See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War
Source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html
Published: Oct 3, 2002
Author: Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Post Date: 2007-04-03 20:34:01 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 5664
Comments: 267
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002 The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan. Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today’s world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We’re still in Korea and we’re still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990. The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution. Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from – rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution. Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed! A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice. However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions. In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts. What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people! A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace. History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities. The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur – what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown. It’s a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that’s about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment. An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote "No" on assuming responsibility for this war. Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it’s also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home. Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. 
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-183) not displayed.
.
.
.
#184. To: BeAChooser (#181)
Chooser, you are a proven serial liar. PROVEN. SERIAL. You did it in public, you got caught and you did it more than once. You posted fabrricated quotes backed up by bogus links. You did it twice. You got busted for it. You did it before this too, but peope gave you the benefit of the doubt at first. Why in the name of God should we believe or even care what you say from this point forward?
.
hehehehehehe
Did you photoshop that picture chooser? That is the sort of thing I would expect from a guy who makes up quotes and posts fake links to support them.
.
She believes her eyes. I don't think she believes the dishonest shit that you are known to fabricate.
.
Does this look like a hole that is no larger than 20 feet in diameter, folks? Facade Fa`[,c]ade" (f[.a]`s[.a]d" or f[.a]`s[=a]d"), n. [F., Robin was quoting and the quote was accurate - whether BAC approves or not. BAC is a "LIAR!"
Thanks SKY. I would bozo this thread, but I have a theory that BAC only tries to destroy threads that have the most dangerous truth in them.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Tom, I think I made it very clear I was referring to a hole seen in several photos. The one you repeated is simply the wing shaped hole to the left of the central circular hole where the fuselage hit. And yes, the portion behind the white car is over 20 feet wide (more like 35 feet). But now add in the hole where the fuselage hit (another 15 feet or more) and the wing shaped hole to the right of the fuselage hole (another 30 feet or so). The photo identified as a collage of what the impact site looked like before the collapse gives you a better idea of what I'm talking about: Now I ask you ... does that match Kwiatkowski's description? Clearly not.
Thanks .
Where do you get all those wonderful toys?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
In the first picture in this (#148) post, there are arrows indicating "left wing impact damage extending beyond the impact hole" showing, well, very little damage. Where is the wing in that picture? Oh, it completely vaporized upon impact. Where's the fuel burns on the facade of the Pentagon from the wing tanks-- towards the bottom there? Oh,... Where's the engine (yes the one that is 7 foot in diameter and weighs about 9800 pounds--about 5 TONS). Oh, it completely vaporized upon impact, too. Only when these massive Rolls Royce engines hit a wall of the Pentagon do they completely vaporize. Like the photo of the woman hanging out of the WTC while molten steel is allegedly dripping all over the place proved that building wasn't melting down, this photo indicates NO DAMN 757 HIT THE PENTAGON.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
robin's "facade"
Yeah, it does! So you have 90 feet of damaged "facade" - but no hole big enough to account for more than a two-seat Cessna 150 - at best. Or, should we not look into that "smoke" (less the mirrors) on the left side?
In this first photo, no airplane wing or engine attached thereto hit to the right of the impact center. Didn't hit to the left of the impact area, either.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Are you still refusing to discuss your ethnic background? I'm German-Irish, does that help if I go first?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
You don't have a shred of honor or shame do you? Just a scumbag weasel who will do anything to push his lies onto others. You get caught in a dead bang sleazy lie and it doesn't even phase you. Your resposne is to lie to avoid the consequences of your disgusting act. Why should anyone believe a word you say after the way you were busted this evening? You are a real piece of work.
.
shalom fish breath. is it ok for you guys to lie as long as you are lying to goys?
