General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 6/7/04 9:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time

I'm not inherently a judicial activist, but most who call
themselves "strict constructionist" or "original intent" choose to
apply their own interpretation to the document.

As is made painfully clear in Amar's brilliant tour de force on constitutional
interpretation in his "THE BILL OF RIGHTS" Yale University press or Rakov's
superb Pulitzer Prize winning " ORIGINAL MEANINGS" published by Random House.
The discussioins and arguments of what the founders had in mind on any given
issue is never ending.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 6/7/04 9:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:57:05 GMT, "Jarg"
wrote:


Social Security and Medicare are great, particularly if, like Art, you are
receiving the benefits of the money and services you never paid for!
Welfare is wonderful!

Jarg

Dunno about Art, but I know I definitely paid for Social Security and
Medicare, both when I was on active duty and in the 17 years since
retirement. I paid income tax on active duty as well.


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


We all paid and paid and paid ad infinitum

..
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Jeeze Ed, none of the libertarian platforms I have ever seen- nor have any
of the various tomes written BY libertarians ABOUT libertarianism- have
*ever* classified libertarianism as being "against government" NOR have they
ever claimed any kind of faith at all in anything remotely resembling "the
inherent goodness of man."

Indeed, one of the (admittedly few) *legitimate* roles of government under
libertarianism is a STRONG legal system, with courts and police to enforce
court rulings. This is precisely because libertarians recognize that people
are evil and stupid- but libertarians do NOT choose "Prior Restraint" as a
premise of civil society. You *do* need a strong, enforceable court system
to redress wrongs, however.

One of the major differences between libertariansim and current "Social
Democracies" is that libertarians believe in citizens being made whole only
*after* they are wronged- libertarians do not believe in any kind of
"playing field leveling" so popular under current practicces of prior
restraints.

Sorry about hte diatribe, but you presented a gaping misunderstanding of
libertarianism right off the bat. Couldn't let it go unchallenged. I
suggest (particularly if yoiu are going to be teaching Political Science)
that you read up a,ittle bit more on the alternative political theories,
including libertariansim (which is, after all, the guiding principles upon
which our nation was founded).

My apologies for taking you to task here, especially on your "home turf,"
but your misrepresentation of libertarian philosophy was somewhat notable.



"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:35:48 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

Ed:

There are plenty of non-totalitarian options.

Most assuredly. While many dictatorships exist, most are authoritarian
rather than totalitarian. They simply don't have the resources to get
to the level of control required by totalitarianism.

Libertarianism, for example.

Many classifications list libertarianism as an "anti-government"
ideology. While less government is almost everyone's goal, few can
support the basic assumptions of libertarianism--that man is
inherently good and doesn't need government. Certainly privatization
is gaining favor and individual responsibility remains a touchstone of
one branch of American politcs, that is a long war from
libertarianism.

Or Constitutionalism.

And, which constitution would that be? Most who pattern themselves as
"American Constitutionalists" seem to ignore the 216 years of
Constitutional case-law that has adjusted the document to the current
world. I'm not inherently a judicial activist, but most who call
themselves "strict constructionist" or "original intent" choose to
apply their own interpretation to the document.

You do have an MS (or is it an MA?) in Political Science, right?

MPS, Auburn Univ (at Montgomery) 1978
MSIR, Troy State Univ (European Exension) 1981

The choices are NOT just between "Welfare State" or "Police State."

No one has said they were.

Steve Swartz


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

No, Ed, you paid for somebody else's Social Security/Medicare etc.

C'mon, you're pulling our legs now, right?

You do understand how the "Social Safety Net" [sic] is funded, right?

Steve Swartz

(This whole "I paid for my social security" thing is a real Gore-ism . . . )


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 16:57:05 GMT, "Jarg"
wrote:


Social Security and Medicare are great, particularly if, like Art, you
are
receiving the benefits of the money and services you never paid for!
Welfare is wonderful!

Jarg

Dunno about Art, but I know I definitely paid for Social Security and
Medicare, both when I was on active duty and in the 17 years since
retirement. I paid income tax on active duty as well.


