Families of soldiers condemn Bush's war

Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote in message ...

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message ...


Vince:

- What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?
- What about the mobile chem labs?
- What about the Rycin?
- What about the Botulinum?
- What about the anthrax cultures?
- What about the residuals at various dumping sites?

How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
programs" is enough for you?

Steve Swartz


You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile of
active agents already in a weaponized state. That approach makes it so
much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US. And BTW: you
can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
your list as well.

I'll take a single solitary weapon ready for use.


Those missiles?

not WMDS

Your definition of WMD's seems to change with the argument; I do
believe you previously asserted that they were not limited to
chem/bio/nuke devices? But now you seem to find the opposing
definition more suitable. How typical; if the facts don't fit the
framework you chose, change the framework, huh?





I don't blame you; if I were you (something that I shudder to even
consider), I'd probably also have snipped without attribution the
sorry, rancid bile you previously posted that brought on the following
response.

You overly sanctimonious son of a bitch. You are without a doubt the
last individual in this country who should look any veteran "in the
eye" on *any* day of the year, with your self-serving 'I didn't serve
because it was inconvenient, and I don't like to take orders'
bull****. You have done nothing but scorn the efforts and sacrifices
of those who did serve, and those who died, from before the time this
operation even started. I rarely descend to the level of actually
cussing out a slimy, yellow bellied little cretin such as yourself,
but you are singularly deserving of every bit of contempt I can
scrounge up. Feel free to (again) invite me up for a personal review
of these comments--the last time you did that you quickly
backscrabbled into the "but if you do show up, I'll file suit" crap
when it came time for the rubber to meet the road, so I have no doubt
any renewed sense of backbone you might dredge up will once again
prove to be a merely transient gesture on your part. What a sad little
excuse for a man you are.

Im sure you are sorry that your boy couldn't find the WMDs he promised.
But the American soldiers are just as dead.

Something that you have little concern over, I am sure.

Im sure your suggestion
of violence can find an outlet but i'm not your punching bag.
you are welcome to show up and debate
but a real man who makes threats stands up and takes the consequences.
So are you making a threat of personal injury or not?

Vkince, I am not in the threats business, just as you are not in the
backbone business. When you *do*, as you have done in the past, go out
of your way to invite someone so demonstrably incensed by your
putrescent nature to a personal encounter, it would be reasonable for
that party to accept that as a challenge. But, again lacking that
required backbone, you follow up with your usual barricade of "if you
do show up, I'll file suit" crap. Which allows you to I guess, in your
little twisted world, maintain some illusion of bravado on your part,
without of course placing yourself at any risk, which is of course
your underlying core value; "never risk yourself, no matter what". I
guess that your previous brush with the concept of reality did however
have one beneficial outcome--I have not noticed you hurling about your
Nazi incriminations with the same carelessness you previously
demonstrated. In the end you remain one of those slimy little cretins
who never could bring yourself to enter the arena, instead feeling
that the struggles of those within it somehow made you a bit more
courageous, especially if you are able to hurl a few rotten tomatoes
in their direction from the safety of the cheap seats. But in reality
you would not rate as a pimple on the ass of the lowest ranking
private soldier who ever served anywhere, in any capacity. As I said
before, what a sad little excuse for a man you are.

Brooks



lets jsut be very clear

Vince

Kevin Brooks wrote:

Those missiles?

not WMDS


Your definition of WMD's seems to change with the argument; I do
believe you previously asserted that they were not limited to
chem/bio/nuke devices? But now you seem to find the opposing
definition more suitable. How typical; if the facts don't fit the
framework you chose, change the framework, huh?


crap. simple Crap Missiles may have been a UN violation but they are
not in and of themselves weapons of mass destruction by any definition




I don't blame you; if I were you (something that I shudder to even
consider), I'd probably also have snipped without attribution the
sorry, rancid bile you previously posted that brought on the following
response.


??


Im sure you are sorry that your boy couldn't find the WMDs he promised.
But the American soldiers are just as dead.


Something that you have little concern over, I am sure.


You are wrong. I've been posting under my own name to usenet for years.
I dare you to find a single comment belittling the contribution of our
armed forces or our obligation not to waste their lives. I have spent my
entire career working in public safety. I teach safety regulation and
engineering ethics. Every life is precious. The lives of members of our
armed forces are particularly precious. My wife is a VA Physician.
Bush said it was worth Americans dying because Iraq was a threat to the
USA. He was wrong about the threat. Why he was wrong is important to me.

