General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

In article ,
Howard Berkowitz wrote:

In article , Chad Irby
wrote:

In article ,
Robey Price wrote:

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?

"Liberals" think we should leave nasty dictators in place forever and
let them kill and abuse millions, while "conservatives" think we should
kick out folks like Hussein and free those folks.

Tell us again about that "freedom" thing.

Tell us again about coherent, non-binary, non-demonizing definitions of
"conservative" or of "liberal".

I'd rather just use the self-applied labels that many politicians and
their supporters use. Most of the folks who call themselves "liberals"
or are called that by their friends are, when you get right down to it,
not very "liberal" at all outside of a few, narrowly-defined opinions.
An old-time "liberal" would have been right in the forefront when
sending troops to fight a fascist dictator like Saddam Hussein, while
the modern breed is quite content to leave them be.

But you're right: when you get right down to it, "liberal" and
"conservative" have become effectively meaningless when referring to the
Democrat/Republican divide. You can get bizarre commonalities between
people like Jeremy Rifkin and Pat Buchanan, for example, who have very
similar opinions on much of the economy and foreign trade, but have some
sharp discontinuities on many other social beliefs.

Responses of I'm an XXX and everyone who
disagrees with me is a YYY are not responsive.

Neither is "define something for me and I'll nitpick it for a couple of
days."

For extra credit, reconcile your above statement with the ideas of
Jeremy Bentham.

So how many graduate-level credits do I get for it, who's doing the
grading, and what are their credentials?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Social Security, Medicare and public education misguided?
So much for compassionate conservatism.

"Public education misguided" is a fairly common observation by people on
both sides of pretty much every political fence you can find.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

"Yeah, the mainstream media have really kept a lid on this one. We
wouldn't know anything about Bush going AWOL if it hadn't been for
that obscure underground newspaper the Boston Globe, which broke
the story nationally in May 2000. But you're right that coverage has
been pretty thin. A few months after the 2000 election, former Bill

Clinton

adviser Paul Begala said he'd done a Nexis search and found 13,641
stories about Clinton's alleged draft dodging versus 49 about George
W. Bush's military record.



Alleged? Something is alleged when it is represented as existing or as
being as described but not so proved. There's nothing alleged about
Clinton's draft-dodging.

Clinton's real daddy was dead and his step-daddy a dud. Without a
sponsor, what chance did he have of getting a cushy billet in TANG or
any other country club? Clinton used his brains and work ethic to get
ahead. Clinton's grades got him into graduate school and earned a
Rhodes scholarship. The shrub's draft dodging was handled by daddy Bush
as was his entry into an Ivy League MBA program. Clinton earned his way
in life, the shrub had it handed to him on a platter.

Cheers

--mike




Why the disparity?



Probably because there had been eight more years to file stories on Clinton
at that time.



We'll get to that.

First the basics: Yes, it's true, Bush didn't report to his guard unit for
an extended period--17 months, by one account. It wasn't considered
that serious an offense at the time, and if circumstances were different
now I'd be inclined to write it off as youthful irresponsibility. However,
given the none-too-subtle suggestion by the Bush administration that
opponents of our Iraqi excursion lack martial valor, I have to say: You
guys should talk.

Here's the story as generally agreed upon: In January 1968, with the
Vietnam war in full swing, Bush was due to graduate from Yale.
Knowing he'd soon be eligible for the draft, he took an air force

officers'

test hoping to secure a billet with the Texas Air National Guard, which
would allow him to do his military service at home. Bush didn't do
particularly well on the test--on the pilot aptitude section, he scored in
the 25th percentile, the lowest possible passing grade. But Bush's
father, George H.W., was then a U.S. congressman from Houston, and
strings were pulled. The younger Bush vaulted to the head of a long
waiting list--a year and a half long, by some estimates--and in May
of '68 he was inducted into the guard.

