[angaq0k]

According to this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...weapons_leak_2

Quote:

ANNISTON, Ala. - A trace amount of sarin nerve agent leaked from a weapons storage bunker at Anniston Army Depot, but no one was injured.

Workers were conducting routine checks for leaks Tuesday when a monitor detected the agent outside the airtight bunker where the weapons are stored.

Sarin did not escape the area, and the concentration was not enough to hurt anyone, said Cathy Coleman, a spokeswoman Anniston Chemical Activity, which oversees the stockpile.

Tons of munitions are stored in dirt-covered, concrete igloos at the depot 50 miles east of Birmingham.

Since 1982, the Army has found 897 leaking chemical weapons in storage at the depot, where the military is using an incinerator to destroy the aging weapons.

Now, I wonder, who will free the U.S. from WMDs?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by angaq0k:

Now, I wonder, who will free the U.S. from WMDs?

Just get the left to deny they ever existed.

Problem solved.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Uh, do you realize that the US decomissioned its chemical weapons pursuant to the Chemical Weapons Convention? (Of which the US is a member). The old cold war stocks are being destroyed, but it takes time -- they are dangerous so you have to destroy them rather carefully. However, the weapons were withdrawn from active service several years ago and the destruction process is internationally monitored just as it is with other CW Convention members.

This is not a secret. Nor is it news.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Uh, do you realize that the US decomissioned its chemical weapons persuant to the Chemical Weapons Convention? The old cold war stocks are being destroyed, but it takes time. However, the weapons have been withdrawn.

This is not a secret. Nor is it news.

Who said it is a secret?
Who says anything about them being decommissioned?


All I see is that these WMDs, that they are stocked and leaking....

I just wonder how long this is going to take and who will deal with that destruction is all...

It is news because that last leak happened lately and the news about it was published 2 days ago.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Who said it is a secret?
Who says anything about them being decommissioned?


All I see is that these WMDs, that they are stocked and leaking....

I just wonder how long this is going to take and who will deal with that destruction is all...

It is news because that last leak happened lately and the news about it was published 2 days ago.

Oh please. It's not really news. Or rather, it is at most local news.

Aren't you Canadian? This was in Alabama. Exactly why is this of burning interest to you?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Oh please. It's not really news. Or rather, it is at most local news.

Aren't you Canadian? This was in Alabama. Exactly why is this of burning interest to you?

Why is Iraq of such interest to you?

Can't I care for my neighbour? I have trouble understanding that these WMDs are still not destroyed. It may be local news, but we are talking of a locality with WMDs after all!

I have concerns for the survival of the species. Don't you? Isn't that why you were infantryman yourself?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Why is Iraq of such interest to you?

Can't I care for my neighbour? I have trouble understanding that these WMDs are still not destroyed. It may be local news, but we are talking of a locality with WMDs after all!

I have concerns for the survival of the species. Don't you? Isn't that why you were infantryman yourself?

I think Alabama will survive. But thank you for your neighborly concern.

Personally, I think you should direct your attention to Gary, Illinois. It's closer to you, and probably more polluting.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think Alabama will survive. But thank you for your neighborly concern.

Personally, I think you should direct your attention to Gary, Indiana. It's closer to you, and probably more polluting.

That will ne next after this thread is done.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
That will ne next after this thread is done.

You mean, like, now.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You mean, like, now.

You write that because you feel there is nothing to discuss.

Yet, this article talks about the fact that the U.S. Army still has in its possession WMDs, and the only difference with Saddam Hussains story is a theory of Good and Evil, which are human factors of a continuously uncertain equation. Human beings are unreliable, whether they are "good" or "evil".

Of course, I did not mention anything about nuclear weapons, understanding this to be a mess that will be difficult to manage. I picked up this story because that type of product is dangerous and the fact it has been leaking means its poorly managed, and therefore, a potential danger.

Reminds of some "smart" mines actually...

My point is that this type of weaponry is useless, and that it is still left to rot leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
My point is that this type of weaponry is useless, and that it is still left to rot leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

It's not "left to rot." It's awaiting planned destruction according to an international disarmament treaty.

Honestly, I think you just didn't understand the context. I know that's embarrasing to admit . . .

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
... The old cold war stocks are being destroyed, but it takes time ...

Really? How much time?

[Spliffdaddy]

12 years 3 months 16 days 4 hours 38 minutes and 4 seconds

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Really? How much time?

I'm not sure. Several years. We had a lot of the stuff and it is really toxic. AFAIK, it's destroyed by incineration -- very carefully. Obviously if you don't burn it carefully you could cause a lot of pollution, not to say kill a lot of people.

The same thing is going in in several other Chemical Weapons Convention countries. Do you suddenly have a problem with disarmament?

Read up on it here for the international organization, and here specific to the US.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
12 years 3 months 16 days 4 hours 38 minutes and 4 seconds

Wrong answer to the WMD question.

The question that you answered is: "How long do you let a dictator do pretty much what he damned well pleases before you get really, really, really upset with him to the point of wagging your finger in the UN and stating in no uncertain terms: 'Let's give him just a little MORE time before we get really, really, really, REALLY upset with him to the point of wagging our fingers EVEN MORE forcefully and proclaiming that we REALLY mean it this time...!' ?"

But you can't draw a relationship to WMDs and a timeline relating to a dictator. His WMDs magically ceased to exist post-1998, and since a dictator would NEVER lie about such things- he only had WMDs for 8 years before the UN finger-wagging scared him straight.

[tie]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
His WMDs magically ceased to exist post-1998, and since a dictator would NEVER lie about such things- he only had WMDs for 8 years before the UN finger-wagging scared him straight.

Interesting theory. You must work for the CIA. Or rather, Rumsfeld's intelligence group set up because the CIA wasn't making up enough fanciful stories for his liking.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Just get the left to deny they ever existed.

why not let the neonazi-cons do it. they already have experience in regards to lying to the public

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The question that you answered is: "How long do you let a dictator do pretty much what he damned well pleases before you get really, really, really upset with him to the point of wagging your finger in the UN and stating in no uncertain terms: 'Let's give him just a little MORE time before we get really, really, really, REALLY upset with him to the point of wagging our fingers EVEN MORE forcefully and proclaiming that we REALLY mean it this time...!' ?"

are you talking about bush here?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Now, I wonder, who will free the U.S. from WMDs?

Well...:

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Since 1982, the Army has found 897 leaking chemical weapons in storage at the depot, where the military is using an incinerator to destroy the aging weapons.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not sure. Several years. We had a lot of the stuff and it is really toxic. AFAIK, it's destroyed by incineration -- very carefully. Obviously if you don't burn it carefully you could cause a lot of pollution, not to say kill a lot of people.

The same thing is going in in several other Chemical Weapons Convention countries. Do you suddenly have a problem with disarmament?

Read up on it here for the international organization, and here specific to the US.

Thanks for the instructive links!

From the http://www.cbaci.org/ (First fact sheet from the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute web site)

Quote:
The U.S. has long held that due to the relative ease with which biological and toxin weapons agents can be produced and hidden or destroyed, true verification is currently out of reach. Domestic studies have shown that many proposed verification measures are likely to be unproductive and may provide opportunities for compromising proprietary business information. However, it seems inevitable that the U.S. must acquiesce to overwhelming international pressures to establish a verification regime. This acquiescence will result in the generation of a new degree of regulation for those utilizing, or conducting studies of, micro-organisms and toxins. My emphasis.

About Sarin (for those who do not know), here is a short description. Taken from the same website, second fact sheet.

Sarin is an organophosphorus compound first developed by German scientists during the late 1930's. Although derived from research related to the production of pesticides, it was specifically intended for military use as a chemical weapon. It is one of the most aggressively lethal substances known to chemical science, with an LD50 (lethal dose) of less than 0.1 milligram per kilogram. That is, for a typical person of 60 kilograms (132 pounds) weight, a drop containing less than 6 milligrams (approximately 0.0002 ounce) of sarin in contact with the skin will result in death in at least 50% of the cases.

(...)