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

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:01:38 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

Jeeze Ed, none of the libertarian platforms I have ever seen- nor have any
of the various tomes written BY libertarians ABOUT libertarianism- have
*ever* classified libertarianism as being "against government" NOR have they
ever claimed any kind of faith at all in anything remotely resembling "the
inherent goodness of man."

Indeed, one of the (admittedly few) *legitimate* roles of government under
libertarianism is a STRONG legal system, with courts and police to enforce
court rulings. This is precisely because libertarians recognize that people
are evil and stupid- but libertarians do NOT choose "Prior Restraint" as a
premise of civil society. You *do* need a strong, enforceable court system
to redress wrongs, however.

One of the major differences between libertariansim and current "Social
Democracies" is that libertarians believe in citizens being made whole only
*after* they are wronged- libertarians do not believe in any kind of
"playing field leveling" so popular under current practicces of prior
restraints.

Sorry about hte diatribe, but you presented a gaping misunderstanding of
libertarianism right off the bat. Couldn't let it go unchallenged. I
suggest (particularly if yoiu are going to be teaching Political Science)
that you read up a,ittle bit more on the alternative political theories,
including libertariansim (which is, after all, the guiding principles upon
which our nation was founded).

My apologies for taking you to task here, especially on your "home turf,"
but your misrepresentation of libertarian philosophy was somewhat notable.

I don't mind being taken to task on any turf. But, the categorization
of libertarianism on the spectrum of political ideologies as
"anti-government" (along with anarchists, nihilists, etc.) is from the
text we use in our Intro to Political Science course, "Understanding
Politics" by Thomas M. Magstadt.

Your characterization of libertarianism is partially correct, but
overlooks some of the basic positions of the Libertarian Party.
Certainly the aspects about reducing taxes, eliminating government
programs that could be done by the private sector and individual
responsibility are reasonable.

But look further into their stance on drug abuse, for example. (Don't
want to get into a drug war discussion here.) They assert that
removing all laws against "victimless crimes" will be effect because
people are inherently wise enough to not do the wrong thing. Certainly
that fits the mold of less laws, but I doubt that it is a prescription
for a better society.

Libertarians defend the right of citizen's to print and distribute
pornographic materials, no matter the level of obscenity or repugnance
to society at large--even beyond the minor restrictions that have been
placed on our First Amendment of things like child porn. The oppose a
draft, assuming in time of national crisis, the good in society would
recognize the need for sacrifice--somehow I doubt that. They oppose
legislation for public safety or aid/security for the elderly.

Clearly, they take free market economics and self-reliance to the next
level. No "compassionate conservatism" for them.

As for libertarianism being a "guiding principles upon which our
nation was founded," I think that Madison, Montesquieu, Locke,
Hamilton, Jay and even the anti-Federalist Jefferson would have
difficulty with that. Even Hobbes "Leviathan" was certainly not
libertarian.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:03:42 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

No, Ed, you paid for somebody else's Social Security/Medicare etc.

C'mon, you're pulling our legs now, right?

You do understand how the "Social Safety Net" [sic] is funded, right?

Steve Swartz

(This whole "I paid for my social security" thing is a real Gore-ism . . . )

No, Steve, the "I paid for my Social Security" is merely a correction
to the often held erroneous belief that the military doesn't pay
income tax or FICA or Medicare. We do. We pay the same as every other
working person. And, we have the same entitlement as any other
qualified person--no more, no less.

Yes, I know the way Social Security is funded. And, no it isn' a
"Gore-ism". The concept of an "account" was foisted upon the people by
Roosevelt, when the program was established. It wasn't true then and
it isn't true today. Gore is more responsible for the ephemeral
"lock-box."

And, I don't back up to the pay window. I want exactly what I've
earned, just like everyone else.


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

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

From: Ed Rasimus

Dunno about Art, but I know I definitely paid for Social Security and
Medicare, both when I was on active duty and in the 17 years since
retirement. I paid income tax on active duty as well.

We all paid and paid and paid ad infinitum

Well, *some* of your generation paid the highest price, but the vast
majority of folks born before about 1950 are going to get a *lot* more
than they paid in to Social Security. Lower SS paid in at the time,
higher money paid out, even considering compound interest.

SS was originally supposed to be a safety net for the small handful of
folks who hit 65 and didn't have any money, not the default retirement
fund for the *majority* who now manage that age.

Hell, most folks my age and below are either relying on personal savings
or planning on working until the day they die, because the math on SS is
pretty damning. Look at what's happening to Europe due to similar but
more encompassing programs...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Fine, let me know so I can laugh when a relative of yours becomes a
casualty. Wouldn't *that* be funny? Or would you need your "humor
switch" recalibrating?

Odd how you turned your humor switch back on when it came to postulating
about "parking tickets" below--I guess you and only you set the rules for
when it is appropriate?

Hey, you turn rules on and off as you see fit, why can't I?

Or is it OK for you to make light of the situation,
but noone else can?

You need to recalibrare your humour switch.

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

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

Impressive.

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

And the resolution authorised immediate invasion in the event of alleged
violation?

Trouble with resolutions is looking at what they actually say.

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

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

Yes (Again). Did you not read the last two times I showed you this, or
did you just not bother to reply?


First source found at
http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport/dis_chem.htm

+++++
36. However, it was not possible to verify the full extent of several R&
D projects carried out by Iraq from 1989 to 1990, due to the absence of
sufficient data from documents and other verifiable evidence. Those
include the research on new chemical warfare agents, BZ and Soman. These
also include Iraq's efforts to develop new delivery means for CW-agents,
such as special warheads other than for Al-Hussein missiles, i.e. FROG
missile, and real binary artillery munitions and aerial bombs. Evidence
of such studies was found in the documents from the Haider farm. On the
other hand, the Commission did not find evidence that Iraq had reached
the stage of industrial production of these materials and items.
+++++

No production, that's agreed by the UN inspectors. (Mind you, apparently
they're all useless incompetents, so who knows what pre-1991 projects
they overlooked). Development alleged but not found, though pointers
were certainly seen. Not proven, but strongly alleged, that research was
underway: just stated confidence that "industrial production was not
found".

Of course, US search teams - much more honest and reliable than the UN,
and free to move as they willed led by their excellent intelligence -
would *surely* not miss such a significant project?

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

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

No, simple fact. The ricin program? Let's assume it basked in the
Glorious Leader's favour. So what is it going to _do_? If you can get an
enemy soldier or civilian subdued enough to inject them with ricin, you
could just have cut their throat much more cheaply and effectively. (And
unless you're building James Bond-style autoloading umbrellas or Van
Helsing-style dartguns, an AK-47 is just as effective for spray-and-pray
on a crowd and suicide bombers' vests even more so). But it's a "deadly
toxin" and you can boast - with complete truth - that you hold "the
deaths of ten thousand Americans" in one test-tube and have succeeded
where so many others have failed. (Administering it is the problem, but
that's the difference between salesmanship and engineering)

A violation, it is. A threat, it isn't.



*One* round each of mustard and sarin shell? Yes, I can really see the
US and UK and allies abandoning the entire operation to invade Iraq, and
even fleeing the entire Middle East in terror, because Saddam promised
to fire "his shell" at them.

To be a significant program, you need not one shell but hundreds, which
means production, storage and distribution (which in turn mean *people*)

These two rounds have turned up over a year after we arrived, kicked
seven shades of ****e out of any Iraqi who opposed our coming, and said
that we now run the country. You honestly think that Saddam Hussein
formulated a cunning master plan that said "If we're invaded, let me
hide in a miserable hole in the ground for months and eventually be
captured by the Americans before you ever reveal a single round of our
Miracle Weapons?"

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

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

Go and find a dictionary. Look up the definitions of "some" and "all".
Notice that they are not identical.

Then carry out a careful count of the WME production programs found to
date in Iraq since the occupation. Having found that it tends towards a
round number, count again to confirm.

