Missing sial, iron, and nickel explains Fermi paradox

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: :
: : :CO2 trading is allowed for industrial countries that have joined and
: : :ratified the Kyoto Protocol. That means that, to name an example
: : utside Europe that Japan can participate in the CO2 sceme. So would
: : :USA have been able to, if it had joined.
: : :
: :
: : And yet nobody else has, even when they're not meeting Kyoto targets.
: : Why is that, Einar?
: :
: :If that is true, that is theyr business. However, I really doubt that
: :what you are saying is true.
: :
: :So cough up some citation supporting that claim.
: :
:
: So I need a citation to prove a negative, Einar?
:
: Obviously they don't require Political Science majors to take any
: logic courses where you come from.
:
:
:You really are quite incredible, and I don´t mean that in a positive
:way.
:

The fact remains that you apparently think it's sane to demand that
someone prove a negative.

No, you are insisting that it is the truth, completelly without any
evidence to back it up. Then calling me a fool for doubting it. It´s
you who are spouting rubbish after rubbish. Clearly quite oblivious at
the same time that that´s what you are doing, as after all 'YOU THINK
YOU KNOW THE TRUTH.'

:
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :The keyword is the defination, industrial country. As you remember
: : :third world countries and rapidly growing industrializing countries
: : :have been exempted from many burdens of the Kyoto. Those countries can
: : :´t purchase CO2 quotas, yet.
: : :
: :
: : Those countries DON'T NEED TO purchase CO2 quotas, since they have no
: : 'ceilings' in the first place.
: :
: :
: :It proved not possible at the time to make them accept any ceiling,
: :which later was used by the USA as an excuse to reject the Kyoto
: :Protocol.
: :
:
: It proved not possible at the time to make the US accept any ceiling,
: either, given European intransigence. And now China produces more CO2
: than anyone.
:
: So tell me, Einar, just who was right about that one, Europe or the
: US?
:
:Clearly Europe.
:

So to your thinking it made sense to exempt China from requirements
and alienate the US so that half the CO2 production is outside any
controls stemming from the protocol?

Yes, I think this made sence, but that USA was silly to take umbrage.
This was after all only the Kyoto 1. By demonstrating good example,
along with Europe, USA and Europe would today have got a more powerful
argument on China. Now, getting China to join is harder for the fact
the USA chose to take umbrage.

No, Einar. Clearly the US position that countries like China needed
to be part of the controls was correct. Not only has China become the
largest single-nation source of CO2 on the planet, but their carbon
footprint per unit of production is much worse than other big
producers.

USA was wrong not to participate in Kyoto 1. USA by opting out has
made preciselly harder to convinche China and India to join. They note
USA´s opt out, and think that if USA is not alarmed enough to join the
Kyoto process then clearly they have no reason to do so first.

Somebody has to take the lead, Europe has been trying to, but without
the USA it´s doubly/tribly difficult.

:
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : Einar, a majority of Americans distrust your 'international'
: : : organizations. Why do you think that is?
: : :
: : :
: : :Common misconceptions about international organizations.
: : :
: :
: : That's not a "why", Einar. That's a "what". The question wasn't what
: : you want to characterize the opinion as. The question was WHY DO YOU
: :
: :
: :It´s baffling, that´s sure.
: :
:
: Not to anyone with a couple of brain cells to their name, it isn't.
:
:
:That counts you out then.
:

And there's the best you can do, isn't it? Reality is inexplicable
and anyone who understands it where you do not can only be insulted.

The reason why a percentage of Americans distrust international
organization, eludes the rest of the world, quite simply.

I appears really baffling, not the least because those institutions
usually don´t do anything the US gow. doesn´t want done. Really only
the WTO is capable of ruling against the USA, but the WTO is so to
speak an operational arm of a world trade system USA itself finds in
its interest to maintain. It was preciselly the USA which insisted on
the WTO coming into being.

Yeah, it´s quite baffling that global organizations that do mostly act
according to US interests, have been created by past US precidents,
have come to appear to some Americans to be some evil arm of world
control directed at the USA. Sounds more than a litle schizophrenic.