There are several paths of manufacture for sarin, and these are widely known and documented in the open literature. The compound has no commercial applications, although it is produced from chemicals that are openly available to civilian buyers. Two of the precursor chemicals, hydrogen fluoride and isopropyl alcohol, are produced globally in extremely large volumes. While not exactly easy to make, the synthesis of sarin relies upon widely available technology dating back more than 50 years. The conclusion -- and fear -- of many experts is that nerve gases such as sarin are well within the technical capabilities of developing countries and terrorist groups. My emphasis.

I am not going to fiddle on details; more than 800 leaking incidents for such a product, and to see it released in the environment (apparently) because of sloppiness is not ground to be proud. Granted, the management of dangerous stuff is... dangerous and unpleasant. But having that stuff in my backyard, and leaking, I would be concerned for the kids. But then, they are in Alabama, not in Washington...

So it relatively "easy" to make with tech from the '50s. How come there is still so much in stock? How hard is ti to destroy?

The question is still open regarding why it is taking so long; I have not found any links explaining that yet.

But also, thank you for these links. The CBACI is particularly interesting, especially for the documents about the governments needs in improving communications to the public about terrorists threaths and attacks in pre and post management of attacks. (But that is another thread in the making, likely before the Indiana one).


Here is something that not everybody will like:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...40E50474F4.htm But it is probably "Evil journalism".


Here is some other news:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...1anniston.html

Quote:

The Army says burning chemical weapons is safer than leaving them alone at the Anniston Army Depot, where government employees have found 882 leaks since 1982, Abrams said.


From this website: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/051100-02.htm

Quote (about sarin):

[b]The vapor is slightly heavier than air, so it stays close to the ground. Under wet and humid weather conditions sarin degrades swiftly, but as the temperature rises up to a certain point, sarin's lethal duration increases, despite the humidity.[b]


From this other web site: http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_guest.html

Quote:

(...)application of these agents coupled with their rapid rate of breakdown in the environment does not lend itself to mass destruction. Sarin readily breaks down in the presence of water. The water knocks off the fluorine atom turning it into a relatively low toxicity acid. Thus it would not do well dumped into a reservoir, nor dispersed during this wet June weather in Washington, DC. Consider the half-life of hours for typical cholinesterase inhibitors (nerve gases, many insecticides) in the presence of sunlight, compared to tens of thousands of years half-life for plutonium. Cholinesterase inhibitors break down notoriously fast, especially without a stabilizing agent. The Iraqi defector who wrote a book about Saddam's nuclear program has indicated that all of the cholinesterase inhibitors not found by the UN inspectors when they were kicked out in the late 90s have undoubtedly broken down by now. Biologicals do not fare well in hot storage sheds either. Mustard agent is an exception, having a shelf life of decades.

Hmmm...

[Orion27]

Oh Please, you're Canadian? Don't piss us off. We might decide to use them on our neighbors just like Saddam Hussein. Oh by the way, see the difference?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Orion27:
Oh Please, you're Canadian? Don't piss us off. We might decide to use them on our neighbors just like Saddam Hussein. Oh by the way, see the difference?

True. You are right.

It is rude to lecture others about what they should or should not do.

[Powerbook]

Indeed! And the French are next! First Iraq then France!!!

PB.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Just get the left to deny they ever existed.

Problem solved.

And the Holocaust never happened either.

[Vpro7]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not sure. Several years. We had a lot of the stuff and it is really toxic. AFAIK, it's destroyed by incineration -- very carefully. Obviously if you don't burn it carefully you could cause a lot of pollution, not to say kill a lot of people.

The same thing is going in in several other Chemical Weapons Convention countries. Do you suddenly have a problem with disarmament?

Read up on it here for the international organization, and here specific to the US.

Hmm, could you point out where it mentions the timescale for complete nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in regards to the US? Also, on another topic, remind me again why the US refused to sign up to the international law court. Seems it's quite an industry to be the world hypocrite.

Virtually none of the US' foreign policy has anything to do with fairness or security for the world, it's purely national interest, which has no-one's elses interests at heart except the US'. best keep those separated I think.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Thanks for the instructive links!

Just off the top of my head from other things I have read about, the reason the incineration process takes so long is because of the toxicity of the chemicals. It has to be burned at a very high temperature to make sure it is completely destroyed by combustion. I'm actually a little surprised that they are doing this in Alabama. For years the main facility was in Johnston atoll in the Pacific (i.e. a small island in the middle of nowhere). However, having just recently driven across Alabama, I doubt a little leak or two would be noticed.

