenly unable to even leave the environs of
Washington DC. Not unexpected, but hardly an indication of either your
courage or your certainty.

-odd how you then
lieterally *jumped* at the opportunity of making your invitation one that
you already knew was beyond my reach. Gosh, how gutsy you are!

I played it according to tradition. Then when you claimed it was too
hard for you to travel, I offered to meet you on the far side of an
ocean. You're still running away. What conclusions shall we draw from
this matter?

Certainly does. Shall I see you on the 5th? And will it be swords or
pistols?

As I said before, anytime--and I mean *anytime*, you screw up the courage
and can get to the DC environs, let me know.

In other words, when invited to defend your words, you found it
inconvenient because it was the wrong country.

Then, when the opportunity was offered in your own country, even on the
correct coast, you found it inconvenient because it was the wrong state.

Shall we pursue this spiral downwards? Must I pursue you through excuses
that I'm in the wrong city, the wrong suburb, the wrong neighbourhood,
and eventually that you'd give me satisfaction if only I were not on the
wrong side of the street?

You are the fellow who
introduced this invitation--

Indeed, and I note with amusement your efforts to avoid it - while
loudly trumpeting your enthusiasm.

If I'm taking a three-thousand mile trip, can't you match even a
fraction of that?

so I am assuming you will be quite happy to
drive down for the show...unless you maybe lack the moral fibre to actually
follow through?

As I said, it's a working visit so I'm constrained for time. (Fly in on
the 5th and the ship leaves on the 6th, and time and carriers wait for
no man). So, no long drives, but I'm willing to fit you in.

And you've indicated that you lack the means or the will to visit the UK
(or, perhaps, just the courage).

Still, never fear. There will be a third date and time for you to run
away from. Perhaps even a fourth.

No, Kevin. I offered you a challenge and you immediately claimed that
you couldn't meet it but had terrible travel constraints.

LOL! Yeah, right... sure. The response to your initial invite stands.

Of course: on current form, I could knock at your door and you'd claim
it was "too far" to meet me.

July 5th. I'll pass more details as I have them.

So you are not willing to follow through on your initial invite. Figures.

You've been offered and evaded two places and dates so far. What excuse
will you use for the third?

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

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