tomcat

This from the man of meaningless posts. Your are a puss. Whatever man, just give it a rest already. Why doncha talk about climbing or some shit. I haven't been climbing lately I am waiting for the weather to clear .. maybe I should take up gym climbing or something.

This from the man of meaningless posts. Your are a puss.

I posted this in another thread, but it merits your full attention I think. US forces have found gas masks on Iraqi troops. In addition, hundreds of atropine injections were reportedly found in an Iraqi bunker (for those of you who don't know what atropine is, it is an injection used to counteract the effects of a chemical attack). Of particular note here is that the coalition forces don't use chemical weapons in their arsenal. Perhaps they just like to carry the extra weight? Discuss.

I bet you'll be the next idiot to post. IMHO.

The US forces have been finding gas masks on Iraqi troops. Of particular note is the shipment of hundreds of atropine injections found in an Iraqi bunker. The funny thing is, the coalition forces don't use chemical/biological weapons. Maybe they just like to carry the extra weight?

Nobody cares about your brother .. you're obviously both from the same dumb source. tom i really dig your posting style. and i was shedding light on your hatred towards the "hippies" that you say are ruining our troops moral. well since my brother is one of our troops and he has been over there doing your killing for you. i thought maybe it would and some perspective towards your worhtless rants. also i will let him know. what part of the armed forces were you with again?? and to let you know i am the first male in my family not to serve in combat. well if my family is a dumb source, then the rodent corpse your dad raped in the ass to procreate you must be the cream of the crop! All joking aside, who really cares what your brother thinks? He's just another fool. I like your posting style too mister moderator. Instigate, point the finger, suck Dru's dick, fondle Iain's breasts, coddle with your lover boy brother, then ban and delete posts you don't agree with citing harrassment. You're nothing more than a breathing vagina.

Nobody cares about your brother .. you're obviously both from the same dumb source.

Doesn't sound contradictory to me at all, He's just restating his point in a different way as far as I can see. Are you talking to yourself tomcat??? Use your brain, Snoboy.

You are so quick to dismiss their arguments as shit, but if you read their arguments (and mine) side-by-side with yours, you can see that you're full of hot air. This is fact .. if you don't see it this way, you're in denial. I find your "I gotcha" diatribe laughable since I obviously did read your posts, and when I was referring to mtngoat's protege, I was referring to you. I don't consider this an insult .. MtnGoat seems to be coming up with logical arguments. If you're trying to insult me, it backfired.

And for my final comment to you until you get your facts straight, let me point out this fact : IAIN SAID : "Since you obviously are just going to respond with what about my previous posts to everything (which essentially points to thin air in terms of substance) I think I'm finished here." Then in the very next post you say : "no, I'm finished here because mtngoat and now apparently his protege have started in on their usual shit". Sounds contradictory to me chief. I'm pretty sure you're just confused. Go ahead and dismiss this with another cute post using semantics as your argument.

You are so quick to dismiss their arguments as shit, but if you read their arguments (and mine) side-by-side with yours, you can see that you're full of hot air. This is fact .. if you don't see it this way, you're in denial.

As difficult as it was, I did read your posts. There's just not much there that hasn't already been said here. Since you obviously are just going to respond with what about my previous posts to everything (which essentially points to thin air in terms of substance) I think I'm finished here. I think you know where I stand, and I think I've been logical enough to spell it out. You certainly aren't going to change my mind with some two-bit condescending post like above. Condescending how? Because we were having a discussion and you didn't respond to some valid points? Then you went on to ignore these valid points to formulate another rebuttal using the same old recycled argument you made before only to 'rebuke' an argument made by a different person? The only reason you think you're finished here is because you can't refute what I said .. if you could, you would.

And these thousands of tons are clearly a different animal than cultures used to develop livestock antibiotics, and should be found. And I say these should be found through inspection at this time, rather than destabilizing the entire middle east on a witchhunt. At this point, now there is no endgame for us unless we find these weapons and lots of them. I certainly hope we do. We do not "win" once we slaughter this regime. We "win" when that area is in a stable situation and surrounding countries accept our presence at this point. I don't see that happening unless we now uncover a very real threat in Iraq. Seems like a big gamble to me. I addressed these issues in my previous post to you. Please read .. please.

I would risk (and have risked) my own life to defend this right, Dave. Have fun at the rally.

Very good argument .. one which I was preparing to make myself. But as we can see, logical arguments are futile here.

