Dubya, Tough Commander or incompetent dolt who leads US into disaster?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, [b]this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12." Asked and answered. The matter was returned to the Council for discussion (see the time line).

Q.E.D. :D NOT!

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
I have answered the question.
...

You didn't.

Why did you copy reviews that were giving the impression that you read the books?

Dishonesty, RF.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12." Asked and answered. The matter was returned to the council for discussion.

13 Nov - Iraq accepts Security Council resolution 1441 and informs the Secretary General of compliance.
18 Nov - Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei arrive in Baghdad with advance team to set up for inspections
27 Nov - Formal inspections begin, almost a month before 45-day deadline for resumption of inspections set forth in resolution 1441.
7 Dec - Iraq provides UN weapons inspectors with 12,000-page declaration of the regimes weapons of mass destruction programmes according to the requirements of UN Security Council resolution 1441. Iraq states that there are no weapons of mass destruction within its borders.
19 Dec - UNMOVIC Chairman Hans Blix reports to the Security Council with observations on the 12,000 page Iraqi declaration.

2003

27 Jan - Blix and ElBaradei report to Security Council 60 days after inspections resumed in Iraq. They both express the need for more time.
28 Jan - Bush warns in State of the Union address: If Saddam Hussein does not cooperate and disarm, the US will lead a coalition force to disarm him.
5 Feb - Secretary of State Colin Powell presents US intelligence on Iraqi activities to Security Council.
14 Feb - Chief U.N. arms inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei report to the Security Council that to date they have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but banned weapons remain unaccounted for. They stress the need for "active" iraqi cooperation to solve these outstanding issues.
An open debate ensues between Security Council members. Permanent
members France, Russia and China support continued and enhanced inspections
in opposition to the U.S. / U.K. call for force.


15 Feb - Anti war demonstrations attract hundreds of thousands of protestors in cities across the globe, including Amsterdam, Berlin, Cairo, Lahore, London, Madrid, Mexico City, Montreal, Moscow, New York, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, Sydney.
18 Feb - Security Council convenes open meeting, at request of Non-Aligned Movement, to hear from non-council members on how to disarm Iraq. The majority of non-member states support peaceful disarmament.
24 Feb - Security Council receives two plans on how to disarm Iraq. A draft resolution of U.S., U.K.and Spain finds that Iraq has failed to comply with Resolution 1441 - leading the way to military action - while a "memorandum" from France, Germany and Russia calls for continued inspections.
11-12 March - Security Council holds open debate at the request of the Non-Aligned movement and hears statements from 51 member states and two regional organisations. Most maintain that war is not inevitable and force should be used only as a last resort
12 March - United Kingdom tables a ''non-paper'', which provides more time for arms inspections and sets forth six key tests for Iraqi disarmament.
16 March - Summit meeting of the leaders from the United Kingdom, Spain, United States and Portugal in the Azores.
17 March - Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the United Kingdom Ambassador to the United Nations emerges from closed consultations of the Security Council to announce that the diplomatic process is over and that there will be no vote on the draft resolution co-sponsored by the U.S., U.K., and Spain.
- Kofi Annan informs the Security Council of his decision to withdraw all U.N. staff from Iraq after receiving phone calls from U.S. officials advising him to do so. All mandates for U.N. business in Iraq are suspended.
- George Bush gives Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or risk war.

19 March - U.S.-led forces launch strikes on Iraq at approximately 0230 GMT.

Facts:

Council passes 1441 and Iraq agrees.


Iraq is found in material breach


Council meets and DISCUSES the matter.


The U.S. invades Iraq.

I'll post the timeline again for you.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

You didn't.

Why did you copy reviews that were giving the impression that you read the books?

Dishonesty, RF. You are begging the question. Any such impression was not intentional. I made a mistake but it does not prove that I intended to be decitful. If I had meant that I wouldn't have quoted it.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Asked and answered. The matter was returned to the Council for discussion (see the time line).

Q.E.D. :D NOT!
The matter was not returned to the Council for discussion.

Powell lied in February 2003 in U.N. about returning the matter to the Council for discussion when he pretended that he knows WMDs in Iraq, there was no discussion and Bush went to war against U.N..

[RandFan]

I've had enough. I have answered ALL of your questions over and over and backed up my claims and you simply lie and obfuscate and refuse to admit when you are wrong.

Good bye.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

The matter was not returned to the Council for discussion.

Powell lied in February 2003 in U.N. about returning the matter to the Council for discussion when he pretended that he knows WMDs in Iraq, there was no discussion and Bush went to war against U.N.. (see the time line above) IT WAS RETURNED FOR DISCUSSION.

That is enough I don't have to argue with someon who refuses to answer questions and admit when he is wrong.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
I made a mistake but...
...

You didn't make a mistake, RF, you were caught stealing credit for reading what you didn't read.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
I have answered the question. It is you that have refused to answer my questions.

I quoted it so that others would know that it WASN'T mine.

"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."

The US didn't want to have to go through with this, it saw the need for futher meetings as delaying it's timeline and pushing up costs. Now, if it hadn't already committed itself to an invasion, this wouldn't have been a problem.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
(see the time line above) IT WAS RETURNED FOR DISCUSSION.
...

No, it wasn't returned for discussion, it was returned for a beginning of discussion, the discussion was cut short by U.S. going alone to war so the discussion was not achieved.

What about Halliburton and Chevron-Texaco in oil, RF?

[Ion]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

...
Now, if it hadn't already committed itself to an invasion, this wouldn't have been a problem.
It is documented in this forum that in the spring of 2001, Cheney drew maps of Iraq's oil, and my first two links in this thread show U.S.' drive for Iraq's oil.

U.S. was indeed committed to invading Iraq since the spring of 2001, and not achieving in the spring of 2003 the full discussion of 1441 in U.N. it's a U.S. breach.

"...for discussions..."

in

"...As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12...."

was a promise not kept by Bush.

For example I remember that Bush discussing the findings of U.N. inspectors El Baradei and Hans Blix was disregarded by Bush in spite of his promise to discuss, because Bush was committed to war in Iraq.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
You didn't make a mistake, RF, you were caught stealing credit for reading what you didn't read. No, I quoted something without given due credit. If I had wanted to steal I wouldn't have quoted it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

No, it wasn't returned for discussion, it was returned for a beginning of discussion, the discussion was cut short by U.S. going alone to war so the discussion was not achieved. This is a claim. There WAS a discussion (see timeline).

What about Halliburton and Chevron-Texaco in oil, RF? What about it?

Will you answer the questions?

Will you admit that you were wrong about Iraq being in material breach?

Why did I QUOTE material that I was going to steal?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
For example I remember that Bush discussing the findings of U.N. inspectors El Baradei and Hans Blix was disregarded by Bush in spite of his promise to discuss, because Bush was committed to war in Iraq. This is just your opinion. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't give you the right to say there was no discussion. (see the timeline)

When are you going to answer the questions?

When will you be man enough to admit that you were wrong about Iraq being in Material Breach?

Why would I quote something if I was going to claim it was my own?

I'm waiting. ??????

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The US didn't want to have to go through with this, it saw the need for futher meetings as delaying it's timeline and pushing up costs. Now, if it hadn't already committed itself to an invasion, this wouldn't have been a problem. Yeah but it did didn't it?

11-12 March - Security Council holds open debate at the request of the Non-Aligned movement and hears statements from 51 member states and two regional organisations. Most maintain that war is not inevitable and force should be used only as a last resort.There was no trigger. There was a discussion.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yeah but it did didn't it?

There was no trigger. There was a discussion.
There was no discussion that was completed:

.) U.N. inspectors El Baradei and Hans Blix were demeaned by Bush without discussion;

.) "...Most maintain that war is not inevitable and force should be used only as last resort..." in your own link, was not addressed by Bush.

Bush skipped discussions and rushed almost alone to do his war.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
What about it?
...

Chevron-Texaco's profits on the back of refined oil from Iraq are 33% higher now than last year.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
There was no discussion that was completed. Not the issue is it?

U.N. inspectors El Baradei and Hans Blix were demeaned by Bush without discussion, and Bush rushed to war.

"...Most maintain that war is not inevitable and force should be used only as last resort..." in your own link, was not addressed by Bush:

Bush went almost alone to do his war. Opinion, Bush made his case to the U.N. BEFORE the war. Powell made the case to the U.N. BEFORE the war. Just because Blix et al didn't like the response doesn't mean that there wasn't a discussion.

BTW, when are you going to answer the questions?

When will you admit that you were wrong about Iraq being in material breach?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Not the issue is it?
...

Yes that's the issue:

"...for discussions..." in the U.S. promise was not done, Bush broke the promise of discussions and rushed to war.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Chevron-Texaco's profits on the back of refined oil from Iraq are 33% higher now than last year. Citation please?

Assuming that is true so what?

Have you noticed that gas prices are sky high?

Do you have any evidence that any profits are due in part to the war in Iraq?

Why do you say that quoting someone is the same as stealing? Isn't that the whole purpose behind quotes?

Do you know what a quote is?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Yes that's the issue:

"...for discussions..." in the U.S. promise was not done, Bush broke the promise of discussions and rushed to war. No, he met before the U.N. Just saying there was no discussion does not make you right.

You just don't like the outcome.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Citation please?

Assuming that is true so what?
...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57776-2004Apr30.html

Also:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57776-2004Apr30.html

that I posted before and you haven't learned yet, cheat, starts with:

"After the Iraq war in 2003, United States and United Kingdom oil giants are certain to gain privileged access to Iraq's oil resources..."

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, he met before the U.N. Just saying there was no discussion does not make you right.
...

He met before the U.N.

Just saying there was discussion does not make you right:

if there was discussion then how come U.N. doesn't approve the war?

[CapelDodger]

from RandFan (way, way back):
There is no direct evidence that George Bush knew that there was no WMD and invaded anyway.
But there is evidence that he was persuaded by a very bad case, which is evidence for the "stupid" conclusion. My votes for "stupid".
:jaw:

There's nothing in the record of this administration that contradicts the idea that it came into office with an inflexible set of objectives forged during the 90's and based on the world of 1992. That's by no means proof but I can't see this idea losing marks in a "Modern US History" paper of 2050. If real conditions don't fit their world-view they must be fobbed-off, denied or covered-up. Al-Qaeda were an unignorable diversion, but that problem was quickly folded into one they liked (Iraq). I recall Rumsfeldt doing it the day after 9/11.

from a_unique_person:
Iraq was hardly paradise on earth, but compared to what it is now, and the loss of faith with the torture pictures now published, then you have to wonder if the cure isn't worse than the disease.
Any judgement on that will have to await the outcome. The situation is, to say the least, in flux. US policy is changing - slowly and reluctantly - as reality wins out over perception. Iraqis are taking matters more into their own hands in Falujah and against al-Sadr. The US response to this (while inevitably surly) is what matters over the next few years. If Iraq ends up with a New Ba'ath regime we'll know it all went wrong, but it might not. The Iraqis I know are all fine people (and like a beer at the weekend).
The worlds best strikefighter is being developed (for god knows how many billions, and god knows how many years late it will be) to take on what?
The customers, of course. Pick up the gun ... Also countries that might be gaining the capability of making them. Or buying them. Or stealing them. Or being given them by somebody else. They'll all want them, after all. Come on - you'd like one, wouldn't you? I would. Talk about a babe-magnet.

[CapelDodger]

from Ziggurat:
Neither was banning the Hijab a smart way to counteract the threat of internal Islamists - it's their new Maginot line, but it will avail then naught.
The Hijab was banned on a matter of principle, the principle of a secular state (something the US seems to have forgotten about). (Nice touch bringing in the Maginot Line - so much more evocative than Verdun. Never miss a chance for a slur on the cheese-eaters, eh?)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
"After the Iraq war in 2003, United States and United Kingdom oil giants are certain to gain privileged access to Iraq's oil resources..." "...are certain..." In other words, you are speculating. And assuming that this is true how does it prove your thesis?

Please get back to me when you have evidence.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

He met before the U.N.

Just saying there was discussion does not make you right:

if there was discussion then how come U.N. doesn't approve the war? I hate to be the one to break the news to you but discussion and approval are two different things.

Ion, we are simply going to have to disagree.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
But there is evidence that he was persuaded by a very bad case, which is evidence for the "stupid" conclusion. Are you talking hind sight? Did you read the 12 point argument?

There's nothing in the record of this administration that contradicts the idea that it came into office with an inflexible set of objectives forged during the 90's and based on the world of 1992. That's by no means proof but I can't see this idea losing marks in a "Modern US History" paper of 2050. If real conditions don't fit their world-view they must be fobbed-off, denied or covered-up. Al-Qaeda were an unignorable diversion, but that problem was quickly folded into one they liked (Iraq). I recall Rumsfeldt doing it the day after 9/11. And the mob killed JFK would lose about as many marks.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Are you talking hind sight? Did you read the 12 point argument?



the old '12 point' 'ten point' 'five point' list appears to be popular in the US. It could have been 100 points, Dubya was committed to the invasion right from the start. It was a one point argument.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
"...are certain..." In other words, you are speculating. And assuming that this is true how does it prove your thesis?

Please get back to me when you have evidence.
Then you haven't read the article and its data.

You are already behind in homework, but I will give you below even more homework to do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18841-2002Sep14&notFound=true
"...Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia..."

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,880437,00.html
"...The relationship between the oil industry and the US administration, from the president, George Bush, downwards, is the closest in American history..."
which came in January 2003 under the title 'U.S. begins secret talks to secure Iraq's oilfields', and showed how U.S. oil companies were pushing for the war in Iraq and subsequent access to the second largest oil resource in the world.

In other words, the U.S. foreign policy is being shaped under Bush not for human rights but for oil companies.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
I hate to be the one to break the news to you but discussion and approval are two different things.

Ion, we are simply going to have to disagree.
Discussion and approval go hand in hand at the diplomatic level, unless one (here Bush) doesn't want to discuss and wants to war.

[Ion]

This:
Originally posted by a_unique_person

...
...Dubya was committed to the invasion right from the start. It was a one point argument.
is correct.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
the old '12 point' 'ten point' 'five point' list appears to be popular in the US. It could have been 100 points, Dubya was committed to the invasion right from the start. It was a one point argument. I'll take that as a no and that you don't really care about the evidence. Your mind is made up. Ok, fine.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18841-2002Sep14&notFound=true
"...Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia..." Duh, they are oil compaines. What do you expect them to do? This proves nothing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,880437,00.html
"...The relationship between the oil industry and the US administration, from the president, George Bush, downwards, is the closest in American history..."
which came in January 2003 under the title 'U.S. begins secret talks to secure Iraq's oilfields', and showed how U.S. oil companies were pushing for the war in Iraq and subsequent access to the second largest oil resource in the world. Propagands, can you PROVE your claim beyond conspiracy theory?

