I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:

> >> All you have to do is show evidence of the destruction of his known
> >> stores of WMD.
> >
> >Logical fallacy: demanding proof of a negative.
>
> LOL. I think you'd better take a course or two in logic.

Actually, I have.

> Otherwise all a pickpocket has to do is knock you down, grab your
> wallet and say "I don't HAVE your wallet". I guess you'd slink off
> defeated? ;-)

Boy, you're not all that bright. Everyone who knows anything about
logic knows that you can't prove a negative. Look it up. Setting up
strawmen doesn't improve your position. Your strawman is a non
sequitur. (Look that one up too.)

> >> Monday morning quarterbacking is a popular, though essentially
> >> pointless "sport".
> >
> >This isn't football. This is *war*. People die on purpose in war.
> >
> >There's sort of a different standard when it comes to waging war -
> >something I suspect you don't understand. You can't merely believe
> >that you are right - you actually have to *be* right.
>
> Name one war where 100% of the pre-war intelligence was correct.

Yet another strawman. Nobody is asking for "100% correct."

> Y'know, like the way we were waiting out in the Pacific for the attack
> from the Japanese in 1941.... oops.

Iraq attacked the U.S. with WMD when?

> >> Given the information we were working with at the
> >> time, I supported the decisions made.
> >
> >You have top secret clearance? Wow. I thought you were just a guy who
> >trained PRC defense workers.
> >
> >Somehow, I'm guessing you don't really have top secret clearance, and
> >that you never read any of the intelligence reports.
>
> Pardon me for saying so, but "duh". I forgot you don't consider
> yourself part of this country.

Uh, what? Another strawman? Sheesh. I guess when your argument
fails, you have to assign someone else an argument so that you can
score "usenet points." Gosh, I hope you feel better about yourself.

So, you didn't read any of the intellignece, and you're just "rah,
rah"ing because you're not courageous enough to volunteer for duty in a
war zone. As long as somebody else does the sacrificing, you're 100%
for the war.

> But basically, this is all getting MUCH too pointless to continue
> wasting bandwidth.

Yes, your argument sucks, and you have nothing more. Classic.

E.P.

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>>> All you have to do is show evidence of the destruction of his known
>>>> stores of WMD.
>>>
>>> Logical fallacy: demanding proof of a negative.
>>
>> LOL. I think you'd better take a course or two in logic.
>
> Actually, I have.

You should consult for the UN then, because /it/ sure "demanded" evidence of
the WMD's destruction. ("Demanded" being a rather loose term for a
toothless outfit like the UN.)

It's not proof of a negative; it's proof of an ACT.

BTW, we aren't so snarky here in AM-B; take your sarcastic bullying back to
RBM where it belongs.

BS

 

[Raptor]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/cluster6mar.pdf
>>>
>>>It's OK to have different opinions about what should have happened
>>>regarding Iraq, but those opinions should all be based on fact.
>>
>>The intelligence of the day has been widely aired. Sure, there was
>>plenty of evidence to suspect Saddam of carrying on WMD research or,
>>shall we say, "Weapons of Mass Desctruction program related activities."
>>There was no evidence that he HAD WMD or delivery systems.
>
>
> You can't POSSIBLY have actually read the UNMOVIC report and still
> hold that opinion. You'd also have to entirely ignore the impetus
> that drove the UN to impose sanctions on Iraq, and a large majority
> ofthe US Congress to vote for war.

Between being short on time and having acrobat config problems, I didn't
read it. I do find the topic interesting and want to stay informed, but
can't spare the time right now.

A little help? Does the report actually cite evidence that Saddam had
actual WMD and/or delivery systems (international and regional are the
only ones that count) in 2002/2003? I know about the aluminum cylinders
and the myth about the mobile labs, the crop dusters and the RC
aircraft, the "IRBM" that was only a technical violation of the range
limit imposed at the time. Is there more?

