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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (15243)	3/3/2003 10:37:02 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

I really believe Iraq has NOT been in compliance since 1992. There are so many code words, what explicity do you mean by not in complicance? I personally believe that Saddam realised that chemical and biological weapons were not an advantage in the fight he found himself in with the west. They were in fact a liability and he got rid of them. A few may sit in storage because of the confusions of inventory. There is no reason to think that he retained these weapons because they fundamentally don't work in the kind of warfare he was facing with the U.S. Biological agents are too slow, chemical agents are too unpredictable. They may have been usefull against the mass movement of Iranian children removeing mines by walking over them, but they are of little use against the U.S. forces. Yes, I think he got rid of them before 1992 because they were a pain in the butt for many reasons and provided no real offensive capability. TP