In other words, the U.S. foreign policy is being shaped under Bush not for human rights but for oil companies. Do you know what critical thinking is? Do always just accept left-wing propoganda?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Discussion and approval go hand in hand at the diplomatic level, unless one (here Bush) doesn't want to discuss and wants to war. Says who?

Are you saying the two CAN'T be mutually exclusive?

Bush was convinced that war was appropriate, what good was further discussion.

Look, the resolution warned of consequences.

By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations. What do you think serious consequences is? More and more discussion?

It was 12 YEARS, Saddam's modus had been established. [list=1] Saddam was warned.

Saddam was in breach.

There was a discussion.[/list=1] End of story.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
This is correct. Is opinion controverted by evidence. But what would you care about that? You and AUP only see what you want to see.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'll take that as a no and that you don't really care about the evidence. Your mind is made up. Ok, fine.

No, I am pointing out to you that Dubya and friends had made up their minds and didn't care about the evidence. Any evidence they found was 'post hoc'.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, I am pointing out to you that Dubya and friends had made up their minds and didn't care about the evidence. Any evidence they found was 'post hoc'. AUP, I believe that you are more rational than Ion. We have had conversations in the past and while I disparage you from time to time I do have a level of respect for you. And I think you will agree that I have admitted in times past when I thought that you have made a valid argument and have even changed my mind about a couple of points concerning Israel based on one or more of your arguments.

That being said, I don't expect nor even hope that you agree with me. However, I do hope that you will be objective and answer me based on your honest opinion and not on emotion or ego.[list=1] Can you prove empirically that George W. Bush does not "care about the evidence"?

Is there any evidence that would change your mind about your opinion that George W. Bush does not care about evidence when it comes to Iraq and only makes post hoc arguments?

Would you ever objectively consider evidence that was counter to your point of view?

Would you be willing to respect someone with a counter point of view, assuming that the point of view was based on evidence and reason and the respect was reciprocal?[/list=1]

Thanks AUP,

I hope that I am not patronizing you. I promise that I am not trying to.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan

I hope that I am not patronizing you. I promise that I am not trying to.

I have never considered you were. I have put with worse

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Duh, they are oil compaines. What do you expect them to do? This proves nothing.
...

It proves that Bush is not in this war for human rights but for oil.

Oil for blood.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
There was a discussion.[/list=1] End of story.
There was no discussion.

Bush demeaned El Baradei and Hans Blix claiming he knew of WMDs in Iraq, but El Baradei and Hans Blix were right:

no WMDs in Iraq.

So Bush didn't listen and discuss with El Baradei and Hans Blix.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Is opinion controverted by evidence.
...

I proved to you that your opinion is controverted by evidence:

the link between Bush and the oil companies when warring in Iraq is documented in four links I showed to you.

Fifth link, now:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,882512,00.html

has:

"...But a cheaper oil price could have been reached more easily by lifting sanctions and giving the US oil majors access to Iraq's untapped reserves.

Instead, war stands to give control over the oil price to 'new Iraq' and its sponsors, with Saudi Arabia losing its capacity to control prices by altering productive capacity.

Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Defence Secretary, and Richard Perle, a key Pentagon adviser, see military action as part of a grand plan to reshape the Middle East.

To this end, control of Iraqi oil needs to bypass the twin tyrannies of UN control and regional fragmentation into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish supplies. The neo-conservatives plan a market structure based on bypassing the state-owned Iraqi National Oil Company and backing new free-market Iraqi companies..."

Is this fifth link a left wing speculation?

No:

in my first link on this subject in the thread, Chevron's profits today, in May 2004, are 33% higher than last year's due to Iraq's war and new access to oil.

Bush wanted in 2003 what he got now in 2004:

bigger profits for Chevron thru war, not U.N. discussions to avoid the war.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Do you know what critical thinking is?
...

RF,

I doubt that you have a scientific mind so that you know critical thinking.

I have a scientific mind, thru hard science education.

Not philosophy like you migh have -I don't know you, but I got the impression from a past post that you might be a philosopher, not a scientist-.
Me, I have more rigurous thinking than many people because of having studied mathematics and physics.

If you had critical thinking like me, then you wouldn't claim today that there was a discussion between Bush and U.N. to avoid the war:

.) you would judge like I did in a split second, that in February 2003 Powell went with fabricated evidence of WMDs in U.N. which was debunked the next day, that forged information about ties in nuclear between Niger and Iraq was known to Bush and he still tried to use it, that Bush wanted to discredit U.N. inspeactors El Baradei and Hans Blix, etc.;

.) these fabrications prove that there was no discussion;

.) Bush had another agenda than discussing how to avoid war, while he was trying to get U.N. approval by making fabrications.

The five links that I provided, the first one showing Chevron's profits from Iraq, are consistent with me claiming that this war is oil for blood.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
It proves that Bush is not in this war for human rights but for oil.

Oil for blood. No it doesn't. It might prove that the oil companies benefited from the war, though you really haven't proven that. It doesn't prove that the war was because of oil.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

There was no discussion.

Bush demeaned El Baradei and Hans Blix claiming he knew of WMDs in Iraq, but El Baradei and Hans Blix were right:

no WMDs in Iraq.

So Bush didn't listen and discuss with El Baradei and Hans Blix. Sorry, this is a really poor argument. Just because the discussion didn't go the way you thought it should go doesn't mean it wasn't a discussion.

Just because Bush discounted Baradei and Blix for other data that proved to be wrong (thus far but probably) does not obviate the discussion.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
I proved to you that your opinion is controverted by evidence: Wrong.

the link between Bush and the oil companies when warring in Iraq is documented in four links I showed to you. Stop with the links. Pull quote what you think is relevant. It is not my job to chase down every link. If it says what you think it does then post the relevant parts.

Fifth link, now: Counting links won't make your argument true.[/b][/quote]

"...But a cheaper oil price could have been reached more easily by lifting sanctions and giving the US oil majors access to Iraq's untapped reserves. COULD HAVE!!!!! Do you know what that means? It is an opinion. It is not empirical. You really need to learn critical thinking skills. And wouldn't access to Iraq's oil be good for the U.S. Oil companies?

Instead, war stands to give control over the oil price to 'new Iraq' and its sponsors, with Saudi Arabia losing its capacity to control prices by altering productive capacity.

Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Defence Secretary, and Richard Perle, a key Pentagon adviser, see military action as part of a grand plan to reshape the Middle East.

To this end, control of Iraqi oil needs to bypass the twin tyrannies of UN control and regional fragmentation into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish supplies. The neo-conservatives plan a market structure based on bypassing the state-owned Iraqi National Oil Company and backing new free-market Iraqi companies..."[/i] And what do you think this proves?

Is this fifth link a left wing speculation? I don't know but it certainly doesn't prove what you think it proves.

in my first link on this subject in the thread, Chevron's profits today, in May 2004, are 33% higher than last year's due to Iraq's war and new access to oil. Non sequitur. No nexus, no cause and effect established.

...bigger profits for Chevron thru war, not U.N. discussions to avoid the war. Speculation and more oil means more supply and less demand. Oil prices are up because of OPEC. If the U.S. has control of oil it should be able to flood the market and lower prices. If there had not been a war then OPEC would have still raised prices.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
I doubt that you have a scientific mind so that you know critical thinking. If you know critical thinking then why do you make so many mistakes? Honestly Ion, your arguments are often fallacious and poor.

I have a scientific mind, thru hard science education. Then you should be able to think critically. You have argued that the war caused the oil prices to go up. But in truth it was OPEC. And if the United States really controled the oil then they could flood the market with oil and lower prices if they wanted to. You have failed to show a nexus. You have failed to show a cause and effect. At best you show a casual relationship.

Please learn the difference between causal and casual.

Not philosophy like you migh have -I don't know you, but I got the impression from a past post that you might be a philosopher, not a scientist-. Philosophy require critical thinking.

Me, I have more rigurous thinking than many people because of having studied mathematics and physics. Sorry but this is fallacious. Please show me any evidence that proves that hard sciences requires more rigurous thinking than philosophy. I doubt you even know what philosophy is.

If you had critical thinking like me, then you wouldn't claim today that there was a discussion between Bush and U.N. to avoid the war: That there was a discussion is demonstrable. To deny there was a discussion based on your reason is untenable.

...you would judge like I did in a split second, that in February 2003 Powell went with fabricated evidence of WMDs in U.N. which was debunked the next day, that forged information about ties in nuclear between Niger and Iraq was known to Bush and he still tried to use it, that Bush wanted to discredit U.N. inspeactors El Baradei and Hans Blix, etc.;There is no conclusion to this statement. It does not prove that there was a discussion only that the data that Powell presented was wrong.

Your point?

...these fabrications prove that there was no discussion Non sequitur.

dis·cus·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skshn)
n.
Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition. To draw your conclusion then you must make some assumptions. Cheif of which is that Bush never considered any of the data from Blix or El Baradei. Can you prove that? No, you assume it.

Bush had another agenda than discussing how to avoid war, while he was trying to get U.N. approval by making fabrications. Can you prove that Bush fabricated the evidence? Can you prove that Bush knew he was wrong?

The five links that I provided, the first one showing Chevron's profits from Iraq, are consistent with me claiming that this war is oil for blood. Consistent perhaps (I'm not so sure we will get into that later), it is not proof. To come to a conclusion you must makie some assumptions. That Chevron profited from Iraq is not proof that the war was fought for that purpose. And it has not been proven that Chevron profited from Iraq. But even if it had it does not prove what you think it proves.

I'm surprised that if you have a background in science and math that you would make such a specious argument. Philosophy and Science both rely on the same logic and reasoning to arive at the truth. I have to question your claim about science and philosophy. It demonstrates an ignorance of inductive/deductive reasoning, empericism, critical thinking and philosophy in general.

What is odd is that your argument about the Iraq war being fought for oil is not emperical. It is not falsifiable. Your assumption that Hard Science is more likely to make one a more critical thinker is spurious.

b]phi·los·o·phy[/b] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ls-f)
n. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. The conclusion that Bush started this war for oil is a philosophical one. Unless you can see into Bush's head or show a video tape or recording or at least a written document whereby Bush states plainly that the only reason he is going to war is so that he can make his friends money through oil then you are going to have to infer that was his intention.

So, let me give you a hand.

What are your premises?
Chevron made a profit after the war.

There is documentation asserting that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq. This is NOT proof. To go from these premises to your conclusion we would have to make allot of assumptions. Is it possible that OPEC planned to raise oil prices along time ago? Is it possible that the war and OPEC's plans are coincidental?

Are there any premises that I have missed? If so, would you note them for me and let's outline this argument of yours and settle it once and for all. Ok?

Oh, and do me a favor, would you go to Logic & Fallacies (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html) and brush up on your logic. I don't mean to be rude but you are making an awful lot of mistakes and it is frustrating.

[Ion]

Too many ramblings on your side, showing not a clear mind, RF.

I won't waste my time with your ramblings, I told you before to think ink/data ratio, so I will streamline you here.
Originally posted by RandFan
Sorry, this is a really poor argument. Just because the discussion didn't go the way you thought it should go doesn't mean it wasn't a discussion.

Just because Bush discounted Baradei and Blix for other data that proved to be wrong (thus far but probably) does not obviate the discussion.
If there was a discussion between Bush and U.N., then how come Bush went to great lengths to discredit El Bradei and Hans Blix and became proven wrong to do it when WMDs were not found in Iraq, how come Bush went to great lengths to use fabricated evidence in February 2003 in U.N. that he knew it was wrong (like Atta meeting an Iraqi official in Prague, which the CIA told him it didn't happen) and later on forged evidence about a nuclear link between Iraq and Niger that Wilson told him it didn't exist?

Malicious use of data tampered with proves that Bush wasn't discussing in U.N., but was trying to pull a bluff.

The links that I provided show now Chevron's profits from Iraq.

I think RF, that at a more sophisticated level than the simple question above, you never build a critical thinking capable to perform rigorous mathematics.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Too many ramblings on your side, showing not a clear mind, RF.

I won't waste my time with your ramblings, but streamline.

If there was a discussion between Bush and U.N., then how come Bush went to great lengths to discredit El Bradei and Hans Blix and became proven wrong to do it when WMDs were not found in Iraq, how come Bush went to great lengths to use fabricated evidence in February 2003 in U.N. and later on forged evidence about a nuclear link between Iraq and Niger?

I think RF, that at a more sophisticated level than this simple question, you never build a critical thinking able to perform mathematics. Ion, one does not prove the other. Your points do not obviate a discussion.

Bush believed that there was WMDs. He made his argument to the Council. He disagreed with Blix. That he went "to great lengths" does not obviate the discussion. That he was wrong does not obviate the discussion. I'm sorry but this is one of the silliest arguments that I have ever heard.

Let me get this straight, you are saying that the only way to have a discussion is if everyone agrees? And if there is no agreement then there was never a discussion? When Union reps and negotiator "discuss" for days on end, there is actually no discussion unless there is agreement?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Too many ramblings on your side, showing not a clear mind, RF.

I won't waste my time with your ramblings, but streamline. Ad hominem. Please see Logic & Fallacies (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html). You make allot of fallacious arguments.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Bush believed that there was WMDs.
...

No.

It is proven now that Bush knew from CIA and Ritter, from U.N. inspectors Baradei and Blix that there were no WMDs.

It is proven now that Bush knew from Wilson that there were no nuclear ties between Niger and Iraq, but Bush still tried to pull a bluff on this.

Bush was bluffing in U.N. about knowing of WMDs in Iraq, Bush was not discussing in U.N. the avoiding of the war.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
It is proven now that Bush knew from CIA and Ritter, from U.N. inspectors Baradei and Blix that there were no WMDs. Citation and references please?

Bush was bluffing in U.N. about knowing of WMDs in Iraq. Proof please?

You should know better than to make an unsubstantiated claim. You can't simply state something and expect everyone to accept it as truth.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Citation and references please?

Proof please?

You should know better than to make an unsubstantiated claim. You can't simply state something and expect everyone to accept it as truth.
Search the forum like I do.

You try to pull you own bluff now.

[RandFan]

In the interest of intellectualy honesty Ion,

Let me say that I believe that,[list=1]
Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11

Bush was motivated to give more weight to evidence that showed that Iraq had WMDs
[/list=1]I should point out that I have made this concession along time ago.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Search the forum like I do. When have you searched the forum to substantiate my claims?

You try to pull you own bluff now. Bluff? Ion, I can't prove a negative. Look, for the umpteenth time this is a skeptics forum. When you make claims you have to substantiate them. I dispute your claim. If you can't substantiate that claim then that is the end of the story.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Let me say that I believe that,[list=1]
Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11

Bush was motivated to give more weight to evidence that showed that Iraq had WMDs
[/list=1]
...

Fine.

But drawing a war from 1. and 2. that's still unexcusable.

There shouldn't have been a war.

And loss of lives.

It's hard documented in the second link that I showed in this thread that Chevron's profits are up now from the Iraq's war and oil.

[RandFan]

For what it is worth, I am a programmer and the logic that I learned in computer science at the University of Utah is consistent with the logic that I learned in my philosophy, math and science courses. Did you know that logic must follow the same rules regardless of the application?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
But drawing a war from 1. and 2. that's still unexcusable. That depends on what Bush's motivations were. You might be right.

There shouldn't have been a war.

And loss of lives. That is an arguable positon and the loss of lives distresses me deeply and causes me some level of guilt since I supported the war. I have said that on this forum almost a year ago.

It's hard documented in the second link that I showed in this thread that Chevron's profits are up now from the Iraq's war and oil. Assuming that profits are up does not show a cause and effect relationship.

I can document that whenever the sales of ice cream increases swimming also increases. There is no cause and effect relation. They are both effects of increased temperatures.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Let me say that I believe that,[list=1]
Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11

Bush was motivated to give more weight to evidence that showed that Iraq had WMDs
[/list=1]
...

Speaking of coherent thinking RF, your 1. here is in line with Bush having set his mind on war long before he signed in 1441 the promise to not automatically use force and go back to U.N. for "...discussions...".

But you RF cannot believe in 1. and at the same time argue that Bush wanted to go back to U.N. for "...discussions...", because these are in contradiction.

So this is incoherent thinking by you.

Also, 1. and Bush wanting to go back to U.N. for "...discussions..." show that Bush was deceptive and a bluffer in U.N..

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Speaking of coherent thinking RF, your 1. here is in line with Bush having set his mind on war long before he signed in 1441 the promise to not automatically use force and go back to U.N. for "...discussions...".

But you RF cannot believe in 1. and at the same time argue that Bush wanted to go back to U.N. for "...discussions...", because these are in contradiction.

So this is incoherent thinking by you.

Also, 1. and Bush wanting to go back to U.N. for "...discussions..." show that Bush was deceptive and a bluffer in U.N.. Hey Ion,

Well let's detail what it is that we are talking about here.[list=1] Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq.

1441 warned of serious consequences if Iraq did not cooperate.

1441 required that there be no automatic trigger.

1441 required that there be discussions.[/list=1] Facts: After Iraq was found to not be in compliance the U.S. did not declare war on Iraq. On the contrary,

24 Feb - Security Council receives two plans on how to disarm Iraq. A draft resolution of U.S., U.K.and Spain finds that Iraq has failed to comply with Resolution 1441 - leading the way to military action - while a "memorandum" from France, Germany and Russia calls for continued inspections. It is demonstrable that the Bush administration tried to work with the U.N. They presented their side of the issue and offered a detailed plan. Further they made the case that Iraq had failed to comply.

It is clear that the U.S. did not simply launch an invasion without first going to the U.N. There were discussions. Now you might not have liked the outcome and you might feel that the U.S. were operating in bad faith but there is no doubt that there was discussions. Furthermore it could be argued that it was France, Germany and Russia that were negotiating in bad faith since they took all options of force off of the table.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Assuming that profits are up does not show a cause and effect relationship.

I can document that whenever the sales of ice cream increases swimming also increases. There is no cause and effect relation. They are both effects of increased temperatures.
Really?

That's where your lack of critical thinking plays in.

Like in an investigation to find the culprit of an action -here to find the culprit of the war in Iraq- one better finds out who stated to benefit the most from the action -here from the war in Iraq- and actually benefits from it.

Well, Chevron's CEO stated to benefit from the war in Iraq, and Chevron benefits now.

So the reason for the war, is this benefit to Chevron.

The rest, WMDs and 'liberation', were debunked.

With some critical thinking you would have managed this analysis by yourself, one year ago, RF.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
It is demonstrable that the Bush administration tried to work with the U.N.
...

Wrong again.

A.) The link in nuclear between Niger and Iraq was reported to Bush by Wilson as being a forgery, but Bush still used it.

Bush was trying to bluff.

B.) Your belief that Bush made his mind before September 11, 2001 about warring in Iraq, runs counter to the idea that "...Bush administration tried to work with the U.N." in February 2003 to avoid war in Iraq.

This contradiction that you make in B.), shows that you are blind towards your own incoherence in thinking.

Given B.) -and more-, you don't have critical thinking.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
That's where your lack of critical thinking plays in. Well, we will see.

Like in an investigation to find the culprit of an action -here to find the culprit of the war in Iraq- Culprit? What the hell are you talking about?

...one better finds out who stated to benefit the most from the action -here from the war in Iraq- and actually benefits from it. This isn't a murder mystery.

Well, Chevron's CEO stated to benefit from the war in Iraq...Citation please? I'm not sure what you are talking about so let me see the original statement, ok?

...and Chevron benefits now. So? This does not prove anything.

So the reason for the war, is this benefit to Chevron. This is anything but critical thinking Ion. I'm really starting to doubt your background in science.

Your argument is just speculation. You have not shown a nexus. I take it you didn't bother to read Logic & Fallacies (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html). :(

The rest, WMDs and 'liberation', were debunked. No, AUP is correct that "liberation" is post hoc reasoning. Still it is good post hoc reasoning. It's not "debunked" as you say. WMDs? Sorry but you have yet to offer any proof that Bush knew for a fact that there was no WMD. In fact there was evidence that there was WMD. You simply dismiss that which doesn't conform with your world view.

With some critical thinking you would have managed this analysis by yourself, one year ago, RF. I hope to hell that an education wouldn't lead to such demonstrable fallacious reasoning.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Wrong again.

A.) The link in nuclear between Niger and Iraq was reported to Bush by Wilson as being a forgery, but Bush still used it. I'm sorry, how does this prove your claim?

Bush was trying to bluff. This is your opinion.

B.) Your belief that Bush made his mind before September 11, 2001 about warring in Iraq, runs counter to the idea that "...Bush administration tried to work with the U.N." in February 2003 to avoid war in Iraq. Straw man. I never said Bush tried to avoid war. Where did you get this idea.

Read my post again, Bush tried to work with the U.N. It presented a plan to disarm Iraq. Regardless, Bush could have wanted to go to war and still work to avoid war. Your reasoning is very poor here.

This contradiction that you make in B.), shows that you are blind towards your own incoherence in thinking. I wish you would not use words like "incoherence". It is obvious that you don't even understand the correct usage of them. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make my argument incoherent.

-and more-, you don't have critical thinking. :rolleyes: Right.

[Ion]

Again, ramblings by the wasted time.

To streamline once more, I answer the quote below.
Originally posted by RandFan

...
Regardless, Bush could have wanted to go to war and still work to avoid war.
...

No.

Not when knowingly lying, like for example knowingly lying about nuclear links.

To knowingly lie is to have a hidden agenda.

Also, I repeat that yourself you are incoherent when claiming that "...Bush could have wanted to go to war..." in 2001 "...and still work to avoid war..." in 2003.

Coherence is not your forte.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Again, ramblings by the wasted time.

To streamline once more, I answer the quote below.

No.

Not when knowingly lying, like for example knowingly lying about nuclear links.

To knowingly lie is to have a hidden agenda.

Also, I repeat that yourself you are incoherent when claiming that "...Bush could have wanted to go to war..." in 2001 "...and still work to avoid war..." in 2003.

Coherence is not your forte. Now you can read my mind. Can I call you Uri?

[Ion]

Yeah, I guess I can read your mind:

American simpleton who desesperately hangs onto saving Bush's face, regardless of facts acknowledged in the world.

Facts like here, for example:
Originally posted by RandFan

...
Citation please? I'm not sure what you are talking about so let me see the original statement, ok?
...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,882512,00.html
"...Chevron chief executive Kenneth Derr, a colleague of Rice, said: 'Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas - reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to.'..."

See?

Motif.

The profits of Chevron today, from the war, are documented in my second link of this thread.

Motif + Profits = War.

Happy incoherence now, RF.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,882512,00.html
"...Chevron chief executive Kenneth Derr, a colleague of Rice, said: 'Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas - reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to.'..."

The profits of Chevron today, from the war, are documented in my second link of this thread. And where is the nexus? Bush wanted a war with Iraq.

Chevron wanted to make money from Iraqi oil.
Now, can you link the two.

You see Ion, if you had gone to college or actually had a background in science or if you had read the link I provided then you would understand that your argument is non causa pro causa (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#noncausa). In other words it is fallacious.

It's kind of funny when you accuse me of being incoherent and you don't even know what a fallacious argument is. :D

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
And where is the nexus? Bush wanted a war with Iraq.

Chevron wanted to make money from Iraqi oil.
Now, can you link the two.
...

Sure.

I posted earlier a link with Bush's policy being involved in oil companies.

You haven't read it, simpleton.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Yeah, I guess I can read your mind: If you KNOW that I lied then you would have to read my mind. You would also have to dismiss all other possibilities and fail to explain why I quoted the material.

Thanks for admitting that you are a mind reader Uri. I always thought you were a woo-woo.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Sure.

I posted earlier a link with Bush's policy being involved in oil companies.

You haven't read it, simpleton. A link? Pull quote it Ion. It is not my responsibilty to do your job. Do I send you off to read links to prove my case?

So, let's see if you can prove that the war was fought for oil or if you are just going to claim that you have?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
If you KNOW that I lied then you would have to read my mind.
...

Don't worry about the difficulty of this:

you are a simpleton.

Your last question, about tying motif and profits, shows that you even don't study what I gave you, but man you argue anyway...

Remember when you copied reviews of books like if you read them?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Motif + Profits = War.Fallacious. Are you sure you have a background in science and math?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
A link? Pull quote it Ion.
...

I gave link and quote.

Read both.

Simpleton,

you are a lunatic who argues mindlessly.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Fallacious. Are you sure you have a background in science and math?
I am sure.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Your last question, about tying motif and profits, shows that you even don't study what I gave you, but man you argue anyway... This is a skeptics forum. It is not my job to prove your argument. If you have proof then produce it. Why is that so hard?

Remember when you copied reviews of books like if you read them? Fallacious, argument ad nauseam.

Argumentum ad nauseam (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#nauseam)

This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it. Could you look any more like you don't have a clue.

Hey, I know, keep engaging in fallacious argument. Oh, Ion, fallacious argument has nothing to do with oral sex, ok? And don't even begin to tell me that you know the difference between the two. You engage in fallacious argument so much it appears you think it is oral sex.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
I am sure. Odd, you make so many bad arguments that it is hard to believe. What is the nature of your background?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
I gave link and quote. No you didn't.

you are a lunatic who argues mindlessly. Perhaps, but you don't even know how to argue.

What argument really is. (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-python.html)

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
No you didn't.
...

I did give link and quote of Bush's involvement in oil companies, simpleton.

Go back and read my post.

Then read the link.

Then talk.

I guess you have a primitive brain.

Who respects you, RF?

Do the cleaning people respect your "...critical thinking...", RF?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
I did give link and quote of Bush's involvement in oil companies, simpleton.

Go back and read my post.

Then read the link.

Then talk.

I guess you have a primitive brain. Which post?

[Ion]

The one that shows Bush's involvement in oil companies.

You should have studied it by now, in order to talk.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
The one that shows Bush's involvement in oil companies.

You should have studied it by now, in order to talk. If you don't know where it is how am I supposed to know where it is?

I can't prove a negative Ion. Do you really not understand how this works?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
If you don't know where it is how am I supposed to know where it is?

I can't prove a negative Ion. Do you really not understand how this works?
Me I know where it is.

You do prove a negative:

you didn't read my link but argue it anyway, and that is negative.

Very negative, RF.

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
Which post?

You know, RandFan, I agree with some of Ion's positions, but there's not a chance I'm going to suport him or his arguments, because I know how badly he discredits anything he sees fit to espouse, at least on this forum.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Who respects you, RF?Lot's of people including Democrats and Liberals.

RandFan Appreciation Thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26673&highlight=randfan+appreciation)

I'm pretty sure AUP respects me as I do him. Trickey has expressed his respect for me. Lots of people have.

Who respects you?

[Ion]

Come on jj.

Poeple have died from this war, I backed up my claims with data, and the issue of people's lives is bigger than personal vendetta.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ion
Come on jj.

Poeple have died from this war, I backed up my claims with data, and the issue of people's lives is bigger than personal vendetta.

Yes, that's what happens when people steal credit, lie, cheat, insult, generalize, spout stereotypes, etc.

Awful, isn't it?

Still neither ugly nor stupid,

JJ

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Who respects you?
Lots.

Following politics is only one activity in my life.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
you didn't read my link but argue it anyway, and that is negative. Well if you are telling the truth then you can reproduce it right?

[Ion]

Originally posted by jj


Yes, that's what happens when people steal credit, lie, cheat, insult, generalize, spout stereotypes, etc.

Awful, isn't it?

Still neither ugly nor stupid,

JJ
OK, I generalized then, two months ago.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj


Yes, that's what happens when people steal credit, lie, cheat, insult, generalize, spout stereotypes, etc.

Awful, isn't it?

Still neither ugly nor stupid,

JJ Ooops, Ion, looks like you stepped into it.

Ion asserted a number of things, based on an assertion in his previous thread that americans are ugly and stupid. One of them was that, by his omission of others, that Goertzel was responsible for the modern implementation of the FFT. Why, Ion, did it take you 5 pages to admit that his work is derivitive of Cooley and Tukey's? (NB, there's nothing WRONG with that.)

Why, then, when you finally admitted this, did you cite a bunch of work from people born before the USA even existed as some kind of confused, purported evidence that the USA is a nation of IP theives who just take others' work, even though it's obviously absurd to cite such evidence.

Why did you suggest that DTMF signalling, and in particular US Touchtone (might be TM) signalling, was a European invention, based on one small aspect, that of tone detection?

Where have you addressed the issues of getting such tones across a highly nonlinear network?

Why have you not cited other uses of MF tone signalling that preceded TouchTone (TM?), and properly address the invention and origin of those methods?

Why haven't you addressed the overall system design of the Touchtone (TM?) signalling system in the USA, and instead harped seemingly endlessly on one and only one aspect of a large problem?

What is your evidence that, as you have so clearly stated, I have no idea what Fermat's theorem is?

What is your evidence, as you have implied, that you have standing to lecture me in the field of DSP? (Note, anyone can learn, but you seem to imply that in this field, you are the teacher, and I am the student.)

Please show your standing, and your evidence that *I* have no experience or understanding in this field. Patents with your name on them (subject to confirmation it's actually you), papers with your name (ditto), and products on the market may be cited here, at the very least. As that information is publically available in my case, I really feel little need to say more.

Finally, please explain the following. It's hard to reduce this to one and only one question, because of the stunning absurdity of the whole, so I will simply quote this absurdity and allow you to flounder about as you might. In the thread cited above, you've said: Hey Ion,

I appologized as soon as Demon pointed out my mistake.

[RandFan]

I didn't lie Demon. I quoted material and didn't give appropriate credit. I appologized for it immediately.

And you have the gaul to accuse me of lying?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Well if you are telling the truth then you can reproduce it right?
I can.

However as punishment for you arguing about it without reading (you did copy books reviews too without reading the books, right?), I sentence you to:

re-reading the thread and finding it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
However as punishment for you arguing about it without reading (you did copy books reviews too without reading the books, right?), I sentence you to:

re-reading the thread and finding it. And you will have to settle for me stating that it is up to you to prove your claim. That is how it works. Of course woo-woos always make claims they can't back up. That is why you are a woo-woo.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
And you will have to settle for me stating that it is up to you to prove your claim.
...

I did prove my claim with a link and a quote.

You arguing against my claim without reading the link and the quote, that's cheating RF.

To punish you, you find the link and the quote.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
I did prove my claim with a link and a quote. What ever you posted it didn't prove what you think it did. So sorry, you make the claim you gotta prove.

But to tell you the truth, after what jj let me in on I'm not sure there is any reason to bother. It turns out you have zero credibility. I apologized when I made a mistake. You are just a liar. So there really is not much more to talk about.

You only gainsay.

You have no credibility.

You didn't prove your claim.

You can't even name anyone who respects you.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
You only gainsay.

You have no credibility.

You didn't prove your claim.

You can't even name anyone who respects you.
Suuuuuure...

Remember when you copied book reviews pretending to have read the books?

That's a good one, RF.

Now is arguing against Bush being involved in oil companies, without reading the link and the quote that I provided...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Suuuuuure...

Remember when you copied book reviews pretending to have read the books?

That's a good one, RF.

Now is arguing against Bush being involved in oil companies, without reading the link and the quote that I provided... :D A discredited poster is taking me to task and claiming that I did something that I didn't do....That's rich.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
:D A discredited poster...
Let me guess:

the discredited poster is RF.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
the discredited poster is RF. Well let's see. You refused to admit that you were wrong and jj thoroughly dicredited you. I appologized for my mistake and I quoted the material. A fact you dishonestly refuse to acknowledge so no, sorry Ion but the discredited poster is you.

And BTW, jj agrees with you on this. Is there anyone on this forum who respects you?

[jj]

Originally posted by RandFan
And BTW, jj agrees with you on this. Is there anyone on this forum who respects you?

I agree with SOME of his position on Bush vs. oil.

But I will not be on his side until he learns civil debate. Ion fouls everything he touches.

Perhaps he will learn in time. I don' t know.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj
I agree with SOME of his position on Bush vs. oil.

But I will not be on his side until he learns civil debate. Ion fouls everything he touches.

Perhaps he will learn in time. I don' t know. The funny thing is that I agree with SOME of his position. I have already admitted that.

[demon]

RandFan...Ion...
Didn`t have time to reply to this ongoing thread before but want to say a few final (maybe) words now.
First I want to address your reply to me RandFan after my last post, mainly because you considered it an ad hominem, then I`ll try and sum up as best I can what my position is on what I think we disagree on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RandFan:
" Demon,

Your argument is roughly equivelant to ad hominem. You are attacking my credibility which is fair considering that I did not link or make clear the source of the quotes. I should tell you that when ever I quote something like I did it is from somewhere else.

However I should have sourced it and for that I appologize.

The point of my post stands though. There is another side to the story. The picture that you paint IS cherry picked. You do find only that data that supports your thesis. And there is other inforation and data out there.

And so what if it is a BLOG. Is the information correct or not? Is it accurate? I will detail more later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My data isn’t "cherry picked"...I do my best to look at all the evidence and I use evidence to make a case but I do take into account countering material. The point is, it's rich of you to criticise me for supposedly only citing one-sided evidence when your sources are so poor as to be almost worthless.
Nor am I making an ad hominem attack...I know you know what that phrase means...I'm criticizing your referencing and your poor choice of sources. That’s no more an ad hominem than if some schoolteacher marked down someones term paper on similar grounds.
Yes, there’s data out there that challenge my opinion, but you haven’t found them and as such from your post (ie the one where I criticised your sources etc) it’s clear that you’re the one who has a pre-conceived opinion and then cherry picks material that might support it -without apparently understanding much of the debate either way. I`m pretty sure most "objective observers" looking at our exchanges would tell you exactly the same.

It wasn`t so much that you hadn`t sourced your references as much as that there didn`t seem much point in discussing the matter with you if you consider such poor sources worthwhile. Quoting other people's opinions of a book – and, in the second instance – partial opinions based on incomplete readings- is next to worthless and I know you wouldn`t let me get away with it! You have to evaluate your sources. You tell me that there is a "compelling" case against Saddam but you only think this because someone else has read a book and said that's what they think. Fine: let them come here and discuss the issue.

The point is, what do +you+ have to say on the matter? And, on this one, your justification is to tell me that there is "another point of view" and that other people are out there who don't share my view and that some of them have written books. Well, I know that. I know perfectly well that the argument isn’t one-sided -otherwise Iraq would not be an occupied country today.

If you've read books putting forwards a counter argument, fine (so have I), but an Amazon customer review written by someone else means nothing -it's virtually valueless. Have you looked at the quality of the reviews of political books on Amazon? To paraphrase Orwell, most of them say nothing other than "this is a bad book" or "this is a good book" . For example, (whatever your opinion of him), go and look at the negative reviews of Chomsky's books on Amazon.com -they're mostly diatribes without any evidence -and of course, they're almost certainly going to be because, with the best will in the world, you can`t write a decent review of a serious book on Amazon (there simply isn’t space). Unless they break down the arguments, offers counter evidence, and cite everything correctly, they’re worth nothing as a source -they’re simply assertion. Incidentally, look also at the positive reviews of Chomsky’s books too...they’re no use as evidence either.

As for the blog, that was worse. Not because it was a blog...let me stress that. There are some excellent blogs out there, but because the blog in question clearly contained numerous passages that are now uncontroversially wrong and out of date but you didn't seem to notice which were or were not, so you just used the lot.

Whatever the reasons, I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt on all of this, but what it demonstrates quite clearly is that you don't know much about what you're talking about and you certainly don't know enough to spot the glaring errors in your own sources.

demon.

[demon]

RandFan:

Point One.

You're still hung up on this idea that Iraq was in breach. So let's try an clear this one up quickly. Iraq was in breach of previous Security Council Resolutions. This was declared in 1441. 1441 set down various criteria that Iraq had to meet in order to come back into line. If Iraq did not meet these criteria, as laid out in 1441, "serious consequences" would follow (side point: "serious consequences", despite what many media hacks and politicians have said, is not a euphemism for war -that's "'by all means necessary").

So the question you have to answer is this: can you provide documentary evidence that the UN Security Council found Iraq had breached Resolution 1441 and had thus failed to take "its final opportunity".

(Hint: The US-UK draft Resolution is +not+ it -since it was never voted on and not passed, just like a bill that is passed or voted on by Congress isn't law).

Point Two.

You say:

"It is demonstrable that the Bush administration tried to work with the U.N. They presented their side of the issue and offered a detailed plan. Further they made the case that Iraq had failed to comply."

What is demonstrable is that the US tried to get the UN to accede to its wishes. It failed. The US presented a case to the UN Security Council that Iraq had not complied, which the Security Council rejected.

You say:

"It is clear that the U.S. did not simply launch an invasion without first going to the U.N. There were discussions. Now you might not have liked the outcome and you might feel that the U.S. were operating in bad faith but there is no doubt that there was discussions. Furthermore it could be argued that it was France, Germany and Russia that were negotiating in bad faith since they took all options of force off of the table."

A few points about this. Your first point is entirely correct. They did go to the UN and put a case for invading Iraq. The UN did not accept this. Therefore, the US attacked Iraq without the authorization of the UN Security Council...in fact, in the face of the clear opinion of the UN Security Council that they DID NOT attack. The US, let me remind you, is bound by the decisions of the Security Council.

Now, let me remind you that there are only two cases under international law in which force is allowed. Under Article 51, in the case of self-defence from imminent or ongoing attack. The US did not claim this, because it was palpably adsurd to do so.

The second instance is to take a case to the Security Council and request that it authorizes the use of force, under the authority of the Security Council as it did in 1991 when the Security Council authorized coalition forces to expell Iraq from Kuwait "by all means necessary".

If neither of these conditions is met then military force is illegal-not arguments, no caveats - illegal, full stop. Instead, it becomes aggression and we all know what was said about that at Nuremburg.

Now, since it is obvious that the US and UK could not get the UN Security Council to authorize force against Iraq, you need to explain why it is that Iraq has to do as the Security Council says (or be bombed) but why you think the US does not.

Final Point.

You state, that "it could be argued that it was France, Germany and Russia that were negotiating in bad faith since they took all options of force off of the table."

I can understand why you think this and it is a very common misconception. First of all, let's take Germany out of this, since they don't sit on the Security Council, they're effectively irrelevant. The attitude of France and Russia was the key and they were effectively as one on the matter. Now, it's widely believed that France took away the option of using force with Chirac saying he would veto the second Resolution under any circumstances. In fact, this is not true, it is a convenient lie for people like Bush, Blair, Jack Straw et al.

What Chirac actually said (according to the transcript of the broadcast) in his address to the French People was:

"My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, that is to say, to disarm Iraq." (quoted in the Guardian (London) March 15th 2003).

The crucial words here are "this evening"...they are not there for adornment. France opposed military action in March for the simple reason that it did not consider it necessary. However, niether France nor Russia opposed military action on principle. Indeed, in the French Memorandum (backed by Russia and Germany) they made it clear that "Iraq must disarm" and did nor rule out force. Instead they called for more stringent inspections, more regular reports etc. As the Financial Times reported, (February 25th 2003) diplomats has observed that "the memorandum could serve as the basis for an eventual French "exit strategy" if Iraq failed to comply with the benchmarks set" ie France wanted to be seen to go the extra mile for peace but, if after a further period (accepted as three months, if I recall) France would have backed down and allowed force.

The point is, France did not object to violence on principle only that, to quote the memorandum:

"The military option should only be a last resort. So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled:

-- While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field;

-- Inspections have just reached their full pace; they are functioning without hindrance; they have already produced results;

-- While not yet fully satisfactory, Iraqi cooperation is improving, as mentioned by the chief inspectors in their last report. " (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79447,00.html )

You say in an earlier post (maybe more than one post actually)

"Facts:
Council passes 1441 and Iraq agrees.

Iraq is found in material breach

Council meets and discusses the matter.

The U.S. invades Iraq."

Of course, it's the first and second lines that I have trouble with. Where in your timeline (or indeed in reality) was Iraq found to be in breach of resolution 1441 by the Security Council?
These two facts are in the wrong order and you forget to add "Without a UNSC mandate" at the end.

Your writing suggests a world view similar to that of the Bush regime - that the UN's purpose is to rubber-stamp US decisions.

I hope that sets out my position and why I hold it plainly enough, although I accept that we might not come to see eye to eye on it. In that case, no hard feelings and here`s to the next time;)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
Your My data isn’t "cherry picked"...I do my best to look at all the evidence and I use evidence to make a case but I do take into account countering material. The point is, it's rich of you to criticize me for supposedly only citing one-sided evidence when your sources are so poor as to be almost worthless. I'm disappointed that you characterize it as such. The books either contain the data mentioned or they don't. Just because they are reviews does not make them worthless.

Nor am I making an ad hominem attack...I know you know what that phrase means...I'm criticizing your referencing and your poor choice of sources. That’s no more an ad hominem than if some schoolteacher marked down someones term paper on similar grounds. It is ad hominem because instead of dealing with the argument you attack me. There is probably no better example of ad hominem.

Yes, there’s data out there that challenge my opinion, but you haven’t found them and as such from your post (ie the one where I criticised your sources etc) it’s clear that you’re the one who has a pre-conceived opinion and then cherry picks material that might support it -without apparently understanding much of the debate either way. I`m pretty sure most "objective observers" looking at our exchanges would tell you exactly the same. That is your opinion and that is fine. I disagree. I'm rather disappointed that you dismiss the information out of hand. It seems a rather lazy way to respond. Simply decry my use of a review. But is the information correct?

Why not deal with that question? Why attack me personally for failing to source the information?

It wasn`t so much that you hadn`t sourced your references as much as that there didn`t seem much point in discussing the matter with you if you consider such poor sources worthwhile. It is your opinion that the sources are poor. You have not established the information as wrong. You simply dismiss it because it is a review.

Quoting other people's opinions of a book – and, in the second instance – partial opinions based on incomplete readings- is next to worthless and I know you wouldn`t let me get away with it! On the contrary. I don't see the need to play such a game. Look the information is either correct or it isn't. Simply dismissing it is wrong and lazy. Can you show that the information is wrong. And it is not JUST opinion. It is a description, in part, of what is in the book. Why not attack the information and not the fact that it is a review. Your response is disappointing and fallacious

You have to evaluate your sources. You tell me that there is a "compelling" case against Saddam but you only think this because someone else has read a book and said that's what they think. Fine: let them come here and discuss the issue. This is disingenuous. I'm only interested in the information provided. It is either correct or incorrect. If it is wrong then you ought to be able to dispute it, right?

The point is, what do +you+ have to say on the matter? And, on this one, your justification is to tell me that there is "another point of view" and that other people are out there who don't share my view and that some of them have written books. Well, I know that. I know perfectly well that the argument isn’t one-sided -otherwise Iraq would not be an occupied country today. Not just that there is a counter view but points and issues about that view. Why not deal with the issues rather than attack the information wholesale?

If you've read books putting forwards a counter argument, fine (so have I), but an Amazon customer review written by someone else means nothing -it's virtually valueless.That is you opinion and you are entitled to it. I disagree. I wish that you could respond to the information though and not dismiss it because your opinion is that it has no value.

Have you looked at the quality of the reviews of political books on Amazon? To paraphrase Orwell, most of them say nothing other than "this is a bad book" or "this is a good book" . Yes, but that is not what was in THESE reviews was it? Can you respond to the information in the reviews?

For example, (whatever your opinion of him), go and look at the negative reviews of Chomsky's books on Amazon.com -they're mostly diatribes without any evidence -and of course, they're almost certainly going to be because, with the best will in the world, you can`t write a decent review of a serious book on Amazon (there simply isn’t space). Unless they break down the arguments, offers counter evidence, and cite everything correctly, they’re worth nothing as a source -they’re simply assertion. Incidentally, look also at the positive reviews of Chomsky’s books too...they’re no use as evidence either. I couldn't disagree more. If the review states something that is not in the book then it can be controverted.

As for the blog, that was worse. Not because it was a blog...let me stress that. There are some excellent blogs out there, but because the blog in question clearly contained numerous passages that are now uncontroversially wrong and out of date but you didn't seem to notice which were or were not, so you just used the lot. Then why not attack the blog point by point instead of just dismissing it?

Whatever the reasons, I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt on all of this, but what it demonstrates quite clearly is that you don't know much about what you're talking about and you certainly don't know enough to spot the glaring errors in your own sources. I'm curious as to why you don't point out the glaring errors? You simply dismiss the entire work without any effort on your part. Do you honestly feel this is appropriate?

