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: Hawkmoon who wrote (101214)	6/12/2003 1:39:30 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "But hey... that's well over 40 years after ..." Time really doesn't matter. If you lose a chemical munition, you lose a chemical munition. It's not like you can predict when they're going to be found. If anything, the short time since the Iraqis may have "lost" some of theirs is an indication that they could still be found abandoned or buried in a forgotten dump, just like we lost ours. Re: "... after a MAJOR GLOBAL CONFLICT with 12 million US servicement under arms had ended." Iraq is a nation of around 23 million people. The Iran war was a major conflict for it. So was the conflict with the US. What's more important, they lost the war with the US, and barely survived the war with Iran. Anybody who's read any amount of books on war knows that the losers end up with worse records than the winners. Simply put, losing armies abandon all kinds of stuff. I mean Jesus weeps. You know all this. Re: "And the desert of Iraq is hardly as corrosive to metal as tropical humidity." Which means that burying is a more suitable technique for getting rid of munitions, at least if "more suitable" means postponing the possible problems farther into the future. But I don't pretend to know exactly what happened to Iraq's WMDs. I'm just not in denial as to their existence, LOL. -- Carl P.S. Re gopher: Couldn't care less.