Re: OT: You Can't Make This S*** Up!


On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:07:09 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Read the attached article -- it has some interesting things to say
about the organizations that *are* launching those lawsuits. Here's a
hint: Follow the Money.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007999

[Article snipped]
Wow. More long-winded obfuscation and excuse making for the ridiculously
bad president. (I wonder how much the writer got paid to write this one?)

What comments of substance do you have on the piece?

[Silence.]

Shawn has absolutely no comments of substance on the piece. He
provides no evidence that he actually even read the piece.

What faulty arguments do you find?

[Silence.]

Shawn can find none!

What incorrect facts do you find?

[Silence.]

None.

As it stands, you fail to present any evidence that you actually even
read the piece.

[Loud silence.]

After all that blather, the question remains in my mind: Since we are at
"war" (in legal reality, we are not), and we are under such threat that the
president needs to be above the law and the Constitution, and American
citizens' civil liberties need to be suspended, how can it be justifiable
to
"outsource" international points of entry?

That's another tell-tale that you didn't even read the damn piece.

The operation of these ports was in the hands of a British company for
years. If you think it was important for the operations to be owned
(or, heaven forbid, nationalized) by the US, it's about 5 years too
late to get on that bandwagon!

[Silence.]

Shawn cannot explain why he seemingly holds a double-standard for how
we "outsource" the management of companies.

The port security issue is the Dubai Ports World is acquiring (or has
acquired) the British-owned company that is running the ports.

So what have have is a deal between two foreign nations (one of which is an
ally) that concerns security at US points of entry.

Liberals criticized when airport screenings were done predominately on
Arab individuals; but they're willing to apply that selectivity to the
companies to manage these ports.

How the hell does anyone think it's ever a good idea to have a foreign
company in charge of major international seaport entry points into the US
in time of peace, let alone during a "war?"

Watch out! That question gets you into the same trouble that your
"imminence test" does: if it's such a bad thing, why did Clinton
tolerate having a British company manage the operation of those ports?

You'll see numerous points why that's a good idea if you read the
article above.

I read the article and what I read was the usual "journalism" that comes out
in times of legal issue for this administration.

With all due respect, you *still* fail to say anything that indicates
that you actually read the article.

What I did not read was a
good reason (because there is none) that the US should be allowing a
state-owned company to acquire control of US ports - particularly in a time
of "war."

Then what objections do you have for the reasoning that is presented
in the article?

To repeat: you still have said absolutely nothing that demonstrates
that you actually read the article!

That would be common sense in a normal world ...

Common sense would dictate that you make some *specific* criticisms of
why the management is problematic.

Common sense would also dictate that the "critique" you posted would
actually give some sense of what article you were commenting on.

This damn sure doesn't make sense given the demonstrated inability of this
administration to protect American property and lives.

The PDB that warned that Bin Laden was determined to attack in the US was
either not read or was ignored by this administration.

Then do tell: exactly how would Al Gore have dealt with those vague
unspecified warnings? Tell us in 20-20 hindsight exactly how that
would have worked.

The warnings that Iraq did not possess WMDs that were a threat to the US
were ignored.

There is one thing that you continue to ignore: the one person who
could have accounted for Saddam's WMD Stockpiles was Saddam himself!
He failed to comply with the terms of the Armistice. He failed to
comply with over a dozen UNSC resolutions. And he failed to comply
with UNSC 1441 -- Saddam's "last chance" resolution.

How many times will we have to go over that before you'll understand
it? Or are these facts that you just cannot confront?

How is it that you are certain that some of Saddam's WMD Stockpiles
weren't moved to another country?

The warnings that the levies in New Orleans would break in a category 5
hurricane were ignored.

....by multiple administrations -- including Clinton's. By a state and
local government.

What exactly is your point?

Those things are what you might call a demonstrated inability to protect
American property and lives.

Not at all. It is demagoguery.

Or is it deliberate?

That is massive demagoguery.

Either way,

"Either" is nonsense. If a Cat 5 hat hit NO during the Clinton
administration, it would have also wreaked havoc. The only difference
is that you wouldn't be launching your conspiracy theories now.

And, yes, it is likely that a few crackpots on the right would have
launched their own conspiracy theories against Clinton.

the results are not good for Americans (and the world).

Bad things happened -- that is true. The rest of it is your spin.

