On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 9:57:40 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> For N Korea, the huge neighbor is, of course, Commie China.
>
> Which raises the question: why /hasn't/ Commie China invaded N Korea,
> removed its nukes, and replaced its insane Commie leader with a
> (hopefully) less insane Commie ruler?
>
> Is it perhaps well-aware that a missile that can overfly Japan or
> reach Midway can reach ... Beijing?

No. They have _no_ evidence that Kim Jong-Un is _that_ insane,
although having his uncle who was China's chief advocate killed
no doubt was a bit depressing.

Rather, his insanity is... useful... to the People's Republic of China,
as it puts more pressure on the United States than the PRC would
choose to put directly.

Herman Kahn, in his book "Thinking About the Unthinkable", an
attempt to make the issues raised in his "On Thermonuclear War"
more accessible to the general public, noted that one way to win
at the teenage game of "chicken" is to throw your steering wheel
out the window when the other driver can see you doing it.

_That_ will motivate the other driver to dodge out of the way and
thus resign.

John Savard

On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 10:05:25 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> I'm not sure when or why the Commie term was adopted.

Did you know that "male chauvinist" was Communist jargon?

It was noted in the entry for "White Chauvinist" in a glossary
of Communist language in Herbert Philbrick's "I Led 3 Lives",
and similarly in the glossary in J. Edgar Hoover's "Masters of
Deceit".

Thus, no doubt some American news reporters started using
the Communist term "weapons of mass destruction", leading
to it entering the language.

John Savard

On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 7:01:20 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Which means that they are staffed by people with more experience
> diverting equipment to line their own pockets.

Given that Putin was, no doubt, personally embarassed by the
less-than-sterling performance of his troops in Ukraine, no doubt
there will be a campaign against diversion of equipment.

John Savard

On Monday, 23 May 2022 at 09:38:59 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 10:05:25 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure when or why the Commie term was adopted.
> Did you know that "male chauvinist" was Communist jargon?
>
> It was noted in the entry for "White Chauvinist" in a glossary
> of Communist language in Herbert Philbrick's "I Led 3 Lives",
> and similarly in the glossary in J. Edgar Hoover's "Masters of
> Deceit".
>
> Thus, no doubt some American news reporters started using
> the Communist term "weapons of mass destruction", leading
> to it entering the language.
>
> John Savard

Not everything that is called "Communist", is. In the times
to which you refer, or now.

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 4:42:19 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 7:01:20 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > Which means that they are staffed by people with more experience
> > diverting equipment to line their own pockets.
> Given that Putin was, no doubt, personally embarassed by the
> less-than-sterling performance of his troops in Ukraine, no doubt
> there will be a campaign against diversion of equipment.

I find the assumption that corruption has completely disabled
Russia's strategic forces silly, wrong, and dangerous.

Russia successfully tested an ICBM just last week.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/21/europe/russia-icbm-explainer-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

pt

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:38:13 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Monday, 23 May 2022 at 09:38:59 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 10:05:25 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure when or why the Commie term was adopted.
> > Did you know that "male chauvinist" was Communist jargon?
> >
> > It was noted in the entry for "White Chauvinist" in a glossary
> > of Communist language in Herbert Philbrick's "I Led 3 Lives",
> > and similarly in the glossary in J. Edgar Hoover's "Masters of
> > Deceit".
> >
> > Thus, no doubt some American news reporters started using
> > the Communist term "weapons of mass destruction", leading
> > to it entering the language.

> Not everything that is called "Communist", is. In the times
> to which you refer, or now.

Indeed. I can find references to 'male chauvinists' going back
to the 1930s.

Nicolas Chauvin was said to be a Napoleonic soldier, and the
original Chauvinism was fanatical Bonapartism.

pt

On Mon, 23 May 2022 08:04:32 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 4:42:19 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 7:01:20 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> > Which means that they are staffed by people with more experience
>> > diverting equipment to line their own pockets.
>> Given that Putin was, no doubt, personally embarassed by the
>> less-than-sterling performance of his troops in Ukraine, no doubt
>> there will be a campaign against diversion of equipment.
>
>I find the assumption that corruption has completely disabled
>Russia's strategic forces silly, wrong, and dangerous.
>
>Russia successfully tested an ICBM just last week.
>https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/21/europe/russia-icbm-explainer-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

Yes, they tested a brand new experimental ICBM that has not been
deployed.

When Putin orders a random test of a missile that has been sitting in
a silo since Kruschev and it launches, get back to us.

>
>pt

On 5/21/2022 7:07 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:55:44 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/19/2022 10:55 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2022 7:15 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/2022 11:05 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 16:31:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 17:52:59 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 11:41 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Not that there aren't Americans on the fringe in *both* parties
>>>>>>>>> that seem
>>>>>>>>> to think George Washington was right, and America should stay out
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> business of defending freedom beyond its own borders. One would
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> that the experience of two World Wars and the Cold War would have
>>>>>>>>> shown why this is mistaken... but other inferences can be drawn, I
>>>>>>>>> suppose, from a different viewpoint.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Why Would US Give a War Guarantee — to Finland?”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://buchanan.org/blog/why-would-us-give-a-war-guarantee-to-finland-159385
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War
>>>>>>>> ended, are we still expanding NATO? Russia does not threaten the
>>>>>>>> United
>>>>>>>> States. As for any threat that it poses to its European neighbors,
>>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>>> them deal with it.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And then the Russians start digesting the EU and we're back there but
>>>>>>> without the forward basing and commonality of systems and coordinated
>>>>>>> doctrine that we have now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We already fought WWI and WWII in Europe.  We, the USA, need to sit
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> one out and let those people defend themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> And after Russia controls the entirety of Europe then what?
>>>>
>>>> You do know that the USA is broke, right ?  With the costs of Social
>>>> Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spiraling out of control, there is no
>>>> money to make war with.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, are we talking about the same Russia that is getting its butt
>>>> kicked by Ukraine ?  Would Poland, France, and Germany not push Russia
>>>> off the side of the continent ?
>>>>
>>> Without the US nuclear umbrella?
>>
>> The UK and France have many nuclear weapons including ICBMs in
>> submarines. The UK even has several modified Trident submarines but
>> they use their own boomer sub.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Submarine_Service
>>
>> I am not sure about Germany.
>>
>> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/11/19/nuclear-weapons-debate-in-germany-touches-a-raw-nato-nerve/
>>
>> I doubt Poland has nuclear weapons.
>>
>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10682921/Poland-says-open-putting-nuclear-weapons-soil-leaders-American-troops.html
>>
>> Israel got their nuclear breeder reactors (they have three) from the
>> French. Not sure if they got their nuclear weapons from the French.
>> Israel has six German built Dolphin submarines that carry 12 ??? nuclear
>> ICBMS each.
>
> No, they do not.
>
> The Dolphin has 10 torpedo tubes. It is _speculated_ that there is a
> nuclear-capable cruise missile in the Israeli inventory that can be
> launched from those tubes. The Dolphin has a documented capacity to
> carry 16 tube-launched weapons. To carry 12 missiles it would be left
> with minimal non-nuclear capability.

You are correct, the old Dolphins have six regular torpedo tubes plus
four super sized torpedo tubes. And the new Dolphins have 4 or or 6
vertical launch tubes.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/01/israels-submarine-secret-new-dolphin-class-boat-could-have-vls/

Lynn

On 5/21/2022 12:01 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2022 18:02:32 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The Ukranians seem to be doing a pretty good job of it so far.
>>
>> They are doing amazingly well. Much better than I hoped. Of course,
>> the country has been totally trashed which may have been Putin's goal
>> all along.
>>
>> Of course, every one has been dumping smart weapons on the Ukrainians.
>> My former USMC son loved the fire and forget weapons. The TOW ???
>> missile with the half mile of wire on a spool was scary to him as your
>> Humvee had to remain perfectly still while it was traveling to the
>> target. That made you a target.
>>
> Yes indeed though at the cost of partially disarming NATO till the
> munitions refits come from the factory (more moolah for NATO
> munitions companies - still most in the NATO countries feel it's worth
> it to keep the Ukrainians able to fight).
>
> I agree they've done a good job with what they have.

Yes. And the Russians have been disarmed also. Looks like both side
are running out of ammo / missiles / planes / helicopters / tanks / apvs.

Lynn

On Mon, 23 May 2022 20:50:00 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/21/2022 7:07 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:55:44 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/19/2022 10:55 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/2022 7:15 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> On 5/19/2022 11:05 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 16:31:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022 17:52:59 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2022 11:41 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Not that there aren't Americans on the fringe in *both* parties
>>>>>>>>>> that seem
>>>>>>>>>> to think George Washington was right, and America should stay out
>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> business of defending freedom beyond its own borders. One would
>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>> that the experience of two World Wars and the Cold War would have
>>>>>>>>>> shown why this is mistaken... but other inferences can be drawn, I
>>>>>>>>>> suppose, from a different viewpoint.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “Why Would US Give a War Guarantee — to Finland?”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://buchanan.org/blog/why-would-us-give-a-war-guarantee-to-finland-159385
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “A basic question needs answering: Why, 30 years after the Cold War
>>>>>>>>> ended, are we still expanding NATO? Russia does not threaten the
>>>>>>>>> United
>>>>>>>>> States. As for any threat that it poses to its European neighbors,
>>>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>>>> them deal with it.”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And then the Russians start digesting the EU and we're back there but
>>>>>>>> without the forward basing and commonality of systems and coordinated
>>>>>>>> doctrine that we have now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We already fought WWI and WWII in Europe.  We, the USA, need to sit
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> one out and let those people defend themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And after Russia controls the entirety of Europe then what?
>>>>>
>>>>> You do know that the USA is broke, right ?  With the costs of Social
>>>>> Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spiraling out of control, there is no
>>>>> money to make war with.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, are we talking about the same Russia that is getting its butt
>>>>> kicked by Ukraine ?  Would Poland, France, and Germany not push Russia
>>>>> off the side of the continent ?
>>>>>
>>>> Without the US nuclear umbrella?
>>>
>>> The UK and France have many nuclear weapons including ICBMs in
>>> submarines. The UK even has several modified Trident submarines but
>>> they use their own boomer sub.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy_Submarine_Service
>>>
>>> I am not sure about Germany.
>>>
>>> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/11/19/nuclear-weapons-debate-in-germany-touches-a-raw-nato-nerve/
>>>
>>> I doubt Poland has nuclear weapons.
>>>
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10682921/Poland-says-open-putting-nuclear-weapons-soil-leaders-American-troops.html
>>>
>>> Israel got their nuclear breeder reactors (they have three) from the
>>> French. Not sure if they got their nuclear weapons from the French.
>>> Israel has six German built Dolphin submarines that carry 12 ??? nuclear
>>> ICBMS each.
>>
>> No, they do not.
>>
>> The Dolphin has 10 torpedo tubes. It is _speculated_ that there is a
>> nuclear-capable cruise missile in the Israeli inventory that can be
>> launched from those tubes. The Dolphin has a documented capacity to
>> carry 16 tube-launched weapons. To carry 12 missiles it would be left
>> with minimal non-nuclear capability.
>
>You are correct, the old Dolphins have six regular torpedo tubes plus
>four super sized torpedo tubes. And the new Dolphins have 4 or or 6
>vertical launch tubes.
>
>https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/01/israels-submarine-secret-new-dolphin-class-boat-could-have-vls/

