PhillyKev 0 #1 September 9, 2003 ..a couple of political links. This one is regarding the research and development of banned chemical weapons undertaken by the US military last year. This report from the US Inspector General regarding the President pushing the EPA to release false reports to mollify the public. This report from the US General Accounting Office regarding the refusal of Cheyney to release documents as requested by congress regarding his energy policy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #2 September 9, 2003 Quote..a couple of political links. This one is regarding the research and development of banned chemical weapons undertaken by the US military last year. OK, They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.... This is criticizing NON-LETHAL weapons research. Saying investigating relatives of lethal weapons is a bad idea??? Um yeah. Codine is a relative of a Lethal/Illegal drug. So is that bad? These people need to get a life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clownburner 0 #3 September 9, 2003 Perhaps you missed this statement: QuoteThe discovery that the Army is investigating close relatives of extremely lethal nerve gases as "non-lethal" weapons heightens concerns previously raised that the Army's "non-lethal" chemical weapons program is practically indistinguishable from one with a fully lethal intent. It's certainly worth keeping an eye on, especially if we're levelling countries for supposedly possessing these 'banned' chemical weapons at the same time we're making more of our own, don't you think? Non-lethal weapons research gets dangerously close to the line here.7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #4 September 9, 2003 key word banned as in illegal Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #5 September 9, 2003 QuoteThis report from the US Inspector General regarding the President pushing the EPA to release false reports to mollify the public. While the CEQ did assume an untraditional role, it was an unusual period of time. Having read the relevant portions (pages 14-17), I'll agree that the editing was a bit over the top. But I wouldn't say it was anything terrible. They were correct that the risks from exposure to such low levels of asbestos are minimal, and did anyone really need the EPA to tell them there was particular matter (read "dust") in the air and financial district offices? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
