Dixie dumb or just trying to confuse?

[Prakosh]

Sarin bombs that are 20 years old, are not capable of their original intent as a WMD, but the CWC defines Sarin bombs as WMD's, and doesn't discriminate based on age, unless you count their definition of an "old munition" ...one which was made prior to 1946. These particular WMD's might not have been capable of mass destruction in the condition they were found, but this doesn't mean they are not considered WMD's.

You see, we have two legitimate arguments floating around here, over what a WMD is... Jarhead's simplistic laymen's definition, a WMD is a weapon capable of mass destruction... and the Chemical Weapons Convention's definition, any Schedule 1 chemical agent, weaponized for the purpose of warfare.

The problem is, Jarhead doesn't want to acknowledge the CWC definition, which is the one that applies to Saddam and the 500 Sarin bombs found in Iraq. I understand his simplistic viewpoint, however, it doesn't apply to sanctions and legality under international treaty, where people smarter than us, determined what constitutes a WMD.

I certainly understand why Pinheads feel the need to move the goal posts, now that the WMD's have been found, they have to argue that they aren't WMD's, and I can see why they are so compelled, but you can't absolve Saddam from responsibility by pinhead logic like this, the CWC established guidelines to cover these simplistic loopholes designed to deny reality.


And Tiana, ONE can't be divided evenly by THREE, sorry!

Nor by six or seven, or nine or eleven or thirteen, and so on...looks like you really have your work cut our for you there Dixie. You better gird up your loins this looks like it's going to be a long fight...Dixie does math....Go Dixie, Go!!!!!!!! This could result in a whole new math order...truly revolutionary.

If it doesn't divide evenly into one, it doesn't exist!

Novel Idea That!!!!

Question: does Sarin gas divide evenly into one??????????????

If not it doesn't exist.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

LMAO.... For some unknown reason, the elementary fact that one can't be divided by three evenly, just drives pinheads completely insane. I don't know why, I have a theory that it might have something to do with their mental disorder, but I'm not sure.

Sarin bombs are WMD's whether they are divided by three or not, according to the CWC. You can't even present a valid and reasonable case for why you're using laymen terms to describe something that has already been defined by convention and is a part of international law.

Maybe pinheads just operate in a completely different base system of reality?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

dixie, you can divide 3 into 1 evenly, just not with our base 10 system.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

dixie, you can divide 3 into 1 evenly, just not with our base 10 system.

Yes, I am aware of this. That was not my argument or statement. Lookit... take a piece of paper and divide 1.000 by 3.... see what you get? Is there a remainder or not? Yes or No? If there is a remainder, then what I said was true, and 1 can't be divided evenly by 3, If you produce a result that divides evenly, please post it here! It's really such a simple argument, I don't understand why so many pinheads are offended by it. Sometimes it seems like they just want to 'will' an even result, just to prove me wrong. I can't help it, that 1 can't be divided evenly by 3, I wish I could just let go of my inhibitions and go along with the pinheads who think it can, but I know better.

 

[Jarod]

Sarin bombs that are 20 years old, are not capable of their original intent as a WMD, but the CWC defines Sarin bombs as WMD's, and doesn't discriminate based on age, unless you count their definition of an "old munition" ...one which was made prior to 1946. These particular WMD's might not have been capable of mass destruction in the condition they were found, but this doesn't mean they are not considered WMD's.

You see, we have two legitimate arguments floating around here, over what a WMD is... Jarhead's simplistic laymen's definition, a WMD is a weapon capable of mass destruction... and the Chemical Weapons Convention's definition, any Schedule 1 chemical agent, weaponized for the purpose of warfare.

The problem is, Jarhead doesn't want to acknowledge the CWC definition, which is the one that applies to Saddam and the 500 Sarin bombs found in Iraq. I understand his simplistic viewpoint, however, it doesn't apply to sanctions and legality under international treaty, where people smarter than us, determined what constitutes a WMD.

I certainly understand why Pinheads feel the need to move the goal posts, now that the WMD's have been found, they have to argue that they aren't WMD's, and I can see why they are so compelled, but you can't absolve Saddam from responsibility by pinhead logic like this, the CWC established guidelines to cover these simplistic loopholes designed to deny reality.


And Tiana, ONE can't be divided evenly by THREE, sorry!

Stop lying about the CWC!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Stop lying about the CWC!

I'm not the one lying about the CWC, which states in the preamble, its objective of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, defines Sarin as the first of the worst (schedule 1) chemical agents used for WMD production, and prohibits it from being produced, weaponized, or stockpiled.

I am sorry you are too ignorant to comprehend the legal wording, but most reasonably intelligent people can read the Chemical Weapons Convention, realize it does establish parameters for how a WMD is defined, and see that it has nothing to do with perception of capability by arbitrary judges.

