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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (130491)	4/29/2004 4:15:42 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

No reports have documented the destruction of the cw and bw; they have documented their absence, which is not necessarily the same thing. Correct.. And neither did we find sufficient records (as of yet) to account for the missing 6,000 chemical warheads that we discovered were NOT expended against Iran. But some people expect us to believe that 6,000 warheads could be destroyed without a "people trail"? Hawk

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (130491)	4/29/2004 4:19:00 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, re: "No reports have documented the destruction of the cw and bw; they have documented their absence, which is not necessarily the same thing." Do your homework. The inspectors initially destroyed both bio and chem weapons as well as associated programs following the first Gulf War. In addition the Hans Blix team was gathering proof of additional destruction and was attempting to verify that before we told them to get out of the way of the invasion. Of course there was not sufficient proof that ALL the bio and chem agents had been destroyed and, even if there had been, Bush and his people alleged that more had probably been manufactured. It turns out they were almost certainly wrong. I imagine that the Kay/successors report will reveal that there is, in fact, more reliable proof of destruction of such weapons. Regarding the rest of your post; I'm not impressed with panicky "what if" thinking.