Tom Adams

I noticed on Howard Dean's website that he actually proposes to
prevent the use of *real* WMDs against us. That certainly is an
anti-Bush idea.

Pulver

Tom Adams wrote:
>
> I noticed on Howard Dean's website that he actually proposes to
> prevent the use of *real* WMDs against us. That certainly is an
> anti-Bush idea.

And how does he propose to do that??

nobody

In article <3F34370B.FC080DFD@gta.igs.net>, Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net>
wrote:

> Tom Adams wrote:
> >
> > I noticed on Howard Dean's website that he actually proposes to
> > prevent the use of *real* WMDs against us. That certainly is an
> > anti-Bush idea.
>
> And how does he propose to do that??


Sorta my thought too. Maybe I should run for Congress and put up a
website that proposes to prevent the falling of rain during daylight
hours and any temperature variation more than plus or minus 5 degrees
from 70 degrees. Makes just about as much sense.

Pulver

nobody wrote:
>
> In article <ea44f5a1.0308110422.58e73088@posting.google.com >,
> tadamsmar@yahoo.com (Tom Adams) wrote:
>
> > Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message
> > news:<3F363697.DABD1865@gta.igs.net>...

> > > Your whole post makes no sense. Dean is full of "issues"
> > > and "targets" without any substance behind them.

When you can get specific details, from the horse's mouth,
about those "issues" and "targets", then I and a great
number of others, will examine them carefully to sort the
wheat from the chaff.

> > > He made sure that his gubernatorial papers were sealed for
> > > ten years (he wanted 20) to make it difficult to pin down
> > > his record. However what we know of his performance, leaves
> > > much to be desired. I do not trust this man.
> >
> > People like you need to stop defending Bush and start focusing on
> > defending your country.
>
> People like you need to realize that those two actions aren't mutually
> exclusive.

When you can't have what you want,
it's time to start wanting what you have.
-- Kathleen A. Sutton

You get fifteen democrats in a room,
and you get twenty opinions.
-- Senator Patrick Leahy, May 1990

Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than
half of the people are right more than half the time.
-- E. B. White

Pulver

Tom Adams wrote:
>
> <nshinede@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<pT6%a.67324$hc.45026@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > Well, Tom, as you leftists say, your making a lot of unsubstantiated claims
> > here. Where's your proof?
>
> Proof for which claim?
>
> Bush's attempt to reduce CTR funding and Dean's plan to fund it at
> higher
> levels is from the Howard Dean web site. If you want, I can search
> out
> others sources on Bush's attempt to reduce CTR funding if you like.
>
> Now, I don't have a source on the idea that Russia is the most likely
> source
> of a terrorist nuke. I assumed that was common sense. I have
> mentioned that
> Russia followed by Pakistan were the most likely sources to at least
> one expert and they did dispute it.

You are close — Ukrainska
They are very cash strapped, particularly since they lost
out on some Iraq deals and their security makes Swiss
cheese seem solid.

> This idea is that a country that (1) already has nukes and (2) does
> not have good controls in place for their nukes or fissionable
> materials is the biggest
> threat. If the leader lacks control, the threat level has nothing to
> do
> with the good intentions of the leader.
>
> >
> > Secondly, how does one "prevent the use" of operational nuclear weapons?
> > Rather a foolish concept.
>
> Prevention of the theft of nuclear materials from the former Soviet
> Union is the goal of the CTR program. That is the kind of prevention
> that Dean has in mind.

Sure and he has about as much chance of doing that as he
has of reconstructing the disappearing Alaska glaciers.

> > As in sweet willie clintons "negotiations" with North Korea?
>
> No, CTR is about preventing WMD-related thefts and brain drains from
> the former Soviet Union.
>
> >
> > Many decades ago, the US military knew that once these weapons were
> > available to every nitwit ruler with a piece of real estate stupidly
> > recognized as a nation, their use would be certain.
> > Unavoidable.
>
> Nukes are not that available. You need fissionable material.
>
> >
> > Preemption is the last and only chance to save our world, son.
>
> I have nothing against preemption.
>
> But Bush made some bad mistakes:
>
> 1. Iraq was the wrong target since it was well-contained already.

nonsense.

> 2. He did not need a preemption policy to attack Iraq since they had
> violated the early cease-fire agreement put in place after the war to
> remove them from Kuwait.

That is why he was able to do what he did. And now he
has a strategic base that allows him to get out of Saudi
Arabia and gives him the flexibility to deal with the
next three targets in whatever order seems expedient.

BTW. It also gave Rumsfeld time to sweep out some of the
"Col Blimps" in the pentagon where the Peter Principle
had kicked in 3 or 4 grades back including Gen Shinseki
and his acolytes. Shinseki, a better politician than
soldier, is running for his mentor's senate seat from Hawaii.

> 3. Bush should not have formally expressed a preemption policy at this
> time, since he did not need it.

Sure - you are smarter than the president and his whole
cabinet put together.

> 4. Without a formal preemption policy, preemption still could be used
> as a practical reason for going to war that has some other legal
> basis. That is the way it should have been used until we faced a pure
> preemption situation where we needed to preempt and we could not find
> another legal basis.

nonsense

Adams really belongs in soc.history.what-if or alt.history.what-if

Try it you will definitely like it.

Erik A. Mattila

Pulver wrote:
>
> Tom Adams wrote:
>
>><nshinede@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<pT6%a.67324$hc.45026@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
>>
>>>Well, Tom, as you leftists say, your making a lot of unsubstantiated claims
>>>here. Where's your proof?
>>
>>Proof for which claim?
>
>
> any and all !
>
>
>>Bush's attempt to reduce CTR funding and Dean's plan to fund it at
>>higher
>>levels is from the Howard Dean web site.
>
>
> the Dean site is not a source of objective proof.

Message to Tom Adams:

Now you need to ask this clown what his criterium for "proof" is. While
he's already refused to specify which claim(s) he's requesting proof on,
he will also refuse to tell you what constitutes "proof" in his
reckoning. All rhetoric and no substance: all bark and no bite.

And I have to ask: if a candidate's campaign web site is not a legitmate
source for the canditate's position on political issues, then what is?
"The Weekly Standard?" "Townhall.com?" "Mat Drudge?" "Rash Limbo?"
What?????

eam

Tom Adams

Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message news:<3F3FB82B.31DDB1DF@gta.igs.net>...
> Tom Adams wrote:
> >
> > <nshinede@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<pT6%a.67324$hc.45026@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > > Well, Tom, as you leftists say, your making a lot of unsubstantiated claims
> > > here. Where's your proof?
> >
> > Proof for which claim?
>
> any and all !
>
> > Bush's attempt to reduce CTR funding and Dean's plan to fund it at
> > higher
> > levels is from the Howard Dean web site.
>
> the Dean site is not a source of objective proof.

Concerning Bush's attempts to cut CTR, here is another source:

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_09/ctrsept01.asp

Concerning Dean's stated position on the matter, Dean's web site is
the best source on Dean's positions, no?

Tom Adams

Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message news:<3F3F9E9A.374418F4@gta.igs.net>...
> Tom Adams wrote:
> >
> > <nshinede@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<pT6%a.67324$hc.45026@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > > Well, Tom, as you leftists say, your making a lot of unsubstantiated claims
> > > here. Where's your proof?
> >
> > Proof for which claim?
> >
> > Bush's attempt to reduce CTR funding and Dean's plan to fund it at
> > higher
> > levels is from the Howard Dean web site. If you want, I can search
> > out
> > others sources on Bush's attempt to reduce CTR funding if you like.
> >
> > Now, I don't have a source on the idea that Russia is the most likely
> > source
> > of a terrorist nuke. I assumed that was common sense. I have
> > mentioned that
> > Russia followed by Pakistan were the most likely sources to at least
> > one expert and they did dispute it.
>
> You are close ? Ukrainska
> They are very cash strapped, particularly since they lost
> out on some Iraq deals and their security makes Swiss
> cheese seem solid.
>

The point is that Iraq was way, way down the list.

Suppose a terrorist nuke went off in NYC a few weeks before Bush
planned to invade Iraq. Saddam would have dropped out of the news
faster than Gary Condit did after 911. We would have started focusing
on real threats.

Tom Adams

Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message news:<3F3F9E9A.374418F4@gta.igs.net>...
> Tom Adams wrote:
> > 3. Bush should not have formally expressed a preemption policy at this
> > time, since he did not need it.
>
> Sure - you are smarter than the president and his whole
> cabinet put together.

Notice that I try to address a political point and all you do is
attack me
on a personal level.

Are you incapable of discussing an issue?

>
> > 4. Without a formal preemption policy, preemption still could be used
> > as a practical reason for going to war that has some other legal
> > basis. That is the way it should have been used until we faced a pure
> > preemption situation where we needed to preempt and we could not find
> > another legal basis.
>
> nonsense

Another masterful refutation of my position.

>
> Adams really belongs in soc.history.what-if or alt.history.what-if
>
> Try it you will definitely like it.

Are you trying to say I should limit myself to short, insulting
remarks while posting to these particulat newgroups?

