Hey why worry? They found the trailers of mass destruction, right?

Why look any further, if that is enough?

Because theirs more to found. Isn't that enough? Who wants those things sitting around? Also if we can find them, people aren't going to stumble into them and use them against us.

Actually, its probably more likely so they can shut up people like you who wont stop bitching about it.

The worst possibility is that most of the weapons Sodom either had or was working on managed to find their way into the hands of other malignant peoples. That I fear is a real threat in the future.

Syria would be the first place I would keep an eye on.

Any of you folks ever bother to ask some questions about those "trailers of mass destruction?"

Look at the "as found" pictures shown widely on the news media. Do they look operational in any specific way? We are discussing trailers that were, "as found," for all the world sitting in a junk pile, rusting slowly away.

Since they were "found" the US military has let No One Else near them at all. And, strangely enough, the two photos released of them After they had been entirely under military control for about a month showed them in Far Better Condition than the "as found" pictures from earlier.

What can it all mean, d'ya suppose?

In their "as found" condition, they couldn't manufacture any sort of Actual Weapon. Indeed, the US military has said several times that it would require additional resources to weaponize anything these alleged Mobile Germ Labs could produce.

Thus far, the further resources also have not been found.

Meanwhile, it is interesting to see how the worm has turned, and now we hear US sources mouthing the phrase "We must give the inspectors More Time."

If it weren't so serious, it'd be funny!

There is one pretty certain signal that there's less here than meets the eye, however. Powell has now been whining that The Media Are Making This All Up. As a general rule, when that whine goes public, the spokesdroids are grasping for straws.

Still -- total number of WMDs found in Iraq since the war: None.

And here everyone was So Damned Certain there were tons of them just all over the place only a few months ago. Just No Doubt About It At All. Remember?

You never get enough do you? How many times do you have to have your ass handed to you before you get the point Don?

I could sit here pointint out the gaps in your logic all night, but it would be pointless. So I wont waste my breath on someone who wont listen.

Read over the various other strings about the mobile labs, read all their is to it, stop frothing at the mouth and get the picture. Doesn't matter if they were used for WMD, the fact is that they weren't supposed to have them becasue they COULD be used for WMD. The possession of them was prohibited, they had them. That is enough to start a war over.

Good Night.

Don, do you think you would ever be interested in starting your own blog? I think you'd be great. I have really enjoyed reading all your comments and hope you advertise your URL here so we can find you. You could even have a group blog with Pass the Gas and Anthony. Just think how great it would be.

Just a thought.

Is this an anonymous invitation to leave an anonymous forum? LOL

Don

All western governments have been agreed for years that Saddam had WMDs - including France, Russia and Germany. After all they watched him use chemical weapons on the Kurds. But I guess you know more than the combined intelligence agencies of the western democracies, right ?

Maybe you should just grow up.

DON, trollery and Interested Passerby,

Do you have even half a brain, Don? You had a perfect opportunity to go toe to toe with 'experts', right here: http://www.command-post.org/archives/007311.html

You chose to stay completely away from that post. Why is that Don? Can you answer that one? Don't forget to sweep up your hangin' chad on the way out the door, and look out for Pass! He may be tappin' your little fanny for some of what he's run out of as well.

Don, spreading his joy, said, "Any of you folks ever bother to ask some questions about those "trailers of mass destruction?"

Are you refering to the mobile labs??

Happy Don said, "Look at the "as found" pictures shown widely on the news media. Do they look operational in any specific way? We are discussing trailers that were, "as found," for all the world sitting in a junk pile, rusting slowly away."

I suppose they are all that's left. The rest either hidden or destroyed.

Positive attitude Don says, "Since they were "found" the US military has let No One Else near them at all. And, strangely enough, the two photos released of them After they had been entirely under military control for about a month showed them in Far Better Condition than the "as found" pictures from earlier."

Just like any crime scene, you don't let monkeys crawl all over it. I real sure that they sent them to the detail shop for the 'photo shoot'.

Cheerful Don said, "What can it all mean, d'ya suppose?"

That you still are a liberal, Bush hating, little pig monkey, that appears to be unable to read reports from Hans Blix himself.

Don the little monkey, said, "In their "as found" condition, they couldn't manufacture any sort of Actual Weapon. Indeed, the US military has said several times that it would require additional resources to weaponize anything these alleged Mobile Germ Labs could produce."

So what is your point, besides the one on your head? If I get pulled over and I have 1 ton of plastic explosives in my
trunk, but I don't have an activator.......am I still in trouble????

One of the 3 wise men, Don, said, "Thus far, the further resources also have not been found."

So what? By the way, how is Sodom? Are you guys still friends.

Don, the respected govt official, said, "Meanwhile, it is interesting to see how the worm has turned, and now we hear US sources mouthing the phrase "We must give the inspectors More Time."

The only worms here are Dandonpassthegashustonturnip, and a couple of other names he uses. Maybe you might want to listen to the 'mouthing'. Why do you devote so much time to bad mouthing the Bush administration? Are your real initials, Al Gore??

Don said, "If it weren't so serious, it'd be funny!"

The only thing funny is you liberal Bush haters. So mad you can't say anything intelligent.

Don, with talent on loan from Mohammed, said, "There is one pretty certain signal that there's less here than meets the eye, however. Powell has now been whining that The Media Are Making This All Up. As a general rule, when that whine goes public, the spokesdroids are grasping for straws."

I must have missed that interview. Colin Powell says, like anyone with at least 25% brain capacity knows, WMD existed in Iraq. Hans Blix only had 30% capacity and he KNOWS Iraq had WMD, and lots of it. Unfortunately, when you give someone with billions of dollars at their desposal ,12 years to hide something, it's probably more realistic to say, "You not going to find it".
This is tragic, but realistic. We'll find them when they are used on us.

Don, the sharpest tool in the shed, said, "Still -- total number of WMDs found in Iraq since the war: None."

Is that all you can say? See my last paragraph.

Don, the great professor of liberal thinking, said, "And here everyone was So Damned Certain there were tons of them just all over the place only a few months ago. Just No Doubt About It At All. Remember?"

Yeah, we remember. Nothing has changed, except where is 'all over the place'? I hope you are affected , when and if, they are used against us. Although, something makes me think that you are a '18 to 35 year old middle eastern muslim boy whose only mission in life is to try to undermine the United States and hinder any one that tries to do positive things in the middle east'.

You remind me of a Saudi that used to rant on Andrew and Sasha's Roundtable. No common sense and definitely on a mission.

Ali....I mean 'Don'........This contains some of Blix's report and will just take a second to read. Please read it and respond. (a self inflicted gun shot wound to the head would be considered an acceptable response)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26671-2003Jun6.html

:Q

Don can't read and understand that, it makes too much sense. It undermines his whole purpose of living. You might be right with that self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head. It may be his only way out of the extremely deep hole he's dug himself.

No, he'll just change his name again. One of these days he'll change it and come out sayin', "Hey, I
was with you guys all along. How about them fruitcake, anti-Bush som beeches??"

That wouldn't be any fun, We need someone to pick on for entertainment on these rainy days when I'm stuck in the office.

Jeff B - We'll keep our eyes peeled for 'BUMMER'....LMAO

Gotta go to work...later.

Anthony: No, I was serious. I think you guys would do a great job. You keep getting beaten up here when you are only espousing your beliefs. I just think that you should have the right to say what you believe without being held up for ridicule.

Oh, by the way, the reason I post anonymously is because of all the viruses and scans that acquire legit e-mails by just scanning various sites on the net. Anytime your e-mail is posted anywhere, you are a target for spam or worse. But, I am sure you knew that, because you know everything.

I have given up understanding why people continue to even respond to Don (or whatever name he chooses to use.) I have been disappointed to see a huge amount of flaming on this site, much more than before; when I started coming to this site. Unfortunately, this just encourages people like Don to post and DIScourages intelligent liberals like Eve and another fellow, Al W. (I think, maybe it was Al D.) Think about it, guys.

To me this post's primary issue comes down to what you choose to believe. There are those that say that the evidence so far that we have seen is, at best, circumstantial. They are, in some part, correct. (Although the idea that those tractor trailers that were found were for balloons is probably the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time) We haven't seen what we expected to see, which was more weapons than we have found so far. It's okay, I admit it. That admission, however, doesn't mean that because none have been found, that there are not, or never were any. And even more importantly, it in no way undermines the justness of what we did. (One look at the faces of those who were tortured by Saddam took care of that)

To me, you either believe that we're safer now, that there will be more stability because of this, or you don't. I think there will be. We have unprecedented influence in the area now, including upon Iran, which I suspect was partially the main goal, anyway (Where is militant Islam's headquarters, anyway?)

And for all the people screaming that Bush and Co were lying all along, isn't that what you always said? You have people like Robert Byrd screaming that we were "betrayed" and "misled" The assumption, of course, being that Americans would not have supported this action if we had known that there were no WMD. However, that assumption is a much more dangerous one. Are you REALLY going to believe that a man like Saddam Hussein isn't capable of their use? Wasn't actively trying to deceive the international community? That the world isn't safer without him in a position of power?

Come on.

No one would be angrier than I would if I were deliberately lied to. However, the issue isn't liberation, or torture camps, or even WMDs, primarily. The issue was, and is, American security. I feel that a person very dangerous to our security has been removed, and it has put other people dangerous to American security on notice that we won't be threatened. That cannot be anything but good.

I happen to choose to believe that the proof will be found, sooner or later. But I, for one, never needed it. This action has exposed the UN for what it really is, given us greater security in the long run, disarmed saddam Hussein, and given a future to the Iraqi people.

As I said, you either beleive that or you don't. You people jumping and screaming now are hypocrites, because nothing that anyone said before the war would have convinced you to go to war. Nothing. I defy anyone to tell me that if their son or daughter behaved the way the Iraqi regime did (about drugs instead of WMD), that there wouldn't be suspicion and thus preemptive action. You would have acted, because you knew it was in the best interests of the people involved.

And so did we. Let freedom ring.

Bravo johnnymozart. I, personally, have no doubt that when the WMD's are found, all the nay sayers will insist that the US planted them. Whatever. Crawl back under the rocks you came from and save us your ranting. God Bless America, our troops, and Mr. Bush.

I don't understand why the lefties are determined to think the best of Saddam and his thugs and the worst of Pres. Bush and Colin Powell. For me, the most important thing was to destroy Iraq's capability to make chem and bio weapons i.e. get rid of Saddam because a psychotic despot is unlikely to have a change of heart.

My own theory is that Saddam either shipped his mobile labs and whatever supplies he needed to remake his stocks to a neighboring country i.e. Syria and is hiding out in the hopes that he can regain power and continue his megalomanic pursuits. He's always been a survivor. There are some reports from Israeli intel that Saddam had stuff buried in the Bakaa valley in Syria-controlled Lebanon. Plus one more question, I believe there were 18 or so mobile weapons labs but we've found only 2. Where are the others? What about the mobile labs on railcars? I wonder why lefties are more worried about discreting Pres. Bush than figuring out what happened to all the WMD.

It's pretty scary to think about all this stuff that could possibly be accessible to terrorists, especially considering that Syria and Lebanon are hotbeds of terrorist groups. Hamas and Hezbollah have already declared their intentions to attack Americans. They've done it in the past so what's to stop them from coming here to do it. MW, Don, and PtG, it seems you are all blind to the reality that Muslim terrorists want nothing more than to destroy the West and Israel. Your complacency is disturbing.

Thanks, Theresa, I agree with you. But I don't want anyone to miss the point. All we needed, ALL...we needed was evidence that Saddam Hussein didn't comply with either the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, any of the preceding SIXTEEN resolutions, or with the current one, 1441. That evidence was abundant.

My main worry is that the naysayers are going to hamstring efforts to bring other players in this game into line (like Iran, NK, Syria) Because I have yet to see an argument that states that there was not sufficient reason for going to war . Oh sure, I think we should question where the WMDs are; what the CIA knew, what the intelligence was; whether some of it was fabricated, etc etc.

But when it becomes necessary to go to war with NK, (and it will) we don't need anyone using Iraq as an example of why we shouldn't, when it is in fact a perfect example of why we should.

johnnymozart:
// No one would be angrier than I would if I were deliberately lied to. //

If it turns out that we were lied to by the CIA, OSP, DIA, the Pentagon, or maybe even the President himself, what do you think the ramifications should be?

Should we buried it since we are more 'secure?'
Should there be prosecution?

Iagofest - I agree with you that we can no longer stick our heads in the sand and believe that the world is nice and people are good. we need to defend ourselves.

but terrorism, iraq, afghanistan, islam, al qaeda, osama, saddam, israel, nuclear weapons, arab, morocco, the middle east, 911, muslims are all distinct ideas and should not be conflated.

So I don't think blind to the reality that Muslim terrorists want nothing more than to destroy the West and Israel has much to do with our discussion of mobile labs. . .

Iagofest said, It's pretty scary to think about all this stuff that could possibly be accessible to terrorists, especially considering that Syria and Lebanon are hotbeds of terrorist groups. Hamas and Hezbollah have already declared their intentions to attack Americans. They've done it in the past so what's to stop them from coming here to do it. MW, Don, and PtG, it seems you are all blind to the reality that Muslim terrorists want nothing more than to destroy the West and Israel. Your complacency is disturbing.

" ALL...we needed was evidence that Saddam Hussein didn't comply with either the terms of the 1991 ceasefire"

I agree this makes the war "legal" (although there is something perverse about arguing the legality of the war based on un resolutions if you do not think it was necessary to have un approval)

however, these were NOT the arguments or evidence used to get the american people to rally behind our president - and that's what disturbs me.

the main issue was not if saddam had respected un resolutions (he spent 12 years circumventing them, and we spent 12 years not really caring) but whether or not he posed an imminent threat.

we were told by the white house and the dod over and over again that there was an imminent threat, that us national security was in danger, and the pointed to evidence of WMDs and a nuclear program.

there are other justifications for this war that are valid. however, we need to address the veracity of the facts we were told - not the arguments we can devise to justify action that may not have been sufficiently or truthfully explained to the american people.

Nooooo, Madaleine, nooooo!!!! Don't go there!!!!! Come back!!!!! They're not really your friends!!!! Noooooo!!!!

Anthony,
I will go on record saying that if this administration set out to deceive the American public in order to go to war, then there should be severe consequences for that. (Impeachment, possibly, but I won't speculate there) But you see, I don't believe that that was true, mostly because there was no need to deceive. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, even without the WMD, the justification was there. And the majority of the American public knew it.

And the conclusion so many people seems to be jumping to is that if they're not found, then its because we were deceived. So I ask you, why does someone with the record of Saddam Hussein get the benefit of the doubt? Because that's the assumption. That Saddam Hussein is the wronged party. A victim, if you will, of a deceitful, dishonest militant American administration. I will agree that there should be an investigation if none are found. I think HONEST inquiry into the workings of our governments works out for everyone. But acting with the assumption that we were deceived, instead of questioning other possibilities (destroyed, hidden, or worse, transferred to another country) and using it as a political club for your own agenda does a disservice to all Americans.

Pass - Calm down. Madaleine does not post here very often (I could be wrong), but she might get the wrong impression from your last exposé. It seems like this might be a cold call...

Pet, it's just that DonDanPtGMadaleine is so long, I don't want you nazis getting writer's cramp.

Madaleine,
I didn't realize you were responding to me until after I wrote Anthony.

Again, you make excellent points, but I maintain that you are operating under a false assumption. You have seen a lack of WMD. So have I. We, however, draw different conclusions from this. I think there are, and were, WMD, enough to indeed, be an imminent threat. (And what is an imminent threat, anyway? Define it. How reliably does your intelligence have to be before you are concerned?)

The President, never, to my knowledge, led us to believe that Iraq was bursting at the gills (as robert Byrd put it) with WMD. What he did say was that he had them. And wasn't supposed to. I believe that. He further said that he wasn't disarming. And was supposed to. I believe that, too. And most of all, he stated that the fact that he had them, especially when he wasn't supposed to, made him a threat to the US. Simple enough, so I don't see why it is so easy for people to give SH the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks for the response.