Einar

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Einar wrote:
: : : --G. Behn
: : : :
: : : :What large conspiracy? Iraqi officials were stealing all of the time,
: : : :that has been proven true. She could easilly enough have done that all
: : : :by herself. Very simple, she did that part of the paperwork all by
: : : :herself. Alternativelly she bribed someone.
: : : :
: : :
: : : You keep forgetting the "her staff" bit.
: : :
: : :So what, I´ve told you how she might have done it. She was in charge
: : :after all of that project. This was not like USA where you´ll expect
: : :all kinds of oversight being present.
: : :
: :
: : It is, however, just as impossible to maintain a 'conspiracy theory',
: : which is what you're building here.
: :
: : EVERYONE involved has to be lying, Einar.
: :
: :Only a single person.
: :
:
: In what world, Einar? What about all the other folks involved?
:
:You appear not to be able to understand that Iraq was a state in which
:bosses were not to be trifled with. People were being killed all of
:the time. In such a soziety, you didn´t look over the shoulders of
:your boss, especially if the boss appeared to be one of the darlings
f the ruling party and hence of the despotic ruler of that country.
:
:There is no way that a member of the staff could have gone over theyr
:boss and survived doing that, unless and that is the sole chance that
:the person in question could have aquired a backing of anther powerful
:boss. Working in Iraq was more like working inside a huge criminal
:syndicate. You could simply kill an underling, and get away doing
:that.
:

You appear not to be able to understand that all those people are NOT
dead now.

How do you explain them?


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Einar wrote:
: : :
: : :
: : : :CO2 trading is allowed for industrial countries that have joined and
: : : :ratified the Kyoto Protocol. That means that, to name an example
: : : utside Europe that Japan can participate in the CO2 sceme. So would
: : : :USA have been able to, if it had joined.
: : : :
: : :
: : : And yet nobody else has, even when they're not meeting Kyoto targets.
: : : Why is that, Einar?
: : :
: : :If that is true, that is theyr business. However, I really doubt that
: : :what you are saying is true.
: : :
: : :So cough up some citation supporting that claim.
: : :
: :
: : So I need a citation to prove a negative, Einar?
: :
: : Obviously they don't require Political Science majors to take any
: : logic courses where you come from.
: :
: :
: :You really are quite incredible, and I don´t mean that in a positive
: :way.
: :
:
: The fact remains that you apparently think it's sane to demand that
: someone prove a negative.
:
:No, you are insisting that it is the truth, completelly without any
:evidence to back it up. Then calling me a fool for doubting it. It´s
:you who are spouting rubbish after rubbish. Clearly quite oblivious at
:the same time that that´s what you are doing, as after all 'YOU THINK
:YOU KNOW THE TRUTH.'
:

And so you once again demonstrate that obviously they don't require
Political Science majors to take any logic courses where you come
from.

Hint: Get a logic book and look up "proving a negative".

:
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :The keyword is the defination, industrial country. As you remember
: : : :third world countries and rapidly growing industrializing countries
: : : :have been exempted from many burdens of the Kyoto. Those countries can
: : : :´t purchase CO2 quotas, yet.
: : : :
: : :
: : : Those countries DON'T NEED TO purchase CO2 quotas, since they have no
: : : 'ceilings' in the first place.
: : :
: : :
: : :It proved not possible at the time to make them accept any ceiling,
: : :which later was used by the USA as an excuse to reject the Kyoto
: : :Protocol.
: : :
: :
: : It proved not possible at the time to make the US accept any ceiling,
: : either, given European intransigence. And now China produces more CO2
: : than anyone.
: :
: : So tell me, Einar, just who was right about that one, Europe or the
: : US?
: :
: :Clearly Europe.
: :
:
: So to your thinking it made sense to exempt China from requirements
: and alienate the US so that half the CO2 production is outside any
: controls stemming from the protocol?
:
:
:Yes, I think this made sence, but that USA was silly to take umbrage.
:This was after all only the Kyoto 1. By demonstrating good example,
:along with Europe, USA and Europe would today have got a more powerful
:argument on China. Now, getting China to join is harder for the fact
:the USA chose to take umbrage.
:

And so we see that from the perspective of people like Einar,
everything is always the fault of the United States. And then they
wonder why we view them and their opinions with derision...

:
:
: No, Einar. Clearly the US position that countries like China needed
: to be part of the controls was correct. Not only has China become the
: largest single-nation source of CO2 on the planet, but their carbon
: footprint per unit of production is much worse than other big
: producers.
:
:
:USA was wrong not to participate in Kyoto 1. USA by opting out has
:made preciselly harder to convinche China and India to join. They note
:USA´s opt out, and think that if USA is not alarmed enough to join the
:Kyoto process then clearly they have no reason to do so first.
:

Except the Kyoto process didn't require them to do anything, which was
one of our objections to it.

:
:Somebody has to take the lead, Europe has been trying to, but without
:the USA it´s doubly/tribly difficult.
:

Then perhaps you should stop trying to present us with things we won't
agree to?

:
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : Einar, a majority of Americans distrust your 'international'
: : : : organizations. Why do you think that is?
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :Common misconceptions about international organizations.
: : : :
: : :
: : : That's not a "why", Einar. That's a "what". The question wasn't what
: : : you want to characterize the opinion as. The question was WHY DO YOU
: : :
: : :
: : :It´s baffling, that´s sure.
: : :
: :
: : Not to anyone with a couple of brain cells to their name, it isn't.
: :
: :
: :That counts you out then.
: :
:
: And there's the best you can do, isn't it? Reality is inexplicable
: and anyone who understands it where you do not can only be insulted.
:
:
:The reason why a percentage of Americans distrust international
rganization, eludes the rest of the world, quite simply.
:

Then "the rest of the world" must be quite simple, indeed.

:
:I appears really baffling, not the least because those institutions
:usually don´t do anything the US gow. doesn´t want done. Really only
:the WTO is capable of ruling against the USA, but the WTO is so to
:speak an operational arm of a world trade system USA itself finds in
:its interest to maintain. It was preciselly the USA which insisted on
:the WTO coming into being.
:
:Yeah, it´s quite baffling that global organizations that do mostly act
:according to US interests, have been created by past US precidents,
:have come to appear to some Americans to be some evil arm of world
:control directed at the USA. Sounds more than a litle schizophrenic.
:

And so we once again see the lack of intellectual integrity of Einar.

No evidence for any of the preceding assertions, but "Sounds more than
a litle schizophrenic".

Yeah, right.

Talk to us about what almost scotched the whole Dunkel Agreement,
Einar...


--
"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

On 30 Aug, 03:27, Fred J. McCall wrote:
More 'no context' from Ian.

Ian, if you want to start a new thread, change the title. If you
don't want to start a new thread, leave the context.

Ian Parker wrote:

Nothing I'm going to bother reading until Ian figures out standard
Usenet etiquette.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Hark at the pot calling the kettle black! There have been quite a
large number of changes of subject. To recap :-

The original poster talked about the "rare Earth" hypothesis as an
explanation of the Fermi paradox. We discussed the concept of a race,
agreed that statistically some 500 million years would separate
emergence - assuming Earth was first.

We got onto the fate of the Earth and the creation of colonies and
then onto the politics of US actions.

I have always been skeptical of colonies IN THE SHORT TERM. I feel the
priorities should be safeguarding the Earth and this involves
political considerations. I was absolutely aghast at the suggestion of
sending religious bigots to colonies. I don't like the idea of colony
fatwa.

I have found that when we get involved in political issues we tend to
get involved in slanging matches.

There are one or two things I take great exception to.

1) When I was saying that perhaps it was better not to have biological
weapons.Rand Simberg started calling me a lunatic, when in fact he
knew I was right. This is one thing I find absolutely unforgivable.

2) You then said I should listen more to the idiots that got us into
Iraq. I thought that one was priceless.

I must say my attitude has changed fairly recently. Nothing to do with
anything discussed in this group. In Google Translate I struck up a
correspondence with a Syrian living in Canada. My original query was
"Was Arabic any better than Spanish?" It turned out not to be. I know
none. In fact German, which I am fluent in, will probably be Google's
first good language.

Anyway he gave me an insight into the Middle East. Now in the ME, as
also in Vietnam "hearts and minds" are a vital part of the equation.
He told me that the Arabs believe in all kinds of conspiracy theories
about the West. I mentioned the battle cry of Vietnam "hearts and
minds". It does not matter whether the conspiracy theories are true or
not, if they are doing the rounds it is going to be incredibly
difficult for the West to make progress, even with the best of
intentions.

I have come to the conclusion that intervention in the ME is
exceedingly dangerous and should only be done in absolutely
exceptional circumstances. If the US were faced with imminant attack.
Virtually that. If you intervene as a third party a bad situation
(Saddam Hussein was bad I don't deny it) can, and probably will,
become infinitely worse.

Those references about Iran and Saudi Arabia should give everyone
pause for thought. What is doing the rounds is that the US (and
Britain) is behind the fatwas. This being the case Iraq is even less
winnable than Vietnam. Furthermore if the US insists on going down the
road of military backing for the Sunnis.

1) That will almost certainly perpetrate Al Qaeda. AQ is purely Sunni.
A Shiite victory would in fact mean the end of AQ in the Middle East.

2) A legacy of hatred will have beeen built up which will take
generations to dispel.

The proposal to bolster up Sunni defenses (at the same time Israel is
to be given increased aid to balance up) is an extremely high risk
strategy. The US will first of all become identified with fatwa land.
If there is instability they will be forced to leave.

Bush is not a wicked man, he is an incredibly stupid one. Often stupid
people end up doing a lot more harm than machiavellians.


- Ian Parker

Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Einar wrote:
: : :
: : : :
: : : :Rand Simberg wrote:
: : : :
: : : : Do you think there's
: : : : anything wrong with slavery?
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :Very simple to answere, would you want to be a slave? If you think
: : : :slavery is unfair treatment of you, it´s an unfair treatment of others
: : : :as well.
: : : :
: : :
: : : I wouldn't want to live in a country that mandated my religion,
: : : either.
: : :
: : : Do you think there is something wrong with such countries?
: : :
: : : I wouldn't want to live in a country that told me I wasn't allowed to
: : : be armed to protect myself (including from the government).
: : :
: : : Do you think there is something wrong with such countries?
: : :
: : :
: : : I'd suggest it's not so simple to answer as you think.
: : :
: : :
: : :What I´m preaching is toleration.
: : :
: :
: : Toleration of what? Suppose I want to keep slaves and Rand wants to
: : have sex with 7 year olds. How's your 'toleration' now?
: :
: :
: :Why do you pick such extreme examples?
: :
:
: Because you made a silly statement and I wanted to demonstrate its
: silliness.
:
:
:But they don´t do that. Just about any human endevour can be treated
:in like manner if most extreme examples of failure are only chosen.
:

Then you need to stop making silly statements.

:
:You need to pick more representative examples. After all, to name an
:example, no country in the world actually allows slavery. Though there
:are couple of countries in which slavery is still believed to persist,
:most of it happening inside Sudan. However, Sudan is an outlyer state,
racticing many things like genocide that generally are aborred by the
:world at large. So neither genocide nor slavery is representative.
:

You need to stop making such general statements then, as if
"tolerance" is automatically a 'good thing'.

:
:
: :
: :Mentione a singe country on the planet where such actions are legal?
: :
:
: What does that have to do with anything? YOU gave your position as
: "What I´m preaching is toleration."
:
:
:If you read through my posts I´ve never preaced toleration of genocide
r slavery.
:

You made a general, unqualified statement to try to proclaim your
position as 'better'.


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

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 30 Aug, 03:27, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: More 'no context' from Ian.
:
: Ian, if you want to start a new thread, change the title. If you
: don't want to start a new thread, leave the context.
:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: Nothing I'm going to bother reading until Ian figures out standard
: Usenet etiquette.
:
:
:Hark at the pot calling the kettle black! There have been quite a
:large number of changes of subject.
:

And context showing the drift left in by everyone but you. You merely
veer wildly to and fro, spouting loony at the drop of, well, pretty
much anything.

:
:I have found that when we get involved in political issues we tend to
:get involved in slanging matches.
:

And we do that because you either cannot read or deliberately
misrepresent what is said to you.

:
:There are one or two things I take great exception to.
:
:1) When I was saying that perhaps it was better not to have biological
:weapons.Rand Simberg started calling me a lunatic, when in fact he
:knew I was right. This is one thing I find absolutely unforgivable.
:

That is not, of course, at all near what actually happened.

:
:2) You then said I should listen more to the idiots that got us into
:Iraq. I thought that one was priceless.
:

I believe the word you're looking for is "worthless" rather than
"priceless", since once again you've made something up that isn't even
close to reality.

:
:Anyway he gave me an insight into the Middle East. Now in the ME, as
:also in Vietnam "hearts and minds" are a vital part of the equation.
:He told me that the Arabs believe in all kinds of conspiracy theories
:about the West.
:

This was news to you? This is why I say that worrying about what the
reaction on the Arab 'street' will be to some action by the West is
simply a waste of time, since there is no connection between reality
and how the Arab 'street' reacts. No matter what you do or do not do,
it will be folded into some sort of loony conspiracy theory.

:
:I mentioned the battle cry of Vietnam "hearts and
:minds". It does not matter whether the conspiracy theories are true or
:not, if they are doing the rounds it is going to be incredibly
:difficult for the West to make progress, even with the best of
:intentions.
:

Which is why it is pointless to worry about a 'hearts and minds'
campaign in the Middle East. We should just do what we're going to do
and let the chips fall where they may. They will anyway, no matter
what we do or do not do.

:
:I have come to the conclusion that intervention in the ME is
:exceedingly dangerous and should only be done in absolutely
:exceptional circumstances. If the US were faced with imminant attack.
:Virtually that. If you intervene as a third party a bad situation
Saddam Hussein was bad I don't deny it) can, and probably will,
:become infinitely worse.
:

But failing to intervene until the final resort gets a lot more of OUR
people killed. I'd just as soon pass on that, thanks anyway.

:
:1) That will almost certainly perpetrate Al Qaeda. AQ is purely Sunni.
:A Shiite victory would in fact mean the end of AQ in the Middle East.
:

Don't be silly. You'd have to see a genocide of all Sunnis to get
that kind of 'victory'.

:
:2) A legacy of hatred will have beeen built up which will take
:generations to dispel.
:

Worse than that. Since the Arab 'street' will, as you recently
discovered, MAKE THINGS UP to be upset about, what we do and do not do
makes absolutely no difference in any "legacy of hatred".

They hate us because we exist. They will continue to do so no matter
what we do. It is therefore pointless to worry about what they will
think.

:
:Bush is not a wicked man, he is an incredibly stupid one.
:

Bush is generally a lot brighter than people give him credit for and
infinitely smarter than folks like you.

:
:Often stupid
eople end up doing a lot more harm than machiavellians.
:

Which I guess means it's fortunate that you're not in a decision
making capacity anywhere.


--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 30 Aug, 03:27, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: More 'no context' from Ian.
:
: Ian, if you want to start a new thread, change the title. If you
: don't want to start a new thread, leave the context.
:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: Nothing I'm going to bother reading until Ian figures out standard
: Usenet etiquette.
:
:
:Hark at the pot calling the kettle black! There have been quite a
:large number of changes of subject.
:

And context showing the drift left in by everyone but you. You merely
veer wildly to and fro, spouting loony at the drop of, well, pretty
much anything.

:
:I have found that when we get involved in political issues we tend to
:get involved in slanging matches.
:

And we do that because you either cannot read or deliberately
misrepresent what is said to you.

:
:There are one or two things I take great exception to.
:
:1) When I was saying that perhaps it was better not to have biological
:weapons.Rand Simberg started calling me a lunatic, when in fact he
:knew I was right. This is one thing I find absolutely unforgivable.
:

That is not, of course, at all near what actually happened.

:
:2) You then said I should listen more to the idiots that got us into
:Iraq. I thought that one was priceless.
:

I believe the word you're looking for is "worthless" rather than
"priceless", since once again you've made something up that isn't even
close to reality.

:
:Anyway he gave me an insight into the Middle East. Now in the ME, as
:also in Vietnam "hearts and minds" are a vital part of the equation.
:He told me that the Arabs believe in all kinds of conspiracy theories
:about the West.
:

This was news to you? This is why I say that worrying about what the
reaction on the Arab 'street' will be to some action by the West is
simply a waste of time, since there is no connection between reality
and how the Arab 'street' reacts. No matter what you do or do not do,
it will be folded into some sort of loony conspiracy theory.

:
:I mentioned the battle cry of Vietnam "hearts and
:minds". It does not matter whether the conspiracy theories are true or
:not, if they are doing the rounds it is going to be incredibly
:difficult for the West to make progress, even with the best of
:intentions.
:

Which is why it is pointless to worry about a 'hearts and minds'
campaign in the Middle East. We should just do what we're going to do
and let the chips fall where they may. They will anyway, no matter
what we do or do not do.

:
:I have come to the conclusion that intervention in the ME is
:exceedingly dangerous and should only be done in absolutely
:exceptional circumstances. If the US were faced with imminant attack.
:Virtually that. If you intervene as a third party a bad situation
Saddam Hussein was bad I don't deny it) can, and probably will,
:become infinitely worse.
:

But failing to intervene until the final resort gets a lot more of OUR
people killed. I'd just as soon pass on that, thanks anyway.

:
:1) That will almost certainly perpetrate Al Qaeda. AQ is purely Sunni.
:A Shiite victory would in fact mean the end of AQ in the Middle East.
:

Don't be silly. You'd have to see a genocide of all Sunnis to get
that kind of 'victory'.

:
:2) A legacy of hatred will have beeen built up which will take
:generations to dispel.
:

Worse than that. Since the Arab 'street' will, as you recently
discovered, MAKE THINGS UP to be upset about, what we do and do not do
makes absolutely no difference in any "legacy of hatred".

They hate us because we exist. They will continue to do so no matter
what we do. It is therefore pointless to worry about what they will
think.

:
:Bush is not a wicked man, he is an incredibly stupid one.
:

Bush is generally a lot brighter than people give him credit for and
infinitely smarter than folks like you.

:
:Often stupid
eople end up doing a lot more harm than machiavellians.
:

Which I guess means it's fortunate that you're not in a decision
making capacity anywhere.


--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:50:50 -0700, in a place far, far away, Ian
Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


There are one or two things I take great exception to.

1) When I was saying that perhaps it was better not to have biological
weapons.Rand Simberg started calling me a lunatic, when in fact he
knew I was right. This is one thing I find absolutely unforgivable.

No, I called you a lunatic because you were writing things that were
nutty, and didn't follow from anything anyone else wrote, and because
you repeatedly accuse me of claiming things that I don't, and refusing
to back up any of the claims, other than (once) providing a link to
dozens of posts and tellling us to figure it out without actually
making a case for your insanely libelous claims. Just like the one
above, that I "knew you were right." No. I knew you were irrational,
and incapable of putting together a coherent argument on any subject,
or even sticking to a single subject. I think that, among your many
other issues, you have an attention-deficit problem.

rest of irrelevant, albeit hilarious, stupidity and illogic snipped

Einar wrote:

The fact remains that you apparently think it's sane to demand that
someone prove a negative.


No, you are insisting that it is the truth, completelly without any
evidence to back it up. Then calling me a fool for doubting it.