By all accounts Bush was an excellent pilot, but apparently his enthusiasm
cooled. In 1972, four years into his six-year guard commitment, he was
asked to work for the campaign of Bush family friend Winton Blount, who
was running for the U.S. Senate in Alabama. In May Bush requested a
transfer to an Alabama Air National Guard unit with no planes and
minimal duties. Bush's immediate superiors approved the transfer, but
higher-ups said no. The matter was delayed for months. In August
Bush missed his annual flight physical and was grounded.
(Some have speculated that he was worried about failing a drug test--the
Pentagon had instituted random screening in April.) In September he was
ordered to report to a different unit of the Alabama guard, the 187th
Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush says he did so, but
his nominal superiors say they never saw the guy, there's no documentation
he ever showed up, and not one of the six or seven hundred soldiers then
in the unit has stepped forward to corroborate Bush's story.

After the November election Bush returned to Texas, but apparently
didn't notify his old Texas guard unit for quite a while, if ever. The
Boston Globe initially reported that he started putting in some serious
duty time in May, June, and July of 1973 to make up for what he'd
missed. But according to a piece in the New Republic, there's no
evidence Bush did even that. Whatever the case, even though his
superiors knew he'd blown off his duties, they never disciplined him.
(No one's ever been shot at dawn for missing a weekend guard
drill, but policy at the time was to put shirkers on active duty.) Indeed,
when Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of
1973, he requested and got an honorable discharge--eight months
before his service was scheduled to end.

Bush's enemies say all this proves he was a cowardly deserter. Nonsense.
He was a pampered rich kid who took advantage. Why wasn't he called
on it in a serious way during the 2000 election? Probably because
Democrats figured they'd get Clinton's draft-dodging thing thrown back
at them. Not that it matters. If history judges Bush harshly--and it

probably

will--it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting

us

into this damn fool war.

--CECIL ADAMS



So where's the proof?

"Chad Irby" wrote

I'd rather just use the self-applied labels that many politicians and
their supporters use. Most of the folks who call themselves "liberals"
or are called that by their friends are, when you get right down to it,
not very "liberal" at all outside of a few, narrowly-defined opinions.
An old-time "liberal" would have been right in the forefront when
sending troops to fight a fascist dictator like Saddam Hussein, while
the modern breed is quite content to leave them be.


I think the modern breed, on both sides, is:
"Whatever the other guy does is wrong. (even if it *is* the right thing to
do)"
"Whatever we do is right (even if it turns out to be badly wrong)"

Pete

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
I'm not really seeing anything funny - I've got family currently being
shot at because of this.

Oh, spare us the attempt at gravity--you have often used sarcasm and
ridicule when arguing this same subject. Yet now I am supposed to
prostrate
myself before you because "you've got family..."? Please...

Fine, let me know so I can laugh when a relative of yours becomes a
casualty. Wouldn't *that* be funny? Or would you need your "humor
switch" recalibrating?

Odd how you turned your humor switch back on when it came to postulating
about "parking tickets" below--I guess you and only you set the rules for
when it is appropriate? Or is it OK for you to make light of the situation,
but noone else can? Heck of an opinion of yourself you have there...


Of course, Iraqi accounting was always honest and believable?

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

In other words, war with Iraq was inevitable and unstoppable because of
one shell?

Impressive.

He was in violation. On more than one count. Deal with it.


And the discrepancy was noted years ago.

Really? Can you point to where these unaccounted for binary weapons are
mentioned in the UNSCOM or UNMOVIC reports? How many did they say were
unaccounted for?

Read the reports yourself, I've already cited them and given you URLs.

I did read the reports--and oddly, I don't recall any discussion of true
binary rounds being fabricated or unaccounted for. Can you point to the
*specific* paragraph(s)? No?


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

Geeze, your attempts to defend him are unbelievable--

Of course they're unbelieveable, because I'm not defending him.

However, you go on building strawmen all you like.

now you want to claim
it was A-OK 'cause he did not know what he had?

How does Hussein pose a threat with weapons he does not know about?

That would actually be your strawman--you have a totalitarian leader who
played games with the inspection process through the years, and now that
things like a sarin round, a ricin development program, hidden
equipment/cultures/documents, and maybe a mustard round to boot turn up, you
postulate that, "Well, Saddam may not have known about them..." Weak--very
weak.


After you already
acknowledged he was not being "honest" with his disclosures?

Absolutely not. Some were complete fantasy: "production programs" were
cited at places that were just empty desert, because the officer in
charge had grabbed the money and absconded.

I guess you missed the examples of his having overlooked weapons and
programs thet *were* in place and not disclosed, eh?


Which way is
it--was he dishonest, and therefore in violation, or inept, and therefore
in
violation?

Both - he was both dishonest and inept. And yet he didn't pose a WME
threat.

Was he in violation--yes or no? Simple question--even you should be able to
answer it without too much quibbling.


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

LOL! The guy who has advocated that we HAVE to handle ALL international
problems in the EXACT same manner, regardless of individual circumstances,
now wants to lecture about "real life"?! Now that's a good one!



And it was claimed that he was hiding hundreds of tons of chemicals and
entire production lines, and that was why we had to invade and secure
that threat Right Now. Forty-five minutes from order to firing, with
weapons able to reach as far as Cyprus - the UK Government claimed that
was its experts' judgement. (Trouble is, when analysts say 'probably
not' and the political advisors suggest 'can we delete that "not" to
tighten up the sentence?' then the message changes a little in
transit...)

As it turns out... "whoops", to date.

Wow. Faulty intel that does not reflect an accurate scope of the
violations.

That's a very generous understatement.

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


Who'd have thunk it? Of course, to use that hammer you have to ignore the
fact that he was in violation in the first place...

Indeed, he owned at least two chemical munitions.

Of course, we can't go setting firm criteria for action, which may
explain why two Iraqi shells demand immediate invasion while _real_ WME
threats in the hands of proven terrorist supporters and weapons
proliferators are politely ignored.

Oh, joy! In the above you have not only managed to ignore his other numerous
violations of 687, but have also managed to bring your "standard playbook
for international crisis" back into play...and you want to talk about "real
life"? Newsflash--"real life" does not equal Paulian World. Real life is
twelve years of violations, some of which continued right up until he was
attacked last spring, real life is understanding that different situations
require different courses of action, real life is where all final courses of
action do not have to occur simultaneously, and yes, real life is where
"intelligence" and "intel analysis" are often faulty, though in this case
that does not change the fact that yes, he was in violation on a number of
issues.


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

There was supposed to be a imminent and serious threat.

Those seem to be your words. I just read a 2002 CNN report that outlines the
then-just-released report from the White House which outlined the "case
against Iraq". It does not claim that Saddam definitely had major stockpiles
of chemical weapons, nor did it credit them with having any major delivery
systems capable of handling such weapons. It *did* accuse Saddam of hiding
biological warfare programs (that ricin development effort fits the bill
there), notes his numerous violations of UN resolutions over the years,
discrepancies in the accounting of chemical munitions as reported
UNSCOM/UNMOVIC, human rights violations on a large scale, support for two
terrorist groups (and no, AQ was not named as one of them), his support for
suicide bombers, etc. You can peruse the report yourself at:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/iraq.report/


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

Actually, we said hidden biological warfare programs. That has proved to be
true in the case of the ricin, not to mention those hidden cultures. But
hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant...



Now, you seem to believe that if Saddam Hussein owned a pair of used
nail scissors then those could qualify as a weapon of mass effect (just
imagine what you could catch if someone jabbed you with them! Plus you
could have someone's *eye* out with those!). I'm more minded to stick to
realistic definitions of the threat.

OH, GOD! You are using HUMOR! How DARE you--don't you know some of your
family members could be dying over there right NOW? Again, I sarcastically
note your use of humor is A-OK...but the rest of us can't use that approach,
eh?


And that hidden equipment, cultures,
documentation, etc....nah, he could *never* have been using that as a way
of
trying to preserve his program..." is not a reasonable approach, IMO.

None of that is an immediate or imminent threat.

Was he in violation in these regards? Yes.


You've got him in custody, ask him.

So, you can't come up with an excuse for the fact that he reported other
low-density/R&D products, but not the one that we subsequently had used
against us. Odd, that.

I don't have access to the man to question him. Did he *know* he had
binary sarin research underway? Or, just for giggles, what if it's a
Syrian or Iranian import and not Iraqi at all?

