OT: Brice (was: OT:Powell Regrets Iraq Weapons Claim for War)

by **Arthur Frank** » Fri, 08 Oct 2004 03:46:43 GMT

rice,

(a) Why did you feel the need to change the topic of this thread?
BTW, you forgot the "OT:"

(b) M-W online dictionary defines "obtuse" as: "lacking sharpness or
quickness of sensibility or intellect : INSENSITIVE, STUPID." I'm not
sure why you need to start insulting me. Did I insult you?

(c) w.r.t. the Post's article on lead in our water: I have asked,
numerous times, for any evidence you may have to doubt the findings in
the Post article. You have not provided any. You have provided vague
claims of "junk science" and "they want to sell papers." I, too, can
make unsubstantiated claims: "these Polish soldiers would like to make
their difficult sacrifices in Iraq a little less meaningless, and
finding any WMDs, no matter how old and useless, is in their best
interest." HOWEVER, I AM NOT MAKING ANY SUCH RIDICULOUS CLAIMS. If you
have any evidence to support your position, ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, I would
love to see it.

(d) re: the quote that I have included from the AP article. I feel
that it is information that was excluded from the article you referred
to in the "Free Republic". That is all. Take from it what you would
like. If you want to extrapolate that he's just talking about the
"delivery vehicle," that's fine. IMO he's not giving us as much
information as you're reading into it. Is the cyclosarin still usable?
I DON'T KNOW. Do you? Cite your evidence, which is lacking in both of
these articles.

The point of my previous posting is that you, Brice, appear to be
pretty strict on reporters when you disagree with them politically, but
pretty easy on the ones that you agree with. Why bother reading
anything if your mind is already made up?

I'm all for "raising the bar" on our news media. But I feel that that
crosses the political spectrum.

Art

I'm not trying to belittle or dismiss these findings. Just trying to
put all the facts out there, which is difficult in this highly
politically-charged atmosphere.

-----------------

Arthur -

You are trying to be obtuse, and it is obvious on it's face you are
trying
to be obtuse.

It is a simple matter to take a water sample from the city water
supply,
even from the connection a home has to the city water, before it makes
it into the home plumbing, and have it tested.

Testing chemical weapons like cyclosarin, is not simple, but highly
dangerous. I have no reason to believe the Polish forces have dummied
up some kind of phony chemical weapon, but I do have reason to believe
the Post wants to sell papers and would be willing to fan the spark
of a small problem into a large fire, if it can.

----------------

"'Some of them are very corroded. They are probably not usable, but
are
dangerous to the local environment,' Szmajdzinski said."

As you pointed out, omissions are a way to lie, without lying.

----------------

I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the cyclosarin found
here
is useless as a chemical weapon? Are you saying it cannot be
repackaged
into some sort of chemical delivery weapon? The fact is, the
chemicals
exist and were not supposed to. I am saying the fact that the
cyclosarin
exists is enough to say chemical weapons existed in Iraq. It is
unimportant if the weapons are too old to be usable. If the
cyclosarin
had broken down into some harmless substance, then I would say it was
not
a chemical weapon, but what has happened is the delivery vehicle wa

by **Brice Yokem** » Fri, 08 Oct 2004 04:46:42 GMT

Brice,

(a)  Why did you feel the need to change the topic of this thread?
BTW, you forgot the "OT:"

(b)  M-W online dictionary defines "obtuse" as: "lacking sharpness or
quickness of sensibility or intellect : INSENSITIVE, STUPID."  I'm not
sure why you need to start insulting me.  Did I insult you?

(c)  w.r.t. the Post's article on lead in our water:  I have asked,
numerous times, for any evidence you may have to doubt the findings in
the Post article.  You have not provided any.  You have provided vague
claims of "junk science" and "they want to sell papers."  I, too, can
make unsubstantiated claims: "these Polish soldiers would like to make
their difficult sacrifices in Iraq a little less meaningless, and
finding any WMDs, no matter how old and useless, is in their best
interest."  HOWEVER, I AM NOT MAKING ANY SUCH RIDICULOUS CLAIMS.  If you
have any evidence to support your position, ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, I would
love to see it.