AFAIK, the actual destruction of stocks is internationally monitored by the organization whose links I first sent you.

You are confusing things when you bring in the entirely separate question of biological weapons. What we are talking about in this thread is the destruction of chemical weapons as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention. There is a separate Biological Weapons Convention.

The US is a part of the Chemical Weapons Convention but has not signed the Biological Weapons Convention because of the concerns about potential industrial espionage (as your links mention). However, The US unilaterally disarmed itself with respect to biological weapons way back in 1969, long before the Biological Weapons Convention was negotiated.

There is also a Geneva Convention that bans the use (but not possession) of both chemical and biological weapons. That's been around since 1929.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Just off the top of my head (...)

Why don't you bring some quotes yourself?

You come with a lot of stuff "from the top of your head". I want to believe you, but you got to give a little more.

The main quotes I provided were from the websites YOU provided.
And they seemed pretty much up to date.

As to the "confusion" you mention, I am still referring to sarin and the quotes reflect exactly that from the links YOU gave me.

Unless you can provide direct reliable and verifiable quotes, you are only stating an opinion.

Of course, if your knowledge depends of some top secret file, maybe we should stop the discussion right here!

So far, I did provide the quotes. You did not.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Why don't you bring some quotes yourself?

You come with a lot of stuff "from the top of your head". I want to believe you, but you got to give a little more.

The main quotes I provided were from the websites YOU provided.
And they seemed pretty much up to date.

As to the "confusion" you mention, I am still referring to sarin and the quotes reflect exactly that from the links YOU gave me.

Unless you can provide direct reliable and verifiable quotes, you are only stating an opinion.

Of course, if your knowledge depends of some top secret file, maybe we should stop the discussion right here!

So far, I did provide the quotes. You did not.

Sorry, i said this was from the top of my head and I meant it. I don't have any particular web sites in mind, so I can't point you to them. Google the terms I used and you should find official web sites that cover the same issues.

BTW, Sarin is on topic because it is a chemical weapon. It's when your link starts talking about the verification issue with regards to pharmaceuticals that it starts straying over into the biological weapons convention area. But as I pointed out, the US has no bio weapons anyway.

[Orion27]

angaq0k
O.K just because your Canadian don't think we have to supply with quotes and links to our chemical weapons dumps. it's all there out in the public domain. I was going to list a well known chemical weapons disposal sight here, but thought better of it. I just live to close it and no use making it easier, for some, how should I put it, Canadian, to do something ah..
Canadian. Do me a favor and do something about the Canadian iimmigration law. That appears far for dangerous to you and us than chemical disarmament at the moment.
Oh yeah, my vote for favorite Canadian Prime Minister asked in another forum, King George lll

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Orion27:
angaq0k
O.K just because your Canadian don't think we have to supply with quotes and links to our chemical weapons dumps. it's all there out in the public domain. I was going to list a well known chemical weapons disposal sight here, but thought better of it. I just live to close it and no use making it easier, for some, how should I put it, Canadian, to do something ah..
Canadian. Do me a favor and do something about the Canadian iimmigration law. That appears far for dangerous to you and us than chemical disarmament at the moment.
Oh yeah, my vote for favorite Canadian Prime Minister asked in another forum, King George lll

Thank you for staying on topic.

About your "chemical weapon dumps", all I did was pointing out leakage in a facility that has a purpose of storing them. That there were more than 800 such leakages since the '80s, and as Smiley pointed accurately, these are supposed to be destroyed.

But it seems to take a long time. Where these are stored I do not care; it is your crap after all, and you are right on this! I certainly hope you do not have such surprises near our border...

The point I made, although dramatically, I admit, is that that stuff is around and leaking. Do what you want with that!

About our immigration Laws, well, I guess the question is rather; "How come the U.S. is such a target?"

But that is the topic of another thread, like the point regarding our immigration Laws...

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sorry, i said this was from the top of my head and I meant it. I don't have any particular web sites in mind, so I can't point you to them. Google the terms I used and you should find official web sites that cover the same issues.