Perhaps you have a point ;-)

Pulver

Tom Adams wrote:
>
> Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message news:<3F3FB82B.31DDB1DF@gta.igs.net>...
> > Tom Adams wrote:
> > >
> > > <nshinede@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<pT6%a.67324$hc.45026@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > > > Well, Tom, as you leftists say, your making a lot of unsubstantiated claims
> > > > here. Where's your proof?
> > >
> > > Proof for which claim?
> >
> > any and all !
> >
> > > Bush's attempt to reduce CTR funding and Dean's plan to fund it at
> > > higher
> > > levels is from the Howard Dean web site.
> >
> > the Dean site is not a source of objective proof.
>
> Concerning Bush's attempts to cut CTR, here is another source:
>
> http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_09/ctrsept01.asp

So what?
>
> Concerning Dean's stated position on the matter, Dean's web site is
> the best source on Dean's positions, no?

Not really because he does not spell things out; there
should be some background data to support.

When asked on a Sunday talking head show "How he was
going to do all those things?", Dean replied, "Just like
we did in Vermont".

Now he had buried his papers that would reveal how "we
did it in Vermont" and made sure they would be out of
sight for ten years. What we could find in the
sycophantic local papers reads like flak pieces but
looks, in no way very promising.

Tom Adams

Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message news:<3F3F9E9A.374418F4@gta.igs.net>...
> Tom Adams wrote:
> > 3. Bush should not have formally expressed a preemption policy at this
> > time, since he did not need it.
>
> Sure - you are smarter than the president and his whole
> cabinet put together.

Reminds me of an old joke JFK told at a convocation of the American
Academy of Science at the White House. "This is the greatest
collection of talent and intelligence to gather for a meal here,
except for when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

We do live in a bit of a meritocracy, but that it not a criteria for
expressing ones opinion or having considered in a respectful manner.

But, since you brought it up:

Bush's IQ cannot be sourced. Some web sites say 91, but I don't
believe that.

His SAT was 1206, 83rd percentile. Mine was 1418, in the high 90s.

I don't know about the cabinet. Bet some of them are real smart.

Pulver

Tom Adams wrote:
>
> Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message news:<3F3F9E9A.374418F4@gta.igs.net>...
> > Tom Adams wrote:
> > >
> > > <nshinede@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<pT6%a.67324$hc.45026@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > > > Well, Tom, as you leftists say, your making a lot of unsubstantiated claims
> > > > here. Where's your proof?
> > >
> > > Proof for which claim?
> > >
> > > Bush's attempt to reduce CTR funding and Dean's plan to fund it at
> > > higher
> > > levels is from the Howard Dean web site. If you want, I can search
> > > out
> > > others sources on Bush's attempt to reduce CTR funding if you like.
> > >
> > > Now, I don't have a source on the idea that Russia is the most likely
> > > source
> > > of a terrorist nuke. I assumed that was common sense. I have
> > > mentioned that
> > > Russia followed by Pakistan were the most likely sources to at least
> > > one expert and they did dispute it.
> >
> > You are close ? Ukrainska
> > They are very cash strapped, particularly since they lost
> > out on some Iraq deals and their security makes Swiss
> > cheese seem solid.
> >
>
> The point is that Iraq was way, way down the list.
>
> Suppose a terrorist nuke went off in NYC a few weeks before Bush
> planned to invade Iraq. Saddam would have dropped out of the news
> faster than Gary Condit did after 911. We would have started focusing
> on real threats.

Two things——

1) you are selling Saddam far too short. He was the big
pivot man.

2) This allows USA to vacate its bases in Sa'udi Arabia
and still be strategically centered in the region. There
are three targets left in that area and they will be
ready to go as soon as Gin Rummy eliminates some more
dead wood from the pentagon. That should be much
smoother now that Shinsaki and his mentor Sen Inouye no
longer can obstruct the "jointness" plan.

nobody

In article <ea44f5a1.0308181026.20e1f3c8@posting.google.com >,
tadamsmar@yahoo.com (Tom Adams) wrote:


> Are you trying to say I should limit myself to short, insulting
> remarks while posting to these particulat newgroups?


Might as well, anyone who thinks these newsgroups contribute anything
but noise is an idiot. You don't really believe anything of consequence
occurs here, do you? These are simply forums for taunting fools who
take them all too seriously.

Erik A. Mattila

nobody wrote:
> In article <ea44f5a1.0308181026.20e1f3c8@posting.google.com >,
> tadamsmar@yahoo.com (Tom Adams) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Are you trying to say I should limit myself to short, insulting
>>remarks while posting to these particulat newgroups?
>
>
>
> Might as well, anyone who thinks these newsgroups contribute anything
> but noise is an idiot. You don't really believe anything of consequence
> occurs here, do you? These are simply forums for taunting fools who
> take them all too seriously.

That's a pretty cynical outlook, Nobody. As a matter of fact, there
have been some really great debates over the years here on a.p.e.
Believe it or not, there have been some excellent conservative posters
here who can construct a fine argument, as opposed to strings of
Coulterisms and media bytes. Let's see...I remember a great debate on
global warming where the conservative made the best argument - I had to
back down simply because my opponent was much more informed than I was.
And the SCOTUS debate after Election 2000 was terrific - I learned a
lot from the opposition, as well as from preparing my redirects and so
on. Anyway, it's entertaining, and often beneficial in terms of
expanding your views on various issues. Sometimes quite funny, too.

BTW, one group of Republicans here in California that has organized
against the recall cites, among the issues they are concerned with, is
the threat to civilized political discourse and debate that the recall
poses.

"It could destroy whatever shred remains of civilized political
discourse in this great state," GOP consultant Scott Barnett said in
announcing the formation of Republicans Against the Recall..
http://www.nbc11.com/politics/2309177/detail.html

eam

Tom Adams

Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message news:<3F4140A2.29CD9304@gta.igs.net>...
> Tom Adams wrote:
> >
> > Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message news:<3F3F9E9A.374418F4@gta.igs.net>...
> > > Tom Adams wrote:
> > > > 3. Bush should not have formally expressed a preemption policy at this
> > > > time, since he did not need it.
> > >
> > > Sure - you are smarter than the president and his whole
> > > cabinet put together.
> >
> > Notice that I try to address a political point and all you do is
> > attack me
> > on a personal level.
> >
> > Are you incapable of discussing an issue?
>
> Bring up a real issue first.
> > >
> > > > 4. Without a formal preemption policy, preemption still could be used
> > > > as a practical reason for going to war that has some other legal
> > > > basis. That is the way it should have been used until we faced a pure
> > > > preemption situation where we needed to preempt and we could not find
> > > > another legal basis.
> > >
> > > nonsense
> >
> > Another masterful refutation of my position.
>
> Reread carefully your paragraph 4. It really is
> nonsense; ergo nothing to refute. Your idea might be
> sound but it needs more cogent expression.
>
> > > Adams really belongs in soc.history.what-if or alt.history.what-if
> > >
> > > Try it you will definitely like it.
> >
> > Are you trying to say I should limit myself to short, insulting
> > remarks while posting to these particulat newgroups?
> >
> > Perhaps you have a point ;-)
>
> No, those groups are reputed to be the most
> intellectually exciting of the 40 or 50 thousand real
> groups on usenet. You were dealing with a number of
> "what-ifs" and they are the places for that
>
> As for these 5 groups, you need to lay out your points
> clearly and concisely and try to provide some back up for
> what you are saying. There are too many here who only
> know what they saw on last night's late TV news including
> the ball scores etc. They are mostly inarticulate, but
> pontificate ad nauseam.
>
> Those of us who take the time to read history from
> varying points of view, usually also take the time to
> produce factual posts with back up.
>

I thought I did all that.

Nobody has taken the time to adress the fact that Bush did not need
a preemption policy. And, his preemption policy is:

"Countries have a right to preemption"

not

"The US is special"

as such, It should never have been stated until it was needed.
Just replace "Countries" with "China", etc. Get my point?

Of course, the US is special. We got more explosives and a special bulleye
is painted on us.

> Your man Dean, comes on with a charming bedside manner,
> but like most doctors avoids explaining things because he
> thinks you are not smart enough to understand. That
> gives him a shifty appearance.

Appearance is better than Gore, IMO.

nobody

In article <ea44f5a1.0308181647.31b0e0f@posting.google.com> ,
tadamsmar@yahoo.com (Tom Adams) wrote:

> Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message
> news:<3F4140A2.29CD9304@gta.igs.net>...
> > Tom Adams wrote:
> > >
> > > Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<3F3F9E9A.374418F4@gta.igs.net>...
> > > > Tom Adams wrote:
> > > > > 3. Bush should not have formally expressed a preemption policy at
> > > > > this
> > > > > time, since he did not need it.
> > > >
> > > > Sure - you are smarter than the president and his whole
> > > > cabinet put together.
> > >
> > > Notice that I try to address a political point and all you do is
> > > attack me
> > > on a personal level.
> > >
> > > Are you incapable of discussing an issue?
> >
> > Bring up a real issue first.
> > > >
> > > > > 4. Without a formal preemption policy, preemption still could be used
> > > > > as a practical reason for going to war that has some other legal
> > > > > basis. That is the way it should have been used until we faced a
> > > > > pure
> > > > > preemption situation where we needed to preempt and we could not find
> > > > > another legal basis.
> > > >
> > > > nonsense
> > >
> > > Another masterful refutation of my position.
> >
> > Reread carefully your paragraph 4. It really is
> > nonsense; ergo nothing to refute. Your idea might be
> > sound but it needs more cogent expression.
> >
> > > > Adams really belongs in soc.history.what-if or alt.history.what-if
> > > >
> > > > Try it you will definitely like it.
> > >
> > > Are you trying to say I should limit myself to short, insulting
> > > remarks while posting to these particulat newgroups?
> > >
> > > Perhaps you have a point ;-)
> >
> > No, those groups are reputed to be the most
> > intellectually exciting of the 40 or 50 thousand real
> > groups on usenet. You were dealing with a number of
> > "what-ifs" and they are the places for that
> >
> > As for these 5 groups, you need to lay out your points
> > clearly and concisely and try to provide some back up for
> > what you are saying. There are too many here who only
> > know what they saw on last night's late TV news including
> > the ball scores etc. They are mostly inarticulate, but
> > pontificate ad nauseam.
> >
> > Those of us who take the time to read history from
> > varying points of view, usually also take the time to
> > produce factual posts with back up.
> >
>
> I thought I did all that.
>
> Nobody has taken the time to adress the fact that Bush did not need
> a preemption policy. And, his preemption policy is:
>
> "Countries have a right to preemption"
>
> not


Care to make a case for that? Or are you another of those who believe
in "proof by assertion"?

James Hall

Is usually a tree.

JHall.

James Hall

Is usually a flower hoping for some sunshine.

JHall.

Tom Adams

nobody <nobody@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message news:<nobody-B5BD97.21100318082003@netnews.attbi.com>...
> In article <ea44f5a1.0308181647.31b0e0f@posting.google.com> ,
> tadamsmar@yahoo.com (Tom Adams) wrote:
> >
> > I thought I did all that.
> >
> > Nobody has taken the time to adress the fact that Bush did not need
> > a preemption policy. And, his preemption policy is:
> >
> > "Countries have a right to preemption"
> >
> > not
>
>
> Care to make a case for that? Or are you another of those who believe
> in "proof by assertion"?

I don't know how to expand a case that is simply based on the meaning
of words as they are defined in the dictionary. I will just have to
leave a few dense folks bobbing in my wake.

Tom Adams

Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message news:<3F413B50.F55444C6@gta.igs.net>...
> Tom Adams wrote:
> >
> > Pulver <redlen@gta.igs.net> wrote in message news:<3F3F9E9A.374418F4@gta.igs.net>...
> > > Tom Adams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <nshinede@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<pT6%a.67324$hc.45026@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > > > > Well, Tom, as you leftists say, your making a lot of unsubstantiated claims
> > > > > here. Where's your proof?
> > > >
> > > > Proof for which claim?
> > > >
> > > > Bush's attempt to reduce CTR funding and Dean's plan to fund it at
> > > > higher
> > > > levels is from the Howard Dean web site. If you want, I can search
> > > > out
> > > > others sources on Bush's attempt to reduce CTR funding if you like.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I don't have a source on the idea that Russia is the most likely
> > > > source
> > > > of a terrorist nuke. I assumed that was common sense. I have
> > > > mentioned that
> > > > Russia followed by Pakistan were the most likely sources to at least
> > > > one expert and they did dispute it.
> > >
> > > You are close ? Ukrainska
> > > They are very cash strapped, particularly since they lost
> > > out on some Iraq deals and their security makes Swiss
> > > cheese seem solid.
> > >
> >
> > The point is that Iraq was way, way down the list.
> >
> > Suppose a terrorist nuke went off in NYC a few weeks before Bush
> > planned to invade Iraq. Saddam would have dropped out of the news
> > faster than Gary Condit did after 911. We would have started focusing
> > on real threats.
>
> Two things??
>
> 1) you are selling Saddam far too short. He was the big
> pivot man.

Bush fakes to Saddam. Pakistan is open to drop the bomb.

>
> 2) This allows USA to vacate its bases in Sa'udi Arabia
> and still be strategically centered in the region. There
> are three targets left in that area and they will be
> ready to go as soon as Gin Rummy eliminates some more
> dead wood from the pentagon. That should be much
> smoother now that Shinsaki and his mentor Sen Inouye no
> longer can obstruct the "jointness" plan.

A democratic Irag will allow US bases only if it feels very threatened.

Of course, we may just occupy Irag ad infinitum and turn it into our
base. Is that what you have in mind?