A human Mars mission?

George William Herbert wrote:
Hop David wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
Nor is continuing to claim that the WMDs don't exist because they
haven't yet found (or released reports that they've found) them.

I'm not claiming they don't exist. I'm just asking for evidence of their
existence. If there's no evidence, then why did Bush commit us to the
long and expensive occupation of Iraq?

I would rather spend $1 billion a week on space exploration. As a
taxpayer I have a right to ask for evidence.

It's all in how you phrase the question and put the burden of proof.

I am going to assume that, given tens of thousands of fatalities in
the 1980s from Iraqi nerve gas and mustard gas attacks on Iran on
the battlefield and Kurds that there's no serious question in
anyone's mind as to whether Iraq *had* chemical weapons.

Post-Desert-Storm, the UN resolutions and ceasefire agreement
required that Iraq destroy or give up its chemical weapons
and production capability, and prove to the world's satisfaction
that it had done so via open inspections and verification.

The question is not reasonably "show me the weapons".

But it is - becausei it is unlikely that the security council
would have otherwise agreed to use force.

The question must be for you to demonstrate that
Iraq's disarmament was total and their demonstration
of that and cooperation were reasonable.

They had the burden of proof. They admitted that.
I don't think anyone reasonable can claim that
they cooperated in proving that.


Following this logic, it would appear clear that there was
a second resoilution authorising the use of force. Care to
tell me its number?


-george william herbert



--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 19:47:31 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Sander Vesik made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


The question must be for you to demonstrate that
Iraq's disarmament was total and their demonstration
of that and cooperation were reasonable.

They had the burden of proof. They admitted that.
I don't think anyone reasonable can claim that
they cooperated in proving that.


Following this logic, it would appear clear that there was
a second resoilution authorising the use of force. Care to
tell me its number?

None was required, but even if it had been, France made it very clear
that none was forthcoming under any circumstances, so the point is
moot (and a good reason to rectify the historical accident that put
them on the Security Council).

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 19:47:31 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Sander Vesik made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:




The question must be for you to demonstrate that
Iraq's disarmament was total and their demonstration
of that and cooperation were reasonable.

They had the burden of proof. They admitted that.
I don't think anyone reasonable can claim that
they cooperated in proving that.



Following this logic, it would appear clear that there was
a second resoilution authorising the use of force. Care to
tell me its number?



None was required, but even if it had been, France made it very clear
that none was forthcoming under any circumstances, so the point is
moot (and a good reason to rectify the historical accident that put
them on the Security Council).


France did not make that clear. Chirac ordered the Charles de Gaules
aircraft carrier
battle group to get ready to go to Iraq after weapons inspectors told
the security council
they weren't getting good cooperation from Iraq in December. Everyone
agreed that
weapons inspectors should continue their job while the US, the UK,
France and
others were preparing the invasion of Iraq. The inspectors came back in
January and
said that they were getting cooperation from Iraq. At that point most
nations wanted
to see what weapons inspectors with Iraqi cooperation could do. Only a
few nations
wanted to go to war while Iraq was cooperating.

My guess is that if the US had not went to war and waited to see what
the inspectors
could do with Iraqi cooperation then Iraq would of went back to its
habit of playing
games with the inspectors and the security council would of authorized
the use of
force. But who knows what would of happened in an alternate universe. Maybe
the inspectors would of came back satisfied that all WMD had been destroyed.

Also, another resolution was obviously required. The relevant parts of
resolution
1441 a

The Security Council,

[snip]

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations
submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any
time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this
resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s
obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in
accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

[snip]

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General
of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by
Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to
comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations
regarding inspections under this resolution;

[snip]

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in
accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the
situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant
Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

[snip] [end]

Clearly the security council didn't give the president of the US the
authority to decide if Iraq was
was complying or not. It was the security council that was suppose to
decide that.


Alain Fournier

jimmydevice wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote:


Brett O'Callaghan wrote:


(Rand Simberg) wrote:


Well, without major allies except for Britain and Australia.

They're pretty damned major.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Thanks for that, made my day. Yes, our mighty Australian armed forces
were very "major". ;-)


Don't sell you country's armed forces short. They are the major military
force in the asiatic southern hemisphere.

They also composed the major elements of Timor peace keeping.

As for Australian potential for military capabilities, you might check
the history of your countrymen in two world wars and quite a number
of other military actions.

Mike Walsh



Anzacs, Now that was a meat grinder. Stupid, throw bodies in and out.
One of the worst failures of WW2, I feel for those that were killed
by the stupidity of the commanders.

Don't you have your wars confused? The big "meat-grinder" on the
Australians and New Zealanders was Gallipoli in WW I where the
troops that landed were mishandled and suffered heavy casualties
from the Turks.

What are you referring to as "one of the worst failures of WW2"?

The big Australian concern then was that after Pearl Harbor when
the Japanese moved south toward Australia they wanted to bring
their troops home, but Churchill wanted to keep them in the
mid-East where they were engaged with the Germans headed
by Field Marshall Rommel. The Australian troops stayed in the
mid-east and American troops were sent to Australia.

Just like the shuttle, management
should be hanging from the Yard-Arm, those useless, power-point driven
"Yale/Harvard management" morons.
BTW: IMHO: Yale/Harvard management techniques have destroyed this
country. Kill an MBA Today!
Jim Davis.

This is silly.

Mike Walsh

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:44:26 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 04:48:47 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


I get tired of repetition after awhile.

You are paranoid about France and Germany.

No, I'm realistic.

About what?

About Chirac's corruption, and love of dictators.

Pot. Kettle. etc...

Chirac isn't the only leader with that sort of weakness. And for that
matter, France isn't the only country to deal with dictators.

I actually find it hard to believe if you have ever left the US.

??

What does this mean?

You don't seem to know much about the rest of the world.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:49:22 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Slowly, to buy time in hope that his buddy Chirac would bail him
out.

Your paranoia is showing through.

laughing

You obviously weren't paying attention.

To what? The French complaining that the decision to invade was taken
before the diplomacy was finished?

This had nothing to do with diplomacy being finished. It had
everything to do with an obvious desire on the part of Chirac (and
perhaps Schroeder as well) to keep Saddam in power indefinitely.

Not really, in fact, nothing they said or did can be taken in that way by a
rational person.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:50:43 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Trouble is the term 'astrology' is well-defined too.

No, it's not.

It's exactly as well defined as 'WMD'.

No, it's not.

I've met Astrologers, they're pretty comitted people - of course they
ought
to be but that is a different story.

That doesn't mean that astrology is "well defined."

Yes it does.

Of course, it's a
nonsensical and meaningless comparison anyway.

This seems to have become your default response to any argument you can't
respond to.

Some logic and debate would be nice Rand rather than all this silly
invective.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:47:19 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Never explicitly, as far as I know, but it seems pretty obvious to
me.
If it wasn't a goal, it's certainly a happy side effect. The
nutballs
now seem to be pouring into Iraq from all sides, making it easier to
find and kill them there, rather than waiting for them to come here.

You think that's a feature?

Absolutely.

You're also continuing this delusion that you're going to be able to
kill
them all.

We don't have to kill them all, just enough so eventually the rest
will get discouraged, but yes, if they want to send them all, we have
sufficient ammunition for the purpose.

Which is working so well in Israel.

Israel hasn't been allowed to do it. It actually worked quite well
for Jordan back in the early 1970s.

Well, if you call displacing the problem "quite well".

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:08:15 -0500, (Alan
Anderson) wrote:

(Christopher) wrote:

It's only happened once in this millennium...

["It" being widespread failure of electrical power distribution]

True, but unless your congress or whoever free up the $'s to replace
the 1950's network with a modern distribution grid it'll happen again,
remember we have winter coming along and American winters are more
severe for 80 million Americans then British winters.

Electric demand in the affected area is higher in the summer than in the
winter. Air conditioning is a major use of electricity. Electric heat is
not so common.

What do they use in general for heating? I'm thinking if they don't
use electrical storage heaters as is common here in Britain I guess
it's some form of heating oil heater.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

Dave O'Neill dave @ nospam atomicrazor . com wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 19:47:31 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Sander Vesik made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


The question must be for you to demonstrate that
Iraq's disarmament was total and their demonstration
of that and cooperation were reasonable.

They had the burden of proof. They admitted that.
I don't think anyone reasonable can claim that
they cooperated in proving that.


Following this logic, it would appear clear that there was
a second resoilution authorising the use of force. Care to
tell me its number?

None was required, but even if it had been, France made it very clear
that none was forthcoming under any circumstances,

No, actually it didn't. Saying this doesn't make it come true.

And the same applies to Rand's continual "none was required" - its simply
not true.


so the point is
moot (and a good reason to rectify the historical accident that put
them on the Security Council).

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++