DIYbanter - View Single Post

On 18 Feb 2005 12:46:58 -0800, wrote:

Knock it off with the followup games already, wouldja?

Dave Hinz wrote:

Lovely, a grammar kop now.

Nice revisionism now that you were caught trying to misrepresent
one shell as many.

Yeah, whatever you say fred. Now you can read my mind, too? That's,
er, incredible.

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.

In other words, there could still be a ****load of buried WMD in
Iraq. Good to see you finally acknowledge that fact.

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.

If you believe that that shell just -happened- to be there, I
suppose.

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?

Obviously they have more sources than just salvage.

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'.

In other words, in 2002-2003 they finally started cooperating, and
previously, they hadn't been. Yes, once again, you make my point
for me.

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.

How about, say, the end of Desert Storm until 2002, Fred?

At least you admit that after Desert Fox, Iraq had nothing
left to hide.

Don't misstate my points. I say he has nothing left to hide, because
he's hidden it all already. That's not the same has he has nothing.
(here comes word-games Fred saying "he's in custody, he HAS nothing" -
don't bother).

Thank you for agreeing, though I'll argue
that the threat of force also had something to do with it.

Red herring; rejected.

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.

Their choice. If they make the wrong move, they'll pay for it. Too
bad they didn't learn by example.

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.

No ****. But it certainly shows intent to resume one, which is
now much more difficult than it was before.

'Active' as you noted befor, being the
operant word.

So, you're saying the madman is free to have whatever the hell he wants,
as long as he's not producing WMD's at that very moment? Amazing.

No one ever argued that Saddam Hussein could
be trusted, that was one of Bush's lies.

Nice deception there. At the time SH was being supported, he was
the lesser of two evils.

No one ever argued
that Iraq would not resume WMD production if it could--that
was another of Bush's lies.

I think you just added an extra negative there. Iraq most definately
would have been happy for the UN to get out of their hair so they
could keep making WMD.

The argument was that Iraq had
not and could not, hence no need for immediate military action.

Riiiiight. Let's wait until we have been attacked, and _then_ do it.
That's a great idea.

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.

I'll just wander around the internet until I find whatever
you may or may not be talking about. Not.

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.

In other words, you would design them differently if your
assumptions are correct. And?

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.

What the hell does "morality-based advice" mean in fred-speak?