Pay attention to Fred. Negatives don't need backing up. If I claim
there's no silicon on the moon, I need no cite.


: :It´s baffling, that´s sure.
: :
:
: Not to anyone with a couple of brain cells to their name, it isn't.
:
:
:That counts you out then.
:

And there's the best you can do, isn't it? Reality is inexplicable
and anyone who understands it where you do not can only be insulted.

You are a waste of bandwidth just like Fred. No more will you pollute
signal to noise ratio.

*plonk*

Hop

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Einar wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Einar wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Einar wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : : Einar wrote:
: : : --G. Behn
: : : :
: : : :What large conspiracy? Iraqi officials were stealing all of the time,
: : : :that has been proven true. She could easilly enough have done that all
: : : :by herself. Very simple, she did that part of the paperwork all by
: : : :herself. Alternativelly she bribed someone.
: : : :
: : :
: : : You keep forgetting the "her staff" bit.
: : :
: : :So what, I´ve told you how she might have done it. She was in charge
: : :after all of that project. This was not like USA where you´ll expect
: : :all kinds of oversight being present.
: : :
: :
: : It is, however, just as impossible to maintain a 'conspiracy theory',
: : which is what you're building here.
: :
: : EVERYONE involved has to be lying, Einar.
: :
: :Only a single person.
: :
:
: In what world, Einar? What about all the other folks involved?
:
:You appear not to be able to understand that Iraq was a state in which
:bosses were not to be trifled with. People were being killed all of
:the time. In such a soziety, you didn´t look over the shoulders of
:your boss, especially if the boss appeared to be one of the darlings
f the ruling party and hence of the despotic ruler of that country.
:
:There is no way that a member of the staff could have gone over theyr
:boss and survived doing that, unless and that is the sole chance that
:the person in question could have aquired a backing of anther powerful
:boss. Working in Iraq was more like working inside a huge criminal
:syndicate. You could simply kill an underling, and get away doing
:that.
:

You appear not to be able to understand that all those people are NOT
dead now.

How do you explain them?


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

http://www.iraqwatch.org/bulletins/vol2iss6nov03.htm

"2. Anthrax
The inspectors concluded that Iraq may not have destroyed about 10,000
liters of the biological agent anthrax, which if properly stored,
could still be viable. Iraq admitted producing 8,425 liters of
anthrax, but claimed it had disposed of all the agent in 1991, and
provided inspectors with a series of technical reports aimed at
substantiating the claim. However, the reports failed to prove exactly
how much anthrax was disposed of."

The second alternative is that it actually was desposed off, as was
claimed.


Let's remember what Blix said in his final report:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7777.doc.htm

"Introducing the thirteenth quarterly report of the United Nations
Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Mr.
Blix, the Commission's Executive Chairman, said significant quantities
of proscribed items had also not been found, apart from the Al Samoud
2 missiles, 50 of which had been destroyed under the Commission's
supervision. That did not necessarily mean that such items could not
exist. But long lists of items remained unaccounted for and "it is
not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just
because it is unaccounted for".

In other words, he warned people not to simply assume, "unaccounted
for VMDs" did mean extant VMDs.


Following the invasion and the ousting of Saddam precident Bush
ordered an extensive search and research programme into Iraqy VMDs,
and nothing was found.

ONE OF THE ISSUES WHICH STILL REMAIN UNCLEAR IS PRECISELLY HOW GREAT
AMOUNT OF ANTRAX WAS MADE, AND PRECISELLY HOW MUCH OF IT WAS DISPOSED
OF IN 1991.

For all of that time USA had access to these ex personnel, yet they
were unable to clarify the matter. That means that the personnel were
neither certain preciselly how much was made, nor quite certain
preciselly how much was disposed of in 1991.

APPEARS TO ME THAT FURTHER INTERVIEWING THEM WOULD BE UNLIKELLY TO
SHED ANY LIGHT EITHER ON THE LIKELLYHOOD THAT MY SUGGESTION IS TRUE.

Einar