Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kattracks
Doubtful. You can't have a second chemical weapons factory siting until you confirm the first. As is, the Pentagon is backpedeling on the first story.
3 posted on 03/23/2003 9:18:42 PM PST by CatOwner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last
To: CatOwner
Please take your spin to the appropriate web site.....
198 posted on 03/24/2003 7:02:43 AM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: CatOwner
Nonsense, the Pentagon never claimed it was a chemical weapons plant.
201 posted on 03/24/2003 7:06:42 AM PST by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: CatOwner
I dunno, how many chemical factories are run my a general? Or another way: doesn't the fact that the chemical factory is run by a general lead to a presumption that it is for military purposes? It could be legit, (e.g., high explosives, sun screen) but time will tell.
207 posted on 03/24/2003 9:35:59 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson