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 |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus Date: 6/5/04 8:31 AM Pacific Ed, the Pilot, Navigator, Systems Operator; EWO, Bombardier, Radio Operator, Gunner, and other specialties as required by the mission. You leave me speechless. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Kevin Brooks writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... Okay, we found a buried MiG-25, isn't that a "large and capable" air force? You need to calibrate your "humor" switch. Why? One aircraft isn't an "air force", especially not one buried in sand. Claiming "We said he had a massive air force! Look! See his air force!" falls down somewhat. I'm not really seeing anything funny - I've got family currently being shot at because of this. Oh, spare us the attempt at gravity--you have often used sarcasm and ridicule when arguing this same subject. Yet now I am supposed to prostrate myself before you because "you've got family..."? Please... Yet which we knew he was working on. Which he claimed was R&D only, with no weapons listed as produced from the effort. Of course, Iraqi accounting was always honest and believable? That is the point--it was not honest. Hence it was in violation. Case closed. Trouble is, R&D produces prototypes, which were "suspected" and not accounted for, and one of which *may* have turned up. (But if this was a serious WME threat, where's the rest of the stockpile, and the production line?) This was a weapon. It was not reported. And the discrepancy was noted years ago. Really? Can you point to where these unaccounted for binary weapons are mentioned in the UNSCOM or UNMOVIC reports? How many did they say were unaccounted for? Bad on him; you can defend Saddam all you want in this regard, but it is clear he did not provide a "full, final, and complete" accounting of all WMD's he had built, Of course he didn't! Trouble is, even *he* didn't know what he had. Geeze, your attempts to defend him are unbelievable--now you want to claim it was A-OK 'cause he did not know what he had? After you already acknowledged he was not being "honest" with his disclosures? Which way is it--was he dishonest, and therefore in violation, or inept, and therefore in violation? And it was claimed that he was hiding hundreds of tons of chemicals and entire production lines, and that was why we had to invade and secure that threat Right Now. Forty-five minutes from order to firing, with weapons able to reach as far as Cyprus - the UK Government claimed that was its experts' judgement. (Trouble is, when analysts say 'probably not' and the political advisors suggest 'can we delete that "not" to tighten up the sentence?' then the message changes a little in transit...) As it turns out... "whoops", to date. Wow. Faulty intel that does not reflect an accurate scope of the violations. Who'd have thunk it? Of course, to use that hammer you have to ignore the fact that he was in violation in the first place..."Well, he was only a LITTLE bit guilty, not a *LOT* guilty! And that hidden equipment, cultures, documentation, etc....nah, he could *never* have been using that as a way of trying to preserve his program..." is not a reasonable approach, IMO. Or that predated 687. Big question mark. Saddam did not declare any rounds produced of this nature at any time--being as his disclosures did include some pretty "low density" items (numbers in the single and double digits for other systems), then why was this left out? You've got him in custody, ask him. So, you can't come up with an excuse for the fact that he reported other low-density/R&D products, but not the one that we subsequently had used against us. Odd, that. Neither UNSCOM nor the later UNMOVIC were able to reach any kind of definitive conclusion about exactly *what* the Iraqis had or had not been able to do, or did, in terms of manufacturing 155mm binary round s. Which makes insisting that they must be recent, something of a stretch, no? They were strongly suspected of having a R&D effort aimed at such rounds, and Iraq denied it, but then if you believe the Hussein regime then the US military was exterminated outside Baghdad and are currently having their bellies barbecued in Hell. Nobody has said they "must be recent"; OTOH, it does call into question the applicability of stating beyond a doubt that they predated ODS. Perhaps yet again it might be wise to wait for the results of the detailed analysis before making too many firm claims. Which is why I have not, AFAIK, made any "firm claims" that these rounds *had* to be of recent manufacture--or are you going to resort to your doctoring-of-statements to put those words in my mouth, as you did a week or two ago when you falsely claimed that I had said that WMD's were not a factor in the decision to go to war? See what happens when you start dissembling like that? Trust is a precious commodity, and you have tarnished that quality in your own case. Interestingly, Saddam did not see fitt to even acknowledge the R&D effort (which he was required to do) until after it was discovered via some documentaion by UNSCOM inspectors. But hey, you still want to defend him here, right? No, I'm just accustomed to the fact that he was both an accomplished liar and that he may not have known as much as he believed about the projects he sponsored. Shades of the Hitler days: you can report "encouraging progress" on the 250,000-ton fantasy battleship and get more funding to stay in Kiel, or you can admit it's a ludicrous pipedream and you and your entire design team can pick up your rifles and go fight on the Eastern Front. We're stuck with what we can find after a year and a half of searching, for the "true picture" of what he had. Is the US so grossly incompetent that, having much of the regime's top staff in custody and under interrogation, that it can't get *one* of them to admit to one of the Vast Concealed Stockpiles or the Hidden Underground Factories? It has shown that he continued to run at least one bio program up until the time we attacked. That is another violation. Are you noting that the number of violations keeps increasing as we go through this discussion? You apparently don't think that his violating the proscriptions of 687 was basis for doing what we did, that it had to be a violation on a truly large scale--on that we will disagree. He had twelve years to get his act straight in terms of meeting the requirements of 687 (*all* of them), and we now know that he refused to do so even under threat of attack, yielding a justification the the area of WMD in my view--add to that the "other" reasons (missiles that exceeded the allowed range, continual NFZ violations, one assasination attempt on a former US President, harboring a couple of known terrorists, supporting suicide bombers, etc.)--you know, the ones I have given you before, but you claimed I never provided to you? Because out of 200,000 rounds produced, one round turning up is absolute proof? Back to the old, "How many weapons does a violation make?" argument, eh? Yep. One elderly shell isn't a threat. That's a fact we can both agree on. You measure chemical weapons in terms of tons of agent. Is it a violation? And had you been on the ground that day when it went off (thankfully without acheiving a full yield of sarin), how much of a "threat" do you suppose it would have been to you? The troops who got hit were not MOPP'ed up--it is a good thing that the yield was so poor, as otherwise you'd have likely been in in the unenviable position of telling me that a single round was no "threat" in spite of a few deaths caused by a nerve agent. Do I scent desperation here? No, you scent disbelief that folks are still trying to defend Saddam and claim that he was not guilty of continuing proscribed WMD activities, or of hiding those that he had already conducted and wanted to keep out of sight. So, where are the weapons? There was supposed to be a threat. Where is it? You have been told this numerous times, but apparently you keep wanting to insert "great numbers of rounds in massive stockpiles" for the term "violations of 687". Was he in violation (repeatedly) or not? Do you claim Kay was lying when he said an ongoing biotoxin program was found or not? From "Hussein may be exporting kilotons of WME to his US-hating neigbbours" we're down to "we've found one or two decade-old shells". That would be your quote, I presume? I mean, we all now know how willing you are to doctor/create a quote and assign it to another poster, right? I don't doctor quotes. The hell you don't. Hence your past assertion that I was claiming WMD's were not a factor, when what I actually said was, "It is not *all* about WMD's." When called on that you continued to try and wriggle into the claim that I was saying that WMD's were *no* factor. Don't give me this "I have *never* done such a thing!" crap--you got caught out in it. If I quote, I make it properly attributable so it can be checked. If you don't see a name on it, then it's not a quote. (Who would I be quoting? If I write "Kevin Brooks is a big fat poopie head" then who, precisely, is supposed to have said this and how could you challenge them?) I told you this already - I'm willing to be charitable and accept you ignored it in a fit of pique, but if you prefer I'll find a less amiable interpretation. I find false accusations unpleasant, personally, but again you may just have been indulging in histrionics and refused to read it. This one was a very true accusation. You had my quote, and you chose to leave out the "all" when you paraphrased it. You screwed up, Paul--admit it. heck, you could have said, "Oops, I am sorry--I missed the "all" in that statement, my apologies, you did not claim that WMD were no facor in the decision." But no, you couldn't bring yourself to do that--you had to start wriggling, in the best traditions of your hero, Vkince. Prior to that I held you in some regard--we might disagree, but you were honest and respectable. Now I place you somewhere just above Vkince on the honor scale--and that ain't real high, let me tell you. There were supposedly vast factories and stockpiles of chemical and/or biological weapons. It seems our intelligence was incorrect, since those vast stockpiles and the factories that produced them remain elusive. Our intel in those regards may indeed have been incorrect. You don't think? So what? Was Saddam in violation or not? Was he still running at least one biotoxin program or not? But that does not change the FACT that Saddam was violating the requirements set forth before him. I'm sure he had some unpaid parking tickets too. "I'm not really seeing anything funny - I've got family currently being shot at because of this." Got off your high horse in a hurry there, didn't you? So what? Less than a ton is "research quantities" for other nations interested in self-defence against chemical weapons, and there's the minor _realpolitik_ that Iraq still has a border and a recent bloody war with Iran, who is *also* an enthusiastic producer of chemical weapons. Tricky to handle that one, unless you want to commit US troops to protecting the Shi'a south against an Iranian rescue from Iraq's hateful oppression... Sounds like you are making a case for justifying Saddam continuing WMD programs there--not going to get too far with that one. Nor is your attempt to draw Iran into the framework of much use. Again, was he in violation of 687, on numerous accounts, or not? There was meant to be a major threat. There was, allegedly, "solid evidence" confirming it. There were significant quantities of weapons and we claimed to know where they were. Whoops. I see you are still confused by the difference between the questions, "Was he in violation of 687?", and "Have we found massive stockpiles of chemical weapons". I'd offer the following answers to those--yes and no. In order, so you don't have any future problem with twisting them into something else you might claim I said on the matter. Gee, I wonder *why* he was so interested in ricin, which is admittedly not likely to be the best of battlefield agents, but would likely perform nicely if used by terrorist types, or his own intel folks (you remember, the same guys who were implicated in that kill-the-former-President scheme?). Because it's cheap and easy. You can cook up ricin in a domestic kitchen (we arrested a group doing just that in London). You can talk up how hugely lethal it is and how many thousands you could kill with Just This Test-Tube! While carefully skipping over the inconvenient problems of administration (best-known ricin victim is Georgi Markov - you're going to get an agent close enough to a President to jab an umbrella in his leg?) Ricin just needs castorbeans and some commercial equipment to produce. So in Paulian World, ricin is A-OK for Saddam to continue working on, and if he did acheive weaponization--oh, well, too bad, right? And in Paulian World work on ricin was not a violation of the terms of 687? Chicken and egg - were they after ricin for its enormous battlefield effectiveness, or were they proudly developing a hugely lethal biological weapon for the glory of Saddam Hussein (may blessings rain from Heaven on His name) with resources they could easily get hold of and which they'd get funding and prestige for? It does not matter--it was a violation. The claim was that there was a clear and obvious threat. Where was it? Saddam continuing to work towards proscribed goals is good enough for me. I personally don't think he was the kind of guy I'd want to be controlling *any* WMD's, in whatever quantities; you may differ, but I could care less to be honest. I'd be worried about the *confirmed* threats, but that's just me. You might want to look into the definition of "threat". IMO, Saddam with any amount of proscribed WMD's, or programs in search of same, constituted a definite "threat". Your mileage may differ. Then of course there were the other (non-WMD) related reasons for conducting this operation--the ones that you can't seem to understand do indeed exist? The ones you won't state? No, the ones I have repeatedly stated-- I even gave them to you in that last missive regarding your twisting of my statenment, and I gave them to you earlier in this message again...and IIRC, I gave them to you long before this--you just keep ignoring them and thenm subsequently claiming I never gave them to you. And you wonder why your integrity is being questioned?! Or perhaps I'm mistaken and you *did* state them - in which case I apologise (again) for missing them. Could you point me to them, please? (asked again) Asked and answered--repeatedly. What made Iraq so special compared to more evident proliferators and producers of WME? I asked eighteen months ago and never got an answer. Because your question remains as stupid now as it was then--and yes, you got an answer, you just can't seem to (or more accurately don't want to) grasp it. No, I didn't. "It's Iraq and it's a special case." was the best summary. Which may be true, but the evasiveness is an automatic hackle-raiser. No evasiveness required--just situational dependent, something you obviously refuse to grasp. No standard playbook for handling threats/potential threats in the geopolitical realm--it is all situationally dependent. I suspect you can understand that, but apparently as usual you just find it easier to ignore the obvious in your quest to, for some unknown reason, defend Saddam as the poor whipping boy. Or perhaps I'm more interested in real issues than demonising Saddam Hussein? Apparently no, since you keep tapdancing around the "was he in violation" question with your "only massive amounts fit the bill" bit. Then above you presented a seeming case for why he should have been continuing to developm WMD's...so yeah, you do seem to be going out of your way to defend him.. BTW, did you notice that the Saudis have again been in AQ's target ring? But how can this be? Aren't all the al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq? How can there be terrorists in other countries? Newsflash, but they are in lots of places. You remember--the country that IIRC you were claiming was more of a threat to the US and more deserving of US action than Iraq? That's okay - the hugely efficient Saudi military and security services will handle the problem. If they can't, the large US presence in the country will handle it. (Your last sentence is extremely troubling, though. How much do you actually understand about the general situation in Saudi Arabia, and the particulars of the House of Saud's relationship with the Wahabbi sect and al-Qaeda's reaction to all the above? Or do you really believe that "because al-Qaeda attacks in Saudi then the house of Saud must be their sworn enemies and our true and trusted allies?") Apparently my understanding is plenty realistic, unlike your's, which was IIRC a "why have you not attacked Saudid Arabia if you are attacking Iraq" gambit. Nice strawman, though. Brooks |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:10:29 GMT, Mike Dargan
wrote: I've never voted for a Bush, but I can't blame George and Bar for getting their kid a save haven during Vietnam. Why waste a child in a foolish and illegal war? Seems to me that our Constitutional process was followed in that war. Who declared it illegal? And, foolish? Only if you didn't see a Communist threat of world domination at that time. (That last phrase is key...we know now much more about the validity of the threat, but in the late '50s and '60s, it looked pretty real.) At least they didn't get him a complete exemption, as did the Cheney's. I am amused, though, by the cynicism of those who brag up Bush for zooming around in an F102. He wasn't a pilot because of his brains and physical prowess. Had his daddy been a janitor in Harlem, rather than a Repulican swell, he'd have been humping the boonies and dodging punji sticks. Dunno about that last. My daddy was a very low level functionary for a Chicago newspaper, living in the city, making about $150 a week and I didn't hump the boonies or dodge punjis. Seems like it's always been possible with hard work and perseverance for anyone in America to get to college and even to gain an AF commission and fly jets. Doesn't take Skull & Bones to make the grade, only commitment. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
|
#315
|
|||
|
|||
A vote for Socialism (in even it's weaker forms) is a vote for
Totalitarianism. Socialism must be supported by the forced confiscation of the labor of the citizenry. This is done by the power of the state. The power of the state is embodied in Totalitarianism. You can vote for "a little bit of Socialism" and many believe that the "little bit of Totalitarianism" is acceptable, as long as hte resulting Socilaism is "for the greater good." These folks generally believe that there is a "sweet spot" in the tradeoff between liberty and security. So go ahead and answer your own question: is a vote for Kerry (or Bush, for that matter) a vote for Totalitarianism? Steve Swartz "WalterM140" wrote in message ... It's amazing how so many WWII vets risked life and limb to save the French from Totalitarianism, then scurry back to the U.S. and try to ram it down our throats . . . Why don't you elaborate on that statement some. Who is doing that? How many WWII veterans have done that? When I vote for Kerry, is that a vote for totalitarianism? Walt |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:Mwlwc.43930$pt3.19824@attbi_s03... George