Or none. Some article that says "could have" isn't very strong
evidence. They "could have" warp drive and phasers.

The speculation concerns the third Dolphin II, which is not yet in
service, but which has recognizable differences from the first two.

There is also the coming Dakar class, about which little is known.

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:05:26 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 5/21/2022 12:01 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 May 2022 18:02:32 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> > <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> The Ukranians seem to be doing a pretty good job of it so far.
> >>
> >> They are doing amazingly well. Much better than I hoped. Of course,
> >> the country has been totally trashed which may have been Putin's goal
> >> all along.
> >>
> >> Of course, every one has been dumping smart weapons on the Ukrainians.
> >> My former USMC son loved the fire and forget weapons. The TOW ???
> >> missile with the half mile of wire on a spool was scary to him as your
> >> Humvee had to remain perfectly still while it was traveling to the
> >> target. That made you a target.
> >>
> > Yes indeed though at the cost of partially disarming NATO till the
> > munitions refits come from the factory (more moolah for NATO
> > munitions companies - still most in the NATO countries feel it's worth
> > it to keep the Ukrainians able to fight).
> >
> > I agree they've done a good job with what they have.
>
> Yes. And the Russians have been disarmed also. Looks like both side
> are running out of ammo / missiles / planes / helicopters / tanks / apvs.

The NATO weapons are being used to destroy Russia's war fighting ability .
This is exactly what they are intended for. A Russian tank destroyed on
Ukrainian soil is no longer a threat to NATO countries.

The weapons are being used exactly as intended, so its hard to regard this
as a waste or misuse.

pt

On 5/24/2022 6:12 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:05:26 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 5/21/2022 12:01 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 18:02:32 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The Ukranians seem to be doing a pretty good job of it so far.
>>>>
>>>> They are doing amazingly well. Much better than I hoped. Of course,
>>>> the country has been totally trashed which may have been Putin's goal
>>>> all along.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, every one has been dumping smart weapons on the Ukrainians.
>>>> My former USMC son loved the fire and forget weapons. The TOW ???
>>>> missile with the half mile of wire on a spool was scary to him as your
>>>> Humvee had to remain perfectly still while it was traveling to the
>>>> target. That made you a target.
>>>>
>>> Yes indeed though at the cost of partially disarming NATO till the
>>> munitions refits come from the factory (more moolah for NATO
>>> munitions companies - still most in the NATO countries feel it's worth
>>> it to keep the Ukrainians able to fight).
>>>
>>> I agree they've done a good job with what they have.
>>
>> Yes. And the Russians have been disarmed also. Looks like both side
>> are running out of ammo / missiles / planes / helicopters / tanks / apvs.
>
> The NATO weapons are being used to destroy Russia's war fighting ability .
> This is exactly what they are intended for. A Russian tank destroyed on
> Ukrainian soil is no longer a threat to NATO countries.
>
> The weapons are being used exactly as intended, so its hard to regard this
> as a waste or misuse.
>
Plus there's a good chance the NATO countries can replace their losses
faster than Russia can. ;)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sat, 21 May 2022 21:50:54 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:

>There was the question on whether Iraq had any chemical weapons left.
>Supposedly, they made an effort to destroy their entire inventory (I
>suspect, even so, there were a few shells misplaced during the war with
>Iran and were still sitting in a bunker somewhere in 2003).
>
While not wishing to invoke Godwin or his law can you imagine any WW2
era American or British general 'deciding' Hitler had used up all his
V-1s or V-2s in 1944-45?

