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: Bilow who wrote (100681)	6/8/2003 2:29:53 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The only time the Iraqis used chemical weapons was when their regime was in danger due to the Iranians advancing deeply into the country, How about taking a trip to Kurdistan and trying to sell that bit of revisionist history? Even though it is theoretically true that Iraq does have WMDs hidden in some obscure location for obscure reasons, the problem that Bush and Blair have is that they lied about the content of secret documents, in order to cause Parliament and Congress to grant them the right to start a war. Is it just me (to the audience) or does this sound remarkably contradictory? It's true that Iraqi WMDs are secreted "somewhere", but that Bush and Blair lied about their existence in order to start a war? They either exist, or they don't. The evidence almost certainly demands that we believe they do(did), since the Iraqis secretly accounted for them, in their internal documents, as if they did. Now if the Iraqis believed they existed and accounted for them in such a manner, who are we to reject that evidence as "inconvenient"? And what will you all say if, someday, those WMDs are found hidden up in some very isolated location? Don't you all think you're being a bit over-zealous to pursue a course of perception that could quickly be "overcoome by events" should such a discovery finally take place (as documents are translated and knowlegable individuals interviewed/interrogated)? Doesn't it bother you that "Mrs. Anthrax", Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, has failed repeated polygraph tests? The infamous Huda Mahdi Ammash, dubbed “Mrs. Anthrax” for her work on Iraq's bio-weapons program, has failed multiple polygraph tests, senior defense officials said. "The sense is that all of these people who were tied to Iraq's WMD program had a pre-determined story that they were going to use if they were caught," said one official. foxnews.com I suggest you "stand by" because I believe we're going to see some of the evidence you so righteously believe should have already presented itself. Hawk

To: Bilow who wrote (100681)	6/9/2003 6:43:34 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Carl, Chemical munitions, especially made to relatively poor quality (as Iraq's were) do not have a long lifespan - ten years would be good. Anthrax, maybe, but that's not a warhead weapon especially as the Iraqis had it (nor is it a chemical). Anything else dating from the Iran-Iraq war would long since have degraded. What would you say is the likely failure and disposal rate of Iraqi shells over the 15 years intervening (1983-1998, never mind the 5 years since)? think they bothered documenting everything, or might they have wanted some to still exist - at least, on paper? The military in totalitarian dictatorships aren't known for passing back bad news willingly, since it's bad for the career... think they'd admit that their much-vaunted chemical shells were worthless junk? In addition, and a key point I keep forgetting, a chemical warhead is NOT a WMD. Even landing in an urban area it'd kill far less people than a MOAB, for starters... Don't be thrown by the chickenhawks here and their post roc rationalisations.