In article , Donal
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Iraq *had* WMD. That is an undisputable fact.

Is it?


Perhaps you would present some evidence???

You just did it for me.

One of life's mysteries is that people who use cliched phrases like
"undisputable fact" are never able to back up their assertions.

So - you're disputing that Hussein had CW? OK. If you say so.....

It seems clear that Iraq had chemical weapons back in the early 90's.

See?

However, chemical weapons were considered to be battlefield weapons. They
were never considered to be WMD until the Bush administration began to
realise that they had lied.

Ah, got a source for that? Seems to me that since you can't dispute the
fact that Hussein had and used CW the convenient thing is to redefine
WMD so as to exclude CW.

All my life there have been 3 WMD - chemical, biological and nuclear.
Now you're telling me there were only 2?

Nuclear and biological weapons have a destructive effect that extends far
beyond the geographical area of deployment.

Some do, some don't.

By your definition then a neutron bomb isn't a WMD. Do you agree?

That is why they are termed
"WMD". Chemical weapons disperse rapidly.... therefore they are weapons of
local destruction.

Ah, Donal - got a definition of 'disperse rapidly'? How about 'local'?

It seems that there is an awful lot that you don't know about CW and
their effects. Not surprising really.

PDW