Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!

From: Fred J. McCall (fmccall_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 03/14/05 

Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 05:26:21 GMT

"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote:
:>
:>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>>> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote:
:>>>
:>>>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>>>>> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote:
:>>>>>
:>>>>>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>>>>>>> lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:>>>>>>>
:>>>>>>>> In article <9h8231lved5ngpmfvoee9s7kbnra6cmtp3@4ax.com>,
:>>>>>>>> Fred J. McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>>>>>>>>>
:>>>>>>>>> You do know that chemical weapons are WMD, don't you? You
:>>>>>>>>> said NONE were found. You're wrong. You are maintaining your
:>>>>>>>>> statement in the face of contradicting evidence.
:>>>>>>>>
:>>>>>>>> No chemical WMD were found. Blix and Duelfer confirm that.
:>>>>>>>
:>>>>>>> I've repeatedly quoted Duelfer to you.
:>>>>>>
:>>>>>> Yes. However, the facts that he reports say one thing and you say
:>>>>>> another.
:>>>>>
:>>>>> Hardly likely, since I'm quoting the report and you are blowing
:>>>>> hot air.
:>>>>
:>>>> The quote you made does not claim that there were stockpiles of, or
:>>>> the capability to produce WMDs in Iraq.
:>>>
:>>> And I didn't claim those things, either, so that's quite
:>>> appropriate.
:>>
:>> Then you admit that the war was illegal and based on false
:>> statements about Saddams weapons capabiltiies....
:>>
:>>> I claim that you and Lloyd are liars when you say NO WMD were found.
:>>
:>> You must first accept that "FOUND" does not mean what you seem to
:>> think it does. To 'find' gold in Fort Knox is not a 'discovery'. Nor
:>> did you "find" gold in them thar hills by determining that there are
:>> traces on the order of :.001 ppb in the rocks.
:>>
:>> The shells found were almost certainly part of known stockpiles that
:>> were under bond for destruction at the start of the wear.
:>
:> "Almost certainly"? In your mind, perhaps. Got anything you can
:> point to in the report that says that? If that were the case I would
:> think it would have been stated. You can't just make *** up, you
:> know.
:
:Well, you seem to.

Well, no. Your problem is that I *don't*.

:However, the descriptions of the shells certainly is
:consistent with the known isolated stocks of pre-1991 shells, and the report
:does not claim them as evidence of new manufacture.

In point of fact it actually states "old, abandoned". Most definitely
not new manufacture.

:I cannot make an
:absolute statement and yet the prevalence of the evidence is clearly
:suggesting that these were preexisting shells

Quite right.

:under U.N. bond.

There's no reason to believe this.

:You seem to derive much pleasure in meaningless quibbles. Why is that?

I'm simply applying the same definition with regard to 'lying' that
you apply to George Bush. Apparently you consider that as
"meaningless quibbles" and don't like it.

I agree with you that it is a poor definition - both when applied to
you and when applied to George Bush. But you can't have it both ways.

:>> None of the claimed WMD
:>> weapons system that were to justify the war were found.
:>
:> And here you at least APPROXIMATE the truth (it was one of several
:> things used to 'justify the war'). The largest of those was that
:> Saddam had spent 13 years being obstructionist and STILL was not
:> producing the documented destruction of materials that he was REQUIRED
:> to produce.
:
:1: Not for you to say.

Wrong.

:2: Not for the U.S. to say.

Wrong.

:3: The U.N does not agree with it.

Wrong.

:4: The U.N. inspection teams WERE the ones to say. The removal of WMDs was a
:funciton of the U.N. ceasefire agreement and only the U.N. had any say in
:whether it was being followed to the letter or not.

It wasn't a UN war in the first place.

:> Note that I never claimed such SYSTEMS had been found.
:
:You dodge and weave like a school child. When will you grow up?

You mean by the preceding that I keep catching you in your lies and
you don't like it.

:> However, that leaves us with your lie, which was "NO WMD were found".
:
:The truth is, and this is clearly the statement of the report, that no WMDs
:were *found*,

That is not what the report says. I've quoted it a number of times
now.

:> That is simply false. Under your rules as you would apply them to the
:> current Administration, you are a liar.
:
:The liar here is you and you seem to have learned the 'Big Lie' from your
:mentor, Dumbya.

And yet you are unable to point to a single lie of mine, while using
your own definition the simple facts make it quite clear that you are
a liar.

:>>> That's the limit of my claim. No more. No less. That's what the
:>>> report proves.
:>>
:>> The more smoke you blow, the less sense you make. However, it is
:>> your choice to make stupid statements and stick by them in the face
:>> of the facts.
:>
:> Smoke? I'm saying the same thing I've been saying right along. You
:> and Lloyd persistently bleating "NO WMD were found" is an outright
:> lie.
:
:And the report as well as the papers are reporting the truth. No WMDs were
:found.

Except that's not what the report says. I've quoted it multiple times
now.

:> Now you want to revise and extend your remarks. That's fine, but you
:> were still lying then.
:
:Nothing that was not fully accounted for was determined to be in the
:country.

False.

:>>>> It does not even claim to have found
:>>>> artillery shells that were not on the U.N. lists.
:>>>
:>>> And it doesn't say that they were, either. I doubt they'd have
:>>> mentioned them as being 'discovered' if they were already 'found'.
:>>
:>> On the contrary. Since the shells were easily pre-1991 and consitute
:>> fewer than the known shells on the U.S. 'for disposal' lists, their
:>> is no evidence that they could be anything else.
:>
:> You can't just make *** up to be whatever you want in the face of a
:> mere lack of a statement eliminating your particular fantasy.
:
:Unfortunately for you, the fact that there were a few known shells

Except that's not what the report says.

:of the
:type used to contain chemical weapons is well established and does not
:contitute a breach of either U.N. regulations

Which isn't my point.

:( which had them under bond )

False.

:or U.S. securuty. You should learn how to account for reality and not change
:the story in midstream.

But the existence of those shells, which were FOUND (not under bond)
does make both you and Lloyd liars based on your own rather selective
definition of liar.

:> The
:> statement stands as the report wrote it. WMD were found. Your
:> statement that they were not find was and is a lie. Your attempts to
:> make *** up so that you can claim it was not a lie are merely sadly
:> transparent.
:
:No WMDs were *fouind*. A word that you seem to faile to grasp.

Well, I tried to look up "fouind" and didn't find it, so I guess
that's beyond my grasp. However, the fact remains that WMDs were
found in Iraq and that fact was so stated in the report. Your
statement that NO WMDs were found was a lie. Your attempts to claim
what was found was "under UN bond" is merely something you're making
up - another lie to cover the first lie.

:>> They were certainly not part of any
:>> development of WMDs capabilities in defiance of the U.N prohibiition
:>> which was the spin that was used to justify the war.
:>
:> And I never said they were.
:
:Then you admit that the war was unjustifeid by both the U.N. and U.S. laws
:and that the statements which were used to justify it were knowingly false?

Nope. I 'admit' that the intelligence data that pretty much the whole
world had was apparently wrong.

:You cannot have it both ways.

No, I'll have it a third way, thank you very much. I'll leave the
two-valued fallacies and the paranoid structures of lies to you.

:> They are enough, however, to brand both
:> you and Lloyd as the liars that you are (under the same rules you want
:> to use for this administration), since you said "NO WMD were found"
:> and that is a statement contrary to current fact.
:
:No. I have a book on my shelf. You come into the room and notice the book.
:Did you 'find' it? No. Similarly, the weapons under U.N. bond CANNOT be
:*found* by the U.S.

And your evidence that the weapons mentioned in the report were under
UN bond is?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Just another lie.

:No WMDs were FOUND. Get a clue.

Except that's not what the report said.

:> You're a liar by your own definition of the word, Ian.
:
:Unfortunately, you are dishonest in misusing the word "found" to represent
:something it is not. No WMDs were found. Some known pre-1991 shells were
:reclaimed from U.N. control, but no WMDs. stockpiles or capabilities were
:found.

The preceding is something you've made up. It's not what the report
says.

:The lies are well established now. You would do well not to try to deny
:them.

I don't want to deny them. I want to keep pointing them out as long
as you keep emitting them. 

-- 
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
 soul with evil."
                                      -- Socrates
Loading