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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (4264)	2/17/2003 12:26:59 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Only if you can show how today is any different than 11 years ago can you start to attempt to discredit the report. Assuming you are not kidding me but are actually arguing that using 12-year old in an "intelligence" report aimed at showing the CURRENT situation, this is a (non-exhaustive) list of what changed in the last 12 years: (1) Inspectors destroyed tens of thousands of tons of chemical and biological material Weapons inspectors destroyed tens of thousands of chemical weapons munitions iiss.org In seven years' work ending in 1998, U.N. expert teams destroyed large amounts of chemical and biological weapons and longer-range missiles forbidden to Iraq by U.N. resolutions after the Gulf War, in which an Iraqi invasion force was driven from Kuwait. The inspectors also dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons program before it could build a bomb. foxnews.com (2) Chemicals and biological agents are not immortal. Anthrax germinates in three years even in very good conditions, five years at the most for example. So it is quite reasonable to think that a lot of Iraq's remaining arsenal will have turned to harmless goo, after the 12-year data in the said report. guardian.co.uk smh.com.au (3) Iraq even USED some of its arsenal since the data of 12 years ago - remember the gassed Kurds? I am sure you can find the links yourself on this one. So, you see, a lot of things CAN and DO change in 12 years. It seem the logic of 11 years ago fits today's information very well. Oh really? Then I wonder why the student who wrote the report HIMSELF says he could provide the state with updates on the data if only they asked. Seriously, since when is it OK for a state to declare a report based on 12-year old data, ESPECIALLY a plagiarised one??? Come on....