I sure can't.

On Tue, 24 May 2022 07:36:19 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/24/2022 6:12 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:05:26 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 5/21/2022 12:01 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 18:02:32 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The Ukranians seem to be doing a pretty good job of it so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are doing amazingly well. Much better than I hoped. Of course,
>>>>> the country has been totally trashed which may have been Putin's goal
>>>>> all along.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, every one has been dumping smart weapons on the Ukrainians.
>>>>> My former USMC son loved the fire and forget weapons. The TOW ???
>>>>> missile with the half mile of wire on a spool was scary to him as your
>>>>> Humvee had to remain perfectly still while it was traveling to the
>>>>> target. That made you a target.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes indeed though at the cost of partially disarming NATO till the
>>>> munitions refits come from the factory (more moolah for NATO
>>>> munitions companies - still most in the NATO countries feel it's worth
>>>> it to keep the Ukrainians able to fight).
>>>>
>>>> I agree they've done a good job with what they have.
>>>
>>> Yes. And the Russians have been disarmed also. Looks like both side
>>> are running out of ammo / missiles / planes / helicopters / tanks / apvs.
>>
>> The NATO weapons are being used to destroy Russia's war fighting ability .
>> This is exactly what they are intended for. A Russian tank destroyed on
>> Ukrainian soil is no longer a threat to NATO countries.
>>
>> The weapons are being used exactly as intended, so its hard to regard this
>> as a waste or misuse.
>>
>Plus there's a good chance the NATO countries can replace their losses
>faster than Russia can. ;)

Has the Ukrainian precondition for peace negotiations moved from
"return to their positions before the current incursion" (that is, a
few months) to "return to their positions before their seizer of the
Crimea" (that is, several years)?

And the Nations imposing sanctions may have something to say about the
Oblast of Kaliningrad. The Baltic, after all, will soon be almost a
NATO lake.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Tue, 24 May 2022 06:12:54 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:05:26 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 5/21/2022 12:01 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> > On Wed, 18 May 2022 18:02:32 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> > <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> The Ukranians seem to be doing a pretty good job of it so far.
>> >>
>> >> They are doing amazingly well. Much better than I hoped. Of course,
>> >> the country has been totally trashed which may have been Putin's goal
>> >> all along.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, every one has been dumping smart weapons on the Ukrainians.
>> >> My former USMC son loved the fire and forget weapons. The TOW ???
>> >> missile with the half mile of wire on a spool was scary to him as your
>> >> Humvee had to remain perfectly still while it was traveling to the
>> >> target. That made you a target.
>> >>
>> > Yes indeed though at the cost of partially disarming NATO till the
>> > munitions refits come from the factory (more moolah for NATO
>> > munitions companies - still most in the NATO countries feel it's worth
>> > it to keep the Ukrainians able to fight).
>> >
>> > I agree they've done a good job with what they have.
>>
>> Yes. And the Russians have been disarmed also. Looks like both side
>> are running out of ammo / missiles / planes / helicopters / tanks / apvs.
>
>The NATO weapons are being used to destroy Russia's war fighting ability .
>This is exactly what they are intended for. A Russian tank destroyed on
>Ukrainian soil is no longer a threat to NATO countries.
>
>The weapons are being used exactly as intended, so its hard to regard this
>as a waste or misuse.

And NATO is most assuredly not "running out of
planes/helicopters/tanks/apvs" given that very few if any of those
have been provided to Ukraine and the ones that have been provided
were Soviet surplus.

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>On Tue, 24 May 2022 06:12:54 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:05:26 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 5/21/2022 12:01 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 18 May 2022 18:02:32 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>> > <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>> The Ukranians seem to be doing a pretty good job of it so far.
>>> >>
>>> >> They are doing amazingly well. Much better than I hoped. Of course,
>>> >> the country has been totally trashed which may have been Putin's goal
>>> >> all along.
>>> >>
>>> >> Of course, every one has been dumping smart weapons on the Ukrainians.
>>> >> My former USMC son loved the fire and forget weapons. The TOW ???
>>> >> missile with the half mile of wire on a spool was scary to him as your
>>> >> Humvee had to remain perfectly still while it was traveling to the
>>> >> target. That made you a target.
>>> >>
>>> > Yes indeed though at the cost of partially disarming NATO till the
>>> > munitions refits come from the factory (more moolah for NATO
>>> > munitions companies - still most in the NATO countries feel it's worth
>>> > it to keep the Ukrainians able to fight).
>>> >
>>> > I agree they've done a good job with what they have.
>>>
>>> Yes. And the Russians have been disarmed also. Looks like both side
>>> are running out of ammo / missiles / planes / helicopters / tanks / apvs.
>>
>>The NATO weapons are being used to destroy Russia's war fighting ability .
>>This is exactly what they are intended for. A Russian tank destroyed on
>>Ukrainian soil is no longer a threat to NATO countries.
>>
>>The weapons are being used exactly as intended, so its hard to regard this
>>as a waste or misuse.
>
>And NATO is most assuredly not "running out of
>planes/helicopters/tanks/apvs" given that very few if any of those
>have been provided to Ukraine and the ones that have been provided
>were Soviet surplus.