Pass - Now, Now, Now - Let's not make any RASH ASSumptions here.

And the other thing is that terms of the 1991 ceasefire applies to American foreign policy, not UN policy. WE, not the UN, agreed to stop shooting with the understanding that Iraq was going to accomplish a certain number of things. They didn't. In fact, they went out of their way to NOT do those things, in essence, justifying, ON THEIR OWN, a decision to go to war. Thus, that was all we needed.

johnnymozart:

The question that still confuses me (if US action was taken b/c Saddam Hussein was not respecting US/UN conditions) is "Why now?" and not in 3 years ago or 2 years from now?

There are many arguments that could be used. I agree with you totally; the issue should have been resolved long ago. Not even with Clinton, but with Bush I. However, the why not 2 years from now is most likely due to 9/11. Saddam Hussein himself is quoted in the London Arab News in 1993 (somebody check me) as saying that his biggest mistake before attacking Kuwait was not waiting until he had nuclear weapons.

He could not be allowed that time to develop them, even if the information was limited. Even though he and Osama are different, their goals were the same: to strike at us; directly or through a proxy. In addition, we wanted to be able to squeeze the head of terrorism snake: Iran (that last is merely my opinion) Iran is now going to have a democracy on either side, with 80% of their inherent population under 30, and a significant portion of them pro-US. Hopefully we'll see some side benefits to this.

i'm also interested to see what is going to happen in iran. it seemed that esp. in 1999 the youth there was pro-west and out publicly demonstrating for reform. the gov. cracked down and i think there were a few deaths as a result. but people were willing to be brave.

do you think us action has had a positive or negative effect on the sentiments of these same youth? do you like anti-us demonstrations in response to bush policy signals a change in their attitudes toward reform/the west?

Important.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030608-111144-1219r.htm

Better link. Still important.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030608-111144-1219r.htm

johnnymozart:

I'm not sure why you believe that Saddam Hussein is being given the benefit of the doubt. I certainly don't believe that Saddam was 'the wronged party.' Certainly one can argue that Saddam was the victim of his own miscalculations.

I curious to know who do you believe is giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt?

From the people that I know there, the response to our action was pretty polarized. It was either angry and concerned (usually the official government) or it was "why are they stopping in Iraq? Why don't they liberate us, too?" I think the latter is actually the majority in Iran, because they know that if we attack the whole place will fall like a house of cards. The army isn't going to fight. They're unhappy as well. Those mullahs are hanging by a thread.

However, as to your other question, I didn't really understand the last part of it. I think the US should tread carefully. I'm all for US security, but we're not Rome. We could be, of course. We have the military and financial power to turn a large share of this planet into a parking lot. The fact that we haven't says a lot about our character. We must set the example, and that is why it is all the more important for our reputation to be impeccable (ie keeping our word, not being arms dealer for the world, etc) I actually think the burgeoning democracy in Iraq (once things settle) will be the biggest influence. The Iraqis could potentially be the richest, most educated people on the face of the Arab world. (Sure, Saudia Arabia has more oil, but Iraq could potentially administrate its economy better)

I am always suspicious of demonstrations; here and abroad. Millions of people were in New York and Los Angeles to demonstarte the war, but they were in the minority by every poll I saw (you have to be suspicious of polls, too) So when I see anti-us demonstrations in Iran when I know how people there long for the freedom we take for granted, I tend to be a skeptic.

Johnnymozart, I was kind of hoping you'd answer Anthony's questions: why do you think Saddam was given the benefit of the doubt, and who do you believe is giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt?

We have had some black-and-white thinkers on this blog, who seemed to think that if you opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq you must somehow support Saddam... you're not one of those, are you?

Well Anthony,
If you assume that the administration is lying, then you assume that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth when he claimed to be disarming, or have already disarmed. (because, if you'll recall, that's what he claimed, in multiple sources-even to Dan Rather-remember) If you claim one was lying, you imply the other was telling the truth. That's the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe this debate, and the many others like it on this site, show that I'm being too simplistic but I had the impression that the American public were by and large happy to accept that whatever ('bureaucratic') reasons had been given before the war, the actual motiviation was that Saddam was a Very Bad Man who would, given half a chance, be a serious threat to the US. The argument was mostly based on self-defence but included a moral element, which subsequent grim discoveries would appear to have vindicated.

Now, after a quick and easy war, and even if the aftermath is a little messy, my perception remains that Americans in general think an unalloyed good has been done in removing Saddam from power, if not the planet. The only people who are still making a fuss about what was said before the war are a handful of unpatriotic liberals, who could therefore be dismissed as irrelevant on two counts.

Over here (UK) the current lack of banned weapons is a big deal, though, because it was on weapons and weapons alone that we were sold this war. This being primarily to avoid accusations of unilateralism - never a smart position for a small country to adopt - and illegality, as well as deflecting awkward questions as to which unpleasant dictatorship we were planning on invading next and whether we were just doing what Washington told us to do. It is obvious that Mr Blair had his people put the scariest spin possible on the intelligence information he had to try and get public support but I think it's also clear that he genuinely believed the threat from banned weapons was real, and so felt justified in doing so. Given all that was known about Saddam and his history with chemical weapons, it seemed a safe bet that they would be quickly found once Iraq was under Coalition control. They haven't shown up yet, and they might not ever (with the best will in the world those two trucks don't add up to a reason for war, IMHO).

The problem is that Mr Blair cannot simply shrug this off by saying 'look, we did a good thing' because that gets him back into the arguments he worked hard to avoid in the run-up to war, that is, that we acted as aggressors because we disliked the leadership of a particular nation. Nor can his critics be dismissed as a small number of treacherous, irrelevant anti-Bush lefties. Blair is himself a liberal in most senses, and although the left are far from happy over the war, he's also taking a beating from the right-wing opposition and their mighty supporters in the press, who strongly supported the war but think they have finally found an issue on which they can hurt Blair and turn his fabled skills at presentation and spin against him.

johnnymozart:
Who assumed that the administration is lying and who is giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt?

Do you mean the media, democrats, liberals?

Anthony,
What I am saying is that I have seen a number of people on this VERY blog, state that because there were no weapons of mass destruction found yet, then there never really were any, and in fact, that the administration, unintentionally or intentionally (and most I've heard, including 3 congressmen from my district, have suggested intentionally) misrepresented the threat or amount of Saddam Hussein's WMD in order (for whatever reason-oil,influence,revenge, Halliburton--take your pick) to go to war, thereby squandering precious American lives and treaure and Iraqi children blah blah blah, when there was, in fact, no threat after all.

I don't want to pigeonhole anyone, but those 3 congressmen happen to be liberal democrats, and indeed, the people that I have read on this blog claiming the above seem to lean that way as well.

JM - show me where anybody said there never were any. On this blog, or anywhere...

(I'll check in later)

I could be mistaken, but I have read on several occasions where Don made that exact claim and then said that we were changing our story because of it. (I could be wrong, but I don't have time right now to page through every thread)

And if nobody made that claim (which I sincerely doubt), what is the point of bringing up the fact that none have been found yet?

Now, as to the other claim I made? Dennis Kucinich made that one on C-span just last night. Robert Byrd implied the same thing 4 days earlier in the senate chambers -on national news--that somehow we had had the wool pulled over our eyes by the Bush Administration. I heard him on the radio. (Forgive me for not having a link)

johnnymozart:

I cannot speak for others on this blog, and certainly some contributors have strong feeling that they were lied to, so much so that it seems that they have already made up their minds. I also see similiar passions and sentiment in the reverse.

Except for in the simpliest sense, I think you logic is flawed. Consider that saying the administration lied is not necessarily the equivalent of Saddam was telling the truth.

It is possible for instance to argue that both the adminstration and Saddam lied. The adminstration may have lied when it said that it knew Saddam definitely had WMDs and where they were, when in fact they had a strong circumstantial case, but no conclusive proof. Saddam at the same time may have lied when he claimed that Iraq had abandoned their WMDs program.

I'm not suggesting that these are the facts, only that there are many possible scenarios beyond the one that you have suggested.

Hell, just do a google groups search on some of the more vocal anti-war(conservative/Bush/its really anti-american isn't it?) email addresses here and it looks like some of these guys make a living running around to stir up whatever they can wherever their views are least appreciated. Don doesn't have time for a blog of his own!

RF, I guess PTG didn't read the breaking news link...... Pity, Cause now I'll kick his ass some more.

I've tried to get PtG to read stuff, but, he is blind in his own twisted beliefs. sort of like muslims are.

He has stated that we should only use our uniforms to fight armies in uniform.
He fails to see, Islam wears no uniform.
They don't play by geneva convention rules.
It's a cult spawned by the devils son, Mohammad,
his guide is the koran, which states, "any means necessary to defeat the infidel". This means lies, deception, anything you can imagine, as long as it's for the good of islam.

What a dumb fuck Ptg is, or, he's a muslim.

Did he read that article? he did. It just didn't agree with his line of thought, so he chooses to ignore it.

Go ahead PtG, keep showing us the pure stupidity, lies, etc. that the muslim world relies on to lead the sheep to destruction.

you dumb fuck
woodtick
dick cheese
smega breath.

shall I go on?
all things fit you

Whoa!!!! Easy, Tex!!!! THAT won'tl get people on your side!!

what do you want me to do, Johnny, convert him to christianity?
It's clear he has no ambition for world peace, just world destruction.
Idiots deserve to be treated like idiots.
You can't explain anything to an idiot.
Lord knows we've been trying for what, 2 months now since I came to this blog?

Bubba - And a fine addtion you've been... :-)

Anthony,

I must disagree with you. My logic is only flawed if people do not have the black and white feelings that you describe. But don't miss the point. First of all, the administration did not make the claim that you describe. (If you can show me a legitimate link that proves me CONSISTENTLY wrong, please do so.) What they did was make the ASSUMPTION that they were there based on the history of Saddam Hussein, his behavior, and by what the UN had documented. They then made Saddam Hussein either produce the weapons or produce clear evidence that had been, as he claimed, destroyed. He did neither, which was used as justification for war.

Your point was that they may have only had a circumstantial case, my point was that that was all they needed; it was up to Saddam Hussein to DISprove this assumption. So if people believe that the administration lied, they do so, by your argument, under a false belief: that the administration knew they were there and knew where they were. I only recall Bush administration officials saying 1)There is enough evidence to suspect that there are 2)there are thousands of tons accounted for by UN observers that Saddam Hussein cannot account for and 3)There is enough suspicion that wmd are there that failure to produce evidence of them or their destruction is justification for war.

But there again is my point. If you assume that the administration lied, you assume knowledge that those weapons were in fact, never there. You have to in order to make that assumption. But none of us know where they are, or indeed, if they were ever there. So no one should assume that they lied just because of their absence.

As I said, you either believe it, or you don't. Because I have no idea where they were, or where they are, or whether they were ever there, and given SH's history, I choose to give the benefit of the doubt to the Americans and their intelligence network.

well said johnny, and that only addresses the WMD issue, justification on the crimes against humanity was enough for me, 10 years ago, and any time any day thereafter, till now.
In fact, there is more death to stop all over the north african front, all at the hands of Islam.

True enough, Bubba.

I have heard a lot of complaining about a backlash against muslims since 9/11, but something on the order of 85,000 Christians died last year (because they were Christians) and 85% of them were at the hands of Muslims.

Source: voiceofthemartyrs.com

Unfortunately, I don't see how the US can possibly stop it all; we need help. Maybe the US should start its own caucus of democracies. Something to replace the wretched joke that Amnesty International and the UN Committee on Human rights has become.

I'm sorry that I can't answer all of your points at this time. Here are some of President Bush's statements several days prior to congress authorizing war. The speech has a number of definitive references.

"And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991."

"Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

"After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Thats just it. The UN is over run by Islam and dictators.It's become useless. They just won't do anything.
Interesting is all of a sudden the UN is doing something about the congo. 1,400 troops? LOL
good luck. What worries me is there are some Canadian troops too. I smell a massacure of UN troops right away. What really bugs me is Canada is NATO, so why did Cretien give troops to a french led UN group, and nothing to the NATO coalition in Iraq.
worries me.
I spent 23 years in the armed forces reserves, never once did I put a UN patch on, always nato.

Thank goodness I'm retiring from it, but my son is regular army, so, it worries me. good thing he doesn't speak french either, or he might be there

Bubba, you might not want to try to tackle this, it's a little tricky. The "lie" was in saying they were certain of something that they weren't certain of at all. I can say anything with a tone of conviction, even if I'm guessing, like, "this coin will come up heads." And if it does come up heads, does that mean I was telling the truth? If it comes up tails, was I lying?

Both answers are "no."

If I said, "I am completely certain this coin is going to come up heads" -- would I be lying: yes.

And if I said, we have to go over there and kill those guys, because this coin is going to be heads, and we kill those guys and it does come up heads, does that mean I was telling the truth? If it comes up tails, was I lying?

The fact is, Bush & co. didn't know what we would find there, and they convinced the whole world to trust them, insisting that they did know.

So, it doesn't matter if we find WMD or not. The fact is, when you have "surveillance photos," you gotta know where the stuff is. They convinced us all, and now they don't have a clue about where to look.

So your point is what, pass the gas?

JM, the point is that it is silly to say that someone who thinks Bush & co. are lying necessarily believes that Saddam was telling the truth.

They were guessing. We went to war over a guess. They told us they knew.

Anthony,

Good references, but you draw the wrong conclusions from them. Let me comment on them individually. I won't recopy what you've printed.

1. True; they were. they weren't supposed to. And if they did use those facilities to make weapons (we don't know if they did) that is a violation of the truce.

2. Whether they did or did not support terror is arguable at best. Probably did. Al-ansar-islam would probably say they did. And even if they didn't, there's the safe haven you were talking about.

3. Again, if there was any evidence that there was, the benefit of the doubt goes to the US. I'd rather think he has them and be mistaken, then think he doesn't and be vaporized.

4. There was thousands of tons of stuff that he couldn't account for. So again I ask, who gets the benefit of the doubt?

Now, Anthony, I don't claim to know what your opinion is on this, but on what basis could an argument be made, based on what you've given me that there was misrepresentation? People should not confuse being mistaken with intentionally misleading. (if they were mistaken, that is--we don't know) They had a certain group of facts. They drew the only conclusions that could be drawn.

Pass the Gas, you are killing me with this. Please read the afternoon thread carefully. I believe that it was answered adequately in what I've already said.

Of course it was a guess. It couldn't have been otherwise. They had, as I said in the post above, a certain amount of intelligence. They drew the only conclusion that could be drawn from them.(if you're thinking about US security) If you want to believe that we were lied to or that there wasn't adequate justification, or that the administration took too much of a risk, go ahead. I prefer to believe that what was done was just, and done for our (the American people's) benefit.

As I said, people believe what they want to believe.

If as you say, Saddam wasn't telling the truth, then where was the truth in this? And also, if you think that Saddam wasn't telling the truth, how is it possible to make the assumption that someone who claimed the opposite of what he was telling us(Bush administration) is being less than honest.

If Saddam was lying about disarming, then what is the big deal about not having found evidence of WMD?

And by the way, how do you know it was a guess? By just making that statement, you are creating a certain assumption. A lot can change in a month of war. Sure things weren't found where we thought they were, but so what? It doesn't matter. The point is, made adequately by albeit above, was that the wmd were by themselves never the sole justification for war. So you either make assumptions based on your belief that our actions were right, or you make assumptions based on the belief that our actions were wrong.

I choose, again, to give the benefit of the doubt to the Americans.

PtG:
You said:

The "lie" was in saying they were certain of something that they weren't certain of at all."

The definition of "lie" is the opposite of something you know to be true.

If you know something that you believe, and all evidence you know points to this, it is not a lie.

Look up LIE in the dictonary please.

tossing a coin and calling heads or tails is called a "gamble"

So, your arguement is flawed, PTG, because you base it on a definition of "lie" that doesn't exist

to put it simply, PTG
you cannot LIE about something you believe to be true

JM, as an American, I expect to participate in my government "of the people." Going to war is a big deal. If we are threatened by a foreign country, then I say, let's get over there and stop them. If my government says, "trust us, we know they're a threat to us but we can't show you the evidence," then I am a little leery, but if it turns out well, then, ok, we do have spies and secret stuff.

But in this case they said "trust us, we know they're a threat to us," but, first, it turned out they weren't, they could barely defend their own little country, and second, Bush/Powell/Cheney et al. don't seem to have "known" at all.

Of course Saddam says he doesn't have WMD, what else could he say? Truth or lie, what does it matter? As an American I am concerned with America's behavior. If he had 'em and we knew, then alakazaam the war is justified. If he didn't have 'em and we knew, then we wouldn't have gone to war.

But if we just didn't know, there should have been no war.

I can't figure out how to make it any clearer than that.

The "big deal" is that our guys didn't even know where to look! They didn't know shit! This war wasn't about WMD, threats to the US, or links to al Qaeda, at all. That's the big deal. Even if they find something after all this time, it is clear they didn't know diddly when they were telling us they had concrete, certain information.

JM, as an American, I expect to participate in my government "of the people." Going to war is a big deal. If we are threatened by a foreign country, then I say, let's get over there and stop them. If my government says, "trust us, we know they're a threat to us but we can't show you the evidence," then I am a little leery, but if it turns out well, then, ok, we do have spies and secret stuff.

But in this case they said "trust us, we know they're a threat to us," but, first, it turned out they weren't, they could barely defend their own little country, and second, Bush/Powell/Cheney et al. don't seem to have "known" at all.

Of course Saddam says he doesn't have WMD, what else could he say? Truth or lie, what does it matter? As an American I am concerned with America's behavior. If he had 'em and we knew, then alakazaam the war is justified. If he didn't have 'em and we knew, then we wouldn't have gone to war.

But if we just didn't know, there should have been no war.

I can't figure out how to make it any clearer than that.

The "big deal" is that our guys didn't even know where to look! They didn't know shit! This war wasn't about WMD, threats to the US, or links to al Qaeda, at all. That's the big deal. Even if they find something after all this time, it is clear they didn't know diddly when they were telling us they had concrete, certain information.

You, PTG are a contortionist, you try twist fact, and truth, honesty into something it is not, to serve your own purpose.
You are the LIAR, because you can see fact, but try turn it into something untrue. like those "balloon" trailers.

Hmm, Bubba, thanks for that. Tell me, what is supposed to be "my own purpose?"

Good question, what is your purpose? Why do you exist?
What is the meaning of your life?

I know what my purpose is, but I really don't think you have one.

You have no morals, no values, no faith, you exist only for your own selfish self.
You have no respect for life at all.
you show this in all your posts.

So that is your own purpose, isn't it.

And, don't blame me for saying it. You said it all along.
I just offered you my conclusion of what your own purpose is.

and that is, yourself.

That's profound, Bubba. You don't understand me, and that means there's something wrong with me. You can't figure out what I mean, so you make personal attacks.

johnnymozart:

Hate to keep you hanging. I will try to response to your post tommorrow.

my mind is wide open, but yours isn't.

Unlike you, I look at both sides. I use common sense and logic to determine what is truthfull.
You, on the otherhand refuse to see it. No matter what facts are given, you insist on your conclusion.

as far as personal attacks go, look at your posts. what goes around comes around, and I'm not obove tossing a good slap in when it's needed, in fact, I enjoy insulting idiots like you, I get pleasure from it. Complete morons like you need a reality check, if it wasn't for people like me giving you a glimpse of reality, you'd continue along the path of stupidity, So, in fact, I'm not insulting you, I'm offering you guidance.

"PTG, you might not want to try to tackle this, it's a little tricky"

there ya go, I just switched the bubba for PTG

I've gone easy on you, asshole. Yeah, you're all logic and common sense...

Quote:
"you dumb fuck
woodtick
dick cheese
smega breath.

shall I go on?
all things fit you"

Somehow I think we're talking on different levels.

I'll even go further, Ptg;
You should be GRATEFUL that people like me, Dave, gabriel even take the time to try point you towards the light.

You should be worshiping at my feet.

"you dumb fuck
woodtick
dick cheese
smega breath.

Thats what you are, think of what you can be once you see the light of intelligence, you could become
Smart
rational
thoughtful
giving
caring

But noooo! you want to be

"you dumb fuck
woodtick
dick cheese
smega breath.

:o)

Pass - Why is it when you cornered and are asked to come up with a REASONABLE argument, do you start accusing others of namecalling?
Why is it that you cannot offer even one constructive idea to further the idea of rebuilding Iraq?
Why is it that someone else is hateful and immoral?
Why is it that everyone, from the top down, is incompetent?
Why is it, when information is offered up as credible to the argument, do you find it incredible?
Curious, Pass.
Saturday afternoon I offered my take on what is and is not the root cause of this 'war'. You immediately called me names. I offered it in more than one fashion, so you dropped the one, and hung on the other. I offered more proof of my assertions, and it became no longer an argument about something which to my mind was a credible argument, and you become incredulous. Notwithstanding, you never admitted that you had made a mischaracterization of me. This (and I mean THIS) has boiled down to a sludge of what I see as a case of argument for the sake of argument. I'm pleased that I can defend myself and my views with others (for example, Anthony), who can at least argue to the issue. You play hurt when someone flames you, but can't stand it when the flamethrower is turned on you. You are one strange piece of work, my friend.

LOL!
But, he was amusing me this rainy day.....

Now, he's going to say something like
"ha! your so smart when you friend dave dubay is around"
Sort of like he says to you dave, when I'm not around, "where's Bubba now to help you out?"
you know, those things he says that he accuses me of in his post above.

OBTW - Pass, I'm not going to get all lathered up over your argumentation techniques. You seem to be the way you are for the long haul. HOWEVER, if you'd take a looksee at this one:

http://www.command-post.org/gwot/archives/007457.html

You will find I'm pretty much spot-on. I've 'invited' you to begin a discourse on that one, and you haven't taken the bait. Maybe this will give you some incentive. I'd LIKE very much to discuss the religious/political implications of the allowing religion to play any part in an Iraqi government. I really would. ESPECIALLY after you thought I had some grandiose scheme to 'convert' all of those Muslims.

I don't want to convert muslims, they aren't "muslims" anyway without the koran.
Muslim isn't a race or breed of people.

I support banning the koran, and getting rid of that evil blood cult.
It has nothing to do with religion, as it's not a religion at all.

Bubba,
Ever cooked one o' dem piiggies in a pit? I fancy myself to be a pigpitter. Yummy. I eat A LOT of CA bacon, too! ;-)

Should be piggies and CAN.

I sho 'nuf do!

I make big BBQ specifically for roasting pigs.

a good 4 month old pig barely fits in a 45 gal drum sized bbq.

party sized pig roast, LoL

what you do is cut a 45 gal steel drum in half, weld hinges on it, stick in the bottom half (after you drill a bunch of holes in it to let the fat drip out)

2 sets of 80,000 btu sized burner elements for propane, weld in a metal rack toss in a bunch of lava rock, then bolt on a heavy duty rotisserie, and hook up your tanks a regulator, and 5 hours later, you got some great pig. nothin better than that.

OK, deja vu, seeya later.

I disagree with you. You want it both ways, PTG. You assume that Iraq, and thus Saddam Hussein, were not a threat. "They could barely defend their own little country" I believe you said. If they are not a threat, then they could not have had WMD. That is the assumption you are making. If they didn't we went to war under false pretenses, isn't that right?

But it is you, not I, whom has said that Bush and Co made absolute statements about WMD. Not only you, but Anthony too (notice his use of the word "definitive" in his second to last post. ) Well, Saddam Hussein made the same absolute claim--just the opposite. If you don't believe me, you need to go back to Iraqi rhetoric 101. So if two people are making diametrically opposed absolute claims and they are BOTH talking about the SAME thing, if one of them is LYING, then the other HAS to be telling the truth. It DOESN'T MATTER which one. There is NO way to circumvent this, no matter how much you would like to.

But..it doesn't...matter.

I prefer to think of it this way. Bush and co had a certain amount of information. This administration drew the conclusion (not an absolute--again I don't think anyone ever said that there was 100% incontrovertible proof. And even if they did, and we haven't found any, then SH was NECESSARILY telling the truth) that the risks of not going to war outweighed the risks of going to war. I happen to agree with them. So if they are guilty of anything, it would be of fabricating evidence to convince people that it was ok to come to that conclusion. But as i said MULTIPLE times before, there was no NEED for that kind of fabrication, because we already had the justification to go to war. So I disagree with your assessment that if we didn't know, there shouldn't have been a war. It's like cancer. Nobody KNOWS 100% they have cancer until the surgeon goes in and cuts it out. But there are plenty of ways to gather evidence SUGGESTING that it is prior to surgery. And remember, the risk of making the wrong assumption could potentially be devastating. The same thing happened here, I think, which is why I think its wrong to assume that the administration willfully misrepresented itself. I would like to believe that the worst thing that they are guilty of is being mistaken, although I don't think they were. Some people may disagree, you among them. Fine. I still maintain that given the information available (intelligence-unfabricated see above, SH's behavior, 16 resolutions) the risks were too high to assume that SH was in fact playing by the rules and the risks of going to war outweighed the risks of not going to war.

I, like you, am also concerned about American behavior, which you may note in one of my responses to Madaleine, and more remotely to Al D. I, too am leery of just being told to accept information without evidence, but in this case given the other variables involved I think the call made wasa the correct one, and thus, I will give them the benefit of the doubt if wmd are not found right away, but as I've stated, its not that you need to make it any clearer, its just that I completely and profoundly disagree with your assessment of the whole thing and the conclusions you draw from them. I've read some of your other posts in other threads. You clearly are an intelligent person.

I can't figure out how to make it any clearer than that.

PS thanks Anthony, I'll try to keep up with it tomorrow, although I'm so behind just from today i may never recover. :)

I left out alot of details Dave, but I think you get the picture. You've prolly seen other giant pig roaster bbq's before.
My youngest son makes them in the shop for "school money" sells them for 500$

Eve's responses to some earlier arguments:

PtG: I like your heads/tails analogy. It frames this whole debate in a very clear way (And yes, I think he made his point). You made it simple, and if no one gets it at this point, then it is doubtful they ever will.

johnny mozart: " give the benefit of the doubt to the Americans."

why? (and no, the converse is NOT giving the benefit of the doubt to the Iraqis)

Bubba: "I support banning the koran, and getting rid of that evil blood cult. It has nothing to do with religion, as it's not a religion at all."

Bigotry much? This is the most perplexing argument offered by christians today when Christianity has just as much blood on its hands. . .

Bubba: "my mind is wide open"

Ha. . .haha. . .hahahahahahahahahaha

Hypothetical world:

President Bubba says: "We have irrefutable proof Saddam Hussein is building weapons of mass destruction and reinstituting a nuclear program and will have nuclear weapons in the not-so-distant future."

President Hussein: "We have no WMD or nuclear program."

johnnymozart - why is it you don't think it is possible that these can both be lies??

Eve, show me your argument
Crusades were not all about the church
most of them weren't even pope approved, those that were, were for the recapture of the holy lands.
many of those 'crusades" killed christians as well.
I suggest you study "crusades a bit more, and learn all about what the word means, and refrain from automatically associating them with christianity

Don is the only one that actually has read the evidence & came to a sane conclusion. There are no WMD. I am not saying that 20 years ago there wasn't some, but none now.

Don is the only one that actually has read the evidence & came to a sane conclusion. There are no WMD. I am not saying that 20 years ago there wasn't some, but none now.

Eve, in fact, it's very naive of you to even say christian crusades,
What do you call the muslim crusades? They sliced and slaughtered the whole mid east, into Europe, and Africa.

Oh, I guess you wouldn't call them crusades, would you.
what about the 1200 years of attack against india by those "peaceful muslims"
I guess the 80 million indians killed just don't matter, do they.
The fact is, Islam is the biggest killer on the planet
They have no claim to land.
Mohammad didn't exist till 632 ad
there was no such thing as a muslim before then.
read your history.
Islam is a cult, a following. It is spread by blood
99% of all wars, christian crusades or otherwise, are the cause of Islam.

read a book

Don is the only one that actually has read the evidence & came to a sane conclusion. There are no WMD. I am not saying that 20 years ago there wasn't some, but none now.

Don is the only one that actually has read the evidence & came to a sane conclusion. There are no WMD. I am not saying that 20 years ago there wasn't some, but none now.

Johnny

Whether or not YOU think it was necessary to fabricate information, consider the following:

1) Many, many people in the CIA have been extremely disturbed by what they call pressure from the white house and manipulation of government to find proof to support white house statements (as opposed to examining information and drawing conclusions)

2) I have spoken to people involved with the Agency who have told me there is absolutely no proof or proof of the nature the President and others have described.

3) The U.S. went before the United Nations with a document about urnanium shipments to iraq from niger that was so blantantly and ridiculously forged that i question whether the us was actually serious about wanting to seek un approval. regardless, why present falsified documents?

for all these reasons i have doubts about what is really going on. they are doubts i cannot confirm, and i am certain more will become clear over the coming months.

so if the justification was there with or without proof and with or without UN approval, just what the hell was the administration doing?

my theory? there exists a different set of criteria for determining what is defensible and what will be popular.

eve, you singled out two percent of what i said and effectively ignored the other 98%. Even the two percent you pointed out, you misrepresented.

I said that I choose to give the Americans the benefit of the doubt. (emphasis on I) Why? Because I not only believe that our government is superior to that of Saddam Hussein, but further that I believe that Saddam Hussein was capable of everything the administration claimed, given his history.

As for the second thing, I have neither the time nor the inclination to rehash the entire afternoon, but it is clear that you have missed my point.

"Don is the only one that actually has read the evidence & came to a sane conclusion. There are no WMD. I am not saying that 20 years ago there wasn't some, but none now.

Posted by sophia at June 9, 2003 07:20 PM

LMAO
uncontrolable laughter here.

Is it idiot break at the idiot factory?
LMAO

Dave Dubé, Jeff B, Wolf and friends - would it actually matter to you guys if there were no chem or bio weapons? If the White House was to admit that they'd got it entirely wrong for whatever reason, would all the other stuff that's been brought about by the campaign - a huge demonstration of US military ability, the ending of a brutal regime, a loud wake-up call to all and any who would oppose or seek to threaten, however implausibly, the Homeland - make up for it?

Okay, already, Sophia! I'll bite. What evidence has Don read and come to a SANE conclusion? As of yet, the only conclusion Don has come to is that we're ALL wrong (and right at the same time), and he's not. Did you keep up with that logic? I didn't. That's what Don has for a problem, Sophia. He reads stuff, and comes to sane (but illogical) conclusions. Pass the Gas on the other hand, is not in the same park as Don, and uses the same argumentation techniques.

I suppose eve, and sophia, that the KNOWN masses of chemical and bio toxins that saddam ADMITTED he had, and then later he could or would not account for, in blixes own words, mean nothing to you.
It was not 20 years ago either, it was in 2002

what a bunch of lame brain duche bags you 2 are.

Or, maybe it's just don praising himself.

Islam is a cult, Bubba is correct in all ways,

maybe you should study

Ok, eve, this will have to be my last post. You bring up legitimate concerns. I think that there are people in the Bush administration who fancy us as the next Rome. I don't they are the majority, but I agree that this is concerning.

However, given all we know, JUST from the UN alone. There were grounds for war. Saddam Hussein throwing out the inspectors? Grounds for war. Not letting us into a building on Oct 3rd 1991?
Grounds for war. (Yes I made that date up, on purpose, to make a point) Not to mention the THOUSANDS of TONS of weapons and weapons materials documented by the UN that just ....disappeared.

