Bye-bye INF treaty?

Rand Simberg wrote:



Oh, this is ridiculous.

This is dishonest.


"Perhaps Chirac's deepest friendship has been with Saddam Hussein.[30]
The two first met in December 1974 when Prime Minister Chirac visited
Baghdad to negotiate trade agreements, including the delivery of a
nuclear reactor[31] later destroyed by an Israeli air raid in 1981.
When Hussein visited France the following September—his only visit to
a Western country[32]—then-prime minister Chirac said, "I welcome you
as my personal friend. I assure you of my esteem, my consideration,
and my affection."[33]

From the same time period a photo of Rumsfeld was taken shaking
Saddam's hand. The photo was taken after Saddam used poison gas made
from chemicals his U.S. friends supplied.

Rumsfeld should be shot for his friendship with that murderous *******
Saddam.

Hop

"frédéric haessig" wrote:

:
:"Rand Simberg" a écrit dans le message de
:news: ...
:That bush lied?
:
: Yes. That's not a fact. I'll forgive you because, though your
: English is excellent, it's probably not your first language.
: Apparently you're unfamiliar with the meaning of that word (hint: it
: doesn't mean merely stating something that later turns out not to be
: the case).
:
:Lying means stating something you know is not true.
:
:Which is exactly what Bush did.

Wrong.

:He had access to reports from the US intelligence community stating that
:Sadam WMD program was a fake. He ignored them and kept asking for other
:information until he managed to get which could be interpreted to say what
:he wanted. Erog, Bush knew.

Cite? This bit is a lie. You have apparently believed it. I'll
simply note that every Intelligence agency in every major country in
the world (including France) believed that Saddam had such weapons.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:11:15 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:



Oh, this is ridiculous.

This is dishonest.

In what way?


"Perhaps Chirac's deepest friendship has been with Saddam Hussein.[30]
The two first met in December 1974 when Prime Minister Chirac visited
Baghdad to negotiate trade agreements, including the delivery of a
nuclear reactor[31] later destroyed by an Israeli air raid in 1981.
When Hussein visited France the following September—his only visit to
a Western country[32]—then-prime minister Chirac said, "I welcome you
as my personal friend. I assure you of my esteem, my consideration,
and my affection."[33]

From the same time period a photo of Rumsfeld was taken shaking
Saddam's hand. The photo was taken after Saddam used poison gas made
from chemicals his U.S. friends supplied.

Rumsfeld should be shot for his friendship with that murderous *******
Saddam.

I notice that it didn't prevent him from removing him from office.
And I don't know about you, but I've shaken hands with many people who
aren't my friends.

"Rand Simberg" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...

He had access to reports from the US intelligence community stating that
Sadam WMD program was a fake. He ignored them and kept asking for other
information until he managed to get which could be interpreted to say what
he wanted. Erog, Bush knew.

There is nothing in the public record to substantiate this.

There are numerous report from the intelligence community of white house
rejecting their report and asking to have these modified to justify an
attack on Iraq.

Numerous
Investigations have revealed it to be false.

LOL.

Just as numerous investigations revealed that Nixon had nothing to do with
Watergate, or a lot of other exemples.


Are you saying that Powell lied to the UN as well? Did Bush have
better information than his Secretary of State, and withheld it from
him?

I don't know. It's either one of these.


Just how far does your fantasy of this Bush conspiracy to lie us
into war go?

That he started a war?

Yes. That's not a fact. Saddam started that war, back in 1989. It
never really ended, until he was removed from power. There was simply
a long ceasefire, during which he continued to violate its terms, and
seventeen Security Council Resolutions relating to it, and shot at our
aircraft that were attempting to enforce it.

And that's your excuse.

It's not an excuse. It's reality.

or that tens to hundreds of thousands
of innocent people died because of that war?

Tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent people were dying under
Saddam's regime.

Yes. Are you aware that the death call is likely greater in Iraq since
2003
that it has been under all of Saddam's rule ( including Kurd gassing with
chemical weapons )?

No, I'm not aware of that, though I'm sure you'd like it to be true.