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

 

[Raptor]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>>Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bush controlled Russian, British AND U.N. intelligence? Man, he IS
>>>>>powerful!
>>>>
>>>>Among the lot, there was NO EVIDENCE that Saddam had WMD or effective
>>>>delivery systems.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then why did the UN ever impose sanctions and keep them on for all
>>>those years?
>>
>>Missed this part.
>>
>>The sanctions were, of course, imposed because in 1991 Saddam most
>>clearly did have WMD material and weapons. Those items were destroyed
>>over succeeding years. Starting approximately 1998, when the UN
>>inspectors left, there was no evidence that Saddam had any WMD left.
>
>
> Gee, then why did the UN waste all that money looking for the WMD? Or
> perhaps you could enlighten me on the documentation that backs up this
> destruction of all the WMD. Seems to me that the rest of us remember
> NOT having any evidence of destruction of the WMD...

Hell, there's video of it. It's been all over the news in the last 10
years. That front-end loader crushing the tank/missile is in the CNN
special report "Dead Wrong" of recent days. Plus the reports of the
inspectors themselves, documenting X tons of agents or equipment destroyed.

In 1998, there was WMD stock unaccounted for. Saddam's only real
violation since then was failure to show evidence that it had been
destroyed. I guess that does count as evidence that it exist(ed), if you
insist. So the last batch of inspectors went in and found zip until
Shrub arranged for them to be removed.

We all know what happened then: no WMD found. No evidence that it was
even there post-1998.

>>Sure we couldn't trust him. But we still had no evidence, just
>>suspicions and a track record. That's perfectly reasonable justification
>>for continued sanctions and pressure of a variety of means, but when
>>you're talking about starting a hot war on the strength of suspicions
>>and history, you need to be exceedingly careful.
>
>
> All you have to do is show evidence of the destruction of his known
> stores of WMD. Of course, doing so will propel you to an
> ubercelebrity on the talk show circuit, so be careful...

(I could stand to make a pile of money looking smart instead of earning
my pay by being smart. But I digress.) See above.

>>Had Shrub handled things property and patiently, I would have fully
>>supported a decision to invade Iraq when the time was right. There was a
>>hell of a lot that needed to be done that was not done before March 03,
>>and you and I are paying the price for this incompetence and impatience.
>
>
> Monday morning quarterbacking is a popular, though essentially
> pointless "sport". Given the information we were working with at the
> time, I supported the decisions made. Had we all known NOW what we
> knew THEN it would have been different. But so what? If that was the
> case, I would have retired filthy rich from playing the stock market.

I submit that your reasoning was faulty. You supported an escalation "to
the limit" over what we were doing pre-2003, based on what amounts to a
lack of evidence (of WMD being destroyed). This despite the prima facie
evidence that what we were doing (aggressive containment by bombing Iraq
weekly on average, with zero losses on our side) was working just fine
to protect us.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

 

[Raptor]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>>Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>What about the civilian contractors who ordered - or suggested - the
>>>>abuse? What about the commander of the unit? What about everyone who
>>>>knew about it?
>>>
>>>She got busted big-time. I don't recall if she was put in prison for
>>>being involved, or just demoted for not knowing what was happening.
>>>As I recall, the findings were that she was an inept manager rather
>>>than being involved in the abuse.
>>
>>Those MI contractors need to be sanctioned. Anyone who knew about the
>>abuse but did nothing needs to be busted.
>
> If you can find proof of others who knew about the abuse, offer it up.
> I'm in total agreement that anyone who sanctioned the abuse should be
> punished to the fullest extent of the law.

That's totally unfair, to ask ME for proof. We have the testimony of the
privates in the pictures, and that's about it. No news about those
contractors or superior officers, at least that I've heard. Done
properly, this investigation would have cast a wide net, with dozens of
people being busted or fired for starters, and many of them being charged.