Im sure your suggestion

of violence can find an outlet but i'm not your punching bag.
you are welcome to show up and debate
but a real man who makes threats stands up and takes the consequences.
So are you making a threat of personal injury or not?


Vkince, I am not in the threats business, just as you are not in the
backbone business.


then don't make threats.

When you *do*, as you have done in the past, go out
of your way to invite someone so demonstrably incensed by your
putrescent nature to a personal encounter, it would be reasonable for
that party to accept that as a challenge.

To an intellectual encounter sure, I'll debate you anytime.
If you are saying you have no self control in the face of contrary
opinions, that is a useful piece of information. We lock people up who
dont have self control and commit violent acts.

But, again lacking that
required backbone, you follow up with your usual barricade of "if you
do show up, I'll file suit" crap. Which allows you to I guess, in your
little twisted world, maintain some illusion of bravado on your part,
without of course placing yourself at any risk, which is of course
your underlying core value; "never risk yourself, no matter what".

You seem to be seething with the desire to beat the crap out of someone
because he disagrees with you. I finds this interesting. do you think a
point in a debate is better because it is made by someone who is big
and strong and violent?

I
guess that your previous brush with the concept of reality did however
have one beneficial outcome--I have not noticed you hurling about your
Nazi incriminations with the same carelessness you previously
demonstrated.

Oh Ill oblige. Nazis certainly responded to opposing opinions with
personal violence by thugs. In the night of the long knives Hitler
personally used violence on his prior supporters. In the Nazi world
violence or force is the ultimate arbiter.

In the end you remain one of those slimy little cretins
who never could bring yourself to enter the arena, instead feeling
that the struggles of those within it somehow made you a bit more
courageous, especially if you are able to hurl a few rotten tomatoes
in their direction from the safety of the cheap seats.

I am in the arena, but not the one you know. We call it the "marketplace
of ideas" but it's not a "marketplace" it is an environment in which
ideas are debated discussed and refined. Because ideas after all is
what separate humanity from animals. Nature is red in tooth and claw.
Ideas are human invention.

But in reality
you would not rate as a pimple on the ass of the lowest ranking
private soldier who ever served anywhere, in any capacity. As I said
before, what a sad little excuse for a man you are.

I'm always fascinated by some people's need to be abusive of others. It
never appealed to me.

Vince

Iraq 'had no weapons of mass destruction'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/wo...00/3120374.stm
"Iraq destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, according
to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector"

Blix suspects there are no weapons of mass destruction
Saturday May 24, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...962535,00.html

"The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said yesterday that he suspected
that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, He added that "in this
respect" the war might not have been justified."

Blix: No Need For Iraq War
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in574110.shtml
Hans Blix said in an interview broadcast Thursday that the U.S.-led
coalition could have avoided going to war with Iraq, but didn't want to.


"You know, in the Middle Ages, when people were convinced there were
witches, they certainly found them." - Hans Blix

"You know, in the Middle East, where people were convinced there were WMDs,
they never found them."
- Oo


"wrann" wrote in message
news:fs_rb.768$6p6.751@okepread03...
...".. what we don't know.." (above) This is exactly why we had to go in;
we didn't know, he wasn't telling (in fact he was being evasive as hell)

Oh so we should invade countrys whose may or may not have WMD but if we
dont know - invade...

Israel the only country in the "middle east" with weapons of mass
destruction - ask them about them see how evasive they are. Also look at how
many UN resolutions they have broken or ignored.

and contrary to your statement, Blix did NOT say Iraq did not have any, he
actually wrote the finding that they were continuing to be evasive in
direct
violation of the UN (that is United Nations).

Y'all don't seem to recall when Saddam threatened the US that if we
invaded, that he would use chemical and biological weapons on us?
Maybe it's me, but I don't think so, I think its the people who only
hear what they want to hear and twist things around to fit their own
agenda or feed their own retarded brains thought process. Isn't that
kind of like admitting he has them? DUH! Or just bluffing? either way
we called his bluff now didn't we? Vince, how do I use the "Nazi"
phrase in here to use up this thread? Please Troll, can you start
another one?

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:56:46 -0000, "oO"
wrote:


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
Vince Brannigan wrote:

:It's the country's war when Bush produces the WMDs he promised

Jesus Christ, Vince, what are you smoking THIS weekend? Were you
frightened by a bush when you were very young, or what? That's the
only excuse I can find for your unreasoned venom, since you're old
enough to not be behaving like a 13 year old.

:lest we forget....

Yeah, lest we forget, EVERYONE believed he had such weapons, including
the French, the Russians, and even Saddam himself, apparently. Now
it's suddenly all Bush's fault.

Of course they knew he *had* them - they ****ing give them to him. the point
it - he clearly destroyed them ..

Get a clue....

We were told by the weapons inspectors he didnt have them anymore. Nobody
believed he had them outside of the US, but the only people who could really
know - the weapons experts who were actually there inspecting in Iraq
(including Mr.Blix) said there were NONE.

Despite this the UN was shown Powells laughable powerpoint demonstration
that showed a drawing of a truck that was meant to be evidence of a mobile
weapons factory...lol..****ing hell thats funny...what happened when they
invaded? The truck was being used for weather experiments. lol

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:47:44 GMT, Vince Brannigan
wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Especially since Vince's delusions seem to be rewriting history. I'm
not sure just how he thinks "el Busho" managed to make the
intelligence services of the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and the US
all believe that Iraq had chemical weapons ready to deploy

nonsense From 29 jan

Russia's UN ambassador said that any fresh US evidence against Iraq will
have to contain "undeniable proof" that Baghdad has retained banned
nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

[snip]

What Mr. McCall has written is not nonsense; the passage Prof.
Brannigan has provided does not refute the claim that the intelligence
services of France, Germany, and Russia more or less agreed with the
US and UK that Saddam had biological and chemical weapons but
disagreed on what actions to take as a result. The key phrase is
"undeniable proof;" intelligence never provides undeniable proof. For
example, I could show Vince aerial photographs of the stockpiles of
chemical weapons that the US and Russia have declared to OPCW and are
in the process of destroying, and I could argue convincingly that the
images do not provide undeniable proof that those weapons exist; one
must trust that the OPCW inspectorate has done its job. The Russian
ambassador was engaged in raising the bar, which not coincidentally
furthered Russia's declared policy of resisting war.

Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:25:26 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

[I've posted elsewhere that Mr. Adam deserves whatever measure of
credit is due for having been first in this forum to advance the
suggestion that we were all fooled by Saddam into thinking he had a
capability that he did not possess. I write here not to disagree with
the overall theme of his posts on this subject, even if I do take
issue with one of his points.]

In message , Kevin
Brooks writes

That approach makes it so
much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US.

I'm an old-fashioned sort of guy: I like to see people (even
politicians) pick a story and stick to it; or accept that intel is not
perfect.

This appears to be the dirty little secret that everyone seems to be
ignoring; intelligence is by nature imperfect. The major intelligence
services all had a very hazy picture of the state of Iraqi WMDs, but
at some point they had to make a judgment of "do they or don't they?"
I'm not sure that policy makers themselves always understand the
ramifications of forcing intelligence services to arrive at "yes" or
"no" answers, but if any of them accept "maybe," it's news to me.

Parenthetically, I would suggest that the trouble embodied by the
above statement arises in that very, very few politicians are capable
of stating "it was reasonable at the time, but it turns out that I was
wrong." Most who have made that statement tend to undertake severe
career changes, so there is an immense Darwinian pressure to fudge,
although that can have adverse career consequences as well. We may
_like_ our politicians to admit being fallible, but we tend to _vote_
for the ones claiming infallibility. (Whether the level of fallibility
exhibited by the Blair and Bush administrations on the subject of
Iraqi WMDs is worthy of voter forgiveness is a separate issue.)

Trouble is, at least over here, it appears that the answer was decided
before the intelligence was studied: we _were_ going to war with Iraq,
and the analysts were going to produce the answers to suit.

I would respectfully disagree with that statement, although I
acknowledge that it could turn out to be correct. If that is the
appearance, why did the French, German, and Russian intelligence
services arrive at the same basic judgment (the Iraqis did retain
WMDs) when their governments had decided they were _not_ going to war.
It appears that judgment was incorrect, but whatever faults led to the
error appear to have been shared by those nations both for and against
the war in Iraq.

Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************

In message , Dr. George O.
Bizzigotti writes
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:25:26 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
I'm an old-fashioned sort of guy: I like to see people (even
politicians) pick a story and stick to it; or accept that intel is not
perfect.

This appears to be the dirty little secret that everyone seems to be
ignoring; intelligence is by nature imperfect. The major intelligence
services all had a very hazy picture of the state of Iraqi WMDs, but
at some point they had to make a judgment of "do they or don't they?"
I'm not sure that policy makers themselves always understand the
ramifications of forcing intelligence services to arrive at "yes" or
"no" answers, but if any of them accept "maybe," it's news to me.

My concern is about how, in the UK at least, a reply of "maybe, and
worst-case is pretty horrid" became a simple straightforward certainty
of "Iraq has WME that are an immediate threat". That wasn't a
'worst-case possibility', it was reported as fact without contradiction.


Now, it can be claimed that the Government isn't responsible for what
the papers say, and there's a lot of truth there. But the Government
does have a lot of influence - official and unofficial - about what
information the papers use to produce their stories.

Parenthetically, I would suggest that the trouble embodied by the
above statement arises in that very, very few politicians are capable
of stating "it was reasonable at the time, but it turns out that I was
wrong." Most who have made that statement tend to undertake severe
career changes, so there is an immense Darwinian pressure to fudge,
although that can have adverse career consequences as well.

Perhaps I'm showing my advanced age by respecting John Nott: if not for
his disastrous decisions while Secretary of Defence, for his resignation
when the results of those decisions became clear.

I would much rather we'd had a wiser man at Defence (and again before
him), but Nott had the integrity to stand down when his planning
assumptions were shown to have been seriously incompatible with reality.
I admire his honesty if not his judgement.

And integrity _does_ mean accepting negative results of your decisions.
It's arguable that one reason Thatcher won the 1983 election so
decisively was that she had enough Falklands scapegoats (though the
self-destruction of the opposing parties was probably the main factor)

We may
_like_ our politicians to admit being fallible, but we tend to _vote_
for the ones claiming infallibility. (Whether the level of fallibility
exhibited by the Blair and Bush administrations on the subject of
Iraqi WMDs is worthy of voter forgiveness is a separate issue.)

It's not directly comparable in the UK, and I think this may be one of
the differences. From here it seems that the US was solidly behind war
with Iraq: there was significant opposition in the UK. Over here we were
led to the belief that invading Iraq was an urgent necessity.

Trouble is, at least over here, it appears that the answer was decided
before the intelligence was studied: we _were_ going to war with Iraq,
and the analysts were going to produce the answers to suit.

I would respectfully disagree with that statement, although I
acknowledge that it could turn out to be correct.

The respect is returned; I'm arguing from a UK perspective and
viewpoint. Easy to forget how different issues can look from overseas.

One apparent outcome of the Hutton enquiry here was that that
politicians _did_ adjust the wording of intelligence assessments to suit
their ends... the question being whether they "tightened up" or
"distorted" the presentation of what data was available. (As an
engineer, thinking of threaded fasteners, I ask "what's the difference?
One distorts _by_ tightening!" But I may be cynical)

An oft-ignored element from Hutton is that while Dr Kelly was apparently
concerned about the presentation of his data, he too never doubted that
Iraq at the very least lusted for WMEs even if they'd made short-term
sacrifices in the name of survival.

If that is the
appearance, why did the French, German, and Russian intelligence
services arrive at the same basic judgment (the Iraqis did retain
WMDs) when their governments had decided they were _not_ going to war.

One guess - lack of capability to provide a significant threat outside
of a fairly narrow area centred on Iraq? An issue to remember is that
the Saudi Arabians and Kuwaitis and Israelis failed to either launch
pre-emptive strikes or demand US military cover against the threat of
Iraqi WMEs. They're the threatened neighbours... if they aren't shouting
for help, perhaps the threat is being slightly oversold?

(Or maybe there's more Arab pride at play. Or lots of other
possibilities. This is a _large_ question)

It appears that judgment was incorrect, but whatever faults led to the
error appear to have been shared by those nations both for and against
the war in Iraq.

Intelligence is inherently imperfect. My concern is that certainty was
assigned to data that was at best "highest probability". Nations that
acted on that worst-case threat now have to try to pacify Iraq until a
handover: nations that were more cautious about assigning certainty to
intel data are branded "axis of Weasel" even though hindsight shows them
correct. Lose-lose.