The point is the justification already existed so there was no need to make things up. Yeah, we presented a horrifically fabricated document about nuclear material and supplies moving through Niger...given to us by the French. Maybe purposefully, maybe not. Why would we? We didn't need to. And the revelation that we intentionally tried to deceive the body we're trying to convince would only undermine an already solid position. The argument doesn't hold water. It doesn't make sense to me. Who knows? I do not disagree with you that fabrication is bad, but I find it hard to understand with everything we know about Saddam Hussein, why it is difficult to believe that he was a threat, even an imminent one, to the American public.

Bubba - maybe you should listen more carefully. You are making the mistake (again) of conflating Eve and "all liberals I have ever been cursed to know in my life."

In short, did i ever use the word "crusade?"

Bubba: "Crusades were not all about the church
most of them weren't even pope approved, those that were, were for the recapture of the holy lands."

Crusades: No. It wasn't about religion - at least for most. It was about land, wealth, and power. But Christianity was its guise. And all of the men that went to fight were, of course, Christians. I am not saying Christianity was the cause of the crusades. I am saying that Christianity was perverted to justify actions that were really about power. And I am sure that the serfs and the squires that followed their masters into battle believed they were doing it for God.

1. the crusades
2. the inquisition
3. the salem witch trial
4. subjugation of native americans in the u.s.
5. slavery in the u.s.
6. colonialism & christian missionaries in africa

This is a no way exaustive list of events in history where christians perverted Christianity to defend acts that would be otherwise morally reprehensible. they often did so by claiming the victims of their actions were somehow inferior or evil. They called them heathen, heretic, or infidel.

Sound familiar?

All I am saying is many muslims have perverted Islam to defend acts that are morally reprehensible.

Both Christianity and Islam are stained with blood. This does not mean that they are inherently evil, cultish religions.

Bubba: "I support banning the koran, and getting rid of that evil blood cult. It has nothing to do with religion, as it's not a religion at all."

Bubba: "my mind is wide open"

johnny

don't you think you are sidestepping my arguments just a little bit?

just b/c you don't think it was necessary equivocate, manipulate information, or to fabricate evidence doesn't change the fact that they did.

Hi all,

I called the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).

I don't understand why the NOAA link I gave you was not enough to convince you that hydrogen is used in weather balloons. In my opinion, they are the authority since they do this everyday at 92 different sites in the country.

I called becasue I wanted to speak to an expert instead of rely on a webpage. I hope puts the issue (Hydrogen vs. Helium) to rest.

The individual I spoke to was an EXPERT. He's been launching weather balloons daily for the past
15 years.

He said "Most of the weather balloons that are put up in the country are filled with HYDROGEN. Helium is used a little where by regulations they are not allowed to." He said it take 8-10 minutes to fill the balloon.

First of all eve,
a Christian never kills in the name of god.
have you ever studied the koran?

I have, intensely.

the bin ladens aren't 'extremists, they are following the koran to the letter

Mohammad wasn't a prophet, he was a murdering greedy, child molesting narcissist rapist.

It's a terrorist manual, simple as that. the blood of the enemy is the offering to "allah" the blood god.

It is satans bible.

There is no "good" in the koran at all, but by all means, show me it if you can.
I challange you to show me the good in the koran.

Further, if you look up the "vow" those crusaders took, it was to the king, not god
the "cross" they wore as a patch on their shoulder, predates christianity, it was a symbol of a warrior

He said "Most of the weather balloons that are put up in the country are filled with HYDROGEN. Helium is used a little where by regulations they are not allowed to use HYDROGEN." He said it take 8-10 minutes to fill the balloon.

i don't know if you guys have noticed, but bubba likes to say, "show me. show me." and "where's your argument." while never presenting any real arguments of his own.

I don't think "Mohammad wasn't a prophet, he was a murdering greedy, child molesting narcissist rapist" qualifies as a point from which to start a real debate.

So instead, I'll put the burden on you. Make rational statements. Provide evidence. Give me arguments in place of rhetoric and hate speech, and then I will invest the time.

ring ring!

you got hydrogen and helium mixed up, Anthony,
they aren't allowed to you HYDROGEN because of the danger, helium has no danger of blowing up, dumb dumb
I phoned the weather office last night as well

Lastly, you completed avoided everything I said in my other post. My argument was not about whether or not Islam is inherently easier to radicalize.

My argument was simply, "Both Christianity and Islam are stained with blood." - do you at least agree with that statement bubba? (because that's all i was trying to say)

with ease EVE, crawl into your Koran and dispute it.
And this is just a light touch, there is tons more.

Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q; 2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (Q; 9:123), slay them (Q; 9:5), fight with them, (Q; 8:65 ). It tells its followes to humiliate the Christians and the Jews and impose on them a penalty tax (Q; 9:29). It takes away the freedom of belief from all humanity and tells clearly that no other religion except Islam is acceptable (Q;3:85) and relegates those who disbelieve in it to hell (Q;5:10), calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (Q;9:28) and orders the Muslims to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (Q;2:193). Quran states that the non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water (Q;14:17). It asks the Muslims to slay or crucify or cut the hands and the feet of the unbelievers, and expel them from the land with disgrace and stresses that “they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter” (Q;5:34). It says that for the disbelievers "garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods” (Q;22:19). Quran prohibits Muslims to befriend their own brothers and fathers if they are non-believers (Q;9:23), (Q;3:28). It asks the Muslims to “strive against the unbelievers with great endeavor (Q;25:52) and be stern with them because they belong to hell (Q;66:9). The holy Prophet demanded his followers to “strike off the heads of the disbelievers”; then after making a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” for ransom (Q;47:4).

As for the women the book of Allah says that they are inferior to men and if found disobedient their husbands have the right to scourge them (Q;4:34). But their punishment for disobeying their husbands does not end there, because after they die they will go to hell (Q;66:10). Quran emphasizes the superiority of men by confirming that men have an advantage over the women (Q;2:228). It not only denies the women's equal right to their inheritance (Q;4:11-12), it also regards them as imbeciles and decrees that their witness is not admissible in the court of law (Q;2:282). This means that a woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness. Muhammad allowed the Muslims to marry up to four wives (although he himself had a score of them) and gave them license to enjoy their "right-hand possessions" (women captured in wars) as many as they can capture or afford to buy (Q;4:3), even if she's married before being captured,(Q;4:24).

The man who called himself the holy Prophet and a "mercy of God for all beings" did just that. Javiryah, Rayhanah and Safiyah were beautiful young girls captured when he raided the tribes of Banu a1-Mustaliq , Qurayza and Nadir. The prophet slaughtered their husbands, fathers and loved ones and slept with them in the same day he captured them.

stop talking about the crusades. i'm not talking about just the crusades. you are missing the point. i'm talking about people who cause bad things to happen and use religion to justify it.

Now EVE, show me the good stuff in the koran, I fullfilled my end

I NEVER ARGUED ANYTHING ABOUT ISLAM. I DO NOT KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT THE KORAN. MY ARGUMENT WAS NOT ABOUT ISLAM. I WAS TRYING TO SAY THAT BOTH RELIGIONS HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS AND THAT MUSLIMS DO NOT HAVE THE MONOPOLOY ON USING RELIGION TO DEFEND VIOLENT ACTS. THAT IS ALL I WAS TRYING TO SAY

so i do not understand the relevance of all these other posts. could you please respond to my actual argument??

Or, do you want me to post all the koran stuff about how a muslim who kills himself blowing up infidels, jews christians etc. gets 72 virgins, 12 faggy boys, rivers of honey and wine, all these wonderfull things in Mohammed heaven

or the earth is flat stuff, the moon is a lite by allahs candale
the sun sets in a muddy pond, mohammed split the moon, Allah pulled up the east and west sides of the earth so Mohammed could see both ends (kinda suggests the earth is not only flat, but square too)

tell me what you want.
I don't have to prove that muslims kill for that, we all know they do
on and on I can go

ugh. can't you read?

i'm not talking about islam. i was just challenging your assertion that islam is an "evil blood cult" when christianity has had a similar history.

Bubba:
I am not a dumb dumb.
Bubba you make lots of statement that are way off. And then you ask other people to go look it up. Just like you did with the US Energy imports and telling me that the British did not invade Iraq in the early 1900s. It would have taken you 5 minutes for you to do a google search and confirm you information before you turn it into Disinformation.

I spoke to the NOAA. They said that most sites use Hydrogen. They said it is more likely to catch on fire and they take precautions to avoid it. I called the NOAA. You called a local office in Manitoba. You make the mistake of thinking that whatever happens in Manitoba happens all over the world.

He also said the they use HYDROGEN because it is LESS EXPENSIVE. He said that most of the 92 stations use HYDROGEN.

I challenge all of you to call not a local weather center but the NOAA and ask about weather balloons. When you are done please post the answer you get.

Eve, you said Islam is a religion, I said it's a cult.
that's how you started.
I said christians don't kill in gods name.
anyone who killed in the name of god was not a christian.
There were people in the past who did horrible things and claimed it was for god.
But the book has never changed. read it and see.
No christian can claim he killed in the name of god
So, that would be a mistake to say that, wouldn't it?

please tell me how many times i need to repeat myself before you respond to what i'm saying. . .

please tell me how many times i need to repeat myself before you respond to what i'm saying. . .

Anthony you dumb ass, I posted up all I looked up this morning, it's on the other string, don't bother me with your crap, because I checked several sourses.
The fact is, they do NOT use hydrogen for weather ballons, so check your facts again.

Now, besides that, check how hydrogen is made, it's made from natural gas, OR electricity. those trailers were not equiped for either proccess. So if you would have read what I posted this morning, you would have checked that as well
DUMB DUMB

Dept. of transportation said

"we do not use hydrogen in weather ballons, they use hellium as it doesn't explode while passing through cloud formations.
The only time hydrogen is used is for long range upper statosphere study for radian only, it's not a regular practice'

there, happy now?

They do NOT use HYDROGEN FILLED BALLONS FOR WEATHER STUDIES

So much happens while I'm gone!

I'll only post two things:

1) Here is Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post, talking about who believed what about Iraq's WMD, from June 1st.
http://www.washingtonost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60332-2003May30.html

Money quote:

"It is disingenuous to look back now and say that support for the war was built primarily on a belief that weapons of mass destruction would be found soon after battlefield victory.

Some critics now saying just that originally blasted Bush for offering too many reasons for going after Saddam Hussein instead of relying on one overriding cause. The very multiplicity proved -- or so it was asserted -- that regime change was the real motive for the war, not weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian intervention or terrorist links. Now the same people are shocked that they got it.

Three weeks before the war began, a representative Time/CNN poll reported that 83 percent of their sample said "the most compelling reason to disarm Hussein is that he has wantonly killed his own citizens." "Saddam's cruelty" was the top reason for action, followed by 72 percent who felt that a war "would help eliminate weapons of mass destruction."

There was a mosaic of valid reasons for removing Hussein, and most Americans understood and approved of that mosaic. Feigning shock on behalf of "duped" citizens who were fairly clear-eyed about what they were getting into takes some doing.

Nor did war opponents Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder base their decisions about whether Iraq possessed programs to produce biological, chemical or nuclear weapons on Secretary of State Colin Powell's powerful presentation at the United Nations. Nor was there ever any significant disagreement within the CIA over the intelligence on weapons programs. Controversy was over terrorist links.

The French president and German chancellor were briefed by their own intelligence chiefs and given assessments that closely matched the conclusions of Powell's presentation, reliable sources tell me. The argument with Washington, as French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin made clear at the time, was over the best way to find and get rid of the weapons -- not whether they existed. If Bush was wrong, so were Chirac and Schroeder."

2) I am not a Christian, and I categorically disagree with Bubba on the evil of Islam. I think that very few religions are actively evil.

But it is only Muslim countries where state-supported, televised clerics call for the destruction of Christians and Jews on a weekly basis.

It is true that Christianity was a bloody religion once. So once was Judaism.. So were some Buddhist sects. There was once a Dalai Lama under whom Tibet conquered a significant portion of Asia, hundreds of years ago.

But most faiths have moved on since then. One very large one has not.

When terrorists attacked Saudi Arabia, were Christians out in the streets celebrating? Were Hindus? Jews? Buddhists?

When terrorists attacked America, were Communist Chinese celebrating in the streets?

Okay, bubba. I think we are both arguing different things. You're saying Islam is evil and not a religion. That is a belief against which it is impossible to argue with empirical evidence. And I am arguing Christianity also has blood on its hands and has been if not the cause than the justification of millions and millions of deaths since its creation.

I still disagree Islam is not a religion, but since the only "proof" I can offer are counterexamples in Christian history and in the Bible that show similarities to all of the "evil" traits you spoke of in Islam, i don't think i am qualified to argue this subject.

I am not going to check anything for you anymore. You do your own checking.

I already read what you posted this morning. If you are interested in being reasonable than you have to accept all the facts and make sense out of them. You cannot pick and chose the facts so they fit into your version of the truth and ignore the rest of the facts. You don't accept newspapper accountthat don't fit with your version of the truth. You don't accept government experts that don't fit in to your version of the truth.

Here is declassified information from the DoD.
"US officials said the missile is also vulnerable to detection during final stages of launch preparations, when Iraqi force release balloons to check for wind flow that could divert the missile from its target. The Iraqis monitor the movements of the balloon using small radars that Western military officials have code-named End Tray and Bread Bin.

You don't believe them either.

You are unwilling to accept the facts. It is important for you to continue believing that you know better than all the experts. I gave you the words a metoeroligist that works for a national organization who has 15 years experience launching balloons.

"But most faiths have moved on since then. One very large one has not."

I completely agree. Islam has not modernized. (I am in the process of reading the Bernard Lewis book on that subject which promises to be good). Still, I think a sense of history is necessary to understand that this about different countries and cultures at different stages of their history coexisting in the present.

Islam's failure to modernize does not mean it is "evil."

I don't disagree that death has occurred, under the pretense of misguided christian belief.
Millions and millions however, is a gross exageration.
even the mohammedian/christian crusades, it was thousands and thousands, not millions and millions.

But, I don't want to argue with you, if you would like,
I'll give you a sourse of reading, you'll quicky find it isn't biased despite the sourse.

it may be of intrest for you at any rate.

you can even trace the path of christianity it's growth etc.

there was a time that the kings controled the church, not the popes.
it was the popes idea of separation of church and state. didn't happen till much later in time, around 12-1400, can't remember off hand.

give it a try, before you argue. you'll find this site handy for looking up other things in history as well.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm

Don't worry, eve. Bubba has a liberal-hating thing that prevents him hearing anything he does not wish to hear. He needs to resolve this hatred within himself before he can progress as a human being and learn from others. Emotion can be the death of reason.

1. the crusades
2. the inquisition
3. the salem witch trial
4. subjugation of native americans in the u.s.
5. slavery in the u.s.
6. colonialism & christian missionaries in africa

I think these bring the numbers pretty high, though. Thanks for the link. I'll give it a reading!

maybe, i don't really know, I don't think anyone knows.
The muslim invasion of the mid east, we don't know the numbers either. we do know that 1200 years of attack in india alone by the muslims is somewhere in the 80, million mark.
And thats just india

Posted by the voice of god at June 9, 2003 08:47 PM

and this is comming from what, a 12 year old mind?
grow up for fuck sakes. Or better yet, prove me wrong. You've failed thus far.
You consider yourself GOD now?

Fuck off Don, turnip, PTG, Anthony, MW .
you just can't stand loosing to logic, reason and fact.

Eve -
In Christianity God gave his Son to Man so that all Mankind might share eternal bliss. Islam - Man gives his sons to God - because another man told him that would earn him eternal bliss.

Christian Martyrdom - The result of an individual being asked to RENOUNCE his faith, unto death.

Islamic 'Martyrdom' - There is no such thing. The man (and now, woman) is asked to CONFIRM his or her faith.

Diametrically opposed.

DO NOT equate the two, Eve. You would be using deception, as your namesake did with Adam.

It ain't me, Bubba. It's true I can't stand to lose to your impeccable logic, but I wouldn't change names and post like that.

Maybe you ought to take a hydrogen balloon to heaven and see if it really is the big guy: Allah...

I never equated Islam and Christianity. I was merely showing that Islam cannot be condemned on the basis it has been a source of violence if Christianity has likewise been a source of violence.

Allah is in hell, not heaven, so you loose right there on that statement. Plus, hydrogen explodes at 7,000 feet due to expansion, which is a greater expansion than Helium,
I thought i'd save that fact for a bit later, but, what the hell.
I'd get closer to heaven on a helium filled balloon

Ah, see, ya got me again Bubba, I just can't keep up with you.

yeah, but you'd still fall

(i'm so sorry - i couldn't resist :-)

Senior intelligence officers kept secret records of meetings after pressure from No 10

Intelligence officers are holding a "smoking gun" which proves that they were subjected to a series of demands by Tony Blair's staff in the run-up to the Iraq war.

The officers are furious about the accusation levelled by the Leader of the Commons, John Reid, that "rogue elements" are at work in the security services. They fear they are being lined up to take the blame for faulty intelligence used to justify the Iraq war.

The intelligence services were so concerned about demands made by Downing Street for evidence to use against Iraq that extensive files have been built up detailing communications with Mr Blair's staff.

eve, the whole koran is based of killing. it's spread by submission and blood.

in simple words, Islam means submit or die.

The bible talks about morals, love and peace.
the koran talks about killing
no love and peace only if the earth is under the wing of Islam.
Islam is the devils bible. He wins both ways.

God wins if we keep faith and keep our soul. If you loose your faith in god, and submit (islam)
the devil wins your soul and the souls of his killers.

Anthony,
Have you gone completely retarded?
next you'll be posting stuff from the national enquirer

Tell me anthony, how does this work? Blair is being accused of giving false CIA (works for the USA) evidence to the brittish intelligence?
This makes no sense at all

Bubba you are a pig farmer right. You raise pigs. You are the man to go to for information about pigs. Could you imagine a metoerologist claiming to know better than you do about pigs. I don't think so.

I spoke to an weather balloon expert and he said that the balloons go to 100,000 ft. He said that when the balloon leaves the ground it's about 6x8 ft. This expert has been launching weather balons for 15 years. He said the most weather are launch 2x day with HYDROGEN in them. Should I believe him or you?

He said that most of the weather info they need for weather forecast comes in at about 400 millibars. He said the begin recording data from the time they leave the ground. Do you know what millibars are Bubba? He told me that 400 milibars is usually about 12,000 to 15,000 feet. He told me that the balloons go up to 100,000 ft. Let me repeat that. He told me that the balloons go up to 100,000 ft.

He told me that at 100,000 feet they are about the size of a house. They explode and disintergrate into dust.

Now I will post links for anyone who want to verify the facts.

Remember the fatasy story you told me about the US importing 53% of it oil from Canada?

Bubba:

Read the article and tell me line by line what you object to. Otherwise I'm not interested.

Bubba
You figured it out.

*sigh.* sometimes you're impossible to talk to.

I posted my link this morning.
I'll leave you to your dilusional thoughts
you can phone
18007418525 if you like

they use Helium

and, saddam didn't have this hi tech national weather service either

wake up you idiot

good night time to go home
see ya in the mornin

I hope not.

one more thing Anthony, as i posted before, exept you keep insisting its hydrogen, which it's NOT

and by the way, 53% of usa IMPORTS, this includes natual gas, numbskull

Anyway, read again before you bounce off walls.

here is you balloon info, MW and Anthony, please note that they are filled with Helium, not hydrogen.
They just don't use hydrogen in weather balloons.

weather balloon, balloon usedin the measurement and evaluation of mostly upper atmospheric conditions (see atmosphere). Information may be gathered during the vertical ascent of the balloon through the atmosphere or during its motions once it has reached a predetermined maximum altitude. Today, atmospheric information is most often gathered by height-finding radar, remote sensing by earth-orbiting or stationary satellites, and aircraft instruments, with weather balloons augmenting the data. Helium, which is less dense than air (see buoyancy), is used to inflate weather balloons. A pilot balloon is a small balloon (diameter c.1 m/39 in.) whose ascent is followed visually to obtain data for the computation of the speed and direction of winds at different altitudes. A smaller ceiling balloon is used to determine the altitude of cloud bases. A much larger, teardrop-shaped balloon is used to carry a radiosonde aloft. The balloon expands as it rises, usually reaching an altitude of at least 90,000 ft (27,400 m) before it bursts. A small parachute lowers the instruments to the ground. Teardrop-shaped balloons are also used for horizontal sounding of the atmosphere. Atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity information may be sent by radio from a balloon; monitoring of its movement provides information about winds at its flight level. Techniques also have been developed whereby many horizontal sounding balloons can be monitored by earth-orbiting satellites that relay information to earth-based stations. The tetroon is a tetrahedral balloon used for horizontal sounding. It was developed to withstand the extremely low pressures of high-altitude flight; the straight seals joining its four triangular faces are stronger than the curved seals of the more traditionally shaped balloons. Tetroons have been used extensively in tracing low-level atmospheric currents by following their movement with radar; they have thus increased the meteorologist's understanding of atmospheric turbulence, low-level vertical motions, and air pollution dispersion.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0851701.html

Failure to find arms undercuts Bush doctrine

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Defense's responsibilities have grown beyond anything that military commanders had imagined at the end of the Cold War, according to national security specialists; some have voiced worry that the department's expanding roles could tax the Pentagon's resources or compromise some civilian authorities.

Nearly 15 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there is no more talk about a budgetary ''peace dividend'' or trimming US forces. The US military is not only operating in more places around the world than at any other time since World War II, but it has also expanded into areas previously reserved for other government agencies: establishing a new intelligence unit, launching a homeland defense command, and exerting growing influence in foreign policy.

''You've got people doing things, certainly from the Pentagon perspective, that they wouldn't have dreamed of 15 years ago or even 10 years ago,'' said Andrew F. Krepinevich, a former Defense Department official who runs the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy institute.

While it has become fashionable to ascribe the expansion to the ambitions of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, its roots are more complex, growing out of long-term trends that began with the end of the Cold War and from the response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Some national security specialists worry that this expansion could hurt US policy and the military itself. Even with Bush budget increases, including a requested $15 billion this year, the military can handle only so many missions at a time.

For example, while George Bush campaigned in 2000 against using the military for nation building, US forces have subsequently assumed that sort of mission in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Dem der boy Anthony has dun gon 'tarded

Bubba commented on two issues:
1) Current Canadian oil exports to the US
2) Proven Oil reserves (see lower down)

1) Current Canadian oil exports to the US
Bubba said "of the oil the usa does import, 53% comes from Canada." and "if you add electricity, it's closer 65% of America's ENERGY imports"

The fact is that 16% of our oil imports come from Canada not 53%. If you consider oil and natural gas together US energy imports from Canada represent less than 30% of all our energy imports not the 65% that Bubba said. (electricity from CANADA is less than .05%)

2) Proven Oil reserves
I mentioned that 67% of the world's PROVEN oil reserves are in the Middle East.
Bubba says "Also, 2/3 of 'known' oil supplies are north of the border. Try reading words."

Known is relatively inconsequential. Governments don't bank on 'known', they bank on what is PROVEN. Bubba suggest that I should "try reading words." My comments were on the proven reserves. Either he didn't read the words or he decided to change the subject from PROVEN to known, or perhaps there is another explanation.

PROVEN RESERVES - are recoverable oil which geological and engineering information indicates can, with reasonable certainty, be recovered in the future under existing economic and operating conditions.

Before Canada's recent declaration of oil sands of approximately 175 billion barrels the numbers look like this.

From Oil and Gas Journal (billions of barrels) (PROVEN)

North America...50 (5.1%) ***
South America..78 (8.0%)
Europe.............16 (1.6%)
FSU.................59 (6.0%)
Africa..............73 (7.4%)
Middle East......660 (67.3%)
Far East...........42 (4.3%)
Australasia.......2 (0.2%)

TOTAL............980 (100.0%)

*** from 2000 North American Energy Working Group

If you factor in the Canadian oil sands then the numbers change (PROVEN)

North America...225 (19.5%)
South America..78 (6.8%)
Europe.............16 (1.4%)
FSU.................59 (5.1%)
Africa...............73 (6.3%)
Middle East......660 (57.1%)
Far East...........42 (3.6%)
Australasia.......2 (0.2%)

TOTAL............1155 (100.0%)

The Middle East (660 bb) still has far more PROVEN reserves then Canada (175 bb) or North America (225 bb).

Anthony, I did a big search on Google and you are clearly correct. Hydrogen is used in these balloons.

Eve, I sympathize with your attempts to reason with Bubba. When he and Dave Dube get talkin' turnips there's no sense in going on. They get so excited when they're together that I usually just hop out. Dave is usually reasonable in the morning, he often starts his day by apologizing for the things he said the day before. By nighttime though he and Bubba are all lovey-dovey with the hateful stuff. I hope you continue to hang in there with the discussions, you bring a kind of sanity to it.

I try to tell my European friends it's not like this, because I hate to think my American people are this way, but now I'm afraid at the bottom of this war is just old-fashioned bigotry.

Anthony - The only thing that bothers me about your argumentation techniques is that you tend to use the shotgun approach. I'm throwin' out your weather balloon flak as nothing more than that - flak. The hydrogen thingy you're goin' on about was debunked two weeks ago. So - that leaves us with what for an argument?

Dave said "The only thing that bothers me about your argumentation techniques is that you tend to use the shotgun approach."
What does this mean?

Its impossible to get to the next point without some acknowledgement of where we are. So you tell me what you think.

Do or did the Iraqi's use weather balloons to check weather conditions before firing their rockets.

Tell me what you believe about weather balloons? Do they use Hydrogen or Hellium or both?

Do you believe the pig farmer or the NOAA?

fuckwit Anthony;

*** from 2000 North American Energy Working Group

what year is it?

Here are just a few of the links I got from a Google search on noaa hydrogen balloon..

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lch/obs/upper.htm "The weather balloon is filled with hydrogen gas through a nozzle. When the balloon is fully inflated, it will stand over 8 feet high. After the balloon is filled with hydrogen, it is tied off with a piece of string."

http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/citizen051297.html "Twice a day a technician releases a hydrogen-filled weather balloon for readings to altitudes reaching 35 kilometres..."

http://wchs.csc.noaa.gov/StormCouriers/sep1997/septletter97.htm "A Hydrogen-filled balloon provides the lift needed to carry the radiosonde upward..."

http://www.novalynx.com/400-balloons.html "Specifications are based on performance tests conducted at the factory. They are taken from hydrogen-inflated balloons. Helium inflation may provide different results..."

http://nimbo.wrh.noaa.gov/Reno/balloon.htm "These balloons are filled with hydrogen and carry and instrument package that sends back temperature and humidity readings..."

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2000/dec00/noaa00r300.html "Hilo is one of two upper air stations in Hawaii and one of 900 in the world. The hydrogen-filled balloon carries an instrumentation package known as a radiosonde which sends back measurements of temperature, moisture, pressure, and wind direction and speed to a ground station. Observations are routinely tracked to altitudes of 20 miles or more."

http://nimbo.wrh.noaa.gov/Reno/balloon.htm (with photos) "This sequence of picture shows the inflation of a balloon prior to launch. These balloons are filled with hydrogen and carry and instrument package that sends back temperature and humidity readings. They are tracked by radio signals so that winds may also be determined. The balloons can reach 100,000 feet before they burst."

PtG, you posted der that you looked in google for dem weather balloon things, and says dey use hydrogen?
Da sites i looked at says dey use helium, seldom use da hydrogen.
do you have da site for da google undate?

Craw dad list the sites.

Craw Dad, put yer teeth back in, I can't make out a word you is sayin'.

Craw dad
How old are you son?

PtG, Anthony - Give up on this hydrogen crap! The experts said two weeks ago that it was laughable! The trailers were NOT, I repeat NOT capable of creating hydrogen, so quit using this weather balloon as a smoke screen.

Just thought this was kind of funny. . .

All the President's Leisure
By Rob Walker
Posted Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 5:30 PM PT

You can't really blame George W. Bush for wanting to take it easy. Anybody who's in the work force is familiar with the notion of yearning for additional vacation days. But apparently there are limits to our empathy. A recent poll finds 55 percent of respondents opining that the president's monthlong break from Washington is too much time off.

No one should be surprised by this. And it seems peculiar that a White House that's been (unconvincingly) described as operating like a corporation could be so out of step with American ideas about hard work or at least about keeping up the appearance of hard work. Apparently the current "working vacation" will bring the amount of time he's spent at his ranch to roughly two months, since taking office in January. This particular 30-day stretch will reportedly tie a modern record (with Nixon) for longest presidential absence from the White House. Where does Bush think he is, Europe?

Anyway, his team's latest round of defensive spinning has gotten fairly comical. First, there's the notion that what he's embarking on isn't really a few weeks of down time, per se, it's a "Home to the Heartland Tour." Perhaps in the course of this tour he'll discover that in the heartland, few people have sprawling ranches to go home to. Also that few have the latitude to simply take off as much time as they want, as a president can; according to the most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average number of paid days off for Americans with one year of service to their current employer is 9.6.

And of course Bush himself can't resist putting everything in class terms, arguing that his decision to kick back in Texas makes him more of a real American than all those soft, elitist reporters complaining about the heat there this time of year. "I know a lot of you wish you were in the East Coast, lounging on the beaches, sucking in the salt air," he chided the press corps. "But when you're from Texas, and love Texas, this is where you come home." So, you see, even in his conspicuous leisure, Bush is more in touch with regular Americans than the liberal media. (As a side note, I happen to be from Texas myself, and I can assure you that when I lived on the East Coast, I did not "come home" in August if I could possibly avoid it, for the same reason that the Bush family summered in Maine when W. was growing up.)

But really, Bush has taken enough grief over his vacation, and I say he ought to get a break. As it were. In fact, I think the man deserves a round of applause for taking a stand against those who would try to wring prestige from the supposedly endless busyness of their lives. If Bush doesn't have to work 24/seven, as they say, to get his job done, then good for him. Let's just take it as a tacit suggestion from the executive branch to our employers to give all of us more time off. Who could be against that? Bush ought to stop dissembling about his penchant for relaxation and just run with it—be the Vacation President!

Of course, making leisure policy the focus of his administration might require some time, and a lot of work. No reason to rush such a big project. Maybe a sabbatical would help.

jes put dem words "weather balloons" in da google winder an' yo git dem links .
mebe dis google thingy is out of date, yo fellers have a update google thingy?

Eve,

Might I ask - what in the hell are you here for? A vacation? LMAO...

go here anthony:

http://bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/20030328175457.asp

i am here because i have no other prospects. no hope or greater vision for my life.

people just forget how laughable it all seemed before we hit tragedy. . .

Hey deh crawdaddy. I notice that when I put a Google search:

noaa helium balloon, I get 1,080 hits, but when I put
noaa hydrogen balloon, I get 4,230 of em.

When I put

"weather balloon" hydrogen, I get 1,340 hits, and if I put
"weather balloon" helium, I get 1,290.

Now that's not to say there's more hydrogen balloons than helium ones, but dem dey sho talk about em mo.

Ar yo's a feller der, Eve? I knows dis boy name Eve.
Why all yo mad of da president? das a good man!

"The experts said two weeks ago that it was laughable!"

who?

Hush, everybody, we have to be real serious when Dave DuBay is listening... Remember, this is no vacation, this is ver-r-r-r-r-ry serious.

sorry. i don't read hick.

Eve,
Pass & Company coulda warned ya about my proclivity for sailin'... Welcome to the Ship of Fools!
Which side would you prefer - Port or Starboard?

:o)

Pass - I won't repost what I've posted at least 4 times that I know of - probably more. You were too busy pukin' portside, and ignorin' my invites.

Mao, da french nes pas?
english it no good

mon anglais n'est pas bon peut-être français est meilleur, PTG, la veille, Anthony, vos tous les morons retardés, oui ?

// The experts said two weeks ago that it was laughable! //

Yes but the senior experts from this week said

Some Analysts of Iraq Trailers Reject Germ Use - American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence are disputing claims that the mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making deadly germs. In interviews over the last week, they said the mobile units were more likely intended for other purposes and charged that the evaluation process had been damaged by a rush to judgment.

"Everyone has wanted to find the 'smoking gun' so much that they may have wanted to have reached this conclusion," said one intelligence expert who has seen the trailers and, like some others, spoke on condition that he not be identified. He added, "I am very upset with the process."

and

Blow to Blair over 'mobile labs' - Guardian 6/8/2003 - Tony Blair faces a fresh crisis over Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, as evidence emerges that two vehicles that he has repeatedly claimed to be Iraqi mobile biological warfare production units are nothing of the sort. The intelligence agency MI6, British defence officers and technical experts from the Porton Down microbiological research establishment have been ordered to conduct an urgent review of the mobile facilities, following US analysis which casts serious doubt on whether they really are germ labs

and

EVE ! Didya get that thar seasick feelin'? LOL

why yo all no like dis bush man, he fair guy no?

Je me demande si vos mères laissent tomber tout le vous sur votre tête.

Anthony! YOU FORGET - The first freakin' trailer was turned over to us by an IRAQI ! HE KNEW WHAT IT WAS USED FOR. Is that plain enough for you?

I bet dat der dube` feller know what i said der no?

Eve: given the relative propensities to use helium versus the less massive hydrogen, I conducted an investigation of the Google database in order to ascertain the ratio of results returned by queries intended to elicit references to weather balloons, but differing in the instantiation of the term describing the gas in question. That is to say, half the queries contained the word "helium" while the other half, naturally, contained the complementary term, "helium."

These paired queries were further bifurcated into those referring to noaa and balloon, and those referring to "weather balloon" and either of the gases in question.

Query results demonstrated that hydrogen was mentioned along with bothr "noaa balloon" or "weather balloon" in a significantly greater proportion of the queries. The difference was greater in the "noaa balloon" condition. Thus we should conduct a factorial analysis of variance to determine the significance ot the interaction, but limitations of time and motivation have stifled such plans.

While we cannot ascertain the correlation between numbers of balloons using the various gases and the number of references to ballooning terms mentioning those gases, we can conclude that dem dey talks about dat hydrogen bunches mo.

Craw Dad

Bubba, le canadien, ne peut pas parler français. Il est fier de ce fait. Si on parle français, il deviendra très fâché avec vous.

// Anthony! YOU FORGET - The first freakin' trailer was turned over to us by an IRAQI ! HE KNEW WHAT IT WAS USED FOR. Is that plain enough for you? //

The Iraqi, was he an expert? You don't think the British intelligence know about the alleged Iraqi informant? Don't you know that informants and defectors are notorious for giving false or exagerated information?

Anthony - I don't know why I let you keep draggin' these freakin' trailers around like a lead balloon. Like I've told you - The first clue was that the thing was sterilized. NOW, just why would some stupid Iraqi sterilize a freakin' hydrogen gas producing piece of crap? WHY, Anthony? Any freakin' clue? I know you don't, so I'm askin' myself why I'm askin'. GEEESH. You are WAY naive, Anthony.

dis Eve Antony, no talk mit me no? mebe my gumbo talk no good?

ces types sont les idiots absolus ainsi j'ai pensé que je jouerais un jeu les oblige à me parler tandis que je double entretien ils

Anthony - Use your head, man. If there was some ol' really bad germs layin' around, who'd be the first to pick up on 'em? Who, Anthony? Kill the messenger! Ever heard that one? FOr cryin' out loud. You folks need more proof than a bottle of Everclear.

Just because there were no germs or chemicals on it, doesn't mean it was sterilized. If it didn't have germs or chemicals in the first place, there wouldn't be any. You only assume it was sterilized because you assume it had something on it to start.

Les mots d'un vrai chrétien:

"Notre foi exige que nous soyons exemplaires avec humilité"

Uh, could somebody get an interpreter? I could wade thru in German or Spanish, but...

Pass, you have not read the article. The trailer was washed down with a CAUSTIC substance. Does that tell you anything? Are you keepin' up here, Anthony? Eve? Oh ye of little faith, leadin' men astray and all. Without humility, I might add. Got a tan yet?

So der antony, dis bubba feller, he hate da french? I da cajun so dis french no canadien so good
dis feller bubba, he hate da cajun too?

Anthony - By your questions, ye will be known. You ain't read the freakin' article either.

Dave, what article describes finding a caustic substance on the Trailers of Mass Destruction?

Je vais déménager en Europe. Les aliments sont beaucoup mieux. Et tout le monde peux avoir un mois de congé comme le président des étas-unis. Qui est avec moi?

Pass - It's cheap French, and Eve is blowin' smoke, and probably smokin' the hookah as well. Right, Eve? Your eyes bloodshot yet? LOL. If you gotta handle on Espanol, you gotta love her Francaise.

You ain't read the freakin' article either

Which article?

DuBay, we are willing to go on whatever tangent you think we should have gone on earlier, but you need to give us a hint about where the center of your world is: a link to an article...

Anthony, I'm goin' to bed. My wife is waitin' for me with open arms. I gotta better offer, Anthony. It's been posted and threaded, but - alas and alak. No one, but no one wanted to touch it. Somethin' about the acronym CIA that turned 'em sour...You find it.

Production of hydrogen in the U.S. alone now amounts to about 3 billion cubic feet per year. Hydrogen is prepared by

steam on heated carbon,
decomposition of certain hydrocarbons with heat,
action of sodium or potassium hydroxide on aluminum
electrolysis of water, or
displacement from acids by certain metals.

And, it's getting late here in the Nation's Capital.

Lo siento pero hace mucho tiempo desde yo hable espanol. . .

ÎÒÃǽ²ÖÐÎÄ!

Õâ¸öÏÖÏóµ¼ÖºܶàÎÊÌâ

If you mean the CNN article, I just looked and it doesn't say anything about caustic agents:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/07/cia.mobile.labs/index.html

If you are talking about the CIA report, I read it already.

Somebody throw some water on Eve, please, I think she just went up in flames...

Dis boy Bubba, he no wrong in fact, he smart guy no?

Je m'amuse à quel idiot vous êtes vraiment Anthony. votre hanté et sont aveugle à la réalité

eve'Je ne traîne pas avec les personnes stupides, ainsi ai la veille d'amusement. J'espère les vis musulmanes d'un Français vous vers le haut de l'âne bon et des marques que vous portez un burka le reste de votre vie

dudes - if you were as bored as i am right now, you would be smoking too.

das da crappy translater eve a usin'

Je suis étudiante au lycée. What do you expect?

da "dudes' ward, only pass da gasses use dis no?

pass da gasses a dudette?

Yep, I think Eve got it. It's getting late in Dee Cee, I gotta shuttle punk-ass teenagers in the morning, probbly time to call it.

Night all.

sorry pass. i've reached my low. i've given up all hope. . .what remains?

Eh, Eve, can't say. Bubba will come back, Dave will be sweet and apologetic in the morning, Craw Dad will go back to being whoever he usually is, and there will be some other headlines to argue about.

What else is there in life?

i'm still moving to europe

What country?

You know it's fun talking about trailers and hydrogen and all, but do we really give a hoot about either? Hans Blix, friend of the French, had it all in his report. It kinda puts an end to the is there or isn't there WMD. The ONLY question is WHERE are they.

My gut feeling is there are no longer in Iraq.

Gotta hit the rack. Nighty night......

does it really matter? some place where i can have a month off.

vous êtes mixte avec le collage ? est-ce que mais vous un garçon, ceci sont-ils vous signifie sont un jouet de garçon ? faggot ? comment malade

Night night Jeff

Jeff's gut as spoken

Jeff's gut has spoken

yeah. craw dad can't speak french.

I was in Denmark a few months ago. So different. We talk about freedom, but they have a kind we don't have. A couple of years ago I was in a part of Spain where nobody speaks English. Again... we work too hard.

Pass - All - Kay said most of the alternative uses that have been suggested "didn't pass the laugh test."

"The silliest one," Kay said, was the suggestion that they had been designed to generate hydrogen for meteorological balloons.

So, folks. Looks like Dave Dube has the last laugh!

goodnight pass. anthony. bubba. jeff. tp. . .

Pet, I saw that. What else do ya say? Make the scariest thing look ridiculous. Obvious trick. That doesn't mean anything.

I don't know if you can make hydrogen in these things or not. Any more than Bubba knows.

DuBay only has the last laugh insofar as he said his wife was waiting with "open arms."

I don;t think so. We will see.

Disinformation. You cannot ignore the British evaluation.

Hey dudes (yeah Craw Dad, that's me), I'm gonna crash.

I da Craw Dad, I don come har much ma english no good to talk.

ma french cajun so no same.
eve an Pass da gas same person no?
sem so to me

seem you not good people, tell lies. bush good man

Potassium Hydroxide, commonly called caustic potash with formula KOH, is a caustic compound of strong alkaline chemical dissolving readily in water, giving off much heat and forming a caustic solution

Production of hydrogen in the U.S. alone now amounts to about 3 billion cubic feet per year. Hydrogen is prepared by

steam on heated carbon,
decomposition of certain hydrocarbons with heat,
action of sodium or potassium hydroxide on aluminum
electrolysis of water, or
displacement from acids by certain metals.

what the hell do you think natural gas is?
it's a hydro carbon. sure you can pour acid on metal, but it's not practical, plus the terrible side effect of ammonium hydroxide gas which will kill you

FACT: hydrogen is commercially made with natural gas
It is compressed and stored as a liquid.
To store in a gas form would take huge sized storage tanks. Give up on your hydrogen trailer idiotic idea already. Bubba kicked your ass all over the place in more ways than one. even I did a google search, and it says Helium is the common gas used for weather balloons. Give up already.

Why do you think it's not used as a fuel for cars.
The cheapest way to make hydrogen is to be near a resource like hydro electricity for reliable development, and renuable, sustainable production

The mere thought of a bunch of weather geeks driving around with a propane sized tank full of liquid hydrogen, which has enough power to blow up an entire city block, is pure insanity. If indeed the weather service uses hydrogen, and they do, but only in special circumstances, not regular by any means, it's in remote locations, and it's painfully expensive to transport, where as helium is much cheaper, you were wrong about that as well.

Why do you think Anthony, it's not used in cars. We have propane powered cars. Hydrogen in that form is insanely dangerous, especially the way people drive in California.

Check out this site, and see how it will be used in a FUEL CELL, wich is a safe way to store and transport hydrogen.

I will not argue your somewhat irrelavent saddam balloon wagon Idea. Makes no sense considering you yourself have proven how impractical it would be.
I thought that you might be interested in this site however, since you have hydrogen on the brain.

http://www.ballard.com/pdfs/23%20DC%20F_Cell.PDF

Y'know; I just can't standf to see this any longer.

I have stated I cant let a good deed go unpunished but,

The US is the only producer of Helium. Therefor, If you are not in good standing with the US, you do not get helium. Its called a monopoly. That is why the Graf Zeppelin went up in flames, (the blimp). The one on led Zeppelins cover and the one where some announcer says; "MY GOD THE HUMANITY"?

Funny kinda...Idnt it?

Dont mess with me at trivial persuit!

Why can't the administration say that technically speaking the war with iraq never ended in 1991 but continued on until 2003?

Yeah mike;

It didn't, only surrender monkeys got in bed with him and except for Command Post contributors, turned us all into 'Saddams Hoes'.

Good catch!

is it true that iraq got the mobile Labs from the
britts ? Maybe they should be asked what they were
for.

ATTENTION ON DECK!

Don! This one is for you, although I'm NOT holdin' my breath waitin' for a response.
Pass! This one is for you as well, and this is the last freakin' time I am goin' to do your research for you.
Craw (P-diddy) Daddy! Je parle... forget it. Just hang wid me, okay?
Eve! This is NOT the Love Boat. Do not expect any of us to play with your apples. Spend some time in the deck chair (the one that's bolted down), instead of the boudoir (portside cabin), and quit flutterin' your eyelashes. It's irritatin', and you are borin' me to tears.
Anthony! This one's for you, Bud!

NOW HEAR THIS!!

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html

I'm not givin' any more ink nor my time to playin' with you fools. Park your PartyBalloonTrailerConspiracyOurPresHasLetUsDown theory in the book of Bad News, cuz that's what y'all got. No story.

OBTW Pass, If you'd a bothered readin' the CNN article (including the LAST TWO LINES), you could've saved yourself the embarASSment of breakin' wind the way you did. LMAO. The ORIGINAL POST had a link to the REPORT which I just gave to your sorry ASS as well.
Anthony! I shouted the word REPORT, and I'm goin' to do it again. REPORT! OBTW, Anthony. When Pass or that friend of his, DufusDon tells you to ignore my hand signals, you best NOT heed their advice. It's a sure sign I got my RIGHT hand in the air, and I'm not givin' them the finger. I'm usually wavin' in the crew.

Sherlock! Not to worry. I don't know where trailer number 1 came from, but SUPPOSEDLY, according to one of the portside pukers (Pass?) the Brits built a PartyBalloonTrailer for Iraq in 1987. That can't be the source for number 1, since equipment bolted to the trailer was datestamped 2002. Unless they were usin' my time machine.... Nope .... Sorry. Can't pin this one on the Blair crowd.

ALAN! This leviathan is taking on a heap of sardines, here. You bein' Cap'n Ahab and all, could ya maybe find ANOTHER tidbit to toss to the unruly crowd? I gotta teenage gamer who can't stand a reboot, and I have precious little time to respond to most of research queries that are legitimate. A shorter thread would be a good thing.

This just in. Dave Dube reporting. DD News has just confirmed that every word spoken or printed by the CIA is in fact absolutely true. Their report stating that the Trailers of Mass Destruction are biological weapons labs is indisputable, and all world discussion on the subject has ground to a halt.

In further developments, a former UN weapons inspector has announced that it is "silly" to think that the trailers could have been used for hydrogen production. Following that statement, all speculation on the subject ceased, and the Western world returned to dreaming up ways to annihilate the Satanic cult of Islam.

This just in. Pass breaks wind in front of class. Forces quick evacuation of class due to explosive evacuation from his ass. He does not know it from a hole in the ground. The one he is digging is for himself. Pass has had to release the grip on one cheek in order to hold the shovel. Does not realize that the shovel is best used with two hands. The concept of efficiency and common sense escapes him.
So passes the gasses from the asses.

HAA HAA HAAA HAAAAAAA
You stupid right wing fuckers. Ol' Bush got you too. You see he FUCKS EVERYBODY! HAA HAA HAAAA WMD's HAAAAAAAA. (I told you)

Ah, Teacher's Pet, I get it. The teacher keeps a pet piggy.

Mmmm, what's this? >Missing in Action: Saddam's Nuclear Program< Couple of good facts in this one.

Pass - The game you are playing. Would that be, like, fill the balloons with GAS? Why don't you find an easier small fish to play with? You know, like, a red herring, perhaps? You keep playin' the game, though.
Eve will give you your hat on the way out. AND, she will take your money. OBTW, Pass, don't trust ANYONE. DufusDon can't wait to pass on that little tidbit (about how the CIA can't be trusted) to the folks at Langley. You've left a lasting impression.

Before I retired last night, and mentioned my 'gut fealing' about WMD, Eve said, "Jeff's gut has spoken"

No Eve, that would make me 'PasstheGas'

:)

I'm out of town til Friday, you guys will have to fend for yourself. If a vote comes up, you all know where to place my vote......right ? / !

Just had to pass this one on to you, Henry Waxman's letter to GWB, asking him to explain some untruths. >Waxman: 'Explain Why You Cited Forged Evidence'<

absurd thought

This (Hydrogen vs Helium) discussion in not about fuel cells or cars. It about weather balloons. Its not about what you think or are comfortable with, it about what really happens with weather balloons.

I got my information from the NOAA. You got your answer from your reasoned thought.

