Quote:
Originally Posted by SporkLord";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty";p="
I would say that a WMD would include any weaponized chemical or biological agent capable of killing a great number of people. By that definition, the Sarin shell and the Mustard Gas shell would both be considered WMDs. They do not constitute a stockpile of WMDs, or "the" WMDs, but they are WMDs.
I'm curious what your definition of WMD is? Are you saying that there must be many of these to constitute a "weapon of mass destruction"? Or are you arguing that these were once WMDs, but no longer are because the chemical is not as active as it once was?
|
Many conventional weapons used by the US could be considered WMDs. The term in itself is very ambiguous, but I would not consider this one shell found to proove Saddam's weapons program existed on the scale that Bush claims. (oops..claimed) |
The U.S. is not under obligation visa-vie the U.N. and a treaty ending a war they lost to show where they destroyed anything. We are not legally required to account for al that stuff that the U.N. inspectors and even the Germans, French< and Russians said he ad. So what the U.S. has or what ever is 100% irrelevant to the real issue and nothing more than a cheap diversionary deflection attempt by those that keep screaming the same old line that’s been disproved here over and over aging. Repeating it seems to boar a lot of people here.