What would you expect the tip of the wing, containing little or no fuel, to do to a highly reinforced, blast hardened exterior wall? The portion that is penetrated to the right of that lines up nicely with where the bulk of the fuel mass (and mass is what's important in impact/penetration problems) was in the wing. The portion of the wing extending some 30 or so out from the fuselage that had the bulk of the fuel penetrated into the structure where the hole is seen. The portion of the wing to left of that ... mostly light weight aluminum ... shattered and bounced off the building. That debris can be seen in photos taken from a distance on that side of the building. Like this one: Inside the building. Check the dimensions and you'll see the engines were in the portion with holes. They even found parts of an engine inside the structure. Here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml And those parts match the type of engine Flight 77 should have had. Actually, the impact point in the WTC was probably one of the coolest places on the impacted floors by the time the woman showed up. Most of the fuel and furnishings were carried deep into the tower where they burned. The hole was cleared of such and even had a nice cool wind blowing on it.
BAC, you're obviously doing "speed" again. Per your argumnent, where did the woman come from? From the center of all that burning fuel - NOT! Ever figure out what a "facade" was, BAC?
Your link show a purported turbo fan out on the grass -- that part of the engine bounced off the wall while the rest of the engine plowed on through. What bs.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! ROTFLOL! (have i told you lately how much i despise you?)
More recycled sewage. 469. To: BeAChooser, Red Jones, FormerLurker, halfwitt, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#467) * * * [BAC #453] We know the shell contained enough materials to make 4-5 liters of 40% pure sarin. That just happens to be about the same quantity and purity as was used in the Tokyo subway attack. Such is neither known, nor is it knowable. 16 May 2004: 152mm Binary Chemical Improvised Explosive Device A military unit near Baghdad Airport reported a suspect IED along the main road between the airport and the Green Zone (see figure 2). The munitions were remotely detonated and the remaining liquid tested positive in ISG field labs for the nerve agent Sarin and a key Sarin degradation product. The partially detonated IED was an old prototype binary nerve agent munitions of the type Iraq declared it had field tested in the late 1980s. The munitions bear no markings, much like the sulfur mustard round reported on 2 May (see Figure 3). Insurgents may have looted or purchased the rounds believing they were conventional high explosive 155mm rounds. The use of this type of round as an IED does not allow sufficient time for mixing of the binary compounds and release in an effective manner, thus limiting the dispersal area of the chemicals. ------------- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell Wednesday, May 19, 2004 By Liza Porteus NEW YORK - Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday. The artillery shell was being used as an improvised roadside bomb, the U.S. military said Monday. The 155-mm shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable, and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to the nerve agent. * * * A 155-mm shell can hold two to five liters of sarin; three to four liters is likely the right number, intelligence officials said. No actual measurement of the content of the shell was performed, nor could any measurement be performed. The "shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable." All that was available for testing was residue. * * * [BAC #441] Thus it's a red herring since the shell in question contained binary sarin, which has an indefinite shell life according to experts. "According to experts" fails to meet the level of "rumor has it"and descends to the level of having heard it on Jeff Rense between segments on bigfoot and George W. Bush being a shapeshifting reptile. Claims and evaluations of Iraq's proscribed weapons In some cases, it is quite clear that any stocks that were retained no longer exist in usable form. Most chemical and biological agents are subject to processes of deterioration. A working paper by UNSCOM from January 1998 noted that: "Taking into consideration the conditions and the quality of CW-agents and munitions produced by Iraq at that time, there is no possibility of weapons remaining from the mid-1980's" (quoted in Arms Control Today, June 2000). As discussed below, mustard constitutes an exception to this general pattern. This point was acknowledged by UNMOVIC in its 6 March 2003 working document, specifically about remaining warheads which had been filled with chemical agents, but seemingly applicable to any storage of chemical weapons: "While 155-mm projectiles