10/31 \_ More important question: why was it under seal and not
destroyed in 1995 when they found it? And why did the
"sealed" building have air vents noted in the IAEA report that
make it clear the building wasn't really sealed? WTF is up
with sealing stuff instead of just destroying it? How can
you excuse *that* away?
\_ ninjas with WMDs!
\_ You brainless TWAT. Under seal means "We've locked it up, and
everything is accounted for, so if you try to use any of it,
we'll know." Guess what? They didn't use it. It sat there
until last april, when we overthrew the regime and left it
unguarded. Even if it arguably _should_ have been destroyed
in '95 (which you're wrong about. The seals are from '91 or
earlier), it still doesn't excuse NOT GUARDING IT NOW.
you're a fucking TOOL.
\_ Guess what? What the Iraqis said was there doesn't jive
\_ jibe
I like jive, thanks. _/
It's slang, so I can
use either one.
\_ Oh to be young and ignorant
again. Jive isn't slang
here it's the wrong damn
word. I guess it's hella
cool to be an ignorate
dope. Have a hella rockin
day, dude!
with the more recent IAEA surveys from just before the war.
I'm sure you (and John below) feel really smart tossing around
\_ If I'd wanted your opinion, I'd have beaten
it out of you. You miserable, arrogant,
holier-than-thou, preachy cretin, I swear,
people like you REALLY piss me off. I
was commenting on the word choice of the
guy's comment, not his goddamm content.
Get a clue and learn to read you fucking
brainless crotch-rotten litle worm. Now
that you mention it, though, your original
point does display a pretty horrifying
degree of ignorance and misunderstanding
of what "seal" means. And as for typing
2x as much, I'm still waiting for some
FUCKING CONTENT. -John
personal insult but you don't have the facts on your side.
Sorry about that. In 1995 the IAEA was told about this stuff
by inspectors who begged them to destroy it and they chose
not to. Approximately April 13th, our troops on the ground
found it and destroyed some portion of it and moved on. The
big pink elephant is this was an on-the-ground military
snafu. Shit happens in war. They 400,000 tons and might
have lost a few hundred tons here and there. You think
nuclear components were safe in Saddam's hands but wait, there
weren't any. You're all over the place son. Drop the random
insults, get some facts and try again. Weird how I managed
to type 2x as much as you without using childish insults.
You get an "A" for effort on the attempted intimidation, but
that just doesn't fly anywhere but the wall.
\_ It's not an "on-the-ground snafu". It's a "we had no plan
to pursue this war snafu". HMX _is_ a dual-use nuclear
component. There have been no reports of troops "destroy-
ing some portion of it" that I've seen. Give us a source.
How much of the 400k tons of munitions were high-grade
explosives?
\_ Ok we agree on something. HMX is a dual use nuclear
component. Why was it under pseudo-seal instead of
destroyed? What exactly is the point of tagging stuff
anyway? So that once sanctions end, Hussein could more
easily restart his WMD programs? Or because the UN or
whatever .org believes that after enough years of
sanctions Hussein will have learned his lesson and not
use the dual-use stuff for the WMD use? What's the
purpose in tagging and sort of checking it every few
months instead of just destroying it since they're not
supposed to be touching it anyway. And if they did
break the seals and move all or some of it, then what?
We would know they did and then what? We'd send a nasty
letter asking them not to do it too many more times or
else we'll send more nasty letters?
\_ I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this. Are you saying
the missing munitions from Al Qaqaa were destroyed be
American troops? -!pp&&!op
\_ I'm saying we now know the guys on the ground searched
the facility and at least some materials at the facility
were removed and destroyed. Since it was a war and not
a bean counter's convention no one can ever tell you
they know exactly what happened or when to the stuff
that was there. If the IAEA reports can be trusted and
I don't think they can (since we know Hussein was
bribing everyone else on the planet, why not
inspectors?) then we know the material was there in
November of 2002. In January, we are lead to believe
from IAEA reports that only 3 tons of one material type
were left which means roughly 135 tons was moved. In
April, American troops showed up and destroyed ~250 tons
of material from that base but exactly which material
is not known. In May, the facility was reported
stripped, most likely by the population living in nearby
towns. Anything else is pure speculation. This is the
point where my friend calls me a twat and a few other
things to make a counter point.
\_ Whoever wrote this is pure oratory genius. Seriously. It's
a bit rough around the edges, but the potential is definitely
there. I strongly suggest you try to find some of Mark
Latham's choicer insults online. -John
\_ Not really, it's just silly. He almost had a few
intelligent points but ruined it with frothing hatred and
childishly spewed bile.
\_ My point. Rough around the edges. For some reason,
parliamentary systems seem to breed more polished,
amusing frothing to go with the bile :-) -John |
http://csua.com/feed/