(d)  re: the quote that I have included from the AP article.  I feel
that it is information that was excluded from the article you referred
to in the "Free Republic".  That is all.  Take from it what you would
like.  If you want to extrapolate that he's just talking about the
"delivery vehicle," that's fine.  IMO he's not giving us as much
information as you're reading into it.  Is the cyclosarin still usable?
I DON'T KNOW.  Do you?  Cite your evidence, which is lacking in both of
these articles.

The point of my previous posting is that you, Brice, appear to be
pretty strict on reporters when you disagree with them politically, but
pretty easy on the ones that you agree with.  Why bother reading
anything if your mind is already made up?

I'm all for "raising the bar" on our news media.  But I feel that that
crosses the political spectrum.

Art

----------------------------

a)  I already apologized for the mistake.

b)  You are deliberately being dense.  I suspect you are not insensitive
or stupid, but are acting that way just to make things hard.

c)  This is what I mean by being dense.  It is relatively easy to test
the quality of the water in any city by taking a sample and having it
tested.  I don't live in one of those cities, so it would not be easy
for me to do this except for the one where I live.  It would be very hard
for someone to prove the existance of poison gas in Iraq, comparatively.
So I am asking for something to be done which is easy, you reply by
requiring something to be done which is near impossible, and try to
claim you are using the same standard of proof.

d)  The usatoday article you posted actually says there is no doubt
these are chemical weapons.  So, you don't know if the cyclosarin is
usable when you posted an article saying it is?

I think the press has an agenda.  I am less and less inclined to
agree with anything published.  Previously, I have been of the opinion
that the mainstream press simply used selective reporting to further
it's agenda, but after Rathergate, it looks like they cannot be trusted
to report only the truth that suits them, but now have to invent things.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit  http://www.**--****.com/ *

by **Michael Baier** » Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:16:37 GMT

>I think the press has an agenda.  I am less and less inclined to

Brice,

what reason would the US (not UN but the US) chief weapons inspector have
not to tell the truth?
The complete report will be made public if it not already is.
This guy is the second inspector that the Bush adminstration appointed and
he came to the same conclusion as the first.
The real question is: When so many questioned the intelligence, why was
Bush so eager to invade instead of double/tripple-checking his intel?
Almost everybody is waiting for this answer.
All warnings were ignored. People even Generals got fired/retired whenever
they didn't agree or questioned.
So, whats the real reason for the invasion?
Oil, the threat against Bush senior, ignorance or .....?

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Iraq had no active chemical, biological or nuclear
programs at the time of the US-led invasion in 2003 having given up its
weapons of mass destruction in 1991, the chief US weapons inspector
concluded in a report.

Charles Duelfer, head of the US Iraq Survey Group, found that Iraq's
nuclear capability, far from being reconstituted as the United States had
insisted before the war, was "decaying rather than being preserved" and
would have taken years to rebuild, an official familiar with the report
said.

The few chemical munitions found were made before 1991, and were decaying.
He said it would have taken one to two years to re-establish chemical
warfare production and "months" to resume production of biological agents.

The nuclear program was was setback by "years," he said.

"They would have had to do a lot. It's a big infrastructure they would have
had to recreate. Certainly not starting from scratch, not starting from
scrath. They had a lot of the talent," he said.

Although Saddam tried to keep teams of nuclear scientists together, the
official said, "He was further away in 2003 than he was in 1991."

"So the nuclear program was decaying rather than being preserved," he said

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit  http://www.**--****.com/ *

by **Arthur Frank** » Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:01:37 GMT

Brice,

You may have apologized for missing the OT: (which I didn't see before
posting my response, sorry), but you didn't answer my question.  Why did
you feel the need to change the topic of this thread?

I'm not asking for any burden of proof from anyone.  You are.  However,
you seem to be rather selective in applying this standard.

BTW, requesting the Post to test the water completely misses the point
of the article.  Let me summarize:
1.  The EPA's own tests reveal that many water districts have unsafe
levels of lead (unsafe by the EPA's own standards).
2.  There exists some evidence that the EPA did nothing to correct this
situation.
3.  There exists some evidence that the EPA may have "gamed" the
sampling in some districts to under-report the incidence of unsafe
levels of lead.

The point is that the EPA is falling down on their job.  Why would the
Post would need to test the water?  If the EPA's data looked good, then
it's completely reasonable to demand the Post publish their own tests.
But the EPA's data didn't look good, they were supposed to act, and they
didn't.

Go ahead and debate the quality of this "evidence" in the Post article.
 That's fine.  Go ahead and debate whether or not the EPA has a sensible
"unsafe" level of lead.  I'm open to all arguments.  But once again, I
repeat, you have (so far) offered NOTHING FACTUAL to support your casual
dismissal of this article.

On the other topic, please tell me where the AP story says the
cyclosarin is usable.  I've read it a few times, and I don't see it.
Based on this article (and the one on "Free Republic") I must say that I
don't know.  If you do, please cite your evidence.

I agree that the press has an agenda.  That includes the NY Times, the
Washington Post, Fox News, and websites like "Free Republic".
Nevertheless, I try not to completely dismiss anything without having
some informed reason for doing so.

Art


a)  I already apologized for the mistake.

b)  You are deliberately being dense.  I suspect you are not
insensitive
or stupid, but are acting that way just to make things hard.

c)  This is what I mean by being dense.  It is relatively easy to test
the quality of the water in any city by taking a sample and having it
tested.  I don't live in one of those cities, so it would not be easy
for me to do this except for the one where I live.  It would be very
hard
for someone to prove the existance of poison gas in Iraq,
comparatively.
So I am asking for something to be done which is easy, you reply by
requiring something to be done which is near impossible, and try to
claim you are using the same standard of proof.

d)  The usatoday article you posted actually says there is no doubt
these are chemical weapons.  So, you don't know if the cyclosarin is
usable when you posted an article saying it is?

I think the press has an agenda.  I am less and less inclined to
agree with anything published.  Previously, I have been of the opinion
that the mainstream press simply used selective reporting to further
it's agenda, but after Rathergate, it looks like they cannot be
trusted
to report only the truth that suits them, but now have to invent
things.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit  http://www.**--****.com/ *

by **Brice Yokem** » Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:01:37 GMT

Brice,

what reason would the US (not UN but the US) chief weapons inspector have
not to tell the truth?

---------------

I don't know, but the artillery shells show he was wrong, and
were old enough to show Iraq kept them since 1991.  It even says
this existed, right after it says the WMD were given up.

The nuclear program was set back by the fact that there was not enough
fissionable nuclear material in Iraq to make a bomb.  How many years
it would take to collect enough again is anyones guess.

----------------

So, whats the real reason for the invasion?
Oil, the threat against Bush senior, ignorance or .....?

----------------

Or the fact that he had intel saying the estimates of WMD in Iraq were
larger that it turned out.  Me, I treat it as finishing the job started
in the first gulf war.

Most of this article is about Nuclear capability in Iraq, which I have not
taken issue with.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit  http://www.**--****.com/ *

by **Michael Baier** » Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:16:36 GMT

n Wed, 6 Oct 2004 16:50:40 -0400, Brice Yokem < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:

Brice,

you asume too much. As you mentioned once, you read between the lines what
you like to read not what is written. Do you write SF-novels?

According to the report the real facts are:

The nuclear program was was setback by "years," he said.
"They would have had to do a lot. It's a big infrastructure they would have
had to recreate. Certainly not starting from scratch, not starting from
scrath. They had a lot of the talent," he said.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., briefed on the report earlier Wednesday, said
Duelfer found Iraq's capability to produce and develop weapons of mass
destruction had degraded since 1998.

Duelfer's team found no written plans by Saddam's regime to pursue banned
weapons if U.N. sanctions were lifted

Duelfer found that Saddam, hoping to end U.N. sanctions, gradually began
ending prohibited weapons programs starting in 1991.

The erosion of sanctions stopped after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer
found, preventing Saddam from pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

These statements were also made and are recorded:

Vice President{*filter*} Cheney, in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002, 6 1/2 months
before the invasion:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
mass destruction," Cheney said then. "There is no doubt he is amassing them
to use against our friends, against our allies and against us."

In a speech on Oct. 7, 2002, Bush laid out what he described then as Iraq's
threat:

_"It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking
nuclear weapons."

_"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet
of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse
chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

_"Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of
miles far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other
nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and
service members live and work. "

Yet, for some reason they can't admit that this was wrong.
I am glad that you are satisfied with Bush's argument but the majority or
the American people (I guess) are not and wait for an explanation.

>----------------> >> >So, whats the real reason for the invasion?> >Oil, the threat against Bush senior, ignorance or .....?> >> >----------------> >> >Or the fact that he had intel saying the estimates of WMD in Iraq were> >larger that it turned out. Me, I treat it as finishing the job started> >in the first gulf war.> >> >Most of this article is about Nuclear capability in Iraq, which I have not> >taken issue with.> >> >* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *> >* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

by **Brice Yokem** » Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:31:36 GMT

Art -

-------------------

Brice,

You may have apologized for missing the OT: (which I didn't see before
posting my response, sorry), but you didn't answer my question.  Why did
you feel the need to change the topic of this thread?

--------------------

I had a reply for this that I completely lost.  I made a mistake!
I admit I made a mistake!  Stop rubbing my nose in it.

--------------------

The point is that the EPA is falling down on their job.  Why would the
Post would need to test the water?  If the EPA's data looked good, then
it's completely reasonable to demand the Post publish their own tests.
But the EPA's data didn't look good, they were supposed to act, and they
didn't.

---------------------

You have answered your own question.

---------------------

On the other topic, please tell me where the AP story says the
cyclosarin is usable.  I've read it a few times, and I don't see it.
Based on this article (and the one on "Free Republic") I must say that I
don't know.  If you do, please cite your evidence.

----------------------

I cannot find the AP story now.  I recall it saying only some of the shells
were unusable.  It did not say ALL were unusable.

To Michael -

----------------------

Brice,

you asume too much. As you mentioned once, you read between the lines what
you like to read not what is written. Do you write SF-novels?

--------------------

What am I assuming?  GWB went to war over the WMD, because of evidence
that turned out to be exaggerated.  This is a matter of record.

The parts talking about nuclear weapons is not something I am being
contentious about.  Someone says it would take years to rebuild the
nuclear program, OK, I assume it would take years to broker a black
market purchase of Soviet nukes, or to scrape up enough nuclear material
to make a bomb by other methods.

Lots of opponents of the GWB administration made similar statements
about Iraq and WMD before GWB took office.  I don't see John Kerry
saying he was wrong about it either.

-------------------

Yet, for some reason they can't admit that this was wrong.
I am glad that you are satisfied with Bush's argument but the majority or
the American people (I guess) are not and wait for an explanation.

-------------------

1)  I don't care about GWB and his argument.  We are now finishing the job.
That is my position.

2)  The majority of the American people appear to favor GWB in the polls.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit  http://www.**--****.com/ *

by **Arthur Frank** » Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:01:36 GMT

Brice,

Sorry.  I wasn't rubbing your nose in it.  I was genuinely curious,
since it appeared to come out of nowhere.  Your apology just said "sorry
for forgetting the OT," but that left me wondering about the rest of the
subject line.  Once again -- I apologize.

What were we arguing about?  Oh, yeah, lead in the water.  Well, since
you appear unable or unwilling to provide any facts (or even a link to
an op-ed piece) supporting your casual dismissal of the Washington Post
article, I will consider this discussion finished.

Art


Art -

-------------------

Brice,

You may have apologized for missing the OT: (which I didn't see before
posting my response, sorry), but you didn't answer my question.  Why
did
you feel the need to change the topic of this thread?

--------------------

I had a reply for this that I completely lost.  I made a mistake!
I admit I made a mistake!  Stop rubbing my nose in it.

--------------------

The point is that the EPA is falling down on their job.  Why would the
Post would need to test the water?  If the EPA's data looked good,
then
it's completely reasonable to demand the Post publish their own tests.
But the EPA's data didn't look good, they were supposed to act, and
they
didn't.

---------------------

You have answered your own question.

---------------------

On the other topic, please tell me where the AP story says the
cyclosarin is usable.  I've read it a few times, and I don't see it.
Based on this article (and the one on "Free Republic") I must say that
I
don't know.  If you do, please cite your evidence.

----------------------

I cannot find the AP story now.  I recall it saying only some of the
shells
were unusable.  It did not say ALL were unusable.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit  http://www.**--****.com/ *

by **Mosalie Rignon** » Sat, 09 Oct 2004 01:04:25 GMT

gt; The real question is: When so many questioned the intelligence, why was

I'm not waiting for an answer.
Bush believes that Islam is out to "conquer civilisation".

