DIYbanter - View Single Post

On 18 Feb 2005 10:55:40 -0800, wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:41:24 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:
"Can't find 'em" doesn't mean "aren't here" or even "weren't here",
Nate.

You can't find the Lock Ness moster, Yeti, Alien abductors either,
or a live T.Rex either. Doesn't mean they aren't here or even
weren't here.

Here, hypocrite Fred (who bitches about off-topic posts) posts to
an offtopic thread. While crossposting outside of this group.
He makes a stupid point, to boot. Fred, those things have never
been _known_ to exist, while SH's WMD are known _to_ have existed.
Maybe that's a subtle difference to you, but I don't think anyone but
you would confuse hidden and/or moved and/or used up and/or destroyed
WMD with fairy tales.

Of course he had them 20 years earlier. At the time Saddam was
using
chemical weapons, we were rooting for him in his war with Iran.

What about the Sarin shell that injured our guys, Nate? Don't they
count? Did it not exist? Couple liters of Sarin, what, that's not
enough M to be a W of MD?

Love the way you refer to ONE (1) sarin shell as 'they'.

Lovely, a grammar kop now.

As you know, Iraq declared to UNSCOM that it had produced and
test fired about 70 prototype sarin of that design. No data
are available as to how may detonated on impact or were recovered.

In other words, they didn't do the paperwork they promised to do,
and WMD exists that they said didn't. Gotcha.

ISG was unable to determine whether or not that one (1) had
been fired or not.

Relevance being ...???

So as you know, that shell (note singular) is not evidence of
a violation of the sanctions.

Riiiiiight, it just happened to be right there, purely a mistake,
woopsie, could have happened to anyone.

You're a fool if you don't think that's what was going on when the UN
was pussyfooting around saying "Oh, pleeeeease let us come in? Come
on,
Pleeeeease?".

Could you try to be a bit more mature?

It's effectively true. All the UN would do was use mildly harsh
language to "demand" access, and he stonewalled until he was done
hiding or moving his stuff. When there was nothing left (to hide),
he let them come in.

You probably won't acknowledge Libya's disarming is a result of
Bush's decisions either, I suppose.

I will. I will also acknowledge that North Korea and Iran went
the other way and accelerated their programs.

And you are saying that, because Bush is willing to attack someone
acting up, they decided to risk that? "Hey, there's this big
army right next door, so let's tone it up a bit"? Doubtful.
More likely they were going that direction anyway. These things
don't develop overnight, Fred.

I'll also point
out that being right accross the Mediteranean from Lybia, the
French weren't about to let Lybia become a nuclear power either.

The FRENCH? When the hell have they ever been worth a **** for
anything but wine & cheese?

Before you dump on the French,

Too late. Started decades ago.

tell us who has been fighting
Lybian expansion in North Africa for teh last thirty years.

Um, I'll take "Egypt" for 500, Alex.

There was no active WMD program.
^^^^^^

Active being the operative word. Now, it'll hopefully be harder for
them to restart their WMD programs as well.

And the fact being that every nation with a chamical industry or
universities has a de facto formant WMD program.

I notice that you snipped the part about the uranium centrifuge parts
and the bio-lab trailers that were hidden/buried. Why is that, Fred
(asked Dave, knowing exactly why...)

...

Iran and North Korea are exhibiting their fear by making nukes as
quickly as possible.

So, do you think that's wise of them, all things considered?

Bush has already proved to them that the US uses diplomacy as
a distraction while building up for military action.

So, are you saying he should attack without diplomacy, as soon as he
checks for permission from you, or what's your point?