I believe the expert from the NOAA not you.

Dave:

I told you I aleady read the article. Did you miss that. You can ignore any future discussion about the trailers. I never asked you to participate. As long as there is contradictory data coming from credible sources, I will leave the matter open.

You told me that you were lied to by your government 30 years ago. Its the same old government Dave. And they are still capable of lying or being manipulated by higher ups.

Is the CIA document fabrication? I honestly don't know. The NY Times reported that Higher Level Analysts doubted that the trailers were for WMDs. They felt there was a rush to judgement.

I you decide

You decide to close the matter. That fine. However most of the arguement that Bubba and his incarnations have presented have been roundly dismissed.

Ok you som beeches.......I just had to do this before I leave town. I called Michael Hudson with the National Weather Service. His email is: Michael . Hudson @ noaa.gov

HE SAID THAT THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE USES 'ONLY' HELIUM. HYDROGEN IS DANGEROUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bubba, you can come back now with full honors. I never doubted you. The rest of you whiners are still just that.

See ya Friday!

Hey Bubba....btw, do you know some fella who's initials are CD? :)

Jeff B

Give me the number?

I just called Michael Hudson at the NOAA.

I just called Michael Hudson at the NOAA. here is his phone number. (816)540-5147

He is in Missouri. They don't use balloons in their office.

And the best yet? He is out of town for the whole week.

I said "May I speak to Michael Hudson," and she said, "He not here. He is out of town for the whole week"

Jeff B,
yes , I know plenty of people with those initials, my wife included, LoL

Maybe they are tired of your stupid phone calls anthony. they don't want to talk to you

Jeff B just said, he called and they don't use hydrogen, end of story.

Anthony, you posted "He is in Missouri. They don't use balloons in their office."

So how could he have told you yesterday that they use hydrogen in their ballons if they don't use them?

nice contradition there, idiot.

// So how could he have told you yesterday that they use hydrogen in their ballons if they don't use them? //

Read the thread. Read Jeff B. comments. Once you understand, then ask me a question that makes sense.

why would Iraqi build a giant lab for balloon partys when " Compact, transportable hydrogen generation systems are commercially available, safe, and reliable."

Anthony, you've been sniffing glue?
give it up already, your balloon party trailer idea is is as dumb as you are.
Shouldn't you be in school trying to learn something? Seems your always here

Anthony.....if you are saying I didn't talk to Mike Anthony at the National Weather Service this morning, then I will have to step up and say you are a fu--ing liar. Call the # back and ask if he was in the office this morning.(They're really going to appreciate this) If I remember right, someone else called you a liar yesterday. If you're saying I'm wrong about the helium deal and that I didn't talk to Michael Hudson this morning..........You definitely are a 'liar'. I will be out of town til Friday, so I won't be around to defend myself on this so remember, "I STAND 100% BY WHAT I SAID AND I DID TALK TO MICHAEL HUDSON AT THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE THIS MORNING AND HE DID TELL ME THAT THEY 'ONLY' USE HELIUM IN THEIR BALLOONS. HYDROGEN IS DANGEROUS." Anyone says any different falls under the liar catagory. Don't like calling people that, but hey, a spade is a spade. Bubba, you are still right.

You legitimate folks, have a good week.

To clarify, Michael Hudson said that the NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE does not use Hydrogen in balloons, they use ONLY Helium. I asked him if it was because Hydrogen is dangerous and he said, "YES".

END OF STORY

oOOOPS! I said, "Anthony.....if you are saying I didn't talk to Mike Anthony at the National Weather Service this morning,..."

It should read "Anthony.....if you are saying I didn't talk to Michael Hudson at the National
Weather Service this morning....."{

Sorry for any inconvenience. Sometimes I get a little frustrated when I dealing with liberal monkeys.

Anthony, here are some links for you

http://www.protonenergy.com/index.php/html/gasproducts/generators/index.html

http://www.protonenergy.com/index.php/html/gasproducts/generators/files/industrial_brochure-english.pdf

Pictures and everything!!! Anthony, this is what a hydrogen (commerical) generator looks like.

you could put about 50 of them on saddams mobile party balloon trailer.

It's about the size of a washing machine.

Order your own HOGAN™ 40 series generator today and start filling those party balloons

lol. mike hudson is going to wonder who the hell we psychos all are asking about weather balloons.

i called the number in missouri as well, but he's out of the office this week. he has not been in the office since yesterday.

they do not launch weather balloons from the missouri office (where mike hudson is). they launch them in topeka.

it's possible the person i spoke to was mistaken, so i am going to give you guys the benefit of the doubt and trust that you did speak to him.

regardless, i do not think he can be considered an expert on weather balloons if they do not launch them from their site.

maybe you guys should call a place that actually launches these things every day. either way, you'll get a more accurate picture from people who actually work with these balloons every day.

also, didn't ptg give you guys like a half a dozen sites saying that about helium and hydrogen are used? even if you guys think the information on those sites is bogus, in order to make a credible argument, you have to at least address the evidence presented, find a real way to discredit it, and if you find you cannot, then you need to take the evidence presented and possible readjust your position. can you please tell me why you guys are not doing this? why you refuse to acknowledge the validity of others' arguments?

Eve,
Check out the CIA Report that Dave Dube pointed you to...

do you have the link? i don't remember reading that post by dave dube. thanks.

I think we should ALL call poor Michael Hudson's secretary. lol. :) I'll bet that they think there is some radio dj stunt going on. :) This is the funniest thing I think I've seen on this site.

I gave links too, and, I read the articles. Helium is mostly used because it's SAFER.

The only time they use hydrogen is when Helium isn't available, remote areas like in the middle of the Australian out back.

In that case they would use a HOGEN™ generator like the one pictured in the link above to generate hydrogen on an as needed basis.

It is about the size of a washing machine, not a semi trailer

Eve,
LMAO.
Look for an ATTENTION ON DECK! in this thread. Your name is even in there! Something about your boudoir, but I'm not French like that Dube kid, so I wouldn't know what that's all about...

Bubba:
Your post jumps to alot of conclusion. It is hard for me to believe that you can't handle more than one fact at a time.

It assumes that there is only one way to make hydrogen. You are assuming that there is only one way to think about this. You are thinking in black and white.

That you find a site that say "this is a way to make hydrogen" then it is the only way.

Can ther possible be a second or even a third way? (I know you mentioned two ways before.)

But I mentioned 5 ways.

Production of hydrogen in the U.S. alone now amounts to about 3 billion cubic feet per year. Hydrogen is prepared by

steam on heated carbon,
decomposition of certain hydrocarbons with heat,
action of sodium or potassium hydroxide on aluminum
electrolysis of water, or
displacement from acids by certain metals.

Are you telling me that you incapable of accepting the hydrogen can be made in more than 1 or 2 ways?

Not only that, but enviroment canada doesn't use weather ballons very often at all, we use doppler radar systems.

Guess we are more advanced than Topeca

// I think we should ALL call poor Michael Hudson's secretary //

But the integrity of some of the people at this site is in question.

When I was accused of lying, I asked for a phone number. None was offered.

I search the NOAA site and found Mile Hudson's number. I called and they said he was out of town for the whole week. When Jeff B. questioned by statement I called back a second time and ask for Mike again. This time a gentleman answered. He said that he was not in today or yesterday.

I addition Mike Hudson is not an expert on balloons.

Anthony, you start off by saying America makes 3 billion cubic feet of hydrogen a year,
Then, you list all the different methods that can produce hydrogen.

Now, which is the method the USA uses to produce 3 billion cu.ft of hydrogen.

I'll bet they use the HOGAN™ 480 series generator, the HOGAN™ 40's great big brother.

Or, as the article says, they use hight heat steam, and natural gas, which is the most economical way, if you have a sourse of natual gas.

The trouble with natual gas is, it's a non- renuable energy supply, so it's pointless to use that method if your using hydrogen as a fuel.
might as well just burn natual gas

Eve,
Whilst you're busy chasing Michael down ON THE PHONE, why don't you skip right on over to the CIA site that Dave Dube gave to you this morning, and give us all the benefit of your expert opinion? I'm just holding my breath waiting for you to take a bite out of the bitter apple you have in your left hand.

evie, relax.

it was a joke. i don't its inappropriate that you or anybody else called, i just think its funny, okay.

Anyways, lunch break is over, time to get back to work.

The points are proven, and that is
1) the weather service uses moslty helium for their balloons

2) saddams trailers were bio weapon labs, not hydrogen generators.

you can go study all about hydrogewn if you want to, or, just order your HOGAN™ 40 generator (runs on electricity and water) and start filling up balloons for your next birthday party

Bubba:
Ther is more than one way to make hydrogen. Right?

The question is not what you think makes the most sense. The question is can hydrogen be made with aluminum.

You said "The Iraqis were stupid enough to throw aluminum pellets in the tank, and tell them the equipment was used for building hydrogen. "

The fact is hydrogen can be made form aluminum.

Hydrogen facts

Hydrogen is used extensively today to make ammonia, methanol, gasoline, heating oil, and rocket fuel. It is also used to make fertilizers, glass, refined metals, vitamins, cosmetics, semiconductor circuits, soaps, lubricants, cleaners, and even margarine and peanut butter.
Hydrogen can fuel today’s internal combustion engine vehicles.

Hydrogen can fuel tomorrow’s fuel-cell vehicles.

Hydrogen can replace today’s natural gas for heating and cooling homes and powering hot water heaters.

Existing wind and hydroelectric plants can produce hydrogen to store energy during off-peak hours.

Hydrogen production from hydrocarbons can also produce carbon, which in some forms has ten times the strength of steel. With more research, this carbon could be used for automobile bodies and structural members.

Hydrogen is currently made primarily from natural gas (methane), which is non-renewable.

http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/SourcesOfHydrogen.htm

there You go, Anthony, have fun!! don't say I never did anything for you.

google and ye shall find

Actually dave said they threw pellets in the fermentor,
Turns out, is was a caustic cleanser.

Plus, if you throw acid on Aluminium, you get alot more than just hydrogen. go ahead, try it, take some battery acid from your dads car, throw some aluminium filings in a bucket, pour, breathe deaply....

!!BULLETIN!!

The WMD have been found by the Iraqis. The WMD are the unguarded nuclear (or, if you're from Texas, "nuculer") facilities from which an unknown amount of Plutonium, enriched Uranium, and other materials have been stolen. Such materials -- worth $millions on the international black market -- are likely to become components of "dirty bombs."

Meanwhile, Iraqis have been seen pouring nuclear waste from storage drums and using the drums to transport water and food. Many families are now suffering the symptoms of radiation poisoning.

And that's your WMD update, You guys can quit arguing about weather balloons now. Why were the facilities unguarded? Rummy's battle tactics didn't allow for policing the aftermath. Wow, that guy's a deep thinker.

Bubba:

You search is irrelevant.

The fact is hydrogen can be made form aluminum.

When you make hydrogen form aluminum, you are left with, among other things KOH. KOH is a caustic cleanser.

I now know a lot more than I ever cared to about weather balloons. But I really don't feel I'm any closer to knowing what those trailers were for, in spite of the fine efforts of folk on this site and the entertaining harassment of meteorologists.

In fact, I don't think any of us can actually know what those things were for. We may strongly suspect one way or the other, but at this distance I just don't think we've got the evidence. Hell, we can't even agree on which element is more commonly used in US weather balloons, and there's no real fog of war on that one.

Even if these things were mobile bio-labs though, and I'm prepared to believe they might be, I still don't think they amount to the weapons of mass distruction we were led to expect, and I don't think they amount on their own to a case for war. Equally, I'm not sure this matters overly. I doubt history will judge the legitimacy of this whole enterprise on the basis of a couple of trucks.

Anthony,
Does the absence of Pass today give you some insight into the dilemna he finds himself in? The 'expert' you were asking about? That would be Mr. David Kay, former U.N. weapons inspector. A direct quote, Anthony: Kay said most of the alternative uses that have been suggested "didn't pass the laugh test."
"The silliest one," Kay said, was the suggestion that they had been designed to generate hydrogen for meteorological balloons.
Pass will no longer address this issue, here, or anywhere else. Why? Because it is an embarrassment to him to find out that we will call him on his nonsensical, or "laughable"(if you'll pardon my cribbing of Mr. Kay), argument. I 'suggest' that you take an early retirement from this argument, because the production of hydrogen in this equipment is "the silliest" one you could ever come up with. That's from an 'expert'.

A direct quote, Anthony: Kay said most of the alternative uses that have been suggested "didn't pass the laugh test."

But that suggestion came from top intelligence analysts. Your quote comes from one article form a newspaper on one particular day. Time will tell whether or not this quote is truly correct.

In the mean time, while contrary information is coming from sources like the CIA and the British MI6, I reserved judgement.

It may be that the CIA's intial assestment was correct. But its too soon to tell as history is unfolding.

Teach
I think he will. I think he already has.

Anthony,

Mr. Kay is not and never was an 'intelligence analyst'. He was a UN weapons inspector.

Guess what, Bubba?

The US Army uses hydrogen in their artillery weather balloons.

http://sill-www.army.mil/FA/93f.htm

Thanks for playing.

Do they have hydrogen trailers built in Iraq?
or do they use the HOGAN™ 40 generator?

MW - Did you 'conveniently' skip over these words: "helium AND hydrogen" when you perused that site? LMAO. What time did you get up this morning? Curious. You missed 'home room'.

So tell me Anthony, how long does this process take while your sitting around trying to launch a scud?
The process takes forever especially in a fermenter of that size. more than a day to fill one little balloon.
Please tell what the purpose of the dryers were on those rigs if they were just for making hydrogen chemical, which by the way, is so impractical and EXPENSIVE, plus you'd have to carry around tons of chemical.

It's a stupid argument Anthony, get it through that thick skull of yours.

Why did those rigs have oxygen tanks if they were making hydrogen?
why did they have air agitation?

why don't you look up the chemical process of making hydrogen, which by the way, isn't used anywhere expert in grade 5 chemistry class.

And MW so fucking what if the us army uses hydrogen, I bet they use a HOGAN™ 40 hydrogen generator too, dumb ass. The fact is MW, the weather service uses mainly helium.

unbelievable stupidity from U2 idiots thinking that there is any possible way those trailers were for chemical hydrogen production.

If for some insane reason you would want to make hydrogen chemically, you wouldn't need a set up like that. A pail with a good fitting lid and a hose to fill a balloon is all you need. It would be alot faster to just use a propane torch and make a hot air ballon rather than wait around all day for a chemical reaction to make hydrogen
imbeciles.

I was up at 6:30. I work during the day.

Still not convinced? Blinded by your ideology?

How about this, from the 1998 Army Science and Technology Master Plan, at

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/sec3f.htm:

Owning the Weather TD (1996–03). This program consists of three interrelated TDs that will transition directly from 6.2 into the integrated meteorological system (IMETS) and the field artillery’s meteorological measuring set (MMS), the advanced concept profiler, Army battle command system (ABCS), battlefield automated systems (BASs), and the modeling and simulation (M&S) community. The first TD, target area meteorology, will upgrade IMETS and MMS with a battlespace forecasting capability and add computer–assisted artillery meteorology software to the MMS and future profiler for improved accuracy of indirect fire and precision strike. ****The profiler will replace balloon–borne measuring systems and hydrogen generators on the battlefield.****

Hey Pet, I have this distracting situation. See, I'm at work, and occasionally I have to leave my desk and go do something. I think it is quite likely that Anthony is right. At least, it is very likely that Bubba is full of shit.

Anthony says, "Time will tell." I suppose it will.

(Meantime, I wanna know the whole story about this noaa guy... did Jeff B call him or not???) (And why that particular web specialist in Missouri?)

Anyway, I am now going to take my daughter to the doctor. Do not take my absence as a sign that I have given up or abandoned the topic. It's just that, for a few hours today, you morons are not the center of my attention.

key word "hydrogen generators" probably the HOGAN™ 40 series generator . pour insome water, plug it into your honda generator and away you go, hydrogen.
Not some monstros semi truck rig.

