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 (153356)	12/5/2004 12:18:16 AM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>0.03% of the total<< There is a huge difference between 80,000 lbs of rusted out Soviet tank and a couple of pounds of modern plastic explosive. The former represents zero threat to our troops in Iraq. The latter kills them regularly in roadside bombs, even though it is only 0.025% of the former in weight; and, incidentally, it can also bring down any commercial aircraft.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (153356)	12/5/2004 10:12:09 AM
From: Michael Watkins	Respond to of 281500

(estimates are that Saddam stockpiled a million tons) so alleged pilfering of 0.03% of the total shouldn't have been a front-page story in the first place. There you go again... Your credulity rating drops again. As had been actively discussed here, what was taken were raw explosives; the amount by weight of explosives in armament is but a fraction of the total weight of weapons. Metal is much heaver. So those 380 tons of explosives turn out to be 3800 or 38000 tons of weapons or more. But that's beside the point - its still enough raw material to create over a million improvised explosive devices. Its still enough raw material to blow up every airliner on the planet. Its still enough raw material, high explosive at that, to create more than one nuclear device. And still to this day no one knows where it is. The point of the issue at election time remains true now: the lack of security directed at this facility speaks to the fact that the president authorized a war plan that failed to take into account the need to rapidly secure sites suspected of producing weapons of mass destruction. Since the reason for going to war was supposed to be about weapons of mass destruction, the lack of such a comprehensive plan tells us that the war rational was specious at best, an n utter sham at worst. Al Qa Qaa was one of the largest, if not the largest, facilities of its type in the country. Any "comprehensive" plan could not fail to take this site into account. Believe what you want but the facts are not twisted by the so-called Mainstream Media. If anything, this issue was under reported and inaccurately reported. If the MSM were doing their job they would have pounded this home: "if the war is about WMD, where was the plan to secure sites suspected of producing WMD?"