>>>>What about the commander in chief who orders his legal staff to find out
>>>>whether our forces are or should be constrained to the Geneva Conventions?
>>>
>>>He's a mountain biker? What about him? Why wouldn't he ask that
>>>question - it's a very valid question. You are aware, aren't you,
>>>that the discussion about the GC resulted in the administration
>>>ordering that our personnel stay well within the limits of acceptable
>>>treatment of prisoners, right? Maybe not...
>>
>>Just asking the question betrays our motives and demeans our standards.
>
>
> And NOT clarifying the standards is a GOOD thing? Your logic escapes
> me.

Your characterization of what the president asked of his justice
department is most generous. He didn't ask them to clarify the
standards, he asked them to check to see if the standards applied.

>>How can we claim to all concerned (including the very skeptical) that we
>>are the good guys, having openly pondered just how bad we can get away
>>acting and still be good?
>
> No one claims that we weren't trying to coerce prisoners into talking
> (and I'm NOT talking about AG). Doing this requires methods you'd
> hate to see used on your mother, no doubt. But there are accepted
> methods that fall well within the boundaries of the Geneva Convention.
> A query about the legalities involved in inerrogating non-military
> prisoners was a prudent thing to do. This is all new territory.

We're not talking about accepted practices here. If we were, this would
be a non-story.

>>>>I just have a problem any time someone tries the old, "Well, they're so
>>>>much worse," line, like you have.
>>>
>>>Ummmmm..... I've read the above a few times, and have NO idea what
>>>you're talking about. I didn't even mention "them". I asked who you
>>>think HAS condoned the behavior of the AG guards. Are you dodging the
>>>question?
>>
>>You have mentioned "them" at other times. You've drawn such comparisons.
>>You, and others including those in our government, have compared our
>>worst behavior to their (terrorist's) worst, as if it matters. It
>>doesn't. We have our standards, and if they're not adhered to, they stop
>>being standards.
>
>
> You keep intentionally mixing the conduct of the guards at AG with the
> sanctioned efforts of the government. I have NO problem with the
> sanctioned methods used to interrogate prisoners in the region. You
> might. But I've also stated that NO ONE condones the abuse that
> happened at AG - which is an entirely different subject.

I'm not mixing them at all. I've never suggested that proper conduct
(within the GC) is wrong. I've never actually said you condoned any of
the prisoner abuse either. But I do object to you or anyone speaking of
it with anything but unreserved condemnation.

> But here I'm going to do MY part to stop the OT blather and quit...
> ;-)

I sense that you see my points and agree with at least some of them.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

 

[Raptor]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Name one war where 100% of the pre-war intelligence was correct.
> Y'know, like the way we were waiting out in the Pacific for the attack
> from the Japanese in 1941.... oops.

Thinking hard here: what pre-war intelligence was RIGHT regarding Iraq?

Chances are, this particular war will be right down there with "Remember
the Maine" and the Gulf of Tonkin in the assessment of future historians.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

 

[Dave Wyman]

Mark Hickey wrote:

>Seems to me that the rest of us remember
> NOT having any evidence of destruction of the WMD...

and

>Given the information we were working with at the
>time, I supported the decisions made

What I remember is inspectors on the ground in Iraq urging the U.S. to
hold off waging war over WMD, because the inspectors couldn't find any
WMD, despite having complete access to every inch of ground in Iraq, and
despite visiting locations suggested by the U.S.

Your claim that the U.S. had information that Iraq had WMD is true. But
the information Bush and his cohorts had - and perhaps believed - was
false information, promulgated by liars and criminals like Chalabi and
"Curveball." Meanwhile, the inspectors on the ground were telling us
that there was no evidence of the existence of WMD.

But for some reason - political bias - some people chose to selectively
believe only the information coming from the Bush government. On the
other hand, I decided to go with the information provided by the
inspectors, and I, like a lot of other people, did not support the
decisions Bush made. As reality sinks in, more and more people have and
are deciding not to support the war in Iraq any longer.

