On 22 Feb 2005 23:02:09 -0800, wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:

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

He had no active program. Intent alone produces nothing.

He had intent _and_ ability. Now he has neither. I'd say that the
situation has improved.

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.

Nonsense. Any such attack would be suicide for him. I trusted
only that he would not do something that would mean certain
death for himself.

Yeah, because Islamic extremists _never_ would take on an attack
that was guaranteed to kill them. (sheesh).

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?

Primarily the gas compression and collection system. It is clearly
designed to compress a huge volume of gas produced very rapidly, not
the tickle of gas that would be evolved in a fermenter the
size of the reaction vessel. Besides, no one would even consider
using such a system for fermentation gases in the first place.
The primary constituents would be CO2 and/or H2S, same as you'd
get from sewage or internal combustion engine exhaust. Those aren't
going to attract attention. If you wanted to prevent any tell-tale
trace organics from being released you'd use filters condensers,
scrubbers and the like.

Well, _you_ would use those, maybe. Maybe their scientists know more
about the problems than, say, you.

You'd have to be nuts to build a huge gas compression and storage
system for a small fermenter like that. OTOH if you were using
NaOH reacting with Aluminum to make Hydrogen you'd need a system
just like that. Wanna bet the cylinders are nickel plated on the
inside?

Hard to say/care, Fred, isn't it. Why don't you go ask to see them?

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".

See above, clearly they are lying.

So, you posted the link saying "Look, even the CIA backs up my statement",
and when I followed your link and pointed out that they don't, you say
"See! They're lying!". I see, all too clearly, what your methods are.

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.

Bull****. I've done lab work that generates noxious gas.

I've had lunch that generates noxious gas. What's your point.

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.

They are lying. That is obvious.

Yeah, ok fred, whatever.