General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

There is a difference between "knowing the names of the relevant
colleages" and "being at liberty to post them".


Well, if they were publicly stating that Iraq had no WMD prior to the
invasion, why wouldn't you be at liberty to post their names now?



I went through RTMC Chilwell with a number of fellow analysts from
Porton who were immediately (mid-course!) deployed to Iraq to look for
the WME that were supposedly sure to be found. They expected to find
very little, but were willing to be surprised. And that's as much detail
as I'm happy to give.


Who do you think you're fooling?

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:21:58 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

That's absurd. We agree beforehand in our republic that once a
decision is made through the legislative process, we will abide by
that decision or seek to change it through the established judicial
process. We don't get to pick and choose which laws we will comply
with or which government programs we will allow our taxes to support.


But we didn't agree to these programs beforehand! There is no
Constitutional basis for them. The proper legislative process was not
followed. If the government can pick and choose which Constitutional
provisions it will adhere to and which it will ignore why can't the
citizenry pick and choose which laws it will follow?

Excuse me? Social Security and Medicare are not the result of an act
of Congress? There were no elections for those representatives? There
was no public debate? There have been no subsequent modifications to
the program at the behest of interest groups, concerned citizens, etc?
Where then did these programs come from? How were they authorized? Who
runs them?

Government chooses policies after debate and public input to solve the
needs of the nation. The Constitutionality is determined by
established rules but only after the fact of legislative or executive
action. Seems as though Medicare and SS have not been found
unconstitutional.

For the benefit of those too young to remember the way things were when Social
Security was enacted, we were a society who largely took care of our elderly
through the efforts of families, churches, and small, tight-knit communities.
The economic disaster created by the depression in the early 30s proved that
those sources were inadequate to care for the declining years of older citizens
no longer able to pay their own way. In addition, society was in a process of
flux, as a result of which families often broke apart and landed in different
parts of the country, and church and community ties were severed by older people
moving about the country seeking ways to make a living. If I remember it right,
that was the rationale that brought on the Social Security program, in which
people would be expected to contribute to their own declining years wherever
they lived and regardless of support available to them from other than
themselves.

I was just a young teenager in those years (early to mid 30s), but that's the
way I remember it. Have I got it right?

George Z.

In message k.net,
Steven P. McNicoll writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
There is a difference between "knowing the names of the relevant
colleages" and "being at liberty to post them".

Well, if they were publicly stating that Iraq had no WMD prior to the
invasion, why wouldn't you be at liberty to post their names now?

Who said "publicly stating"? That's your invention, not mine. We were
talking shop during a predeployment training exercise, not hosting a
press conference.

I went through RTMC Chilwell with a number of fellow analysts from
Porton who were immediately (mid-course!) deployed to Iraq to look for
the WME that were supposedly sure to be found. They expected to find
very little, but were willing to be surprised. And that's as much detail
as I'm happy to give.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Why should I care? You'll either listen, or ignore what I say because
it's inconvenient. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, drink coffee
from the commemorative mug.

(Out of interest, how many fielded analysts do *you* know and how
enthusiastically did they believe the claims that Iraq was awash in
WMEs?)

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

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

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

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:26:24 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Ah, and now you've descended from a polite political discussion to the
level of trollery. SS was established before I was borne. It was a
program established by law through our governmental process. It
promises that if I contribute as required, I'll receive a certain
amount if I meet certain conditions. I didn't earn anything, I bought
the equivalent of an annuity.

It promises?

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

Medicare and SS have not been "found" to be anything, Ed.

Or do you have cite for a ruling we are unaware of?

Also- don't put up strawmen.

There is a difference between "un" constitutional and "extra" consitutional.

I for one am not claiming that the current social safety net is
unconstituional. Only the supremes can make that call. [Note: it could be
argued- and it is a reasonable argument at that- that the SCOTUS do not have
the power to declare anything "Constitutional;" only "Unconstitutional."]

I am claiming that the vast majority of the social safety net is
extraconstitutional, however.

And as to the claims (repeated by you) about "the consent of the governed"
and all of that- there are plenty of rational, well-educated and reasonable
people in this country who are keeping their powder dry.