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Mark Hickey wrote:
> >> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mark Hickey wrote:
> >
> >>>> All you have to do is show evidence of the destruction of his known
> >>>> stores of WMD.
> >>>
> >>> Logical fallacy: demanding proof of a negative.
> >>
> >> LOL. I think you'd better take a course or two in logic.
> >
> > Actually, I have.
>
> You should consult for the UN then, because /it/ sure "demanded" evidence of
> the WMD's destruction. ("Demanded" being a rather loose term for a
> toothless outfit like the UN.)

It is, again, demanding proof of a negative.

Even the U.S. Army can't account for every single munition ever
procured, up to and including some pretty darn big items.

> It's not proof of a negative; it's proof of an ACT.

"Prove you don't have any WMD."

Yup, proof of a negative.

> BTW, we aren't so snarky here in AM-B; take your sarcastic bullying back to
> RBM where it belongs.

If you or your pal Mark can't take the heat, don't participate in
threads where you might get burned.

HTH,

E.P.

 

[Mark Hickey]

Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:

>Between being short on time and having acrobat config problems, I didn't
>read it. I do find the topic interesting and want to stay informed, but
>can't spare the time right now.
>
>A little help? Does the report actually cite evidence that Saddam had
>actual WMD and/or delivery systems (international and regional are the
>only ones that count) in 2002/2003? I know about the aluminum cylinders
>and the myth about the mobile labs, the crop dusters and the RC
>aircraft, the "IRBM" that was only a technical violation of the range
>limit imposed at the time. Is there more?

There's a lot more. It goes into detail on known development of WMD
production capabilities, information about WMD Iraq was known to have
possessed (and the lack of any evidence of its destruction).

It's a must-read for anyone who honestly wants to understand the
intelligence that was used to determine a course of action. Not quite
as easy as pithy one-liners that are the preferred source of info, but
well worth it. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[JD]

Raptor wrote:
> A little help? Does the report actually cite evidence that Saddam had
> actual WMD and/or delivery systems (international and regional are the
> only ones that count) in 2002/2003?


It looks like he used them all up on the Kurds, eh?

JD

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> All you have to do is show evidence of the destruction of his
>>>>>> known stores of WMD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Logical fallacy: demanding proof of a negative.
>>>>
>>>> LOL. I think you'd better take a course or two in logic.
>>>
>>> Actually, I have.
>>
>> You should consult for the UN then, because /it/ sure "demanded"
>> evidence of the WMD's destruction. ("Demanded" being a rather loose
>> term for a toothless outfit like the UN.)
>
> It is, again, demanding proof of a negative.
>
> Even the U.S. Army can't account for every single munition ever
> procured, up to and including some pretty darn big items.
>
>> It's not proof of a negative; it's proof of an ACT.
>
> "Prove you don't have any WMD."
>
> Yup, proof of a negative.

No, prove you /destroyed/ something. Simple.

>> BTW, we aren't so snarky here in AM-B; take your sarcastic bullying
>> back to RBM where it belongs.
>
> If you or your pal Mark can't take the heat, don't participate in
> threads where you might get burned.

Mark's pretty good at debating these things without getting personally
abusive. Try it some time.
>
> HTH,
>
> E.P.

We both use our names; why don't you? (I know you've told me; I must've
ignored it.)

B.S.

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> Nice snipping (and sniping).

I quoted the relevant stuff. You're just whining now.

> Even when I used "Sorni", people knew who I
> was ("Bill S." -- many knew the last name, too).

The real question: did they *care*?

> Anonymous posters /in
> general/ are hard to keep straight

See, now that's just a personal problem of yours. I really don't see
how that's relevant to anyone but you. And it isn't imperative for me
to cater to your lack of memory. It's merely a usenet tactic used by
those who wish to distract from any real discussion. Hell, that's why
Mike uses it...

> Do whatever you want, but when you're a mean-spirited arrogant ass I'll
> likely speak up. (Bullies push my buttons.)

Justify your smarmy self-righteousness any way that suits you. I can't
control how you post, or why.

> Fair enough?

If you think you're justified, everything's A-OK with me. After all,
what can I do to make sure *your* standards of posting quality are met?
Your commentary on arrogance certainly is amusingly ironic, however.

