On 26 Oct 2006 at 7:02, Nick Arnett wrote: > On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > They're lying. Period. > > > > Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding dangerous > > Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the so-called news > > reporters wouls say something about it..I talk to friends of American > > soliders out there for the real news, tbh). > > > Enlighten me. Why would they lie? > > And you're not really contradicting anything I said. You obviously know that > there was no program and no stockpiles of useful weapons.
You are speaking in my name. Don't. There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*, Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes. Yes, 2 1/2 years down the line the seals used in the style of binary shells the Iraquis used, absent controlled storage, will have decayded and then they rapidly become useless. And there are no outright "lies". I never said there were. What I actually said was that the fact over 700-800 shells with chemical weapon traces, more than the number which were believed he held (400- 500) is somehow NOT considered very newsworthy. And that's just what what has been FOUND. A hole in the desert is secure and cheap. AndrewC _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
