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: JohnM who wrote (71821)	2/6/2003 2:05:32 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You don't have to know a lot of squat about those tubes. Rockets are throw away weapons - get a lot of firepower for cheap - fine tolerances aren't necessary or desirable. Whatever those tubes were meant for, they weren't for rockets. (4) thus, as a controversial point it might have been wiser for Powell to leave them out of his speech, less that controversy slightly undermine the strength of other arguments A major argument the US is making is that Hussein is continuing with his atomic weapons program. Iraq kept ordering the tubes machined to ever greater tolerances. The argument, in terms of fact, will be utterly accepted by governments and intelligence agencies, and just about any ordinary citizen, like, say, a car mechanic or industrial worker.

To: JohnM who wrote (71821)	2/6/2003 2:17:12 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Just for historical purposes, I think this story from 9/8/02 was near the original floatation of the aluminum tubes line: U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts nytimes.com Somewhat concurrent with the unveiling of Andy Card's grand war marketing plan, that was. It was pretty ambiguous then, it seemed that nothing was known to have been actually shipped, and it's not clear that Powell presented anything new on the topic either.

To: JohnM who wrote (71821)	2/6/2003 2:27:14 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Always offering friendly posts, aren't you. No sarcasm there. No. Let's not get petulant, John. There was no sarcasm intended. I am sorry that you interpreted it as such, but that is not my problem as I cannot control your interpretations. If you want sarcasm, read my po-mo post. The point, to be a bit more clear about it, is that if you accept Powell's version about the tubes, which I think we all do--heck, you said somewhere that you might vote for him if he runs as a Presidential candidate, so I assume you believe him--then the only effective counter-argument is that Powell was lying about the tubes. I doubt that he is misinformed about something so critical. The commentaries by the experts posted elsewhere here suggest that Powell is not misinformed, ergo, it seems that the only means available to you to counter the import of the tubes' significance is to find evidence that Powell lied, which is what I said.