I would ask the expert weapons that question. Obviously the weapons themselves would be nice, but production facilities would be reasonable, I assume. How about when they are used against my friends overseas? Again, I don't have Anthrax production inspection on my resume and I don't have my Vx merit badge yet either. We entered a conflict supposedly to rid the country of so-called wmd's. Since we have no evidence of these yet, we may or may not happen upon some during the conflict, and will use this evidence to say, "see? we told you so." This is what I mean by "ends justifying the means". I meant you look silly right now. Boiling this down to "I'm a dumbass" if we find wmd's in Iraq is pretty silly, that's all. Weapons inspections didn't work. That's why we're at the point we're at now. The weapons inspectors couldn't tell their elbows from their pieholes and even if they could, Iraq is a very large country when you consider the amount of UN personnel performing the inspections. It's very very easy to hide WMDs (which aren't large and bulky to begin with) in a desert the size of Idaho (I just love that comparison). Last time I checked, the UN inspectors weren't digging pits in the desert looking for WMDs .. instead, they were going to conventional weapons facilities and factories (and even then, they didn't hit each and every factory). It would be pretty easy to manufacture little batches of biological agents in underground bunkers in a hillside cave in Northern Iraq, or even a residential home with a hidden, underground manufacturing facility. It would also be easy to create these types of things in a trailer on a semi truck .. a mobile Iraqi meth lab of sorts (if you will). I know .. too Seagal-like right? That kind of stuff only happens in movies right? Saddam is pretty crafty .. I'm sure he wouldn't be cooking these things up on the top of the presidential palace in downtown Iraq in blatant view of UN weapons inspectors. Instead, I presume he would be finding secret places to manufacture .. perhaps in residential areas, underground. UN weapons inspectors weren't going home to home inspecting the Abdullah residence on 123 Baghdad St looking for underground manufacturing facilities. So this all brings me back to my original question .. what possible evidence could US intelligence provide that would offer unwavering proof that Saddam's regime has WMDs? We've hashed out the UN inspections, so let's hear another argument (unless you can dispute what I just wrote).

Are we arguing the same point? You keep on attempting to demonize the US .. but the argument here is how the US could possibly provide proof about Saddam's WMDs. However, you offer no arguments to that effect.

No, that is why I said I would think the weapons inspectors would have a good idea about this process. I'm not either, see above. I'd rather avoid a pointless internet tiff between to ignorant PNW climbers about how to inspect Iraq for chemical weapons. Christ almighty see above. I don't see why. All I'm asking of my goverment is to lay out to me the rational explanation for why we are there. Proof of said weapons and intent to distribute and use them would be good. Also, post-invasion discoveries considered to be "egg-in-the-face" would seem to make you look pretty silly...don't you think? Also that would be "ends justifying the means" logic, which periodically works, but many times, does not. Whoa, hold on there chief. That is quite a convoluted, irrational argument you made there, so let me see if I can dissect it... The proof issue has been hashed to death in our previous discourse, and I have yet to see your answer to my question when I asked what possible proof could you want aside from the WMDs themselves (a question which you conveniently sidestepped by saying I repeated myself). Intent to use them? I've got news for you ... they already have used them (I'm sure with a quick google search you could find evidence of this lickety-split). I'm really not sure what to make of your last "argument" about the ends justifying the means. How will I look silly if they find WMDs in the end? A majority of my argument rests on uncovering Saddam's WMDs.

Your posts would be more effective if they did not repeat themselves, as I demonstrate above. As for evidence, I would go by the same evidence the expert weapons inspectors would want to see. You can't make nuclear weapons in a meth lab. There seems to be a fairly sophisticated system for detecting chemical warfare agents as well. Perhaps we could use those? This has been thoroughly hashed out before, btw, so perhaps a brief search is in order... Did you take a course on discovering WMDs? What's the recipe to finding WMDs? What is the sophisticated system you speak of? I'm no Biochemist (so bear with me here), but I'd say it would be pretty easy to hide a biological agent in a desert the size of Idaho. I'm pretty sure the elaborate WMD location methods you speak of couldn't possibly find biological agents beyond a certain distance. Otherwise I suspect the bio detectors that the military is using right now would be going crazy from all the bio agents thousands of miles away in the US research labs (as an extreme example). So at what distance are these "bio-locators" (for lack of a better term) effective? Perhaps with your knowledge on these devices, you could offer valuable insight to US intelligence. At the risk of repeating myself, all this discussion will make you look pretty silly when they find them .. don't you think? Did he use the bio- prefix in his post? Do you know the difference between the bio- and the chem- prefixes? We're running from the issue here captain. Bio is a prefix for biological. Chem is a prefix for chemical. Any questions?

