You asked my opinion. My opinion, nor yours, is important. What is, is what the military defines as such in the international community. Again, Colonel Chu noted this. We are not debating the validity of the war. Your opinion or mine, is not what defines WMD. Your service in Iraq is not in question. Awards you received in the military do not dismiss the WMD that were found. Again, neither your or my opinion matter. What matters is the definition according to the Chemical Weapons Convention. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918 Personal opinions do not dismiss these findings.
We are not debating the validity of the war? - Quote by President Bush... The only thing we've found there was gulf-war-era chemicals (which have shelf lives of no longer then a few years)... We've already discussed this... Is that WMD? The expired chemicals? You're appealing to emotions with your statement: So I'm going to counter that with the fact that I've actually served my country, and you haven't... Who supports saddam? Who actually fought in the war? Not you, right? Quit supporting saddam and join the military, hypocrite.
No, we are not debating the validity of the war. We are witnessing denial in action and discussing wmds that were found that you suggest were not. I've previously covered this. I served my country while you were in diapers. That does not dismiss Colonel Chu's statements about WMD that were found. Nor does it dismiss the other WMD that was found. Shall we just chock this up to denial based upon hatred for the President? That would most certainly explain the denial and be in line with a few others who have done the same.
1) I don't have hatred for the president; disgust for most politicians, yes. He's made some big mistakes, along with the intelligence community, and his administration, but the way he'll be remembered in the history books is punishment enough... 2) You cite "newsbusters.org"? That's like me citing a newspaper called "screw the republicans"... 3) Just remember, you're the one that started with the personal attacks, not me... Suggesting I "support saddam"? You couldn't be more off base. 4) You claim "wmds that were found", but are unwilling to describe what a WMD is? It's a weapon, that can cause mass destruction... Would you disagree? Now, of all the items found in iraq, which can cause "mass destruction"?
That's fair. Incorrect. Newbusters cites sources. They simply accumulated the various accounts of WMD found. If Newsbusters were the source, you'd have a point here. This argument would hold better, if you took issue with the sources Newsbusters has accumulated. No reason to fault them, for sourcing other real news sites. You could have noted why you choose denial. I covered this previously. Perhaps you were suffering from a temporary loss of cabin pressure? Let's review: I'd be very interested to understand why you so casually dismiss, with nothing more than a weak opinion, Colonel Chu's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. Colonel Chu noted they met the definition of WMD according to the treaty signed that declares such. But, you suggest I'm to dismiss this simply because it doesn't meet your personal definition/criteria and nothing else? How does that work? Is this not denial? I'm baffled why you would choose to dismiss the WMD found, simply because it's on a website you may not care for, but is well documented with external sources.
I'm leaving it at this (breaking it down, nice and simple): 1) I'm not disputing that chemical weapons were found; I'm saying that they were no longer able to commit "mass destruction", which was the main reason we went into Iraq. 2) Do you know what a pwch-1 is? It can detect different levels of toxins... The recovered sarin/vx/mustard was gulf-war-era... 3) Taking into consideration the degradation of the materials over time, and the loss of potency, it's hard to argue that they had the ability to be weapons that cause mass destruction... 4) Did people make claims that we found WMD? Yes. Were they ever active active biological weapons, chemical weapons, or nuclear weapons? No. Did any of the recovered weapons pose an immediate threat to the United States? No. 5) the issue of whether or not WMD was found, seems to loom around a persons definition. If you believe that WMD means weapon that can cause mass destruction, as the name implies, then it's hard to understand why people are claiming that we found WMD. And on that note, it's time to go back to my CSS book...