Yeah, he is obviously innocent of all charges because he had NO IDEA that
his nation had been working on WMD efforts over the years, was completely
unaware of Res 687, and just for good measure, he probably was completely
unaware of those mass graves (and the poor souls who went into them). Why,
he should be nominated for sainthood...nah, on second thought, all of that
sounds pretty darned hokey.


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

He had a ricin program--firm data (unless you want to call Kay and his
inspectors liars). That is a violation. He had a sarin round of a type that
was never acknowledged as having been fabricated--another violation. he had
cultures and equipment hidden away--another violation. Conclusion: He was in
violation. You claim he did/may not know about any of this--too bad, they
are still violations. End of story.


Which makes insisting that they must be recent, something of a stretch,
no? They were strongly suspected of having a R&D effort aimed at such
rounds, and Iraq denied it, but then if you believe the Hussein regime
then the US military was exterminated outside Baghdad and are currently
having their bellies barbecued in Hell.

Nobody has said they "must be recent"; OTOH, it does call into question
the
applicability of stating beyond a doubt that they predated ODS.

I'm wary of turning speculation into certainty too quickly. What *is*
certain is that we've still not found anything capable of producing
those rounds in Iraq - and it's harder to hide production lines than
individual munitions.

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

Which is why I have not, AFAIK, made any "firm claims" that these rounds
*had* to be of recent manufacture--

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

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


or are you going to resort to your
doctoring-of-statements to put those words in my mouth, as you did a week
or
two ago when you falsely claimed that I had said that WMD's were not a
factor in the decision to go to war?

Stop bull****ting, Kevin. You repeatedly claimed that it wasn't just
about WMEs - but yet you won't say what it *was* about. (When asked, you
go very, very shy)

Bull****. You have REPEATEDLY been given the other reasons--I gave them to
you again and again. At least THIS time you got my statement regarding "it
wasn't just about the WME's" correct--nice of you to include the freakin'
*just* in the sentence THIS time.


Inventing false accusations is a poor distraction. This is the third
time I've explained that if there isn't a name and attribution to let it
be traced, it's not a quote: it's the third time I've apologised for the
misunderstanding: and I'm beginning to believe that you're more
interested in histrionics than facts.

You have yet to acknowledge that you got it wrong when you claimed I have
been saying that WMD's were not a factor.


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

Too bad, how sad, because you're failing to distinguish yourself by the
integrity of your conduct here.

Unlike you, I have not played footloose and fancy free with your statements
and twisted them to say something completely different from what you
actually said--you did. Unlike you, I have not completely ignored your
answer to a question and then repeatedly claimed you never answered it in
the first place. Those would be YOUR faults in this argument, not mine.


Remember, we've gone from "significant and imminent" Iraqi WMEs, the
evidence of which was reliable and solid (but of course too secret to
share)... to odds and ends buried in gardens, hidden in fridges and used
by insurgents in roadside IEDs. Yet you're insisting that nothing has
changed?

That "significant and immenent" would apparently be your words? I did not
see either of them in that report about our case for Iraq?



No, I'm just accustomed to the fact that he was both an accomplished
liar and that he may not have known as much as he believed about the
projects he sponsored.

Shades of the Hitler days: you can report "encouraging progress" on the
250,000-ton fantasy battleship and get more funding to stay in Kiel, or
you can admit it's a ludicrous pipedream and you and your entire design
team can pick up your rifles and go fight on the Eastern Front.

We're stuck with what we can find after a year and a half of searching,
for the "true picture" of what he had. Is the US so grossly incompetent
that, having much of the regime's top staff in custody and under
interrogation, that it can't get *one* of them to admit to one of the
Vast Concealed Stockpiles or the Hidden Underground Factories?

It has shown that he continued to run at least one bio program up until
the
time we attacked. That is another violation. Are you noting that the
number
of violations keeps increasing as we go through this discussion?

Of course - now, where are the threats?

You are really going to avoid admitting he was in violation on numerous
counts, aren't you? And as i said elsewhere, I see Saddam with any form of
WMD program, or products thereof, as a serious threat. You don't. Luckily,
you'll now never have to go through the agony of being proved wrong on that
since Saddam has been removed from the equation.