There are certainly enough studies around . The numbers I've seen for Saddam
were up to 400,000 deads; the ones for death since 2003 go up to 650,000.
The only numbers which are lower are the ones from bush himself ( 40,000) or
from official iraqi government ( 120,000). The former, we can dismiss out of
hand; the later counts only the deads which have been laid in an oficial
hospital to be recorded. Since iraqi custum requires dead to be burried
before 24 hours, you cann see why this would be way underestimated.


That's no longer happening. Did you weep for them?

Yes.

Do you weep for the ones which dies because of the US iraq invasion and
which would be alive today if not?

Yes, but I'm happy for the ones who are no longer dying, and are
living in freedom (e.g., the Marsh Arabs, whose habitat is being
restored, and the Shia in the south who are no longer living under a
brutal rule by minority, and the Kurds, who are almost autonomous).
In focusing on the murders in the Sunni triangle and Anbar, you ignore
the vast majority of the country, in which things are in fact much
better than under Saddam.

Actually, all the iraqi women are currently way worse than under Saddam.
They had nearly western level personnal freedom then and are under shari'a
law currently, in practice, if not in theory.

Not to mention the monthly death and wounded count which is much worse than
the average under saddam.

And daily occurances of bombing, torture, kidnapping, ransom..... etc

Iraq is currently in a state of Anarchy and the daily life of most of the
population is much worse than under Saddam.

It may be that will change in the future, but that is not yet the case, and
people are suffering in the present.


Two wrongs do not make a right.

No one claimed they did.

Saddam was a very bad tyrant. The way bush choose to deal with him was
even
worse for the iraqi people.

It was not. See above.

excatly.

Do you think that the Iraqi people (other
than the few hardcore Ba'athist loyalists) are clamoring to have
Saddam back?

why should they?

It doesn't prove that the current situation is not worse than before.

Beside, getting Saddam back would require necromancy and I don't think
that's allowed by Islam.



I stated that Pasqua was not a friend of Chirac these days, nor has he
been
an ally since the mid-90s at the latest.

Yes, you did. But you somehow elided this part:

Where did I state that Pasqua is a friend and ally of chirac in 2002?

You didn't. I never said you did. I was agreeing with you that you
didn't (that is, I was telling you that you were changing the subject,
and in focusing on Pasqua, avoiding the rest of the issues).

You stated that the Oil food money was the reason for french government
stance against the invasion of Iraq.

I demonstrated this was stupid because the highest level french politician
accused of having indirect link with this was Pasqua and he wasn't near a
position to affect the givernment decision.

If you think it was done by another channel that Pasqua, this was at even
lower level. So, go ahead. Proove your assertion. Give us a link between
the oil for food money and Chirac, Raffarin or vilepin. ANd not something a
generation old.

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 17:32:23 +0100, in a place far, far away, "frédéric
haessig" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

He had access to reports from the US intelligence community stating that
Sadam WMD program was a fake. He ignored them and kept asking for other
information until he managed to get which could be interpreted to say what
he wanted. Erog, Bush knew.

There is nothing in the public record to substantiate this.

There are numerous report from the intelligence community of white house
rejecting their report and asking to have these modified to justify an
attack on Iraq.

Then surely you can cite any formal reports of investigations into
such matters? (No, sorry, not anecdotes from disgruntled CIA agents.)

Numerous
Investigations have revealed it to be false.

LOL.

Go read the 911 report, among others.

Just as numerous investigations revealed that Nixon had nothing to do with
Watergate, or a lot of other exemples.

What are you talking about? What reports are those?

Are you saying that Powell lied to the UN as well? Did Bush have
better information than his Secretary of State, and withheld it from
him?

I don't know. It's either one of these.

All right, continue on in your delusions. I won't bother you with
reality any more.

Yes. Are you aware that the death call is likely greater in Iraq since
2003
that it has been under all of Saddam's rule ( including Kurd gassing with
chemical weapons )?

No, I'm not aware of that, though I'm sure you'd like it to be true.

There are certainly enough studies around .

Not credible ones. Certainly the Lancet studies have been shown to be
gross exaggerations.