Although the US will likely stop providing Javelins, after giving a third
of the stocks to Ukraine.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-united-states-run-out-javelins-russia-runs-out-tanks

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 3:51:19 AM UTC-4, Charles Packer wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2022 21:41:22 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> [stuff]
>
>
> Fun fact (courtesy of HowManyOfMe.com): There are less than 1700
> Americans named Payton. Racist, schmacist. If I had had the name
> Payton inflicted on me by parents named Pam and Paul, I'd
> eventually...well, I don't know what I'd do.

Of course, if you were named Peyton you might wind up
winning 2 Super Bowls.

--
Kevin R

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 5:16:58 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:

[snip]

> I think that GW Bush used NATO for cover for the invasion of Iraq in
> payment for Saddam Hussein trying to kill his father. Without NATO he
> probably would not have done it, just continued shooting down their
> planes and bombing their anti-aircraft sites using HARMs.
>

Iraq II, Electric Boogaloo was not an Article 5 Action.

> I have no idea why GWB moved troops into Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda was based there, and there were hopes of capturing
or killing bin Laden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora

> That was NATO also.

That was Article 5 action.
> Moving troops in made no sense when we already had bombed
> everything in sight back to the stone age.
>

After Tora Bora, if ObL had ever been there, he fled to his bolt
hole(s) in Pakistan.

--
Kevin R

On 2022-05-23 2:38 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 10:05:25 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure when or why the Commie term was adopted.
>
> Did you know that "male chauvinist" was Communist jargon?
>
> It was noted in the entry for "White Chauvinist" in a glossary
> of Communist language in Herbert Philbrick's "I Led 3 Lives",

The Communist Party in the United States did use the term "white
chauvinist" but not male chauvinist.

> and similarly in the glossary in J. Edgar Hoover's "Masters of
> Deceit".
>
> Thus, no doubt some American news reporters started using
> the Communist term "weapons of mass destruction", leading
> to it entering the language.

It was less boring.

On Tue, 24 May 2022 18:44:24 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>On Tue, 24 May 2022 06:12:54 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:05:26 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 5/21/2022 12:01 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> > On Wed, 18 May 2022 18:02:32 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>> > <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>> The Ukranians seem to be doing a pretty good job of it so far.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> They are doing amazingly well. Much better than I hoped. Of course,
>>>> >> the country has been totally trashed which may have been Putin's goal
>>>> >> all along.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Of course, every one has been dumping smart weapons on the Ukrainians.
>>>> >> My former USMC son loved the fire and forget weapons. The TOW ???
>>>> >> missile with the half mile of wire on a spool was scary to him as your
>>>> >> Humvee had to remain perfectly still while it was traveling to the
>>>> >> target. That made you a target.
>>>> >>
>>>> > Yes indeed though at the cost of partially disarming NATO till the
>>>> > munitions refits come from the factory (more moolah for NATO
>>>> > munitions companies - still most in the NATO countries feel it's worth
>>>> > it to keep the Ukrainians able to fight).
>>>> >
>>>> > I agree they've done a good job with what they have.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. And the Russians have been disarmed also. Looks like both side
>>>> are running out of ammo / missiles / planes / helicopters / tanks / apvs.
>>>
>>>The NATO weapons are being used to destroy Russia's war fighting ability .
>>>This is exactly what they are intended for. A Russian tank destroyed on
>>>Ukrainian soil is no longer a threat to NATO countries.
>>>
>>>The weapons are being used exactly as intended, so its hard to regard this
>>>as a waste or misuse.
>>
>>And NATO is most assuredly not "running out of
>>planes/helicopters/tanks/apvs" given that very few if any of those
>>have been provided to Ukraine and the ones that have been provided
>>were Soviet surplus.
>
>Although the US will likely stop providing Javelins, after giving a third
>of the stocks to Ukraine.
>
>https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-united-states-run-out-javelins-russia-runs-out-tanks