Conjecture is not a substitute for valid arguments, Shawn.

For instance, if you put forth an "imminence test", the test itself
should be applicable to both Bush *and* Clinton. If the military
actions under Clinton's tenure cannot be reconciled within such an
"imminence test," then any conjecture of the validity of such "test"
is dubious at best and utter nonsense at worst.

The "test" is a legal standard.

A "legal standard" can indeed be applied to the actions of Bill
Clinton's administration, right?

The military invasion and bombing of
another country is only allowable under UN Charter and International Law in
the case of an attack or the imminent threat of such an attack.

THEN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!

What exactly was the "imminent threat" that Yugoslavia posed in 1999?
Who was threatened?

How did Saddam's Iraq pose an "imminent threat" to anyone in 1998?

That is the test. It is a legal threshold.

You've repeated those words here many times. But you have still failed
to apply them to the military actions taken in 1998 and 1999.

Why the disconnect?

The presentation that Colin
Powell made to the UN was an attempt to make the case that Iraq posed an
imminent threat to the US, its allies, and /or Iraq's neighbors.

What we're talking about here is the "imminent threat" that justified
the military actions in 1998 and 1999. After all, since it is a "legal
threshold," there must have been an imminent threat before both of
those military actions.

Right?

BTW, Powell said the following about that presentation to the UN:

"It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to
the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's
painful now."
http://tinyurl.com/8x2n5

Shawn: Powell wasn't talking about the 1998/1999 actions! Those are
the ones that you need to reconcile.

If your "legal threshold" is a valid test, it should be testable
against those actions, too.

Anyway,

You still have failed to test your theories against the actions on
Clinton's tenure! "Anyway" is a false premise.

the reason it was necessary to go to the UN and attempt to make such
a case was because of the legal provision that an armed invasion of another
country is only justifiable in self defense of in the case of imminent
threat.

Then you should be able to explain Yugoslavia! And you should explain
Clinton's bombing of Iraq!

In both cases: what was the "imminent threat"?

To be sure, I am against war.

You're demonstrably against wars that are started when a Republican is
in office.

You fail to utter a peep about the wars that happened when Clinton was
in office.

In my opinion (and under international law),
the only justification for war is defense.

You continue to fail to answer the question: were those 1998/1999
actions justified?

The Iraq war is not "defending" the US.

Understand?

I understand that you are repeating your conjectures. There's nothing
new in all the stuff you've said above.

What you have failed to do -- again -- is to test your conjectures.
WRT the "imminence test," the simple way to do that is to apply your
"test" to two military actions that happened while Clinton was in
office.

[Silence.]

Still no answer to why Shawn -- nor, AFAICT, any Democrat -- can apply
the "imminence test" to the actions under Clinton's tenure.

This is genuinely goofy!

Of course, you should probably take that up with the Democrats if it bothers
you so much.

Your "imminence test" is not worth anything unless it is actually
testable, Shawn.

Meanwhile more than 2000 US servicemen and women have died in a war that was
supposed to be a mission to disarm Iraq. Presumably, that was so important
that the lives of more than 100,000 Iraqis would be sacrificed.

And, now, you are repeating yourself. Again. And you have ignored --
again -- the tens of thousands or Iraqis who were murdered under
Saddam's brutal regime since the end of the Gulf War. You fail to
account for the thousands and thousands of children who could have
been saved had Saddam not stolen $20B from the "Oil for Food" program.

I'll do the same repeating: you have never ever provided a viable
alternative for removing Saddam's brutal dictatorship from Iraq.

....or are you proposing that maintaining the Status Quo in Iraq would
somehow be acceptable.

Rather than repeat those same points over and over, why don't you do
something new: tell us if your "imminence test" actually stands the
test of history?

The trouble is that this administration ignored (or worse) anyone who argued
that Iraq posed no threat.

They were conservative in their assessment of risk.

That is the issue behind the Valerie Plame
outting case, for example.

No. If you read the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, you would
discover that Joe Wilson's statements were dead wrong.

Did you ever read that report?

And I ask this question without even considering the alleged ties to
terrorism.

That's just another conjecture.

No. I really do ask that question.

But you did spew out the conjecture.

Rather than spew conjectures, why not reconcile your "imminence test"
against history?

Was there an "imminent threat" to the world by Yugoslavia?

Was there an "imminent threat" by Iraq when Clinton attacked?

Could it be that the "imminence test" is simply a political
contrivance?

Don't bother with the bull*** about how the company has been "vetted." We
have all seen how trustworthy this administration's "stamp of approval" is
... So far this administrations policies, actions and failures to act have
cost more than 100,000 lives.

That's another conjecture. You have failed to ever provide a viable
scenario where Saddam's brutal dictatorship could have been removed
from power without massive loss of lives.

We should learn from history, Shawn. You do recall another brutal
dictator from the 20th century that was allowed to ignore an Armistice
with impunity, right?

Yes, I do.

No, you don't.

If you actually did, you would reconcile your "imminence test" against
history.

Wanna talk about an American politically powerful family (two
presidents and a governor) that has a history of doing business with and for
that brutal dictator?

If your test were actually testable against history, you would not
hesitate to test it.

That would be fun.

Then go ahead!

The last time you discussed such things, it only revealed the
inconsistency of your arguments. Here, it would do exactly the same
thing.

Why would you want us to "learn" about things happening early in the
20th century while simultaneously avoiding the lessons of 1998 and
1999?

Goofy.


We should learn from history, Shawn. You do recall another brutal
dictator from the 20th century that was allowed to ignore an Armistice
with impunity, right?

[Silence. No response.]

Again, you failed to respond to this.

Shawn: you're only interested in a highly selective look back through
history. You would rather not look at the lesson of allowing a
dictator to ignore an Armistice with impunity.

At least 6,000 of them American lives. They
have lied about everything

That is pure conjecture -- something you have never proven. Somehow,
you think that repeating the conjecture over and over and over -- and
over -- makes it true.

True. I have not proven it (if you choose to ignore the postings of this
administration's actual statements).

Nonsense. If you "proved" that in some posting, you should be able to
tell us which exact posting you did that.

You cannot! You will not produce that message-id! That dog don't hunt
-- that proof don't exist.

Your "proof" for your conjectures was ... just another conjecture.
Goofy!

However, current events are doing that
quite adequately.

That's just another conjecture. Prove it!

[Silence. No response.]

from when the war was planned to whether or not
the president knew about the WTC being hit to Jessica Lynch's heroism. Oh,
and they lied about the reasons for the "war," too.

How can we possibly trust ANYTHING this administration says or does?

Because you have failed to EVER back up those conjectures!

Then you should trust this administration. The rest of the world does not.

That's just another conjecture. Prove it!

Their statement that the the company has been checked out means nothing.

But the conjectures that you repeat time and time again here do mean
something??? Please.

WTF can be the reasoning behind giving our ports to a foreign country while
claiming to be at war?

Read the article. At the very least, you'll stop making the ridiculous
"outsourcing" argument.

[Silence. Shawn has no explanation for his "outsourcing" argument.]

Shawn: do you now realize that the operation had ALREADY been
outsource -- years ago?

To a country that refused to cooperate in the conflict with the Taliban?

To
a country that refuses to acknowledge the right to exist of the US's closest
ally in the Middle East?

Are you suggesting that Dubai is the same (as far as the US is concerned) as
Britain?

Nope. That's your extrapolation. My point is that your statement
"giving our ports to a foreign country" made no sense.

I hope finally Americans are waking up,

Agreed. I fondly hope Americans cultivate an intolerance for innuendo
sans facts and reasoning -- the innuendo around the "big lie," etc.

Anyone critically reading your posting knows that you have failed to
address a single argument presented there. It's painfully obvious that
you have presented no evidence that you even read it.

[Silence.]

And, once again, Shawn has failed to address any points being
discussed here.

Shawn still has failed to provide any evidence that he actually read
the article that he "commented" on!

Come to think of it, neither has Phil ...

What's your point? Do you have any specific questions?

So far, all you gave us was some sweeping generalizations about the
article.

but I fear it is too late to stop this madman (Bush) and his team of
neocons.

More conjecture sans facts.

As I said way back in 2001 (and
took a lot of "flames" for saying), they are NOT looking out for the best
interests of this country.

Simply because you have been repeating conjectures for 5 years doesn't
make them true.

Nope.

Then what do you think repeating conjectures over and over
accomplishes?

