BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 10:57 AM

Teribus, Pakistan (India too for that matter) developed WMD in secrecy. So did Israel. Have you forgotten Vanunu? I haven't. And you're a bit wide of the mark with pre-war Germany too. I think most people would regard Germany as the agressor in the 1930s. There was certainly no hint of pre-emptive action by the UK and US and their allies. In fact the US might never have got involved (notwithstanding the best efforts of an outstanding president) except that it found itself on the receiving end. That is to say, - Germany declared war on the US.

The simple fact is, Teribus, that most countries practice to deceive. That's what state secrets are all about. And Britain has more than its fair share of those. Far more than the US for instance. And no regime on earth would take kindly to the humiliations imposed on Iraq - needlessly as it turns out, because having been shot to pieces in the first gulf war, the country was no more a threat than many another. (And any prospects for becoming a threat were severely hampered by santions and by coalition control of Iraqi airspace.)

As for the limits of US dominance, the country will destabilise as empires usually do. Administrations will not be able to play on pupular fears for ever, so the population is unlikely to remain endlessly biddable. (Right now, Bush could claim that extermination of the blacks is necessary for a safe future, and plwnty would fall in with that as a matter of national security.)

There are already signs of a north-south divide re-opening. As the US economy is overtaken by China's (and eventually by the EU's too, perhaps) America's insane investment in weaponry will be put in question; people will question that half the working population is in prison (as it will be on present trends), and in Yeats' phrase, mere anarchy will be loosed upon the nation.

At any rate, that's what my crystal ball shows. I expect yours shows a land flowing with milk and honey.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 10:40 AM

True, Teribus, but the individual was one of the government's top nuclear scientists, and he was immediately pardoned when the crme came out. Doesn't that sound just a little suspicious to you? Can't you admit even the possibility that the US is supporting a regime that supports terrorism?

GUEST, where I come from, Paki was a derogatory term. I'm sure you meant "a Pakistani government insider."

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 10:13 AM

For your information, GUEST (17 Feb 04 - 09:31 AM), a Pakistani national sold details on the Pakistani Governments nuclear weapons programme. That particular individual sold those secrets to a couple of fairly unsavoury places (Libya; Iran and North Korea if memory serves me correctly).

Which is a bit of a difference from your:

"The Pakis have sold the world's neuclear secrets to all and sundry."

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 09:31 AM

For your information, Teribus, The Pakis have sold the world's neuclear secrets to all and sundry.
Whether or not this is Saddam style deception, is not really the issue.

They're still our 'friends', though.

Makes you feel all warm and brotherly inside, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 05:27 AM

Well Peter K (Fionn),

The era I have grown up and lived through has to a great extent relied heavily on "the playground bully", as you describe the United States of America, for the peace and prosperity the world has enjoyed. For much of that time, the USSR did as much as it could to ignite the fires of international tension, in order to undermine the economies and political resolve of the West. Without any shadow of a doubt in my mind "the playground bully" of that particular period known as the "cold war" was definitely Soviet Russia aided and abetted by her satellites.

I would be very interested in hearing your arguements supporting your prediction relating to the status of the United States in the near to intermediate future ("much longer"). For quite some time now, there has not been a single country in the world that would attempt to "take on" the US, there is not a single power in the world capable of projecting that power. That power and capability, odd though it may seem to you, and to those who hold views similar to your own, is what the United Nations strongly relies upon, and has done since it's inception.

Your examples, proferred without much effort, of:

"Other leaders have deceived the world Saddam-style, or have attempted to do so, without finding their countries on the receiving end of all-out war."

1. pre-WW2 Germany - the "without finding their countries on the receiving end of all-out war" rider sort of makes your qualifying prefix ridiculous. Germany, deliberately re-armed, in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles, and through it's actions did find itself on the receiving end of an all-out war. Forget the attempted-to-do-so examples, they actually work against the point you were originally trying to make and as such are irrelevant.

2. North Korea - Encouraged by the USSR and backed by China, opportunistically launched an unprovoked attack on South Korea - and found itself on the receiving end of an all-out war. Continued support from Soviet Russia, allowed NK to throw up massive mine-fields and acres of barbed-wire fences to hide behind and sulk, while the rest of the region got on with life. With the collapse of Soviet Russia, and the loss of support which for years had shored up a bankrupt regime, NK resorted to regional black-mail. That is what it is doing now, and having learned the lessons from past experience it's neighbours are not prepared to play it North Korea's way. If North Korea, at present, was to be regarded as a threat, it is very much as an indirect threat.

