Where have all the wintrolls gone...

java-programmer, Where have all the wintrolls gone...
"Phil Earnhardt" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...

> >> >> No, Luke. Why don't *you* tell *us*: What would be the point of
> >having
> >> >> the language in 1441 and then doing *nothing* when Iraq was not
in
> >> >> compliance?
> >> >
> >> >There wouldn't be any point. You just beat the UN in doing
something.
> >>
> >> The question is actually the opposite, Luke: given the French never
> >> ever had any intent of enforcing the consequences spelled out in UN
> >> 1441, why did they ever bother approving it in the first place? Why
> >> not just be straight with the UN: "We will veto any measure to
approve
> >> UN military action against Iraq."
> >
> >Actually the sentence doesn't end here. If we put it into context (at
> >the time) it should read:
> >
> >We will veto any measure to approve UN military action against Iraq
if
> >the potential approval is to be based on US intelligence (read:
lies).
>
> But UN 1441 wasn't based on US intelligence.

We're not talking about 1441. France didn't vote against 1441. We're
talking about the invasion "warrant" US wanted to squeeze out of UNSC.
France felt somewhat reluctant to sign that warrant because the
evidence US intelligence (sic!) produced was not so very convincing. At
the time. Later it turned out it was total bullshit. Dubya's setting up
an investigation right now. In 50 years we might get to know the...
conclusions.

> The question remains: Iraq failed to comply with the terms of UN 1441.
> What should have been the consequences of that?

Again? Well, let's hope this time you get it: the terms should have been
enforced. But not under US flag. Maybe (more than likely) under US boot.
But the flag should have been the blue UN.

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone...
"Phil Earnhardt" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...

> >> >> No, Luke. Why don't *you* tell *us*: What would be the point of
> >having
> >> >> the language in 1441 and then doing *nothing* when Iraq was not
in
> >> >> compliance?
> >> >
> >> >There wouldn't be any point. You just beat the UN in doing
something.
> >>
> >> The question is actually the opposite, Luke: given the French never
> >> ever had any intent of enforcing the consequences spelled out in UN
> >> 1441, why did they ever bother approving it in the first place? Why
> >> not just be straight with the UN: "We will veto any measure to
approve
> >> UN military action against Iraq."
> >
> >Actually the sentence doesn't end here. If we put it into context (at
> >the time) it should read:
> >
> >We will veto any measure to approve UN military action against Iraq
if
> >the potential approval is to be based on US intelligence (read:
lies).
>
> But UN 1441 wasn't based on US intelligence.

We're not talking about 1441. France didn't vote against 1441. We're
talking about the invasion "warrant" US wanted to squeeze out of UNSC.
France felt somewhat reluctant to sign that warrant because the
evidence US intelligence (sic!) produced was not so very convincing. At
the time. Later it turned out it was total bullshit. Dubya's setting up
an investigation right now. In 50 years we might get to know the...
conclusions.

> The question remains: Iraq failed to comply with the terms of UN 1441.
> What should have been the consequences of that?

Again? Well, let's hope this time you get it: the terms should have been
enforced. But not under US flag. Maybe (more than likely) under US boot.
But the flag should have been the blue UN.

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone...
"James A. Robertson" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:54:50 -0700, Phil Earnhardt <email***@***.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:31:32 -0500, James A. Robertson
> ><email***@***.com> wrote:
> >
> >>And we circle back to the FACT that France announced that it would
not
> >>- under any circumstances - approve force. Since France has a veto,
> >>that sealed the case.
> >
> >James: I've been listening close to Luke in this discussion. I
> >actually think he sincerely believes that there *would* have been a
> >vote in "a couple of weeks" to authorize UN action. France wouldn't
> >have vetoed and wouldn't have abstained. Hell, France probably would
> >have proposed the resolution to the UNSC themselves.
> >
>
> If that's what he thinks, I've got some prime real estate to sell him,
> cheap....

No, I'm not, but anyway... what did you have in mind, James? ;-)

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone... anoncoward <email***@***.com> wrote in news:a8gYb.536918$ts4.242322
@pd7tw3no:

> Otis Bricker wrote:
>
>>>Is it just me or is USENET getting boring... far too many
>>>sensible people that can have polite, reasoned arguments.
>>>
>>>Tsk tsk... where the hell is the fun in that?!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I often feel I am swimming against the tide, but I dislike shouting and
>> name calling in discussions. It seems like you give up on sensible
>> arguement when you resort to that. I would prefer an exchange of ideas
>> rather than a broadside of insults.
>>
>> I'll take sedate and boring over loud and obnoxious.
>>
>> Otis
> Damn, I wish there were more people like you around in real life.
>
>

I find that there are a lot 'more people like' me in in real life. There
seems to be some form of radiation emmited by computers that causes people
to forget how to be polite. Its hard to imagine many people saying some of
the things they do in posts if they were face to face with the other
parties.

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone...

THE MASTER OF OUT OF CONTEXT RESPONSES AND CREATIVE SNIPPING
(Luke_Tulkas)wrote in news:c0tctv$6fe$email***@***.com:

>
> "Otis Bricker" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
> news:email***@***.com...
>
> [snip]
>
>> > In my initial answer, I was equating WMD to nukes - and there's no
> US
>> > obligation (other than any extant ones from talks with Russia, whose
>> > details I don't recall at the moment) to destroy those. To be
> honest,
>> > I simply didn't read that carefully, and didn't notice that the
> topic
>> > was chemical weapons
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Even if it was, I believe that it is possible to withdraw from a
> treaty
>> we voluntarily entered into.
>
> Erm... ok, yes. But then one has to say "I'm out" not "I need more time
> to comply".
>

Well, we are not withdrawing. But we needed to notify them about delays.
One plant was shutdown for most of a year because of a minor leak. Should
we have plowed ahead and risked further accidental release and possible
loss of life?

I'm not interested enough to check it, but the previous link states that
we had been ahead of schedule for previous treaty milestones.

>> There was little or no consideration/payment
>> provided the US for signing.
>
> Payment? PAYMENT?!? Who would you like to pay you? Ethiopia maybe?
> Somalia? For crying out loud!
>

I was pointing out there would be little cost associated with our
choosing to withdraw.

>> Mind you, I thinkit was the right thing to
>> do and sets an example for other nations.
>
> Sets an example. Check! Like tricking the world into agreeing with the
> whole ICC agenda and then get out of it yourselves. A nice example
> indeed! US has a habit of making such examples. Is that 4 year
> prolongation an attempt of getting out? Let the others destroy their
> weapons while keeping yours intact because you intend to, and I quote
> "withdraw"?
>

You really are into this whole conspiracy thing aren't you?

>> It also seem clear that the US
>> is strict compliance with the treaty.
>
> OK. OK. But don't bullshit us with _setting_an_example_!
>

We signed a treaty to destroy our CW. We are destroying our CW. We
dutifully notified the proper channels that we have had delays in
reaching one of the milestones and documented the reasons for it. I wish
we didn't have so much time lost in the courts on this myself. But until
we decide to put some proper limits on litigation, that is how things
work in the US.

Oh, I also notice in the Chemical Disarmament newletter,
http://www.opcw.org/docs/cdq_dec2k3.pdf , that the Russian Federation and
"another State Party" were granted similar extentions. The Russians
appear even further behind. They don't seem to have even achieved the 20%
level. Does anyone know who that other "State Party" may be?

>>Can the same be said for Iraq prior to invasion? Were they in
>>compliance?

>>So regardless of your view on the invasion of Iraq, the two issues do
>>seem completely different.

Your original comments on this seem to have been about equating the two
situations. Can I take your non-comments here and the fact that you
snipped this last part as an admission that they are quite different
situations?

Otis

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone... "Luke Tulkas" <email***@***.com> wrote in news:c0tcot$6d1$1
@grizzly.ps.uni-sb.de:

>
> "Phil Earnhardt" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
> news:email***@***.com...
>
> [snip]
>
>> >> I could explain massive differences between
>> >> what is going on in Iraq and the US with these weapons. I'll give
> you
>> >> first crack at listing the differences. Would you like to give it a
>> >> shot?
>> >Ok,... how about this -
>> >1) The US has WMD.
>> >2) Iraq doesn't.
>>
>> I flunk you on your assignment. ;-(
>
> Let me try:
> 1) The US has WMD.
> 2) All the combined Iraq's WMD it has had from the age of dinosaurs to
> the
> present day (and beyond) including the ones beam-me-up-Scotty-ed to
> Mars, don't
> make a fraction of half a percent of WMD US has at the moment.
>

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan1996/b012496_bt024-96.html

states that the US stockpiles were about 31,200 Tons.

http://www.fourthfreedom.org/pdf/dossier_report.pdf

this article notes that UNSCOM destroyed over 480,000 tons of chemical
agent.

Do the math.

I couldn't track down an actual UN report on the amount
destroyed/reported. If someone can provide one and it has different
figures, please post a link. I like facts to be accurate.

> [snip]
>
>> >His claim has a single point: the US acted without SC permission.
>
> That's just one of the manifestations.
> The point I'm trying to make is that US is acting hypocriticaly.
>

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone...
"Otis Bricker" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...

> >> Even if it was, I believe that it is possible to withdraw from a
> > treaty
> >> we voluntarily entered into.
> >
> > Erm... ok, yes. But then one has to say "I'm out" not "I need more
time
> > to comply".
> >
>
> Well, we are not withdrawing. But we needed to notify them about
delays.
> One plant was shutdown for most of a year because of a minor leak.
Should
> we have plowed ahead and risked further accidental release and
possible
> loss of life?

You should've fixed the leak.

> >> Mind you, I thinkit was the right thing to
> >> do and sets an example for other nations.
> >
> > Sets an example. Check! Like tricking the world into agreeing with
the
> > whole ICC agenda and then get out of it yourselves. A nice example
> > indeed! US has a habit of making such examples. Is that 4 year
> > prolongation an attempt of getting out? Let the others destroy their
> > weapons while keeping yours intact because you intend to, and I
quote
> > "withdraw"?
> >
>
> You really are into this whole conspiracy thing aren't you?

