Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (71634)	2/5/2003 9:46:52 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Perhaps not: Yep, I thought of that. The problem with this part of Powell's presentation is that even if those tubes are banned but it can be seriously argued they are used for nonnuclear purposes, then the violation is only a very minor one.

To: FaultLine who wrote (71634)	2/5/2003 10:13:15 PM
From: mistermj	Respond to of 281500

Tell that to Katrina vanden Heuvel,editor of "The Nation".She point blank, called Bush a liar in his SOTU speech,for his comments on the tubes. On second thought I'll tell her myself,with an email. >>POWELL: Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes. First, all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use. Second, Iraq had no business buying them for any purpose. They are banned for Iraq.<<

To: FaultLine who wrote (71634)	2/5/2003 10:15:25 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Let me tell you what is not controversial about these tubes.<< I found the following paragraphs extremely convincing: >>I am no expert on centrifuge tubes, but just as an old Army trooper, I can tell you a couple of things: First, it strikes me as quite odd that these tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets. Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so. Second, we actually have examined tubes from several different batches that were seized clandestinely before they reached Baghdad. What we notice in these different batches is a progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including, in the latest batch, an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. Why would they continue refining the specifications, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?<< I was already familiar with the substance of many of Powell's facts, so this was actually the most convincing of the things I had not heard before. Maybe some weapons expert can explain it away, but my guess is that Powell wouldn't have relied on it if it were easily explained.