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

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

Of course he was in violation. Even if he'd turned every factory over
and surrendered every WME he could lay hands on, a week or two along the
Iranian border with a metal detector, a JCB and some NBC kit (just in
case) would have produced a violation.

Trouble is, "a violation" is not "a threat", nor even "an imminent
threat".

Now, where was the actual WME threat from Iraq? Even you should be able
to answer that without too much quibbling.

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

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

No, just the guy who wonders why "if violations of A, B, C and D are all
'urgent grounds for action' in Iraq, then why are more serious
violations of all four not important elsewhere?"

Don't worry about it, Kevin. Just call me "a liberal" and forget about
it.

That's a very generous understatement.

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

Answered, repeatedly.

Out of interest, where did UN687 require or authorise immediate military
action in response to an alleged violation (after all, these violations
have taken some time to produce proof...) Or did violation point to UN
deliberations about "further action"?

I'm less a fan of the UN than some knee-jerkers might expect, but I do
find it amusing that an organisation derided as incompetent, corrupt and
useless in one breath is claimed as justification for action in the
next...

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUT...NR059623.pdf?O
penElement refers.

Where in there is there anything saying "and if the Iraqis don't behave,
then anyone who feels like it can just storm right in"?

There were reasons to go in, but you're not making them and neither is
Resolution 687.

Indeed, he owned at least two chemical munitions.

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

Oh, joy! In the above you have not only managed to ignore his other numerous
violations of 687,

See above.

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

Now, is that "twelve years of violations" making him the most
threatening country in the world?

Or just "twelve years of violations" because he was careless enough in
1990 to get the entire world willing to see him smacked hard, lose much
of his military, and get subjected to UNSC687?

If you've avoided being subject to a UNSCR, are you blameless and
innocent? Or have you just avoided that particular form of scrutiny?


"Paulian World" doesn't rely on UN resolutions or US domestic opinion as
its yardsticks. My world looks at real threats and real dangers. I'm
sorry you find it so inconvenient and uncongenial.

There was supposed to be a imminent and serious threat.

Those seem to be your words.

Actually, our Prime Minister signed off on them, which may prove to have
been unwise.

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

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

Indeed. Why, the US Army is regularly called upon to fend off hordes of
umbrella-wielding assailants, is it not?

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

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

Chose to mount *your* high horse? After you called me a cynical liar for
such a thing?

(I believe the phrase is 'Ker-CHING!')

None of that is an immediate or imminent threat.

Was he in violation in these regards? Yes.

Did 687 say "and violation means anyone who feels inclined should just
roll in there?" No.

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

Yeah, he is obviously innocent of all charges because he had NO IDEA that
his nation had been working on WMD efforts over the years,

I'm impressed that you can say this with such certainty.

I'd be more impressed if you could show me how what he *believed* he
owned or might soon own, related to what he actually *did* possess.

was completely
unaware of Res 687, and just for good measure, he probably was completely
unaware of those mass graves (and the poor souls who went into them).

FROM: Paul J. Adam
TO: Nebraska Agricultural Supply Inc.

Dear Sirs,

I beg you, as a charity case, to provide a generous consignment of clean
fresh straw to one Kevin Brooks, a countryman of yours. He delights in
constructing 'straw men', and does so with an almost frightening zeal: I
am concerned that he may soon exhaust his supplies of straw, and what
might happen then?

Why,
he should be nominated for sainthood...nah, on second thought, all of that
sounds pretty darned hokey.

Are you sure your humour switch isn't just sticking a little?

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

He had a ricin program--firm data (unless you want to call Kay and his
inspectors liars).

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

Or should I just look at what ricin can actually do, and how "a ricin
program' can be not that much more than a bag of castorbeans, a saucepan
and a stove?

That is a violation. He had a sarin round of a type that
was never acknowledged as having been fabricated-

Not in production quantities, on that we agree, but then we've only
found one.

he had
cultures and equipment hidden away--another violation.

This all hangs on "violation on UNSC687" being a tripwire for "execute
unrestricted land, sea and air warfare against Iraq", doesn't it?

So where can I find that or anything like it in the resolution?