Most rational people, can comprehend that a chemical nerve agent that was produced for the sole purpose of making a WMD, and nothing else, can't suddenly turn into harmless goo, and stop being a threat. Unless, of course, you are a pinhead who needs this to be the case, so you can continue spreading the lie about the WMD's found in Iraq.

 

[Jarod]

I'm not the one lying about the CWC, which states in the preamble, its objective of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, defines Sarin as the first of the worst (schedule 1) chemical agents used for WMD production, and prohibits it from being produced, weaponized, or stockpiled.

I am sorry you are too ignorant to comprehend the legal wording, but most reasonably intelligent people can read the Chemical Weapons Convention, realize it does establish parameters for how a WMD is defined, and see that it has nothing to do with perception of capability by arbitrary judges.

Most rational people, can comprehend that a chemical nerve agent that was produced for the sole purpose of making a WMD, and nothing else, can't suddenly turn into harmless goo, and stop being a threat. Unless, of course, you are a pinhead who needs this to be the case, so you can continue spreading the lie about the WMD's found in Iraq.

I agree with you about what it ays in its preamble, that does not mean the CWC defines ALL Seirn as a WMD!

 

[Jarod]

Dixie you truely are an idiot!

 

[maineman]

Dixie sez:

"Most rational people, can comprehend that a chemical nerve agent that was produced for the sole purpose of making a WMD, and nothing else, can't suddenly turn into harmless goo, and stop being a threat."

The key word there, of course, is suddenly. No one is claiming any sort of SUDDEN conversion. This degradation of Sarin starts soon after it is produced and continues unabated until the substances looses its capability to be used as a WMD in a year or so. The rust cannisters of Sarin found in Iraq were over 20 years old. Plenty of time for the sarin to have degraded and decomposed to the point of being "harmless goo". Those cannisters were incapable of being used as a weapon of mass destruction long before the FIRST Gulf War.... finding them is a pretty useless reason to waste the lives of 2700 Americans and half a trillion dollars.

 

[Cypress]

"Most rational people, can comprehend that a chemical nerve agent that was produced for the sole purpose of making a WMD, and nothing else, can't suddenly turn into harmless goo, and stop being a threat."

MM is right dixie. You're either being disingenuous, or flat out lying, if your implying that anyone said Sarin can "suddenly" turn into inert goo.

The munitions are twenty years old.

You might want to pull out your old University of Alabama chemistry textbooks, to learn how man-made chemicals can degrade into inert by-products with time.

Assuming that University of Alabama teaches real science and chemistry - and not creation science - of course.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Most rational people, can comprehend that a chemical nerve agent that was produced for the sole purpose of making a WMD, and nothing else, can't suddenly turn into harmless goo, and stop being a threat."

MM is right dixie. You're either being disingenuous, or flat out lying, if your implying that anyone said Sarin can "suddenly" turn into inert goo.

The munitions are twenty years old.

You might want to pull out your old University of Alabama chemistry textbooks, to learn how man-made chemicals can degrade into inert by-products with time.

Assuming that University of Alabama teaches real science and chemistry - and not creation science - of course.

I fully understand how chemistry works, and Sarin degrades. This process begins the moment the Sarin is made, so at what arbitrary time do you suppose the weapon stops being a WMD and starts being harmless goo?

The parameters set by the CWC, do not rest on the age of the weapon, or the degradation of the chemical used in them. There is no way to positively know for certain, if a Sarin bomb is a binary type, which will not degrade with time, or an older weapon, which will degrade, but under certain conditions, could remain lethal for years. Much of Sarin's potency, has to do with the purity of precursors used, so some Sarin bombs might be more potent than others, just by the nature of the chemical. There is not a way to establish a criteria for WMD's based on perception of potential damage, because there are too many variables. This is why the UN ordered the CWC to define the parameters, which they did! Now, you want to try and play some pinhead word game, and act like Sarin bombs aren't even weapons of mass destruction, because it doesn't fit your pinhead simplistic and idiotic view of what a WMD should be, and refuse to acknowledge the CWC guidelines.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I agree with you about what it ays in its preamble, that does not mean the CWC defines ALL Seirn as a WMD!

It doesn't define ANY Sarin as a WMD. It defines Schedule 1 chemical agents, like Sarin, and stipulates that weapons made with these chemicals, are WMD's. The only exception for the age or condition of the weapon, is made for WMD's that were produced before 1946, which these 500 Sarin bombs found in Iraq, were not.

 

[Prakosh]

It doesn't define ANY Sarin as a WMD. It defines Schedule 1 chemical agents, like Sarin, and stipulates that weapons made with these chemicals, are WMD's. The only exception for the age or condition of the weapon, is made for WMD's that were produced before 1946, which these 500 Sarin bombs found in Iraq, were not.