Nope. But it's not very reassuring to other "participants" if the key
figure (read: US) does such things (like, for example, the ICC deal).

> >> It also seem clear that the US
> >> is strict compliance with the treaty.
> >
> > OK. OK. But don't bullshit us with _setting_an_example_!
> >
>
> We signed a treaty to destroy our CW. We are destroying our CW. We
> dutifully notified the proper channels that we have had delays in
> reaching one of the milestones and documented the reasons for it. I
wish
> we didn't have so much time lost in the courts on this myself. But
until
> we decide to put some proper limits on litigation, that is how things
> work in the US.

I know. In the US. In other countries things work differently. US seems
to think they should work like they do in US. US reserves itself the
right to enforce that thinking.

> Oh, I also notice in the Chemical Disarmament newletter,
> http://www.opcw.org/docs/cdq_dec2k3.pdf , that the Russian Federation
and
> "another State Party" were granted similar extentions. The Russians
> appear even further behind. They don't seem to have even achieved the
20%
> level.

You're comparing US to Russia? <ironic>Nice.</ironic>

> Does anyone know who that other "State Party" may be?
>
>
> >>Can the same be said for Iraq prior to invasion? Were they in
> >>compliance?
>
> >>So regardless of your view on the invasion of Iraq, the two issues
do
> >>seem completely different.

I see you, like Phil, have developed a habit of unsnipping stuff. Listen
up, Otis: if I wanted to address the upper two paragraphs I would have
done so. And you would know because then
1. I wouldn't have snipped them and
2. they would've been followed by my comment in previous post.
Savvy?

> Your original comments on this seem to have been about equating the
two
> situations. Can I take your non-comments here and the fact that you
> snipped this last part as an admission that they are quite different
> situations?

No, you may not. You may take it as snipped. As in: no comment.

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone...
"Otis Bricker" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...

> >> >> I could explain massive differences between
> >> >> what is going on in Iraq and the US with these weapons. I'll
give
> > you
> >> >> first crack at listing the differences. Would you like to give
it a
> >> >> shot?
> >> >Ok,... how about this -
> >> >1) The US has WMD.
> >> >2) Iraq doesn't.
> >>
> >> I flunk you on your assignment. ;-(
> >
> > Let me try:
> > 1) The US has WMD.
> > 2) All the combined Iraq's WMD it has had from the age of dinosaurs
to
> > the
> > present day (and beyond) including the ones beam-me-up-Scotty-ed to
> > Mars, don't
> > make a fraction of half a percent of WMD US has at the moment.
> >
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan1996/b012496_bt024-96.html
>
> states that the US stockpiles were about 31,200 Tons.
>
> http://www.fourthfreedom.org/pdf/dossier_report.pdf
>
> this article notes that UNSCOM destroyed over 480,000 tons of chemical
> agent.
>
> Do the math.
>
> I couldn't track down an actual UN report on the amount
> destroyed/reported. If someone can provide one and it has different
> figures, please post a link. I like facts to be accurate.

Let's be accurate then, shall we. When I say WMD, I mean WMD. That,
first and above all, includes nuclear weapons. You seem to have
conveniently forgot about those. Also, your measure is somewhat
misleading. It's not tonnage that really matters. It's the ammount of
dammage those WMD can inflict. Now...

Do the math again.

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone... On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:39:30 +0100, "Luke Tulkas"
<email***@***.com> wrote:

>
>Let's be accurate then, shall we. When I say WMD, I mean WMD. That,
>first and above all, includes nuclear weapons. You seem to have
>conveniently forgot about those. Also, your measure is somewhat
>misleading. It's not tonnage that really matters. It's the ammount of
>dammage those WMD can inflict. Now...
>

Unlike rogue regimes (and former rogue regimes), the US is no threat
the actually use nukes, or transfer them to third parties likely to
use them.

>Do the math again.
>

<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone... On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:33:15 +0100, "Luke Tulkas"
<email***@***.com> wrote:

>
>"Phil Earnhardt" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
>news:email***@***.com...
>> The US wants the UN to be aligned with its actions
>
>It should be the other way around: namely a member (read: US) should be
>aligned with actions of the organisation (read: UN) which it is a part
>of. Otherwise it (US) should get out.
>

Not when said organization takes a position that some member nation
determines is a threat to it.

On this general subject, I notice that France and Germany have voted
themselves "more equal" than other EU states on deficit and debt
levels. I expect, based on your positions, that you will be agitating
with your govt for a pullout of the EU. After all, you are supposed
to be aligned with that organization rather than the reverse

>> -- actions to
>> reduce the threat of global terrorism. Where is the hypocrisy?
>
>Like I told you oh-so-many-times: first US is trying to convince the UN
>to do (or approve) something US wants. Nothing wrong with that.
>Everybody does (better: would like to do) that. What's wrong is, that
>later on, when UN doesn't want it, US goes on it's own, _against_ the
>UN. When UN doesn't dance as US sings, it's suddenly bad bad UN and US
>just expands its own jurisdiction over whatever country it feels like.
>That's not only hipocritical. It's state terrorism!
>

