Dave Hinz wrote:
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.
1) T. Rex was included in the list precisely because it was known
to have existed.
2) In Iraq today the US is fighting insurgents. The insurgents
fight in civlian clothing for two important reasons.
a) If they wore uniforms, gathered in mass and engaged in a
a stand-up fight with the US they would be immediately wiped
out.
b) By fighting the US in civilian clothing they force the US
to treat Iraqi civilians with suspician, driving a wedge
between the US troops and the indigenous population.
c) They don't have uniforms to wear.
Now, some people will bitch and moan and complain that the
isurgency doesn't fight fair but the fact is the US has but two
choices, to fight as best we can despite the circumstances the
insurgency is perverting to their advantage or give up.
Here on rec.woodworking today you post OT with a vague subject
line instead of posting in a proper newsgroup with a subject line
that is informative. Obviously your motivation is the same
as 2) a) above. If you were to stick to the rules you'd post
in a newsgroup where the issues you wished to discuss were on-
topic and with an informative subject line. Then other authors
knowledgible in the topic would engage you and you wouldn't
have a chance.
My choices are to do the best I can despite the circumstances you
have perverted to your advantage, or to give up. I am not willing
to let evil win without a fight.
Love the way you refer to ONE (1) sarin shell as 'they'.
Lovely, a grammar kop now.
Nice revisionism now that you were caught trying to misrepresent
one shell as many.
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.
IOW they declared to UNSCOM that they were fired and they
didn't know if any unexploded shells were still somewhere
out in the desert along with perhaps 10% of all of the
munitions fired in the Iran-Iraq war--including chemical
munitions.
ISG was unable to determine whether or not that one (1) had
been fired or not.
Relevance being ...???
That the Iraqi declarations are consistant with the observed reality.
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.
Obviously the insurgents mistakenly thought it was HE. Where
do you think the insurgents get their IED material if not from
unexploded munitions combed from old battlefields and test ranges?
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.
To the contrary, Blix described the Iraqi 2002-2003 cooperation
as 'unprecedented'. Again, you are either deceptively omitting
the time frame of your vague assertions or outright lying
about the degree of access UNMOVIC enjoyed in 2002-2003.
At least you admit that after Desert Fox, Iraq had nothing
left to hide. Thank you for agreeing, though I'll argue
that the threat of force also had something to do with it.
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.
They decided that not being able to defend themselves was riskier
than relying on the good will of the US.
....
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...)
The Uranium centrifuge parts, being buried in someone's
front yard for over a decade, clearly were not part of an
ACTIVE, WMD program. 'Active' as you noted befor, being the
operant word. No one ever argued that Saddam Hussein could
be trusted, that was one of Bush's lies. No one ever argued
that Iraq would not resume WMD production if it could--that
was another of Bush's lies. The argument was that Iraq had
not and could not, hence no need for immediate military action.
No one has found mobile biological labs. The trailers that
were found were equippped with high capacity refrigerated
reaction vessels and compressors and cylinders for collectng
the evolved gas. That, and the trace evidence in the trailers
makes it clear that these were mobile hydrogen generators.
The CIA used to have a page with pictures of the actual
trailers, if it is still up, you can look for yourself.
Nobody bright enough to be able to make a mobile biological
lab would be stupid enough to try to capture the evolved
gasses by compressing them into cylinders and even if they
were, the capacity of the refrigeration and gas collection
system greatly exceeds anything that would be needed to
do that.
Since you knew your information was false, why'd you bring it up?
...
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?
I'm sure he's quite beyond taking morality-based advice but he should
try honesty.
--
FF