Did The Chinese Violate Any Treaties?

Scott Hedrick wrote:
Since he's the President, in our nation, that makes it *your fault*, whether
you like it or not.


I didn't vote for him either time, and I'm not about to take on the
mantle of his stupidity.
I was against the war from the beginning, wrote copiously about my
opposition to it, voted against him and anyone else who supported it in
my state, and stuck around 20 red-hot needles into the little
wobble-head "Dubya" statue that my friend gave me, in the hopes that
Voodoo might just work.
So I did my part.
Outside of sending him more and more pretzels on the offhand chance he
might either choke to death on one, or at least keel over from excessive
salt intake, I did my bit as an American within the limits of the law.

The U.S. isn't to blame, the Iraqi people are.

Unless, of course, you are prepared to provide verifiable evidence that the
United States is directly funding and training the people who hide bombs in
pigeon coops.

George Bush is simply cleaning up the UN's mess.



The UN sanctions worked; Saddam wasn't developing a bomb, and the UN
inspectors said they couldn't find it...which isn't surprising as it
didn't exist. Some of our inspectors said that they thought we were
cooking the evidence for a WMD program, and they were right, because
that's exactly what we were doing.
But George's work isn't yet done...there are still some Republicans in
Congress, and until all of them are gone he still has unfinished
business... let's see...what monumentally stupid thing could he do
next...I know! He could try to invade Iran!
If a no-win two front war won't work...let's try a _three_ front war!
It's brilliant! ...then maybe on to Syria!
If I were him, I'd start studying what happened to Caligula and Nero,
and be keeping a real close watch on the Secret Service, so that some
"accident" doesn't befall him for the convenience of the powers that be.

Pat

Scott Hedrick wrote:
You don't really know almost anything about what happened in America's
history, do you?


His posts do seem to question that.


I'd really like to know his background, because I keep thinking I smell
something odd here... a whiff of lots of old money and trust funds,
combined with private primary schooling in some odd environment, mayhaps
outside the U.S.. That would account for all the odd gaps in his
knowledge about U.S. history.
And I'm still not completely convinced that the reason his first name is
"Rand" doesn't have something to do with Ayn Rand. :-\

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

:
:The UN sanctions worked; Saddam wasn't developing a bomb, and the UN
:inspectors said they couldn't find it...which isn't surprising as it
:didn't exist.

And he was about to get out from under them and fully intended to
reconstitute those programs, which is the problem that your sort
always wants to ignore.

:Some of our inspectors said that they thought we were
:cooking the evidence for a WMD program, and they were right, because
:that's exactly what we were doing.

That's an outright lie.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Scott Hedrick wrote:
Since he's the President, in our nation, that makes it *your fault*,
whether you like it or not.


I didn't vote for him either time, and I'm not about to take on the mantle
of his stupidity.

It's a government "of the people, by the people and for the people", Pat,
which means *it's your fault* whether you like it or not.

I was against the war from the beginning, wrote copiously about my
opposition to it, voted against him and anyone else who supported it in my
state, and stuck around 20 red-hot needles into the little wobble-head
"Dubya" statue that my friend gave me, in the hopes that Voodoo might just
work.
So I did my part.

If you pay Federal taxes, you *are* supporting the war.

The UN sanctions worked

Really? The weapons inspectors say otherwise.

; Saddam wasn't developing a bomb, and the UN
inspectors said they couldn't find it...which isn't surprising as it
didn't exist. Some of our inspectors said that they thought we were
cooking the evidence for a WMD program, and they were right, because
that's exactly what we were doing.

Yep- all those Kurds were gassed by George Bush, right?

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:26:28 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Rand Simberg wrote:
Or we promptly invaded Tunis, in North Africa. Which is in fact what
we did, since you seem historically ignorant.



You don't really know almost anything about what happened in America's
history, do you?

His posts do seem to question that.

??

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:33:50 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Scott Hedrick wrote:
You don't really know almost anything about what happened in America's
history, do you?


His posts do seem to question that.


I'd really like to know his background, because I keep thinking I smell
something odd here... a whiff of lots of old money and trust funds,
combined with private primary schooling in some odd environment, mayhaps
outside the U.S..

Better blow your nose. Wrong on all counts. No surprise, of course.

wrote...
In this evil regime of George W Bush, you better keep your mouth
shut about international treaties. Many more finger will point at
you if you even point one finger at others.

I'm not sure if there is a treaty regarding such tests, and if there
is I doubt China signed it and the USA only signed it after it had
already conducted such tests and collected all the data it needs to
ensure a reliable anti-satellite weapon system. Just like how the
USA called for a worldwide nuclear test ban after it had already
tested enough atomic bombs to gather all possible information on
nuclear explosions, so the only ones affected by such bans are the
up and coming world powers who missed the opportunity to conduct
basic scientific research in those areas before the ban took effect.

As for this particular test, it is China's way of telling us to go
**** ourselves if we think we have any say about China's reconquest
of Taiwan. As an American, I can tell you that there is no way we
are going to support Taiwan if it means the destruction of our
satellite infrastructure and thus our way of life. Half of America
would drive off cliffs as their GPS navigators stopped working, and
the other half would quickly surrender to the Chinese in exchange
for restoring cellular telephone service.

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
.com...

My upgrade this week from a Powerbook G4 to a MacBook Pro Core2Duo and
reinstallation of my apps released you.

It's still an Apple product. Not exactly an upgrade. Stop playing with your
food, and get a real computer.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Rand Simberg wrote:
Yes, but as I said, it's interesting. In a civil case, a deliberate
act would carry a higher penalty, perhaps with punitive damages.


Again though... how do you prove it?
One of your satellites suddenly stops transmitting while heading through
the debris cloud, and you can say the ASAT's debris is the most likely
candidate for what caused it to malfunction, but without going up and
getting it to look at the damage, how do you know it was not just a
malfunction, a meteor strike, or collision with some other piece of
unrelated space debris?

Actually, Pat, the standard of proof for civil cases is much lower than it
is for criminal cases.

1. Chinese blew up satellite A.
2. Satellite A debris field disperses in X manner.
3. Satellite B's proper orbit intersects the debris field within a period of
time in which the density of particles is likely to include substantial
portions of the debris field.
4. Satellite B is hit and stops functioning.
(5) Satellite B was transmitting at the time, and the transmission data
suggests that impact was more likely a piece of satellite A or the ASAT than
it was from some other source.

5 is nice, but a reasonable and winnable case can be made without it. 5
mostly alters the damages awarded, if any. Essentially: (value of
satellite)x(odds of damage from Chinese action)x(jury factor)+(punitive
damages, if any). The "jury factor" depends on where the trial is held and
the percentage of anti-Chinese bigotry as well as the gross moron factor.

On Jan 22, 11:47 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Rand Simberg) wrote:

:
:Here's a challenge, to anyone, but particularly to those who think
:that the UN's definition of genocide is valid and useful. Does anyone
:here think that it would be possible to get the UN to declare what's
:happening in Iraq by that word?

That's got nothing to do with the facts one way or the other.

What it's possible to get the UN to do doesn't have a lot to do with
reality. If it did, there would have been a UN Security Council
Resolution to invade Iraq.

Based upon what? Not finding WMD, or evidence therein? The UN was
there looking. It found nothing. We claimed they were wrong. We
invaded anyway. We found nothing. We are still there.

The UN should be happy that it didn't get involved in our mess.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn