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: Hawkmoon who wrote (24740)	6/10/2003 9:27:34 AM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 25898

Thus, 6,000 warheards are unaccounted for... That should be pretty easy to find. It would take at least a u-store-it garage to hold, unless they were missle sized warheads, then it would take an aircraft hanger sized building. Barring that they may have been dispersed around the country, but of course that would mean that there are many sites and with a $200,000 reward for showing the Americans just one site,.... well it doesn't make sense. What does make sense is that any chemicals were dumped into that big toxic waste pit that the inspectors were shown, and all that remains are a few odd & end items which could have been filled, but weren't. The overriding question that you chose to ignore is what would Iraq do with these chemical weapons if they had them? TP

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (24740)	6/10/2003 2:40:49 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25898

Hawk: The silly reply which TP made to this post I am responding to should (I hope) convince you that further posting to that Bush hating moron in any serious manner is a futile exercise. This POS pinhead, TP, cares nothing about facts, logic or the best interests of this nation. He's so lame that he's still fighting the last election. You have effectively skewered him on several occasions....at some point further deconstruction of his posts in the same manner equates to cruelty to dumb animals. Your mistake is in responding seriously to someone who has become the unchallenged pinhead laughingstock of SI. Ridicule, derision and insults are all that dipsh*t deserves in reply. He is either the dumbest animal without fur I have ever seen or he has a serious mental condition which needs attention. In either case, responding seriously to his nonsense does not make for good thread hygiene....IMHO. JLA

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (24740)	6/11/2003 3:28:29 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25898

Re: Because it clearly showed that out of an inventory of 19,000 chemical warheads, only 13,000 had been expended during the Iran-Iraq war. Thus, 6,000 warheards are unaccounted for... No evidence of destruction, but sufficient evidence that the Iraqis continued to carry them as current inventory, despite supposedly having destroyed them all by 1992. Too bad you flunked your biological warfare course... Here's clue from Robin Cook, Britain's former Secr of State: Nor did the dossier at any stage admit the basic scientific fact that biological and chemical agents have a finite shelf life. Nerve agents of good quality have a shelf life of about five years and anthrax in liquid solution of about three years. Saddam's stocks were not of good quality. The Pentagon itself concluded that Iraqi chemical munitions were of such poor standard that they were produced on a "make-and-use" regimen under which they were usable for only a few weeks. Even if Saddam had destroyed none of his arsenal from 1991 it would long ago have become useless. It is inconceivable that no one in the Pentagon told Rumsfeld these home truths, or at the very least tried to tell him. So why did he build a case for war on a false claim of Saddam's capability? [...] Message 19000209