filled with Mustard could be stored for decades, it is less likely that any remaining warheads filled with nerve agents would still be viable combat munitions." http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweaponsc.html Sarin / Cyclosarin: "According to documents discovered by UNSCOM in Iraq, the purity of Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were on average below 60%, and dropped below Iraq’s established quality control acceptance level of 40% by purity some 3 to 12 months after production. [...] There is no evidence that any bulk Sarin-type agents remain in Iraq - gaps in accounting of these agents are related to Sarin-type agents weaponized in rocket warheads and aerial bombs. Based on the documentation found by UNSCOM during inspections in Iraq, Sarin-type agents produced by Iraq were largely of low quality and as such, degraded shortly after production. Therefore, with respect to the unaccounted for weaponized Sarin-type agents, it is unlikely that they would still be viable today." ("Unresolved Disarmament Issues", 6 March 2003, pp.72-73). http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/970825/970613_dim37_91d_txt_0001.html SERIAL: DIM 37-91 /*********** THIS IS A COMBINED MESSAGE ************/ SUBJECT: IRAQ: POTENTIAL FOR CHEMICAL WEAPON USE. DOI: 25 JAN 91 )) Key Judgments * * * 25. Binary weapons have disadvantages that would reduce their value to the Iraqis. A large part of the binary's interior is filled with nonlethal components that help mix the chemicals when the weapon is delivered. These components also help keep the chemicals separated prior to use. Because the reaction must take place while the weapon is en route to the target, the reaction does not convert all the DF to a chemical agent when the round hits its target. The round contains a mixture of agent, unreacted DF, unreacted alcohol, HF, and other impurities when it reaches the target. 26. An additional problem for the Iraqis may be the poor quality of the DF they produce. The same chemical engineering problems that have limited the purity of currently produced agents also could limit their DF quality. DF is made from an organophosphorus chemical and DF. Removing the HF is difficult: it is likely that Iraqi DF contains HF, which could catalyze decomposition. Neither the volume nor purity was known or knowable. No actual measurement of the content of the shell was performed, nor could any measurement be performed. The "shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable." All that was available for testing was residue. It is facts such as these which make your pronouncements so entertaining. * * * nolu chan posted on 2006-11-21 06:20:39 ET
you're good ;)
Looks like nolu has you here. Why don't you make up some phoney quotes that directly contradict him and then pust links to some defunct government sites to support them? I note that you have already done this at least twice tonight already. Maybe the third time is a charm.
.
Yes, I agree with Christine, its a good analysis. Chooser was giving me his binary shell crap earlier and it's nice to see the info layed out. Looks like chooser is either going to have to change the subject or insult you.
.
catch that ^^
ROTFLOL! You don't even understand what you read.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All#C469 nolu chan to BAC, 2006-11-21 06:20:39 ET on LP SERIAL: DIM 37-91 /*********** THIS IS A COMBINED MESSAGE ************/ SUBJECT: IRAQ: POTENTIAL FOR CHEMICAL WEAPON USE. DOI: 25 JAN 91 )) Key Judgments * * * 25. Binary weapons have disadvantages that would reduce their value to the Iraqis. A large part of the binary's interior is filled with nonlethal components that help mix the chemicals when the weapon is delivered. These components also help keep the chemicals separated prior to use. Because the reaction must take place while the weapon is en route to the target, the reaction does not convert all the DF to a chemical agent when the round hits its target. The round contains a mixture of agent, unreacted DF, unreacted alcohol, HF, and other impurities when it reaches the target. 26. An additional problem for the Iraqis may be the poor quality of the DF they produce. The same chemical engineering problems that have limited the purity of currently produced agents also could limit their DF quality. DF is made from an organophosphorus chemical and DF. Removing the HF is difficult: it is likely that Iraqi DF contains HF, which could catalyze decomposition.
Oh boy. Now that's rich. Some mysterious vortex sucked the steel-melting blast- furnace-hot fire into the inner core, leaving the perimeter of the building flame-free, habitable and cool? You can't be serious. Got any spam handy citing "experts" who support your most unusual theory? (If you really believe what you post, you need help. Psychological help. If you don't believe it, then you still need help, because that makes you a pathological liar.)
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
And here's my response to you ... from the same thread: *********** From http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All#C470 470. To: nolu chan, ALL (#469) http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist." NC, are you claiming the ISG report ... the Duefler report ... that you have been selectively regurgitating quotes from over and over in this thread ... is not correct in it's presentation of the facts, NC? Your desperation is palpable. And say ... how did insurgents acquire this round, NC? Hmmmmmmmmm? ROTFLOL! And thanks for posting this: True, but they know the size of the round. And just for you information, the quantity of nerve gas in a 152 mm round is about the same as in a 155 mm round. So you are worrying about the nits (I call it desperation) and missing the big picture. Priceless. So now you are claiming that Resolution 687 came from the UN in 1952? How odd, then, that you wrote in post #430 that: ROTFLOL! I can't help it if your liberal biases have blinded you to the facts, NC, or you are just too lazy to actually use your browser at something other than anti-semitic sites. They know the size of a 152mm shell. And science apparently allowed the ISG to confidently state what the purity of the sarin was, NC. Now at one point in this debate you claimed that the shell was DESIGNED to have a purity of 40%. I'm still waiting to hear your source for making this claim. Or should we just conclude you made it up in your palpable desperation on this topic? And if we accept your statement as fact, then obviously the ISG measured a purity that was the same as designed ... over a decade after the shell was produced. That, at least to a rational person, would strongly suggest a binary sarin shell has an indefinite shelf life. One doesn't even have to be an expert to see that. ROTFLOL! Speaking of pronouncements ... show us your source for claiming that the shell was DESIGNED to produce 40 percent sarin. You claimed it. Now prove it. Frankly, I think you've just been basted, Nolu. BeAChooser posted on 2006-11-21 20:22:27 ET ************ Say, nolu_chan, did you ever find the source on which you based your claim that the shell was DESIGNED to produce 40 percent sarin? No?
Yes moron, its all a conspiracy. Just like your Ron Brown kookery and the dark forces that keep Bush from using your spew to save his Presidency. Why don't you fabricate a few quotes to blow this sort of stuff away and then post a few fake links to support them? Didn't that work for you earlier this evening?
.
By the way, you are hiding behind spam again. For the lurkers: I skimmed that pile of turgid shit above and it really didn't say anything. Just convoluted nit picking in Chooser's attempt to hide the fact that he has been had.
.
Yet the ISG said the shell contained 40 percent sarin,
the same as you yourself claimed the shell was DESIGNED to produce in that LP
thread. So which is false? Your claim that the binary agent in the shell was
DESIGNED to produce 40% sarin or the claim that there was HF in the shell
which caused decomposition? One or the other must be false. It appears to me
that in that thread you yourself proved the shell had an indefinite shelf
life ... if your claim that the shell was DESIGNED to produce 40 percent sarin
wasn't false.
Probably the bullshit info that you pulled out of your ass and then supported with a fake link. But I am just guessing here.
.
As an aside, can you give us one reason why we should believe a single word you say? You've been caught fabricating info twice tonight. Not once, but twice you were caught in a scummy bald faced lie. You now expect us to believe your lying ass. May I ask why?
.
Fer godsakes, chooser, give us something more than these forlorn sarin shells and Zarquawi on the loose. For this you got: - half a trillion spent which we don't have. - a whole buncha dead guys. - even more maimed, blinded, crazed and generally damaged. - an army that is scrounging for recruits in Nigeria. - the incarnation of Nancy Armani-Pelosi in the Speaker's seat. - a whole pile of other shit that I'm too lazy to list but which our learned fellow posters may append. Don't you ever get tired chiseling around the edges? You may remonstrate endlessly about facts and events of dubious significance, but the fact remains that this little war is a sham and all the hot and cold you blow here or anywhere else doesn't change the verdict. It's all over but the shouting.
Alles Scheisse.
And here is why you were full of crap then as you are now. https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html Detailed of Chemical Weapons Findings Chemical Munitions—Other Finds Introduction Detailed PreliminaryAssessment of Chemical Weapons Findings Note what BAC is doing by way of dishonesty THIS time. He is using the PRELIMINARY Assessment to rebut the final report. After the completed investigation, the final report did NOT support the PRELIMINARY assessment. All are welcome to take their choice - the final report or something in an annex to the preliminary assessment.
Sort of like the way he used the recitals in the Iraqi war resolution to support his silly opinions. The guy never ceases to amaze me. In real life I've found that only sociopaths can get busted in lie after lie without humiliation. Makes me wonder about chooser.