I suspect in order to find the WMDs we're going to have to find the 2 people who know where they're at and do a little wall-to-wall interrogation session. Israel's intelligence is said to be comparable to US intelligence .. do you think Israel knows where we hide our nukes? Pretty tough to find out nukes. Get online, pay some coin for some sattelite phots of Nebraska, and look for the blast doors above the silos. Or look for an Air Force base. Your first comment, though, reveals yourself to be a savage. Good thing we're fighting to keep Americans free so that douche bags like you can endore torturing people. How enlightened! I'm sure you could get a job with Iraqi "security forces" with a humanitarian attitude like yours. It's 'endure' chief (I know, it's confusing spelling something that isn't spelled how you pronounce it). And what part of my first comment makes me a savage? Perhaps you could rebuke my initial comment to provide an example?

Your posts would be more effective if they did not repeat themselves, as I demonstrate above. As for evidence, I would go by the same evidence the expert weapons inspectors would want to see. You can't make nuclear weapons in a meth lab. There seems to be a fairly sophisticated system for detecting chemical warfare agents as well. Perhaps we could use those? This has been thoroughly hashed out before, btw, so perhaps a brief search is in order... Did you take a course on discovering WMDs? What's the recipe to finding WMDs? What is the sophisticated system you speak of? I'm no Biochemist (so bear with me here), but I'd say it would be pretty easy to hide a biological agent in a desert the size of Idaho. I'm pretty sure the elaborate WMD location methods you speak of couldn't possibly find biological agents beyond a certain distance. Otherwise I suspect the bio detectors that the military is using right now would be going crazy from all the bio agents thousands of miles away in the US research labs (as an extreme example). So at what distance are these "bio-locators" (for lack of a better term) effective? Perhaps with your knowledge on these devices, you could offer valuable insight to US intelligence. At the risk of repeating myself, all this discussion will make you look pretty silly when they find them .. don't you think?

Well Necronomicon, it took 12 long years to finally gain enough intelligence to find Saddam (for a couple of hours). I suspect if they knew when and where he was taking a crap they would have had him much sooner -- don't you agree? The US finding Saddam early on in this campaign is unprecedented, and the only way we were able to achieve this was by severe intimidation -- by bringing in the US armed forces. I suspect finding something inanimate (such as WMDs) which don't use the telephone, which don't take a crap, which don't tell people where they're sleeping, and which could be buried in the sand in a desert the size of the state of Idaho, would be quite difficult. US intelligence may be the best there is, but there are certain limits. I suspect in order to find the WMDs we're going to have to find the 2 people who know where they're at and do a little wall-to-wall interrogation session. Israel's intelligence is said to be comparable to US intelligence .. do you think Israel knows where we hide our nukes?

I don't think you're giving enough credit to US intelligence. By saying what you're saying, you're really stating that you know as much as the US gov't does .. and you and I both know, that's not the case. You said yourself that when we find WMDs, you'll eat your words. Prepare to eat well my friend. Well that last sentence reads like a line from a Segal movie, but I guess I'll respond. I don't really see it as "eating my words", more a sigh of relief that our f'ing government hasn't completely lost its marbles. Which up until now, seems to be the case. I'm not suggesting at all I know more than the CIA, but what I am suggesting is why not produce the evidence? Is it a matter of national security? I don't really think so. Do you? Please don't respond with any more syrupy shit about eating well anymore. What kind of evidence would you like, Iain? The actual WMDs? Come on bud, you and I both know it's not that easy. Saddam's WMDs aren't going to be sitting in the Baghdad town square, and there are no treasure maps with an X that marks the spot. Just because we have evidence that they have WMDs, that doesn't mean that we know where they are. And lastly, what evidence could they possibly provide (other than the WMDs themselves) to prove to you that they exist?

Prepare see your buds come home in their sleepnig bags after we get gassed on the outskirts of Baghdad. Instead of disarming Iraq of chemical weapons, we're pushing them to use them. Which is worse, using them, or forcing them to use them? Hey chief, if you're going to accuse others of not being articulate, you could at least use your spell checker and act like you are.

When did I lose a right to express my opinion? Barely articulate? Way to cloud the issue chief. I can tell you're not flustered.