So now you are back to the number as 500, huh? What happened to the other 200 you thought you had found just last week???

 

[maineman]

Dixie...the one hour photo guy...now he's a fucking CHEMIST! Kay, Duelfer, and even President Bush ALL say that Saddam did NOT have any WMD's....but Dixie.... he refuses to give up.

I certainly hope that everyone else finds him as pathetic as I do.

 

[Jarod]

It doesn't define ANY Sarin as a WMD. It defines Schedule 1 chemical agents, like Sarin, and stipulates that weapons made with these chemicals, are WMD's. The only exception for the age or condition of the weapon, is made for WMD's that were produced before 1946, which these 500 Sarin bombs found in Iraq, were not.

Thats the point where you are lying:

It does not stipulate tahtt weapons made with these chemicals are wmd's!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Thats the point where you are lying:

It does not stipulate tahtt weapons made with these chemicals are wmd's!

Yes, it stipulates it in the preamble. It's the foundational purpose of the Convention, to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Sarin is listed, by the CWC, as the number one chemical agent in the most egregious category of chemicals, used to make WMD's. How you can spin that into the CWC being unclear on the subject, is beyond me. As I said earlier, it's as if you are arguing we don't have "free speech" because the Bill of Rights doesn't mention the phrase "free speech" at all.

The CWC, formed to address the growing problem with WMD's, established Sarin as chemical public enemy number one, set clear guidelines for determining what constitutes a WMD, as well as how to dispose of them if they are old. To argue that the CWC doesn't stipulate Sarin bombs as WMD's, is as ridiculous as saying the Geneva Convention doesn't stipulate what is torture.

 

[maineman]

you gonna answer this Dix?

Dixie sez:

"Most rational people, can comprehend that a chemical nerve agent that was produced for the sole purpose of making a WMD, and nothing else, can't suddenly turn into harmless goo, and stop being a threat."

The key word there, of course, is suddenly. No one is claiming any sort of SUDDEN conversion. This degradation of Sarin starts soon after it is produced and continues unabated until the substances looses its capability to be used as a WMD in a year or so. The rust cannisters of Sarin found in Iraq were over 20 years old. Plenty of time for the sarin to have degraded and decomposed to the point of being "harmless goo". Those cannisters were incapable of being used as a weapon of mass destruction long before the FIRST Gulf War.... finding them is a pretty useless reason to waste the lives of 2700 Americans and half a trillion dollars.

 

[Jarod]

Yes, it stipulates it in the preamble. It's the foundational purpose of the Convention, to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Sarin is listed, by the CWC, as the number one chemical agent in the most egregious category of chemicals, used to make WMD's. How you can spin that into the CWC being unclear on the subject, is beyond me. As I said earlier, it's as if you are arguing we don't have "free speech" because the Bill of Rights doesn't mention the phrase "free speech" at all.

The CWC, formed to address the growing problem with WMD's, established Sarin as chemical public enemy number one, set clear guidelines for determining what constitutes a WMD, as well as how to dispose of them if they are old. To argue that the CWC doesn't stipulate Sarin bombs as WMD's, is as ridiculous as saying the Geneva Convention doesn't stipulate what is torture.

All that frilly language you keep using does not mean the CWC has classified Seirn as a WMD...!

JUST BECAUSE A DOCUMENT DISCUSSES WMD AND SEIRN DOES NOT MEAN IT CLASSIFIES SEIRN AS A WMD!

Are you dumb or something?

 

[Jarod]

Also noone claims the Seirn suddenly turned to goo as your misleading rhetoric claims, it took 20 years!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

All that frilly language you keep using does not mean the CWC has classified Seirn as a WMD...!

JUST BECAUSE A DOCUMENT DISCUSSES WMD AND SEIRN DOES NOT MEAN IT CLASSIFIES SEIRN AS A WMD!

Are you dumb or something?

It doesn't classify Sarin as a WMD, it classifies Sarin as a Schedule 1 chemical, and stipulates that Schedule 1 chemicals which are weaponized, are WMD's. I'm not using any frilly language, the CWC is in plain English. It doesn't simply "discuss" WMD's, it articulates what is defined as a WMD, sets parameters for determining what is a WMD, and establishes criteria on which a weapon is considered to be a WMD. Nothing in the CWC relates to the age or potentcy of the weapon, except for details concerning "old munitions" which the CWC describes as those weapons made before 1946.

And no, I am not 'dumb or something', I am a fairly smart guy. It's you who seems to have a problem adequately supporting your arguments, spelling simple words or comprehending basic English.

You have yet to provide any evidence that any body has ever made any distinction on a WMD, based on the suspected potentcy, age, strength, or effectiveness of the chemical components, whatsoever. There is absolutely nothing to support your argument, except your own pinhead logic, and that isn't going to win a debate for you, sorry.