The war, the outting of federal agents, the failure to capture the
alleged main operative of the 911 attacks, the failure to apprehend the
Anthrax murderer, the appointment of incompetent and criminal cronies to
positions of vital national interest, the illegal invasion of a sovereign
nation that was not a threat, the continued destruction of the economy, the
criminal activities of Bush, Cheny, Santorum, Frist, et al without any real
accountability ...

.... all a huge pile of innuendo and conjecture.

Innuendo is not equal to truth, Shawn.

The things make the statement true:

The Bush Administration is NOT looking out for the good of this country or
the world..

Conjectures don't make anything true, Shawn. The only way to get to a
"truth" from a pile of conjectures is with dogmatic reasoning.

That is becoming so clear that even if you don't want to see it, it's
obvious.

I want to see reasoning and facts. I don't want to see you repeating
the same old tire conjectures without reasoning and facts.

I don't know how to say it any more plainly than that.

No need. It's obvious that facts and reasoning are not what you seek.

Wow. Did you notice: THAT'S JUST ANOTHER CONJECTURE!

Shawn: it was also "obvious" to everyone that the emperor's new
clothes were simply fabulous.

If you have a legitimate argument, you should be able to provide the
facts and reasoning to back it up.

But why are they doing this stuff? Who are they working for?

I would answer, but your dogma is screaming too loud for you to hear.

Not a problem

Screaming dogma would not be a problem if you didn't try to substitute
it for facts and reasoning.

(ignoring your conjecture about "screaming dogma").

Your failure to provide facts + reasoning makes it dogma.

I can
read your response. So can you answer the questions in writing? That way I
can read them even if I can't "hear" you.

I'm sorry you didn't understand: scream/hear was an analogy.

Thanks!

Wage Peace

Go back and read the article now, Shawn.

[Silence.]

Once again, Shawn hasn't failed to provide any evidence that he even
read the article.

[Silence.]

Or again. No evidence at all. That's the screaming dogma I'm talking
about!


Wow.

Wow, indeed. Your failure to participate in the give-and-take
discussion is noted.

Snipping questions does not make them go away, Shawn.

Well, anyway ...

Phil, I post "political" stuff as "Wage Peace."

You post conjectures under the name "Wage Peace". You have a long
track record of failing to back up those conjectures.

[Silence.]

...as you did, again, in this posting.


It is good "netiquette" to
use the screen-name rather than the personal name.

It is good "netiquette" to defend the conjectures you make. It is poor
"netiquette" to launch into ad hominem attacks in discussions.

[Silence.]

If you make a claim that the US is somehow bound to an "imminence
test", you had damn well better be prepared to defend that "imminence
test."

I don't "damn well better" do anything.

Then it is ridiculous for you to try to foist your conjecture of an
"imminence test" in public.

Phil, I explained the "eminence test" several posts ago.

You have repeated your conjectures about the so-called test many
times. That is NOT the same thing as explaining the test.

I see.

But do you understand?

A test that cannot be reconciled against reality is no test at all.
It's just part of your dogma.

I see.

How can anyone tell this?

As usual, you
ignored that explanation because it didn't suit your needs.

Yes. My "need" is that your test actually be testable:

According to your standards, was Clinton's bombing of Iraq in 1998
"legal"? Was there an "imminent threat"?

No.

Thank you.

It is noteworthy: where were the protests? Where were the "million man
marches" protesting the lack of an "imminent threat"?

Was anyone anywhere protesting that?

Was the attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 "legal"? What was the "imminent
threat"?

Yes.

And what was the "imminent threat"?

In short, can you demonstrate that the "test" is something more than a
political contrivance?

Already answered (more than once).

That's just another conjecture. You have not addressed the question.

See my observation above: if there really was an "imminence test", why
was nobody protesting, as you say, the lack of an "imminent threat" in
Iraq?

Why the hell do you think there was an "imminent threat" in
Yugoslavia? What was the threat?

These are questions you cannot address.

And they still haven't been addressed! You fail to explain your "yes"
above.


You cannot! You do not!

If you make a conjecture that you realize later is indefensible, you
should have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

We'll see, if that ever happens.

Who should we ask, Shawn?

Well, ask whomever you would like to ask, Phil.

Nope. The "if that ever happens" would be answerable by *you*, Shawn.

What would it take for you to actually admit that your "test" fails
the test of reality?

It would take "my" test actually failing the test of reality.

So where were the protests about the lack of an "imminent threat" when
Clinton bombed Iraq?