Do you weep for the ones which dies because of the US iraq invasion and
which would be alive today if not?

Yes, but I'm happy for the ones who are no longer dying, and are
living in freedom (e.g., the Marsh Arabs, whose habitat is being
restored, and the Shia in the south who are no longer living under a
brutal rule by minority, and the Kurds, who are almost autonomous).
In focusing on the murders in the Sunni triangle and Anbar, you ignore
the vast majority of the country, in which things are in fact much
better than under Saddam.

Actually, all the iraqi women are currently way worse than under Saddam.

Not the Kurds. Not the Marsh Arabs.

They had nearly western level personnal freedom then

As long as they didn't mind having Uday or Qusay rape them and toss
them into prison.

and are under shari'a law currently, in practice, if not in theory.

Only in limited areas.

And daily occurances of bombing, torture, kidnapping, ransom..... etc

Again, only in limited areas.

Iraq is currently in a state of Anarchy and the daily life of most of the
population is much worse than under Saddam.

Again, only in limited areas.

It may be that will change in the future, but that is not yet the case, and
people are suffering in the present.

Again, only in limited areas.

Why do you ignore the vast majority of the country?

Oh, that's right. Because it doesn't fit the template of your story.

Saddam was a very bad tyrant. The way bush choose to deal with him was
even
worse for the iraqi people.

It was not. See above.

excatly.

?

Do you think that the Iraqi people (other
than the few hardcore Ba'athist loyalists) are clamoring to have
Saddam back?

why should they?

It doesn't prove that the current situation is not worse than before.

If it was better with Saddam, then they should long for his return.
They don't.

I stated that Pasqua was not a friend of Chirac these days, nor has he
been
an ally since the mid-90s at the latest.

Yes, you did. But you somehow elided this part:

Where did I state that Pasqua is a friend and ally of chirac in 2002?

You didn't. I never said you did. I was agreeing with you that you
didn't (that is, I was telling you that you were changing the subject,
and in focusing on Pasqua, avoiding the rest of the issues).

You stated that the Oil food money was the reason for french government
stance against the invasion of Iraq.

Yes.

I demonstrated this was stupid because the highest level french politician
accused of having indirect link with this was Pasqua and he wasn't near a
position to affect the givernment decision.

And you ignored all the others.

I demonstrated this was stupid because the highest level french politician
accused of having indirect link with this was Pasqua and he wasn't near a
position to affect the givernment decision.

And you ignored all the others.


Which ones? I repeatedly challenged you to provide a link between the OIl
for food money and high-level 2002-2003 french government. You never answer
this and always cut it out bu still maintain that that money was the reason
for french stance against the invasion of Iraq.

On Mar 2, 5:25 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Not quite right. You get one squadron of A-6 aircraft per deck.
Anything else
that dropped bombs was much shorter ranged and had much smaller
payloads.

VA-34 and VA-55 were the two A-6 squadrons involved. VA-46 and VA-72
(A-7E) and VFA-131, VFA-132, VMFA-314 and VMFA-323 (F/A-18) were the
four tactical attack squadrons on Coral Sea and America. (Coral Sea
could not operate Tomcats, so she carried four squadrons of Hornets.
At the time, the Tomcat couldn't drop bombs, so that means that Coral
Sea had a LOT of attack power for the time.)

Typically two carriers in the Med was a lot (I think we may have
actually gotten three in there at this point in time).

Coral Sea and America were the two carriers in the Med at the time.
Saratoga had been present for Prairie Fire, but had returned to the US
at the conclusion of that mission. Enterprise transited the Suez Canal
to relieve Coral Sea on April 28th- presumably she could have done so
earlier, if she was wanted for the strike.

Chris Manteuffel

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"frédéric haessig" wrote:

:
:"Rand Simberg" a écrit dans le message de
:news: ...
:That bush lied?
:
: Yes. That's not a fact. I'll forgive you because, though your
: English is excellent, it's probably not your first language.
: Apparently you're unfamiliar with the meaning of that word (hint: it
: doesn't mean merely stating something that later turns out not to be
: the case).
:
:Lying means stating something you know is not true.
:
:Which is exactly what Bush did.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Say, one word disagreements are easy. I must add that to my usenet
posting style. I don't know why I didn't think of it before. It sure
saves on all this typing stuff.


