I think I've demonstrated this sufficiently.

Post #59,113 by Brandioch 10/24/02 1:19:29 PM Reply	I think I've demonstrated this sufficiently. Ah...so how does "I said this so you need to refute it with several hundred references that I won't get on my own" fit in with that statement. That would be you. When I state something, I back it up with facts. As with this current thread. Do you want me to provide facts showing what a hat trick is in football? Are you going to claim that there isn't one? In other words...you seem to miserably fail at practicing what you preach. Only in your opinion. But then, you believe that "maybe" and "possibly" are supportive of your positions. So when do you plan on providing a link that proves Bush grounded the drones? Link was provided. Then somehow it was up to me >again< to disprove your assertion. According to you...thats not how its supposed to work (unless you have a double standard..which is horribly apparent) I did. And when they were first used, what the problems were, how those problems were fixed and when they went to Bush to get them deployed. Because these facts do not fit your viewpoint, you keep forgetting them and claiming that I haven't posted them. Continued cop-out. You can do it..but noone else can. It certainly >is< the same because you are using words that have multiple definitions based upon context and location. You're right and wrong. Yes, it is about CONTEXT!!! Something that I have CONTINUALLY harped upon YOUR inability to GRASP. And the CONTEXT would be CLEAR to anyone not blinded by your US-centric viewpoint. Which is something ELSE I've had to continually point out to you. Yes!!! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!! CONTEXT!!! Learn it! And lose the US-centric viewpoint. It will make you a better person.
Post #59,123 by bepatient 10/24/02 1:38:12 PM Reply	Don't have it... ....and your link did nothing to prove a grounding of the ops. It talked about when they were grounded. (Pre-Bush) It talked about them being retrofitted. It discussed final testing was complete (after 2 more months) Then the next thing you know...there are news articles talking about how drones are back in theater. Remarkably anti-US centric. But you can pretend anything you want...you always do. On your "proof" of drones Your link says... Sept/Oct they stop. Feb they're in Nevada. ( 5 months) April their done testing. Assuming >instantaneous< approval of redeployment (you are military and implying this is even remotely possible would be horribly suspect) so to get them back in theater would take, presumably the same 5 months it took to get them out. You still end up with them out of operation until after 9/11. And links have been provided to show they are indeed being used at that point. So barring a report that Bush stated they were NOT to be used...simple timelines applied to >your< link disprove your position. Yet it remains up to me to disprove your >assertion< that Bush grounded the ops. But you only state things backed with >facts<. I know context. I also know pattern. Called upon it...you will hold yourself to lesser standards than you hold others. This is all that the point was meant to prove. I think it worked. I may have a posting lull tonight btw...considering I have to ref a couple of soccer games tonight. How horribly US centric of me to miss the World Series for that "gosh dern ferner" game. I'll be moving to Montana soon. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #59,147 by Brandioch 10/24/02 2:43:23 PM Reply	Knock off the lies. It also stated exactly where the project was introduced to Bush and turned down. Bush said not to use the drones. This was documented and in the link I provided. Because it doesn't match your viewpoint, you keep claiming it wasn't there. Sept/Oct they stop. Feb they're in Nevada. ( 5 months) April their done testing. Assuming >instantaneous< approval of redeployment (you are military and implying this is even remotely possible would be horribly suspect) so to get them back in theater would take, presumably the same 5 months it took to get them out. No, to try to "support" your position, you add the TESTING time to the TRAVEL time and claim that it would take that long to move them back. Fine, but that assumes that retrofitting and testing took ZERO time. Bzzzzt!
Post #59,157 by bepatient 10/24/02 3:27:17 PM Reply	Nope. Op/Ed piece that claimed Rumsfeld did it...to back an assertion that Bush did it countered by the actual reports that showed the actual problems... And no. Retrofitting and testing is Feb-April from one account and following (from your links) an account pushing that back to August. So. It took Sept to Feb (5 months) to get from theater to Nevada. Testing Feb to April (or worse...August)...how long to get back? Gee...your generosity gives them weeks. [link\|http://www.azstarnet.com/attack/indepth/id-CIAdrones.html\|http://www.azstarnet...id-CIAdrones.html] By early spring this year, the CIA had brought the Predators back to the United States and was actively pushing the Air Force to equip them with Hellfire missiles for a possible redeployment in Afghanistan. Tests in Nevada dragged on through the summer as technicians tried to refine the plane's ability to fire accurately at targets from high altitudes. By August, officials say, the kinks had been worked out and the planes were ready to go. But even then, the Bush administration was riddled with doubts about whether it wanted to go forward with a new, more forceful mission over Afghanistan. The risks, officials say, were huge. Top Bush Cabinet officials convened several times in late summer to discuss the pros and cons of going forward. Even >worse< for your case because it pushes mission readiness of the drones into August. I see..."riddled with doubts" is the same as ordering them grounded. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #59,180 by Brandioch 10/24/02 4:15:48 PM Reply	I've already established your problems with context. I see..."riddled with doubts" is the same as ordering them grounded. In this instance, it is. They were presented with a system that they refused to deploy. They refused to deploy it because they were "riddled with doubts" about it. The action is refusing to deploy the drones. The reason for the action is they were riddled with doubts. I say that Bush took a specific action. You are focusing on the reason why he took that specific action and trying to claim the reason is the action. Bzzzzzt! You're wrong again!