Unless you can show us where *anyone* was talking about the lack of an
"imminent threat" in those actions, your test flunks!

Meanwhile try not to take it personally
when I don't endlessly answer the same statements over and over.

Answering them once would be sufficient.

Apparently not.

Wrong. You have failed to explain the absence of any protests about
the lack of an "imminent threat" in 1998 and 1999.

According to your standards, was Clinton's bombing of Iraq in 1998
"legal"? Was there an "imminent threat"?

Was the attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 "legal"? What was the "imminent
threat"?

Come up with some decent arguments, some thoughts of your own, and stop
lying and obfuscating.

Nonsense. Read the questions above. They are simple questions -- no
obfuscation.

Lots of obfuscation.

That's another conjecture!

They have nothing to do with this war,

Nonsense. They have everything to do with your conjecture that it's an
"illegal" war.

or the lack of
WMDs that Rumsfeld, et al., clamined to KNOW where to find.

It appears that MI was wrong.

Shawn: can you tell us with certainty that WMD Stockpiles were not
moved to another country?

Then you won't have to whine so much about not
getting answers.

That's inaccurate. I'm quite happy to continue to expose the nonsense
of your Imminence Conjecture.

I see.

And you fail to explain the lack of protests! Where was the "imminent
threat" in Yugoslavia? What country was being threatened?

By continuing to talk about this indefensible "test", you call into
question *all* of your conjectures.

It is you who continues to talk about it.

You do -- every time you repeat your conjecture of an "illegal" war.

What I do is point out the strange and contrived rules of your
"imminence test."

Would you kindly respect that? As a matter of decency and civility?

I asked you kindly as a matter of decency and civility.

See my questions below.

Would you engage in an intellectually honest discussion here?

I often do.

On some issues, you do.

On the question of an "imminence test", you are not participating in
an intellectually honest fashion. See tech 1998/1999 questions above.

You make it impossible to do so with you.

Nonsense. You could address those questions in a heartbeat.

Apparently you skipped a beat.

Reality says otherwise. This is just another conjecture.

If you had addressed those questions in an earlier posting, you could
tell us the message-id. You cannot!

If you make a conjecture, will you actually defend it with facts and
reasoning?

The facts and reasoning that you ignore?

No. The facts and reasoning you fail to produce. In this discussion,
your failure is to reconcile your "imminence test" against the
military actions that happened on Clinton's tenure.

I feel no need to make such a reconciliation.

This is what I mean when I say that your dogma is screaming loudly:
you claim there is an "imminence test," but fail to identify anybody
who actually applied that "test" to the military actions under
Clinton's tenure. Goofy!

You are free to draw your own
conclusions.

Thanks. Anyone rationally evaluating the lack of any "imminence"
protests in 1998/1999 will come to the same conclusion.

Already done that.

You have not.

I'm asking you
to use my screen-name when you refer to me as a matter of courtesy and
civility among people who disagree.

See above.

Can you do that, Phil?

I have noted with [Silence] above where you failed to back up your
claims. The onus on you is to go back and do that.

There is no "onus" Phil.

If you were interested in an intellectually honest discussion, you
wouldn't avoid those questions.

That's an interesting conjecture, Phil.

Then why have you avoided them, Shawn?

What *evidence* can you cite that indicates that you're interested in
an intellectually honest discussion?

Anything?

You are allowed to disagree. In fact, you are
welcome to post information that proves me wrong.

Or reasoning -- reasoning that demonstrates faults in your logic:

According to your standards, was Clinton's bombing of Iraq in 1998
"legal"? Was there an "imminent threat"?

Was the attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 "legal"? What was the "imminent
threat"?

You have failed to do so.

If that were true, you could address those questions.

Wage Peace

Shawn: if you make a conjecture in the newsgroup, please back it up.
Thanks!

So, I guess the answer is "no."

See above. Will you back up your conjectures, Shawn?

I'll ask again, having answered your questions yet again: Will you kindly
use my screen-name when referring to me in these posts? "Wage" would be
sufficient.

Will you back up your conjectures, Shawn?

Wage Peace.

Can you reconcile your "imminence test" against the 1998 and 1999
actions?

What exact "imminent threat" do you claim that Yugoslavia posed?

Why were there no protests about the lack of an "imminent threat"?

Someone actually waging peace would have the intellectual honesty to
address these questions.

Thanks.

--phil

.

Loading