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

To: hchutch
If we have it from the 2001-2003 timeframe, it's a lot more bulletproof that it would be f this were made in 1990.

But why is it more bulletproof? I mean our main reason for going were those stockpiles he had supposedly not proven he had destroyed. The secondary reason was for weapons he might be manufacturing currently because he had the knowledge and since he had kicked the inspectors out we could not monitor what was going on.

So I still do not understand why being newer would be more solid when the older is what we were looking for to begin with. Being newer would be more interesting to be sure but what was important was those stockpiles not being given to terrorist that Saddam could easily hand over too.

226 posted on 05/18/2004 1:00:51 PM PDT by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies ]


To: Lady Heron; Poohbah

Chemical weapons lose their potency as they get older.

Newer stuff from the 2001-2003 timeframe would also show that Saddam Hussein was still attempting to maintain an arsenal of chemical weapons.


229 posted on 05/18/2004 1:14:40 PM PDT by hchutch ("Go ahead. Leave early and beat the traffic. The Milwaukee Brewers dare you." - MLB.com 5/11/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies ]

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