| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#361
|
|||
|
|||
GregP wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:36:57 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: No, that won't wash. You've been caught once again, posting nonsense, then ducking the issue when challenged. Same old story. You've posted too many falsehoods already to have any credibility at all. A "falsehood" to you is anything that your fundamentalism won't let you accept or learn about. Bottom line: You made the claim, you prove it's true. When I see you do that a few times, maybe I will begin to return the courtesy. But your pov is that of an extremist's: what you think & believe is automatically self evident & true. One reference to the German-American Bund is http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/text/x08/xm0805.html Another http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/kade/merrill/lesson5.html An eyewitness report of the New York chapter is here. http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/histor...rican_bund.htm This latter report only mentions partison politics in a passing way. The Wiesenthal text does not mention any Repub. conspiracy. The ulib report does mention that in the '20s Germans tended to favour the Republican party. (Hardly a conspiracy) This page however ( http://www.winterboy.com/dejavu4.html ) does list several pro-Nazi quotes from Republican and Democrat congressmen/senators, and mentions the invitation from Senator Gerald Nye to have a German-American Bund member speak in the Senate. I found these quotes pretty shocking. Note that the winterboy sight is just some individual by the look of it. The quotes were attributed however. GregP, if you have some other information, I'd be interested to see it. Seems there was pro-Nazi sentiment on both sides of the political spectrum back then. |
|
#362
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , GregP wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:36:57 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: No, that won't wash. You've been caught once again, posting nonsense, then ducking the issue when challenged. Same old story. You've posted too many falsehoods already to have any credibility at all. A "falsehood" to you is anything that your fundamentalism won't let you accept or learn about. Continuing to duck the issue. And, again, I am not a fundamentalist, despite what you might believe. Bottom line: You made the claim, you prove it's true. When I see you do that a few times, maybe I will begin to return the courtesy. But your pov is that of an extremist's what you think & believe is automatically self evident & true. Evasion noted. Just one more instance in a typical pattern from you, Greg: post an outrageous, false claim, then attack anyone who challenges you to provide proof. You have no credibility. You can't back up anything you say. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
|
#363
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
You know as well as I do that the two primary reasons given were that Saddam had WMDs and that he had links to the 9/11 attacks. Nate, that's just a lie. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
|
#364
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:49:28 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote: You know as well as I do that the two primary reasons given were that Saddam had WMDs and that he had links to the 9/11 attacks. Nate, that's just a lie. Yes, but when his people voted for going to war, it's all he has to fall back on. |
|
#366
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:42:19 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote: Unfortunately much of what you call "nonsense" consists of us accusing Saddam of having things he didn't have, and then us demanding that the Iraqis prove a negative. ... and then killing thousands of people for good measure. It's easy to say "nonsense" when you're safely ensconsed behind a monitor 4,000-odd miles from where people are being maimed and killed. |
|
#367
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , GregP wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:49:28 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: You know as well as I do that the two primary reasons given were that Saddam had WMDs and that he had links to the 9/11 attacks. Nate, that's just a lie. Two lies. Thank you. I stand corrected: Nate's statement *is* two lies, not one. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
|
#368
|
|||
|
|||
|
Look up the meaning of a question mark and get back to me.
"Roy Blankenship" wrote in message ink.net... "CW" wrote in message ... I asked a question. You failed to answer. About says it. "Roy Blankenship" wrote in message ink.net... Great response. This is the kind of intelligent discourse we can expect from the right. You asked nothing, top-poster. You gave a defiant "So?" in response to another post. YOU figure it out. |
|
#369
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Doug Miller) wrote in
: In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote: You know as well as I do that the two primary reasons given were that Saddam had WMDs and that he had links to the 9/11 attacks. Nate, that's just a lie. Well, it may not be a lie that you know it as well as I do. But the fact that those were the primary reasons is certainly true. Read the President's own words (Cincinnati speech): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html There's a lot of talk about WMDs, terrorism, and 9/11 ... but not a peep about spreading freedom and democracy in the whole thing. Do you think he spent months travelling around the country talking about Iraqi WMDs and Iraq/Al Qaeda/terrorism links just to confuse us "Liberals?" Or do you just want to quibble about some technicality? |
|
#371
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . 201,
says... But the fact that those were the primary reasons is certainly true. Read the President's own words (Cincinnati speech): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html There's a lot of talk about WMDs, terrorism, and 9/11 ... but not a peep about spreading freedom and democracy in the whole thing. Damm it Nate, there you go with facts again! Don't you know the winners write the history books? Oops, that should be "rewrite" :-). -- Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description |
|
#372
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hinz wrote: 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. Posting OFF-Topic with a subject header "Important to us all" instead of saying something about the subject is classic trolling. 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. There are but two types of people. Those who talk about people being 'types' to avoid addressing issues in a substantive way and those who do not. Back to the point. Iraq declared sarin shells of that type to UNSCOM and there is no reason to believe it was not one of the shells that had been test-fired as declared by Iraq. It obviously _was_ there, Fred, that's my point. How many more just happen to be there? According to the Iraqi declaration, up to 70 IIRC. 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. No, I amnot proposing that. I am asking for your explanation. .... 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". How does 1999 - 20002 become a decade? 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? During that decade materials were destroyed un UNSCOM supervision. The reports are online at the UN website. Sure, he let a token amount be destroyed, but obviously the WMD he had was non-zero (even you would have to admit that). The amount destroyed was non zero and there is no evidence that any more was left. Even if there were any left, nothing but the mustard would remain viable for long so that saving it would be pointless. The mustard was well-accounted for. .... 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. What part about be specific do you not understand? Specify what he was known to have had at any particular time frame you wish, then show how some of it is still unaccounted for. If you cannot, you have no evidence at all that he had anything to hide. .... They did learn from example. Iraq cooperated and was invaded anyhow. You have an interesting definitino of "cooperated". It is definition used by the people tasked with evaluating the issue at the insistance of the US. 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. That's not the issue. The issue is the campaign of lies and deception. Foisting forged documents on the IAEA and supplying UNMOVIC with bogus intel in an effort to try to stop them from completing there task was way beyond anything that is morally acceptible. ... Of course there are differences. China restricts US action against North Korea and Iran is far more populous than Iraq. Point? At what? 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? Bush lied about those who were oposed to the invasion, claiming that they trusted Saddam Hussein and Iraq. No one trusted Saddam Hussein. Bush was lying when he siad that was why people opposed his policies. '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. He had no active program. Intent alone produces nothing. 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. You still make no sense at all. What does Iran have to do with Bush lying about people trusting Saddam Hussein. 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. That is what I said. No one ever argued that Iraq would not resume WMD production if it could. THat was another of Bush's lies. .... 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. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. They are lying. That is obvious. -- FF |
|
#373
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in m: In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote: You know as well as I do that the two primary reasons given were that Saddam had WMDs and that he had links to the 9/11 attacks. Nate, that's just a lie. Well, it may not be a lie that you know it as well as I do. I certainly don't "know" things that aren't true. It's sad that you think you do. But the fact that those were the primary reasons is certainly true. Read the President's own words (Cincinnati speech): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html Maybe you should read them yourself. He didn't say what you claim he said. There's a lot of talk about WMDs, terrorism, and 9/11 ... but not a peep about spreading freedom and democracy in the whole thing. Either you didn't read it, Nate, or you're deliberately lying. "Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own." "America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women, and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomen, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin." "Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors." Do you think he spent months travelling around the country talking about Iraqi WMDs and Iraq/Al Qaeda/terrorism links just to confuse us "Liberals?" Or do you just want to quibble about some technicality? No, I think you're either completely blind to the facts, or a liar -- as the quotes above demonstrate quite clearly. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
|
#374
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article . 201, says... But the fact that those were the primary reasons is certainly true. Read the President's own words (Cincinnati speech): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html There's a lot of talk about WMDs, terrorism, and 9/11 ... but not a peep about spreading freedom and democracy in the whole thing. Damm it Nate, there you go with facts again! There he goes with falsehoods again, you mean. Read my response to Nate: the President *did* talk about bringing liberty to Iraq, but Nate can't or won't see it. Don't you know the winners write the history books? Oops, that should be "rewrite" :-). Nate's the one trying to do some rewriting here. Follow the link he posted. Read the President's speech for yourself. Then you'll see that what Nate claims about it, simply is not true. I don't know if he didn't actually read it, or if he's deliberately lying about its content, but it *does* say what he claims it does not say, and it does *not* say what he claims it does. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
|
#375
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in m: In article , GregP wrote: On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:49:28 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: You know as well as I do that the two primary reasons given were that Saddam had WMDs and that he had links to the 9/11 attacks. Nate, that's just a lie. Two lies. Thank you. I stand corrected: Nate's statement *is* two lies, not one. You know, I could sit around all day finding Bush speeches where he harps on those two points in particular. But I'm getting tired of providing evidence for you, when the only thing you provide in return is an insult or a puerile one-liner. You'll have to do better than the one you posted, if you want to demonstrate that you know what you're talking about. It simply does not say what you claim it says. Did you even read it? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? |
|
#376
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#377
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hinz wrote: 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. That situation has. It is a good thing he did not have WMD since if he did there is a good chance they would now be in the hands of fundamentalist Islamic paramilitary groups. 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). If you think Saddam Hussein was a fundamentalist Muslim then clearly you have not been following the situation. That is precisely why IF Saddam Hussein had WMD it was better not to distablilize Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein was not an Islamic extremist, but during a war, he could lose control of those WMD and they could wind up in the hans of Islamic extremists. 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. Shortly after these were found the scientist who designed the trailers was interviewd. If you were interested in knowing about these issues instead of spouting nonsense you'd find some other sources fo your own and read up it. It is your country that is at stake here, don't you think that is worth a little bit of effort on your part? 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? I'm sure they won't let me. 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", Now you're lying. I did not say that. Why is it that you never check back to see what I did say? Bull****. I've done lab work that generates noxious gas. I've had lunch that generates noxious gas. Did you use a compressor to capture that gas in cylinders? What's your point. That's my 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. According to the CIA, these are capable of producing far more hydrogen than would be needed. IOW, the CIA claims that the gas collection system is much larger than needed for a hydrogen generator. If ao, is it not obvious that it is way, way oversized for collecting fermentation gasses? Don't trust me. Check it out for yourself. Did you notice that the CIA webpages omitted the part about urea? -- FF |
|
#378
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 23 Feb 2005 10:02:39 -0800, wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote: 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. That situation has. It is a good thing he did not have WMD since if he did there is a good chance they would now be in the hands of fundamentalist Islamic paramilitary groups. Amazing. Yes, that is a real danger, Fred. How do you propose to know that this isn't exactly one of the places he got rid of them to? 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). If you think Saddam Hussein was a fundamentalist Muslim then clearly you have not been following the situation. That is precisely why IF Saddam Hussein had WMD it was better not to distablilize Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein was not an Islamic extremist, but during a war, he could lose control of those WMD and they could wind up in the hans of Islamic extremists. SH isn't an extremist. Right. Gotcha. 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. Shortly after these were found the scientist who designed the trailers was interviewd. If you were interested in knowing about these issues instead of spouting nonsense you'd find some other sources fo your own and read up it. It is your country that is at stake here, don't you think that is worth a little bit of effort on your part? You can find captured Iraqis to tell you any point of view you want, Fred. 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? I'm sure they won't let me. Well then, get used to not knowing what you're talking about then. 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", Now you're lying. I did not say that. Why is it that you never check back to see what I did say? OK, Fred, I'll play: "Why _did_ you post that link that says what you're not saying, then?" Bull****. I've done lab work that generates noxious gas. I've had lunch that generates noxious gas. Did you use a compressor to capture that gas in cylinders? No. I'm also not fabricating bioweapons (at least not intentionally) by doing so. 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. According to the CIA, these are capable of producing far more hydrogen than would be needed. IOW, the CIA claims that the gas collection system is much larger than needed for a hydrogen generator. More of a "this wouldn't be a logical way to make hydrogen", but sure, whatever. If ao, is it not obvious that it is way, way oversized for collecting fermentation gasses? I guess it depends on what you're making and how much of it you plan to have, doesn't it. Don't trust me. Check it out for yourself. Did you notice that the CIA webpages omitted the part about urea? No. So, tell me. If these are to make something benign like hydrogen, then why oh why would they have been mothballed and hidden? Is hydrogen suddenly a banned substance? |
|
#379
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doug Miller wrote:
In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in om: In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote: You know as well as I do that the two primary reasons given were that Saddam had WMDs and that he had links to the 9/11 attacks. Nate, that's just a lie. Well, it may not be a lie that you know it as well as I do. I certainly don't "know" things that aren't true. It's sad that you think you do. But the fact that those were the primary reasons is certainly true. Read the President's own words (Cincinnati speech): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html Maybe you should read them yourself. He didn't say what you claim he said. There's a lot of talk about WMDs, terrorism, and 9/11 ... but not a peep about spreading freedom and democracy in the whole thing. Either you didn't read it, Nate, or you're deliberately lying. "Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own." "America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women, and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomen, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin." "Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors." Do you think he spent months travelling around the country talking about Iraqi WMDs and Iraq/Al Qaeda/terrorism links just to confuse us "Liberals?" Or do you just want to quibble about some technicality? No, I think you're either completely blind to the facts, or a liar -- as the quotes above demonstrate quite clearly. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time? Doug - I am reminded of the old aphorism, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." So it is with the "new" (same old bad) Left - Reality is twisted, skewed, and generally ignored in the neverending quest to gain power. The Right does it too, just not as overtly or noxiously, and certainly without the anti-American bias the Left has baked in. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#380
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hinz wrote: On 23 Feb 2005 10:02:39 -0800, wrote: ... Don't trust me. Check it out for yourself. Did you notice that the CIA webpages omitted the part about urea? No. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...60340-2004Jan6 -- FF |
|
#381
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nate Perkins" There's a lot of talk about WMDs, terrorism, and 9/11 ... but not a peep about spreading freedom and democracy in the whole thing. I hate to point out the obvious after so long but what do you suppose the outcome from battling terrorism is? Could it be ...freedom? |
|
#382
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com: In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in om: In article . 201, Nate Perkins wrote: You know as well as I do that the two primary reasons given were that Saddam had WMDs and that he had links to the 9/11 attacks. Nate, that's just a lie. Well, it may not be a lie that you know it as well as I do. I certainly don't "know" things that aren't true. It's sad that you think you do. But the fact that those were the primary reasons is certainly true. Read the President's own words (Cincinnati speech): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html Maybe you should read them yourself. He didn't say what you claim he said. Sure it does. See below. There's a lot of talk about WMDs, terrorism, and 9/11 ... but not a peep about spreading freedom and democracy in the whole thing. Either you didn't read it, Nate, or you're deliberately lying. (quotes emphasizing freedom and ignoring WMD snipped) "Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism ..." "We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons." "We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb- making and poisons and deadly gases." "Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction." "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Do you think he spent months travelling around the country talking about Iraqi WMDs and Iraq/Al Qaeda/terrorism links just to confuse us "Liberals?" Or do you just want to quibble about some technicality? No, I think you're either completely blind to the facts, or a liar -- as the quotes above demonstrate quite clearly. Please refrain from the insults. I haven't called you a liar, and I expect you to extend the same courtesy to me. |
|
#383
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
: I am reminded of the old aphorism, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." So it is with the "new" (same old bad) Left - Reality is twisted, skewed, and generally ignored in the neverending quest to gain power. The Right does it too, just not as overtly or noxiously, and certainly without the anti-American bias the Left has baked in. Yet more insults, and even an attack on my patriotism. See ... if you notice that there were no WMDs in Iraq, or that the Cincinnati speech is rife with references to Iraqi WMDs and terrorism, and the next thing you know you are labeled as a "pig" with a "twisted, skewed" sense of reality, and an "anti-American bias." ---------------------------------------------- "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Joseph Welch, 1954 |
|
#384
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Doug Miller) wrote in
om: In article , Larry Blanchard wrote: In article . 201, says... But the fact that those were the primary reasons is certainly true. Read the President's own words (Cincinnati speech): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html There's a lot of talk about WMDs, terrorism, and 9/11 ... but not a peep about spreading freedom and democracy in the whole thing. Damm it Nate, there you go with facts again! There he goes with falsehoods again, you mean. Read my response to Nate: the President *did* talk about bringing liberty to Iraq, but Nate can't or won't see it. Eh? Nobody said that Bush *never* talked about "bringing liberty" to Iraq. I just said that the *primary* reasons to invade Iraq were WMD and terror links. Anyone reading the Cincinatti speech reasonably would come to the conclusion that WMDs and terror links are the main theme of the speech. In addition, those are the primary reasons given in Bush's letter to Congress where he outlines the decision to go to war. That war was primarily sold based on fear of Iraqi WMDs and terror links. For you to contend otherwise in hindsight is a fairly egregious attempt to rewrite history. Don't you know the winners write the history books? Oops, that should be "rewrite" :-). Nate's the one trying to do some rewriting here. Follow the link he posted. Read the President's speech for yourself. Then you'll see that what Nate claims about it, simply is not true. I don't know if he didn't actually read it, or if he's deliberately lying about its content, but it *does* say what he claims it does not say, and it does *not* say what he claims it does. Now there's a shift for you. |
|
#385
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nate Perkins wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in : I am reminded of the old aphorism, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." So it is with the "new" (same old bad) Left - Reality is twisted, skewed, and generally ignored in the neverending quest to gain power. The Right does it too, just not as overtly or noxiously, and certainly without the anti-American bias the Left has baked in. Yet more insults, and even an attack on my patriotism. See ... if you notice that there were no WMDs in Iraq, or that the Cincinnati speech is rife with references to Iraqi WMDs and terrorism, and the next thing you know you are labeled as a "pig" with a "twisted, skewed" sense of reality, and an "anti-American bias." Easy Nate, I wasn't attacking you specifically. I was merely pointing out that no one's mind is going to be changed here. The "Teaching a pig to sing ..." thing is a *metaphor*. Surely, as a member of the Highly Nuanced Left, you grasped this. And I took a shot at both the Left and Right for being so power hungry that facts are the first things to be abandoned. (Though I stand my my assertion (i.e., my *opinion*) that the Left does it more vigorously and with a greater anti-American bias. So what? It's my opinion.) No harm was intended, I apologize if it was so taken... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
|
#386
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#387
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:46:37 GMT, Ned wrote:
On 17 Feb 2005 19:15:08 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: Are we really better off today than before Bush took office? I'd say yes. And vastly better than if Gore had been in on 9/11/01. U.S. dollar falling hard and fast Yes, and what does that have to do with Gore vs. Bush? |
|
#388
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 17 Feb 2005 19:15:08 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
Are we really better off today than before Bush took office? I'd say yes. And vastly better than if Gore had been in on 9/11/01. U.S. dollar falling hard and fast London, England, Feb. 22 (UPI) -- South Korea's decision to ell most of its U.S. government bonds triggered similar moves in East Asia and hammered the U.S. currency's value. South Korea's action was mimicked by at least Taiwan, another economy that holds a huge amount of U.S. government debt, sending the dollar to new lows, CNN reported Tuesday. In London, the euro soared against the dollar to $1.3216, up from $1.3065 late Monday, as the dollar sank against Japan's yen 103.87 from 105.57. The benchmark 10-year note lost 2/32 of a point to 97-26/32 to yield 4.27 percent, up from 4.26 late Friday. Numerous economists have been warning the U.S. balance of payments deficit and budget deficit, both at record levels, are exposing the dollar to extreme downward pressure. Source: Washington Times, USA. Please read the full report:- http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0968 |
|
#389
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ned" Are we really better off today than before Bush took office? You bet. The liberals are even more livid and hysterical, proving that something good must have happened. |
|
#390
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:43:20 GMT, Ned wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 16:23:03 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: U.S. dollar falling hard and fast Yes, and what does that have to do with Gore vs. Bush? Are we really better off today than before Bush took office? I think yes, but still, that's the wrong question. The question should be, "are we better off today that Bush was elected, than we would have been had Gore been elected?" 9/11 would have still happened, and I think Gore would have, er, "protested in the strongest means possible" rather than going into Afghanistan and making OBL's infrastructure, and OBL himself, mostly ineffective and irrelevant. |
|
#391
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24 Feb 2005 16:23:03 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
U.S. dollar falling hard and fast Yes, and what does that have to do with Gore vs. Bush? Are we really better off today than before Bush took office? |
|
#392
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hinz wrote: On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:43:20 GMT, Ned wrote: On 24 Feb 2005 16:23:03 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: U.S. dollar falling hard and fast Yes, and what does that have to do with Gore vs. Bush? Are we really better off today than before Bush took office? I think yes, but still, that's the wrong question. The question should be, "are we better off today that Bush was elected, than we would have been had Gore been elected?" 9/11 would have still happened, and I think Gore would have, er, "protested in the strongest means possible" rather than going into Afghanistan and making OBL's infrastructure, and OBL himself, mostly ineffective and irrelevant. Supposing Gore was elected do you think he would have tabled the regulation scheduled to go into effect in the Spring of 2001 that would have required airliners to fly with the cockpit doors locked? Do you think he would have appointed an Attorney General who was a religious nut-case that thought porn was more important than national security? Do you think his administration would have ignored all the warnings about Al Queda passed on by the Clinton Administration? I do not think there has ever been an American President who would not have invaded Afghanistan under the circumstances as the existed post September 11, 2001. Some might have done better others worse, but not one would have not acted. Some would have gotten OBL instead of diverting resources away from Afghanistan while OBL was still at large. -- FF |
|
#393
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doug Miller wrote: In article . 201, says... [...] Anyone reading the Cincinatti speech... Got a link? Anyone reading the Cincinnati speech... Got a link? -- FF |
|
#394
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#395
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:59:19 GMT, Ned wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 18:18:51 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: I think yes, but still, that's the wrong question. "Are we really better off today than before Bush took office? " Bad things have happened since then. Those things would have gone worse had Gore been in. If you feel we're worse off, then I feel we'd be _even_ worse off with Gore/Kerry. |
|
#396
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 17 Feb 2005 19:15:08 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
Are we really better off today than before Bush took office? I'd say yes. And vastly better than if Gore had been in on 9/11/01. I completely agree. I bet that if Gore was president, we'd have seen an administration that ignored terrorist threats; the destruction of two of our largest buildings and damage to the Pentagon; an undermanned invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the destruction; a free pass for Saudi Arabia, which did; destruction of our fundamental human rights principles; massive deficits and a complete refusal to address them; a proposal to increase them by another two trillion or so with another boondoggle gov't program; a gov't boondoggle pharmaceutical company support program passed off as a seniors drug program; lies to congress and the American public about the costs of the program; giveaways of our natural resources; destruction of our relationships with other countries; transfer of federal expenses onto states; a cynical "tax reduction" shell game in which rates were lowered with the knowledge that taxes would actually go up via the minimum tax option; and the evolution of an administration propaganda machine, funded by the American taxpayer. Heck, if Gore were president, we would be in a lot of trouble now. |
|
#397
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hinz wrote: On 24 Feb 2005 11:45:02 -0800, wrote: Dave Hinz wrote: On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:43:20 GMT, Ned wrote: On 24 Feb 2005 16:23:03 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: U.S. dollar falling hard and fast Yes, and what does that have to do with Gore vs. Bush? Are we really better off today than before Bush took office? I think yes, but still, that's the wrong question. The question should be, "are we better off today that Bush was elected, than we would have been had Gore been elected?" 9/11 would have still happened, and I think Gore would have, er, "protested in the strongest means possible" rather than going into Afghanistan and making OBL's infrastructure, and OBL himself, mostly ineffective and irrelevant. Supposing Gore was elected do you think he would have tabled the regulation scheduled to go into effect in the Spring of 2001 that would have required airliners to fly with the cockpit doors locked? How long did Clinton/Gore ignore that issue, exactly, Fred. I dunno that they EVER ignored it. Neither did the Bush admin- istration IGNORE it. The Bush administration TABLED the regulation that could have prevented the hijackings. Do you think he would have appointed an Attorney General who was a religious nut-case that thought porn was more important than national security? Do you think his administration would have ignored all the warnings about Al Queda passed on by the Clinton Administration? The ones that Clinton didn't do anything about either? Not only were Clinton's retaliatory attacks against OBL and Al Queda more than nothing, the REPUBLICANS in Congress considered them to be so excessive they called it 'wag the dog'. George Will even alleged that becuase of the retaliation Clinton might be a murderer. -- FF |
|
#398
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hinz wrote: On 23 Feb 2005 10:02:39 -0800, wrote: Dave Hinz wrote: 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. That situation has. It is a good thing he did not have WMD since if he did there is a good chance they would now be in the hands of fundamentalist Islamic paramilitary groups. Amazing. Yes, that is a real danger, Fred. How do you propose to know that this isn't exactly one of the places he got rid of them to? What exactly is your antecedent for 'this'? 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). If you think Saddam Hussein was a fundamentalist Muslim then clearly you have not been following the situation. That is precisely why IF Saddam Hussein had WMD it was better not to distablilize Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein was not an Islamic extremist, but during a war, he could lose control of those WMD and they could wind up in the hans of Islamic extremists. SH isn't an extremist. Right. Gotcha. As I wrote: Saddam Hussein is not an Islamic extremist. Saddam Hussein's government was one of the most secular in the Arab world. Consider, for example, the numerous distilleries making alcoholic beverages. I presume your omission of 'Islamic' in your dishonest paraphrasal, was deliberate deception. 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. Shortly after these were found the scientist who designed the trailers was interviewd. If you were interested in knowing about these issues instead of spouting nonsense you'd find some other sources fo your own and read up it. It is your country that is at stake here, don't you think that is worth a little bit of effort on your part? You can find captured Iraqis to tell you any point of view you want, Fred. Oh, a variation of "You can find somebody who'll say anything argument." Quite true. That is why a person must understand the issues at hand in order to seperate the wheat from the chaff. 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? I'm sure they won't let me. Well then, get used to not knowing what you're talking about then. I do know about collecting and storing hydrogen. Hence the question. 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", Now you're lying. I did not say that. Why is it that you never check back to see what I did say? OK, Fred, I'll play: "Why _did_ you post that link that says what you're not saying, then?" I posted it so that a person knowledgible about the issues could see that the trailer was not for fermentation. In addition to the other issues I raised, where is the equipment for safely handling the deadly materials one would recover from reaction vessel if it WERE a fermenter? ... 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. According to the CIA, these are capable of producing far more hydrogen than would be needed. IOW, the CIA claims that the gas collection system is much larger than needed for a hydrogen generator. More of a "this wouldn't be a logical way to make hydrogen", but sure, whatever. Is 'sure whatever' what you say instead of adressing an issue? If ao, is it not obvious that it is way, way oversized for collecting fermentation gasses? I guess it depends on what you're making and how much of it you plan to have, doesn't it. For any particular sized reaction vessel the Al and NaOH reaction, with proper agitation, will produce gas at a rate orders of magnitude greater than fgementation in the same sized vessel. That is obvious to anyone who has done both. Don't trust me. Check it out for yourself. Did you notice that the CIA webpages omitted the part about urea? No. So, tell me. If these are to make something benign like hydrogen, then why oh why would they have been mothballed and hidden? Is hydrogen suddenly a banned substance? As opposed to what exactly, parking them in the open with a big sign on top that said "NOT BANNED. DO NOT BOMB!"???? Surely I do not need to explain to you the need to conceal conventional military assetts during wartime. If Saddam Hussein HAD WMD why didn't he use them when we invaded? What was he waiting for, the NEXT US invasion? In the Fall of 2002 the Bush administration told us that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and an active nuclear weapons program and demanded UN inspections. Iraq complied and during the Winter of 2002-2003 UN inspectors had free reign to search Iraq. They found no evidence of active WMD programs and the IAEA certified that Iraq was in compliance with the applicable restrictions on nucelar technology. In particular, facilities that had been decomissioned and/or sealed under UNSCOM were found to be in precisely the same state as UNSCOM left them. In particular, facilites the Bush Administration claimed to have been rebuilt were still in a state of abandonement as befor. The Bush adminstration then claimed that WMD activity had been moved to other sites. UNMOVIC inspected those other sites, sometimes within hours of receiving the US intel. IN all cases the Bush Administration's accusations were proven false. Then the Bush administration demanded that Saddam Hussein and his sons leave Iraq. They did not comply and the Bush Administration led an invastion of Iraq. Early in the invasion the Bush Administration claimed that WMD had been deployed to forward positions and field commanders authorized to use them. Despite the hasty abandonement by the Iraqi army of their forward positions, leaving everything else behind, no WMD were found in those forward positions. After the fall of Baghdad and the end of major military operations the Bush Administration claimed that they knew where the WMD were hidden in the Sunni triangle. To date, no WMD have been found, excepting for the handful of non-usable munitions evidently lost during wars, or unexploded duds enumerated in the Duelfer report, essentially archeological finds from the 1991 war or earlier conflicts. Nothing that was a material breach of the UN resolutions has been found. Now some people are trying to claim that Saddam Hussein sent his WMD so Syria. At this point a reasonable person has to look at the history of lies and deceptions on the part of the Bush Administration and reach a resonable conclusion. Said conclusion can be reached without any knowledge of whatsoever, let alone trust in, any statement made by Saddam Hussein. -- FF |
|
#399
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24 Feb 2005 12:59:16 -0800, wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote: On 23 Feb 2005 10:02:39 -0800, wrote: That situation has. It is a good thing he did not have WMD since if he did there is a good chance they would now be in the hands of fundamentalist Islamic paramilitary groups. Amazing. Yes, that is a real danger, Fred. How do you propose to know that this isn't exactly one of the places he got rid of them to? What exactly is your antecedent for 'this'? "them" if you prefer. The destination known as a fundamental islamic paramilitary group. Grammar games now, Fred? That is precisely why IF Saddam Hussein had WMD it was better not to distablilize Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein was not an Islamic extremist, but during a war, he could lose control of those WMD and they could wind up in the hans of Islamic extremists. SH isn't an extremist. Right. Gotcha. As I wrote: Saddam Hussein is not an Islamic extremist. Saddam Hussein's government was one of the most secular in the Arab world. Consider, for example, the numerous distilleries making alcoholic beverages. I presume your omission of 'Islamic' in your dishonest paraphrasal, was deliberate deception. No, it's a matter of "extremist" being the operative word, and "Islamic" being a modifier that doesn't change the fact that he's the sort of person who is (wups, "was") likely to be a problem. Although, your assumption that word-games intending deception are everywhere, tells me a lot about how you think. Well, _you_ would use those, maybe. Maybe their scientists know more about the problems than, say, you. Shortly after these were found the scientist who designed the trailers was interviewd. If you were interested in knowing about these issues instead of spouting nonsense you'd find some other sources fo your own and read up it. It is your country that is at stake here, don't you think that is worth a little bit of effort on your part? You can find captured Iraqis to tell you any point of view you want, Fred. Oh, a variation of "You can find somebody who'll say anything argument." Quite true. That is why a person must understand the issues at hand in order to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Indeed. 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? I'm sure they won't let me. Well then, get used to not knowing what you're talking about then. I do know about collecting and storing hydrogen. Hence the question. Why would they hide hydrogen generating trailers, Fred? So, you posted the link saying "Look, even the CIA backs up my statement", Now you're lying. I did not say that. Why is it that you never check back to see what I did say? OK, Fred, I'll play: "Why _did_ you post that link that says what you're not saying, then?" I posted it so that a person knowledgible about the issues could see that the trailer was not for fermentation. In addition to the other issues I raised, where is the equipment for safely handling the deadly materials one would recover from reaction vessel if it WERE a fermenter? Um, "not in the trailer" maybe? hydrogen than would be needed. IOW, the CIA claims that the gas collection system is much larger than needed for a hydrogen generator. More of a "this wouldn't be a logical way to make hydrogen", but sure, whatever. Is 'sure whatever' what you say instead of adressing an issue? No, it's my way of saying I disagree with your assumption. If ao, is it not obvious that it is way, way oversized for collecting fermentation gasses? I guess it depends on what you're making and how much of it you plan to have, doesn't it. For any particular sized reaction vessel the Al and NaOH reaction, with proper agitation, will produce gas at a rate orders of magnitude greater than fgementation in the same sized vessel. That is obvious to anyone who has done both. Why would they hide hydrogen generating trailers, Fred? Don't trust me. Check it out for yourself. Did you notice that the CIA webpages omitted the part about urea? No. So, tell me. If these are to make something benign like hydrogen, then why oh why would they have been mothballed and hidden? Is hydrogen suddenly a banned substance? As opposed to what exactly, parking them in the open with a big sign on top that said "NOT BANNED. DO NOT BOMB!"???? If they're doing the "unprecedented cooperation" thing, wouldn't it be the sort of thing they'd, you know, disclose? In the Fall of 2002 the Bush administration told us that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and an active nuclear weapons program and demanded UN inspections. Iraq complied and during the Winter of 2002-2003 UN inspectors had free reign to search Iraq. Yes. As did the Clinton administration. Do you need the quotes posted (again)? They found no evidence of active WMD programs and the IAEA certified ^^^^^^ The Bush adminstration then claimed that WMD activity had been moved to other sites. UNMOVIC inspected those other sites, sometimes within hours of receiving the US intel. IN all cases the Bush Administration's accusations were proven false. Interesting wording. Says it all, really. |
|
#400
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hinz wrote: On 24 Feb 2005 12:59:16 -0800, wrote: Dave Hinz wrote: On 23 Feb 2005 10:02:39 -0800, wrote: That situation has. It is a good thing he did not have WMD since if he did there is a good chance they would now be in the hands of fundamentalist Islamic paramilitary groups. Amazing. Yes, that is a real danger, Fred. How do you propose to know that this isn't exactly one of the places he got rid of them to? What exactly is your antecedent for 'this'? "them" if you prefer. The destination known as a fundamental islamic paramilitary group. Grammar games now, Fred? Your wording was so poor I could not discern what you were trying to comunicate. It still leaves much to be desired. Are you suggesting that Saddam Hussein may ahve given WMD to Islamic paramilitary groups? That is precisely why IF Saddam Hussein had WMD it was better not to distablilize Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein was not an Islamic extremist, but during a war, he could lose control of those WMD and they could wind up in the hands of Islamic extremists. SH isn't an extremist. Right. Gotcha. As I wrote: Saddam Hussein is not an Islamic extremist. ... I presume your omission of 'Islamic' in your dishonest paraphrasal, was deliberate deception. No, it's a matter of "extremist" being the operative word, and "Islamic" being a modifier that doesn't change the fact that he's the sort of person who is (wups, "was") likely to be a problem. Although, your assumption that word-games intending deception are everywhere, tells me a lot about how you think. No, I wrote: " 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." You replied: " Yeah, because Islamic extremists _never_ would take on an attack that was guaranteed to kill them. (sheesh). " As you know, Islamist extremists, being believers in martydom, are more inclined to engage in suicide attacks than other extremists and extremist leaders, in particular, are especially disinclined to make suicidal decisions. ... Oh, a variation of "You can find somebody who'll say anything argument." Quite true. That is why a person must understand the issues at hand in order to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Indeed. Please do so. I do NOT want you to trust me. I want you to actually seek out information and understand the issues. .... Why would they hide hydrogen generating trailers, Fred? As you know I previously responded to your question thus: As opposed to what exactly, parking them in the open with a big sign on top that said "NOT BANNED. DO NOT BOMB!"???? Surely I do not need to explain to you the need to conceal conventional military assets during wartime. Evidently I was wrong, You do not understand the need to conceal conventional military assets during wartime. I shall now explain this to you. During wartime, conventional military assets will be targeted for aerial attack. Therefor it is desireable that they be concealed. Do you understand now? So, you posted the link saying "Look, even the CIA backs up my statement", Now you're lying. I did not say that. Why is it that you never check back to see what I did say? OK, Fred, I'll play: "Why _did_ you post that link that says what you're not saying, then?" I posted it so that a person knowledgible about the issues could see that the trailer was not for fermentation. In addition to the other issues I raised, where is the equipment for safely handling the deadly materials one would recover from reaction vessel if it WERE a fermenter? Um, "not in the trailer" maybe? If not, how would they get the material from the reactor to the handling equipment? hydrogen than would be needed. IOW, the CIA claims that the gas collection system is much larger than needed for a hydrogen generator. More of a "this wouldn't be a logical way to make hydrogen", but sure, whatever. Is 'sure whatever' what you say instead of adressing an issue? No, it's my way of saying I disagree with your assumption. You need to work toward clearer articulation. Otherwise, people might get the impression that you are stonewalling becausee you have no substantive rebuttal. If so, is it not obvious that it is way, way oversized for collecting fermentation gasses? I guess it depends on what you're making and how much of it you plan to have, doesn't it. For any particular sized reaction vessel the Al and NaOH reaction, with proper agitation, will produce gas at a rate orders of magnitude greater than fgementation in the same sized vessel. That is obvious to anyone who has done both. Why would they hide hydrogen generating trailers, Fred? As you know I previously responded to your question thus: As opposed to what exactly, parking them in the open with a big sign on top that said "NOT BANNED. DO NOT BOMB!"???? Surely I do not need to explain to you the need to conceal conventional military assets during wartime. Evidently I was wrong, You do not understand the need to conceal conventional military assets during wartime. I shall now explain this to you. During wartime, conventional military assets will be targeted for aerial attack. Therefor it is desireable that they be concealed. Do you understand now? Don't trust me. Check it out for yourself. Did you notice that the CIA webpages omitted the part about urea? No. So, tell me. If these are to make something benign like hydrogen, then why oh why would they have been mothballed and hidden? Is hydrogen suddenly a banned substance? As opposed to what exactly, parking them in the open with a big sign on top that said "NOT BANNED. DO NOT BOMB!"???? Surely I do not need to explain to you the need to conceal conventional military assetts during wartime. If they're doing the "unprecedented cooperation" thing, wouldn't it be the sort of thing they'd, you know, disclose? Iraq was NOT required to disclose conventional military assets. Surely I do not need to explain to you the need to prevent examination of conventional miilitary assets by foreign intelligence operatives. Aside from which, as you know since you were following these issues closely during the winter of 2002 and 2003, (weren't you?) the Iraqis had agreed to UNMOVIC inspection of trailers at that time. It's not clear that these were the same trailers, after all there is no evidence that Iraq had trailers of the sort the Bush administartion claimed, making it rather difficult to determine which of the many other permitted sorts of trailers should be inspected. In the Fall of 2002 the Bush administration told us that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and an active nuclear weapons program and demanded UN inspections. Iraq complied and during the Winter of 2002-2003 UN inspectors had free reign to search Iraq. Yes. As did the Clinton administration. Do you need the quotes posted (again)? No. They found no evidence of active WMD programs and the IAEA certified ^^^^^^ The Bush adminstration then claimed that WMD activity had been moved to other sites. UNMOVIC inspected those other sites, sometimes within hours of receiving the US intel. IN all cases the Bush Administration's accusations were proven false. Interesting wording. Says it all, really. Rather than being interesting, your wording is too vague to constitute an honest attempt at communication. -- FF |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Urgent and vitally important party shoes question! | UK diy | |||
| What is the most important | Woodturning | |||
| Important! | Electronics Repair | |||
| Important Tip | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