Or did the US short-circuit the "report the alleged breach, have it
assessed, move a resolution for action, get it approved, then act"?

(Worked okay in 1990/1, but then the world was simpler then)

Conclusion: He was in
violation. You claim he did/may not know about any of this--too bad, they
are still violations. End of story.

So where in UNSC687 is invasion of Iraq authorisied on violation of the
resolution?

You're claiming it makes your point, I read it and it doesn't.

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

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

And where did it say "IF 687 = VIOLATION THEN GOSUB INVASION"?

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

Bull****. You have REPEATEDLY been given the other reasons--I gave them to
you again and again.

Well, twice and eventually. (Overlapping requests, but mea culpa)

I never did get the prioritisation or the sort of detail that turned
them from "political manifesto" to "actually useful", but then I didn't
expect to.

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

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

No, Kevin, I've said so three times at least. That you choose not to
read, does not mean words are not posted.

Now, the first time you called me a liar, I replied to you
paragraph-by-paragraph, explained and apologised for the
misunderstanding... only to find that at the end of the article, you
claimed you would read no more on the matter. (In which case why bother
making a significant accusation of untruth?)

I've repeated the explanation and the apology twice already, and still
you claim to have missed it.

For a fourth time, I was about to repeat... but on a hunch, I checked
the end of your message and realised you had fled the field *yet again*.

I'd ask "Why are you so willing to fling accusations, yet so reluctant
to even discuss apologies?" but apparently you won't read this either.


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

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

Unlike you, I have not played footloose and fancy free with your statements
and twisted them to say something completely different from what you
actually said--you did.

Actually, you have, but I've accepted it as the rough-and-tumble of
debate rather than using them as an excuse to avoid awkward issues.

Unlike you, I have not completely ignored your
answer to a question and then repeatedly claimed you never answered it in
the first place.

Kevin, you're the one who has FOUR times made an accusation and then
refused to respond to the reply.

Those would be YOUR faults in this argument, not mine.

The religious among us would say there's a higher power who will judge.

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

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

If you were still reading this, I'd give you the URLs.

Since you're apparently not, why bother?

Of course - now, where are the threats?

You are really going to avoid admitting he was in violation on numerous
counts, aren't you?

Yes. When "one shell" is a violation, then "violation" becomes
meaningless. By that argument, most of Europe plus the USA would be "in
violation" if you dug long enough in the right places.
..
And as i said elsewhere, I see Saddam with any form of
WMD program, or products thereof, as a serious threat. You don't. Luckily,
you'll now never have to go through the agony of being proved wrong on that
since Saddam has been removed from the equation.

You complain about "high horses" and write this rubbish? Hypocrisy,
'Kevin Brooks' is thy name.

The only WME attack on the US to date has been home-grown: I earnestly
hope there are no more (disbelieve that as much as it pleases you to do
so) but I have neither belief nor evidence to show that the occupation
of Iraq has reduced the risk in any detectable fashion.

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

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

And when you provided them, I explained how all were business as usual
throughout the Middle East. Refute my points, or run away.

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

Perhaps I should draw a conclusion from that?

Sure.

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

See my comment above regarding Saddam and threat.

What "threat"? He's going to get 155mm howitzers into range of major US
targets undetected and then fire decades-old shells at them? This was
entertaining but stretching credibility when Clive Cussler wrote it as a
novel. ('Vixen 03' - a fun read, IMO)

He's going to send out armies of umbrella-wielding Fedayeen to jab
millions of Americans in the leg?

Where *is* the threat?

Less than a 155mm HE in that particular case.

Not sure about that.

You're standing by it when it goes off? That seems to be the most usual
description to date. It didn't detonate on command, it was found and
defused or - this is my guess and only that - disabled by controlled
detonation.

155 HE round goes off and, if they were following a
normal convoy interval, based upon lethal burst radius of a 155mm HE, one
vehicle with occupants gets whacked. A 155mm sarin round with a few liters
of fully-cooked sarin goes off, and you have to consider downwind effects

Not from a proper binary round with no setback and centrifugal effects,
actuated on the ground by a fuzewell full of plastic explosive. Poor
mixing, poor performance.