The UN is typically corrupt and stupid, and we try to get it to "do
the right thing". Often it doesn't. That's the way it is. It's a
crappy organization, but it's the one that exists

>> > Whichever suits it at the time.
>>
>> That's true of every country -- what they want is what suits them at
>> the time. Again, where is the hypocrisy?
>
>There's nothing wrong with wanting different things at different times.
>Hypocrisy lies in hitting other countries with international law (i.e.
>UN) while you (US) completely disregard it.
>
>> > If you want, I'll
>> >say it now: no, UNSC is not an honourable institution.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>You're welcome!
>
>> The point is that you DID NOT say that last year when the
>> US was looking for a vote to approve military action.
>
>No, the point is that last year nobody was talking about UN(SC) honour.
>We only talked about UNSC procedures and international law and US
>failure to follow and acknowledge them.
>
>> > Merely the fact
>> >that the US is a member (never mind Russia, China et. al.) prevents
>it
>> >to be honourable.
>>
>> You have failed to explain the reasoning behind that statement.
>
>I have explained it many times now. Twice in this very post alone. See
>above.
>
>> You
>> said that it was dishonorable to have the UN want what the US wants.
>> But you didn't explain why.
>
>I have explained it many times now. Twice in this very post alone. See
>above. [You see, I can exercise my copy-paste skills, too. ;-)]
>
>> And you also failed to explain why it's somehow dishonorable to want
>> different things at different points in history.
>
>You just don't get it, do you? Not different things in history! The
>difference in question is doing something while denying it to others.
>I.e.: don't do as I do, just do as I say. Uncle Sam does that a lot!
>
>> > Honourable != hypocritical.
>>
>> You need to explain that alleged hypocrisy. So far, you haven't.
>
>Thrice already in this post. Many times before in many previous posts.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >>>> You think that, if the bribes happened, the fundamental dynamic
>of the
>> >>>>UN is not severely damaged?
>> >>>
>> >>>It is, of course.
>> >>
>> >>Thank you. Why didn't you say that before? Why the doubletalk that
>we
>> >>shouldn't really worry about the corruption?
>>
>> [Silence.]
>
>OK. I'll bite. Quote me on that, please. Where exactly have I said that
>we shouldn't really worry about the corruption?
>
>> >>> I wonder who's more corrupt.
>> >>
>> >>Nope. You don't wonder at all. You don't even think about the gross
>> >>disconnect between the language of UN 1441 and France's refusal to
>> >>approve any military aciton after Iraq failed to meet the terms of
>> >>that declaration.
>> [Silence.]
>
>There wasn't any diction of war nor invasion in 1441. The war was a
>separate issue. That's why US wanted _another_ resolution which would
>grant war. France didn't want to jump into it hastily because it smelled
>a rotting fish behind "trucks that moved" that US tried to smuggle in.
>You can't go jerking people around and then expect them to be helpful
>with your own agendas and interests.
>
>I've told you so, many times before. I don't see a point in repeating it
>whenever you rephrase your mantra or insert a [Silence] wildcard.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >>At that point in time, you portrayed the UN Security Council as a
>body whose
>> >>votes were worthy of a world-wide Security Council. Some sort of
>honorable
>> >>organization. If the Mother of All Spreadsheets is accurate, it
>demonstrates
>> >>that was just plain wrong.
>>
>> [Silence.]
>
>First of all: you said "If". Secondly, I said a couple of times already:
>that's all we've got at the moment. Even US acknowledges that simply by
>being _in_ the UN(SC) and by trying to have it's actions justified by
>the UNSC. Why, I ask you, if UN is such a corrupt organisation? Could
>it possibly be because US likes to fish in muddy waters? Because US
>plays that same game of corruption? You see, Phil, corruption has two
>ends. The richest "nation" (sic!) on Earth suits the giving end
>perfectly. Namely, one has to _have_ in order to give.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> >> Saddam only had about 4 years to hide them;
>> >> >
>> >> ><ironic>4 years? I thought it was 12. Oh well...</ironic>
>> >>
>> >> What's the difference? 4 years is pleanty of time. 6 months is
>enough
>> >> time, too.
>> >
>> >It is? Well, it depends...
>> >For example: I thought that US had plenty of time to meet the
>agreement
>> >it signed about destroying it's CW. But now it wants a 4 year
>> >prolongation. <ironic>But that's Uncle Sam. Only he can do
>> >that.</ironic>
>>
>> Please provide detailed citations what you're talking about.
>
>We were talking about that not long ago. Somebody posted a link to some
>dod.mil doc saying just that:
>http://www.dod.mil/releases/2003/nr20030903-0426.html
>It seems to be unavailable at the moment, but it said something like
>that: US will miss the deadline and wants a 4 year prolongation.
>
>> >> >> possibly outside the country.
>> >> >
>> >> >Nothing possible about it. A certain US general was dead sure he
>knew
>> >> >where they were on the eve of the invasion. And he made it damn
>clear
>> >> >that they were inside the country.
>> >>
>> >> References?
>> >
>> >Video and audio tapes of UNSC meeting(s). Powell held a "multimedia"
>> >presentation.
>>
>> You are saying that the "eve of the invasion" that we knew exactly
>> where WMDs were. You are saying that there were videos shot on the
>> "eve of the invasion" that were shown to the UNSC.
>
>Nope. The videos I'm referring to are of gen. Powell elaborating in
>front of the UNSC on the eve of the invasion that the trucks in
>successive satellite images he's shown weren't in the same place i.e.
>they moved. He tried to "sell" them as WMD. France, Germany, Russia (and
>pretty much everybody else) weren't buying. And it later turned out,
>they were right.
>
>> I am asking you to provide references to back up those claims.
>
>What claims? That gen. Powell tried to convince the UNSC that Iraq had
>WMD? Here you go: http://www.state.gov/p/nea/disarm/
>
>> >> Relavence?
>> >
>> >Relevance? Well, you claim that the WMD were taken abroad. On the eve
>of
>> >invasion Powell claimed they were inside Iraq.
>>
>> Provide references to Powell's videos that -- as you claim -- were
>> shot on the "eve of the invasion". Then we'll talk about the relavence
>
>> of this.
>
>If we understand each other (relavence and stuff) then see above.
>Otherwise point out some good dictionary for me, please.
>
>> > One of you is not telling the truth.
>>
>> *Someone* is not telling the truth in this discussion. In this thread,
>> I've repeatedly asked you to back up your statements;
>
>I didn't think you missed the Powell presentation. Now you know. Powell
>said Iraq had had WMD (_in_ Iraq). You claim that it shipped them to
>Syria. Who's lying? Gee, man, I hope it's you, because I'd hate to see
>a four star general degrading himself to such a low level.
>
>> you then try to
>> snip that part of the discussion away. I'd have thought you would know
>> by now: that trick doesn't work with me.
>
>Good. Because it wasn't supposed to be any kind of a trick. If I snip
>parts of your posting(s) I have no illusions that all the people who
>read this NG will promptly forget about them. I snip them (as I've told
>you a couple of times already but have to repeat myself to - hopefully
>someday - get it through your thick skull) either because I don't want
>to address them or because I have done so in some previous posting or
>because they're crap not worthy to be addressed.
>
>[snip]
>
>> You also told us that we "didn't understand at all."
>
>That was a misunderstanding: I meant _you_personaly_. The majority of
>the
>people understands.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> Thanks to the actions of France, Germany, and Russia, the UN has
>been
>> >> crippled.
>> >
>> >Certainly.
>>
>> Thank you for finally acknowledging that now.
>
>Yeah, well, I failed to wrap it in <ironic></ironic>.
>BTW: what happened to "Why don't you add US and China to that list?" You
>seem to have snipped it. How come? (And Phil, don't bother answering
>that. I won't mind if it goes unanswered. ;-))
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> >> >> Anyone who loves what the UN stands for should be deeply
>> >saddened
>> >> >> >> today. And they should be deeply puzzled why the UN doesn't
>> >> >immediatly
>> >> >> >> investigate this. And, so far, Kofi Annan does nothing.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >He probably will. Give him time.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Exactly how long? Care to explicitly commit yourself, Luke?
>> >> >
>> >> >No, I wouldn't actually.
>> >>
>> >> Of course you wouldn't. You are a coward on such issues. Why is
>that?
>> >
>> >Because I can't see inside his head.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with Kofi's head.
>
><ironic>It hasn't? What then? His left knee? The right one
>perhaps?</ironic>
>
>> I'll re-phrase: how long should
>> we wait for Kofi to launch an investigation before it's pretty clear
>> that he has no intention of getting to the bottom of this corruption?
>
>And _I_ won't rephrase _at_all_ because my previous answer was clear
>enough: <ironic style="Dubya">As long as it takes.</ironic>
>
>> >Can you tell me when Dubyas investigation will be over?
>>
>> That's an irrelavent quesiton.
>
><ironic>Oh yeah, silly me, questioning Uncle Sam's actions again. He can
>have all the time in the world while others have to have their
>investigations done and over with even before the dust settles.</ironic>
>
>> >>>> 2. The US waited 12 years for Iraq to be in compliance with the
>Gulf
>> >>>>War Armistice before they attacked. You call the attack "rash". In
>your
>> >>>> ever-so-humble opinion, exactly how long should the US have
>waited
>> >>>before such an attack wouldn't have been "rash"?
>> >> >A couple of more weeks so the UNSC could have a chance to grant
>the
>> >> >action.
>> >>
>> >> Please cite any evidence at all that the UNSC would have "granted
>an
>> >> action" in a "couple of weeks".
>> >
>> >Please cite any evidence (_EVIDENCE_ mind you, not "France said this
>and
>> >that"!) that it wouldn't have.
>>
>> You are the one who tells us that the UNSC would have granted the
>> action in "a couple of more weeks".
>
>Yes, I am. But since I can't split time I cannot reset the "scene" to
>before US took unilateral action. Your evidence seems to be "France
>said". That's just as good as "a couple of weeks". None of them stands
>and that's what I'm trying to get through to you. You don't seem to
>receive very well on that ear, though.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >>>> Why didn't Kofi Annan investigate the program years ago?
>> >>>I don't know. Maybe because he was relying on US "intelligence".
>> >>
>> >>Do you note that you can't even give a straight answer to the
>> >>question.
>
><ironic>Because, years ago there weren't any "MOAS" ;-) to suggest that
>the program had gone bad, perhaps?</ironic>
>
>And a counterquestion: Why didn't Dubya investigate his intelligence
>years ago if it's so spectacularly not worthy of it's own name?
>
>> >>Kofi was not -- and should not -- count on intelligence from any
>> >>country. He should launch his own independent investigation. Agreed?
>>
>> That's another part of the discussion you tried to snip:
>
>No, in fact, I _DID_ snip it. Can't you take a hint?!?
>

<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone... JTK wrote:

> And if you weren't a complete feeb you'd have stopped making a
> supersymmetric fool out of yourself a couple hundred posts ago.
> BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
> Nobody's listening to you idiot.
> We're just toying with you, like cats playing with a rodent.
> You exposed yourself for the filthy scum you are. Again.
> Did you say something coward? Oh, sorry, nobody gave a damn.

My word you certainly are an angry individual.
Is that how your german-african-blood-loving parents taught you to be?
I can almost hear them cheering Hitler on from here!

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone... "Luke Tulkas" <email***@***.com> wrote in news:c0tmff$e64$1
@grizzly.ps.uni-sb.de:

>
> "Otis Bricker" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
> news:email***@***.com...
>
>> >> Even if it was, I believe that it is possible to withdraw from a
>> > treaty
>> >> we voluntarily entered into.
>> >
>> > Erm... ok, yes. But then one has to say "I'm out" not "I need more
> time
>> > to comply".
>> >
>>
>> Well, we are not withdrawing. But we needed to notify them about
> delays.
>> One plant was shutdown for most of a year because of a minor leak.
> Should
>> we have plowed ahead and risked further accidental release and
> possible
>> loss of life?
>
> You should've fixed the leak.
>

They did. But since the leak wasn't supposed to happen and if it happened
again, there could be significant danger, They also felt it would be a good
idea to figure out what caused it. This takes a little time to do safely.

>> >> Mind you, I thinkit was the right thing to
>> >> do and sets an example for other nations.
>> >
>> > Sets an example. Check! Like tricking the world into agreeing with
> the
>> > whole ICC agenda and then get out of it yourselves. A nice example
>> > indeed! US has a habit of making such examples. Is that 4 year
>> > prolongation an attempt of getting out? Let the others destroy their
>> > weapons while keeping yours intact because you intend to, and I
>> quote "withdraw"?

Oh, missed this last time.

Quoting one word out of context is just the behaviour we have come to
expect from you Luke. Are you trying to suggest that I have said that we
would withdraw? I did no such thing. I do not believe that we would do
that. I was just pointing out that if we intended to withdraw there would
be little need to ask for delays.

>> >
>>
>> You really are into this whole conspiracy thing aren't you?
>
> Nope. But it's not very reassuring to other "participants" if the key
> figure (read: US) does such things (like, for example, the ICC deal).
>

Why? the treaty seems to have foreseen that such things might happen. That
is why they put language in addressing the possiblity.

And forgive my acronym ignorance but could you explain the TLA ICC?

>> >> It also seem clear that the US
>> >> is strict compliance with the treaty.
>> >
>> > OK. OK. But don't bullshit us with _setting_an_example_!
>> >
>>
>> We signed a treaty to destroy our CW. We are destroying our CW. We
>> dutifully notified the proper channels that we have had delays in
>> reaching one of the milestones and documented the reasons for it. I
> wish
>> we didn't have so much time lost in the courts on this myself. But
> until
>> we decide to put some proper limits on litigation, that is how things
>> work in the US.
>
> I know. In the US. In other countries things work differently. US seems
> to think they should work like they do in US. US reserves itself the
> right to enforce that thinking.
>

I was under the impression that our civil courts were a bit of a joke
outside our borders. They sure are here. A jury here just awarded $5 Mill
because some doctors didn't do a CAT scan of a asymptomatic infant who was
injured and disabled a few week later by a babysitter.

I know that they work differently elsewhere and I think that a lot of folks
here wish the courts worked differently here.

>> Oh, I also notice in the Chemical Disarmament newletter,
>> http://www.opcw.org/docs/cdq_dec2k3.pdf , that the Russian Federatio and
>> "another State Party" were granted similar extentions. The Russians
>> appear even further behind. They don't seem to have even achieved the
>> 20% level.
>
> You're comparing US to Russia? <ironic>Nice.</ironic>
>

Perhaps. I was just pointing out that the two parties with perhaps largest
stockpiles among the signers were both finding the timetable hard to meet.

>> Does anyone know who that other "State Party" may be?
>>
>>
>> >>Can the same be said for Iraq prior to invasion? Were they in
>> >>compliance?
>>
>> >>So regardless of your view on the invasion of Iraq, the two issues
> do
>> >>seem completely different.
>
> I see you, like Phil, have developed a habit of unsnipping stuff. Listen
> up, Otis: if I wanted to address the upper two paragraphs I would have
> done so. And you would know because then
> 1. I wouldn't have snipped them and
> 2. they would've been followed by my comment in previous post.
> Savvy?
>

Fine, but often, you snip out things without concern for the context. When
you do that, you change the meaning of what was said. It might be better to
at least include a <snip> so that folks know you are editing.

>> Your original comments on this seem to have been about equating the two
>> situations. Can I take your non-comments here and the fact that you
>> snipped this last part as an admission that they are quite different
>> situations?
>
> No, you may not. You may take it as snipped. As in: no comment.
>

So you chose not to comment when the flaws in your comparission are pointed
out. OK.
I only reinserted it since it seemed the central point of your own
comments. And felt you should have another chance to address it.

I guess we can let the differences speak for themselves.

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone... Luke Tulkas wrote:
[what you'd expect a European junior high school kid to]
>>
>>And we circle back to the FACT that France announced that it would not
>>- under any circumstances - approve force. Since France has a veto,
>>that sealed the case.
>
>
> That sealed the "trucks that moved" case, yes. If the case was just,
> France
> would have raised it's hand in UNSC.

Exactly! Raised its hand and asked, "Escuze moi, where do we surrender?"

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone... Otis Bricker wrote:

> "Luke Tulkas" <email***@***.com> wrote in news:c0tcot$6d1$1
> @grizzly.ps.uni-sb.de:
>
>
>>"Phil Earnhardt" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
>>news:email***@***.com...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>>>I could explain massive differences between
>>>>>what is going on in Iraq and the US with these weapons. I'll give
>>
>>you
>>
>>>>>first crack at listing the differences. Would you like to give it a
>>>>>shot?
>>>>
>>>>Ok,... how about this -
>>>>1) The US has WMD.
>>>>2) Iraq doesn't.
>>>
>>>I flunk you on your assignment. ;-(
>>
>>Let me try:
>>1) The US has WMD.
>>2) All the combined Iraq's WMD it has had from the age of dinosaurs to
>>the
>>present day (and beyond) including the ones beam-me-up-Scotty-ed to
>>Mars, don't
>>make a fraction of half a percent of WMD US has at the moment.
>>
>
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan1996/b012496_bt024-96.html
>
> states that the US stockpiles were about 31,200 Tons.
>
> http://www.fourthfreedom.org/pdf/dossier_report.pdf
>
> this article notes that UNSCOM destroyed over 480,000 tons of chemical
> agent.
>
> Do the math.

Even as inbred as Tulkass is, I don't think he has that many toes!

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone... Luke Tulkas wrote:

> "Otis Bricker" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
> news:email***@***.com...
>
>
>>>>Even if it was, I believe that it is possible to withdraw from a
>>>
>>>treaty
>>>
>>>>we voluntarily entered into.
>>>
>>>Erm... ok, yes. But then one has to say "I'm out" not "I need more
>
> time
>
>>>to comply".
>>>
>>
>>Well, we are not withdrawing. But we needed to notify them about
>
> delays.
>
>>One plant was shutdown for most of a year because of a minor leak.
>
> Should
>
>>we have plowed ahead and risked further accidental release and
>
> possible
>
>>loss of life?
>
>
> You should've fixed the leak.
>

I completely agree. We should have stuck your... finger... in the leak
and plugged it. Ah well, live and learn and then get Luvs, Tulkass.

[snip unsnipped stuff]
>
> I see you, like Phil, have developed a habit of unsnipping stuff. Listen
> up, Otis: if I wanted to address the upper two paragraphs I would have
> done so.

Nope. If you weren't a complete loser and were actually able to address
what you snip you would have done so. But since you're so much less
than a complete loser, you snip.
Savvy?

[snip]
>>situations. Can I take your non-comments here and the fact that you
>>snipped this last part as an admission that they are quite different
>>situations?
>
>
> No, you may not. You may take it as snipped. As in: no comment.

As in: "No mas! No mas!"

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone... Luke Tulkas wrote:

> "Otis Bricker" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
> news:email***@***.com...
>
>
>>>>>>I could explain massive differences between
>>>>>>what is going on in Iraq and the US with these weapons. I'll
>
> give
>
>>>you
>>>
>>>>>>first crack at listing the differences. Would you like to give
>
> it a
>
>>>>>>shot?
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok,... how about this -
>>>>>1) The US has WMD.
>>>>>2) Iraq doesn't.
>>>>
>>>>I flunk you on your assignment. ;-(
>>>
>>>Let me try:
>>>1) The US has WMD.
>>>2) All the combined Iraq's WMD it has had from the age of dinosaurs
>
> to
>
>>>the
>>>present day (and beyond) including the ones beam-me-up-Scotty-ed to
>>>Mars, don't
>>>make a fraction of half a percent of WMD US has at the moment.
>>>
>>
>>http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan1996/b012496_bt024-96.html
>>
>>states that the US stockpiles were about 31,200 Tons.
>>
>>http://www.fourthfreedom.org/pdf/dossier_report.pdf
>>
>>this article notes that UNSCOM destroyed over 480,000 tons of chemical
>>agent.
>>
>>Do the math.
>>
>>I couldn't track down an actual UN report on the amount
>>destroyed/reported. If someone can provide one and it has different
>>figures, please post a link. I like facts to be accurate.
>
>
> Let's be accurate then, shall we.