Z. Bush wrote: WalterM140 wrote: (Snip) GWB did not "earn" a commission in the USAF. He didn't go to Officer Candidate School, or whatever the AF has. And his term was -six- years, not 4 1/2. Just for the sake of accuracy, it wasn't a term, it was a commitment. Unless the definitions have changed, terms apply to enlistments and commitments apply to lengths of service. In any event, whatever you choose to call it, he didn't complete it. Can you really blame him? He was the son of an important family with important things to do. Paying Bush to sip around in a Deuce was a waste of resources. There was no way that the Bush scion would ever find him self in harm's way. Didn't it make more sense to use that fuel and the airframe hours to train someone who might one day be willing to serve his or her country? How could I possibly argue with such obvious logic, Mike? (^-^))) George Z. |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... I'm not really seeing anything funny - I've got family currently being shot at because of this. Oh, spare us the attempt at gravity--you have often used sarcasm and ridicule when arguing this same subject. Yet now I am supposed to prostrate myself before you because "you've got family..."? Please... Fine, let me know so I can laugh when a relative of yours becomes a casualty. Wouldn't *that* be funny? Or would you need your "humor switch" recalibrating? Of course, Iraqi accounting was always honest and believable? That is the point--it was not honest. Hence it was in violation. Case closed. In other words, war with Iraq was inevitable and unstoppable because of one shell? Impressive. And the discrepancy was noted years ago. Really? Can you point to where these unaccounted for binary weapons are mentioned in the UNSCOM or UNMOVIC reports? How many did they say were unaccounted for? Read the reports yourself, I've already cited them and given you URLs. Of course he didn't! Trouble is, even *he* didn't know what he had. Geeze, your attempts to defend him are unbelievable-- Of course they're unbelieveable, because I'm not defending him. However, you go on building strawmen all you like. now you want to claim it was A-OK 'cause he did not know what he had? How does Hussein pose a threat with weapons he does not know about? After you already acknowledged he was not being "honest" with his disclosures? Absolutely not. Some were complete fantasy: "production programs" were cited at places that were just empty desert, because the officer in charge had grabbed the money and absconded. Which way is it--was he dishonest, and therefore in violation, or inept, and therefore in violation? Both - he was both dishonest and inept. And yet he didn't pose a WME threat. That's the trouble with looking at real life rather than political slogans. And it was claimed that he was hiding hundreds of tons of chemicals and entire production lines, and that was why we had to invade and secure that threat Right Now. Forty-five minutes from order to firing, with weapons able to reach as far as Cyprus - the UK Government claimed that was its experts' judgement. (Trouble is, when analysts say 'probably not' and the political advisors suggest 'can we delete that "not" to tighten up the sentence?' then the message changes a little in transit...) As it turns out... "whoops", to date. Wow. Faulty intel that does not reflect an accurate scope of the violations. That's a very generous understatement. Who'd have thunk it? Of course, to use that hammer you have to ignore the fact that he was in violation in the first place... Indeed, he owned at least two chemical munitions. Of course, we can't go setting firm criteria for action, which may explain why two Iraqi shells demand immediate invasion while _real_ WME threats in the hands of proven terrorist supporters and weapons proliferators are politely ignored. "Well, he was only a LITTLE bit guilty, not a *LOT* guilty! There was supposed to be a imminent and serious threat. Not "cultures hidden in refrigerators", not "centrifuges buried for a decade", not single decade-old munitions. 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. And that hidden equipment, cultures, documentation, etc....nah, he could *never* have been using that as a way of trying to preserve his program..." is not a reasonable approach, IMO. None of that is an immediate or imminent threat. You've got him in custody, ask him. So, you can't come up with an excuse for the fact that he reported other low-density/R&D products, but not the one that we subsequently had used against us. Odd, that. I don't have access to the man to question him. Did he *know* he had binary sarin research underway? Or, just for giggles, what if it's a Syrian or Iranian import and not Iraqi at all? Lots of possibilities: you're drawing extremely firm conclusions from very limited data. Which makes insisting that they must be