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 : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David in Ontario who wrote (22461)	3/28/2003 12:13:42 AM
From: David in Ontario	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27706

UK claims chemical weapons proof theage.com.au UK claims chemical weapons proof March 28 2003 British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said today that British forces have found undeniable evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has made preparations to use chemical and biological weapons against advancing allied troops. Hoon said the findings of recent days go beyond the discovery yesterday of about 100 chemical-weapons suits that had been given to Iraqi troops in the south, apparently to protect them from any chemical weapons that Saddam's commanders might use. Hoon did not explain the nature of the new evidence, although defence officials implied that it was found in paperwork and other Iraqi material seized at an oilfield in southern Iraq. "British forces have made significant discoveries in recent days which show categorically that Iraqi troops are prepared for the use of such horrific weapons," Hoon said today. "I want to make it clear that any Iraqi commander who sanctions the use of such weapons of mass destruction is committing a war crime and will be held personally responsible for his action." He said chemical suits had been found in a command post at the Rumaila oil fields in southern Iraq. The facilities have been secured by British troops and have now been searched. That discovery was in addition to reports that US Marines found 3,000 chemical-weapons suits Tuesday at a hospital in An Nasiriyah. Hoon said the new evidence was supported by interrogations of Iraqi prisoners of war indicating that a large number of Iraqi soldiers had been given chemical protection gear. British officials said the Iraqi regime would not have issued the gear to its soldiers in fear of a possible US or British chemical attack because Saddam knows that allied forces do not use the banned weapons. At the same news conference, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce said that "paperwork and other equipment" uncovered at the command post indicated that Saddam was planning to use chemical weapons. Those materials were being analysed by British intelligence agents, he said. He did not elaborate on the contents of the papers, but said the chemical gear found by British troops was in good condition and had been properly maintained for possible use. "This kit is effective, well cared for and in good working order," he said. "Now we have to ask ourselves why Iraqi commanders felt that infantry in this part of Iraq should be issued with weapons of mass destruction equipment and protection." He also said the Iraqi regime had laid thousands of anti-personnel and anti-tank mines throughout the battle zone - creating great hazards for the civilian population - and also had planted a large number of lethal booby traps. British troops were having to spend "a huge amount of time and effort to make the area safe" to prevent civilian and military deaths, he said. "It is not just the use of weapons of mass destruction that marks out this regime," Admiral Boyce said. But Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, said in New York today that he doubts the Iraqi regime would use any banned weapons in the current fighting because to do so would cause Saddam great damage in the battle for world opinion. He said that thus far, Saddam apparently had not used any illegal weapons against allied troops despite early, erroneous reports that banned Scud missiles had been launched at Kuwait. "I didn't think they would do it because, first of all, the world would say that they were liars," Blix said, referring to Iraq's claim that it did not have any weapons of mass destruction. "And in the second place, it would also then change, I think, the attitude of the world towards the armed conflict. The scepticism about the armed conflict would, I think, give way to one of greater understanding." - KRT

To: David in Ontario who wrote (22461)	3/28/2003 12:24:49 AM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27706

MY! My! My! How you continue to say that the Palestinians were offered Gaza and 95+% of the West Bank by Ehud Barak (with international support). Arafat's prior life as a terrorist is well documented. "PhD" man, did you do enough research to know that the "95%" offered to the Palestinians were largely useless desert land and a few "islands" surrounded by Israeli land and these islands were by and large isolated from one another? Have you seen the map of the proposed scheme? Or are you naively parroting Israeli propaganda shit? They said it was 98%, not 95%!!! It all sounds so very good, impressive and generous on paper, doesn't it? Are the highly calculating Israelis so willing or dumb to give up so much for relatively little? What a laugh!!! LOL! Jolly Swagman, are you ever naive!!! Put on your thinking cap and contemplate again 'neath the shade of a coolibah tree by a billabong for better insights.