What else can we expect from you but another stupid post? I am saying that those chemicals are not WMD and are not even classified as weapon. How did I admit that I was wrong? I know what you are going to say next, I am asking for proof and don't belive your LIES and that proves that I am terrorist, right?
Was it not you, that said "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?" Did you conduct a poll? Why is there not more info? I suspect because Jordan is keeping tight lipped about the situation. There's not a whole lot of information out there on the matter. But that's my personal opinion. Yet I invited anyone to correct it, because I already knew such. As such, you continue to attack it, without substance. I took known numbers, showed where I derived those numbers from, to come up with a number. And all you've done in return, is say it's wrong based on your opinion. Where is your calculation? Apparently not. Consider that it says 169,000 did not make a percentage difference. You like to renogiate, change the requirements as you go along? Up the ante when the numbers don't prove your point? Just a simple yes or no? .01% would be a yes, would it not? Since my calculation is wrong, based entirely on your opinion, one could also argue that if the government said 169,000 did not change the percentage, how does 44,550 change it to even more? Not withstanding the additional requirements you just added in. One can use their personal opinion or speculation. I speculated the numbers I put together, but they seemed logical. You've attempted to discredit them with your opinion and that's fine. I make no claim that they are valid. I simply put them together using data that was available. As to whether your opinion above is how it is calculated, I have no knowledge to credit or discredit it. But the article you posted clearly said 169,000 did not change the percentage (paraphrasing here). If 44,550 National Guard are deployed, I fail to see how that could change it either. Not by any significant amount of .0x percentage to make it a valid point.
Do you have anything to contribute to discussion, except 1 line nonsenses? For example to bring some facts to discussions to prove your opinion.
You mean like: chemicals that could kill 80,000 people in the hands of al qaida is comparable to mouthwash? I'm saying they are chemical agents and when mixed together are a wmd, that like was testified, could kill 80,000 people. 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 do not believe you are a terrorist. I just don't believe you would ever find one guilty of anything more than having mouthwash. The UN Resolution is quite clear: It must be the "and all stocks of agents" that is so troubling?
I think gworld is a troll; I don't think that he seriously believes the ridiculously silly stuff he posts. I think he's just playing around for attention.
Here is the link for definition of Chemical WMD Here is the link to Handbook for notification of exports to Iraq by U.S. Department of energy. Here is the link to all non nuclear material that was forbidden for export. Can you show where any of those chemicals are mentioned? Are you going to finally admit that you are wrong?
Wow that sucked! I spent over a half hour on research and responding to you Gtech and my computer logged me out of dp for some reason losing my entire post Same computer with the infamous deleted post which I was incorrect on, I'm thinking my notebook for some reason is not playing happy with DP as this is not the first odd instance I've had. Anyone else experience these problems and know of a possible cause/cure? If not guess I'll have to use a different puter for DP
Thank you for the kind links. Wow, you must be a speed reader to read through all the text they contain. Especially the scanned documents, where you can't just simply search for word. But (and the sweetest but of all!), the appropriate link is: http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm In which UN Security Council Resolution 687, April 3, 1991, as listed on Page 13, Section C, Para 8a states: All three chemicals are agents, and as I previously showed, are used in making chemical weapons. This is why 13 al qaida terrorists are on trial in Jordan It's the "and all stocks of agents" that is giving you the trouble, isn't it?
I've experienced weirdness with the forums, almost daily. But not logging me out. I make a post, it takes. I go back one page (click the numbered link, not the browser back button) to reference a post. I click the back button on the browser to back to the original (last) page. My new post isn't there. I click refresh, and other posts that were not there filter in, and sometimes my last post (as do others) shift over to a new page. I figure it's a cache problem, coupled with the amount of posts that are constantly made. Have to hit "refresh" in these cases, to get everything back to normal.
Gtech, What is your eduction? Did you finish high school? Did you ever study chemistry in high school? chemical agent n : an agent that produces chemical reactions source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University In order to mix water and oil to make salad dressing, you need a chemical agent. Do you mean salad dressing is WMD and Iraq was forbidden to have salad dressing? Show me in your link, where it has mentioned any of the chemicals that you stated. Do you mean by ALL CHEMICALS, that Iraq didn't have permission to have water, oil, soap,....because these are chemical products. I provided you with official US document that none of the chemicals that mentioned was on the list of forbidden products, stop your lies now, instead of making yourself even more ridiculous than you look right now.
Thanks for the info, I have those same problems which are minimal and I can deal with on my main system. My notebook however wow is not liking dp for some reason. Basically the same system as my main desktop to, same os, browser, p4 2.4 in both, etc. The deleted post which I was incorrect about I even refreshed probally 10 times or more and it never showed In fact it showed when I copy and pasted it then disappeared until I forget an hour or longer later. You're probally correct possibly a cache problem. Either way thinks it's a good enough reason to get a new notebook, much more comfy posting from anywhere then using a desktop sitting at a desk
Did saddam make salad dressing? I know Paul Newman does. You'll have to ask the UN for clarification of: All three of the chemicals in question are used in the making of chemical wmd, and a history of terrorists using them has been established. The UN says "and all stocks of agents" and these three chemicals are agents. Have we established saddam had a pattern of making salad dressing, or mouthwash? No, you provided links to a site that has hours and hours and hours of reading material, of which I'm certain you did not cover. I provided, as you asked, a link to a UN document. It clearly states, as noted above (about 4-5 times so far, but has not sunk in yet), "and all stocks of agents." No mention of salad dressing or mouthwash though
Still nobody willing to tackle on post #800 eh? Maybe you forgot about it so here it is again Where is the proof of these expansions and production of biological weapons? Where are all those stockpiles of chemical weapons (not chemicals ) and the "rebuilt" facilities making them?? Where did thousands of tons of Mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas go? And where are all the facilities that were making and storing them? And where in the hell is Saddams "fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles" that they know for sure are trying to be used to target U.S. ??? I'm guessing the "most lethal weapons ever devised" that Iraq has been confirmed to possess were Sulfuric Acid and Hydrogen Peroxide
yo-yo, I think the reason no one puts any credibility into your posts, is that you do "fly bys." A discusion takes place. Then you fly by with 10 links to (often times) uncredible sites, to prove a point. And continue your efforts with more fly bys. Set the bait, hope someone takes it. Put enough out there to confuse any issue, then claim no one takes you up on it. And when someone does, point to other fly bys that were not. Find a single point, stick to it, make it an issue and persue it. Most of what you post just above, has already been covered well. If your demand for answers is so overwhelming, perhaps you should start from post one and read through.
Actually none of it was ever covered or answered, you avoided every bit of. Explain where the facilities went? I know they weren't just picked up and taken off to syria, so don't use that excuse this time Explain where thousands of tons MUSTARD GAS, SARIN GAS and VX Nerve gas went? Are you saying we lost every drop of it to looters?? How about the facilities being used to make these weapons ... where are they? What about saddam's "fleet" of unmanned aircraft that were capable of dispersing biological/chemical weapons? And proof that these non existant aircraft were trying to target the U.S. ?? And how about 1 mention of the "most lethal weapons ever devised"??? Don't try to say my source isn't credible, my source is George Bush's mouth. And I gave you a date for every single quote. Now stop avoiding the facts... or keep avoiding them and making excuses
Reading comprehension? Yes, they were covered. Not necessarily to your post, but in this topic they have been covered. What did I just say? Pick an issue and persue it. The offer is still open. Not pick three issues, not pick 10 issues, not fly by issues. Pick one yo-yo. Pick one that really bugs you, and let's go at it! Keeping in mind, that I'm dealing with hrbl and gworld at the same time. I'd say ferret as well, but his posts are just fly bys as well.
This is my 2nd post a bit shorter than the first, but hope it still gets to the point. It is also w/o the many links I had in it, if I need to I will research it again, thank god my sat's actually working today! lol Reguardless if you believe this one experts one statement it still does not prove 100% it was VX. It's like stating an expert in law enforcement hears of a small caliber killing and is asked on the news what he thinks it would be, he answers it sounds like it's a .22 caliber from the facts as he knows it, this however does not make it a fact that without a doubt it is a .22 caliber round that committed the murder. This is my point, it is not 100% proof, he did not test it, nor did he even inspect it, he states VX is the only nerve agent I believe that could be mixed safely in the field. Before you attack me saying this is not a direct quote, no it is not but it goes to the point that it is not 100% proven, nor has it been proven at all to be VX. Provide some proof to it being VX, or at least state in your arguments one expert has reported it could be VX and I'll back off. Continually use one expert with no first hand knowledge to state it was VX and I will call you on it every time as it has not been proven to be VX. No this was my opinion, and a generalized statement. If other experts agreed with this assesment I'm sure they'd be on the news stating such, I however see no other so called experts claiming this and it is a possibility that other experts disagree with the fndings, or that there is not enough info given to them to even make an educated guess to side or disprove your expert. Not giving a calculation, the governments own page disputes your calculations. I never stated it would make a huge difference, again I asked A simple yes or no was all I was asking for, even if it is slight it can still be taken into account. Nope not at all, you're the one who decided to take a simple yes or no question into a debate and then post calculations that are totally incorrect. I would also assume troops in Iraq = Iraq war = support within the US and support within Iraq itself. I'll try to be more specific as I know leaving one 'is' or 'of' out you love to have a field day with. I'm sorry but I honestly believed Troops in Iraq anyone could see what other jobs go along with that, not just the national guardsman in Iraq. Afterall sending troops into one country does not simply take those reservists actually in Iraq out of their jobs, it also takes and gives all their support personal as well, this is automatic. Ok then it is a yes, but your calculation is wrong and proven within the link I gave it has nothing to do with my opinion. Again not using speculation or opinion at all, the link proves your calculations incorrect on how unemployment is determined. I would also think it automatic to assume troops in iraq would include any and all support and jobs created from such. Thank you for the 'yes' that's all I was asking.
Gtech I will agree with you on much of what you state on this however if you look into the facts of which I have already pasted a link and quote many of these items were to be sealed and or inspected which is where the phrase You can not then automatically determine that anything fitting a dual use, or possible use in WMD could not be in Iraq. These items were the items either stripped down, made inoperable under UN inspection, or sealed and inventory taken. If Iraq could not have these items, then why did the UN or even the United States demand these sealed items be destroyed? I hope you do understand that some of these items were legally allowed to be in Iraq do you not? Again this one is not meant to be a debate just to clarify your position, I'd rather know your full position than attack you on it