Cortlandt Wilson responds:

> Unfortunately the majority of your arguments in my
opinion are based on either logical fallacies, exaggerations, and/or your
own guesses and suppositions.   Instead of just making unsubstantiated
statements of my own I will attempt to illustrate these points.

>Your points about his conventional military and the sanctions are well
>taken.  IMO those are solid or at reasonably arguable positions.

Thank you.

>But the inspection process worked?   I suggest this is an example of
all-or-nothing thinking.   The inspections worked only in part.  Certainly
the withdrawal of inspectors in 1998 and the passage of UN resolution 1441
showed that the inspection process wasn't working well enough for the UN.

Okay. I can go with that. But the renewed inspections are working now. So, why attack? What's the rush? Heck, lets all convene next year by which time the French and Russians, Chinese and everybody can pile in. In the meantime lets all deal with the real and present threat of terrorism for which there is agreement.

I wrote:
>>This action we are embarking on has nothing to do with WMD's, the
>>Iraqi people, democracy or threat to our countries.

You state:
>How do you know that?   I assume that you are referring to the motivations
of the Bush administration which are said it so motivated.  I submit your
claim as stated is tantamount to claiming that you have to the ability to
read men's minds.   Were you exaggerating to make a point?

You interpret my statements to suit your own thinking (of which we are all guilty). Your submission of mind-reading is a parlour conjurors trick of misdirection aimed at conveniently side-stepping my points without addressing them. The manifesto of the far-right is publicly available (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm ) not made up by me. If you don't believe the words look at President Bushs' behaviour - reversal of environmental agreement and legislation in favour of corporate interests, withdrawal from international arms control agreements, the language of "irrelevancy" applied to international institutions that see a way forward different from US policy, denial of human rights and rule of law whilst holding these up as the cause celebre.  (for example, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,911583,00.html ). Exaggerate? Moi?

Consider this parallel. Israel is in defiance of resolution 242, passed over 30 years ago, to withdraw from the occupied territories. They have a secret nuclear weapons project (revealed bravely by Mordechai Vanunu who languishes in prison) and refuse international atomic inspectors access to the programme, have invaded neighbouring countries and contravened human rights. Yet they are not named in the Axis of Evil. And the difference is?

You ask "How do I know?". Well, how do you know different? Are you a mind-reader?

Like everyone on this list who has taken part in this series of off-topic discussions, we each bring our own history, emotions and personality to the debate. My view is no more "right" or substantial than the opposing views which have been well articulated by Denys, Brice, Gary and many others. They are convinced that war is justified and have argued their points. Fine. I don't think it's justified and I've tried to argue mine. An opposing viewpoint is not a sign of mental instability - unless you live in Stalinist Russia.

I would say I have genuinely learned much from most of the views expressed. I am not opposed to all war. I am opposed to most and in particular THIS war. It is unnecessary, it is being rushed into, it is at the expense of the international institutions that came out of WW2 and which form the foundations for peace between nations. There is not a international consensus in favour of war and that makes me suspicious of the motives. There is not a popular consensus for it, and I believe those voices should be listened to, but they are not. It is, in the opinion of most legal experts, also illegal.

I wrote:
>> The intelligence has been rubbished and the threat is non-existent.
You respond:
>I submit that your claims is tantamount to a claim that you have superior
sources of intelligence on Iraq.   The claim also contradicts reports from
the intelligence agencies of several nations.   For your claim to be true
one has to assume a conspiracy on the part of a number of nations.

No, try:
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0302powell.html
http://www.fpif.org/papers/iraq_body.html 
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm

Are your own sources superior? What makes them so? That you consider them to be?

>Most people are motivated by the confluence of a good number of reasons.
>Your comments focus on a limited subset of possible motivations.  You
discount or discredit other reasons and motivations that the administration
has spoken of on a number of occasions.   I suggest this is an example of
willful, worst-case thinking.

And, of course, you're not guilty of that at all.

I think I see a pattern in your posts. Any posting you read which criticises another is, in your translation, a criticism applicable to the one who posted it. You then proceed to put your point which, of course, cannot be criticised since if anyone does, well, they are criticising themselves! One can't call you arrogant for that because, there I go, I'm arrogant to say so! It could be deemed a superiority complex, oops, there it is, I've labelled myself! You approach any reading of a viewpoint as being indicative of the holders mental state rather than starting at the point expressed and dealing with that.

>I know from my own experience that learning to diagnose and replace these
types of thinking patterns with more balanced ones is an effective treatment
for mild to moderate depression.

At this time, I don't need a lesson in NLP, amateur psychology or cheap insinuation, thanks all the same. (I'm well versed in those already) But if it works for you, all well and good.



Richard Ali


(comments definitely my own)

























Richard Ali
Smith & Williamson Corporate Services Limited



Richard Ali
Smith & Williamson Corporate Services Limited




The contents of this email are confidential to the intended recipient and may not be disclosed.  Although it is believed that this email and any attachments are virus free, it is the responsibility of the recipient to confirm this.

Smith & Williamson Corporate Finance Limited - A member of M&A International Inc. http://www.mergers.net  Registered in England No. 4533970.  Regulated by the Financial Services Authority 
Smith & Williamson Investment Management Limited, Registered No. 976145.  Regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
Smith & Williamson Pension Consultancy Limited - Independent Intermediary.  Registered No. 3133226. Regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
Smith & Williamson Unit Trust Managers Limited, Registered No. 1934644.  Regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
Smith & Williamson Limited - A member of Nexia International.   Registered in England No. 4534022.  Regulated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales for a range of investment business activities.

Registered Office: No. 1 Riding House Street, London W1A 3AS
Telephone: 020 7637 5377 http://www.smith.williamson.co.uk

Nexia Audit Limited - A member of Nexia International.  Registered in England No. 4469576. Registered to carry on audit work and regulated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales for a range of investment business activities.

Registered Office: No. 1 Riding House Street, London W1A 3AS
Telephone: 020 7637 5377 http://www.nexiaaudit.co.uk

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *