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

Mark Hickey wrote:
" 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.

wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote:
" 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

Mark Hickey wrote:
Raptor wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/docu...luster6mar.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.

Mark Hickey wrote:
Raptor wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:

Raptor 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.

Mark Hickey wrote:
Raptor wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:

Raptor 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.

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 he 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.

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.

Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote:
" 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.

Raptor 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

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