He had twelve years to get his act straight
in terms of meeting the requirements of 687 (*all* of them), and we now
know
that he refused to do so even under threat of attack, yielding a
justification the the area of WMD in my view--add to that the "other"
reasons (missiles that exceeded the allowed range, continual NFZ
violations,
one assasination attempt on a former US President, harboring a couple of
known terrorists, supporting suicide bombers, etc.)--you know, the ones I
have given you before, but you claimed I never provided to you?

In other words, pretty much business as ususal for the Middle East.

Those are many of the reasons given in that White House report--you have
repeatedly been given them , and you repeatedly claim I have not given any
of them to you.


Yep. One elderly shell isn't a threat. That's a fact we can both agree
on. You measure chemical weapons in terms of tons of agent.

Is it a violation?

Sure.

Is "a violation" a good enough reason to tie us down in Iraq for the
next few years?

See my comment above regarding Saddam and threat.


And had you been on the ground that day when it went off
(thankfully without acheiving a full yield of sarin), how much of a
"threat"
do you suppose it would have been to you?

Less than a 155mm HE in that particular case.

Not sure about that. 155 HE round goes off and, if they were following a
normal convoy interval, based upon lethal burst radius of a 155mm HE, one
vehicle with occupants gets whacked. A 155mm sarin round with a few liters
of fully-cooked sarin goes off, and you have to consider downwind effects
and you also have those folks who subsequently drove into the immediate
area. These troops were not MOPPED up, and seeing what would appear
(compared to the usual IED) to be a misfired IED going off (that burster
charge is not that big) on the roadside would likely lead to them either
immediately herringboning and dismounting, or even worse driving through the
ambush point (which was our first choice when I was a CO--avoid stopping in
the KZ at all costs). Which would have meant a fair number of exposed troops
likely getting exposed to the agent. I think your analysis of how bad this
could have been is about as accurate as the rest of your analysis in this
discussion--not very.


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

You have been told this numerous times, but apparently you keep wanting
to
insert "great numbers of rounds in massive stockpiles" for the term
"violations of 687".

Read the UK government dossiers. Compare them to the reality on the
ground. Wonder at the discrepancies between the case made for the
operation, and the facts made on the ground.

Maybe your government based its whole claim solely on "massive
stockpiles"--our's did not, as that report I cited to you indicates.


Uncle Tom Cobbley and all knew that Iraq was in violation of 687, would
continue to try to violate 687, and even if by some miracle they
renounced WME and tried to clean up their act, some stray munitions
would still be adrift - therefore they could *never* fully, completely
satisfy 687.

The question is, were they so thoroughly in violation that they had
produced workable weapons in effective quantities?

No, that is YOUR question. Our contention is that they were in violation of
numerous requirements, to include hiding bio warfare programs that were
still ongoing, which proved to be true.


I don't doctor quotes.

The hell you don't.

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

You paraphrased me inaccurately, and when called upon it you trotted out my
correct quote and then argued that the inclusion of *all* in it really did
not change what you had claimed I had been saying. I'd call that
doctoring--it sure as hell was not honest.


Hence your past assertion that I was claiming WMD's were
not a factor, when what I actually said was, "It is not *all* about
WMD's."

I'm noting your continued evasion on the "other factors".

You are blind then. They have been given to you again..and again..and again.
See the above: "...add to that the "other" reasons (missiles that exceeded
the allowed range, continual NFZ violations, one assasination attempt on a
former US President, harboring a couple of known terrorists, supporting
suicide bombers, etc.)--you know, the ones I have given you before, but you
claimed I never provided to you?" The fact that you claim they have still
not been given to you at this point is just an example now of you now lying,
'cause sure as God made little green apples they have been given to you
again, and again, and again...


If I quote, I make it properly attributable so it
can be checked. If you don't see a name on it, then it's not a quote.
(Who would I be quoting? If I write "Kevin Brooks is a big fat poopie
head" then who, precisely, is supposed to have said this and how could
you challenge them?)

I told you this already - I'm willing to be charitable and accept you
ignored it in a fit of pique, but if you prefer I'll find a less
amiable
interpretation.