recent, something of a stretch, no? They were strongly suspected of having a R&D effort aimed at such rounds, and Iraq denied it, but then if you believe the Hussein regime then the US military was exterminated outside Baghdad and are currently having their bellies barbecued in Hell. Nobody has said they "must be recent"; OTOH, it does call into question the applicability of stating beyond a doubt that they predated ODS. I'm wary of turning speculation into certainty too quickly. What *is* certain is that we've still not found anything capable of producing those rounds in Iraq - and it's harder to hide production lines than individual munitions. Perhaps yet again it might be wise to wait for the results of the detailed analysis before making too many firm claims. Which is why I have not, AFAIK, made any "firm claims" that these rounds *had* to be of recent manufacture-- Oh, but Saddam was in violation by their mere existence regardless of their date, remember? or are you going to resort to your doctoring-of-statements to put those words in my mouth, as you did a week or two ago when you falsely claimed that I had said that WMD's were not a factor in the decision to go to war? Stop bull****ting, Kevin. You repeatedly claimed that it wasn't just about WMEs - but yet you won't say what it *was* about. (When asked, you go very, very shy) 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. See what happens when you start dissembling like that? Trust is a precious commodity, and you have tarnished that quality in your own case. Too bad, how sad, because you're failing to distinguish yourself by the integrity of your conduct here. 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? No, I'm just accustomed to the fact that he was both an accomplished liar and that he may not have known as much as he believed about the projects he sponsored. Shades of the Hitler days: you can report "encouraging progress" on the 250,000-ton fantasy battleship and get more funding to stay in Kiel, or you can admit it's a ludicrous pipedream and you and your entire design team can pick up your rifles and go fight on the Eastern Front. We're stuck with what we can find after a year and a half of searching, for the "true picture" of what he had. Is the US so grossly incompetent that, having much of the regime's top staff in custody and under interrogation, that it can't get *one* of them to admit to one of the Vast Concealed Stockpiles or the Hidden Underground Factories? It has shown that he continued to run at least one bio program up until the time we attacked. That is another violation. Are you noting that the number of violations keeps increasing as we go through this discussion? Of course - now, where are the threats? He had twelve years to get his act straight in terms of meeting the requirements of 687 (*all* of them), and we now know that he refused to do so even under threat of attack, yielding a justification the the area of WMD in my view--add to that the "other" reasons (missiles that exceeded the allowed range, continual NFZ violations, one assasination attempt on a former US President, harboring a couple of known terrorists, supporting suicide bombers, etc.)--you know, the ones I have given you before, but you claimed I never provided to you? In other words, pretty much business as ususal for the Middle East. Yep. One elderly shell isn't a threat. That's a fact we can both agree on. You measure chemical weapons in terms of tons of agent. Is it a violation? Sure. Is "a violation" a good enough reason to tie us down in Iraq for the next few years? And had you been on the ground that day when it went off (thankfully without acheiving a full yield of sarin), how much of a "threat" do you suppose it would have been to you? Less than a 155mm HE in that particular case. So, where are the weapons? There was supposed to be a threat. Where is it? You have been told this numerous times, but apparently you keep wanting to insert "great numbers of rounds in massive stockpiles" for the term "violations of 687". Read the UK government dossiers. Compare them to the reality on the ground. Wonder at the discrepancies between the case made for the operation, and the facts made on the ground. 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? I don't doctor quotes. The hell you don't. No, I don't, and I'm tiring of explaining this to you. Hence your past assertion that I was claiming WMD's were not a factor, when what I actually said was, "It is not *all* about WMD's." I'm noting your continued evasion on the "other factors". If I quote, I make it properly attributable so it can be checked. If you don't see a name on it, then it's not a quote. (Who would I be quoting? If I write "Kevin Brooks is a big fat poopie head" then who, precisely, is supposed to have said this and how could you challenge them?) I told you this already - I'm willing to be charitable and accept you ignored it in a fit of pique, but if you prefer I'll find a less amiable interpretation. I find false accusations unpleasant, personally, but again you may just have been indulging in histrionics and refused to read it. This one was a very true accusation. You had my quote, and you chose to leave out the "all" when you paraphrased it. And I didn't attribute it to you, or insist it was your exact wording, because *even you* immediately recognised it as a paraphrase rather than a quotation. 