Misuse intel, and you'll shape the results you get in the next crisis.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Dr. George O.
Bizzigotti writes
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:25:26 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
snip

If that is the
appearance, why did the French, German, and Russian intelligence
services arrive at the same basic judgment (the Iraqis did retain
WMDs) when their governments had decided they were _not_ going to war.

One guess - lack of capability to provide a significant threat outside
of a fairly narrow area centred on Iraq? An issue to remember is that
the Saudi Arabians and Kuwaitis and Israelis failed to either launch
pre-emptive strikes or demand US military cover against the threat of
Iraqi WMEs. They're the threatened neighbours... if they aren't shouting
for help, perhaps the threat is being slightly oversold?

(Or maybe there's more Arab pride at play. Or lots of other
possibilities. This is a _large_ question)

Paul, those Arab nations, and Israel, *had* demanded US protection
from that Iraqi threat. That is why Patriot batteries remained
stationed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia throughout the nineties and up
through this last conflict, or in the case of israel, why it received
Patriot systems ahead of normal schedule (ISTR some of those came from
German stocks?). It was also IIRC used to help justify continued US
funding of Arrow.

As to preemptive strikes, the Kuwaitis and the Saudis were
non-starters in that regard--they were not going to be accused of
attacking a fellow Arab nation. Reasoning for Israeli recalcitrance
would undoubtedly include strong US pressure not to go that route; the
last thing we wanted was for Iraq to become a chip in the greater
Israel vs. Arabs game.


It appears that judgment was incorrect, but whatever faults led to the
error appear to have been shared by those nations both for and against
the war in Iraq.

Intelligence is inherently imperfect. My concern is that certainty was
assigned to data that was at best "highest probability". Nations that
acted on that worst-case threat now have to try to pacify Iraq until a
handover: nations that were more cautious about assigning certainty to
intel data are branded "axis of Weasel" even though hindsight shows them
correct. Lose-lose.

Hindsight has *not* shown them to be "correct"; as George noted, those
"Axis of Weasel" nations also believed Iraq had WMD's or an ongoing
significant program. They differed on *how* to address the problem,
not the fact that a problem existed.



Misuse intel, and you'll shape the results you get in the next crisis.

So, what does that say about US intel assesments that underestimated
the ability or intent of Japan to attack the US before 1942? Or
British intel assessments that missed the German intent to invade
Poland until too late, or its ability to overrun France in record
time? In the intel game, the lesson seems to be that underestimation
is more dangerous than overestimation in the long run.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
And BTW: you
can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement in
your list as well.

oh whoopee doo that was about all was found - they aren't weapons of mass
destruction and they began destroying those. If Saddam had them he would
have used them. USA now has free access to search all it wants and it has -
still NOTHING....despite powell having everything in his powerpoint demo to
the UN.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
Vince Brannigan wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote in message
...

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Leslie Swartz" wrote in message
...


Vince:

- What about the 30 or so 55 gal drums of Lewisite?
- What about the mobile chem labs?
- What about the Rycin?
- What about the Botulinum?
- What about the anthrax cultures?
- What about the residuals at various dumping sites?

How much "evidence of WMD;" or, more to the point, "evidence of WMD
programs" is enough for you?

Steve Swartz


You are forgetting that Vkince and his ilk only consider it a WMD
program if they can point to a physical and truly massive stockpile
of
active agents already in a weaponized state. That approach makes it
so
much easier for them to continue to bash Bush and the US. And BTW:
you
can add the development of the tactical ballistic missiles that
exceeded the range allowed per the resolutions/cease fire agreement
in
your list as well.

I'll take a single solitary weapon ready for use.


Those missiles?

not WMDS

Your definition of WMD's seems to change with the argument; I do
believe you previously asserted that they were not limited to
chem/bio/nuke devices? But now you seem to find the opposing
definition more suitable. How typical; if the facts don't fit the
framework you chose, change the framework, huh?

The missiles that were supposedly over the 'allowed range' are not WMD. Even
BUSH is not stupid enuff to claim that..

( all bs anyway considering Israels Nuclear arsenal and whole range of
'nasties' dont see any weapons inspectors getting in there).