I find false accusations unpleasant, personally, but again you may just
have been indulging in histrionics and refused to read it.

This one was a very true accusation. You had my quote, and you chose to
leave out the "all" when you paraphrased it.

And I didn't attribute it to you, or insist it was your exact wording,
because *even you* immediately recognised it as a paraphrase rather than
a quotation.

Bull****. You sure as heel did attribute that to me. Do I have to go Google
and restate your exact words to you?You claimed I said that WMD's were not a
factor--that was wrong.


Interestingly, you chose then - and continued to choose - to shriek
about your wounded pride, rather than address the issue of "then what
*were* the other factors"?

You are lying again, I see--some of those other factors have repeatedly been
given to you (see above).


You screwed up, Paul--admit it.

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

Bull****--you are still denying in this very message that you ever even
attributed the incorrect statement to me! You then compound that by lying
again and again that I have never provided you any of the "other reasons"
for going to war--when lists of those reasons have been provided to you
repeatedly! In this very same thread, no less!


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

Why is that not surprising, given that you are repeatedly lying?


heck, you could have said, "Oops, I am sorry--I missed the "all" in that
statement, my apologies, you did not claim that WMD were no facor in the
decision." But no, you couldn't bring yourself to do that--you had to
start
wriggling, in the best traditions of your hero, Vkince.

Your internal fantasy life must be very interesting to behold.
Apparently I have a shrine to Saddam Hussein and worship the name of
Brannigan?

You have been acting a lot like him over this issue--if the shoe fits, wear
it.


Prior to that I held
you in some regard--we might disagree, but you were honest and
respectable.
Now I place you somewhere just above Vkince on the honor scale--and that
ain't real high, let me tell you.

Well, Kevin, let me tell you just how hurt, wounded and mortified I feel
that in between accusing me of being a Hussein appeaser you've decided
you don't like me as much as you once did.

You just don't get it, do you? It is your lying that I find offensive--the
fact that you can't seem to get beyond defending Saddam is trivial in
comparison.


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

"I'm not really seeing anything funny - I've got family currently being
shot
at because of this." Got off your high horse in a hurry there, didn't
you?

Absolutely. I can decide when to ride it and when not to, not you.

So you really DO think you have the right decide when humor is allowed and
when it is not? Could you maybe post the rules the rest of us have to
follow, since they don't apply to you?

And on that note I'll close this out; I can take only so much of your
repetitive lies, your belief that it is OK for you to use tongue-in-cheek
humor "but by-golly if the other guy does I'll set him straight!" bull****,
your inane "I apoligized...but in actuality, I never said that, so no
apology is due!" rants, etc. I could easily deal with you disagreeing with
me as to the justifications for military action in this case--but I just
can't stomach your lack of integrity, and I am really sorry I had misjudged
you in that regard prior to the last couple of discussions revealing what
you are truly like. You say that does not bother you-- to have such a
"disposable" view in regards to one's reputation with others is kind of a
sad situation.

Brooks


So what? Less than a
ton is "research quantities" for other nations interested in
self-defence against chemical weapons, and there's the minor
_realpolitik_ that Iraq still has a border and a recent bloody war with
Iran, who is *also* an enthusiastic producer of chemical weapons.
Tricky
to handle that one, unless you want to commit US troops to protecting
the Shi'a south against an Iranian rescue from Iraq's hateful
oppression...

Sounds like you are making a case for justifying Saddam continuing WMD
programs there--not going to get too far with that one.

Just interested to know what the US position would be if the Iranians
decide to stage Anschluss with Basra and the southern oilfields, using
chemical weapons generously (claiming, of course, that it's just
retaliation for Iraq's first use).

Nor is your attempt
to draw Iran into the framework of much use.

You don't consider Iran to be a factor in the Middle East?

Just what are you smoking and where can it be bought?

Again, was he in violation of
687, on numerous accounts, or not?

Of course he was. How could he *not* be in violation, with a
sufficiently detailed and dogmatic accounting?

Out of interest, since you're suddenly so fond of the UN, when was
military action in response to the breach of 687 authorised?