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 screwed up, Paul--admit it. I did. I apologised. Several times. Either you didn't read, or didn't reply. I'm beginning to consider that you're using this as an invented diversion. heck, you could have said, "Oops, I am sorry--I missed the "all" in that statement, my apologies, you did not claim that WMD were no facor in the decision." But no, you couldn't bring yourself to do that--you had to start wriggling, in the best traditions of your hero, Vkince. Your internal fantasy life must be very interesting to behold. Apparently I have a shrine to Saddam Hussein and worship the name of Brannigan? Prior to that I held you in some regard--we might disagree, but you were honest and respectable. Now I place you somewhere just above Vkince on the honor scale--and that ain't real high, let me tell you. Well, Kevin, let me tell you just how hurt, wounded and mortified I feel that in between accusing me of being a Hussein appeaser you've decided you don't like me as much as you once did. I'm sure he had some unpaid parking tickets too. "I'm not really seeing anything funny - I've got family currently being shot at because of this." Got off your high horse in a hurry there, didn't you? Absolutely. I can decide when to ride it and when not to, not you. So what? Less than a ton is "research quantities" for other nations interested in self-defence against chemical weapons, and there's the minor _realpolitik_ that Iraq still has a border and a recent bloody war with Iran, who is *also* an enthusiastic producer of chemical weapons. Tricky to handle that one, unless you want to commit US troops to protecting the Shi'a south against an Iranian rescue from Iraq's hateful oppression... Sounds like you are making a case for justifying Saddam continuing WMD programs there--not going to get too far with that one. Just interested to know what the US position would be if the Iranians decide to stage Anschluss with Basra and the southern oilfields, using chemical weapons generously (claiming, of course, that it's just retaliation for Iraq's first use). Nor is your attempt to draw Iran into the framework of much use. You don't consider Iran to be a factor in the Middle East? Just what are you smoking and where can it be bought? Again, was he in violation of 687, on numerous accounts, or not? Of course he was. How could he *not* be in violation, with a sufficiently detailed and dogmatic accounting? Out of interest, since you're suddenly so fond of the UN, when was military action in response to the breach of 687 authorised? Because it's cheap and easy. You can cook up ricin in a domestic kitchen (we arrested a group doing just that in London). You can talk up how hugely lethal it is and how many thousands you could kill with Just This Test-Tube! While carefully skipping over the inconvenient problems of administration (best-known ricin victim is Georgi Markov - you're going to get an agent close enough to a President to jab an umbrella in his leg?) Ricin just needs castorbeans and some commercial equipment to produce. So in Paulian World, ricin is A-OK for Saddam to continue working on, and if he did acheive weaponization--oh, well, too bad, right? And in Paulian World work on ricin was not a violation of the terms of 687? No, and no, as you know well - but then who *has* achieved weaponised ricin? It's a vicious toxin when correctly administered, but the administration remains a massive and unsolved problem. (I have this vision of Iraqi troops with umbrellas trying to close with their enemies under fire...) Handy if you need an excuse, but not a serious threat. Chicken and egg - were they after ricin for its enormous battlefield effectiveness, or were they proudly developing a hugely lethal biological weapon for the glory of Saddam Hussein (may blessings rain from Heaven on His name) with resources they could easily get hold of and which they'd get funding and prestige for? It does not matter--it was a violation. And because it was "not just about the WMEs" then the least violation of 687 is complete casus belli? I'd be worried about the *confirmed* threats, but that's just me. You might want to look into the definition of "threat". IMO, Saddam with any amount of proscribed WMD's, or programs in search of same, constituted a definite "threat". Your mileage may differ. I'm more worried