Clean, Space Shuttle mission ! Liberals bummed out.....

Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Rand Simberg ) wrote:
:: On 17 Jul 2006 10:49:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
:: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
:: way as to indicate that:
:
::
:: Rand Simberg wrote:
:: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:28:09 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Bernard
:: Spilman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
:: way as to indicate that:
::
:: Indeed, making stuff up is more the current administration's specialty
:: -- such as WMD
::
:: Which, it now turns out, existed.
::
:: Then where the **** are they? If they are there, then produce them.
::
::
:: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...063001528.html
::
:: Those are old, degraded munitions from the Iran-Iraq
:: war.
:
:: They were part of what Saddam was obligated to turn in as fulfillment
:: of the UNSC resolutions. His continuing failure to do so was the
:: primary justification for his removal, per those resolutions.
:
:But they weren't WMD.

They weren't? Did they change the definition?

Nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. How much uranium did they find?
How much sarin or other chemicals did they find? A single small jar in
a scientist's refrigerator is NOT WMD.

What they found we sold them to tip some munitions back during the
Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s.


:: The stuff you keep under your sink is likely more
:: lethal now. Do you really think this motly collection of
:: long lost and misplaced, filled & unfilled leftovers from
:: a messy 20yr-old war are the same "WMD's" that Bush
:: and his people have been warning against since 2002?
:
:: No. I'm simply disputing the continuing lie that there were no WMDs
:: in Iraq.
:
:That wasn't a lie. You're a dupe.

Ok, Eric, where's your threshold for how many have to be found in
order for them to constitute WMD? Or have you just adopted a
definition which says there could NEVER be WMD, no matter what is
found?

A small amount of chemcials we supplied them doesn't constitute WMD.

Answer your own damn question! And then answer the question what we
found, and then tell me that they were trying to make WMD. You can't do
it!

Eric


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"enchomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
: :Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: :: On 17 Jul 2006 10:49:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
: :: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: :: way as to indicate that:
: :
: ::
: :: Rand Simberg wrote:
: :: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:28:09 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Bernard
: :: Spilman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: :: way as to indicate that:
: ::
: :: Indeed, making stuff up is more the current administration's specialty
: :: -- such as WMD
: ::
: :: Which, it now turns out, existed.
: ::
: :: Then where the **** are they? If they are there, then produce them.
: ::
: ::
: :: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...063001528.html
: ::
: :: Those are old, degraded munitions from the Iran-Iraq
: :: war.
: :
: :: They were part of what Saddam was obligated to turn in as fulfillment
: :: of the UNSC resolutions. His continuing failure to do so was the
: :: primary justification for his removal, per those resolutions.
: :
: :But they weren't WMD.
:
: They weren't? Did they change the definition?
:
:Nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. How much uranium did they find?
:How much sarin or other chemicals did they find? A single small jar in
:a scientist's refrigerator is NOT WMD.

But is 500 artillery rounds enough to cross your threshold? That's
how many they've found so far.

: :: The stuff you keep under your sink is likely more
: :: lethal now. Do you really think this motly collection of
: :: long lost and misplaced, filled & unfilled leftovers from
: :: a messy 20yr-old war are the same "WMD's" that Bush
: :: and his people have been warning against since 2002?
: :
: :: No. I'm simply disputing the continuing lie that there were no WMDs
: :: in Iraq.
: :
: :That wasn't a lie. You're a dupe.
:
: Ok, Eric, where's your threshold for how many have to be found in
: order for them to constitute WMD? Or have you just adopted a
: definition which says there could NEVER be WMD, no matter what is
: found?
:
:A small amount of chemcials we supplied them doesn't constitute WMD.

That's good, since that's not what we're talking about.

:Answer your own damn question!

Easy. A single chemical round constitutes, by definition, a WMD.

:And then answer the question what we
:found,

Some 500+ chemical rounds.

:and then tell me that they were trying to make WMD.

That's a different question.

:You can't do it!

As usual, you're behaving like an idiot.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"enchomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
: :Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: :: On 17 Jul 2006 10:49:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
: :: made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: :: way as to indicate that:
: :
: ::
: :: Rand Simberg wrote:
: :: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:28:09 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Bernard
: :: Spilman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: :: way as to indicate that:
: ::
: :: Indeed, making stuff up is more the current administration's specialty
: :: -- such as WMD
: ::
: :: Which, it now turns out, existed.
: ::
: :: Then where the **** are they? If they are there, then produce them.
: ::
: ::
: :: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...063001528.html
: ::
: :: Those are old, degraded munitions from the Iran-Iraq
: :: war.
: :
: :: They were part of what Saddam was obligated to turn in as fulfillment
: :: of the UNSC resolutions. His continuing failure to do so was the
: :: primary justification for his removal, per those resolutions.
: :
: :But they weren't WMD.
:
: They weren't? Did they change the definition?
:
:Nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. How much uranium did they find?
:How much sarin or other chemicals did they find? A single small jar in
:a scientist's refrigerator is NOT WMD.

But is 500 artillery rounds enough to cross your threshold? That's
how many they've found so far.

: :: The stuff you keep under your sink is likely more
: :: lethal now. Do you really think this motly collection of
: :: long lost and misplaced, filled & unfilled leftovers from
: :: a messy 20yr-old war are the same "WMD's" that Bush
: :: and his people have been warning against since 2002?
: :
: :: No. I'm simply disputing the continuing lie that there were no WMDs
: :: in Iraq.
: :
: :That wasn't a lie. You're a dupe.
:
: Ok, Eric, where's your threshold for how many have to be found in
: order for them to constitute WMD? Or have you just adopted a
: definition which says there could NEVER be WMD, no matter what is
: found?
:
:A small amount of chemcials we supplied them doesn't constitute WMD.

That's good, since that's not what we're talking about.

:Answer your own damn question!

Easy. A single chemical round constitutes, by definition, a WMD.

There is a minimum number of number of people it must be able to kill
and not just be chemical, biological or nuclear. Don't you agree? Or is
a gernade a WMD? What is the minimum number of people killed by a
single device that would make that device as a WMD? Go ahead guess,
don't be a sniveling wimp all your life...


:And then answer the question what we
:found,

Some 500+ chemical rounds.

Rounds? Like rifle rounds or artillery shells? Bigger or smaller than a
SCUD missile? The last is imporatnt because SCUDs used on Israel back
in 1991 were not considered WMD then. Are they now because it is
politically convenient? Do tell.


:and then tell me that they were trying to make WMD.

That's a different question.

No, it is another way for you pro-war types to backpeddle.


:You can't do it!

As usual, you're behaving like an idiot.

Yes, and you have a single friend in the world or even on USENET. You
even hate yourself, but I digress...

Eric


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com