We'll want to/have to replace them anyway (unless there is a newer
replacement), so we might as well start now and keep Ukraine in the
tank-killing business.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 2022-05-22 8:03 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-05-20 1:54 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-20 12:01 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-20, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:24 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 3:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is a very expansive answer. Why not ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let's send your kids then. Mine went to Iraq already. Twice. He was
>>>>>>>>> smart enough to refuse to volunteer to go to Afghanistan after that. He
>>>>>>>>> and his First Sergeant had a four hour talk about his lack of
>>>>>>>>> volunteering skills during that talk.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lynn, Iraq had nothing to do with NATO. That was the US GOP that invaded IRAQ
>>>>>>>> specifically Dick and George after lying through their teeth about the
>>>>>>>> causes belli.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do realize that Bill Clinton supported the war declaration and has
>>>>>>> stated that Bush went to war out of a genuine belief that large quantities
>>>>>>> of weapons of mass destruction remain unaccounted for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Clinton wasn't president and didn't make any of the decisions leading
>>>>>> to the ill-considered and arguably illegal incursions into either Iraq
>>>>>> or Afghanistan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What he said, or not, is an irrelevant diversion. Bush lied, and he
>>>>>> knew it was a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see. So the opinion of an ex-President who had access to the classified
>>>>> information about WMDs and Iraq for almost a decade is irrelevant compared
>>>>> to the opinion of a random person on the internet. Silly me...
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but he had access to what the administration at that time wanted
>>>> to let him know.
>>>
>>> I didn't say Clinton had access in 2002. My "almost a decade" was what
>>> Hussein did (rather, what the intelligence agencies thought he did!)
>>> with WMDs post Gulf War. That was just short of 10 years when Bush
>>> took over. Note that Clinton launched a massive bombing campaign in 1998
>>> because of WMDs (as well as bombing other places in Iraq at least
>>> once a week afterwards while enforcing the no-fly rules.)
>>
>> Ummmmm.... ...no.
>>
>> 1. The bombing campaign was not by any stretch of the imagination
>> "massive". It was conducted over just 4 days.
>
> You do have a pretty unique idea of word definitions. I can guarantee
> you that even now if Russia suddenly attacked 97 separate sites in
> Ukraine with over 1000 bombs/missiles over a 4 day period, it would be called
> massive.
>
>> 2. The campaign took place not because there was evidence that Iraq had
>> WMDs, but rather because Iraq was refusing to allow access by UN
>> inspection teams into certain facilities.
>
> All I said was because of WMD, which you agree with here since the
> UN teams were looking for WMD.
>
>> 3. Even that was a bit of a sham as several details of the supposed
>> rationale for the campaign were false. The inspectors weren't kicked out
>> by Iraq for instance: the US embassy in Iraq suggested they pull out
>> because of forthcoming US and British airstrikes. Kind of puts the cart
>> before the horse, don't you think.
> So?
>
>> 4. According to some, the operation was mostly an attempt to destablise
>> the Iraqi regime and degrade Iraq's ability to defend itself against
>> anyone in a future conventional war.
>>
>> 'Former U.S. Army intelligence analyst William Arkin contended in his
>> January 1999 column in The Washington Post that the operation had less
>> to do with WMD and more to do with destabilizing the Iraqi government.
>
> So? It still was because of WMD (along with other reasons).
>
>> ...
>>
>> "Only 13 targets [out of 100] on the list are facilities associated with
>> chemical and biological weapons or ballistic missiles,"'
>>
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_bombing_of_Iraq>
>>
>>
>> One more tidbit from there:
>>
>> 'Dr. Brian Jones was the top intelligence analyst on chemical,
>> biological and nuclear weapons at the Ministry of Defence.[25] He told
>> BBC Panorama in 2004 that Defence Intelligence Staff in Whitehall did
>> not have a high degree of confidence any of the facilities identified,
>> targeted and bombed in Operation Desert Fox were active in producing
>> weapons of mass destruction.'
>>
>> So your argument that Clinton had knowledge of the situation is correct
>> in general...
>>
>> ...but the reality is that what he would have heard is almost the exact
>> opposite of what you WANT him to have supposedly known.
>
> What a silly statement (by you, not Jones). Of course they would not
> have a high degree of confidence of active WMD! If they had solid
> evidence, they would be directly deposing Hussein rather then just
> pressuring him (and destroying the evidence). As you said, they
> strongly wanted him gone.
>
> And all of your inaccurate quibbles still don't offer any evidence
> against Clinton believing that Iraq had WMDs.

You presented those strikes as evidence that the US administration of
the day believed that Iraq had WMDs...

....and I showed a lot of other interpretations...

