"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Uh oh!!! Perhaps Bush isn't so thick after all.



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.....

You obviously penned that lie before you read my post.


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

See?

Yes, I do see. Do you?



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

I'm really sorry. I find it difficult to hold a rational conversation with
someone who accuses me of disputing that Saddam possessed CW and then tells
me that I can't dispute the fact that Saddam had CW. Could you make up
your mind please?



the convenient thing is to redefine
WMD so as to exclude CW.

NO. You, and the rednecks have redefined "WMD" so as to include CW.


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

Correct.
If you thought that CW were WMD, then you were wrong.



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?

No, I don't. What made you reach that conclusion?



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'?

Perhaps you would care to define your interpretation of the "M" in WMD?

After all, "Mass" refers to the number of casualities. If I am wrong, and
you are right, then you should not have any difficulty in providing us with
a definitive number. I would be much happier to accept a "number" than a
vague reference to an obviously biased website, like Fox.... or the other
links that you provided.



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

That statement suggests that your POV is tainted.

Everything else that you wrote backs up my last assertion.

Regards


Donal
--