Quote:
|
Originally posted by boots: Oh. Your original comment makes more sense now. I thought you were refering to the concentration of chemicals in the river. But if you were refering to the documents, that makes more sense. No wait. I'm still confused. After 20 years, the contamination wouldn't be that high... unless they have been dumping consistently in the recent past...in which case it doesn't matter if they were left over from the 80's cause they still had them recently...until they dumped them in the river... Oh, Sh�t. Now I've gone cross-eyed.... |
Sorry. As I see it there were a few claims of "evidence":
1) documents (they could be decades old or probably just the manuals that came with the stuff when they bought it from western companies)
2) poisonous chemicals (not illegal)
3) chemicals in the water (could just be pollution. If it was intentional poisoning, that doesn't mean it was some illegal agent.)
And anything we find is probably leftover from the 80's. Their WMD program was booming then. The inspectors in 91 were floored by the scope of the programs. That means they predated 91.
The question of disarmament (if it even matters any more) is a question of (1) what happened to the remainder of stuff we didn't destroy (stuff from the 80's); (2) what new stuff could they have pulled off since 98 (doing anything during the 90's while everyone was watching is questionable but perhaps possible).