In article .com, wrote:

Some would have gotten OBL instead of diverting resources
away from Afghanistan while OBL was still at large.

Some would have *taken* him when offered by the Sudanese, too, instead of
refusing. Twice.

--
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?

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? "

In article .com, wrote:

Not only were Clinton's retaliatory attacks against OBL and
Al Queda more than nothing,

Yeah, they accomplished a whole lot, didn't they?

the REPUBLICANS in Congress
considered them to be so excessive they called it 'wag the
dog'.

Not because they were "excessive", but because of their timing.

George Will even alleged that becuase of the retaliation
Clinton might be a murderer.

I'm not familiar with that; however, considering that one of Clinton's targets
was an aspirin factory with no connection at all to AQ, there might be some
substance to that idea.

--
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 Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Not only were Clinton's retaliatory attacks against OBL and
Al Queda more than nothing,

Yeah, they accomplished a whole lot, didn't they?

the REPUBLICANS in Congress
considered them to be so excessive they called it 'wag the
dog'.

Not because they were "excessive", but because of their timing.

Regardless, the Republicans were very vocally opposed to action
against AL QUeda.


George Will even alleged that becuase of the retaliation
Clinton might be a murderer.

I'm not familiar with that; however, considering that one of
Clinton's targets
was an aspirin factory with no connection at all to AQ, there might
be some
substance to that idea.

I remind you that the aspirin factory was financed by bin Laden
and the Clinton administration presented evidence in the form
of chemicl residues in the nearby soils, that the factory was
being used for chemical weapons production. Though that evidence
was weak, I also remind you that the Bush administration has thus
far failed to present any similar evidence from Iraq.

--

FF

In article .com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Not only were Clinton's retaliatory attacks against OBL and
Al Queda more than nothing,

Yeah, they accomplished a whole lot, didn't they?

the REPUBLICANS in Congress
considered them to be so excessive they called it 'wag the
dog'.

Not because they were "excessive", but because of their timing.

Regardless, the Republicans were very vocally opposed to action
against AL QUeda.

I don't remember that at all. Can you substantiate it?

My memory is that Republicans were opposed to *useless* actions, like blowing
up aspirin factories and empty tents.


George Will even alleged that becuase of the retaliation
Clinton might be a murderer.

I'm not familiar with that; however, considering that one of
Clinton's targets
was an aspirin factory with no connection at all to AQ, there might
be some
substance to that idea.

I remind you that the aspirin factory was financed by bin Laden

Was it?

and the Clinton administration presented evidence in the form
of chemicl residues in the nearby soils, that the factory was
being used for chemical weapons production. Though that evidence
was weak,

"Weak"?? Try "later proven absolutely, totally false".

I also remind you that the Bush administration has thus
far failed to present any similar evidence from Iraq.

What about that Sarin shell, Fred? Might not be much... but it's something.

--
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?

On 24 Feb 2005 13:55:25 -0800, wrote:

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.

The meaning was, and is, blisteringly clear.

It still leaves much to be desired. Are
you suggesting that Saddam Hussein may ahve given WMD to
Islamic paramilitary groups?

Yes, there's a real danger that he did just that. Clear 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 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). "

Yes. Thank you, Captain Google.

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.

OK, so you trust SH not to do something that would bring on his
own death. I do not share your trust. Clear now?


...
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.

To me, the information presented is clear.

Why would they hide hydrogen generating trailers, Fred?

As you know I previously responded to your question thus:

Actually, that's lower in the thread, Fred. As you know, since
you had to scroll down to copy it to paste it here.


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.

How is a hydrogen generating trailer a "conventional military
asset" please?

Evidently I was wrong, You do not understand the need to conceal
conventional military assets during wartime. I shall now
explain this to you.

You really are an arrogant prick, you know that, right?

During wartime, conventional military
assets will be targeted for aerial attack. Therefor it is
desireable that they be concealed.

You have not established that this is a military asset. Are you saying
all of the HE devices (also conventional military assets) were concealed?
Careful how you back yourself into a corner on this one, Fred.


Do you understand now?

I understand you all too well.

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?

Piping? Pumps? If we can move liquid helium around, we can
devise a way to get nasties from one place to another.


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.

My rebuttal is that I neither trust, believe, or respect you. You
play word games about "you said it instead of they" or whatever,
rather than seeing the blisteringly obvious statements, and then you
_assume_ that when you don't understand something, or when you put more
importance on "extremist" than "islamic" or whatever, that it's
specifically deceit on my part rather than a different perspective.
Yes, I understand you all too well.

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.

And again, that's _LOWER_ in the thread... your poorly worded
(wups, I mean "deliberate lie") statement should say "I later
responded".

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?

See above. You're getting boring.




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.

How is a hydrogen generator a military asset?

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,

No ****. The hydrogen generating trailers are shown on the bottom of your
CIA link.

after all there is no evidence that Iraq
had trailers of the sort the Bush administartion claimed,

Aside from the trailers themselves, that is, yes.

making it rather difficult to determine which of the many
other permitted sorts of trailers should be inspected.

Amazing. You could be a politician with that doublespeak. That
is not a compliment.

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.

So then why bring up something, criticize Bush for it, and then
acknowledge that it's no different than Clinton? It's another case
of you hoping your point would go unchallenged and be let stand.
Sorry, I recognize that tactic.


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.

"accusations". Implies that they are intentionally trying to
cause trouble. "intelligence reports" would be a more objective
way to say it, but it's not as emotionally charged so you didn't choose
it. "were proven false". Seeing that something isn't there, doesn't
prove that something _wasn't_ there, and you should know it.

This isn't getting anywhere. You don't like or respect anything
that Bush does, obviously, and your word games and bull**** are tiresome.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:24:22 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

I also remind you that the Bush administration has thus
far failed to present any similar evidence from Iraq.

What about that Sarin shell, Fred? Might not be much... but it's something.

He already answered that. It had flown through the air once, so it
doesn't count, y'see.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:33:22 GMT, Ned wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 20:06:51 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

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.

In another words, whatever happened during Bush watch you "feel" we
would be EVEN WORSE off regardless which Democrat elected.

No, with those specific two Democrats, each from their own election
failure, respectively.

On 24 Feb 2005 12:10:36 -0800, wrote:


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.


Clinton was trashed, by an entire zoo of conservatives/right
wingers for pushing anti-terrorist legislation and airline security
legislation. And they shot down most of it, including a bill
allowing the gov't to freeze financial assets of organizations
suspected of funding Al Qaeda. Phil Gramm was the big
man on that one, pushed along by the banking industry.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:56:13 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article .com, wrote:

Some would have gotten OBL instead of diverting resources
away from Afghanistan while OBL was still at large.

Some would have *taken* him when offered by the Sudanese, too, instead of
refusing. Twice.


I don't remember that at all. Can you substantiate it?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article
.com,
wrote:

Not only were Clinton's retaliatory attacks against OBL and
Al Queda more than nothing,

Yeah, they accomplished a whole lot, didn't they?

the REPUBLICANS in Congress
considered them to be so excessive they called it 'wag the
dog'.

Not because they were "excessive", but because of their timing.

Regardless, the Republicans were very vocally opposed to action
against AL QUeda.

I don't remember that at all. Can you substantiate it?

Your memory is different from mine. Can you recall the date of
the attack? I'll see what I can find.


My memory is that Republicans were opposed to *useless* actions, like
blowing
up aspirin factories and empty tents.

Can you substantiate that? Not that you remember it this way,
I'll take you on your word on that--rather that your memory
is accurate.



George Will even alleged that becuase of the retaliation
Clinton might be a murderer.

I'm not familiar with that; however, considering that one of
Clinton's targets
was an aspirin factory with no connection at all to AQ, there
might
be some
substance to that idea.

I remind you that the aspirin factory was financed by bin Laden

Was it?

I do not recall anone ever challenging that assertion. Can
you refer me to anyone who does?



and the Clinton administration presented evidence in the form
of chemicl residues in the nearby soils, that the factory was
being used for chemical weapons production. Though that evidence
was weak,

"Weak"?? Try "later proven absolutely, totally false".

Can you substantiate that?


I also remind you that the Bush administration has thus
far failed to present any similar evidence from Iraq.

What about that Sarin shell, Fred? Might not be much... but it's
something.

Since the Sarin shell was produced prior to 1991 and declared to
UMSCOM it is evidence of the truthfulness of the Iraqi
declarations. It was most likely a dud, recovered from a
test range. Iraq was not always open, accurate and truthful,
far from it, but the sarin shell is one example of when they
were. That hasn't changed since the last time I commented on
this in this thread.

See: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0521-06.htm
(Reprinted from the Christian Science Monitor)

The author, Scott Ritter, is a former Marine intelligence officer
and UN weapons inspector. The Christian Science Monitor has the
best reputation for accuracy of any newspaper in the US. Not
that the others set the bar particularly high.

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:24:22 GMT, Doug Miller
wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

I also remind you that the Bush administration has thus
far failed to present any similar evidence from Iraq.

What about that Sarin shell, Fred? Might not be much... but it's
something.

He already answered that. It had flown through the air once, so it
doesn't count, y'see.

Is it now, anything short of obvious that Mr Hinz is trolling
rec.woodworking?

Oh, upon review I misremembered the numbers. 170 were declared
and 150 declared to have been test fired.

Inasmuch as Mr Miller appears to be sincere, I woudl guess he
does not consider a failure of Iraq to recover all of the
test-fired duds to be a substantive breach of any UN resolution.

--

FF

On 24 Feb 2005 20:06:51 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

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.

In another words, whatever happened during Bush watch you "feel" we
would be EVEN WORSE off regardless which Democrat elected.

"Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?"

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:08:12 -0500, GregP
wrote:

by the American taxpayer. Heck, if Gore were president, we
would be in a lot of trouble now.

If what you say are corrects than, I would rather be in "DEEP" trouble
with Gore than "better off" with Bush.
In another words, whatever happened during Bush watch you "feel" we
would EVEN WORSE off regardless which Democrat elected.

"Are we really better off today than before Bush took office?"

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 13:55:25 -0800,
wrote:

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.

The meaning was, and is, blisteringly clear.

It still leaves much to be desired. Are
you suggesting that Saddam Hussein may ahve given WMD to
Islamic paramilitary groups?

Yes, there's a real danger that he did just that. Clear now, Fred?

Given that the binary sarin shell in question was not suitable for
use as an IED, which is how it was used, the notion that it was
given by Saddam Hussein to the insurgents to be used by them
is without credibility.

There was never a serious risk that Saddam Hussein would give
WMD to Islamic Fudamentalist paramilitary groups. First of all,
many, if not most were opposed to his rule. This includes
the Wahabbi Sunni and the Shiites. They would be as likely
to use the weapns on him as anyone else. Secondly history
has shown that he maintained a tight leash on his military and
their assets, especially his chemical weapons. Third, his
primary interest that dominated all of his decisions was
to remain alive and in power. If he lost control of any
chemical of biological weapons and they were used, the result
would have been UN support for retaliation which the US would
be happy to lead.
.....

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.

OK, so you trust SH not to do something that would bring on his
own death. I do not share your trust. Clear now?

It has been clear that you are trolling for quite some time now.
However I will continue to reply because you really do more
to discredit the notions you allege to support than could a
straw man of my own creation.



...
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.

To me, the information presented is clear.

Interesting when you consider that I have presented information.


Why would they hide hydrogen generating trailers, Fred?

As you know I previously responded to your question thus:

Actually, that's lower in the thread, Fred. As you know, since
you had to scroll down to copy it to paste it here.

I origninally wrote it in an earlier article which was posted
higher in the thread. Indeed it was in the same article to
which you were responding. Since you know that, you already
knew the answer to your question beofor you asked. Ergo, More
trolling.



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.

How is a hydrogen generating trailer a "conventional military
asset" please?

More trolling eh? It is a conventional military asset the same
way that an artillery piece, a tank, an airplane, or anything
else used by the conventional military is a conventional military
asset.

....
During wartime, conventional military
assets will be targeted for aerial attack. Therefor it is
desireable that they be concealed.

You have not established that this is a military asset. Are you
saying
all of the HE devices (also conventional military assets) were
concealed?
Careful how you back yourself into a corner on this one, Fred.

I haven't said anything about HE devices. I do not know whether
or not any artillery pieces were concealed, but I do know that
if a concelaed artillery piece is found not even the Bush
administration would have the arrogance to try to misconstrue
that as a WMD.




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 vesselif 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?

Piping? Pumps? If we can move liquid helium around, we can
devise a way to get nasties from one place to another.

So why is the reaction vessel not so equipped?

....

You need to work toward clearer articulation. Otherwise, people
might get the impression that you are stonewalling becausee
you have no substantive rebuttal.

My rebuttal is that I neither trust, believe, or respect you.

I do not want you to. I want you to look into these things
yourself. You have never once, in this entire thread, provided
us with even a single reference to anything anyone can read
for oneself.

IOW, as noted, no substantive rebuttal.

You
play word games about "you said it instead of they" or whatever,
rather than seeing the blisteringly obvious statements, and then you
_assume_ that when you don't understand something, or when you put
more
importance on "extremist" than "islamic" or whatever, that it's
specifically deceit on my part rather than a different perspective.
Yes, I understand you all too well.

While it is true that one should not ascribe to malice that which
may be adequately explained by incompetance alone, Heinlien pointed
out that there are degress of incompetance or stupidity so extreme
as to be indistinguishible from malice.

However, in the instant case we have no need to presume malice.

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.

And again, that's _LWER_ in the thread... your poorly worded
(wups, I mean "deliberate lie") statement should say "I later
responded".

As you know, it was first stated in an earlier article, earlier
in the thread, the very one to which you were replying in fact.


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?

See above. You're getting boring.

More trolling.



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.

How is a hydrogen generator a military asset?

Trolled and answered above.


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,

No ****. The hydrogen generating trailers are shown on the bottom of
your
CIA link.

Hmm, I'd be surprised if you were agreeing that the trailers
really were hydrogen generating trailers? If not, what are you
trying to communicate here?


after all there is no evidence that Iraq
had trailers of the sort the Bush administartion claimed,

Aside from the trailers themselves, that is, yes.

As noted above it (not they) was plainly designed to generate
hydrogen by reacting sodium hydroxide and Aluminum.

Once IAEA had disproved the Bush Administrations claims about
the Iraqi nuclear program and UNMOVIC had disproved the
Bush Administration claims about Iraq rebuilding WMD factories
the only claim left to be disproven was the mobile facility
claim. As I wrote before, the Bush Administartion invaded
before UNMOVIC had the opportunity to test that claim--though
they could have if the Bush Administration had not kept
them busy by supplying them false information.

You consistently use the plural in reference to items for
which but a single example has been found. Yet you accuse
me of 'word games'.


making it rather difficult to determine which of the many
other permitted sorts of trailers should be inspected.

Amazing. You could be a politician with that doublespeak. That
is not a compliment.

Do you deny that Iraq was permitted many sorts of mobile laboratory
type trailers such as are used elsewhere in the world? If not, where
is the doublespeak?


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.

So then why bring up something, criticize Bush for it, and then
acknowledge that it's no different than Clinton? It's another case
of you hoping your point would go unchallenged and be let stand.
Sorry, I recognize that tactic.

IRT 'tactics', you just went off on an irrelevant tangent
from the first part of the paragraph. Care to address the
rest, specifically:

"Bush...demanded UN inspections. Iraq complied and during the
Winter of 2002-2003 UN inspectors had free reign to search Iraq."

You really are quite good at accusing me of doing exactly what
you do.



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.

"accusations". Implies that they are intentionally trying to
cause trouble. "intelligence reports" would be a more objective
way to say it, but it's not as emotionally charged so you didn't
choose
it. "were proven false". Seeing that something isn't there, doesn't
prove that something _wasn't_ there, and you should know it.

Claims that fixed, permanent WMD facilites had been rebuilt
and were in operation were indisputedly proven false.

The notion that WMD were deployed to forward postions but
weren't there when the US arrived because the hastily retreating
Iraqi military took the time to remove and hide them is
a bit much, don't you think.


This isn't getting anywhere. You don't like or respect anything
that Bush does, obviously, and your word games and bull**** are
tiresome.

Want to get somewhere? Look for evidence to support your claims.

--

FF

In article , GregP wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:56:13 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

Some would have gotten OBL instead of diverting resources
away from Afghanistan while OBL was still at large.

Some would have *taken* him when offered by the Sudanese, too, instead of
refusing. Twice.


I don't remember that at all.

You have a short memory. Or a selective one.

Can you substantiate it?

Sure thing. Google on clinton "osama bin laden" sudan and you'll find
everything you ever wanted to know about the whole sorry affair.

Examples:
http://www.nationalreview.com/interr...ory091103b.asp
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...5/153637.shtml


--
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?

On 24 Feb 2005 15:54:12 -0800, wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:24:22 GMT, Doug Miller
wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

I also remind you that the Bush administration has thus
far failed to present any similar evidence from Iraq.

What about that Sarin shell, Fred? Might not be much... but it's
something.

He already answered that. It had flown through the air once, so it
doesn't count, y'see.

Is it now, anything short of obvious that Mr Hinz is trolling
rec.woodworking?

Good thing there's an OT in the subject line, eh Fred?

Oh, upon review I misremembered the numbers. 170 were declared
and 150 declared to have been test fired.

Inasmuch as Mr Miller appears to be sincere, I woudl guess he
does not consider a failure of Iraq to recover all of the
test-fired duds to be a substantive breach of any UN resolution.

Why don't you let him speak for himself?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , GregP
wrote:

Can you substantiate it?

Sure thing. Google on clinton "osama bin laden" sudan and you'll
find
everything you ever wanted to know about the whole sorry affair.

Examples:
http://www.nationalreview.com/interr...ory091103b.asp

Given that their hompage includes gems like "Which organizaiton is the
most liberal?" and "Do vitamins kill you?" I have rather low
expectations
but reading the article in more detail we see:

Begin exerpt:

On March 3, 1996, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney, Director of
East African Affairs at the State Department, David Shinn, and a member
of the CIA's directorate of operations' Africa division met with
Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa in a Rosslyn,
Virginia hotel room. Item number two on the CIA's list of demands was
to provide information about Osama bin Laden. Five days later, Erwa met
with the CIA officer and offered more than information. He offered to
arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two years earlier, the Sudan
had turned over the infamous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal to the
French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan wanted to repeat that
scenario with bin Laden in the starring role.

Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for
not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never
made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was
"not serious." Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer. Another
argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior request
so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim Carney had
argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call their bluff
and ask for bin Laden?

end exerpt

The various explanations offered do not exclude each other, meaning
that even if one is true it does not mean that the others are not also
true. "The offer was never made" is close enough to "The offer was
not serious" as to not be a conflict and if the Sudanese had not
carried through on an earlier agreement why trust them again? You
don't suppose the Sudanese wanted something in ADVANCE, do you?

I also question his statement that [paraphrasing: Even if the US
could not convict bin Laden] "the U.S. could have turned bin Laden
over to Yemen or Libya, ..." I'm quite sure that at the time the
US and Lybia did not have a extradition treaty in effect and the
same may have been true for Yemen. IIUC when a person is deported,
as opposed to estradited, he, not the US government, decides on
the country of destination.

Miniter also refers to another opportunity through a 'back channel'
but tells us nothing else about it.

So, I find this particular source to be highly questionable.

However I did find two articles by farmer Clinton Administration
official Mansoor Ijaz which do indicate that the Clinton
Administration passed on ONE such opportunity:

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/ijaz121101.html

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page..._bin_laden.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...5/153637.shtml

Did you just happen to find this or do you often read newsmax?

--

FF

Where in the Constitution does it say one of the jobs of our military
is to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world?

Renata

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:53:21 GMT, Doug Miller
wrote:

In article . 201,
says...
[...]

Anyone reading the Cincinatti speech reasonably would
come to the conclusion that WMDs and terror links are the main theme of
the speech.

Anyone reading the Cincinnati speech reasonably would come to the
conclusion that the President *did*, in fact, talk about bringing freedom
and democracy to Iraq.

But you claimed that he didn't.

You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?

Renata

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:01:39 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
-snip-

I'm not familiar with that; however, considering that one of Clinton's targets
was an aspirin factory with no connection at all to AQ, there might be some
substance to that idea.

In article , Renata wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it say one of the jobs of our military
is to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world?

I suppose the case could be made that spreading freedom "promote[s] the common
defence". There's room for an interesting discussion on that subject, to be
sure. The Constitution does specify that the President is Commander-in-Chief
of the nation's military, and it places little restriction on his exercise of
that role.


--
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?

In article . 201,
says...
(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.

Nice straw man, Nate. I did not say that you claimed Bush "never" talked
about it. I said you claimed he didn't talk about it _in that specific
speech_.

You *did* claim that.

And that claim is false.

I just said that the *primary* reasons to invade Iraq were WMD
and terror links.

Wow. How do you manage to pack so many falsehoods into just once short
sentence? You can't even quote *yourself* correctly.

1) You said the primary reasons were WMDs and links to the 9/11 attacks.
Not generic "terror links".

2) You didn't "just" say that, you also said that speech didn't talk
about spreading freedom and democracy (which it does).

3) The President did not give _any_ "primary reasons". He listed numerous
reasons, among them WMDs and terror links. Among them also Iraq's
repeated, persistent failures to comply with UN resolutions. Read the
speech.

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.

Anyone reading the Cincinnati speech reasonably would come to the
conclusion that the President talked at some length about bringing
freedom and democracy to Iraq. But you claimed he said "not a peep" on
the matter.

In article . 201, Nate
Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
.com:

In article . 201,
Nate Perkins wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. com:

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.

No, it does not. You claimed that those were the "primary reasons". The
reasons included WMDs, among numerous other reasons, but the President
never identified that as the "primary" reason, as you falsely claim. Nor
did he identify _anything_ as a primary reason. The case for war against
Iraq was build on the _totality_ of _many_ reasons, WMDs among them.

You also falsely claim that "links to the 9/11 attacks" was one of the
"primary reasons" for going to war. The President did not say that.


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)

Quote which, incidentally, prove conclusively the complete and utter
falsehood of your "not a peep" claim. Could that be why you snipped them?

Fortunately, Google makes it easy to restore them, so that anyone can
read them and see that you are not telling the truth:

"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."

I'll leave intact the excerpts you cited, so that anyone can see that
they do not substantiate your false claims.

"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."

Nothing in those about primary reasons. Nothing in those about 9/11. Did
you have a point somewhere?

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.

If you don't enjoy being called a liar, one obvious suggestion for you
would be that you refrain from making posts that contain clearly obvious
and readily demonstrable falsehoods, such as claiming that a speech says
that which it manifestly does not, or that it does not say that which it
manifestly does.

And of course I didn't quite call you a liar: I said that you're either
completely blind to the facts, or a liar -- which does leave you some
benefit of the doubt.

But since you object to the word, I'll try to be more delicate in the
future when pointing out the falsehoods in your posts.

Another suggestion for you: if you would actually _read_ the articles you
post links to, before you post them (instead of after), it might help you
to avoid making false statements about what they do and do not contain -
statements such as "not a peep about spreading freedom and democracy in
the whole thing."

Anyone can do what you apparently did not: follow the link, and read the
article, and see that the speech certainly did talk about exactly that,
in language so clear as to make any claim of having misunderstood it
completely inadmissible. The conclusion is obvious: either you didn't
read it, or else you're deliberately misrepresenting its contents.

On 24 Feb 2005 17:39:34 -0800, wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 13:55:25 -0800,

Yes, there's a real danger that he did just that. Clear now, Fred?

Given that the binary sarin shell in question was not suitable for
use as an IED, which is how it was used, the notion that it was
given by Saddam Hussein to the insurgents to be used by them
is without credibility.

There were more WMD there than that one binary sarin shell, Fred.
Nice try, though.

There was never a serious risk that Saddam Hussein would give
WMD to Islamic Fudamentalist paramilitary groups. First of all,
many, if not most were opposed to his rule. This includes
the Wahabbi Sunni and the Shiites. They would be as likely
to use the weapns on him as anyone else. Secondly history
has shown that he maintained a tight leash on his military and
their assets, especially his chemical weapons.

Except for the "wups!" lost ones. Maybe.

Third, his
primary interest that dominated all of his decisions was
to remain alive and in power. If he lost control of any
chemical of biological weapons and they were used, the result
would have been UN support for retaliation which the US would
be happy to lead.
....

If he was behaving rationally, you mean.


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.

OK, so you trust SH not to do something that would bring on his
own death. I do not share your trust. Clear now?

It has been clear that you are trolling for quite some time now.

I'm disagreeing with you, Fred, not trolling. If I was trolling,
I'd do something like, for instance, keep changing the groups and
followups to include a politics group. Like you do.

However I will continue to reply because you really do more
to discredit the notions you allege to support than could a
straw man of my own creation.

Yawn.

...
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.

To me, the information presented is clear.

Interesting when you consider that I have presented information.

You have presented _opinion_.


Why would they hide hydrogen generating trailers, Fred?

As you know I previously responded to your question thus:

Actually, that's lower in the thread, Fred. As you know, since
you had to scroll down to copy it to paste it here.

I origninally wrote it in an earlier article which was posted
higher in the thread. Indeed it was in the same article to
which you were responding. Since you know that, you already
knew the answer to your question beofor you asked. Ergo, More
trolling.

If you can't distinguish between and and fred, that's
your problem.


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.

How is a hydrogen generating trailer a "conventional military
asset" please?

More trolling eh? It is a conventional military asset the same
way that an artillery piece, a tank, an airplane, or anything
else used by the conventional military is a conventional military
asset.

Non-answer noted, and oh, so predictable.

...
During wartime, conventional military
assets will be targeted for aerial attack. Therefor it is
desireable that they be concealed.

You have not established that this is a military asset. Are you
saying
all of the HE devices (also conventional military assets) were
concealed?
Careful how you back yourself into a corner on this one, Fred.

I haven't said anything about HE devices.

I noticed that. You said "conventional military assets". I am pointing
out that HE devices _are_ "conventional military assets", and asked you
to reconcile your statement with the facts regarding those assets. Clearer
now?

I do not know whether
or not any artillery pieces were concealed, but I do know that
if a concelaed artillery piece is found not even the Bush
administration would have the arrogance to try to misconstrue
that as a WMD.

But above you say that these assets would be hidden, Fred. You're
weaseling. Again. Imagine that.




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 vesselif 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?

Piping? Pumps? If we can move liquid helium around, we can
devise a way to get nasties from one place to another.

So why is the reaction vessel not so equipped?

If I was designing something like this, I'd have some sort of port
for transferring things out of the tank. Are you proposing that
there is no type of port on these vessels or associated plumbing?
If that's the case, Fred, how do you propose that your hypothetical
hydrogen gets removed from those same tanks?

You need to work toward clearer articulation. Otherwise, people
might get the impression that you are stonewalling becausee
you have no substantive rebuttal.

My rebuttal is that I neither trust, believe, or respect you.

I do not want you to. I want you to look into these things
yourself. You have never once, in this entire thread, provided
us with even a single reference to anything anyone can read
for oneself.

I used your cite to show you're wrong. Why dig for more, when your own
cite makes it clear?

You
play word games about "you said it instead of they" or whatever,
rather than seeing the blisteringly obvious statements, and then you
_assume_ that when you don't understand something, or when you put
more
importance on "extremist" than "islamic" or whatever, that it's
specifically deceit on my part rather than a different perspective.
Yes, I understand you all too well.

While it is true that one should not ascribe to malice that which
may be adequately explained by incompetance alone, Heinlien pointed
out that there are degress of incompetance or stupidity so extreme
as to be indistinguishible from malice.

And yet, you make distinctions where there is no difference. SH is
Islamic. He's an extremist. Apparently, in your mind, "Islamic extremist"
can only apply to certain types of islamic people who are extremist. Or
something.

However, in the instant case we have no need to presume malice.

Then maybe you could stop accusing me of lying, when I'm just
disagreeing with you.

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.

And again, that's _LWER_ in the thread... your poorly worded
(wups, I mean "deliberate lie") statement should say "I later
responded".

As you know, it was first stated in an earlier article, earlier
in the thread, the very one to which you were replying in fact.

If you say so.

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?

See above. You're getting boring.

More trolling.

Yes, but now it's so recognizable, I wonder why I keep feeding you.


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.

How is a hydrogen generator a military asset?

Trolled and answered above.

You had no answer above. How about this time?


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,

No ****. The hydrogen generating trailers are shown on the bottom of
your
CIA link.

Hmm, I'd be surprised if you were agreeing that the trailers
really were hydrogen generating trailers? If not, what are you
trying to communicate here?

On the CIA page that YOU CITED, Fred, they show the weapons trailers,
_AND_ the hydrogen trailers. They compare and contrast the two. Maybe
you should go revisit your cite and see.


after all there is no evidence that Iraq
had trailers of the sort the Bush administartion claimed,

Aside from the trailers themselves, that is, yes.

As noted above it (not they) was plainly designed to generate
hydrogen by reacting sodium hydroxide and Aluminum.

Yes, so you keep saying.

Once IAEA had disproved the Bush Administrations claims about
the Iraqi nuclear program and UNMOVIC had disproved the
Bush Administration claims about Iraq rebuilding WMD factories
the only claim left to be disproven was the mobile facility
claim.

Nothing has been disproved. Things have been not found. There's a huge
difference.

As I wrote before, the Bush Administartion invaded
before UNMOVIC had the opportunity to test that claim--though
they could have if the Bush Administration had not kept
them busy by supplying them false information.

So, you are contending that Bush intentionally lied to the UN to keep
them from finding the WMD. Is that what you're saying, Fred?

You consistently use the plural in reference to items for
which but a single example has been found. Yet you accuse
me of 'word games'.

From your cited site, in the "Overview" section:

"The US military discovered a second mobile facility equipped to produce
BW agent in early May at the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and
Engineering facility in Mosul. Although this second trailer appears to
have been looted, the remaining equipment, including the fermentor, is
in a configuration similar to the first plant."

Yes, I accuse you of word games, and in this case, an outright lie.

making it rather difficult to determine which of the many
other permitted sorts of trailers should be inspected.

Amazing. You could be a politician with that doublespeak. That
is not a compliment.

Do you deny that Iraq was permitted many sorts of mobile laboratory
type trailers such as are used elsewhere in the world? If not, where
is the doublespeak?

Iraq isn't supposed to have biological warfare labs, mobile or
otherwise. Elsewhere in the world doesn't enter into it.


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.

So then why bring up something, criticize Bush for it, and then
acknowledge that it's no different than Clinton? It's another case
of you hoping your point would go unchallenged and be let stand.
Sorry, I recognize that tactic.

IRT 'tactics', you just went off on an irrelevant tangent
from the first part of the paragraph. Care to address the
rest, specifically:

"Bush...demanded UN inspections. Iraq complied and during the
Winter of 2002-2003 UN inspectors had free reign to search Iraq."

Why didn't CLINTON demand UN inspections? Because he ignored the
problem and let it grow for 8 freaking years, that's why.

You really are quite good at accusing me of doing exactly what
you do.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Interesting wording. Says it all, really.

Rather than being interesting, your wording is too vague to
constitute an honest attempt at communication.

"accusations". Implies that they are intentionally trying to
cause trouble. "intelligence reports" would be a more objective
way to say it, but it's not as emotionally charged so you didn't
choose
it. "were proven false". Seeing that something isn't there, doesn't
prove that something _wasn't_ there, and you should know it.

Claims that fixed, permanent WMD facilites had been rebuilt
and were in operation were indisputedly proven false.

And those claims were based on best available intel.

This isn't getting anywhere. You don't like or respect anything
that Bush does, obviously, and your word games and bull**** are
tiresome.

Want to get somewhere? Look for evidence to support your claims.

It's right there in your cite, but you ignore it. Why should I dig up
more, when you won't even see what you yourself provided?

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:58 -0500, Renata wrote:
You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?

"no WMD" is an absolute, and is absolutely wrong. Even Fred doesn't
deny the Sarin shell that injured a couple of our guys, and says there
are 149 or 169 more of 'em unaccounted for out there.

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:58 -0500, Renata
wrote:
You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?

"no WMD" is an absolute, and is absolutely wrong. Even Fred doesn't
deny the Sarin shell that injured a couple of our guys, and says
there
are 149 or 169 more of 'em unaccounted for out there.

How dishonest of you.

As you know, I told you that of the 170 Iraq declared to UNSCOM,
it also declared that 150 had been test fired. I did not
say, nor would I presume that of those 150, all were duds.

I said nothing at all about the other 20, as I do not remember
their disposition but anyone interested in that information
could read the UNSCOM reports or the Duelfer report.

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:58 -0500, Renata
wrote:
You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?

"no WMD" is an absolute, and is absolutely wrong. Even Fred doesn't
deny the Sarin shell that injured a couple of our guys, and says
there
are 149 or 169 more of 'em unaccounted for out there.

How dishonest of you.

As you know, I told you that of the 170 Iraq declared to UNSCOM,
it also declared that 150 had been test fired. I did not
say, nor would I presume that of those 150, all were duds.

I said nothing at all about the other 20, as I do not remember
their disposition but anyone interested in that information
could read the UNSCOM reports or the Duelfer report.

--

FF

On 25 Feb 2005 08:43:20 -0800, wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:58 -0500, Renata
wrote:
You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?

"no WMD" is an absolute, and is absolutely wrong. Even Fred doesn't
deny the Sarin shell that injured a couple of our guys, and says
there
are 149 or 169 more of 'em unaccounted for out there.

How dishonest of you.

Not very, thanks for asking this time instead of accusing.

As you know, I told you that of the 170 Iraq declared to UNSCOM,
it also declared that 150 had been test fired. I did not
say, nor would I presume that of those 150, all were duds.

I said nothing at all about the other 20, as I do not remember
their disposition but anyone interested in that information
could read the UNSCOM reports or the Duelfer report.

OK, so they're _accounted for_ rather than _unaccounted for_.
Thanks for clearing that up, I feel ever so much safer. And,
you miss the point of my post which is that even by your
standards of what is acceptable or not, that one sarin shell
is direct evidence that "no WMDs" is not an accurate statement.

Can you at least agree to that point, or will you weasel yet further?

Oh, and you forgot to troll out to the politics group this time.
You're getting careless, Fred.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news
In article , Renata
wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it say one of the jobs of our military
is to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world?

I suppose the case could be made that spreading freedom "promote[s] the
common
defence". There's room for an interesting discussion on that subject, to
be
sure. The Constitution does specify that the President is
Commander-in-Chief
of the nation's military, and it places little restriction on his exercise
of
that role.


except for declaring war, which congress has to do.

--
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?

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 17:39:34 -0800,
wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 13:55:25 -0800,

Yes, there's a real danger that he did just that. Clear now,
Fred?

Given that the binary sarin shell in question was not suitable for
use as an IED, which is how it was used, the notion that it was
given by Saddam Hussein to the insurgents to be used by them
is without credibility.

There were more WMD there than that one binary sarin shell, Fred.
Nice try, though.

There was also an equally old mustard shell found by a roadside
evidently as part of an abandoned attempt at setting an IED.

Please post a reference for any other biological or chemical
weapons that you think have fallen into the hands of the
insurgents.


There was never a serious risk that Saddam Hussein would give
WMD to Islamic Fudamentalist paramilitary groups. First of all,
many, if not most were opposed to his rule. This includes
the Wahabbi Sunni and the Shiites. They would be as likely
to use the weapns on him as anyone else. Secondly history
has shown that he maintained a tight leash on his military and
their assets, especially his chemical weapons.

Except for the "wups!" lost ones. Maybe.

Agreed. Some were probably lost during the 1991 war when
munitions were removed from bunkers and distributed in
hastily fabricated caches. See the Duelfer report.

As I wrote prior to the 2002 invasion, if Saddam Hussein
did have WMD, invading Iraq was more likely to result in
those weapons getting into the hands of paramilitary
groups hostile to the US than would leaving him in power.

At least my greatest fear, that Saddam Hussein would execute
a tacticly and strategicly effective plan, like concentrating
his forces in Baghdad and forcing the US to lay siege to the
city, were not realized.


Third, his
primary interest that dominated all of his decisions was
to remain alive and in power. If he lost control of any
chemical of biological weapons and they were used, the result
would have been UN support for retaliation which the US would
be happy to lead.
....

If he was behaving rationally, you mean.

Yes. Until recently he was good at surviving. The reason he
finally lost power was because Bush made the decision to invade
Iraq no matter how Saddam Hussein responed to the demands for
inspections, hence Bush's plan nine demand that Iraq prove
it had no WMD, a demand no nation can meet.



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.

OK, so you trust SH not to do something that would bring on his
own death. I do not share your trust. Clear now?

It has been clear that you are trolling for quite some time now.

I'm disagreeing with you, Fred, not trolling. If I was trolling,
I'd do something like, for instance, keep changing the groups and
followups to include a politics group. Like you do.

There is nothing trollish about posting an article about
poitical issues to a newsgroup devoted to those political
issues.

If you were trolling, you'd post off-topic and use a subject
line intended to attract attention without actually informing
anyone of the subject of the article. For example, you
might post an article about Iraq in rec.woodworking under the
subect, "OT but important to us all".

You might also throw a hissy fit if anyone would suggest
posting the articles where they are on-topic.

....
I origninally wrote it in an earlier article which was posted
higher in the thread. Indeed it was in the same article to
which you were responding. Since you know that, you already
knew the answer to your question beofor you asked. Ergo, More
trolling.

If you can't distinguish between and and fred, that's
your problem.

Your problem seems to be that you cannot distinguish between
a thread and an article, or between the time at which an
article is posted by myself or read by you and the place
in YOUR Follow-up at which you insert your comments.

Perhaps you do not read to the bottom of an article before
beginning to reply. Those are your failings, not mine.



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.

How is a hydrogen generating trailer a "conventional military
asset" please?

More trolling eh? It is a conventional military asset the same
way that an artillery piece, a tank, an airplane, or anything
else used by the conventional military is a conventional military
asset.

Non-answer noted, and oh, so predictable.

Ok, you tell me why, oh why, would a hydrogen generator NOT
be a conventional military asset? It is not, nor is it
related to, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons which
are the three categories of non-conventional military
assets being discussed.



I haven't said anything about HE devices.

I noticed that. You said "conventional military assets". I am
pointing
out that HE devices _are_ "conventional military assets", and asked
you
to reconcile your statement with the facts regarding those assets.
Clearer
now?

Not at all.


I do not know whether
or not any artillery pieces were concealed, but I do know that
if a concelaed artillery piece is found not even the Bush
administration would have the arrogance to try to misconstrue
that as a WMD.

But above you say that these assets would be hidden, Fred. You're
weaseling. Again. Imagine that.

Trolling again.


...


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 vesselif 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?

Piping? Pumps? If we can move liquid helium around, we can
devise a way to get nasties from one place to another.

So why is the reaction vessel not so equipped?

If I was designing something like this, I'd have some sort of port
for transferring things out of the tank. Are you proposing that
there is no type of port on these vessels or associated plumbing?
If that's the case, Fred, how do you propose that your hypothetical
hydrogen gets removed from those same tanks?


Do you understand the difference gas and liquid?

You need to work toward clearer articulation. Otherwise, people
might get the impression that you are stonewalling becausee
you have no substantive rebuttal.

My rebuttal is that I neither trust, believe, or respect you.

I do not want you to. I want you to look into these things
yourself. You have never once, in this entire thread, provided
us with even a single reference to anything anyone can read
for oneself.

I used your cite to show you're wrong. Why dig for more, when your
own
cite makes it clear?

You might consider providing a cite for some of your contentions.


You
play word games about "you said it instead of they" or whatever,
rather than seeing the blisteringly obvious statements, and then
you
_assume_ that when you don't understand something, or when you put
more
importance on "extremist" than "islamic" or whatever, that it's
specifically deceit on my part rather than a different
perspective.
Yes, I understand you all too well.

While it is true that one should not ascribe to malice that which
may be adequately explained by incompetance alone, Heinlien pointed
out that there are degress of incompetance or stupidity so extreme
as to be indistinguishible from malice.

And yet, you make distinctions where there is no difference. SH is
Islamic. He's an extremist. Apparently, in your mind, "Islamic
extremist"
can only apply to certain types of islamic people who are extremist.
Or
something.

The distinction between a person who is Muslim in name only
and takes extreme actions for purely secular reasons, such
as Saddam Hussein, and a pious Muslim who takes extreme
actions for religious reasons, or to be more accurate, due
to a grossly distorted interpretation of Islam, such as
Osama bin Laden is obvious, I am sure, even to you.
Ergo, more trolling.


However, in the instant case we have no need to presume malice.

Then maybe you could stop accusing me of lying, when I'm just
disagreeing with you.

There is no need to presume malice because you prove your malice
everytime you post.

....

How is a hydrogen generator a military asset?

Trolled and answered above.

You had no answer above. How about this time?

All equipment used by the military is a military asset. How
is that not obvious to you? The Migs Iraq buried during the
1991 war were also a military asset, right? Tnaks are a military
asset right? Artillery pieces are military assets right?
If all of these are military assets, why aren't mobile
hydrogen generators?


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,

No ****. The hydrogen generating trailers are shown on the bottom
of
your
CIA link.

Hmm, I'd be surprised if you were agreeing that the trailers
really were hydrogen generating trailers? If not, what are you
trying to communicate here?

On the CIA page that YOU CITED, Fred, they show the weapons trailers,
_AND_ the hydrogen trailers. They compare and contrast the two.
Maybe
you should go revisit your cite and see.

On the webpage in question there are nine images. If we number
them 1 through 9 from the top down, which do you assert are images
of real hydrogen generators that are being contrasted with what the
CIA claims to be a mobile biological fermenter?

If instead, by 'show' you are refering to text, please quote the
text to which you refer.


....



Once IAEA had disproved the Bush Administrations claims about
the Iraqi nuclear program and UNMOVIC had disproved the
Bush Administration claims about Iraq rebuilding WMD factories
the only claim left to be disproven was the mobile facility
claim.

Nothing has been disproved. Things have been not found. There's a
huge
difference.

When UNMOVIC visited a fixed permanent installation and found
it to be in disrepair and abandoned, that is to say in
the same state it was when UNSCOM left Iraq the Bush
administration claim that the facility had been repaired
and operations there resumed was disproved without regard to
whether that claim was made in error or with malice.

Here are some concrete examples:

President Bush, 7 October 2002: "Satellite photographs reveal
that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been
part of its nuclear program in the past." ... The satellite
photos referred to by President Bush were published in the
New York Times on 6 September 2002,...

Both sites have been visited by inspectors from the IAEA
since November 2002, and no suspicious findings at either
site have been reported. The IAEA has reported on inspections
of the Tuweitha site on 6 December 2002 and, more extensively,
on 9 - 10 - 11 December 2002. After a further visit, on 20
December 2002, an IAEA / UNMOVIC joint press statement
concluded that "the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex [..]
now conducts civilian research in the non-nuclear field".
Further radiation testing at the site has been conducted
by the IAEA on 21 January 2003.

At a DoD News Briefing, Tuesday, 08 Oct 2002 - 1:00 pm,
slide 25: claimed al-Qaim plant was "currently active".

Inspectors from the IAEA visited al-Qaim on 10-11 December 2002,
and reported on their on-going monitoring of the DESTROYED plant.
A further inspection took place on 7 January 2003.

[emphacis on DESTROYED mine, FF]

At http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20020912.html

"The al-Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility is one
of two known biocontainment level-three facilities in Iraq that
have an extensive air handling and filtering system. Iraq has
admitted that this was a biological weapons facility. In 2001,
Iraq In 2001, Iraq announced that it would begin renovating the
[al-Dawrah, FF]plant without UN approval, ostensibly to produce
vaccines that it could more easily and more quickly import through
the UN."

Whereas:

"By the time the inspectors left the plant today, after four
hours, they had concluded that the plant was no longer operational
-- not for the production of toxins, and not for animal vaccines
either. Reporters who were allowed to wander through the plant
after the inspectors left found the place largely in ruins.
Apparently, it had been abandoned by the Iraqis after 1996,
when the weapons inspectors took heavy cutting equipment to
the fermenters, containers and pressurized tubing and valves
used in the toxin production." ("Inspectors Find Only Ruins
at an Old Iraqi Weapons Site", New York Times, 29 November 2002).



See: http://traprockpeace.org/iraqweapons.html and please note
that this was published shortly beofor the US-led invasion of
Iraq in 2003, it is based on the best available pre-invasion
intelligence.



As I wrote before, the Bush Administartion invaded
before UNMOVIC had the opportunity to test that claim--though
they could have if the Bush Administration had not kept
them busy by supplying them false information.

So, you are contending that Bush intentionally lied to the UN to keep
them from finding the WMD. Is that what you're saying, Fred?

No.

I am pointing out that the Bush Administration foisted forged
documents on the IAEA. That is no longer in dispute. I am
pointing out that the Bush Administration sent UNMOVIC to
numerous

I am pointing out that the Bush adminisstration sent the
UNMOVIC to sites where, according to the Bush Administration
WMD facilites, fixed facilities , not mobile ones, had
been rebuilt and operations had resumed, yet upon arrival
UNMOVIC found those facilites in the same condition as
when UNSCOM left Iraq in 1998.

I am pointing out that, given the decision on the part
of the administration to submit the forged documents to
the IAEA one should suspect that the inaccuarte information
provided to UNMOVIC was also a deliberate attempt at
deception or delay.

The obvious motive was to prevent UNMOVIC from reaching the
same conclusion about Iraqi chemical and biological weapons
that the IAEA had about Iraqi nuclear weapons. Which is
the same conclusion reached by ISG, a couple of years and
thousands of lives later.

I am contending that the Bush Administration intentionally
lied and misdirected the iAEA and UNMOVIC to keep them
from concluding that Iraq was not in substantive breach of
the UN resolutions regarding Iraqi WMD.

And if in fact Sadadm Hussein DID have WMD why did he not use
them when we invaded. What was he waiting for, the NEXT
US invasion of Iraq?


You consistently use the plural in reference to items for
which but a single example has been found. Yet you accuse
me of 'word games'.

From your cited site, in the "Overview" section:

"The US military discovered a second mobile facility equipped to
produce
BW agent in early May at the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development,
and
Engineering facility in Mosul. Although this second trailer appears
to
have been looted, the remaining equipment, including the fermentor,
is
in a configuration similar to the first plant."

Thanks for the correction. Been looted eh? Must not have been very
well hidden.

That's the idea. Quote some text and tell us where you got it.
Put some substance into your articles.


Yes, I accuse you of word games, and in this case, an outright lie.

Could you please provide a direct quote, as opposed to one of
your typically inaccurate parphrasals, of what you consider to
be an outright lie?


Do you deny that Iraq was permitted many sorts of mobile laboratory
type trailers such as are used elsewhere in the world? If not,
where
is the doublespeak?

Iraq isn't supposed to have biological warfare labs, mobile or
otherwise. Elsewhere in the world doesn't enter into it.

Non sequitor. Mobile biological labs are not all
biological WARFARE labs. For example, on the CIA webpage
I cited, there is some discussion of non-warfare related
mobile biological labs of the sort Iraq was permittted.



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.

So then why bring up something, criticize Bush for it, and then
acknowledge that it's no different than Clinton? It's another
case
of you hoping your point would go unchallenged and be let stand.
Sorry, I recognize that tactic.

IRT 'tactics', you just went off on an irrelevant tangent
from the first part of the paragraph. Care to address the
rest, specifically:

"Bush...demanded UN inspections. Iraq complied and during the
Winter of 2002-2003 UN inspectors had free reign to search Iraq."

Why didn't CLINTON demand UN inspections? Because he ignored the
problem and let it grow for 8 freaking years, that's why.

More trolling. I asked you to address a statement, you continued
to pursue the tangent instead. Anyhow:

As you know, CLINTON did not demand UN inspections because
UN inspections had already begun befor he took office and
were not suspected until 1998, when he made the decision to
bomb some of Iraq's suspected WMD facilites.

....

You really are quite good at accusing me of doing exactly what
you do.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Precisely, though since the middle 1960's calling somone or
something 'black' ceased to be an insult.


...
Claims that fixed, permanent WMD facilites had been rebuilt
and were in operation were indisputedly proven false.

And those claims were based on best available intel.

Please provide a reference for the reader.

Here's one that disputes your claim:

http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/5403731


--

FF

I see. Promoting general welfare is heavily restricted, but promoting
common defense can be stretched any which way.

OK.

Renata

PS. An intersting discussion to be sure, on both matters. Just no
time right now.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:25:40 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Renata wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it say one of the jobs of our military
is to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world?

I suppose the case could be made that spreading freedom "promote[s] the common
defence". There's room for an interesting discussion on that subject, to be
sure. The Constitution does specify that the President is Commander-in-Chief
of the nation's military, and it places little restriction on his exercise of
that role.

And SH was planning on putting all those shells on a boat to the US
when? Or, was it that he was planning on putting them on all those
drones he had, lying in wait to attack the USA?

R

On 25 Feb 2005 16:20:15 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:58 -0500, Renata wrote:
You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?

"no WMD" is an absolute, and is absolutely wrong. Even Fred doesn't
deny the Sarin shell that injured a couple of our guys, and says there
are 149 or 169 more of 'em unaccounted for out there.

Dave Hinz writes:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:58 -0500, Renata wrote:
You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?

"no WMD" is an absolute, and is absolutely wrong. Even Fred doesn't
deny the Sarin shell that injured a couple of our guys, and says there
are 149 or 169 more of 'em unaccounted for out there.


Gimme a break.. A bunch of fruitcakes in japan made sarin. It
ain't difficult, and it proved, in the end, to be a less serious
threat than the scaremongers would have you think.

I'll bet even you have things in your garage you don't remember
that you have; how is it beyond the bounds of credibility that there
may be things tucked away in an area the size of a country that
even the leaders aren't aware of? Even shells that formerly
contained sarin?

scott

Fredfigh notes:
"All equipment used by the military is a military asset. How
is that not obvious to you? The Migs Iraq buried during the
1991 war were also a military asset, right? "

I'd be damned happy to NOT be the pilot of something buried in the
sands for over a decade, especially with the level of technological
sophistication that is showing up all over the Arab world.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:12:16 -0700, Charles Spitzer wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news

I suppose the case could be made that spreading freedom "promote[s] the
common
defence". There's room for an interesting discussion on that subject, to
be
sure. The Constitution does specify that the President is
Commander-in-Chief
of the nation's military, and it places little restriction on his exercise
of
that role.

except for declaring war, which congress has to do.

Had the Gulf War I ever technically ended?

Charles Spitzer wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
news

... The Constitution does specify that the President is
Commander-in-Chief
of the nation's military, and it places little restriction on his
exercise
of
that role.


except for declaring war, which congress has to do.


There are more exceptions such as establishing a budget for the
Army and the Navy, establishing laws for the regulation of the
Armed Forces, which the CIC is then required to execute,
and also the power of conscription, all of which are granted
to the Congress.

In particular, the CIC is not authorized by the Constitution
to establish ad hoc courts martial or tribunals, that authority
is granted to the Congress alone.

--

FF

On 25 Feb 2005 10:56:57 -0800, wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 17:39:34 -0800,
wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 13:55:25 -0800,

Yes, there's a real danger that he did just that. Clear now,
Fred?

Given that the binary sarin shell in question was not suitable for
use as an IED, which is how it was used, the notion that it was
given by Saddam Hussein to the insurgents to be used by them
is without credibility.

There were more WMD there than that one binary sarin shell, Fred.
Nice try, though.

There was also an equally old mustard shell found by a roadside
evidently as part of an abandoned attempt at setting an IED.

Yes, there was.

Please post a reference for any other biological or chemical
weapons that you think have fallen into the hands of the
insurgents.

Perhaps "there's a real danger that..." means "I have absolute
evidence of" in _your_ world, Fred?


Secondly history
has shown that he maintained a tight leash on his military and
their assets, especially his chemical weapons.

Except for the "wups!" lost ones. Maybe.

Agreed. Some were probably lost during the 1991 war when
munitions were removed from bunkers and distributed in
hastily fabricated caches. See the Duelfer report.

And nooooobody remembers where those caches are. Riiiight.

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.

OK, so you trust SH not to do something that would bring on his
own death. I do not share your trust. Clear now?

It has been clear that you are trolling for quite some time now.

I'm disagreeing with you, Fred, not trolling. If I was trolling,
I'd do something like, for instance, keep changing the groups and
followups to include a politics group. Like you do.

There is nothing trollish about posting an article about
poitical issues to a newsgroup devoted to those political
issues.

If you were trolling, you'd post off-topic and use a subject
line intended to attract attention without actually informing
anyone of the subject of the article. For example, you
might post an article about Iraq in rec.woodworking under the
subect, "OT but important to us all".

I'm replying to, but didn't initiate the subject header.

You might also throw a hissy fit if anyone would suggest
posting the articles where they are on-topic.

I already explained this to you, Fred. You complain about that
which you go out of your way to see. Your choice.

...
I origninally wrote it in an earlier article which was posted
higher in the thread. Indeed it was in the same article to
which you were responding. Since you know that, you already
knew the answer to your question beofor you asked. Ergo, More
trolling.

If you can't distinguish between and and fred, that's
your problem.

Your problem seems to be that you cannot distinguish between
a thread and an article, or between the time at which an
article is posted by myself or read by you and the place
in YOUR Follow-up at which you insert your comments.

The confusion is all yours.

Perhaps you do not read to the bottom of an article before
beginning to reply. Those are your failings, not mine.

You're barely worth reading once, let alone Twice, Fred.


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.

How is a hydrogen generating trailer a "conventional military
asset" please?

More trolling eh? It is a conventional military asset the same
way that an artillery piece, a tank, an airplane, or anything
else used by the conventional military is a conventional military
asset.

Non-answer noted, and oh, so predictable.

Ok, you tell me why, oh why, would a hydrogen generator NOT
be a conventional military asset? It is not, nor is it
related to, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons which
are the three categories of non-conventional military
assets being discussed.

Non-answer noted again.

I haven't said anything about HE devices.

I noticed that. You said "conventional military assets". I am
pointing
out that HE devices _are_ "conventional military assets", and asked
you
to reconcile your statement with the facts regarding those assets.
Clearer
now?

Not at all.

You're a waste of time.

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 vesselif 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?

Piping? Pumps? If we can move liquid helium around, we can
devise a way to get nasties from one place to another.

So why is the reaction vessel not so equipped?

If I was designing something like this, I'd have some sort of port
for transferring things out of the tank. Are you proposing that
there is no type of port on these vessels or associated plumbing?
If that's the case, Fred, how do you propose that your hypothetical
hydrogen gets removed from those same tanks?

Do you understand the difference gas and liquid?

Yes.

You need to work toward clearer articulation. Otherwise, people
might get the impression that you are stonewalling becausee
you have no substantive rebuttal.

My rebuttal is that I neither trust, believe, or respect you.

I do not want you to. I want you to look into these things
yourself. You have never once, in this entire thread, provided
us with even a single reference to anything anyone can read
for oneself.

I used your cite to show you're wrong. Why dig for more, when your
own
cite makes it clear?

You might consider providing a cite for some of your contentions.

I used your article. You just won't see what it says.

However, in the instant case we have no need to presume malice.

Then maybe you could stop accusing me of lying, when I'm just
disagreeing with you.

There is no need to presume malice because you prove your malice
everytime you post.

Dislike and disrespect of you and your lies doesn't make me a liar,
Fred.

How is a hydrogen generator a military asset?

Trolled and answered above.

You had no answer above. How about this time?

All equipment used by the military is a military asset. How
is that not obvious to you? The Migs Iraq buried during the
1991 war were also a military asset, right? Tnaks are a military
asset right? Artillery pieces are military assets right?
If all of these are military assets, why aren't mobile
hydrogen generators?

Are they a MILITARY asset?

(snip more of the usual crap from Fred)

You consistently use the plural in reference to items for
which but a single example has been found. Yet you accuse
me of 'word games'.

From your cited site, in the "Overview" section:

"The US military discovered a second mobile facility equipped to
produce
BW agent in early May at the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development,
and
Engineering facility in Mosul. ..."
(snip remainder of quote)

Thanks for the correction.

Translation: Dave caught Fred in a direct lie.

Been looted eh? Must not have been very
well hidden.

Red herring.

That's the idea. Quote some text and tell us where you got it.
Put some substance into your articles.

It's your ****ing cite, Fred, I didn't think I had to read and
explain it to you. Will you be wanting milk and cookies next?

Yes, I accuse you of word games, and in this case, an outright lie.

Could you please provide a direct quote, as opposed to one of
your typically inaccurate parphrasals, of what you consider to
be an outright lie?

Sure, your exact words he

You consistently use the plural in reference to items for
which but a single example has been found. Yet you accuse
me of 'word games'.


Do you deny that Iraq was permitted many sorts of mobile laboratory
type trailers such as are used elsewhere in the world? If not,
where
is the doublespeak?

Iraq isn't supposed to have biological warfare labs, mobile or
otherwise. Elsewhere in the world doesn't enter into it.

Non sequitor. Mobile biological labs are not all
biological WARFARE labs.

And yet, these apparently are.

For example, on the CIA webpage
I cited, there is some discussion of non-warfare related
mobile biological labs of the sort Iraq was permittted.

Of which, these are not. That's the comparison and contrast section,
Fred. Try reading that page.

You really are quite good at accusing me of doing exactly what
you do.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Precisely, though since the middle 1960's calling somone or
something 'black' ceased to be an insult.

It's not being used as a racial insult, Fred. Again you assume
wrongly. How unexpected. Fred going out of his way to get it
wrong. Imagine my surprise.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:08:07 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Dave Hinz writes:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:01:58 -0500, Renata wrote:
You mean as opposed to GBush's target of a country w/no WMD?

"no WMD" is an absolute, and is absolutely wrong. Even Fred doesn't
deny the Sarin shell that injured a couple of our guys, and says there
are 149 or 169 more of 'em unaccounted for out there.


Gimme a break.. A bunch of fruitcakes in japan made sarin. It
ain't difficult, and it proved, in the end, to be a less serious
threat than the scaremongers would have you think.

Only because they dispersed it inefficiently.

I'll bet even you have things in your garage you don't remember
that you have; how is it beyond the bounds of credibility that there
may be things tucked away in an area the size of a country that
even the leaders aren't aware of? Even shells that formerly
contained sarin?

I'm thinking that if I had something that could get me in legal trouble
(the equivalent for this analogy, I think), that (a) I'd know it, and
(b) I'd know where it was. "Gosh, Officer, I forgot that pot was in
my glove compartment" doesn't work as a defense, does it?

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:07:08 -0500, Renata wrote:
And SH was planning on putting all those shells on a boat to the US
when? Or, was it that he was planning on putting them on all those
drones he had, lying in wait to attack the USA?

If it doesn't affect us directly, it doesn't matter? Is that your point?

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 25 Feb 2005 08:43:20 -0800,
wrote:

...
And,
you miss the point of my post which is that even by your
standards of what is acceptable or not, that one sarin shell
is direct evidence that "no WMDs" is not an accurate statement.

Can you at least agree to that point,

Agreed. Can we also agree that when a person writes:
"No WMD in Iraq" that is shorthand for "No substantive
violations of the UN resolutions on Iraqi WMD."?

--

FF