Because it's cheap and easy. You can cook up ricin in a domestic
kitchen
(we arrested a group doing just that in London). You can talk up how
hugely lethal it is and how many thousands you could kill with Just
This
Test-Tube! While carefully skipping over the inconvenient problems of
administration (best-known ricin victim is Georgi Markov - you're going
to get an agent close enough to a President to jab an umbrella in his
leg?) Ricin just needs castorbeans and some commercial equipment to
produce.

So in Paulian World, ricin is A-OK for Saddam to continue working on, and
if
he did acheive weaponization--oh, well, too bad, right? And in Paulian
World
work on ricin was not a violation of the terms of 687?

No, and no, as you know well - but then who *has* achieved weaponised
ricin? It's a vicious toxin when correctly administered, but the
administration remains a massive and unsolved problem. (I have this
vision of Iraqi troops with umbrellas trying to close with their enemies
under fire...)

Handy if you need an excuse, but not a serious threat.


Chicken and egg - were they after ricin for its enormous battlefield
effectiveness, or were they proudly developing a hugely lethal
biological weapon for the glory of Saddam Hussein (may blessings rain
from Heaven on His name) with resources they could easily get hold of
and which they'd get funding and prestige for?

It does not matter--it was a violation.

And because it was "not just about the WMEs" then the least violation of
687 is complete casus belli?

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

You might want to look into the definition of "threat". IMO, Saddam with
any
amount of proscribed WMD's, or programs in search of same, constituted a
definite "threat". Your mileage may differ.

I'm more worried about the North Koreans, who have the weapons and the
habit of exporting anything to anyone for cash; the Syrians, who also
have the weapons and are enthusiastic terrorist supporters; the
Iranians, who *also* have WMEs in significant quantity and a solid track
record of sponsoring anti-US terrorism... need I go on?

The ones you won't state?

No, the ones I have repeatedly stated--

At last and after much prodding.

You mean, Hussein sponsors suicide bombers against Israel - like Syria,
like Iran, and like some of the more enthusiastic Saudi madrassahs?

"Missiles that exceed the allowed range" - yes, that's a real one. They
jerry-rigged some SA-2 engines together and produced a missile that,
without payload, exceeded their maximum allowed range. (Give it a
payload and it met the limit, but that's life)

"continual NFZ violations" - how *dare* they defend their own airspace?
And just how effective were those "violations"? When was the last time
they fired a SAM with guidance, for instance? (The air defence teams had
to put up a fight, so they lofted unguided missiles up and tried not to
be where the retaliation landed)

"one assasination attempt on a former US President" - this one's often
asserted but the proof is lacking. Wasn't this while Bush Sr. was in
Kuwait or Saudi, which are much more al-Qaeda's stamping grounds?


Which of these pose any significant threat to the US and require an
immediate invasion? Which of these isn't topped by other states in the
region? (The US can't fly over Syria, who has many TBMs with chemical
warheads and generously sponsors terrorists operating against Israel...
but, of course, we must judge each case on its merits)

Or perhaps I'm mistaken and you *did* state them - in which case I
apologise (again) for missing them. Could you point me to them, please?
(asked again)

Asked and answered--repeatedly.

Thank you.

No, I didn't. "It's Iraq and it's a special case." was the best
summary.
Which may be true, but the evasiveness is an automatic hackle-raiser.

No evasiveness required--just situational dependent, something you
obviously
refuse to grasp.

So what made Iraq more of a threat than Syria?

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

Apparently no, since you keep tapdancing around the "was he in violation"

Other nations are in violation, except that they weren't defeated and
had 687 enacted upon them,

question with your "only massive amounts fit the bill" bit.

Militarily significant quanties. Are you claiming I ever said "massive
amounts" or will you retract this heinous and dishonourable misquotation
of my words?

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

Newsflash, but they are in lots of places.

So it seems. Not quite what's been claimed, but then so much has been
claimed it's often hard to keep track.

That's okay - the hugely efficient Saudi military and security services
will handle the problem.

If they can't, the large US presence in the country will handle it.


