If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#411
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#412
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#413
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#414
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#415
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#416
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#417
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#418
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#419
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#420
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Home Built | 3 | May 14th 04 11:55 AM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 10th 04 11:06 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |