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

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