View Single Post
  #10  
Old June 1st 04, 09:36 PM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)


Didn't the Iraqis claim they never had any Sarin at all? If that's
the case, doesn't the presence of even one shell prove they did not
abide by the 1991 agreement?


They supposedly only did "research" on binary sarin rounds, and that
*after* 1991.

The existence of this round, at *all*, shows that they weren't complying
with their obligations by informing the UN of the research program.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.