On 18 Feb 2005 15:01:00 -0800, wrote:

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

Knock it off with the followup games already, wouldja?

How typical of an evil person. Not content with merely getting
away with doing something wrong, you insist on trying to corrupt
others as well.

How typical of a trollish person, trying to drag another group's
noise into this one.

Dave Hinz wrote:


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.

I'm glad to see that you aknowledge that unrecovered duds on
abandoned test ranges and old battlefields are not a violation
of the UN sanctions.

I never said that and you know it. Your type says there aren't
WMD there, and if there are, they don't count for some
reason or another. I reject that, on both counts.


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.

If it wasn't there, how could the insurgents have found it?

It obviously _was_ there, Fred, that's my point. How many more just
happen to be there?

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.

For small arms, sure. So where do YOU think they get unexploded
155s?

Are you proposing that all the stashes of material have been
identified, inventoried, and/or destroyed? How...naiive of you.

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.

Now you admit that when threatened with US action Iraq caved and
cooperated.

Yeah, after we gave them a decade to hide what they needed to hide.
"Come on in, you won't find anything".

That is the point I was making all along. Thank
you for admitting I was correct.

Distorting your opponent's statements is a good way to admit
you can't win the argument on the merit of your own. Concession
of point noted.



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?

How about all that stuff destroyed under UNSCOM supervison,
Mr Hinz?

My question first. What happened during that decade, Fred?
Sure, he let a token amount be destroyed, but obviously the
WMD he had was non-zero (even you would have to admit that).


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).

Like what and where? Please be specific.

What part of "we gave him a decade to hide stuff" don't you understand?
It's _hidden_, 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.

They did learn from example. Iraq cooperated and was invaded anyhow.

You have an interesting definitino of "cooperated".

They are not about to make the same mistake as Saddam Hussein.
Why do you thkn Bush made his Plan Nine demand, that Iraq prove
it did not have WMD? That was a demand that could not be met.
Bush did not want Saddam Hussein to stay in power, no matter what.

I'm having a hard time trying to have a problem with that, sorry.
SH needed to go. There's a dozen other countries with dictators who
need to go, too.

Of course there are differences. China restricts US action against
North Korea and Iran is far more populous than Iraq.

Point?

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.

No one ever denied that Saddam Hussein had the intent to make WMD,
that was one of Bush's lies.

Let's look at that sentence for a minute. That's the second time
you've used it or something similar. Here, you're gluing two dissimilar
thoughts into one. "No one ever denied that SH had the intent to
make WMD.". So here, you're saying that SH wanted to make WMD. I
think we both agree on that. But then, "that was one of Bush's lies.".
What, that SH wanted WMD? or that nobody said he didn't, or what?

'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, I am saying only what I've written.

It's obviously not clear or rational, hence the question to clarify.

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.

Huh? Not only do you not address my remarks, you refer to something
else, what exactly?

That which you wrote. Do try to keep up, Fred. SH was being
supported ("trusted", if you will) _at the time_, because at the
time, we disliked Iran even more.

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.

Again we agree. That's what I said.

....which is why they were glad to stonewall the UN for a decade, so
they could make and hide what they did.


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.

Even if Iraq HAD a vast chemical and biological arsenal and a few
nuclear weapons Iraq STILL would not have attacked the US. Again
Saddam Hussein was not terribly bright, but he was not suicidely
stupid.

Your faith in a ruthless dictator and his zealots is, I think,
misplaced. You trust SH and a whole lot of people who hate us?
Great, why not go visit over there & let us know how it turns
out. We'll see you on TV, I suppose.

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.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq...nts/index.html

You haven't read that page then, obviously. Which specific part of
it are you claiming shows your point? Because I see it saying that
it's clear they were _NOT_ mobile hydrogen generators. It says that was
the cover story. You can find that under the heading of "Hydrogen
production cover story". It also shows examples of mobile laboratories
used for legitimate purposes, and compares and contrasts those with
these mobile production labs. In other words, you have completely
mis-stated what that document talks about. You either misread it,
or words to you mean other things than they do to the rest of the
world, or more likely, you assumed nobody would check and find out
that you're lying about what the article says.


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?

No, they would be designed differently if YOUR assumptions were
correct. Geez, you really are stupid, aren't you?

The CIA's opinion seems to differ with yours.

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?

It means based on morality. No doubt an alien concept to the likes
of you.

Riiiight, so because I don't trust a dictator who has used WMD,
I'm immoral. Amazing.