Bubba, Did you hear someone fart? Curious.

your lying PTG, your daughter is taking YOU to the doctor, and not just any doctor, the one with that leather couch you lay on and tell him your problems

Yes, I thought I smelled a methane leak, PtG is supplying the methane so Anthony can make hydrogen

Bubba:
You obviously don't read what I post. I'm not argueing that the trailers were or weren't mobile labs. I am argueing whether hydrogen is used in weather balloons. If you are not going to read them then there is no use in talking with you.

The balloon takes 8-10 minutes to fill. Less in warmer weather.

Anthony, they don't use chemical reactions to make hydrogen.
they use a generator like the one I described, and gave a link to so you could go look at the pretty pictures and read the specs on.

I also provided you with a link so you could read up on how hydrogen is make for commercial purposes, the main method is converson from natual gas(methane) second method is electricy powered generators like the HOGAN™ 40 series generator. it even has wheels on it so you can put it away when your finnished filling party ballons.

The chemical method just isn't used. it's too costly.

the only time hydrogen is used for weather ballons is when helium isn't available.

So, if the iraqis used hydrogen for filling scud locator ballons, they'd probably use a HOGAN™ 40 series generator, which by the way, is a hell of alot cheaper and practical than any chemical proccess. or simi trailer sized unit.
the thing is the size of a washing machine.
It was also an item that wasn't against trade santions, so saddam probably has hundreds of them kicking around, as they are used for other things, like food proccessing, medical, etc.

So, again
1) the weather service uses mainly helium
2) the mobile bio lab isn't a hydrogen machine

end of story

Bubba:
How much does it cost? How long does it take to make enough to fill a weather balloon?

Find out and let me know.

plus, there is no shortage of natual gas in Iraq, so his industrial hydrogen supply is probably made from natual gas in a stationary building, probably next to the Mc Saddam french fry plant, and and need for mobile hydrogen would be met by these little compact generators.

I'm an engineer Anthony, one look at those trailer pics tells me it's simply inconcevable that it would be even remotely possible it was a hydrogen plant.

even iraqi's aren't that stupid to build a contraption like that to make hydrogen.

it's components suggest something else, otherwise there is no need for air agitators, oxegen tanks, fementors, dryers, exaust gas compressors, and it would be kept that clean either

http://engineer.tamu.edu/tees/ceshr/center.html#econ

Economic evaluations showed that the hydrogen production techniques examined at the Hydrogen Research Center were not competitive with conventional methods of hydrogen production from fossil energy sources (e.g., from natural gas via steam reforming, or from coal syngas via gasification, both being followed by water-gas-shifting and pressure-swing absorption). The lowest cost is given by hydrogen from natural gas, which is $6-12 (1995 dollars per million British Thermal Units (MMBTU) (on site), depending on the plant size and the cost of gas. For non-fossil hydrogen, the solar photoelectrochemical and bacterial methods seemed unlikely to compete with solar photovoltaic using conventional electrolysis (which is itself of very high cost, about $40/MMBTU assuming photovoltaic electricity costs of 10 ¢/kWh), or biomass gasification using steam (perhaps $10/MMBTU). In contrast, natural gas spot prices (today) are $2.90/MMBTU. Gasoline (87 octane) costs $5.25/MMBTU (60 ¢/gallon fob New York), and about $10/MMBTU ($1.15 per gallon) with taxes and distribution costs at the pump. In the future, solar cell costs will fall as production rises, and hydrogen production costs from this source will correspondingly fall. If solar cells eventually cost $800 per peak kW and have a 20 year life, the annual constant dollar cost of the panel at 2.5% annual inflation rate and 8% interest rate is $67.85. Based on 1,800 kWh per year, this gives $3.7 ¢/kWh in constant dollars over the 20-year panel lifetime. Allowing for operation and maintenance, profit, and taxes might result in a total cost of 4.5 ¢/kWh, and a hydrogen cost of less than $20/MMBTU. Allowing for the high efficiency of hydrogen end-use, and allowing for the hidden environmental costs of fossil fuels, especially coal, this cost is likely to be competitive in tomorrow's economy, sometime in the next century.

go read that page, maybe you'll find the cost somewhere. I don't care nor do I have the time to do the work for you

Wow, no posts about hydrogen OR helium for over 30minutes!! I sincerely hope we have exhausted this topic at last. (sound of wrists being slit)

The expert, Bubba, on Iraq’s Hydrogen weather balloon program:

“Then find out if Iraq even had such a program. They didn't”
“seems if Australia, a country that can AFFORD to do upper atmosphere studies, and has a program for it, uses hydrogen because helium is to expensive to transport to remote locations.
Show me any reason, or circumstance where Iraq would have that concern.
under embargo, it wasn't allowed. tell my why saddam would need to have a science program painted military green to study upper atmospheric conditions.
he never had one”.

The truth:
An Iraqi requisition for just such a system:
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/dp/dp10/07-60.pdf

Bubba on whether hydrogen is used for military weather balloons:

“Dumbass, they use helium in weather balloons
Hydrogen would blow up”

The truth:
A photo of a US military weather balloon system:
http://www.aselsan.com.tr/msting/tms_eng.htm

Any further expertise from you, Bubba?

johnnym - Anthony took his sick friend Pass to the Dr.

Overthecounter medication (GasX) wasn't helping.

MW, that is amazing. An Iraqi requisition for a hydrogen weather balloon, including a 3m/hr hydrogen generator.

How did you happen to find this???

Bubba, you're a moron. Go back out with the pigs.

welll......guess I spoke too soon. :)

johnnymozart:

LOL. you spoke too soon!

...Bubba?

And I had a conversation with the chief of Services of the unit in the US. Army that trains soldiers for deployment of weather balloons in combat situations.

Hmmm....317..is this a new record for this site? I don't recall this many posts before.

johnnymozart - The ship does have a decided 'list' to it, doesn't it? Maybe you'd like me to stir the pot? You know - the one I got down in the galley. The one with the aluminum pellets in it. You know? The one I'm goin' to be usin' to blow up all them party balloons? LMAO.

CRAP! I can't stand it any longer!

ANTHONY! You got that thar batch of hydrogen cooked up yet? I bought'ya a bag of 100 various and assorted balloons that, like, need blowin' up? Is it done yet?

I been ponderin' this ALL day... Eve musta took a 'DIP'. Or... Maybe she be bobbin' for them apples. Maybe it was somethin' I said? EVE! EVE?

Good thing you got that off you shoulders, Dave.

MW, that is amazing. An Iraqi requisition for a hydrogen weather balloon, including a 3m/hr hydrogen generator.

How did you happen to find this???

Bubba, you're a moron. Go back out with the pigs.

Posted by: Pass the Gas at June 10, 2003 04:26 PM

ptG you fucking useless moron, why did they order a HOGAN™40 hydrogen generator when they had a mobile hydrogen semi unit already?

fuckwit.

Bubba, they're stupid, evil Satanic cultists... why would I understand how they think?

Now go back to your pigs.

You sure seemed sure they were thinking fine when you said and insisted that it was a hydrogen trailer.

open your mouth, insert foot yet again.....

what a fucking moron you are.
MW posted what I thought all along, and I posted as well, that if they needed hydrogen, they would have ordered a HOGAN™40 series portable hydrogen generator,
not spend millions on a home built semi trailer sized totaly useless "hydrogen plant"

Thanks MW, I guess it was time to shoot your general

LMAO

Now Shit stain, (you get those from passing too much gas)
admit it. those are mobile bio weapons units.

you have to admit it now. There is no other way out for you.
dickcheese breath

while your pouting PtG, you better go below in your ship and hammer a few more corks in those holes, the water line is almost at the gunnels

Bubba, you said they needed helium...

P.S.
I was just guessing that hydrogen units for military use would not be allowed.

But, the order of hydrogen generators proves me wrong.
It also prove Shit stain wrong about his hydrogen trailers.
Also, I did mention not too far up, that the medical and food reasons for hydrogen production would suggest that they were allowed. So...there...
and I said it before MW posted.
so... there

LMAO

No, I said they use helium in weather balloons, and they do, we've been through this already,
the weather guys use helium.

scroll up read up, and shut up

So why does this weather-balloon requisition ask for a hydrogen generator?

Sheesh, Bubba is delusional. 500 posts to get him to sorta kinda admit his head is up his arse. As a fellow Canadian, I find the spectacle embarassing.

At this rate, I have no doubt that later tonight he will be found hugging his pillow in the fetal position, insanely repeating the words "Hogan 40 hydrogen generator, Hogan 40 hydrogen generator".

Oh well, I'm tired of handing him his hat.

...Once again, standing bloody but tall in the middle of the ring, MW waits for the next loudmouth canuck farmboy to try to take a shot at him...

MW

Great finds today. How did you do it?

Thanks

Mostly just luck. It didn't take long.

Google is tricky, moving the same words around creates different results. I do a fair amount of research at work and that probably helped.

But just about everything is out there if you are patient.

You put up a good fight, Anthony. I see those guys are over pushing people around on the other thread...

Good night.

Yeah, Anthony,

I have to give you credit for keeping your cool in the face of pretty egregious behaviour. I tend to allow myself to get dragged into the mud too often.

Well done, man.

MW - Care to go a round with me? I won't even hesitate to throw a few links in your direction, but I'm kinda curious as to just what it's going to take to shut off the hydrogen supply? You (let me see now...that would obviously be YOU, Pass the Gas, Eve and God knows, I wouldn't want to include Anthony, but throw him in there as well) seem to require something more than 'expert', 'official' 'verified' and 'certified' opinions as to just what these trailers were for, right? What kind of 'evidence' is it goin' to take? Now, Pass - I don't want you tellin' me that there has to be some WMD in there loose somewhere, because lose germs (lips) sink ships. OKAY? I've got nothin' better to do than wait for some other irrefutable 'expert' with impeccable character to show up, claiming that these trailers were made for one purpose, and one purpose only. I just want to know, what it's going to take to convince you. Let 'er rip, MW. I could care less which side of the 48th you're on BTW. Smoke doesn't usually come out the NE, so I'm not worried about airborn gasses, either.

Why not me?

Anthony - MW is from CAN. Easier pickin's. He's from what they call a 'Prairie(Fr. word) Province'. Sorta like a a guy who grows corn and chews on a blade of grass for entertainment (I hope your ear is tuned in thar, MW). The prevailin' wind is from the West, which means the stink wafts towards Manitoba(Bubba Country). MW has like, probably never been farther away from home than the grain elevator...
You on the other hand, I KNOW what I have to provide for you. And it's damned sure NOT goin' to be any freakin' aluminum pellets! I read the freakin' report, Anthony. I can damned near quote the thing. Like I said about two weeks ago, I have a vested interest in this stuff. It's like talkin' dual use. The Iraqis have apparently been well primed on what can and cannot be used as 'cover' for their real programs. MW MAY know stuff about Hydrogen and Helium, but... you just seem to be in this for curiousity sake (i'm speakin' the chemical stuff here). BTW. Do you sell the software, or just write that java crap? Curious. Dr's orders, if you get my drift.

Pass - Do you think I forgot you? Still got a firm grip on that shovel? LOL. Hard to port, there, matey!

Hey Dave,

I don't want to blow your mind here, but I never meant to give you the impression that I am certain that the trailers were used for weather balloons. If you look back, I never made such a statement. I wasn't there to examine them, but experts that were seem to disagree about their intended use.

I'm just saying the following:

1) the jury is still out on that issue

2) even if they were intended for chemical or biological weapon development, these two trailers alone seem to be a pretty pathetic justification for risking thousands of lives, when containment would've worked. If these trailers were sufficient, we wouldn't be hearing Bush administration officials and Tony Blair insisting over and over again that the WMDs will be found.

The reason we got off track for about 500 posts is that Bubba kept insisting that it was impossible that Iraq could have had a artillery weather balloon system with a hydrogen generator. I think Anthony, Pass and I eventually managed to convince him that it was possible (but i'm not holding my breath).

Comprende?

It's gettin hard to find the time to read through all of these rivetting posts, but please guys & gals, less trollish behavior would be nice. Name calling gets old fast, even though now and then someone does come up with a boneheaded angle,and it is tempting.

All of this yakking about balloons makes me want to produce methane, if ya know what I mean.

Insta-Gator - ;-) NOW. About that nic...(nickname). :-)

MW, no, they argued that the trailers were for producing hydrogen, as their "high level expert" from the NY times said.
I was set to prove otherwise.
The Jury is not out on their use. The jury has ruled.

Fact one. Anthony said the weather bureau used hydrogen for weather balloons. I proved otherwise.

Fact two. those trailers weren't made to generate hydrogen.
Seems I had to guide you morons into a hydrogen discussion, make you read up FACTS to try defend you position, and then lead you to use the very facts YOU dug up in your quest to discredit me to prove to you that indeed, those trailers were not for making hydrogen for 'weather balloons".

Then of course, the icing on the cake was when you in your feverant quest, dug up the order form for saddam purchasing portable hydrogen generators.
So, the idiot crowd shoots it's own leader,( PtG) in the head, accidental discharge of course, and I get to pat myself on the back for a job well done, and you see a ray of sunshine and get to say, well, I guess those were bio weapon trailers after all

MW - Since you led the DIScharge on this one, just what are you certain about? Does the wind still blow from the West when you're OUTstanding in your field? LMAO. Another Canuck, 'eh'? You wouldn't take anyone's advice on leaving the Hydrogen/Helium thing alone, so I'm not holding out a lot of hope for your swift recovery.

Hey Teach:
What are you talking about????

Bubba
So you think if you say it enough times it become true?

maybe you should ask yourself that question, Anthony.

I believe in fact, you believe in fiction.

I'm not out to destroy Pres. Bush's credibility, You are.
I tend to look at things from a rational position, you on the otherhand quickly jump to conclusions, then spend all your time trying to justify them.

I know those aren't hydrogen generator trailers.
Common sense should tell you that as well.

But, i see your jumping up and down with glee again on that old rehashed story way up at the top.

rational thinking, logic escapes you, and thats because your bent on saying the war wasn't nessasary.
Your so obsessed with proving this, you grasp onto any little thing to say "HA"

You know nothing about war, and the people like saddam who create them.

Instead of trying to justify why the coalition shouldn't of gone to war, try justify why they should have let him continue his office.

Dave,

Just one of many nome du plums I use from time to time to try and mix up the mix. You will notice that I haven't said anything about balloons. I couldn't give a rat's arse about balloons. It is my heartfelt opinion that these trailers were, in fact, Winnebagos of Mass Destruction. All of the other "possible" uses that the various spin meisters have thrown out there really don't make much sense, in light of Sodom's MO.

This thread will live on in infamy for future generations of insomniacs. ;-)

Eve said, "I search the NOAA site and found Mile Hudson's number. I called and they said he was out of town for the whole week. When Jeff B. questioned by statement I called back a second time and ask for Mike again. This time a gentleman answered. He said that he was not in today or yesterday."

Anthony and Eve :) I was on my way to Dallas and it hit me. I know what happened. I found Mike Hudson's phone # on the web site, just like you did. His name was listed with the number. When I dialed the number, a man answered, (I assumed it was Mike Hudson) Anyway, I asked him if the National Weather Service uses hydrogen in their weather balloons. He immediately said, "No. They use helium. I asked if it was because hydrogen is dangerous and he said yes.

I have to appologize for calling Anthony, and I guess Eve, a liar. I assumed the man I talked to was Mike Hudson, since it was his number. The reason I gave his email address instead of his phone on this post, was exactly for this reason. 500 phone calls to him would not be cool.

Jeff B - Eve fell off her deck chair from a hookah overdose. She ain't gonna be callin' anyone for awhile. We call it 'decked'. LMAO.

WMDs (Winnebagos of Mass Destruction) they are. Get over it, everyone, geez.

I overdosed on a hooker in Tupelo one time, ah sweet memories.

Helium! (toke, toke)

No wait, Hydrogen! (toke, toke)

What were we talkin' 'bout, man? Oh yeah, Pepperoni!