.
So it this the final report or the preliminary report? You provided that source. It says the same thing. "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist."
Evil is as evil does.
Comments (224 - 267) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNo, I'm saying that the 9/11 Commission got it wrong
#185. To: SKYDRIFTER (#182)
#186. To: BeAChooser (#183)
It was the roof of the section of the Pentagon that collapsed.
#187. To: BeAChooser (#181)
What? Don't believe your own eyes, robin, when you look at a video?
#188. To: BeAChooser (#148)
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, an eyewitness at the Pentagon on 9/11: ...the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter.
I have to assume you are speaking of the only "hole" in the photo, in the background of the white car, which does appear to be somewhat larger than twenty feet. Is this the Hole you reference?
#189. To: beachooser, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#183)
ROTFLOL! As usual robin just demonstrates that she doesn't know what she is talking about. It was the roof of the section of the Pentagon that collapsed. In fact, robin proves she doesn't even know the definition of facade to use the term in this case.
fr. It. facciata, fr. faccia face, L. facies. See Face.]
(Arch.)
The front of a building; esp., the principal front, having some architectural pretensions. Thus a church is said to have its fa[,c]ade unfinished, though the interior may be in use.
#190. To: SKYDRIFTER (#189)
#191. To: tom007, robin, ALL (#188)
to assume you are speaking of the only "hole" in the photo, in the background of the white car, which does appear to be somewhat larger than twenty feet. Is this the Hole you reference?
#192. To: BeAChooser (#191)
#193. To: BeAChooser (#191)
#194. To: BeAChooser, Robin, christine, tom007, SKYDRIFTER, BTPHoldings (#148)
(Edited)
#195. To: robin, ALL (#190)
I have a theory that BAC only tries to destroy threads that have the most dangerous truth in them.
#196. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#191)
Now I ask you ... does that match Kwiatkowski's description?
BAC is a "LIAR!"
#197. To: BeAChooser (#195)
#198. To: BeAChooser (#195)
And when your hand is on your heart,
You're nearly a good laugh,
Almost a joker,
With your head down in the pig bin,
Saying "Keep on digging."
Pig stain on your fat chin.
What do you hope to find.
#199. To: BeAChooser (#195)
#200. To: BeAChooser (#195)
#201. To: wbales, ALL (#194)
In the first picture in this (#148) post, there are arrows indicating "left wing impact damage extending beyond the impact hole" showing, well, very little damage.
Where is the wing in that picture?
Where's the engine (yes the one that is 7 foot in diameter and weighs about 9800 pounds--about 5 TONS).
Like the photo of the woman hanging out of the WTC while molten steel is allegedly dripping all over the place
#202. To: beachooser (#201)
Actually, the impact point in the WTC was probably one of the coolest places on the impacted floors by the time the woman showed up. Most of the fuel and furnishings were carried deep into the tower where they burned. The hole was cleared of such and even had a nice cool wind blowing on it.
#203. To: BeAChooser (#201)
Inside the building.
#204. To: BeAChooser (#201)
Actually, the impact point in the WTC was probably one of the coolest places on the impacted floors by the time the woman showed up. Most of the fuel and furnishings were carried deep into the tower where they burned. The hole was cleared of such and even had a nice cool wind blowing on it.
#205. To: BeAChooser (#106)
Being old doesn't mean the munitions aren't still deadly and of great interest to would be terrorists. That binary sarin shell was still viable.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164186&Disp=All#C469
This source has the wrong size shell. The round in question was a 152mm prototype, not the 155mm round developed later. An anonymous source, based on an incorrect assumption of the shell type, made a further wild assumption regarding the volume of the content of the round based on the capacity of a different size round. http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweaponsc.html
[BAC #434] That's why that binary weapon is so interesting. It was the best Saddam had, still above the "quality control acceptance level of 40%",
#206. To: nolu_chan (#205)
#207. To: BeAChooser (#205)
#208. To: nolu_chan (#205)
#209. To: Kamala, YertleTurtle, Destro, Critter (#201)
(Edited)
Actually, the impact point in the WTC was probably one of the coolest places on the impacted floors by the time the woman showed up. Most of the fuel and furnishings were carried deep into the tower where they burned. The hole was cleared of such and even had a nice cool wind blowing on it. ~BeAChooser
#210. To: wbales, ALL (#203)
Your link show a purported turbo fan out on the grass
#211. To: BeAChooser (#112)
You see, binary sarin has an INDEFINITE shelf life.
http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/970825/970613_dim37_91d_txt_0001.html
The Iraqi DF, a key component of the binary shell, would catalyze and decompose while sitting on a shelf due to impurities.
#212. To: BeAChooser (#201)
(Edited)
Actually, the impact point in the WTC was probably one of the coolest places on the impacted floors by the time the woman showed up. Most of the fuel and furnishings were carried deep into the tower where they burned. The hole was cleared of such and even had a nice cool wind blowing on it.
#213. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#205)
More recycled sewage.
... snip ...
[BAC #453] We know the shell contained enough materials to make 4-5 liters of 40% pure sarin. That just happens to be about the same quantity and purity as was used in the Tokyo subway attack.
Such is neither known, nor is it knowable.
-------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
Tests Confirm Sarin in Iraqi Artillery Shell
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
By Liza Porteus
NEW YORK - Tests on an artillery shell that blew up in Iraq on Saturday confirm that it did contain an estimated three or four liters of the deadly nerve agent sarin (search), Defense Department officials told Fox News Tuesday.
No actual measurement of the content of the shell was performed, nor could any measurement be performed. The "shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable." All that was available for testing was residue.
[BAC #453] Allow me to again note that UN Resolution 687 stated that Iraq would "not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism."
The following is United Nations Resolution 687 from the seventh regular session of the UN in 1952. ... snip ... 5 December 1952 ..... INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION I guess you screwed up again.
430. To: BeAChooser (#426)
[BAC 2.0 #426] As far as that one issue is concerned, the cease-fire agreement Iraq signed did the same thing. It halted the fighting PROVIDED Iraq met the conditions of the ceas-fire. I'm not going to play semantic games or definition of "is" games with you. I'm not going to prove anything to you that is common knowledge.
I take it the poor baby is having a difficult time finding the text of the cease-fire agreement and naming the parties thereto.
Allow me to help you over this seemingly unsurmountable roadblock to overcome your self-denial.
You are looking for United Nations Resolution 687 of April 3, 1991 as accepted by Iraq on April 6, 1991.
[BAC #441] Thus it's a red herring since the shell in question contained binary sarin, which has an indefinite shell life according to experts.
"According to experts" fails to meet the level of "rumor has it"and descends to the level of having heard it on Jeff Rense between segments on bigfoot and George W. Bush being a shapeshifting reptile.
Neither the volume nor purity was known or knowable. No actual measurement of the content of the shell was performed, nor could any measurement be performed. The "shell exploded before it could be rendered inoperable." All that was available for testing was residue.
It is facts such as these which make your pronouncements so entertaining.
You should consider laying low for the next few days to minimize the possibility of anyone mistakenly putting you in an oven on Thursday and roasting you.
#214. To: BeAChooser (#213)
I can't help it if your liberal biases have blinded you to the facts,
#215. To: BeAChooser (#213)
#216. To: nolu_chan (#211)
The Iraqi DF, a key component of the binary shell, would
catalyze and decompose while sitting on a shelf due to impurities.
#217. To: BeAChooser (#216)
So which is false?
#218. To: BeAChooser (#216)
#219. To: BeAChooser (#216)
#220. To: BeAChooser (#213)
And here's my response to you ... from the same thread:
Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program Annex F Iraq's WMD > Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program > Annex F
#221. To: nolu_chan (#220)
Note what BAC is doing by way of dishonesty THIS time. He is using the PRELIMINARY Assessment to rebut the final report. After the completed investigation, the final report did NOT support the PRELIMINARY assessment.
#222. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#220)
All are welcome to take their choice - the final report or something in an annex to the preliminary assessment.
#223. To: ... (#221)
.
.
.