:He had access to reports from the US intelligence community stating that
:Sadam WMD program was a fake. He ignored them and kept asking for other
:information until he managed to get which could be interpreted to say what
:he wanted. Erog, Bush knew.

Cite? This bit is a lie. You have apparently believed it. I'll
simply note that every Intelligence agency in every major country in
the world (including France) believed that Saddam had such weapons.



How would you know? Do you have access to confidential intelligence
reports for every major country in the world? No, I didn't think so.

Here is an article by Andrew Wilkie, an Australian spook that resigned
in the midst of the media storm about WMDs, before Australia deployed to
Iraq. Seriously, have a read through it. First, it debunks your
assertion above. Second, if you think America, or Britain, or virtually
any other country is beyond the issues raised, you are deluded.


http://tinyurl.com/d85w

"Christopher Manteuffel" wrote:

:On Mar 2, 5:25 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Not quite right. You get one squadron of A-6 aircraft per deck.
: Anything else
: that dropped bombs was much shorter ranged and had much smaller
: payloads.
:
:VA-34 and VA-55 were the two A-6 squadrons involved. VA-46 and VA-72
A-7E) and VFA-131, VFA-132, VMFA-314 and VMFA-323 (F/A-18) were the
:four tactical attack squadrons on Coral Sea and America. (Coral Sea
:could not operate Tomcats, so she carried four squadrons of Hornets.
:At the time, the Tomcat couldn't drop bombs, so that means that Coral
:Sea had a LOT of attack power for the time.)

But what you're attacking better be DAMNED close and not require very
big bombs. If you wanted to launch a strike with Hornets at any range
at all you needed your A-6s as tankers. Normal mission profile for a
large Hornet strike was to tank at the rally point outbound because
the folks who went up first would be fuel marginal by the time 'tail
end Charlie' got up.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

Matt wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "frédéric haessig" wrote:
:
: :
: :"Rand Simberg" a écrit dans le message de
: :news: ...
: :That bush lied?
: :
: : Yes. That's not a fact. I'll forgive you because, though your
: : English is excellent, it's probably not your first language.
: : Apparently you're unfamiliar with the meaning of that word (hint: it
: : doesn't mean merely stating something that later turns out not to be
: : the case).
: :
: :Lying means stating something you know is not true.
: :
: :Which is exactly what Bush did.
:
: Wrong.
:
:Wrong.
:
:Say, one word disagreements are easy. I must add that to my usenet
osting style. I don't know why I didn't think of it before. It sure
:saves on all this typing stuff.

When your statement is an outright lie, what else is there to say?

Does this make you happier?

Wrong. That is not exactly what Bush did. Your statement is in
conflict with our present reality. What you claim happened never
happened and every look at the facts says it never happened. You're
on your ass, boy. It's false. It's incorrect. It's untrue.

:
: :He had access to reports from the US intelligence community stating that
: :Sadam WMD program was a fake. He ignored them and kept asking for other
: :information until he managed to get which could be interpreted to say what
: :he wanted. Erog, Bush knew.
:
: Cite? This bit is a lie. You have apparently believed it. I'll
: simply note that every Intelligence agency in every major country in
: the world (including France) believed that Saddam had such weapons.
:
:How would you know? Do you have access to confidential intelligence
:reports for every major country in the world? No, I didn't think so.

Still waiting for that cite. EVERY investigation into this comes to
the conclusion that what you claim never happened, is wrong, is false,
is a lie. Is it sinking in yet?

:Here is an article by Andrew Wilkie, an Australian spook that resigned
:in the midst of the media storm about WMDs, before Australia deployed to
:Iraq. Seriously, have a read through it. First, it debunks your
:assertion above. Second, if you think America, or Britain, or virtually
:any other country is beyond the issues raised, you are deluded.
:
:
:http://tinyurl.com/d85w

I don't follow unidentified URLs that might go anywhere. Sorry.

--
"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