Post #59,187 by pwhysall 10/24/02 4:23:55 PM Reply	fap Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #59,201 by bepatient 10/24/02 5:01:03 PM Reply	rofl You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #59,155 by screamer 10/24/02 3:19:46 PM Reply	Gonna be a dental floss tycoon? Or a mental toss flycoon? Just me and the pygmy pony over by the dental floss bush... (thanks Frank Z) Bill... It's over... Just practice this sign (with sincere apologies to Michel Merlin) whenever you post with ... youknowho -----ooooOOOooooo----- Just a few thoughts, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #59,158 by bepatient 10/24/02 3:29:15 PM Reply	Bingo! Gonna be wearing my Python Boots too. Yeah...might as well let Nanook Rub it;) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #59,125 by Mike 10/24/02 1:39:21 PM Reply	I back it up with facts LMAO >>When I state something, I back it up with facts. You stated that Israel was acting as a proxy for the United States' interests when it bombed Iraq's nuclear facility. Had you even TRIED to back it up with facts......you (I hope) would have realised/discovered that the U.S. participated in a condemnation of Israel for its actions. So......I think you need a "weasle word" here. You USUALLY back it up with facts. You SOMETIMES back it up with facts. Heck, I'll let you choose the word. But "I back it up with facts" is BS. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #59,197 by Brandioch 10/24/02 4:39:02 PM Reply	Mike == clueless. You stated that Israel was acting as a proxy for the United States' interests when it bombed Iraq's nuclear facility. That is correct. Had you even TRIED to back it up with facts......you (I hope) would have realised/discovered that the U.S. participated in a condemnation of Israel for its actions. Have you read the document? [link\|http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/be25c7c81949e71a052567270057c82b/6c57312cc8bd93ca852560df00653995!OpenDocument\|here] Note that Israel is not punished for the attack. Nor are damages awarded to Iraq for the attack. And so forth. In other words, the US told Israel that the attack was "wrong" but that NOTHING would be done to Israel because of it. And nothing was done to Israel. No fines, no punishments, no inspectors.... NOTHING. And THAT is what being a proxy is about. The US gets to remove itself from the ACTIONS, but still looks after the proxy's interests.
Post #59,211 by Mike 10/24/02 5:29:48 PM Reply	Bad logic, bad facts After the bombing, the White House reported to congress that a "substantial" violation of the Arms Export Control Act prohibition against the use of U.S. weapons except in self-defense may have occurred. Congress declined to take any action.....lets keep this for a separate thread. Now...when the White House reported this to Congress...were they trying to make sure that their proxy was rewarded? Your understanding of history is VERY flawed. The U.S. wanted to distance themselves from Israels actions when they elected not to veto the resolution. At the same time, they made it clear that they would not support sanctions against them. All of this behaviour is JUST as consistent with the fact that Israel was an ally. To interpret this as proof that they were acting on our behalf is without foundation.....I would like some EVIDENCE please. Combine the above with the fact that the White House reported what they did to the Congress........its utterly delusional. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #59,217 by Brandioch 10/24/02 6:03:02 PM Reply	So you say. Your understanding of history is VERY flawed. So you say. The U.S. wanted to distance themselves from Israels actions when they elected not to veto the resolution. At the same time, they made it clear that they would not support sanctions against them. Hmmm, I seem to recall reading that somewhere else. Now, where could I have read that. Oh, I know. I just posted that. All of this behaviour is JUST as consistent with the fact that Israel was an ally. To interpret this as proof that they were acting on our behalf is without foundation.....I would like some EVIDENCE please. Hmmm, you were the one that chose the event. I provided the substantiation. The US did not veto the resolution, but there wasn't ANYTHING in the resolution that did anything to Israel IN ANY FORM OR FASHION. In other words, Israel bombed a nuclear plant in Iraq and got away with it. And you still want more proof? Okay, how much aid do we send to Israel? How does that compare to the REST of the aid we send to countries?
Post #59,257 by wharris2 10/24/02 8:46:31 PM Reply	Jeez, will you never let go? Or let anyone else have a last word?
Post #59,287 by Brandioch 10/24/02 10:58:49 PM Reply	I'm sorry, was I talking to you? Or do you have some personal problem where you have to inflict your opinion on topics that do not concern you?
Post #59,290 by admin 10/24/02 11:09:14 PM Reply	Because the S/N ratio in here is abyssmal mainly because of this pointless bickering. As such, you are involving the other members of this community, whether or not they are direct participants. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #59,301 by Brandioch 10/24/02 11:27:53 PM Reply	And he was improving it? yes/no? Are you improving it? yes/no? If you're not improving it, but you feel obligated to provide your opinion on it, then......
Post #59,302 by boxley 10/24/02 11:29:37 PM Reply	are you insinuating I am not improving it? I do not post without making a point that I hope someone will get. And yes, right shifting this to hell and gone is a point of sorts. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #59,304 by admin 10/24/02 11:30:31 PM Reply	He was attempting to. By making his displeasure known in the hopes that you would quit the bullshit. As I am doing. As several others have. Get the message yet? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #59,308 by wharris2 10/24/02 11:37:21 PM Reply	Futile hope, I'm afraid, Scott. Once again, although best made in a different area, twit filter requested.
Post #59,320 by Brandioch 10/25/02 12:03:55 AM Reply	Allow me to make this perfectly clear. What pleases or displeases him does not, has not and will not have any effect upon my actions. If I have, somehow, failed to communicate this clearly enough, I hope I have now remedied that. I do not subscribe to political correctness.
Post #59,323 by Silverlock 10/25/02 12:16:18 AM Reply	"I do not subscribe to political correctness." Understood and accepted. Seems like the only thing you do subscribe to lately is bitchiness. Have you ever admitted a mistake, a wrong interpretation, a misunderstood nuance? Please prove me wrong. "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #59,333 by Brandioch 10/25/02 1:10:25 AM Reply	Check my reply to your other post. Check out the Truman Doctrine. Check out when it was issued. Check out the state of Germany at that time. Yes, I have admitted I was wrong before. When I was wrong.
Post #59,335 by Silverlock 10/25/02 1:18:24 AM Reply	point to a single example. Honestly, I don't remember a single time you have have ever said "I was wrong". My memory may be faulty though. "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #59,348 by Brandioch 10/25/02 2:13:12 AM Reply	Those specific words? Or words to that effect? [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=59092\|Ah. I see now.]
Post #59,377 by admin 10/25/02 9:18:09 AM Reply	That much is obvious. But a non sequitur. I was answering a question about S/N. wharris was attempting to improve the S/N here. You, by contrast, are not. Have I made myself clear now? Political correctness has very little to do with this situation, Brandioch. Please disabuse yourself of the notion that you are somehow carrying the Torch Of Brusque Illumination here. I don't believe anyone here has failed to miss your point that you believe Screamer was calling a fence a wall. What they are telling you is that 1) being pedantic to the point of irrationality is stupid and 2) shut up about it already. Unless of course you enjoy mental masturbation; we're just letting you know that the sideshow has become boring and we'd like you to get back to discussing stuff that actually matters. This is my last statement to you on the matter. Very soon I will implement 'ignore thread', and for really asinine stuff like this, 'move (sub)thread' and 'lock (sub)thread' features. So at the very least your antics are useful in the generation of new (albeit sadly un-looked-for) features. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #59,424 by Brandioch 10/25/02 12:15:06 PM Reply	Let me put this in small words. I do not think I can explain the Truman Doctrine and "Containment" to someone who is trying to hide the fact that he was not on the border by playing word games over whether "fence" is the same as "wall". Clear enough?
Post #59,480 by wharris2 10/25/02 4:39:25 PM Reply	Re: That much is obvious. Very soon I will implement 'ignore thread', and for really asinine stuff like this, 'move (sub)thread' and 'lock (sub)thread' features. Pity, really, that it has to come to this.
Post #59,486 by admin 10/25/02 5:03:34 PM Reply	Tell me about it. I've got better things to do than clean up after people who can't keep from shitting in their own beds. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Welcome to IWETHEY!