On 2022-05-25, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-05-22 8:03 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-20 1:54 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-20 12:01 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-20, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:24 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 3:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is a very expansive answer. Why not ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's send your kids then. Mine went to Iraq already. Twice. He was
>>>>>>>>>> smart enough to refuse to volunteer to go to Afghanistan after that. He
>>>>>>>>>> and his First Sergeant had a four hour talk about his lack of
>>>>>>>>>> volunteering skills during that talk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lynn, Iraq had nothing to do with NATO. That was the US GOP that invaded IRAQ
>>>>>>>>> specifically Dick and George after lying through their teeth about the
>>>>>>>>> causes belli.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You do realize that Bill Clinton supported the war declaration and has
>>>>>>>> stated that Bush went to war out of a genuine belief that large quantities
>>>>>>>> of weapons of mass destruction remain unaccounted for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill Clinton wasn't president and didn't make any of the decisions leading
>>>>>>> to the ill-considered and arguably illegal incursions into either Iraq
>>>>>>> or Afghanistan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What he said, or not, is an irrelevant diversion. Bush lied, and he
>>>>>>> knew it was a lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see. So the opinion of an ex-President who had access to the classified
>>>>>> information about WMDs and Iraq for almost a decade is irrelevant compared
>>>>>> to the opinion of a random person on the internet. Silly me...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but he had access to what the administration at that time wanted
>>>>> to let him know.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say Clinton had access in 2002. My "almost a decade" was what
>>>> Hussein did (rather, what the intelligence agencies thought he did!)
>>>> with WMDs post Gulf War. That was just short of 10 years when Bush
>>>> took over. Note that Clinton launched a massive bombing campaign in 1998
>>>> because of WMDs (as well as bombing other places in Iraq at least
>>>> once a week afterwards while enforcing the no-fly rules.)
>>>
>>> Ummmmm.... ...no.
>>>
>>> 1. The bombing campaign was not by any stretch of the imagination
>>> "massive". It was conducted over just 4 days.
>>
>> You do have a pretty unique idea of word definitions. I can guarantee
>> you that even now if Russia suddenly attacked 97 separate sites in
>> Ukraine with over 1000 bombs/missiles over a 4 day period, it would be called
>> massive.
>>
>>> 2. The campaign took place not because there was evidence that Iraq had
>>> WMDs, but rather because Iraq was refusing to allow access by UN
>>> inspection teams into certain facilities.
>>
>> All I said was because of WMD, which you agree with here since the
>> UN teams were looking for WMD.
>>
>>> 3. Even that was a bit of a sham as several details of the supposed
>>> rationale for the campaign were false. The inspectors weren't kicked out
>>> by Iraq for instance: the US embassy in Iraq suggested they pull out
>>> because of forthcoming US and British airstrikes. Kind of puts the cart
>>> before the horse, don't you think.
>> So?
>>
>>> 4. According to some, the operation was mostly an attempt to destablise
>>> the Iraqi regime and degrade Iraq's ability to defend itself against
>>> anyone in a future conventional war.
>>>
>>> 'Former U.S. Army intelligence analyst William Arkin contended in his
>>> January 1999 column in The Washington Post that the operation had less
>>> to do with WMD and more to do with destabilizing the Iraqi government.
>>
>> So? It still was because of WMD (along with other reasons).
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> "Only 13 targets [out of 100] on the list are facilities associated with
>>> chemical and biological weapons or ballistic missiles,"'
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_bombing_of_Iraq>
>>>
>>>
>>> One more tidbit from there:
>>>
>>> 'Dr. Brian Jones was the top intelligence analyst on chemical,
>>> biological and nuclear weapons at the Ministry of Defence.[25] He told
>>> BBC Panorama in 2004 that Defence Intelligence Staff in Whitehall did
>>> not have a high degree of confidence any of the facilities identified,
>>> targeted and bombed in Operation Desert Fox were active in producing
>>> weapons of mass destruction.'
>>>
>>> So your argument that Clinton had knowledge of the situation is correct
>>> in general...
>>>
>>> ...but the reality is that what he would have heard is almost the exact
>>> opposite of what you WANT him to have supposedly known.
>>
>> What a silly statement (by you, not Jones). Of course they would not
>> have a high degree of confidence of active WMD! If they had solid
>> evidence, they would be directly deposing Hussein rather then just
>> pressuring him (and destroying the evidence). As you said, they
>> strongly wanted him gone.
>>
>> And all of your inaccurate quibbles still don't offer any evidence
>> against Clinton believing that Iraq had WMDs.
>
> You presented those strikes as evidence that the US administration of
> the day believed that Iraq had WMDs...

I agree with that. And you haven't denied my claims at all.

> ...and I showed a lot of other interpretations...

You missed others that are equally likely. For instance, all our
recent memories could be due to a simulation, and Iraq never invaded Kuwait.

Just saying someone has not 100% proved their argument is to say nothing -
100% proof in arguments about reality doesn't exist.

If you are going to argue, then have the courage to take a position.
State what you think and why you believe it. You have not done so here.

