Post originally by David Sinclair at 2003-05-18 13:09:09
Converted from Phorums BB System

So we could go the easy route and say that the book allows playing out both wars with Iraq. Another easy route would be to say that the books allows the presentation of what-if scenarios, as in "what if Iraq still had these weapons and used them"?

But since you're personal views in regards to the war are being injected into this, I think other indiscrepancies need to be countered. Just because they haven't found anything significant as of yet doesn't mean they don't exist. After all, there are tens of tons of those weapons that were not accounted for after the first war.

And there are over 1 million crippled Iranian war veterans who will dispute any claims that such weapons never existed.

Incidentally, early on they did find one artillery shell warhead with traces of botullinum in it, though it had been emptied out. There have also been a number of incidents where they found contaminated samples of chemical weapons. With the runaround of the last 10 years I don't think it is implausible to suspect the contamination is intentional as a means of hiding chemical weapons. And don't forget the three weapons lab trailers they've locates so far and have yet to complete testing on. So while they haven't found any large quanitites, I don't think one should say "untracable" without any doubts as well.

And searchers are still hunting along the Texas/Louisiana border for Columbia debris, 3 1/2 months later, where what they're looking for is out in the open, waiting to be found. Why would hunting for chemical and biological weapons in a similarly sized area be any easier when such materials are or were actively hidden away?

Anyway, while we are busy nitpicking my statements, where did I say those weapons were developed _recently_?