I appreciate that you are willing to give me the benefit of the doubt. I honestly had not intended to steal anything. It was for that reason I quoted it in the first place. Something Ion will not give me credit for. But then he claims he can read my mind.

Propostion: If you would like to start again I would be willing to forgo all of the book reviews and any of my arguments so far and go back to your last post before I posted them (the reviews) and respond again.

I don't care to take the time if you are not interested. Let me know. Again, I appreciate your willingness to consider that I had not intentionally tried to steal any material. In the future I will source any and all quotes.

RandFan

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
I hope that sets out my position and why I hold it plainly enough, although I accept that we might not come to see eye to eye on it. In that case, no hard feelings and here`s to the next time;) I just saw this post. I really appreciate your tone and I would love to respond. I need a bit of time. I promise in the future to do a better job and I will not use reviews again.

By the way. When I was in high school or at the University and was short on time and needed to plagiarizes something I would re-write. I know that any sentence can be searched using google and just would have not used material word for word and I certainly would not have put the text in quotes.

That being said, I would never re-write a review as my own because I am just not that dishonest.

Thank you Demon,

I think you can tell by previous posts that I find that you are an excellent debater. Perhaps a master ;). I appreciate your willingness to debate with me and not just dismiss me which I would understand. I'll try not to use provocative language and do a better job of sources and citation.

RandFan.

[LucyR]

Aww...that's so sweet. A real Kodak moment.

[a_unique_person]

:)

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Ion

Lots.

Following politics is only one activity in my life.

You mean you make a fool of yourself in other fields as well?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Skeptic


You mean you make a fool of yourself in other fields as well?
You mean you make an imbecile of yourself now?

Or you already had, before?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Well let's see. You refused to admit that you were wrong and jj thoroughly dicredited you. I appologized for my mistake and I quoted the material. A fact you dishonestly refuse to acknowledge so no, sorry Ion but the discredited poster is you.

And BTW, jj agrees with you on this. Is there anyone on this forum who respects you?
Regarding "...And BTW, jj agrees with you on this. Is there anyone on this forum who respects you?...", RF you don't learn well, in this thread a_unique_person respects my takes.

Regarding "...I appologized for my mistake and I quoted the material....", that's not what demon says to you today, RF:
Originally posted by demon

...
Whatever the reasons, I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt on all of this, but what it demonstrates quite clearly is that you don't know much about what you're talking about and you certainly don't know enough to spot the glaring errors in your own sources.

demon.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Thank you Demon,

I think you can tell by previous posts that I find that you are an excellent debater.
...
RandFan.
Come on.

What demon brings up in his second post of today, is public information published in the news since February 2003.

Likewise for my information about Bush bluffing in U.N. and being involved in oil interests.

To need to be straightened up on this matter in May 2004, RF, that must be lots of obcurantism going on in your brain.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Regarding "...And BTW, jj agrees with you on this. Is there anyone on this forum who respects you?...", RF you don't learn well, in this thread a_unique_person respects my takes.

Regarding "...I appologized for my mistake and I quoted the material....", that's not what demon says to you today, RF:
He said that he is willing to give me the benefit of the doubt. Just what do you think that means?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
To need to be straightened up on this matter in May 2004, RF, that must be lots of obcurantism going on in your brain. Do you speak for Demon?

Demon

I hope that sets out my position and why I hold it plainly enough, although I accept that we might not come to see eye to eye on it. In that case, no hard feelings and here`s to the next time ;) Demon is capable of human decency. That we don't agree is not a reason for him to hate me and attack me.

You on the other hand are a little person incapable of decency or the ability to give someone else the benefit of the doubt. Demon is willing to accept a sincere apology. You claim to be able to read minds and hate people just because they disagree with you.

You mistakenly equate an ideological position to right and wrong. Demon knows that there are good and bad people in any group and doesn't hate or judge people just because they think differently. You Ion are a bigot. You know nothing about me or my history yet you judge me anyway which makes you ignorant and immature. If your ideology were on the right you would make a good skin head.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Do you speak for Demon?
...

I speak for myself when I say that there is lots of American obscurantism going on in your brain since February 2003, RF.

As for demon, he states about you -in a more 'diplomatic' way than mine-, this:
Originally posted by demon

...
...what it demonstrates quite clearly is that you don't know much about what you're talking about and you certainly don't know enough to spot the glaring errors in your own sources.

demon.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
As for demon, he states about you -in a more 'diplomatic' way than mine-, this: Much better than jj's opinion of you

jj

Yes, that's what happens when people steal credit, lie, cheat, insult, generalize, spout stereotypes, etc.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
What demon brings up in his second post of today, is public information published in the news since February 2003. I know, you think that only you and Demon have posted anything. It's not true. No one has rebuted the argument that I posted. You just dismiss it and declare victory.

Likewise for my information about Bush bluffing in U.N. and being involved in oil interests. And it was all circumstantial. And when I called you on your bluff you folded and refused to answer. You are a liar and the proof is in your inability to show what you have posted.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
No one has rebuted the argument that I posted.
...

demon rebuted the argument that U.N. found Iraq in breach of 1441.

I posted similarly, plus I posted motive for the war and profit from the war.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
I posted similarly, plus I posted motive for the war and profit from the war. You're just repeating yourself. Argument ad nauseam. Fallacious.

[Ion]

Of course I repeat myself, American dumby.

You deserve it, since you get slam-dunked on.

Take this:
Originally posted by demon

...
So the question you have to answer is this: can you provide documentary evidence that the UN Security Council found Iraq had breached Resolution 1441 and had thus failed to take "its final opportunity".

(Hint: The US-UK draft Resolution is +not+ it -since it was never voted on and not passed, just like a bill that is passed or voted on by Congress isn't law).

Point Two.

You say:

"It is demonstrable that the Bush administration tried to work with the U.N. They presented their side of the issue and offered a detailed plan. Further they made the case that Iraq had failed to comply."

What is demonstrable is that the US tried to get the UN to accede to its wishes. It failed. The US presented a case to the UN Security Council that Iraq had not complied, which the Security Council rejected.
...
Now, since it is obvious that the US and UK could not get the UN Security Council to authorize force against Iraq, you need to explain why it is that Iraq has to do as the Security Council says (or be bombed) but why you think the US does not.
...
You say in an earlier post (maybe more than one post actually)

"Facts:
Council passes 1441 and Iraq agrees.

Iraq is found in material breach

Council meets and discusses the matter.

The U.S. invades Iraq."

Of course, it's the first and second lines that I have trouble with. Where in your timeline (or indeed in reality) was Iraq found to be in breach of resolution 1441 by the Security Council?
These two facts are in the wrong order and you forget to add "Without a UNSC mandate" at the end.
...

(Italics emphasizing points that I also made before are mine, but in this post I streamline to one crucial question instead of many points)

It has the crucial question:

"...So the question you have to answer is this: can you provide documentary evidence that the UN Security Council found Iraq had breached Resolution 1441 and had thus failed to take "its final opportunity"..."

in it.

You cannot provide this evidence because it doesn't exist.

However, happy attempts at trying to cheat on this since February 2003, like a pathetic 'American patriot', RF.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
However, happy attempts at trying to cheat on this since February 2003, like a pathetic 'American patriot', RF. Ion asserted a number of things, based on an assertion in his previous thread that americans are ugly and stupid. One of them was that, by his omission of others, that Goertzel was responsible for the modern implementation of the FFT. Why, Ion, did it take you 5 pages to admit that his work is derivitive of Cooley and Tukey's? (NB, there's nothing WRONG with that.)

Why, then, when you finally admitted this, did you cite a bunch of work from people born before the USA even existed as some kind of confused, purported evidence that the USA is a nation of IP theives who just take others' work, even though it's obviously absurd to cite such evidence.

Why did you suggest that DTMF signalling, and in particular US Touchtone (might be TM) signalling, was a European invention, based on one small aspect, that of tone detection?

Where have you addressed the issues of getting such tones across a highly nonlinear network?

Why have you not cited other uses of MF tone signalling that preceded TouchTone (TM?), and properly address the invention and origin of those methods?

Why haven't you addressed the overall system design of the Touchtone (TM?) signalling system in the USA, and instead harped seemingly endlessly on one and only one aspect of a large problem?

What is your evidence that, as you have so clearly stated, I have no idea what Fermat's theorem is?

What is your evidence, as you have implied, that you have standing to lecture me in the field of DSP? (Note, anyone can learn, but you seem to imply that in this field, you are the teacher, and I am the student.)

Please show your standing, and your evidence that *I* have no experience or understanding in this field. Patents with your name on them (subject to confirmation it's actually you), papers with your name (ditto), and products on the market may be cited here, at the very least. As that information is publically available in my case, I really feel little need to say more.

Finally, please explain the following. It's hard to reduce this to one and only one question, because of the stunning absurdity of the whole, so I will simply quote this absurdity and allow you to flounder about as you might. In the thread cited above, you've said: You are a liar. Deal with it.

[Ion]

Am I a liar, RF?

You lie, therefore me, I am a liar?

Remember this?
Originally posted by Ion

...
It has the crucial question:

"...So the question you have to answer is this: can you provide documentary evidence that the UN Security Council found Iraq had breached Resolution 1441 and had thus failed to take "its final opportunity"..."

in it.

You cannot provide this evidence because it doesn't exist.

However, happy attempts at trying to cheat on this since February 2003, like a pathetic 'American patriot', RF.
That's where -and other places- you are a liar, RF.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Am I a liar RF? YES!

Remember this?

Originally posted by jj


Yes, that's what happens when people steal credit, lie, cheat, insult, generalize, spout stereotypes, etc.

Awful, isn't it?

Still neither ugly nor stupid,

JJ

[Ion]

Well, RF, convince me that you didn't lie when saying that Iraq broke U.N.'s "...final opportunity..." given to Iraq, but I lied when I stated that Iraq didn't break 1441 in U.N. and U.S. broke its promise made in 1441.

I think, this:
Originally posted by Ion

...
It has the crucial question:

"...So the question you have to answer is this: can you provide documentary evidence that the UN Security Council found Iraq had breached Resolution 1441 and had thus failed to take "its final opportunity"..."

in it.

You cannot provide this evidence because it doesn't exist.

However, happy attempts at trying to cheat on this since February 2003, like a pathetic 'American patriot', RF.
is egg on your face since February 2003 until May 2004 -and counting-, RF.

That's where -and other places- you are a liar, RF.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by jj


Yes, that's what happens when people steal credit, lie, cheat, insult, generalize, spout stereotypes, etc.

Awful, isn't it?

Still neither ugly nor stupid,

JJ

[RandFan]

Ion asserted a number of things, based on an assertion in his previous thread that americans are ugly and stupid. One of them was that, by his omission of others, that Goertzel was responsible for the modern implementation of the FFT. Why, Ion, did it take you 5 pages to admit that his work is derivitive of Cooley and Tukey's? (NB, there's nothing WRONG with that.)

Why, then, when you finally admitted this, did you cite a bunch of work from people born before the USA even existed as some kind of confused, purported evidence that the USA is a nation of IP theives who just take others' work, even though it's obviously absurd to cite such evidence.

Why did you suggest that DTMF signalling, and in particular US Touchtone (might be TM) signalling, was a European invention, based on one small aspect, that of tone detection?

Where have you addressed the issues of getting such tones across a highly nonlinear network?

Why have you not cited other uses of MF tone signalling that preceded TouchTone (TM?), and properly address the invention and origin of those methods?

Why haven't you addressed the overall system design of the Touchtone (TM?) signalling system in the USA, and instead harped seemingly endlessly on one and only one aspect of a large problem?

What is your evidence that, as you have so clearly stated, I have no idea what Fermat's theorem is?

What is your evidence, as you have implied, that you have standing to lecture me in the field of DSP? (Note, anyone can learn, but you seem to imply that in this field, you are the teacher, and I am the student.)

Please show your standing, and your evidence that *I* have no experience or understanding in this field. Patents with your name on them (subject to confirmation it's actually you), papers with your name (ditto), and products on the market may be cited here, at the very least. As that information is publically available in my case, I really feel little need to say more.

Finally, please explain the following. It's hard to reduce this to one and only one question, because of the stunning absurdity of the whole, so I will simply quote this absurdity and allow you to flounder about as you might. In the thread cited above, you've said: It's not going away Ion.

[Ion]

Still begging for outside help to change the subject, RF?

If you had an honest answer to this crucial question -which you lied about in this thread-:
Originally posted by Ion

...
It has the crucial question:

"...So the question you have to answer is this: can you provide documentary evidence that the UN Security Council found Iraq had breached Resolution 1441 and had thus failed to take "its final opportunity"..."

in it.

You cannot provide this evidence because it doesn't exist.

However, happy attempts at trying to cheat on this since February 2003, like a pathetic 'American patriot', RF.
you would give it now, wouldn't you?

I cornered you here, RF:

checkmate.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Still begging for outside help to change the subject, RF?

If you had an honest answer to this crucial question -which you lied about in this thread-:

you would give it now, wouldn't you?

I cornered you here, RF: When I was wrong I appologized. You on the other hand refused to admit that you were wrong. You said Iraq was not in material breech.

Demon is wrong. Iraq never rectified the fact that they were in material breech. I have given the proof that they were in material breech. It is up to you to prove that they rectified that breech. You can't do that becasue they never rectified it.

So Ion, where is the proof?

Originally posted by jj

Yes, that's what happens when people steal credit, lie, cheat, insult, generalize, spout stereotypes, etc.

[Ion]

The evidence showing that Iraq was in breach of U.N. -like you claim here-:
Originally posted by RandFan

...
Iraq never rectified the fact that they were in material breech. I have given the proof that they were in material breech.
...

evidence that I asked below:
Originally posted by Ion

...
It has the crucial question:

"...So the question you have to answer is this: can you provide documentary evidence that the UN Security Council found Iraq had breached Resolution 1441 and had thus failed to take "its final opportunity"..."

in it.

You cannot provide this evidence because it doesn't exist.

However, happy attempts at trying to cheat on this since February 2003, like a pathetic 'American patriot', RF.
is not coming at all, RF, is it?

If you have "...given proof that they were in material breach..." of 1441, then how come there is no U.N. evidence that Iraq broke 1441?

You cannot show me evidence that Iraq broke 1441, can you?

You still want to wriggle your way out of this, RF...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
But you still want to deflect your lack of evidence for Iraq being in breach of 1441, by trying to wriggle your way out of it. You failed again. Please provide evidence that Iraq was not in breech?

Press Release SC/7564

Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations1441 didn't magically make them in breech. If you are found to have been in breech and you don't change then you are still in breech.

It is your claim, you must prove that they were not in breech. I have proven that they were in breech now you prove that they rectified the breech?

[Ion]

Cheating RF.

What you quote is adoption of 1441.

Show me breach of 1441 by Iraq:

breach of 1441 as recognized by U.N. -not as claimed by RF-.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Cheating RF.

What you quote is adoption of 1441.

Show me breach of 1441 by Iraq. Having been in breech 1441 did not make them not in breech.

Since you have been shown to be a liar you have no credibility, no one cares Ion but show me where Iraq was not in breech.

[RandFan]

Read 1441 a little closer.

1441 found that Iraq was in material breech of their obligations. If you are right you can show how they were not in breech of their obligations.

Where's the proof Ion?

Come on, where is the proof that they were not in breech?

[RandFan]

Press Release SC/7564

Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations The WERE in breech. Just because you don't have balls to admit it won't change the fact.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Having been in breech 1441 did not make them not in breech.
...

Then why U.N. doesn't "...make them in breach..." of 1441?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
The WERE in breech. Just because you don't have balls to admit it won't change the fact.
Again that's adoption of 1441.

Show me that after adoption of 1441, U.N. said that Iraq was in breach of 1441.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Then why U.N. doesn't "...make them in breach..." of 1441? That would be redundant. The onus on Iraq was to rectify the breech. What the U.N. needed to do is find them NOT in breech.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Again that's adoption of 1441.

Show me that after adoption of 1441, U.N. said that Iraq was in breach of 1441. Absoluetly unecassary. We already know that they are in breech. Show me where the U.N. Said that they weren't.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
...We already know that they are in breech...
You know?

I don't.

So show me the U.N. document stating that after passage of resolution 1441 Iraq broke 1441.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
You know? You DON'T?

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Show me the U.N. document stating that after passage of resolution 1441 Iraq broke 1441. [/B]Not necassary, it was already established that they were in breech of their OBLIGATIONS! Show me the U.N. document stating that after passage of resolution 1441 that Iraq was NOT in breech of their obligations.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Not necassary, it was already established that they were in breech of their OBLIGATIONS!
...

It was established that after adopting Iraq's obligations in 1441, Iraq was in breach of them?

I don't believe it.

Show me.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
It was established that after adopting Iraq's obligations in 1441, Iraq was in breach of them?

I don't believe it.

Show me. Asked and answered. You are now arguing ad nauseam.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Asked and answered...
Asked and not answered.

Show me that U.N. found Iraq in breach of Iraq's obligations stated in 1441.

You cannot show this.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Asked and not answered.

Show me that U.N. found Iraq in breach of Iraq's obligations stated in 1441.

You cannot show this. Asked and answered.

[Ion]

If you answered then where is your proof that U.N. deemed Iraq in breach of the obligations adopted in 1441?

You are lying again, RF.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
If you answered then where is your proof that U.N. deemed Iraq in breach of the obligations adopted in 1441?

You are lying again, RF. You are begging the question and you are arguing ad nauseam.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ion
If you answered then where is your proof that U.N. deemed Iraq in breach of the obligations adopted in 1441?

You are lying again, RF.

This is silly.

He's saying that the breach was that Iraq failed to disarm, and that resolution 1441 called them on this. SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, Resolution 1441 says they are in breach of resolution 1441.

In essence, you're saying they should have been found to be in violation twice before you will admit they were in violation.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
You are begging the question and you are arguing ad nauseam.
and
Originally posted by Mycroft


This is silly.

He's saying that the breach was that Iraq failed to disarm, and that resolution 1441 called them on this. SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, Resolution 1441 says they are in breach of resolution 1441.

In essence, you're saying they should have been found to be in violation twice before you will admit they were in violation.
Of course I am arguing ad nauseam:

that's the crux of the war.

U.S. signed 1441 in U.N. and signed the promise to not use force but go back "...for discussions..." -which it pretended to do-.
(see U.S. bluffs in U.N. about Iraq)

Building on Iraq's past behavior, Iraq was given its latest chance in 1441, and U.N. didn't find that Iraq was in breach of 1441.

If violations prior to 1441 are the U.S. reason for the war, then why U.S. and U.N. give the latest chance to Iraq in 1441 and U.S. doesn't respect 1441 and starts to war?

1441 doesn't call for war.

RF -or anyone else- doesn't have a U.N. document where U.N. finds Iraq in breach of its latest chance, the resolution 1441.

So according to U.N., 1441, the latest chance given to Iraq, was not broken by Iraq.

U.S. broke its own promise made in 1441 and used force in Iraq.
(See my post earlier with this promise broken by the U.S.)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Of course I am arguing ad nauseam: Thank you for the admission.

Argumentum ad nauseam

This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it.[/b] So, along with the fact that you have been shown to be a liar you now admit that your reasoning is fallacious.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
So, along with the fact that you have been shown to be a liar you now admit that your reasoning is fallacious.
I think you also argue ad nauseam RF, but in addition you are a proven liar:

you didn't show Iraq breaking 1441, but you showed Iraq breaking before 1441;
where did Iraq broke 1441?

I did show where U.S. broke 1441 and used force.

[Otther]

Can we see a show of hands of those who support Ion's discussion techniques in this thread?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
I think you also argue ad nauseam RF. I guess you are so busy arguing that you hadn't noticed. I'm not arguing. I'm just pointing out your fallacious reasoning. But keep it up. The record is 25 pages of fallacious argument held by Jedi Knight. I'm certain you can break the record.

RandFan

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
I'm just pointing out your fallacious reasoning. But keep it up. The record is 25 pages of fallacious argument held by Jedi Knight. I'm certain you can break the record.

RandFan
You will break the record of fallacious argument:

I ask you for two pages where did Iraq break 1441?

Good luck with Jedi's record.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Otther
Can we see a show of hands of those who support Ion's discussion techniques in this thread?
What about your technique?

Where did Iraq break 1441?

Tell me.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

You will break the record of fallacious argument:

I ask you for two pages where did Iraq break 1441?

Good luck with Jedi's record. I'm not arguing.

Just pointing out that with every post you are a little bit closer.

[Ion]

You are closer to the record of fallacious argument:

where did Iraq break 1441?

[Otther]

What about your technique?

Where did Iraq break 1441?

Tell me. I'm not arguing anything here with anybody. For all you know I'm against the war in Iraq for the very same reasons you are.

I'm simply interested in the opinions of the rest of the people. For example... whether or not AUP really does condone your arguement style.

[Ion]

Here Otther, is demon writing about RF's fallacious argument, in page 9 at the bottom:
Originally posted by demon

...
Where in your timeline (or indeed in reality) was Iraq found to be in breach of resolution 1441 by the Security Council?
These two facts are in the wrong order and you forget to add "Without a UNSC mandate" at the end.

Your writing suggests a world view similar to that of the Bush regime - that the UN's purpose is to rubber-stamp US decisions.
...

Notice RF attempt at deception exposed in:

"...These two facts are in the wrong order..."

As for my own style, I don't dilute on many points at once, I focus on one point at the time, concentrating thru straight, simple to the bare minimum, invulnerable shots in exposing RF's fallacious stance.

The way RF tries to duck these simple, straight shots (in the style of "...Where did Iraq break 1441?..."), is to attempt to change the subject, but I keep him cornered.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
"...Where did Iraq break 1441?...")Begging the question. I answered the question at least 15 times. If I continue to argue as you are then I would be arguing ad nauseam. I'm not that is why you are working on the record.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Begging the question. I answered the question at least 15 times.
...

Nah.

You brought up that 1441 stated Iraq was in breach.

1441 asked Iraq to submit instead to new obligations.

You didn't show that Iraq broke its obligations in 1441.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Nah.

You brought up that 1441 stated Iraq was in breach.

1441 asked Iraq to submit instead to new obligations.

You didn't show that Iraq broke its obligations in 1441. Asked and answered by myself and at least 2 others. You are still arguing. And are still arguing ad nauseam. Fallacious.

You only have 20 odd pages to go.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Asked and answered by myself and at least 2 others.
...
Fallacious.

You only have 20 odd pages to go.
Asked and not answered:

when did Iraq break its obligations in 1441?

You are fallacious ad nauseam, RF.

You only have 20 odd pages to go, RF.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Asked and not answered: Asked and answered.

when did Iraq break its obligations in 1441? Begging the question.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Asked and answered.

Begging the question.
Asked and not answered, RF.

Keep going without answering for 20 odd pages, RF.

I only expose you for these 20 pages.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
when did Iraq break its obligations in 1441? Can you prove that Iraq had NEW obligations?

Fact: Iraq was found to be in material breach.

Fact: 1441 did not exonerate them of that breach.

You don't have to like it but those are facts.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Asked and not answered, RF. Can you prove that Iraq had NEW obligations?

Fact: Iraq was found to be in material breach.

Fact: 1441 did not exonerate them of that breach.

You don't have to like it but those are facts.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Fact: 1441 did not exonerate them of that breach.
...

Can you prove this?

[RandFan]

RandFan
Fact: 1441 did not exonerate them of that breach.

Ion
Can you prove this? :D Yes!

Press Release SC/7564

Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations

To HOLD them in breach is not an exhoneration.

Please note the definition of "HOLD".

hold ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hld)
v.

To have and keep in one's grasp: held the reins tightly.[/b] To "have" to "keep" it is not past tense.

QED

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
To HOLD them in breach is not an exhoneration.
...

You flunk again, RF.

You are such an American simpleton...

1441 is here:

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/US081102.HTM

It says:

"...The Council then decides to offer Iraq a final opportunity to comply..."

in it, doesn't it?

Now show me RF, for three pages with your pathetic huffing and puffing in this thread, where did U.N. find that Iraq broke its "...final opportunity to comply..."?

Iraq breaking its "...final opportunity to comply..." offered by U.N. and U.S. to Iraq in Resolution 1441 doesn't exist in U.N., RF.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
You flunk again, RF.

You are such a simpleton... Ad hominem

And if I am the simpleton why are claiming that Iraq was not in breech of 1441 when they were found to be just that (see below).

"...The Council then decides to offer Iraq a final opportunity to comply..." It doesn't exhonerate them. They are still in breech.

Now show me RF, for three pages and huffing and puffing like you do in this thread, where did U.N. found that Iraq broke its "...final opportunity to comply..."? Begging the question. Fallacious. They were in Breech.

Iraq breaking 1441 doesn't exist RF. :D It does exist!!!!!!

Straw: Iraq is in 'material breach' of resolution 1441 (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1293.asp)

The UN weapons' inspectors report on Iraq is 'damning and disturbing', Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said today (28 January). The Iraqi regime was engaged in a 'consistent pattern of concealment and deceit' he said.

Jack Straw said he has reached the 'inescapable conclusion' that Iraq is now in material breach of Resolution 1441. He said:

"War is not inevitable. But the responsibility to avoid conflict rests with Saddam Hussein."

And he published a list of ten key questions posed by the UN's Chief Inspector Hans Blix in his report to the Security Council of 27 January. This would enable the public to make their own assessment of whether Iraq is complying with the United Nations. The questions include: How does Iraq account for 6,500 missing bombs which could carry up to a thousand tonnes of chemical agent?

What is Saddam's answer to Dr Blix's suggestion that he may have retained anthrax and weaponised VX and that the inspectors have found mustard gas precursor?

Why has he been testing missiles with a range beyond the 150 kilometres permitted by the UN Resolutions?

How will Saddam address Dr Blix's concerns that the chemical rocket warheads unearthed by inspectors could be 'the tip of a submerged iceberg'?

The Foreign Secretary said:

"The United Nations is now facing a fundamental challenge to its authority. Paragraph 4 of Resolution 1441 lays down two tests that 'false statements or omissions' in Iraq's declaration 'and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and co-operate fully in the implementation of this Resolution, shall constitute a further material breach'."

Mr Straw said that Iraq has failed both tests and concluded that Iraq is now in material breach of Resolution 1441.

He said:

"No country can be disarmed peacefully by guesswork and game playing. It can be done only with Iraq's active co-operation. The regime does not have long to change its behaviour fundamentally. We cannot let Saddam Hussein get away with never-ending deceit and delay."

[demon]

RandFan:
"Demon is wrong. Iraq never rectified the fact that they were in material breech."

"I know, you think that only you and Demon have posted anything. It's not true. No one has rebuted the argument that I posted. You just dismiss it and declare victory."

I`m not sure what it is that you claim I am wrong about here or what I have and have not rebutted.
Early on in this thread I stated quite clearly that Iraq was in breach of previous UNSC Resolutions. I`ve said "Firstly, it is beyond doubt that Iraq was not in full compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions up to but not including 1441."
Now if you are claiming that Iraq was still in breach of previous resolutions after 1441 was adopted by the UNSC then yes, I agree. However, if you are claiming that Iraq was in actual breach of UNSC 1441 then you have some explaining to do.

I`m running out of ways to to say this but let me try once more.

Iraq was in breach of Resolutions previous to 1441 but it was not in breach of 1441 itself.
Remember, the essence of 1441 was fairly simple: it stated that Iraq still had not complied with previous Resolutions and that it had a "final opportunity" to comply with its obligations. The only way that Iraq could have been in breach of 1441 itself, would have been if the UN decided that Iraq had failed to meet the requirements of 1441 itself -this NEVER happened. Even on the issue of the Declaration, the Security Council never declared that Iraq had breached 1441, but the US did. This is meaningless as far as proving that Iraq was in breach of 1441 however. As we agree (at least I hope we do or we have real problems), it is only the UNSC that can decide if a country (any country), is in breach of a resolution or not. Hence, where you say Iraq was in breach of Resolution 1441 (you are saying this right?), you are not correct. Resolution 1441 states that Iraq was in breach of +previous+ Resolutions.

You say:
"Not necassary, it was already established that they were in breech of their OBLIGATIONS! Show me the U.N. document stating that after passage of resolution 1441 that Iraq was NOT in breech of their obligations."

And Mycroft puts it thus:
"He's saying that the breach was that Iraq failed to disarm, and that resolution 1441 called them on this. SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, Resolution 1441 says they are in breach of resolution 1441.

In essence, you're saying they should have been found to be in violation twice before you will admit they were in violation."

If you think about it for a second, how can a Resolution find that it has not been complied with?

It’s illogical if 1441 had found Iraq in breach of 1441 as this would have been immediately, literally the second it was passed. What would be the point? What 1441 did was to "recall" that Iraq had still not fully complied with previous Resolutions and say to Iraq "you have one last chance". If the UN Security Council had met and decided that Iraq had failed to take this final opportunity then (and this is an important point), they would have "resolved" this and a new Resolution 1442 would have declared Iraq in breach of 1441. This never happened.

To say that Iraq never rectified the fact that they were in material breach of previous Resolutions is strictly correct...nobody can say that Iraq had successfully taken that "final opportunity" given to them in 1441 because the only body capable of deciding that, the Security Council, was denied the opportunity to make that decision. What we also know is that the Security Council refused to pass a Resolution stating that Iraq had +failed+ to take "its final opportunity". The US and UK tried to get such a Resolution passed and, when it was clear that it would not get majority support, they withdrew it. They also attempted to attach six "benchmarks" which Iraq would have had to have met, in short order, for it to avoid attack. These were as follows:

“1 A television appearance by Saddam Hussein in which he renounces "in Arabic” his possession of weapons of mass destruction.

2 President Saddam must agree to allow at least 30 key weapons scientists to travel to Cyprus "with their families" where they will be interviewed by UN weapons inspectors.

3 All anthrax and similar items to be handed over. Iraq must prove destruction of 10,000 litres of anthrax and other chemical and biological weapons allegedly held. Iraq to explain drone aircraft found by inspectors.

4 Iraq must destroy all its al-Samoud 2 missiles and all warheads and launchers.

5 Iraq must account for all unmanned planes that might attack its neighbours with biological weapons.

6 Iraq must hand over mobile chemical and biological production facilities for destruction.” (quoted Independent March 13th 2003)

Crucially, there was a great deal of legal dispute over these tests because neither the UK nor US wanted them to be part of their draft Resolution, officially because they didn’t want to get into legal wrangling. However, the suspected real reason, voiced openly in several newspapers at the time, was that the US and UK didn’t want anything hard and fast with which the UN could find Iraq in compliance. In other words, they wanted something vague that would justify the war. If we’re interested in an indication of the US/UK "faith" in this, the first requirement, the televised apology, probably says it all. As one unnamed ambassador was reported as saying “I think the British want Saddam to go on television and swallow a litre of anthrax to prove he is getting rid of it." (Independent op cit). Benchmark 1 is about as close to "written to provoke a rejection as it is possible get".

Another very significant point here is that this was the time when Blair invented the concept of the "unreasonable veto" which meant, in practice, any veto of US and UK plans. There is no such thing in law as an "unreasonable" veto and it’s remarkably hypocritical of the US and UK to employ the term when the US leads the world in vetoing Resolutions. Just imagine if China declared a US veto "unreasonable" and then ignored it. Blair also argued that 1441 provided the "legal base" for the war (op cit) , which was spurious and was later changed to a fanciful reading of previous Resolutions, 1441 being passed precisely because it did not authorize military action.

There is, quite frankly, a remarkable accumulation of evidence indicating bad faith on the part of the US and UK and a desire to do whatever was necessary to attack Iraq.

Incidentally, this is historically nothing new, especially the idea of setting conditions which are designed to be rejected in order to provoke war. Thinking back to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the talks at Rambouillet that preceded it, we have the testimony (To the House of Commons Defence Select Committee) of the British defence minister at the time, Lord Gilbert. Gilbert claimed that the allies forced Milosevic into a war, stating that he thought "certain people were spoiling for a fight in NATO at that time."..."I think the terms put to Milosevic at Rambouillet were absolutely intolerable: how could he possibly accept them? It was quite deliberate." (Financial Times July 21 2000)

Anyway, to put this in a more schematic sense, the chain of events is this:

1 Up to 2002 Iraq is in breach of UN Security Council Resolutions.

2 In 2002 the UNSCR passes 1441 at the behest of the US and UK. It is passed on the explicit reassurance by ambassadors Greenstock and Negroponte that there is "no automaticity": that 1441 does not authorize an attack. Rather, 1441 states that Iraq has one last chance to comply with previous Resolutions and, if they don’t, "serious consequences" will follow.

3 The US and UK try and get the Security Council to declare that Iraq has failed to take its last chance. The Security Council refuses (for the reasons we have been into, mostly the optimistic and positive reports of Blix).

4 The US and UK attack anyway, saying that 1441 provided the "legal base" for the attack.

What is missing from this list is the Security Council stating that Iraq had failed to take its final opportunity and was therefore in breach of 1441. The Council never did this, and how, when one looks at the evidence could it have? The possibility of a peaceful solution which 1441 offered one last chance of was sidestepped by the US and UK in favour of Shock and Awe.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
I`m not sure what it is that you claim I am wrong about here or what I have and have not rebutted.
Early on in this thread I stated quite clearly that Iraq was in breach of previous UNSC Resolutions. I`ve said "Firstly, it is beyond doubt that Iraq was not in full compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions up to but not including 1441."
Now if you are claiming that Iraq was still in breach of previous resolutions after 1441 was adopted by the UNSC then yes, I agree. However, if you are claiming that Iraq was in actual breach of UNSC 1441 then you have some explaining to do.

...

What is missing from this list is the Security Council stating that Iraq had failed to take its final opportunity and was therefore in breach of 1441. The Council never did this, and how, when one looks at the evidence could it have? The possibility of a peaceful solution which 1441 offered one last chance of was sidestepped by the US and UK in favour of Shock and Awe. Sorry Demon but they failed the test. They were in breech. More importantly 1441 did not make them not in breech. It was encumbent upon them to prove that they were cooperating. They failed to do that. They were in breech.

Straw: Iraq is in 'material breach' of resolution 1441 (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1293.asp)

The UN weapons' inspectors report on Iraq is 'damning and disturbing', Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said today (28 January). The Iraqi regime was engaged in a 'consistent pattern of concealment and deceit' he said.

Jack Straw said he has reached the 'inescapable conclusion' that Iraq is now in material breach of Resolution 1441. He said:

"War is not inevitable. But the responsibility to avoid conflict rests with Saddam Hussein."

And he published a list of ten key questions posed by the UN's Chief Inspector Hans Blix in his report to the Security Council of 27 January. This would enable the public to make their own assessment of whether Iraq is complying with the United Nations. The questions include: How does Iraq account for 6,500 missing bombs which could carry up to a thousand tonnes of chemical agent?

What is Saddam's answer to Dr Blix's suggestion that he may have retained anthrax and weaponised VX and that the inspectors have found mustard gas precursor?

Why has he been testing missiles with a range beyond the 150 kilometres permitted by the UN Resolutions?

How will Saddam address Dr Blix's concerns that the chemical rocket warheads unearthed by inspectors could be 'the tip of a submerged iceberg'?

The Foreign Secretary said:

"The United Nations is now facing a fundamental challenge to its authority. Paragraph 4 of Resolution 1441 lays down two tests that 'false statements or omissions' in Iraq's declaration 'and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and co-operate fully in the implementation of this Resolution, shall constitute a further material breach'."

Mr Straw said that Iraq has failed both tests and concluded that Iraq is now in material breach of Resolution 1441.

He said:

"No country can be disarmed peacefully by guesswork and game playing. It can be done only with Iraq's active co-operation. The regime does not have long to change its behaviour fundamentally. We cannot let Saddam Hussein get away with never-ending deceit and delay."

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
It doesn't exhonerate them. They are still in breech.
...

No.

From the text of U.N. Resolution 1441

"...The Council then offers Iraq a final opportunity to comply..."

means that Iraq is not in breach when it complies with this new opportunity.

U.N. never found that Iraq didn't comply with this new opportunity.

That's where you show obscurantism in logic and in English, simpleton.

[demon]

"Sorry Demon but they failed the test. They were in breech. More importantly 1441 did not make them not in breech. It was encumbent upon them to prove that they were cooperating. They failed to do that. They were in breech."

I am not following you here RandFan.
What test did Iraq fail?
It was encumbent on them to prove they were cooperating...who has said it wasn`t? 1441 was a chance for them to do so.

Jack Staw has no authority in saying Iraq was in breach of 1441. He can say it of course (abd anything else he wants) but only the UNSC has authority to declare a country in breach of Resolutions that is recognized in law. Individuals can`t.
I really can`t see your problem with this.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Sorry Demon but they failed the test. They were in breech.
...

Sorry RF, but

"...The Council then offers Iraq a final opportunity to comply..."

means that Iraq is not in breach when complying with this final opportunity given in 1441.

U.N. didn't find that Iraq didn't comply with 1441.

Quod Erat Demonstratum.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
I am not following you here RandFan.
What test did Iraq fail?
It was encumbent on them to prove they were cooperating...who has said it wasn`t? 1441 was a chance for them to do so.

Paragraph 4 of Resolution 1441 lays down two tests that 'false statements or omissions' in Iraq's declaration 'and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and co-operate fully in the implementation of this Resolution, shall constitute a further material breach'." There was omissions. Are you denying that there were?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

Sorry RF, but

"...The Council then offers Iraq a final opportunity to comply..."

means that Iraq is not in breach when complying with this final opportunity.

Paragraph 4 of Resolution 1441 lays down two tests that 'false statements or omissions' in Iraq's declaration 'and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and co-operate fully in the implementation of this Resolution, shall constitute a further material breach'." No Ion, there could be no ommissions. Blix said there were omissions. They were in breech.

[RandFan]

You can dance all you want. We can pretend that there were no omissions but in the end there were omissions. They were in breech.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan


No Ion, there could be no ommissions. Blix said there were omissions. They were in breech.
OK, show me that Blix convinced U.N. that there were omissions, leading U.N. to declare Iraq in breach of 1441.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
...
We can pretend that there were no omissions but in the end there were omissions. They were in breech.
So show me the U.N. text that Iraq broke 1441.

Due to omissions, whatever...

Show me the U.N. text that officially declared Iraq in breach of 1441.

[demon]

You really do need to show where the UNSC agrees with you.
We can go round and round on this I guess but the only question that really matters is can you provide documentary evidence that the UN Security Council found Iraq had breached Resolution 1441 and had thus failed to take "its final opportunity".

What Jack Straw said doesn`t really cut it...he is not the UNSC. He does not pass UNSC Resolutions and he does not decide if they have been breached or not.

[Ion]

I agree with this:
Originally posted by demon
You really do need to show where the UNSC agrees with you.
We can go round and round on this I guess but the only question that really matters is can you provide documentary evidence that the UN Security Council found Iraq had breached Resolution 1441 and had thus failed to take "its final opportunity".

What Jack Straw said doesn`t really cut it...he is not the UNSC. He does not pass UNSC Resolutions and he does not decide if they have been breached or not.
Jack Straw doesn't matter to determine breach of 1441 by Iraq.

U.N.S.C. does matter, U.N.S.C. is the international law that U.S. signed into.

[demon]

Unless the Security Council rules they were in breach, they weren't in breach. That's the only fact you need to know RandFan.

In terms of whether morally they were in breach, we can't know, because the US REMOVED THOUSANDS OF THE DOCUMENTS submitted by Iraqis from the Security Council for photocopying (can you believe it?) and returned just a fraction of them.

Saddam was 'playing games' the way a fox hides from bloodhounds who are intent on ripping it apart. It's the bloodhounds who play the game, not the fox - he's not a player, he's just the target.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
You really do need to show where the UNSC agrees with you.
We can go round and round on this I guess but the only question that really matters is can you provide documentary evidence that the UN Security Council found Iraq had breached Resolution 1441 and had thus failed to take "its final opportunity".

What Jack Straw said doesn`t really cut it...he is not the UNSC. He does not pass UNSC Resolutions and he does not decide if they have been breached or not. My only point is and has been that Iraq was in breech. The question becomes were they or were they not in breech. 1441 gave a 2 part test.

There were omissions

This whole thing started because I said Iraq was in breech.

That was true and is true. Was there a formal finding of being in breech of 1441? I never said there was. There was a formal finding that they were in breech before 1441 and there was clearly omissions when Iraq submitted its report. The omissions put Iraq it breech. If you want to play games then I suppose that is your perogative but they were in breech. Furthermore 1441 did not exhonerate them from being in breech.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
Unless the Security Council rules they were in breach, they weren't in breach. That's the only fact you need to know RandFan. Wrong, they clearly were in breech. If you choose to ignore the testimony of Blix and the report given by Iraq then fine but there were omissions and Iraq was clearly in breech.

In terms of whether morally they were in breach, we can't know, because the US REMOVED THOUSANDS OF THE DOCUMENTS submitted by Iraqis from the Security Council for photocopying (can you believe it?) and returned just a fraction of them. We do know, the report was incomplete (see above).

Saddam was 'playing games' the way a fox hides from bloodhounds who are intent on ripping it apart. It's the bloodhounds who play the game, not the fox - he's not a player, he's just the target. I have failed to miss the importance of this paragraph. It was encumbant upon Saddam to show why he was not in breech. He failed to do so.

[RandFan]

Demon,

At what point does this become argument ad nauseam? I will agree that there was no formal finding. Will you agree that the 12,000 page report provided by Iraq was incomplete?

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
My only point is and has been that Iraq was in breech. The question becomes were they or were they not in breech. 1441 gave a 2 part test.

There were omissions

This whole thing started because I said Iraq was in breech.

That was true and is true. Was there a formal finding of being in breech of 1441? I never said there was. There was a formal finding that they were in breech before 1441 and there was clearly omissions when Iraq submitted its report. The omissions put Iraq it breech. If you want to play games then I suppose that is your perogative but they were in breech. Furthermore 1441 did not exhonerate them from being in breech.
So show me the U.N. text that Iraq was in breach of 1441.

By the way "...The Council then offers Iraq a final opportunity to comply... -from the text of 1441 that I posted- means that Iraq was exonerated of past breaches when complying with the new opportunity.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

So show me the U.N. text that Iraq was in breach of 1441.

By the way "...The Council then offers Iraq a final opportunity to comply... -from the text of 1441 that I posted- means that Iraq was exonerated of past breaches when complying with the new opportunity. Show me how there were no omissions in the 12,000 page report?

1441 gave a 2 part test.

There were omissions

This whole thing started because I said Iraq was in breech.

That was true and is true.[/list] Was there a formal finding of being in breech of 1441? I never said there was. There was a formal finding that they were in breech before 1441 and there was clearly omissions when Iraq submitted its report. The omissions put Iraq it breech. If you want to play games then I suppose that is your perogative but they were in breech. Furthermore 1441 did not exhonerate them from being in breech.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Demon,

At what point does this become argument ad nauseam? I will agree that there was no formal finding. Will you agree that the 12,000 page report provided by Iraq was incomplete?
I jump into this question for demon -not for me- to state anyway that this support of the reasons for war in Iraq becomes argument ad nauseam when:

.) according to news I read, so far 35,000 Iraqi soldiers and 11,000 Iraqi civilians died but they didn't have much to do with Saddam; war should be waged for the right reasons, because war is disaster to thousands;

.) like I pointed earlier the motive for the war is not Iraq's breach of 1441, WMDs, human rights and 'liberation' of Iraq, but Bush's interest in Iraq's oil, and that's not a right reason to war.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
Show me how there were no omissions in the 12,000 page report?
...

This is for U.N. to determine.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion

I jump into this question for demon -not for me- to state anyway that this support of the reasons for war in Iraq becomes argument ad nauseam when:

.) according to news I read, so far 35,000 Iraqi soldiers and 11,000 Iraqi civilians died who didn't have much to do with Saddam;

.) like I pointed earlier the motive is not Iraq in breach of 1441, WMDs, or 'liberation', but Bush's interest in Iraq's oil. You haven't a clue as to what argument ad nauseam is.

[RandFan]

jj

Ion asserted a number of things, based on an assertion in his previous thread that americans are ugly and stupid. One of them was that, by his omission of others, that Goertzel was responsible for the modern implementation of the FFT. Why, Ion, did it take you 5 pages to admit that his work is derivitive of Cooley and Tukey's? (NB, there's nothing WRONG with that.)

Why, then, when you finally admitted this, did you cite a bunch of work from people born before the USA even existed as some kind of confused, purported evidence that the USA is a nation of IP theives who just take others' work, even though it's obviously absurd to cite such evidence.

Why did you suggest that DTMF signalling, and in particular US Touchtone (might be TM) signalling, was a European invention, based on one small aspect, that of tone detection?

Where have you addressed the issues of getting such tones across a highly nonlinear network?

Why have you not cited other uses of MF tone signalling that preceded TouchTone (TM?), and properly address the invention and origin of those methods?

Why haven't you addressed the overall system design of the Touchtone (TM?) signalling system in the USA, and instead harped seemingly endlessly on one and only one aspect of a large problem?

What is your evidence that, as you have so clearly stated, I have no idea what Fermat's theorem is?

What is your evidence, as you have implied, that you have standing to lecture me in the field of DSP? (Note, anyone can learn, but you seem to imply that in this field, you are the teacher, and I am the student.)

Please show your standing, and your evidence that *I* have no experience or understanding in this field. Patents with your name on them (subject to confirmation it's actually you), papers with your name (ditto), and products on the market may be cited here, at the very least. As that information is publically available in my case, I really feel little need to say more.

Finally, please explain the following. It's hard to reduce this to one and only one question, because of the stunning absurdity of the whole, so I will simply quote this absurdity and allow you to flounder about as you might. In the thread cited above, you've said:

[demon]

RandFan, are you saying that it is legitimate for parties other than the UNSC to decide on whether UNSC Resolutions have been breached or not, to the extent that these decisions then take precedent over UNSC decisons and actions follow that have not been sanctioned by the UNSC?

Is that your view? I know it was and is the view of many people who see the UN as impotent.
I don`t want to argue the ethics of this position, I`m just asking the question in good faith.
If that is your position then we are arguing at cross purposes and it is indeed futile.

I`ll check back in later.
demon

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan
You haven't a clue as to what argument ad nauseam is.
Well I see you doing it since beginning of 2003, right?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
RandFan, are you saying that it is legitimate for parties other than the UNSC to decide on whether UNSC Resolutions have been breached or not, to the extent that these decisions then take precedent over UNSC decisons and actions follow that have not been sanctioned by the UNSC?

Is that your view? I know it was and is the view of many people who see the UN as impotent.
I don`t want to argue the ethics of this position, I`m just asking the question in good faith.
If that is your position then we are arguing at cross purposes and it is indeed futile.

I`ll check back in later.
demon Hey demon,

Good question. Can I get back to you? It's late and I need to sleep. I think you deserve an honest answer and I want to have a clear head. Thanks for the response. Let me appologize if I have been rude. The pissing match with Ion has made me a bit testy. I promise you I did not intend to be short with you. I've got to learn to let my ego not get into these stupid and meaningless debates.

I promise to answer you in the morning. Trust me, my brain is fried.

RandFan

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
The pissing match with Ion has made me a bit testy.
...
RandFan
Yeah, but you learned.

Like Bush's interest in oil that I documented, like Iraq being exonerated of past breaches and given the opportunity in 1441 that I documented.

They opened your eyes, and in this thread you conceded them.

Better late than never RF.

I would hate to think of you wandering in the streets in 2030, waving a cane in the air and shouting at passerby 'Iraq was liberated in 2003!'.

But man, since February 2003 until now, you sure are slow minded...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ion
Yeah, but you learned.

Like Bush's interest in oil that I documented, like Iraq being exonerated of past breaches and given the opportunity in 1441 that I documented.Uhhh....NO!

Exonerated? No! Bush's interest in oil proves nothing.

[Ion]

Originally posted by RandFan

...
Exonerated? No!
...

Iraq's obligations in 1441 remained the same as before, but the process to achieve them was adjusted to a "...final opportunity to comply" and Iraq was not found by U.N. in breach of this "...final opportunity to comply...".
Originally posted by RandFan

...
Bush's interest in oil proves nothing.
Bush's interest in Iraq's oil, is oil for blood.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
RandFan, are you saying that it is legitimate for parties other than the UNSC to decide on whether UNSC Resolutions have been breached or not, to the extent that these decisions then take precedent over UNSC decisions and actions follow that have not been sanctioned by the UNSC? I have serious reservations about the U.N. That being said I don't think other parties can decide if UNSC Resolutions have been formally breached.

However, other parties can find that UNSC have for all practical purposes breached the Resolution. Further if other parties decide that the U.N. will not act on that fact that they in their best interest can act.

Is that your view? I know it was and is the view of many people who see the UN as impotent.
I don`t want to argue the ethics of this position, I`m just asking the question in good faith. I do not question at all your motivation for asking. Please, ask anything that you feel is important without prefacing your reason for asking. I will try and answer to the best of my ability and not ascribe any ulterior motive for the questions.

If that is your position then we are arguing at cross purposes and it is indeed futile. I think there is a bit of apples vs oranges comparing going on. However, your argument is quite valid and the United States must bear the consequences of going outside of the U.N. and deciding unilaterally to act on it's belief that Iraq was in breech.

Iraq was in breech IMO. And I think a valid argument can be made that they were. I will stipulate that they were never formally found in breech of 1441.

[davefoc]

I didn't know about this thread when it was active.

I wonder if views have changed a bit since the thread was active.

Since this thread was last posted to there have been numerous revelations that may reflect on the issue.

The LA Times had a very long article yesterday about how the US was constantly warned by German intelligence that Curveball, the major source of information on chemical weapons, was probably a dufus.

It is absolutely clear now that the US was grossly exaggerating the reliability of intelligence on Iraq's alledged nuclear weapon efforts.

We now have proof positive of how the Bush administration was using Judy Miller to hype the WMD scares in the New York Times.

We've had the skowcroft criticisms of the Bush administration's Iraq war effort.

We have had the Katrina fiasco.

We have more evidence than ever that the Bush administration has presided over the largest buildup in US spending the greatest growth in deficits in US history.

It is now absolutely clear that the prescription drug plan is going to cost massively more than the Bush administration claimed, and that the estimates by analysts about the cost at the time were correct.

We've had Plamegate where Bush's only response seems to be to lie.

So does any of this and so much more that I haven't listed now suggest to the people who were on the fence before that the time has come to admit that between tough commander and dolt it is the latter that is more appropriate.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Hmmm, tough commander or dolt, tough commander or dolt?????

Charlie (hard to decide) Monoxide

[CrossHair]

Hmmm, tough commander or dolt, tough commander or dolt?????

Charlie (hard to decide) Monoxide

Are you proposing a choice here? I don't see that being a "tough commander" and simultaneously being a "dolt" are mutually exclusive characteristics. I suspect it is usually common for them to coexist. It is less common for a person characterized as a "tough commander" to appear "open minded" , "curious", and "flexible".
While, I am sure, Dick Cheney would be characterized as "tough" he would not be described as a "dolt" either.

[davefoc]

Are you proposing a choice here? I don't see that being a "tough commander" and simultaneously being a "dolt" are mutually exclusive characteristics. I suspect it is usually common for them to coexist. It is less common for a person characterized as a "tough commander" to appear "open minded" , "curious", and "flexible".
While, I am sure, Dick Cheney would be characterized as "tough" he would not be described as a "dolt" either.

I thought the initiator of the thread was taking a bit of poetic license with the terms.

If we're going to get serious I don't think Bush is a dolt by the normal meaning of the term. Arguably he is not a tough commander in the sense that he makes tough decisions with regard to firing people when stuff doesn't go well. On the other hand he might be seen as a tough commander in the sense of being tough on people he sees as disloyal.

I do think he is the least competent and least honest president in my life time.

[CrossHair]

I do think he is the least competent and least honest president in my life time.

I definetly agree about the "least competent" part of your characterization, however I honestly feel that he believes he is being totally honest. Almost everyone believes themselves to be honest people, even if others see them as full of ***t.

So between the characterizations of
1 Tough Commander
2 Incompetent
3 Dolt
4 not honest (liar)
5 misleading
6 Has a vague idea and "winging" it
7 Knows what he wants and how to do it
8 Keen intellect and knowledge
9 Hires "tough" people and gets out of the way

I would say #2 by far followed by #5, #6, #9.

[Mark]

I definetly agree about the "least competent" part of your characterization, however I honestly feel that he believes he is being totally honest. Almost everyone believes themselves to be honest people, even if others see them as full of ***t.



Well, no one believes they are a villain. Ted Bundy and Pol Pot probably both thought they were charming, fun loving dudes.

Get your feathers down, Republicans; I am not comparing darling Dubya to either one of those guys. Now, Bozo the clown...;)

[davefoc]

I definetly agree about the "least competent" part of your characterization, however I honestly feel that he believes he is being totally honest. Almost everyone believes themselves to be honest people, even if others see them as full of ***t.


I think this forum accues people of being liars way too often based on my view of the meaning of the word and my view of the way people are.

I think, however, in the case of Bush, there is reason to believe the term might be appropriate.

1. I think there is strong evidence that his administration intentionally exaggerated the strength of evidence for the case that Iraq had WMD and that Hussein was involved with the 9/11 disaster. The only issue here is to what degree was Bush a witting conspirator in the effort to exagerate the evidence. I don't know the answer but my assumption is that he must have been involved enough that he had some idea. Intentionally exaggerating sounds like lying to me.

2. I think there is very little doubt the administration knew in advance that real costs of their drug plan would be massively higher than the number they were promoting. I think Bush went along with the charade because he was looking for the political gain from passage of the plan.

3. I think there is little doubt that Bush used his influence to get into the national guard and then used it again to break the terms of his contract with the national guard. Breaking a contract seems like dishonesty to me.

4. Bush essentially said that he would fire people involved in the Plame leak and allowed his spokesman to say exactly that. It is now clear that Bush did not intend to carry out that promise if the leak was traced to high ranking officials in his administration or changed his mind about firing people when the leak was traced to high ranking members of his administration. That at least sounds like a broken commitment and that sounds like a kind of lie to me.

5. Bush has engaged in sham events like the interview with the soldiers in Iraq where the soldiers being interviewed included army propaganda specialists. This sounds like misrepresentation of the reality of an event to the extent that characterizing as a form of lying seems reasonable to me.

I think the above is just a partial list. The fact is the Bush administration continues to engage in organized spin implemented with news leaks and other big lie techniques to promote false ideas about what has gone on. Of course all administrations have engaged in this kind of behavior but my perception is that this is standard operating procedure for all issues all the time with the Bush administration. I think it is possible that this is driven by the combined role of Rove as a policy and political adviser. Perhaps the single most significant characterization of the Bush administration besides its push to war in Iraq based on marginal justification is the almost complete unwillingness of Bush to take a principled stand on anything. And a complete unwillingness to take a principled stand on anything seems like exactly the hallmark of a dishonest person to me.

[CrossHair]

OK, so it is clear that you agree with Al Franken, who is also not afraid of the "liar" word.

Maybe you have seen this response from George Bush.
w w w.funnyjunk.com/movies/47/Bush+Uncensored!!+Bush+gives+the+finger!

His true character?

[fishbob]

So - what ever happened to that 12,000 page report? As I recall, reviews had started, but not completed when we went into Iraq.

[CapelDodger]

I think this forum accues people of being liars way too often based on my view of the meaning of the word and my view of the way people are.

I think, however, in the case of Bush, there is reason to believe the term might be appropriate.

My position is that Bush Minor is a figure-head, someone to fill an empty suit while leaving it empty, so this essentially an "angels dancing on a pin-head" debate. That said ...

1. I think there is strong evidence that his administration intentionally exaggerated the strength of evidence for the case that Iraq had WMD and that Hussein was involved with the 9/11 disaster. The only issue here is to what degree was Bush a witting conspirator in the effort to exagerate the evidence. I don't know the answer but my assumption is that he must have been involved enough that he had some idea. Intentionally exaggerating sounds like lying to me.
But if the intention is to persuade, and the exaggerration is merely a tool to that end, then it's only lying if you're persuading people of something you know ain't so. I don't think Bush Minor has any conception of intellectual integrity, but I do think he was himself persuaded that the case being made was true. There just - frustratingly - wasn't the hard evidence. It's group-think.

2. I think there is very little doubt the administration knew in advance that real costs of their drug plan would be massively higher than the number they were promoting. I think Bush went along with the charade because he was looking for the political gain from passage of the plan.
Did anybody actually tell Bush Minor, and would he have understood the cost estimates if he'd read them? I think it more likely that the adverse analysis was simply presented to him as a political problem, politically motivated, which Uncles Karl and Dick would sort out. The political gain motivated him to want it to be so, and so it was.

3. I think there is little doubt that Bush used his influence to get into the national guard and then used it again to break the terms of his contract with the national guard. Breaking a contract seems like dishonesty to me.
No argument there. He knows what he did, he knows that it might appear shameful, but that was a different Him, only born once. And anyway, everyone was doing it. Devious and despicable people will try to tar the new, born-again Him with the same brush.

4. Bush essentially said that he would fire people involved in the Plame leak and allowed his spokesman to say exactly that. It is now clear that Bush did not intend to carry out that promise if the leak was traced to high ranking officials in his administration or changed his mind about firing people when the leak was traced to high ranking members of his administration. That at least sounds like a broken commitment and that sounds like a kind of lie to me.
I suspect he did mean the promise, but believed what he'd been told - that he wouldn't have to carry it through. By now he must know he was misled himself, but has decided to renege. Which would make him a renegade, but not a liar.

5. Bush has engaged in sham events like the interview with the soldiers in Iraq where the soldiers being interviewed included army propaganda specialists. This sounds like misrepresentation of the reality of an event to the extent that characterizing as a form of lying seems reasonable to me.
But does Bush Minor see it that way? Isn't it just politics? It's the only kind of politics he's ever personally experienced, after all. It's all about persuasion. I doubt that he's ever had any doubts about what he's persuading people of. He's far too shallow and impressionable.

I think the above is just a partial list. The fact is the Bush administration continues to engage in organized spin implemented with news leaks and other big lie techniques to promote false ideas about what has gone on. Of course all administrations have engaged in this kind of behavior but my perception is that this is standard operating procedure for all issues all the time with the Bush administration. I think it is possible that this is driven by the combined role of Rove as a policy and political adviser. Perhaps the single most significant characterization of the Bush administration besides its push to war in Iraq based on marginal justification is the almost complete unwillingness of Bush to take a principled stand on anything. And a complete unwillingness to take a principled stand on anything seems like exactly the hallmark of a dishonest person to me.

To me, he's just shallow and vapid. A cipher. The TV beefcake weatherman, not the meteorologist.

What that says about US democracy is a long lecture in itself. And don't get me started on Blair and New Labour ... Let alone Chirac, Putin, Kofi Annan, some German I despise but don't know why yet, all the other frickin' lightweights pretending to run the world today. Berlusconi! That I should live to see such days ... Still, beats one alternative.:)