Chris

On 2022-05-25 7:19 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2022-05-25, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-05-22 8:03 a.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-20 1:54 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-05-20, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-05-20 12:01 p.m., Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-05-20, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-05-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 6:24 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2022 3:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is time for the USA to leave NATO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is a very expansive answer. Why not ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let's send your kids then. Mine went to Iraq already. Twice. He was
>>>>>>>>>>> smart enough to refuse to volunteer to go to Afghanistan after that. He
>>>>>>>>>>> and his First Sergeant had a four hour talk about his lack of
>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering skills during that talk.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lynn, Iraq had nothing to do with NATO. That was the US GOP that invaded IRAQ
>>>>>>>>>> specifically Dick and George after lying through their teeth about the
>>>>>>>>>> causes belli.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You do realize that Bill Clinton supported the war declaration and has
>>>>>>>>> stated that Bush went to war out of a genuine belief that large quantities
>>>>>>>>> of weapons of mass destruction remain unaccounted for.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Clinton wasn't president and didn't make any of the decisions leading
>>>>>>>> to the ill-considered and arguably illegal incursions into either Iraq
>>>>>>>> or Afghanistan.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What he said, or not, is an irrelevant diversion. Bush lied, and he
>>>>>>>> knew it was a lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see. So the opinion of an ex-President who had access to the classified
>>>>>>> information about WMDs and Iraq for almost a decade is irrelevant compared
>>>>>>> to the opinion of a random person on the internet. Silly me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but he had access to what the administration at that time wanted
>>>>>> to let him know.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't say Clinton had access in 2002. My "almost a decade" was what
>>>>> Hussein did (rather, what the intelligence agencies thought he did!)
>>>>> with WMDs post Gulf War. That was just short of 10 years when Bush
>>>>> took over. Note that Clinton launched a massive bombing campaign in 1998
>>>>> because of WMDs (as well as bombing other places in Iraq at least
>>>>> once a week afterwards while enforcing the no-fly rules.)
>>>>
>>>> Ummmmm.... ...no.
>>>>
>>>> 1. The bombing campaign was not by any stretch of the imagination
>>>> "massive". It was conducted over just 4 days.
>>>
>>> You do have a pretty unique idea of word definitions. I can guarantee
>>> you that even now if Russia suddenly attacked 97 separate sites in
>>> Ukraine with over 1000 bombs/missiles over a 4 day period, it would be called
>>> massive.
>>>
>>>> 2. The campaign took place not because there was evidence that Iraq had
>>>> WMDs, but rather because Iraq was refusing to allow access by UN
>>>> inspection teams into certain facilities.
>>>
>>> All I said was because of WMD, which you agree with here since the
>>> UN teams were looking for WMD.
>>>
>>>> 3. Even that was a bit of a sham as several details of the supposed
>>>> rationale for the campaign were false. The inspectors weren't kicked out
>>>> by Iraq for instance: the US embassy in Iraq suggested they pull out
>>>> because of forthcoming US and British airstrikes. Kind of puts the cart
>>>> before the horse, don't you think.
>>> So?
>>>
>>>> 4. According to some, the operation was mostly an attempt to destablise
>>>> the Iraqi regime and degrade Iraq's ability to defend itself against
>>>> anyone in a future conventional war.
>>>>
>>>> 'Former U.S. Army intelligence analyst William Arkin contended in his
>>>> January 1999 column in The Washington Post that the operation had less
>>>> to do with WMD and more to do with destabilizing the Iraqi government.
>>>
>>> So? It still was because of WMD (along with other reasons).
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Only 13 targets [out of 100] on the list are facilities associated with
>>>> chemical and biological weapons or ballistic missiles,"'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_bombing_of_Iraq>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One more tidbit from there:
>>>>
>>>> 'Dr. Brian Jones was the top intelligence analyst on chemical,
>>>> biological and nuclear weapons at the Ministry of Defence.[25] He told
>>>> BBC Panorama in 2004 that Defence Intelligence Staff in Whitehall did
>>>> not have a high degree of confidence any of the facilities identified,
>>>> targeted and bombed in Operation Desert Fox were active in producing
>>>> weapons of mass destruction.'
>>>>
>>>> So your argument that Clinton had knowledge of the situation is correct
>>>> in general...
>>>>
>>>> ...but the reality is that what he would have heard is almost the exact
>>>> opposite of what you WANT him to have supposedly known.
>>>
>>> What a silly statement (by you, not Jones). Of course they would not
>>> have a high degree of confidence of active WMD! If they had solid
>>> evidence, they would be directly deposing Hussein rather then just
>>> pressuring him (and destroying the evidence). As you said, they
>>> strongly wanted him gone.
>>>
>>> And all of your inaccurate quibbles still don't offer any evidence
>>> against Clinton believing that Iraq had WMDs.
>>
>> You presented those strikes as evidence that the US administration of
>> the day believed that Iraq had WMDs...
>
> I agree with that. And you haven't denied my claims at all.
>
>> ...and I showed a lot of other interpretations...
>
> You missed others that are equally likely. For instance, all our
> recent memories could be due to a simulation, and Iraq never invaded Kuwait.

Yeah... ...you're making a serious rebuttal....

(How do I sneer in text?)

>
> Just saying someone has not 100% proved their argument is to say nothing -
> 100% proof in arguments about reality doesn't exist.

Your "proof" isn't prove.

On the contrary, it appears that the existence of WMDs was hardly a
factor at all.

>
> If you are going to argue, then have the courage to take a position.
> State what you think and why you believe it. You have not done so here.

I believe that the Clinton administration acted in support of a UN
initiative to punish Iraq and reduce their ability to defend themselves
in any future military action.

You have presented zero evidence that they acted due to a belief that
Iraq actually had an WMDs when they initiated the strike.

Literally none.

A couple of points: there's no such thing as "the UN",
just a lot of countries that either reach agreement about
things or don't, and especially there's no such thing as
"a UN initiative". Who it is who is doing something,
isn't "the UN".

On 5/26/2022 2:38 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> A couple of points: there's no such thing as "the UN",
> just a lot of countries that either reach agreement about
> things or don't, and especially there's no such thing as
> "a UN initiative". Who it is who is doing something,
> isn't "the UN".

You should know better than to bring facts and reality into a political
policy discussion!

:P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.