Literally.

Steve Swartz


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:21:58 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

That's absurd. We agree beforehand in our republic that once a
decision is made through the legislative process, we will abide by
that decision or seek to change it through the established judicial
process. We don't get to pick and choose which laws we will comply
with or which government programs we will allow our taxes to support.


But we didn't agree to these programs beforehand! There is no
Constitutional basis for them. The proper legislative process was not
followed. If the government can pick and choose which Constitutional
provisions it will adhere to and which it will ignore why can't the
citizenry pick and choose which laws it will follow?

Excuse me? Social Security and Medicare are not the result of an act
of Congress? There were no elections for those representatives? There
was no public debate? There have been no subsequent modifications to
the program at the behest of interest groups, concerned citizens, etc?
Where then did these programs come from? How were they authorized? Who
runs them?

Government chooses policies after debate and public input to solve the
needs of the nation. The Constitutionality is determined by
established rules but only after the fact of legislative or executive
action. Seems as though Medicare and SS have not been found
unconstitutional.


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

No.

Want details?

Read some contrarian history. Check the facts. Then make up your mind.
Don't just blindly trust what you have been told; or what the "popular
sentiment" was of the time. The great depression (created not by a failure
of the markets, by the way, but by a failure in overweening regulation. The
depression was caused by government- government didn't rescue anyone.).

Are you sure that the existing safety net would have"failed" in lieu of the
government's intervention?

Steve Swartz

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:21:58 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

That's absurd. We agree beforehand in our republic that once a
decision is made through the legislative process, we will abide by
that decision or seek to change it through the established judicial
process. We don't get to pick and choose which laws we will comply
with or which government programs we will allow our taxes to support.


But we didn't agree to these programs beforehand! There is no
Constitutional basis for them. The proper legislative process was not
followed. If the government can pick and choose which Constitutional
provisions it will adhere to and which it will ignore why can't the
citizenry pick and choose which laws it will follow?

Excuse me? Social Security and Medicare are not the result of an act
of Congress? There were no elections for those representatives? There
was no public debate? There have been no subsequent modifications to
the program at the behest of interest groups, concerned citizens, etc?
Where then did these programs come from? How were they authorized? Who
runs them?

Government chooses policies after debate and public input to solve the
needs of the nation. The Constitutionality is determined by
established rules but only after the fact of legislative or executive
action. Seems as though Medicare and SS have not been found
unconstitutional.

For the benefit of those too young to remember the way things were when
Social
Security was enacted, we were a society who largely took care of our
elderly
through the efforts of families, churches, and small, tight-knit
communities.
The economic disaster created by the depression in the early 30s proved
that
those sources were inadequate to care for the declining years of older
citizens
no longer able to pay their own way. In addition, society was in a
process of
flux, as a result of which families often broke apart and landed in
different
parts of the country, and church and community ties were severed by older
people
moving about the country seeking ways to make a living. If I remember it
right,
that was the rationale that brought on the Social Security program, in
which
people would be expected to contribute to their own declining years
wherever
they lived and regardless of support available to them from other than
themselves.

I was just a young teenager in those years (early to mid 30s), but that's
the
way I remember it. Have I got it right?

George Z.

"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

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:13:18 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

For the benefit of those too young to remember the way things were when Social
Security was enacted, we were a society who largely took care of our elderly
through the efforts of families, churches, and small, tight-knit communities.
The economic disaster created by the depression in the early 30s proved that
those sources were inadequate to care for the declining years of older citizens
no longer able to pay their own way. In addition, society was in a process of
flux, as a result of which families often broke apart and landed in different
parts of the country, and church and community ties were severed by older people
moving about the country seeking ways to make a living. If I remember it right,
that was the rationale that brought on the Social Security program, in which
people would be expected to contribute to their own declining years wherever
they lived and regardless of support available to them from other than
themselves.

I was just a young teenager in those years (early to mid 30s), but that's the
way I remember it. Have I got it right?

George Z.


Sounds pretty close to me. Nice historic perspective.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8