Plus, how many US troops are in the "downwind effects" of a roadside IED
whose owners didn't know what they had?

and you also have those folks who subsequently drove into the immediate
area. These troops were not MOPPED up, and seeing what would appear
(compared to the usual IED) to be a misfired IED going off (that burster
charge is not that big) on the roadside would likely lead to them either
immediately herringboning and dismounting, or even worse driving through the
ambush point (which was our first choice when I was a CO--avoid stopping in
the KZ at all costs). Which would have meant a fair number of exposed troops
likely getting exposed to the agent.

Now consider quantity of agent - produced by the munition, and exposure
for the troops.

I think your analysis of how bad this
could have been is about as accurate as the rest of your analysis in this
discussion--not very.

I'm lowering my opinion of your competence, sadly, if this is *really*
your opinion and not just bad temper.

This shell didn't even kill the EOD team (not in NBC as far as I can
tell) and yet it's meant to massacre a convoy? How much gas from a
roadside source do you think passengers actually in moving vehicles
absorb? You're absolutely right that the best protection for the
intended victims would be to drive through at best speed, but the notion
that this shell posed a serious threat to troops in fast-moving motor
vehicles is just *ludicrous*.

If nothing else, there's a 50-50 chance that the shell (rigged as a HE
IED, remember?) was planted *downwind* of the road. And then there's the
problem that you may drive past someone's roadside rose... but how often
do you smell them?

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

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

Well, gee golly whillikers, Kevin, it might amaze you that we're run by
the UK government not the US.

Seems just a little inattentive of you to overlook that detail, but
never mind - you've gone off in a huff anyway.

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

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

No, that is YOUR question.

So answer it.

I answer yours, however insultingly put.

Oh, I forgot - if I hadn't read ahead I would still think this was a
debate.

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

You paraphrased me inaccurately, and when called upon it you trotted out my
correct quote and then argued that the inclusion of *all* in it really did
not change what you had claimed I had been saying.

No. I quoted you precisely complete with cite. I paraphrased you and
when challenged that the paraphrase was distorting your actual position,
I publicly withdrew the paraphrase and apologised for the error.

I'd call that
doctoring--it sure as hell was not honest.

I'd call it considerably more honest than your tactics here, Mr Brooks.
Be very wary of claiming "you never did X" when in fact you just chose
to never find out.

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

You are blind then. They have been given to you again..and again..and again.
See the above: "...add to that the "other" reasons (missiles that exceeded
the allowed range,

With or without payload? That technicality aside, plot the 'allowed
range' on a map and see where it gets Iraq.

continual NFZ violations,

Yep, that's a clear reason to invade. I mean, *look* how many aircraft
and aircrew we've lost policing those No Fly Zones!

one assasination attempt on a
former US President,

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

(These issues are very mutable: the fact of the attempt is indisputable,
the reality of the who and why much more difficult)

harboring a couple of known terrorists,

I offer you Brennan, Artt and Kirby.

supporting
suicide bombers, etc.)--you know, the ones I have given you before, but you
claimed I never provided to you?"

And have since accepted - in the very post to which you reply, if memory
serves - that you have finally provided. (Since you've claimed you won't
read this, it might be churlish to add 'after much prodding' and for a
debator still on the floor, it would be downright rude to comment how
you flung them behind you as you fled)

The fact that you claim they have still
not been given to you at this point is just an example now of you now lying,

No, you have finally given them. I accepted them and thanked you for
them, at least.

'cause sure as God made little green apples they have been given to you
again, and again, and again...

No, they have not: but they have at least been given.

Oddly, now I have your reasons, it seems I no longer have you

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

Bull****. You sure as heel did attribute that to me. Do I have to go Google
and restate your exact words to you?

Yes, you do. Which post of yours did I attribute it to? Where did I say
that the words in those inverted commas were yours and yours alone?

Please show any evidence at all that would suggest that those words were
yours. When I quoted you, I left an audit trail: when I paraphrased the
'there wuz WMD!' crowd, I did not.