BTW, Sarin is on topic because it is a chemical weapon. It's when your link starts talking about the verification issue with regards to pharmaceuticals that it starts straying over into the biological weapons convention area. But as I pointed out, the US has no bio weapons anyway.

Smiley, I understood already when you said it was from the top of your head. I use the top of my head often as well.

From http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/cwc/...91703_plt.html

Quote:

With or without the CWC, the United States is already destroying its
chemical weapons in accordance with a law Congress passed more than a
decade ago requiring destruction of the bulk of the U.S. chemical
weapons stockpile. That process is under way, with completion slated
by the end of 2004. The CWC now requires all States Parties that
possess chemical weapons to destroy their stockpiles by April 2007.

And I think I understand better your discussion style now....

I think I got confused by the CBACI fact sheet that does mention the history of the development of agreements, and it did involve chemical weapons but does not mention anything about it's separation from the rest. Anyway. I got some answers.

Thanks.

[Orion27]

"About our immigration Laws, well, I guess the question is rather; "How come the U.S. is such a target?""

For the cultural debauchery we conservatives and libertarians are forced to defend in the name of free speech.. Liberalism is not philosophy espoused by our Islamic enemies. It's about time you focus your reality on the fact we are the only ones with the balls to stand up to these facist Islamists. Are you enjoying your free ride? I guess it's only natural to bite the hand that protects you. And about your immigration laws, cultural diversity is not in their lexicon either. Maybe you have another reason I've not thought of. Care to share neighbor?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Orion27:
(...) we are the only ones with the balls to stand up (...)

No comment.

[Orion27]

Edit Noted

[dtriska]

What's your problem with our immigration laws? Is it the fact that an immigrant can become our head of state, unlike the xenophobic United States?

As to the real topic of the thread, as Simey has said, it takes time to destroy the weapons.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dtriska:
What's your problem with our immigration laws? Is it the fact that an immigrant can become our head of state,

Wrong. The head of state of Canada is not the Govenor General, it's the Queen. (See also theCIA World Fact Book ) Not only is the monarch not Canadian, she also may not be a Catholic (unlike the enlightened United States.

But don't feel bad, according to this, only 5% of Canadians can correctly identify their head of state.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Wrong. The head of state of Canada is not the Govenor General, it's the Queen. (See also theCIA World Fact Book ) Not only is the monarch not Canadian, she also may not be a Catholic (unlike the enlightened United States.

But don't feel bad, according to this, only 5% of Canadians can correctly identify their head of state.

Quote:

It is also noted that whereas Canada currently has a female head of state and female governor-general, no woman has ever been president or vice-president in the United States. They also argue that a republican head of state would cost more, not less, than the current monarchy, due to additional costs involved in updating the governor-general's residences to full head of state presidential palace level, the costs of state visits, political advisors, increased ceremonial functions, etc - functions that in many cases do not exist for a governor-general, given that they are not a "full" head of state, but which would be required for a Canadian president. There is also, in large part because of previous long disputes over constitutional issues and reforms, a reluctance to enter into the extensive constitutional renegotiation that would be required to establish a new political system in Canada. At any rate, at this time this issue is not at all high on people's minds. A recent poll suggested that only 5% of Canadians are aware that Canada's Queen and Head of State is Elizabeth II. Most Canadians incorrectly regard the Prime Minister as the nation's Head of State. My emphasis.

1) Why don't you quote right
2) Why don't you stick to topic. All the canadians registered to this forum will be perfectly happy to debate your ideas in the thread you will start.

That goes to dtriska as well. Let's not make things more complicated that they should.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
1) Why don't you quote right
2) Why don't you stick to topic. All the canadians registered to this forum will be perfectly happy to debate your ideas in the thread you will start.

I quoted perfectly correctly. The Governor General isn't the Canadian head of state.

It is off-topic. But I was just having a little fun at the expense of you humorless and way too sensitive Canadians, with your tendency to attack the US, while not being able to take a little leg-pulling in response. Your hypersensitive reply only confirms this.

As dtriska noted, the topic has already been dealt with. It takes time to destroy the former chemical weapons stockpiles. There really isn't much else to add, which probably explains the amusing off-topic banter.