(Your last sentence is extremely troubling, though. How much do you
actually understand about the general situation in Saudi Arabia, and
the
particulars of the House of Saud's relationship with the Wahabbi sect
and al-Qaeda's reaction to all the above? Or do you really believe that
"because al-Qaeda attacks in Saudi then the house of Saud must be their
sworn enemies and our true and trusted allies?")

Apparently my understanding is plenty realistic, unlike your's, which was
IIRC a "why have you not attacked Saudid Arabia if you are attacking
Iraq"
gambit.

You understand incorrectly, it seems.

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

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

In message , Chad Irby
writes
"Liberals" think we should leave nasty dictators in place forever and
let them kill and abuse millions, while "conservatives" think we should
kick out folks like Hussein and free those folks.

I got a degree from University College London, and have seen Jeremy
Bentham's preserved body (he sits in one of the hallways, and is a
required presence at meetings of the governing body).

I'm not sure that you mean by "liberal" what many other people
understand by "liberal".

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

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

Clinton
adviser Paul Begala said he'd done a Nexis search and found 13,641
stories about Clinton's alleged draft dodging versus 49 about George
W. Bush's military record.


Alleged? Something is alleged when it is represented as existing or as
being as described but not so proved. There's nothing alleged about
Clinton's draft-dodging.

Clinton's not running.

Follow this link to see a document that shows conclusively that Bush did not
get the requisite 50 points for a satisfctory year of service:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/g...-73arfspe1.pdf

So the record shows that Bush was dodging his commitment in Texas, Kerry was
in contact with the NVA in the Mekong Delta.

Walt

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

"Yeah, the mainstream media have really kept a lid on this one. We
wouldn't know anything about Bush going AWOL if it hadn't been for
that obscure underground newspaper the Boston Globe, which broke
the story nationally in May 2000. But you're right that coverage has
been pretty thin. A few months after the 2000 election, former Bill

Clinton

adviser Paul Begala said he'd done a Nexis search and found 13,641
stories about Clinton's alleged draft dodging versus 49 about George
W. Bush's military record.



Alleged? Something is alleged when it is represented as existing or as
being as described but not so proved. There's nothing alleged about
Clinton's draft-dodging.

Really? In that case, would you mind producing some proof that there was a
court proceeding that found Clinton guilty of violating some portion of the
Selective Service Act?

You know, my dictionary defines "allege" as "to declare or assert without
proof". If you have no proof, there's no other word you could use about the
object of your affections than allege. You can't turn him into a criminal just
because you don't like his politics or sex life.

By way of example, many of Bush's critics think he was an unprosecuted AWOL or
maybe even a deserter but, lacking proof and/or evidence of a successful
prosecution, many amongst them refrain from making unsubstantiated charges like
that. Don't you think it's time both Bush and Clinton got a vacation from
having mud thrown at them for stuff nobody has yet proved that they did? It's
unseemly to treat our presidents that way, even the ones we don't like.

George Z.

On 06 Jun 2004 00:31:53 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 6/5/04 3:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time

Seriously, I don't think Social Security, Medicare or public education
were implemented at gunpoint. They met the demands of "we the
people"--even when misguided.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)

Social Security, Medicare and public education misguided? So much for
compassionate conservatism.


Arthur Kramer

Art, stop being so eager to find fault.

Social Security, Medicare and public education are fine. My point was
that in our political system we get what we want by electing
representation that responds to our demands. If they don't they get
un-elected.

Sometimes the things we demand are poor choices. Consider a lot of the
pork that comes out of every annual omnibus appropriations bill. It
gets votes for the individual congress-critter, but isn't necessarily
good policy for the nation.


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

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

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

Fine, let me know so I can laugh when a relative of yours becomes a
casualty. Wouldn't *that* be funny? Or would you need your "humor
switch" recalibrating?

Odd how you turned your humor switch back on when it came to
postulating about "parking tickets" below--I guess you and only you
set the rules for when it is appropriate? Or is it OK for you to make
light of the situation, but noone else can? Heck of an opinion of
yourself you have there...

That's a standard tactic with some folks. Say something obnoxious or
dumb, and when someone calls them on it, accuse them of "not having a
sense of humor" or something similar.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.