They do? Then you'll be providing a source that says the US Government, the UN and International Treaties say that chemicals, including (but not limited to): Nitroglycerin, Sulfuric Acid, Hydrogen and others (VX Nerve Agent), when mixed together and could kill 80,000 people are not a chemical wmd? Why would you dismiss a wmd expert? Is it because you don't want to believe what he says? What is your agenda here, gworld? Who are you trying to protect? Here's a hint: Typing in large font with mixed red doesn't make you correct
Have you found any proof as of yet that it was actually VX? You continue to bring it up within your posts on this subject, yet there still is no proof on it.
Identify how many National Guard troops are in Iraq: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...ars_since_911_strain_national_guards_efforts/ 1/3 of 135,000 = 44,550 (33%) US Population: 297,320,425 Current Number of Unemployed based on 4.9% = 14,568,701 Add number of National Guard to the Number of Unemployed = 14,613,251 14,613,251 / 297,320,425 = 4.91% Unless my math is incorrect (please correct if wrong), the difference is approximately: .01% Assuming the number of National Guard are reasonably correct and the Census numbers posted on their website are correct, and the rate (at the time of this posting) is still 4.9%, then .01% is the difference with the National Guard added in, assuming that the 4.9% is not taking National Guard into account. 5.6 percent was the number Clinton reached, which democrats hailed as a huge success. With, or without National Guard factored in, we are looking at 4.9 % or 4.91% (most would round down anyway).
Proof is subjective and different people have different requirements. For some, no amount of proof would ever prove a point, because they do not want to accept something. For example, if I go to google news, right now there are articles that there were bombings in Bali. I have not seen the bombings myself, but I'm fairly certain they happened. I have no reason to discount what is being reported. The person quoted in one of the articles said there was VX. I have no reason to discount that information. I supposed if I were anti-Bush, anti-war and could not come to grips with the fact that there were wmd, I would probably dismiss it as mouthwash or something. But I'm not, and I've seen nothing that says it wasn't. Proof works both ways. Prove it was, prove it wasn't. I guess it depends on which side of the coin you are on.
UN Security Council Resolution 687, April 3, 1991 http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm Hydrogen Peroxide - An agent Sulfuric Acid - An agent http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts117.html Nitroglycerin - An agent http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchiv...tinian+use+of+ambulances+and+medical+mate.htm In summary, all chemical agents and all related subsystems and components were banned in UN Security Council Resolution 687, April 3, 1991, as listed on Page 13, Section C, Para 8a.
I said it's UP 16% HIGHER than when BUSH STARTED. Not that unemployment was at 16% ... learn how to read
According to this (http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastrk00.htm) the unemployment rate for 2000 was 4.0 ... now its 4.9.... why don't you do the math on what percentage increase that is... or better yet, how many more people are jobless
He did not say or have proof that you could take with any merit that it was VX. The supposed expert that never had any first hand knowledge of it claimed the following The articles also start with Until the lab reports come back and are published I'm sorry there is no proof and you are only continuing to state an unsubstantiated fact by one so called expert who is only quoted on right wing publications. Where are the US experts, CIA, UN or anyone else stating or even inferring it's VX? Without any other source or proof your claim of VX is simply hogwash. Show me the proof and I'm on your side, until then this simply does not hold any water at all. Until you show the proof I will continue to challenge the merits of this accusation simply for the reason I can not stand unsubstantiated attacks such as this, especially when it means the difference of possibly showing Iraq giving WMD to terrorists. This is not to support terrorists simply to stop others from being misinformed which with your postings is exactly what you are doing. This would be correct if that's how unemployment was calculated, however it is not. I am no expert on this maybe someone else reading the thread can post more info or find sources. However after reading reports from the page http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm Including news reports I've watched I know for a fact the unemployment rate is not simply a percent of current enemployed workers, but in fact new unemployed as after what is it 12 months those enemployed are bumped off the list. They also do not take the population as a whole, but the current work force which would be much lower than you total population figure. Not to mention those guardsman who may also be in active duty still in the US who still need their jobs replaced. I am not arguing that Bush has a huge unemployment rate, simply that to call his rate so much lower than Clintons without taking this into consideration is incorrect as it does account for some of the employment. War is great for the economy, it creates jobs, however that is a temporary artificial jump and I hope nobody is prowar for simply job creation.
Yet the dual-purpose did not need to be destroyed and could legally reside in Iraq under inspection. There were many of these items that instead of destroying were inspected and or under seal. http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Semiannual/srep95-284.htm
Page 13, Section C 8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related thereto; The text means ALL CHEMICAL WEAPONS, it doesn't mean ALL CHEMICALS as you highlight in the text and draw your conclusions about danger of chemicals. That UN resolution uses this statement: Recalling that Iraq has susbscribed to the final declaration adopted by all states participating in the conference of states perties to the 1925 Geneva protocla and other interested parties, held in paris from 7 to 11 January 1989 establishing the objective of universal elimination oc chemical and biological weapons. UNSCR 687 I know you don't understand very much about science but most chemicals are "agents", even water is an agent. That is the reason chemical weapons are defined. Show me one place that those chemicals are classified as WEAPONS. your quotes shows that these chemicals are dangerous and I totally agree but it doesn't say that these are classified as weapons. I mentioned before and you refuse to answer, Gasoline is explosive and dangerous, does it make it a WMD? It is interesting that the same link that you provide to prove sulfuric acid is an "agent" states: Import/Export Import/export data for the 1990s indicate that the United States imports more sulfuric acid and fumingsulfuric acid (oleum) than it exports. During 1990-1994, U.S. imports of sulfuric acid and fuming sulfuricacid in million metric tons were 1.7, 1.8,2,2.4, and 2.1 in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994, respectively(NTDB 1996). Import data for 1995 were not available. During 1991-1995, U.S. exports of sulfuric acidand fuming sulfuric acid in metric tons were 147,470, 139,790, 144,865, 136,874, and 170,201 in 1991,1992,1993,1994, and 1995, respectively (NTDB 1996).4.3 USESulfur trioxide is primarily used as an intermediate in the production of sulfuric acid. It is also used forsulfonation in the formation of additional compounds with amines and in the manufacture of explosives(Budavari 1989). Sulfur trioxide can also be used in the sulfonation of organic compounds (especially nonionicdetergents), as a component of solar energy collectors, and as a powerful but indiscriminate oxidizingagent (HSDB 1998).In the United States, the main use of sulfuric acid is in phosphate fertilizer production where it used toconvert phosphate rock to phosphoric acid (IARC 1992). Sulfuric acid is consumed in the production offertilizer, while in many other uses the sulfuric acid can be recovered and reused. Sulfuric acid is also used inthe manufacture of explosives, dyestuffs, other acids, parchment paper, glue, purification of petroleum, andthe pickling of metals (Budavari 1989; IARC 1992). It is also used in electroplating baths, nonferrous SULFUR TRIOXIDE AND SULFURIC ACID 1304. PRODUCTION, IMPORT/EXPORT, USE, AND DISPOSALmetallurgy, in the production of rayon and film, as a laboratory reagent and etchant, and in storage batteries(HSDB 1998). Sulfuric acid is also a general purpose food additive (HSDB 1998). Do you mean USA IMPORTS AND EXPORTS WMD and also adds it to food? If your WMD is so dangerous then why there is so many factories producing it and these factories are listed in DMOZ? If you believe everything that your expert says, do you believe also that Bush family has Nazi links. Bin laden is or was a CIA agent. The person responsible for London bombing is a MI6 agent. These are all statements from same expert or only believe when he thinks something exist?
When other experts decide to say it is, or isn't VX, we'll have something new Until then, you are desperately trying to discredit something that you just don't have the information to discredit. But just expert enough to say "this would be correct if that's how unemployment was calculated, however it is not?" You posted this link for a reason? So 169,000 makes little change at 4.9%, but 44,550 *somehow* changes the number, but you are no expert and need others to find more sources to back this personal opinion up? How does that work? Some people just don't want to accept.
Hahaha! Thanks gworld, I appreciate your admission you were wrong! Now you change your "demands" to "show me one place that those chemicals are classified as weapons." Always demanding, aren't you? "but, but, but, I want proofs!" Thanks, that's the best thing you could have done to send me the message! In summary, all chemical agents and all related subsystems and components were banned in UN Security Council Resolution 687, April 3, 1991, as listed on Page 13, Section C, Para 8a.
No it couldn't be that the majority of experts give this guy no credibility and do not even bother to disprove it, this can't be? Even his own statements if you put 100% stock into it does not prove it's VX! How can you possibly not understand this, is your mind so set in one direction you simply can not admit that it does not prove it's VX? Hmm I'm no expert but I know my 6 year old which is apart of the total US population is not factored into the unemployment rate, but is indeed factored into the US census when it is done. You chose to post one quote from the link, lets see a few others from the link include. Of which you chose Is it just me or are your numbers off? Guess you can't use the total US population in your figures afterall. Wow what is that, states directly people unemployed but not included in the percent as they were bumped off the list. Again however I was not arguing the point, simply wanted to see if you could at least agree some of the employment is a direct result of the war, of which instead of simply saying yes possibly to a small degree you attempted to try to claim .01% without any meaningful calculation. No I am not an expert in this as I realy don't follow this info, I'm sure others on here follow it more than I do. However not even following this info it took me less than 5 minutes to totally show your post is off base and not factual for your calculations.
You did a poll on the majority of experts? More opinion? Never said he/she was. In fact, I simply took known numbers to try and present an idea. I also noted, that the calculation or numbers could be wrong. I also asked to be corrected. It would have been more helpful to correct with a calculation (or example) rather than speculation and opinion. Think of how effective that would be! But just expert enough to say I'm wrong? And just expert enough to know that if 169,000 people do not make a percentage difference in the unemployment rate, some how, auto-magically, 44,550 do? How does that work? I don't claim my calcs are correct. In fact, I invited anyone to correct them. Where is your calculation? Opinion? Looks like it.
So instead of debating the merit, you decide again to twist and attack. If the guy is so credible then why aren't their any other posts or info instead of his one random comment which still does not prove it is VX. Take what he said with 100% certainty it still does not prove it, no way no how. Show me the proof and again I'm on your side, stop the attacks I'm someone who is actually stating show me proof and I will agree with you 100% until then there is no logical way you can make the jump to it is VX with 100% certainty. No but it obviously showed you had no clue on how it's calculated at all. Nope the government link I provided proved that point, I myself did not. Well lets add on the private security in Iraq including those such as Haliburton and others which would increase that number to a degree. Also add in support troops activated or training in the US, or supporting in a different country that normally would not be. Not to mention the vast amount of employees added to factories which include building up armoured humvees, flack jackets, ammunition, etc. No I have no exact details on the number here but I'm sure it's a figure much higher than your 44,550 figure. Again was not meant to be a debate, a simple yes or no it does account for some of the numbers or it does not. The unemployment percent rate is a great guage of the overall economy. However where I feel personally it lacks is nocking those still unemployed for a long period of time completely off the list. Such as if in 2001 10 million people lost their jobs, 2 million of those people obtained a job and another 1 million lost their jobs in this time the unemployment rate I believe would be 8 million not even accounted for because of the time frame, 2 million of those who obtained a job however would be accounted for back into the workforce, the new 1 million would be taken away and the other 8 million left with nothing and not even accounted for. This part yes is my opinion, with just random numbers, but I believe is how it is calculated or is it not?
hrblcantra Read the other thread about terrorism, Gtech believes that asking for proof is indication that you are a terrorist. According to him, anybody that asks for proof is a terrorist and the proof for this is that the person asked for proof. Look at his response to my post, I ask him to show one source that classifies those chemicals as weapon and he draws conclusion that I am changing my stance while I am saying that NOT ONLY THOSE CHEMICALS ARE NOT WMD BUT THOSE ARE NOT EVEN CLASSIFIED AS WEAPON. He only makes stories and lies and avoids answering any question that directly proves he is wrong.
gworld please PM Shawn to change your user ID to dworld to abbreviate the la la land you're living in