about the North Koreans, who have the weapons and the habit of exporting anything to anyone for cash; the Syrians, who also have the weapons and are enthusiastic terrorist supporters; the Iranians, who *also* have WMEs in significant quantity and a solid track record of sponsoring anti-US terrorism... need I go on? The ones you won't state? No, the ones I have repeatedly stated-- At last and after much prodding. You mean, Hussein sponsors suicide bombers against Israel - like Syria, like Iran, and like some of the more enthusiastic Saudi madrassahs? "Missiles that exceed the allowed range" - yes, that's a real one. They jerry-rigged some SA-2 engines together and produced a missile that, without payload, exceeded their maximum allowed range. (Give it a payload and it met the limit, but that's life) "continual NFZ violations" - how *dare* they defend their own airspace? And just how effective were those "violations"? When was the last time they fired a SAM with guidance, for instance? (The air defence teams had to put up a fight, so they lofted unguided missiles up and tried not to be where the retaliation landed) "one assasination attempt on a former US President" - this one's often asserted but the proof is lacking. Wasn't this while Bush Sr. was in Kuwait or Saudi, which are much more al-Qaeda's stamping grounds? Which of these pose any significant threat to the US and require an immediate invasion? Which of these isn't topped by other states in the region? (The US can't fly over Syria, who has many TBMs with chemical warheads and generously sponsors terrorists operating against Israel... but, of course, we must judge each case on its merits) Or perhaps I'm mistaken and you *did* state them - in which case I apologise (again) for missing them. Could you point me to them, please? (asked again) Asked and answered--repeatedly. Thank you. No, I didn't. "It's Iraq and it's a special case." was the best summary. Which may be true, but the evasiveness is an automatic hackle-raiser. No evasiveness required--just situational dependent, something you obviously refuse to grasp. So what made Iraq more of a threat than Syria? Or perhaps I'm more interested in real issues than demonising Saddam Hussein? Apparently no, since you keep tapdancing around the "was he in violation" Other nations are in violation, except that they weren't defeated and had 687 enacted upon them, question with your "only massive amounts fit the bill" bit. Militarily significant quanties. Are you claiming I ever said "massive amounts" or will you retract this heinous and dishonourable misquotation of my words? But how can this be? Aren't all the al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq? How can there be terrorists in other countries? Newsflash, but they are in lots of places. So it seems. Not quite what's been claimed, but then so much has been claimed it's often hard to keep track. That's okay - the hugely efficient Saudi military and security services will handle the problem. If they can't, the large US presence in the country will handle it. (Your last sentence is extremely troubling, though. How much do you actually understand about the general situation in Saudi Arabia, and the particulars of the House of Saud's relationship with the Wahabbi sect and al-Qaeda's reaction to all the above? Or do you really believe that "because al-Qaeda attacks in Saudi then the house of Saud must be their sworn enemies and our true and trusted allies?") Apparently my understanding is plenty realistic, unlike your's, which was IIRC a "why have you not attacked Saudid Arabia if you are attacking Iraq" gambit. You understand incorrectly, it seems. -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
"WalterM140" wrote in message ... GWB did not "earn" a commission in the USAF. He didn't go to Officer Candidate School, or whatever the AF has. And his term was -six- years, not 4 1/2. It's sad that such a person could be the CIC. Did you find it sad that Clinton was CiC? |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Just for the sake of accuracy, it wasn't a term, it was a commitment. Unless the definitions have changed, terms apply to enlistments and commitments apply to lengths of service. In any event, whatever you choose to call it, he didn't complete it. He did complete it. |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:Mwlwc.43930$pt3.19824@attbi_s03... Can you really blame him? He was the son of an important family with important things to do. Paying Bush to sip around in a Deuce was a waste of resources. There was no way that the Bush scion would ever find him self in harm's way. Didn't it make more sense to use that fuel and the airframe hours to train someone who might one day be willing to serve his or her country? Bush served his country then and is serving his country today. |
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 |