Oh, I forgot - your case is so strong and your confidence so high, you
already ran away. (See end of post)

You claimed I said that WMD's were not a
factor--that was wrong.

You claimed they were not a major factor. I asked you to name and rank
the major factors and got a laundry list, which I imagine will have to
do. "I don't know" would, by the way, have been an honourable and
acceptable response.

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

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

No, they have been finally extracted after much pressure and still in an
unranked straggle. However, even that seems to be too much pressure for
you to bear.

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

Bull****--you are still denying in this very message that you ever even
attributed the incorrect statement to me!

Indeed, because at no point did I claim to anyone that Kevin Brooks said
at TIME on DATE that "QUOTE".

You then compound that by lying
again and again that I have never provided you any of the "other reasons"
for going to war--when lists of those reasons have been provided to you
repeatedly! In this very same thread, no less!

Well, eventually, though twice (overlapping) and without the
prioritisation asked for.

But we must be grateful for what we get, and be grateful when we finally
get it.

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

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

There was an age when that allegation would have required you to bring a
friend (if you could rent one - from your conduct here it seems you must
have few) and a pair of good swords (assuming you owned them) to a
discreet dawn rendezvous where the matter could be settled in a
traditional style.

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

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

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

I'm not even offering you a foot, Kevin.


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

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

Whereas I find your cowardice disappointing. Go cosy up to Fred McCall,
he's more your type.

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

So you really DO think you have the right decide when humor is allowed and
when it is not?

Don't we all?

Could you maybe post the rules the rest of us have to
follow, since they don't apply to you?

Sure. "Use humour when you want to. If people don't get it, be ready to
explain."

Simple easy rule.

And on that note I'll close this out; I can take only so much of your
repetitive lies, your belief that it is OK for you to use tongue-in-cheek
humor "but by-golly if the other guy does I'll set him straight!" bull****,

You mean, "I can paraphrase but you are a liar"?

You mean "I can use humour for fun but you are evading"?

your inane "I apoligized...but in actuality, I never said that, so no
apology is due!" rants,

You mean you *did* see the apologies? I thought you claimed I never
mentioned it!

etc. I could easily deal with you disagreeing with
me as to the justifications for military action in this case--but I just
can't stomach your lack of integrity,

Brave words from someone who proclaims he's not even reading the reply.
(And who trumpeted that he wouldn't read the replies to his previous
allegations)

"Integrity" my arse. Any cowardly chicken**** can fling false
accusations and run for cover. I'm here to talk about it and defend
myself, I'm replying to your claims, you're running away as fast as you
can. Shall we ask the audience to decide?

and I am really sorry I had misjudged
you in that regard prior to the last couple of discussions revealing what
you are truly like.

Well, Kevin, I'm *really* worried about your bad opinion of me, because
you've clearly shown how open to debate you are and how carefully you
consider your positions, and your hostility could do *terrible* things
to my career prospects - because you're *so* right on all these issues.

I get *paid* to do this ****, and Usenet is light relief from it. I'm
actually genuinely sorry that someone I thought was an irascible but
intelligent poster turned out to be a mindless political knee-jerker,
but that's life.


You say that does not bother you-- to have such a
"disposable" view in regards to one's reputation with others is kind of a
sad situation.

Oh, **** off and die, Kevin. I can take a lot but this sort of
sanctimonious rant should be posted at the top, not the bottom.

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

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

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

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

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

You mean, like "you need to recalibrate your humor switch"?

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

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

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

It's a place, not a person - and if the name means nothing to you, then
you're too ignorant to talk to. Which would be a shame.


Let's see, I state; "Prior to the invasion of Iraq the one point on which
there was near universal agreement was that Iraq had significant WMD."

You respond; "I guess 'near universal' can exclude a lot of people, then."

I ask; "Such as?"

And you answer; "Porton Down."

I had been thinking; "Gee, you'd think a guy that claims a lot of people
said Iraq had no WMD before the invasion could come up with more than just
one example." But it turns out you couldn't provide a single example!

By the way, if you don't know the difference between a place and a person,
then it's you that's too ignorant to talk to.