don't even try to defend your friend MarkH. He lost and doesn't want to get shown up again....

The obvious point is that the United States hasn’t found anything. It is obvious that Rumsfeld does not know where the WoMD are. It is obvious that your contention that we FOUND WoMD is not a very good argument due to the silence from the administration. All of those things are obvious. These are all facts, else where are the WoMD? (Fact 1).

They found a SINGLE SHELL which is NOT a WoMD ( FACT 2). Do you still contend that a single shell is a WoMD? Or a single Sarin shell is a WoMD? Or that two shells are a WoMD? I would say if they found a hundred shells or more, then yes, I would start to agree with you. I would disagree with you at, hmmm, let’s say 25 shells – that, to me would not be enough. But I could at least see your point there. If we found a hundred, I would be elated because it would help the United States regain world credibility and be a justification for our invasion. But saying 1 or 2 shells is a WoMD is just plain childish.

Why do you Neocons want to argue against the facts? You can't win, so your tactic is to attack me, attack my credibility, say the same thing over and over and over leaving out the facts and discussing red herrings (HansMoleman says, “If you don't think that mustard gas is a WMD, read up on WW1. It is nasty stuff.” – LOL, so what? They found 1 shell as far as I know. What are they going to do, load it up and shoot it at someone – Muhahahaha!). Then the Neocons complain and wish I wasn't here or that I could be shut up.

If you can't win the argument, you simply get rid of the people who are arguing with you! And then you call me a Marxist and demand censorship. Talk about hypocrites!

Great job guys! You've shown your true colors -- Fascists!

__________________
"What does a former president's son know about the Iraq war anyway?"
-- GW Bush when asked about Ron Reagan's negative comments, 6/25/2004.
www.BushZombie.com

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1137484/posts

and an English professor concurs...
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2939304

...
That one shell is a WMD! (*)(*)(*)(*) it! In fact one drop of Sarin is a WMD!
Wait, it isn't? Oh, well the Iraqi people are better now than under Saddam! We got rid of him right! You disagree? You terrorist!

Happens all the time... lol.

__________________
"What does a former president's son know about the Iraq war anyway?"
-- GW Bush when asked about Ron Reagan's negative comments, 6/25/2004.
www.BushZombie.com

leave out the mustard gas in this argument. Why? Because there is no refuting that mustard gas clearly is a WMD. It was used in WW1, and had absolutely devastating effects. So much so that it was banned from being used in warfare by the Geneva convention.

Just thank God that it wasn't stored properly and was not used against our troops, unlike the Sarin shell....

Hans: Yes or no question: If the two shells, 1 of Sarin and 1 of Mustard Gas, are all that is found, do you feel that the WoMD have been found?

__________________
"What does a former president's son know about the Iraq war anyway?"
-- GW Bush when asked about Ron Reagan's negative comments, 6/25/2004.
www.BushZombie.com

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)

I agree with your definition.

This is purely a guess, but for me I think when we hit a stockpile of about 100 usable shells or missiles able to disperse chemical or biological death and the material to fill them, I would be at the point where I would say, "Yup, he shouldn’t a had those puppies, we warned him,” and “You see, World, we had a right to take those out before he could use them.”

Now, I am going out on a limb here -- because I really don't know how dangerous 100 shells are, and I imagine that we would take out a howitzer shooting those shells so fast that it would be a joke. BUT, I can see the point about WoMD being found then.

Number of Shells
0 to 25, Not justification for invasion.
26 to 75, gray area
76 to 100, less gray
Over 100… Hmmmm… now I’m thinking WoMD.

This is my view.

__________________
"What does a former president's son know about the Iraq war anyway?"
-- GW Bush when asked about Ron Reagan's negative comments, 6/25/2004.
www.BushZombie.com