You start Tulkass. But do us all a favor and hold your breath for the
rest of us while we wait.

> When I say WMD, I mean WMD.

No you don't. I dare you to snip this.

[snip]

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone... anoncoward wrote:

> JTK wrote:
>
>> And if you weren't a complete feeb you'd have stopped making a
>> supersymmetric fool out of yourself a couple hundred posts ago.
>> BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
>> Nobody's listening to you idiot.
>
> > We're just toying with you, like cats playing with a rodent.
>
>> You exposed yourself for the filthy scum you are. Again.
>> Did you say something coward? Oh, sorry, nobody gave a damn.
>
>
> My word you certainly are an angry individual.

Not really, Snippy Longstockings.

[snip]

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone...
"James A. Robertson" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:39:30 +0100, "Luke Tulkas"
> <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Let's be accurate then, shall we. When I say WMD, I mean WMD. That,
> >first and above all, includes nuclear weapons. You seem to have
> >conveniently forgot about those. Also, your measure is somewhat
> >misleading. It's not tonnage that really matters. It's the ammount of
> >dammage those WMD can inflict. Now...
> >
>
> Unlike rogue regimes (and former rogue regimes), the US is no threat
> the actually use nukes,
Which is why the Bush administration wants to refurbish the stockpile of
strategic nukes and start building tactical ones.

> or transfer them to third parties likely to
> use them.

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone... On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:27:58 +0100, "Luke Tulkas"
<email***@***.com> wrote:

>I see you, like Phil, have developed a habit of unsnipping stuff. Listen
>up, Otis: if I wanted to address the upper two paragraphs I would have
>done so. And you would know because then
>1. I wouldn't have snipped them and
>2. they would've been followed by my comment in previous post.
>Savvy?

Sorry. You don't get to make the rules.

If you make an outrageous claim in a post, it's grossly irresponsible
to fail to back it up. If you tell us:

>>>A couple of more weeks so the UNSC could have a chance to grant the
>>>action.

It's just plain bizarre to make that statement without backing it up.
AFAIK, you're the only person on the planet who is asserting that the
UNSC would have taken any action. To claim something like that without
providing any evidence for that viewpoint is just plain goofy.

To repeatedly ignore requests to back up that statement means that
it's simply a baseless assertion. That's grossly irresponsible
behavior in the discussion.

Luke: you are being intellectually dishonest in the discussion.

--phil

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone...
"James A. Robertson" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:39:30 +0100, "Luke Tulkas"
> <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Let's be accurate then, shall we. When I say WMD, I mean WMD. That,
> >first and above all, includes nuclear weapons. You seem to have
> >conveniently forgot about those. Also, your measure is somewhat
> >misleading. It's not tonnage that really matters. It's the ammount of
> >dammage those WMD can inflict. Now...
> >
>
> Unlike rogue regimes (and former rogue regimes), the US is no threat
> the actually use nukes, or transfer them to third parties likely to
> use them.

Sez the US.

java-programmer >> Where have all the wintrolls gone...
"James A. Robertson" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...

> >It should be the other way around: namely a member (read: US) should
be
> >aligned with actions of the organisation (read: UN) which it is a
part
> >of. Otherwise it (US) should get out.
> >
>
> Not when said organization takes a position that some member nation
> determines is a threat to it.
>
> On this general subject, I notice that France and Germany have voted
> themselves "more equal" than other EU states on deficit and debt
> levels. I expect, based on your positions, that you will be agitating
> with your govt for a pullout of the EU. After all, you are supposed
> to be aligned with that organization rather than the reverse

Germany and France didn't do that uni- (or in this case bi-) lateraly
(read: outside the EU parliament and / or comission). Also, many people
here predict that the EU is doomed. It's growing too big and the larger
members are loosing control. Rest assured that the second Germany (and /
or France) notices that it's interests are better served (& pursued)
outside the EU, it will get out.

> >> -- actions to
> >> reduce the threat of global terrorism. Where is the hypocrisy?
> >
> >Like I told you oh-so-many-times: first US is trying to convince the
UN
> >to do (or approve) something US wants. Nothing wrong with that.
> >Everybody does (better: would like to do) that. What's wrong is, that
> >later on, when UN doesn't want it, US goes on it's own, _against_
the
> >UN. When UN doesn't dance as US sings, it's suddenly bad bad UN and
US
> >just expands its own jurisdiction over whatever country it feels
like.
> >That's not only hipocritical. It's state terrorism!
> >
>
> The UN is typically corrupt and stupid, and we try to get it to "do
> the right thing". Often it doesn't. That's the way it is. It's a
> crappy organization, but it's the one that exists

The recipe is this:
1. Either _reform_ the organisation, turn it into something managable
(and honourable, if you will) we all can be satisfied with and then work
with(in) it.
2. Or simply get out.