3. Israel - Odd choice this, because Israel has not, to my knowledge, tried to deceive anyone, Saddam Hussein style, or otherwise. Israel has also never threatened any of its neighbours. It has responded to threats of those attempting to do what Saddam Hussein attempted to do, but they all found themselves on the receiving end of as near to an all-out war as you could get. Limited by Israeli reluctance to target the civilian centres of population of its enemies and by UN intervention to get the sides back to the negotiating table.

4. Pakistan - They have had resorted to aggressive use of force three times in disputes with India. No Saddam style deception involved.

5. USA - ??, possibly with "Star Wars Initiative", which was a purely defensive system.

6. USSR - On this one I would tend to agree in part with. The threat that they, the USSR, posed in the latter days of the "cold war" was a bluff. That was the reason Russia attempted to prevent the UN action against Saddam in 1991. In their time the Soviets exported arms to any that wanted them, these were "export" versions of their own weapons and weapon systems. They were inferior to what equipped their own forces. The one exception was the integrated air defence system that they sold to the Saddam Hussein. The Soviets had for years told their own population that the air defence system protecting the Soviet Union was the best in the world. With the commencement of hostilities in 1991, that myth was blown apart, very publically and that particular lie could no longer be sustained. For the previous two decades Russia, had been unable to compete technologically with the US in terms of it's military capability, after "Desert Storm" they realised that there was no point in trying. During the "cold war" the existence of the capability enjoyed by the US by virtue of it's strike carriers, came close to bankrupting Soviet Russia five times - they never succeeded in finding any means to counter the threat to their ambitions posed by the existence of those ships.

7. UK - ?? All "pint-sized, penny-packet stuff" would best describe the armed forces of the UK in terms of size. In terms of quality and effectiveness, they are still rated amongst the best in the world. I cannot think of any situation where the UK has used Saddam style deception to further any goal of the UK Government.

The criteria you have used to compile your list seems to be rather odd to say the least, little wonder that with a bit of effort the list could indeed be endless - totally meaningless and irrelevant on examination, but endless.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 01:24 PM

Thank you Peter K, and yes I realised eventually what clicking on one's user name did (thought it would launch Outlook Express, at first)

But as far as the rationale of some of the obviously pro-war contributors here, I find that it is often the case with such people, they will not use the same yardsticks to measure the flip side of their argument.

As for as who is the better Democratic candidate, I think it is probably much of a muchness, as they are all anti Bush.
The one who will extract their soldiers from the occupied territories if elected, will have my approval, though.

I think I would sleep better in my bed at night, knowing that my Government was involved in adressing the underlying issues regarding the upsurge of international terrorism, rather than trying to beat everybody into submission.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:40 PM

Kerry's own answer to "Are you responsible for some of the costs of the war" in the debate last night was prime Kerry. He would not answer the question. But he did offer this:

While saying that he had been an instrument of American foreign policy in Vietnam, he said, "I carried that M16!"

But I understand that as a naval officer of his era, he would rarely if ever have carried an M16, the M14 Carbine and the sidearm being his standard weapons. (I was told this by a Naval vet of that era, but don't have the expertise myself. Can anyone here confirm or deny?) If true, why did he say that? Probably because the iconic image of American soldiers in Vietnam is of grunts carrying M16s, and he wants to be remembered that way.

More importantly, why would he not answer the question the way Senator John Edwards did following him, agreeing that as an individual supporting authorization, he bore some responsibility for the costs of the war? Because Kerry knows he is partly responsible, but cannot admit it.

In order for Kerry to win in the general election, his whole candidacy must be based on not taking responsibility for his votes, for the war, for Patriot Act, etc. "It's Bush who is to blame for the war," he will have to insist. "I just voted to give him the power to invade Iraq at a time when it was obvious he would do so! But don't blame me!"

In the same way, Kerry actually said last night that the only problem with the USA Patriot Act was John Ashcroft. As if giving a different right-wing Attorney General the right to arrest American citizens without charges and hold them without lawyers and violate all their constitutional rights would have been okay. It's just Ashcroft that's a bad guy.

He's shifting the blame, as he must. He didn't get called on it. In fact, last night he got his ass kissed by the moderators, who seemed to ask Kerry every his opinion on every other candidate's questions. "And Senator Kerry, what do YOU think of Reverend Sharpton's answer?"

Will Kerry's evasive answers work in the General Election, when Big Media will be on Bush's side? We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:19 PM

Welcome, belatedly, to Mudcat, 09086532. As you have only been posting for a couple of days (though I realise you might have been lurking for much longer), you might not know yet that you can look up anyone's history of posts simply by clicking on the name wherever it appears over a post. So be careful what you say! (I might be a bit biased here, but your posts seem to have been very constructive so far....)