[Orion27]

see new thread

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I quoted perfectly correctly. The Governor General isn't the Canadian head of state.

It is off-topic. But I was just having a little fun at the expense of you humorless and way too sensitive Canadians, with your tendency to attack the US, while not being able to take a little leg-pulling in response. Your hypersensitive reply only confirms this.

As dtriska noted, the topic has already been dealt with. It takes time to destroy the former chemical weapons stockpiles. There really isn't much else to add, which probably explains the amusing off-topic banter.

I believe the thread had been done with already. I guess I missed something.

And no, you did not quote right; the context is just as interesting.

In terms of humor, if you would take the time to read, you would have found that subtle one:

Quote:

Let's not make things more complicated that they should.

Maybe we have more humor than you think...



Edit; I would like to add that in terms of "attacking the U.S.", I try (but may not be successful at it) to make a point of not attacking Americans, the people. I try to be more specific. I apologize sincerily if I offended people, rather than institutions. I will try to make a point of being more specific in the future.

[dtriska]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Wrong. The head of state of Canada is not the Govenor General, it's the Queen. (See also theCIA World Fact Book ) Not only is the monarch not Canadian, she also may not be a Catholic (unlike the enlightened United States.

But don't feel bad, according to this, only 5% of Canadians can correctly identify their head of state.

Of course the Governor General isn't the head of state. I was playing with semantics, to compare the highest offices in each land that are chosen by the respective people in each country. As in, the president is elected (soft of), and the governor general is selected by the prime minister. I'm not surprised you missed this.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dtriska:
Of course the Governor General isn't the head of state. I was playing with semantics, to compare the highest offices in each land that are chosen by the respective people in each country. As in, the president is elected (soft of), and the governor general is selected by the prime minister. I'm not surprised you missed this.

I "missed it" because of what you wrote:

Originally posted by dtriska:
What's your problem with our immigration laws? Is it the fact that an immigrant can become our head of state, unlike the xenophobic United States?

You called that office your head of state and linked to it as such. You can hardly complain about confusion you caused. That is, unless you simply have a hard time admitting an error.

I probably wouldn't have bothered to point it out if you hadn't made chest-thumpingly nationalistic point of it: "unlike the xenophobic United States."

[dtriska]

I didn't start the chest thumping.

And, I don't have a hard time admitting errors. I pity that you can't recognize the comparison I was trying to make, as in looking at the head of state level, but the person who is selected by the people. It's a nice diversion, I must admit.

[Spliffdaddy]

no, you were simply wrong.

[tie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Uh, do you realize that the US decomissioned its chemical weapons pursuant to the Chemical Weapons Convention? ...
This is not a secret. Nor is it news.

I think the post was partly meant to be humorously ironic in the context of current events. Like how the US went to war to secure Iraq's WMD program, which Cheney and Rumsfeld apparently made up.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by tie:
I think the post was partly meant to be humorously ironic in the context of current events. Like how the US went to war to secure Iraq's WMD program, which Cheney and Rumsfeld apparently made up.

Thank God! Finally!!!!

Maybe I should improve my English somehow..

;o))

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But I was just having a little fun at the expense of you humorless and way too sensitive Canadians, with your tendency to attack the US, while not being able to take a little leg-pulling in response. Your hypersensitive reply only confirms this.

"I know exactly what you mean about our humorless neighbors to the frozen north! Tough crowd up there! Tough crowd! Maybe all the snow freezes their funny bones?

But don't get me wrong… I love our Canadian friends! Even though some of them are more overly-sensitive than a poodle's rear end after a park full of horny greyhounds, the Canadians are just great...!









.... for me to... aww you know."

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
why not let the neonazi-cons do it. they already have experience in regards to lying to the public

Musta learned it from Clinton.

[angaq0k]

From this site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3501766.stm

Military researchers have been using cadavers for years in different projects, many of which involve explosive devices.

But some experts said the military's use is questionable as donors did not expect their loved one end up being blown up.

no comments.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
From this site:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3501766.stm




no comments.

Yeah, we should be using the terrorists in Gitmo for those tests. Why waste a valuable cadaver?