Didn't you hear him after 911 going on about a "crusade"?
Didn't you hear him tell that crowd of "elite" supporters at the dinner that
they were his "base".
His own Al Qaida.
He believes he is a Christian with a divine mission.
He believes that the Good Lord brought him back from the cliff-edge of
{*filter*}ism to do great things.

I believe he is a pea-brained fundmentalist puppet. Ask Ariel Sharon.

Go to the Halliburton web site and click on the link where its says Investor
Relations.
Keep clicking till you come to the share price, then choose to display the 3
year graph.
Last time I checked the share price had risen from around $15 per share to
$32.

Still waiting for answers ?

Mosalie.

"Michael Baier" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > a rit dans le message de
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
have

by **John Lee** » Sat, 09 Oct 2004 02:31:41 GMT

o why did Al Queda attack us on 9/11?

John Lee

At 11:17 AM 10/7/04 -0500, Mosalie Rignon wrote:

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

by **Michael Baier** » Sat, 09 Oct 2004 05:16:36 GMT

John,

IMO, don't try to make sense of statements or actions of fanatics,
terrorists or plain-idiots.
Only the same kind understands them but not "normal" ordinary people.

Michael





that
Investor
the 3

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit  http://www.**--****.com/ *

by **Rosalie** » Sat, 09 Oct 2004 07:47:11 GMT

o why did Al Queda attack us on 9/11?

John Lee
________________________

You mean you still don't know ?
This is unbelievable.

Or is it ?

America has become egocentric. Autistic, maybe.
Blind to the outside world.
(No History except US History in your High Schools. And no geography at all
!)

Blind to the suffering and the poor in those stone age places with the weird
names.
Blind to anything that does not directly affect American personal confort.

You may have some kind of logic that explains that all away. Bin Laden
doesn't.

When 3000 innocent Americans are killed in America you believe it is a
scandal.
An ignominious crime. Indeed it is.
But is it no less a crime that 30 000 children die every single day from
lack of food and simple medicines?
Yes, I know they are not Americans, they are just aliens. Is that it ?

Where is America now spending its overseas aid ?
In Israel with handouts disguised as development aid. So they can plough it
all back into US arms factories and buy US helicopters and missiles and
Caterpiller bulldozers.

And overseas aid also goes to countries that will toe the US line in the UN.
Food for obedience.
Handouts for those who will sign a Bilateral Agreement on Immunity. If you
are a poor country and agree never to bring a US leader before the
International Penal Tribunal, well you are in line for a handout, or maybe a
loan. And if you don't sign up, well Good Ol' Uncle Sam just gonna havta
revise his position.

You may not be aware of this. Bin Laden is.

What has become of American generosity ? Where is your charity for the
millions who were born in Ground Zero and live and die in Ground Zero ?
Zero education, zero health, zero hope. You name it, they need it. And
somewhere there is a US corporation figuring out some way to sell it to
them.
Zero monuments, zero websites, zero chat shows, zero counsellors, zero
remebrance days for the millions who die every year as a direct result of US
military and economic policies.

And the one thing they haven't got and need the most is respect.
Zero respect just drives people mad.
You didn't know that ?
Bin Laden knows that.

Your own CNN journalists travelled the world for an entire year after 911
and that is what they said. That was the key finding in their report. It's
the one thing that poor muslims want most. They are sick of being treated as
dwarfs. Sick of numbskulls like Bush telling them that they are irrelevant.
Yes and sick too of their corrupted governments. And that is where the
islamic fundamentalists are waiting for them. Waiting to recruit them into
invisible international networks (so like invisible supra-national
corporations) that give them a mission and a sense of purpose and a sense of
identity (just like your own president accquired a sense of mission and
ientity after 911).

What I find amazing is that Bush and Co. are all Bible maniacs and still
they have learnt nothing. I mean if they don't understand History, well
maybe they can understand the Bible stories. Alas, it seems not. Well they
don't seem to see any parallels.

When the Hebrews were deported to Babylon they were amazed that God had let
them down. They too were scandalized just like you Americans are. Rage and
depression. They were busy being blind to the poor and self-righteous with
temselves, and this Nebuchodnozzor guy attacks them, destroys Jerusalem and
deports the

by **John Lee** » Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:16:36 GMT

I agree, Michael.  I was just trying to get Mosalie to defend his/her
position.

John Lee







* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit  http://www.**--****.com/ *

OT: Brice (was: OT:Powell Regrets Iraq Weapons Claim for War)