E.P.

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Nice snipping (and sniping).
>
> I quoted the relevant stuff. You're just whining now.

You deleted what I said about your taking this **** way too seriously and
resorting to personal insults with Mark while at the same time saying HE
does it to feel better about himself. People can read the thread and decide
for themselves.

>> Even when I used "Sorni", people knew who I
>> was ("Bill S." -- many knew the last name, too).
>
> The real question: did they *care*?

Not a matter of caring; just knowing.

Last word's all yours (whoever you are), as always...

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:

> At it's core (for those who understand logic)

What about understanding /grammar/?

<eg> you asked for it <eg>

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>
> >> Nice snipping (and sniping).
> >
> > I quoted the relevant stuff. You're just whining now.
>
> You deleted what I said about your taking this **** way too seriously ...

Which WAS NOT RELEVANT to my reply. Get it now???

> >> Even when I used "Sorni", people knew who I
> >> was ("Bill S." -- many knew the last name, too).
> >
> > The real question: did they *care*?
>
> Not a matter of caring; just knowing.

Which satifies idle curiousity, but nothing more. There's really not
too much value to it, other than it gives ammo to folks who need to
distract the conversations that don't go their way. And if folks
*really* wanted to know - it's out there.

As I have told you previously, if you went and searched for the name -
how would knowing that tidbit clarify any discussion going on at that
time? Would it cange the parameters of the discussion? Would it
change the facts, the logic, anything? No, of course it wouldn't.
Which is why I don't assign it any real importance.

E.P.

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > At it's core (for those who understand logic)
>
> What about understanding /grammar/?
>
> <eg> you asked for it <eg>

Actually, I didn't. I never stoop to grammar/speeling flames.

E.P.

 

[Raptor]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>A little help? Does the report actually cite evidence that Saddam had
>>actual WMD and/or delivery systems (international and regional are the
>>only ones that count) in 2002/2003? I know about the aluminum cylinders
>
>
> There's a lot more. It goes into detail on known development of WMD
> production capabilities, information about WMD Iraq was known to have
> possessed (and the lack of any evidence of its destruction).

If that's all, it's just not enough.

Anyone with a well-stocked kitchen has WMD production capabilities.
Nations of course can manage a lot more with just what nations typically
have on hand. And, just having the capability to produce "a lot" or
really nasty stuff does NOT equate to having the stuff.

Then there's the lack of evidence of destruction. No, we shouldn't just
take Saddam's word that it was all flushed, but that's a HELL of a leap
to justifying an invasion.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

 

[Raptor]

JD wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>
>>A little help? Does the report actually cite evidence that Saddam had
>>actual WMD and/or delivery systems (international and regional are the
>>only ones that count) in 2002/2003?
>
>
>
> It looks like he used them all up on the Kurds, eh?
>
> JD

Must have, because there just doesn't seem to have been any left at all.

The least Shrub could do is ACT embarrassed.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

 

[Mark Hickey]

Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> There's a lot more. It goes into detail on known development of WMD
>> production capabilities, information about WMD Iraq was known to have
>> possessed (and the lack of any evidence of its destruction).
>
>If that's all, it's just not enough.
>
>Anyone with a well-stocked kitchen has WMD production capabilities.
>Nations of course can manage a lot more with just what nations typically
>have on hand. And, just having the capability to produce "a lot" or
>really nasty stuff does NOT equate to having the stuff.
>
>Then there's the lack of evidence of destruction. No, we shouldn't just
>take Saddam's word that it was all flushed, but that's a HELL of a leap
>to justifying an invasion.

Then we agree to disagree.

To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President, who's
flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
dangerous to leave in place.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Jason]

* Mark Hickey <[email protected]>:
> To me, an aggressive dictator with known WMD stores, who openly
> supports terrorists and has tried to assassinate a US President, who's
> flaunting UN resolutions to describe where the WMD went IS to
> dangerous to leave in place.
>


So you do agree Bush currently is the biggest threat to world peace
then.

Jason