Teribus, depending what age you are, you may live to regret your faith in a system of justice that is administered by the playground bully, because the US is unlikely to hold on to that status for much longer.

Your last post included this: "Other leaders have deceived the world Saddam-style, or have attempted to do so, without finding their countries on the receiving end of all-out war." Really? What ones Fionn? With no particular effort I can bring to mind pre-WW2 Germany, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, USA, USSR, UK... oh, I expect the list is endless.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobjack
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 11:23 AM

Post number 100. I thank you. You have made an old Guinea Pig very happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 11:02 AM

.... nice bit of diligent research, all the same

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 10:33 AM

It is something yours find hard to do, Gary.

Tells us your views on what Carol C suggested, instead.

And you can be a polit as you like

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 09:19 AM

I think 0986532 posts :-

Search Results
This page shows you your matches to your search. Click on a particular message to see the info and the body. Then it gets fun.

Name Subject Posted
1 09086532   RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war   16-Feb-04 - 09:08 AM
2 09086532   RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!   16-Feb-04 - 08:40 AM
3 09086532   RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war   16-Feb-04 - 08:28 AM
4 09086532   RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!   16-Feb-04 - 08:17 AM
5 09086532   RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war   15-Feb-04 - 09:18 PM
6 09086532   RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!   14-Feb-04 - 07:33 PM
7 09086532   RE: Favourite Parodies   14-Feb-04 - 03:33 PM
8 09086532   RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!   14-Feb-04 - 11:11 AM
9 09086532   RE: Favourite Parodies   14-Feb-04 - 11:02 AM
10 09086532   RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!   14-Feb-04 - 10:15 AM
11 09086532   RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!   14-Feb-04 - 10:00 AM
12 09086532   RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!   14-Feb-04 - 09:52 AM
13 09086532   RE: BS: Staff Sergeant Slaughter   14-Feb-04 - 09:51 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speak for themselves - Politly of course !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 09:08 AM

Just looking at Teribus' list again, and lest we be accused of anti-Semetism, it might be an idea to examine the UN's lethargy at tackling all the resolutions they have failed to implement with regard to Israel, over the years.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 09:07 AM

Peter K (Fionn) - 16 Feb 04 - 07:11 AM

It has been the belief of numerous administrations in both the USA; USSR and PRC, that they "could support terrorists when convenient, safe in the knowledge that terrorism could never touch" them.   Misguided and naive, those beliefs may have been, that does not negate the fact that such beliefs were prevalent. With regard to the United States of America in particular, up until the advent of Al-Qaeda, they had never experienced, or had to encounter, an externally backed terrorist organisation perpetrating terrorist attacks in the US mainland.

By the bye, what is/are NMD when they are home??

No Fionn, the bottom line is that the recent action in Iraq was the continuation of UN actions taken in 1990 and early 1991, made necessary by Saddam Hussein's refusal to honour agreements made during negotiations at Safwan that brought about the ceasefire in 1991. Iraq and Saddam Hussein were told that quite bluntly by the US and the UK. Last chance, comply and get it verified beyond doubt that Iraq no longer possesses WMD, or programmes aimed at further development of WMD and associated delivery systems, or action will be taken against you with, or without the UN.

Your take on pre-emptive strikes, morality and accuracy of intelligence and reasonable doubt, belong in Camberwick Green. The business of gathering intelligence, the analysis and evaluation of that intelligence have never been exact sciences, nor will they every be.   

Saddam was given every opportunity to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions, over a period of 12 years. What US action has achieved in Iraq, as it turns out, is that one rather odious regime has been removed from power, and the world at large (and Saddam's erstwhile neighbours in particular) can state that Iraq is no-longer pursuing any WMD programmes and is not developing delivery systems for those weapons.

"Other leaders have deceived the world Saddam-style, or have attempted to do so, without finding their countries on the receiving end of all-out war." Really? What ones Fionn? - forget the "attempted-to-do" category, that is a red-herring and you know it.

Your abiding faith in, what did you call it - the world forum of sovereign nations - The United Nations, is very touching and also belongs in Camberwick Green.

The United Nations could not organise a bottle party in a brewery, if it's very existance depended on it - let alone "police" rogue states. What little success it has achieved to date, in the world, have been those attempts that were led and financed by the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 08:28 AM

And of course, now that Libya's all forgiven, what's the first piece of news that breaks?

We're going to sell them armaments.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 07:36 AM

Bobert, you are a gentleman. I'll buy you a beer anytime.

fred

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 07:11 AM

Apologies for further thread drift, but this response to Teribus will not, I hope, be wholly irrelevant.

Teribus, I said that the US "had lived with terrorism in the world" pre-9/11." The administration's apparent belief that it could support terrorists when comvenient, safe in the knowledge that terrorism could never touch the US mainland, was misguided and naive. This is not hindsight: I and many others were pointing out, long before 9/11, the absurdity of investing billions in NMD when a nuclear device could be delivered in a container.

The bottom line for me is that the Iraq invasion was the first time in my lifetime that my country (the UK) was party to starting a war. If a pre-emptive strike is to have any morality at all, it is surely incumbent on the agressors - in this case the UK and US - to establish that the intelligence on which their belligerence is predicated is accurate beyond all reasonable doubt.

In this case it demonstrably was not. Iraq turns out to have been no threat at all, by any reckoning. Saddam had simply been deceiving the world community, for whatever reason (possibly to maintain credibility in the Arab nations). Many Americans have had to wake up to the realisation that the US knows far less about what is going on around the world than it has allowed people to believe.

Other leaders have deceived the world Saddam-style, or have attempted to do so, without finding their countries on the receiving end of all-out war. The punishment imposed in this case, which included indiscriminate bombing and thousands of civilian deaths, was inappropriate and disproportionate.

However imperfect it may have been thus far (and the US has played its part in any shortcomings) the world forum of sovereign nations is the right body through which to police rogue states. Better, at any rate, than the strongest nation acting unilaterally, and making up the rules as it goes along.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 04:27 AM

To observations by GUEST, or Guests various,

Not a critical thinker!!!!!

I believe if you review my posts you will find that I have been highly critical of some of the complete and utter bullshit that has been spouted by some in this forum.

On the subject of sheepishness. Must be damn odd sheep - a flock of one - very unusual. Over the past few years let's take a look at what has been achieved by the UN and governments who have followed the kind of advice often voiced on this forum by all those "gutsy" critical free-thinkers.

Rwanda -
UN lethargy, incompetence and unwillingness to act, resulted in the deaths of some 500,000. In short a complete and utter disaster.

Bosnia -
UN lethargy, incompetence and unwillingness to act, resulted in the most widespread and bitter conflict (atrocities and all) seen on the mainland of Europe since 1945. The UN when it did get involved sat back and let the world view the spectacle of 7000 people getting rounded up for execution, in a UN declared safe haven, under the watchful gaze of blue helmeted UN troops charged, specifically, with their protection. In short another complete and utter disaster.

Kosovo -
UN lethargy, incompetence and unwillingness to act, resulted in the forced displacement of around a million people and the deaths of thousands. Fortunately for the ethnic Albanians being murdered in droves and being forced to flee, NATO member states acted independent of the UN. With the lessons of Bosnia fresh in their minds, NATO by-passed the UN, France and Russia (both of whom jumped on the band wagon later), and closed their ears to the peace movement advocates (who were quite prepared to see those Albanians die, rather than compromise their principles). Left to the UN this would have been another unmitigated disaster.

Iraq -
UN lethargy, incompetence and unwillingness to act with regard to UN imposed sanctions and with stated and accepted UN Resolutions, resulted in the situation where some member states felt compelled to act. Almost resulted in the total loss of credibility of the UN as an international body.

DRC -
UN lethargy, incompetence and unwillingness to act, resulted in at least six neighbouring African States adopting the view that the DRC was their own "piggy bank" that they could plunder at will. In doing so they caused the death and forced displacement of thousands. Once stung into action the UN, as it normally does, sent too little, too late. In short another screw-up.

Liberia -
UN lethargy, incompetence and unwillingness to act, resulted in a delay of deploying peace keeper's of nearly three months, and they only got there courtesy of the US. In short another UN screw-up.

Unpleasant though it may be, situations, and circumstances do conspire in such a manner that action does have to be taken. That decision, when linked to considerations of any particular country's security, must be taken nationally - because, as can be seen from the examples above, relying on the UN will, on the basis of probability, result in either a complete and utter srcew-up, or a complete and utter unmitigated disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 04:05 AM

Peter K (Fionn) 14 Feb 04 - 06:23 AM

Fionn you asked me for evidence of Saddam's support of terrorists in the past - you got it.

Now in your opinion, you deem those organisations as being self-evidently pathetic, but only commented on the ones in his more distant past, as they suited the irrelevant point you were trying, rather poorly to make. I say irrelevant because other countries support for terrorist organisations was not the topic under discussion, the evaluation of whether, or not, Iraq posed a threat was. The declaration of the war on terror, did cause quite a number of countries to review and change their positions - including the US themselves.

The entire point of the potential threat evaluation carried out with regard to Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein came down to a number of points:

1. Is the regime hostile to the US - Yes.
2. Has the regime complied with conditions and agreements made with the UN - No.
3. Does this regime still possess WMD and have ongoing development programmes for those WMD - In the light of the UNSCOM Report it must be assumed that they have, it has not been verified that they do not.
4. Has this regime in the past supported terrorist organisations - Yes.
5. Can it be said with any degree of certainty, that the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, will not provide WMD, WMD technology and training to a terrorist organisation that may target the US - No we can not.

On the basis of those answers. Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein could only be classified as representing a threat.

Immediate actions to reduce that threat:
Go to the UN and get this matter of WMD and WMD programmes cleared up. Do this in such a way that Saddam Hussein is made fully aware of the fact that this gets cleared up on this pass - literally this is his last chance. Failure for him to do so will result in direct action being taken by the UN, or failing that, by ourselves (US). But under no circumstances will a continuation of the current status quo be allowed.

With regard to exerpience of living with terrorism, Peter K, up until 9/11, the US government and the population of the United States of America didn't know it had been born.

The period in which I stated that the UN inspection regime had foundered completely, encompassed the time of departure of UNSCOM and IAEA from Iraq (they had in actual fact been increasingly ineffectual for months before that), up until the time that John Kerry sat on the Seneate Committee to evaluate the threat posed by Iraq (subject of this thread).

Do I accept that there, "Was such a thing as a non-military solution?" - Yes, of course there was, Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to adopt those non-military solutions - He chose not to take them - Fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: DougR
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 10:19 PM

It truly pains me to agree with Bobert, but Gareth and Fionn, it seems to me you guys (or girls) could profit from sitting down at a Pub somewhere and having a Guinness and getting to really know one another.

I'd do that with Bobert if he was buying of course.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 09:18 PM

One of the better things you have to do, Gareth, obviously does not include contributing anything of moment to the conversations you embroil yourself in.

From the limited time I have been reading your drivel, I would put a mental age on you, of about 13.

I can plainly see that some of the concepts discussed in these threads go miles over your head, and you contradict yourself continually.

I hope I said that politely

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 09:10 PM

Okay, you two, now shake hands and get back to bickerin' about issues. And... NO name callin' 'er this ol' hillbilly gonna step in and knock yer danged heads together... Ya' hear?

Danged!

Can't step away from this joint fir four or three days and the danged cat spittin' starts up...

Geeze....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 08:55 PM

There's a first time for everything, and for the first time at Mudcat I have regretted pressing the submit button. If I'd counted to ten my last message would not have been sent, or at least not in those terms. It is unreasonable to demand conciliation in world affairs while pursuing confrontation in a domestic spat. In an earlier post Gareth called me stupid, and I fear the tone of my response proved his point.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 07:58 PM

Ah Fionn, intelectual argument never was your strength. Insults were obviously your forte, rather than argument. ( Sorry forte is a word you would not understand )

(And if any 'Catter doubts this I suggest they spend a little time reading back posts from Fionn)

I see you nare now having to return to suggesting I dont exist, or use my real name - Fine, I dare say there are 'Catters around who know me, my Name Gareth Williams, and my address, telephone number etc. and why these details are frequently published on the Internet.

The fact that you do not know these speaks volumns for your lack of intelligence and commitment. - Unless you are lying of course!

If I have spent more than a few minutes checking "facts" that you have boasted about to try and boost your intellectual ratings - well you make the statements !! I merely expose the more pompus or stupid statements of your own making.

Fact ! Quote from a post of yours (I think I'm the only Peter Kirker in the UK.)

Now leaving out the mentality of some one who is prepared to spend his time running through electoral rolls and BT search to confirm that his is the only person with that name, I think that might be sufficient evidence that Peter Kirker is being a little less than honest of his denials, or his postings - After all those who claim exclusive knowledge by rehashing "Private Eye" etc., articles might not be as "well informed" insiders as Fionn trys to pass himself off as.

BTW I have not bothered to do a search to confims this allegation of "uniqueness" with the 192 search or B Telecom, as stated previously I have better things to do with my limited time.

Malice on my part ? No ! To expose a malicious, vindictive fraud calling himself Fionn ? Yes !

Or in words of one sylable Fionn - (So that you can understand)

Keep yer posts acu-rate and pol-ite

Gareth

Gareth




I do not spend hours tracking you etc - I've better things to do

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 05:51 PM

The world is not yet ready for a World Court but will get there as mankind realizes that war and *other* human rights violations is a *luxary* it can no longer afford.

And when that day come, contrary to how my pal Dougie feels, the United States, and a health majority of it's citizens, will be eager to sign on. But that won't happen until (and unless) the NASCAR/Budweizer/ CountryMusic generation moves along.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: DougR
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 01:18 PM

If other nations choose to have the World Court decide issues important to their security, I say, have at it. That's their business. No need to repeat my attitude toward that court I already posted it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 07:54 AM

Nerd, it's well worth following that link provided by Don (for which many thanks, Don). There is indeed a lot to read, but it tells you everything you need to know about Kerry's attitude (at quite a young age, as you have pointed out) to the Vietnam conflict, and to war in general.

Gareth. I have repeatedly made clear to you that I have never sought a parliamentary seat and never will. Do you persist in lying about this because lying is in your nature or because you are driven to it by malice?

On the evidence of this Mudcat archive, you have spent several months trawling through my posts, and prying into all aspects of my life (you know exactly who I am, though I have not got a clue who you are, despite your hysterical and repeated boasts that "Gareth" is your real name), and making all kinds of imbecile allegations which you have neither withdrawn nor substantiated. Please cite whatever evidence you have uncovered to support your assertion that I have the slightest interest in finding a parliamentary seat, so that Mudcatters can judge for themselves my own assertion that you are a vindictive and cowardly (ie anonymous) liar.

I would willingly respond to the other point you addressed to me - "Peter - you forgot your intellectual non English quote i the post. Designed to make you look more intelligent than you are" - but could make no sense of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 06:22 AM

Nerd - It aint me who will be looking for those comments, it will be a Republican "Hit Team"

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 09:59 PM

Gareth,

He was 19 years old. He was a private citizen, not a particularly political person, not from a prominent political family, and his words were not being written down by anyone. Good luck finding his comments.

I think Frank was probably thinking of very public statements Dean has made about having supported the first Gulf War, which is a very different thing. But I still await evidence to see if Frank is right on this.      

I suspect there were other reasons for Dean to remain silent about the war too. Dean's brother Charlie disappeared in Laos, and although he was not in the military, he was for some reason listed as MIA by the government. Dean and others in his family suspected that Charlie was a US covert operative of some kind--CIA, etc. They still don't know for sure. The only comments I ever heard Dean make about the war were about his own failing the draft physical and about Charlie. The press looked into the former pretty closely, tried to insinuate draft-dodging, etc. None of it stuck.

Political support for the Viet Nam war is not that big a political issue among this generation, I think. All of these candidates were too young for their support to be meaningful. They did not vote in committee or in Congress on the war, etc. If they went out of their way to protest, as Kerry did after he served, that will be on the public record. But if they went about their daily lives, or even if they served as Clark and Kerry did, that does not count as "support."

Service may well be an issue, but it has not been for at least twelve years; Clinton beat (WWII Vet) Bush I, then Clinton beat (WWII hero) Bob Dole, and then (Vietnam Vet) Al Gore lost to Bush II. In all these cases, the person who did NOT serve in the war won.

Kerry wants to make war service a big issue this year. So did Bush I, Dole, and Gore. It hasn't worked that well recently, but Kerry may be luckier.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 07:13 PM

Nerd - I do not know enough to say if Dean did or did not support the war in Viet-Nam. I do know enough to know that if Dean ever made a statement either way, or what may be considered ambiguos the Bush Jnr animals will find it (or invent it) to prove whatever they like.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 07:08 PM

Frank,

you needn't fear a flame from me. I think we both thought we were being flamed by the other in that other thread. But as I said when all was done there, I do respect you and your opinions!

I think your own response, though, is simplistic in the same way that Ritter's statement is. It's partly true, as you say, that Kerry was not responsible for the unilateral attack on Iraq. He did not give the order, in other words.

But then again, it's equally true that he IS responsible for it. If the Congress had not given Bush the authority to do that, Bush would not have been politically in a position to do it. So Kerry didn't pull the trigger, but he gave Bush the gun.

As Ritter points out, one of the main issues is that Kerry prevented dissenting expert opinion from being heard by the committee. Being confused about the issue is no excuse not to seek evidence from all sides. If he didn't do so, maybe he wouldn't be such a good president.

Finally, a point of evidence: do you have evidence that Dean supported the Vietnam war? I've been involved with his campaign for a year, and I've never heard that.

What would that even mean? He was about 19 at the time, and not a politician. He registered for the draft, was drafted, and was listed 4F for a back problem so he couldn't serve. But I don't think he ever went on record supporting the war!

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 06:54 PM

Oh Dear Fionn is demonstarting his stupidity again.

Peter - you forgot your intellectual non English quote i the post. Designed to make you look more intelligent than you are.

Stick to trying to find a parlimentary seat - If you can !!!

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 04:05 PM

This is a fairly long read, but if anyone wants an insight into John Kerry's feelings about war—or an insight into John Kerry in general—you'll find it HERE.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Frankham
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 01:50 PM

At the risk of receiving another flame, I will say this about Kerry.
Ritter's statement is simplistic.

"But John Kerry seems to share in this culpability, and if he wants to be the next president of the United States, he must first convince the American people that his actions somehow differ from those of the man he seeks to replace."

Maybe, maybe not. It depends upon how he interpreted the intelligence given to him at the time. He, however, was not responsible for the unilateral pre-emptive strike on Iraq. Aside
from Ritter's accusations, there is no credible evidence to support this view. He may have been confused on the issue. Who wasn't?
He is a military guy and this motivates his thinking.

I understand that Dean supported the Vietnam War and that Kucinich did not. Does this make Dean an accomplice to the debacle in Vietnam?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 06:23 AM

Poor Teribus must be reading Gareth's recent posts and thinking that with friends like that, he doesn't need enemies!

When I asked Teribus for evidence of Saddam's support for terrorists, he came up with a list that was self-evidently pathetic. In a subsequent post he followed up with this colossal non sequitor: "As you have now found out for yourself, evidence of such support, spanning the entire period that Saddam was in power, exists." So that T'bus has no excuse for misunderstanding me, let me make it clear that I agree with those who have pointed out here that Saddam's record in supporting terrorist organisations fell far short of the records of several other countries, including the US.

Furthermore the US had lived with terrorism in the world, even right there in Oklahoma, before 9/11 and knew that 9/11 was quite specifically an Al Qaida crime. To create a so-called "war" against terrorism in general was a ludicrous reaction, and a very fragile thread on which to hang the justification for invading Iraq, which was patently not the worst (or even potentially worst) supporter of terrorist organisations. For one thing, Saddam was hostile to Islamic fundamentalism, both Sunni and Shiite. If there was any rationale in US thinking at that time (which if you take oil out of the equation, there was not) then Saudi Arabia would have been the logical target.

Teribus now concedes that his reference to the UN inspection regime foundering "completely," concerned a specific period that ended several months before war was declared. Even in respect of that period of (arguably) perceived threat to world security, he was rather too squeamish to argue that it warranted wholesale invasion by the US, but said merely that it "couldn't be ignored." Was Teribus skirting close to accepting that there can be such a thing as a non-military solution?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Nerd
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 01:21 AM

DougR thinks we're a sovereign state and should NEVER let the world court decide anything REMOTELY connected with US security. But we don't have to respect other sovereign states, and we are free to use UN violations as a pretext to attack them. Isn't that the definition of a double standard?

Here's another point: those of you who have been defending the war will quite likely vote for Bush. The rest of us may well vote for the Democratic candidate instead. But, given that Kerry is specifically mentioned by Ritter as having purposely perpetuated the administration's falsehoods about WMD, I wonder if some of you will join me in trying to get another Democrat nominated instead? Kerry also supported the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind, and didn't bother to vote on the medicare bill; but now he claims he opposes all three, just as he claims he oppses the war and abhors the falsehoods that Scott Ritter says he helped perpetuate!

It's not too late. Kerry has less than a third of the delegates he needs. Whatever the media says about momentum, it's only true if we the voters let it be true. Think about it: the media's constantly harping on "momentum" is a way of saying we don't really have a choice! They want to force voters to pick their favorite candidate and so far they are doing a pretty good job.

I'm going to vote for Howard Dean in my primary. Those of you who supported Clark: I know he has endorsed Kerry, and I don't blame him. He obviously HAD to to have any chance of a future in the party, and he will be very good for the party. But you don't have to vote for Kerry. Clark's message was one of an outsider coming in to reform Washington. Dean's the only one left who fits the bill.

I realize that I may have to vote for Kerry as the far lesser of two evils in November, but this is the primary season. I don't think the media-driven idea of momentum, or the blatant favoritism of the party insiders, should decide who we vote for now.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 08:29 PM

Gareth, you're a fool.

Go to bed.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 08:08 PM

The problem is that every time we take out one of the "monsters" we have created in the past, we create at least one, sometimes many more monsters in the process. It just keeps getting worse. And nothing we do is ever for the purpose of upholding human rights. We only use human rights as an excuse when it helps us to promote agendas that have nothing to do with human rights, and are often in direct opposition to the principles of human rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,09086532
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 08:01 PM

Rabies = Weapons of Mass Destruction, right?

Did I give it to him?
No.
The responsibility is off me, Gareth. The law determines some things, and human law is different from canine law, anyway. So it's a bad (or childish) comparison, as I said
I did not physically inject the poor animal with the virus, and refuse to give him the antidote, to continue your chosen theme.

And your sense of responsibility would be better directed to your hypothetical children, instead of on the word of some behavioural psychologist, or fortune teller who would have you doubt your sense of empathy.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 07:45 PM

The Dog may not be your creation - But its your responsability !

And, of course, you can always put a Photograph on top of your book case "My Son - The Mass Murderer !"

Empathy I have, I also have sense of respobsibility.

And, Errr ? Who ? was making infant 'skool' debating points ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,09086532
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 07:32 PM

... the dog is not my creation, and I would never put my child's life in danger NO MATTER WHAT.

But how the hell could anybody pose such a childish hypothesis?

What would you do if you knew that you were going to be knocked down by a car tomorrow?

Would you believe that nothing really matters anyway, (given the wider scheme of things).

Make love, not war, Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,Don Hakman
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 07:30 PM

Michael Moore did a great movie about bombing Canada since the cold war left us without clear cut enemies.

Canadian Bacon.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,09086532
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 07:24 PM

Why not?
Is the Court Of Human Rights a bad thing, then?

If you were a victim of human rights abuse, would you not be crying to these very organisations for justice?

The problem I find with much of the World today; and I'm sure I'll be accused of over-simplification, is the total lack of empathy people have. Right-wingers have a remarkable gift for it
It's easy (and comforting) for us to sit in our ivory, 1st World towers, and pass judgement on everything that does not conform to our idea of the World.
But the minute your home is broken into, or the second somebody drives into you, you'd be hot on the phone, getting the cops down there pronto.
Well, DougR, there are more innocent victims in this World, than the ones that would spring first to your mind (and mine, incidentally).

America, of course, has a right to defend it's own security.
Every state has.

But who should be allowed to get away with murder?
What if the State came and took you away some day, or a member of your family, (heaven forbid) confusing you, or them, with somebody else, or laying fantastic charges at your door?

This is the empathy I'm talking about, and just because it's not happening to you, does not mean that it doesn't take up the whole day for somebody else.

The innocents and victims on all sides have to have a voice.
Especially because you(or someone you know)may one day have need of the same avenues of recourse.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 07:11 PM

Well GUEST,09086532 Ask a stupid question, and you get an appropriate answer.

Now I will ask you a question. You have a dog. It goes violently rabid, what do you do ?, what is your responsability ?.

Or possibly ?

You have a child, you are aware that it will grow up into another Pol Pot, Franco, or Saddam Hussain.

The Child will not respond to therepy etc.

What would you do ?

( And I mention Franco deliberatly ! )

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: DougR
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 06:28 PM

I, for one, would object to what Carol C. suggests. The U. S. should NEVER allow the World Court to decide ANYTHING remotely connected to the security of the United States. We are a sovereign state and ever will be (unless some of you lefties get your way and I don't think you will).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,09086532
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 01:46 PM

The guy would dispose of his own children, LH, what do you expect?

Next please....

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 01:27 PM

I think Saddam has fewer friends than you imagine, Gareth. To oppose American aggression is not to admire or support Saddam Hussein. For you to suggest that it does is a sort of spurious hate propaganda. One hears that sort of thing a lot in political debates. It's a very nasty tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 12:32 PM

Yes it does.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: GUEST,09086532
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 09:48 AM

"If Saddam Hussain was a creation of the US of A ? Does that not give the US of A a moral duty to dispose of him ????..."

Your children (or future children) would be a creation of yourself, Gareth.
Does that give you the moral duty to dispose of them?

Any objections, by the way, to CarolC's suggestion?

And if you have, why would you have them?

Subject: RE: BS: Scott Ritter:Kerry also to blame for war
From: Gareth
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 04:41 PM

No I have not got any children, that I know of, but if I had I would feel a lot happier for thier fuiture with Saddan Hussain removed.

PS - Those who attack Terribus might consider whose party line they are following - More friends of Saddam Hussain perhaps ?

Gareth