I noticed no one on the "No" side of the War has mentioned the Sarin found in Iraq this week. It comes from a prohibited class of weapon specifically prohibited under the Un treaty . Regardless of its age or manufacture it was declared destroyed by Sadam and the UN Weapons experts. Did the CIA plant it? Or is there another conspiracy theroy you want to float on this one against the Bush admin. I suppose like an iceberg where the tip sticks out of the water that this could just be a little bit for houshold use some innocent just left along the road:-)

And you know where the source of that "WMD" is from? I think if they can demonstrate that it was part of Saddam's arsenal that he knew about it, then yes it proves the WMD theory. Until then, one can only speculate on the source. Who is to say that it was not an unspent warhead from the Iran/Iraq war that someone found and tried to improvise into a weapon to be used against the "coalition"? The reports I have read indicate that it was not being used conventionally and that the users possibly were not even aware that it contained Sarin.

Does the UN resolution specify the source? I believe it says it just has to be within the borders of Iraq. Do you know what the odds are that one of(if not) the most toxic agents kown to man ,specifically banned by a treaty ending up in a road side bomb in a war zone by accident are?

The Inspector that Bush hired, who said that the Bush Administration "jumped the gun" in so many words regarding evidence of WMD, I just on NPR saying that these may very well be munitions left over from the 1st Gulf War and that a single shell can't do much damage. See Slabquests post on Good News.

That's just a Weapon of less-than-Mass Destruction.

I think one of Saddam's kids left it behind when he had to leave in a hurry.

Do you know it was not brought into the country by the foreign combatants that we are constantly hearing about (I am first to admit far fetched but still possible)?

My point is this, I obviously need more proof than you do on this issue. If the additional proof is brought forward I for one will have no problem saying I am wrong.

"Do you know what the odds are that one of(if not) the most toxic agents kown to man ,specifically banned by a treaty ending up in a road side bomb in a war zone by accident are?"

First off, I never claimed it was there by accident. Secondly, it is common knowledge that Saddam had previously used this type of ordinance in the past, increasing the odds that there may be unspent ordinance still laying around old battlegrounds. If you would do some research on unexploded ordinance you would find that it is not all to uncommon for there to be quite a bit of it on battlefields. Further along this line of thinking I do not believe it to be far fetched that people have scavenged the unspent ordinance and may be using it against coalition forces. Why not use it conventionally otherwise?

If a dead body is found on your property does that make you a murderer? Even if your entire community has been accusing you of it for years? No there needs to be a link between you and the dead body. It's called evidence and proof!

"If a dead body is found on your property does that make you a murderer? Even if your entire community has been accusing you of it for years? No there needs to be a link between you and the dead body. It's called evidence and proof!"

So if your neighbor was Gary Ridgeway and you found a dead body in his yard you would wait for the police and courts to complete thier task before you did anything to protect your family? I mean it would be a shame to jump to conclusions before due process .

How about president Bush does he get the same measure of respect and due process? Or are there several standards on issues of evidence and motive?

"So if your neighbor was Gary Ridgeway and you found a dead body in his yard you would wait for the police and courts to complete thier task before you did anything to protect your family? I mean it would be a shame to jump to conclusions before due process ."

And you would propsse I should do what? This is still presuming no one has yet convincingly proven he is the GR killer...

Bush does not get the same respect as it is a different scenario. Bush is the one who stepped up and made the asertion there were WMD and they have yet to convincingly proven it. Again, different scenario.

yeah..but
yeah...but
yeah..but
yeah ...but.....

I know BUT
I know BUT....

And the spin goes on....

so THIS is your proof of wmd?

a field reading of positive on a roadside bomb?

I think someone hooked you up with some bad hooch, grandpa. It's your head that's spinning, not the world.

It's like this........when you claim Saddam has WMD's, so we need to depose him, it's really up to you to show he does have WMD's. To expect the "other" side to prove he doesn't have WMD's is folly.


There's an Easter Bunny. OK, you prove there isn't. Huh?

See how it works?

woo hooo one unlabeled artillary shell.. How old is it??? hmmm damn i sure am glad we found it before it got into the hands of Al Quade they shoulda got an artillary batter close enough they might have fired it at the United States...

The known munition stockpiles in Iraq contain atleast twice the total munitions possesed by the US. We are systematically destroying that stockpile and at the rate we are going it will take 5 years to finish the job. I would say it is just as possible that chemical and/or biological munitions will be found as it is that none will be found. That doesn't count what might be buried in the desert...like the full sized jets that were buried. Not a joke or something to brush aside with partisan blindness.

Dan..I don't think I said Saddam did or did not have WMD...actually he did have them and that fact is irrefutable. Whether there are any there now remains to be seen.

My point is that no matter what one side of this debate says the other side will say...

yeah but....blah blah blah .Reminds me of my kids.

OK, grandpa, this one's just for you.

Yeah........but...........

Oh Dan yeah BUT....

Does not matter if it was one ounce or 1000 tons it was banned under the treaty and a violation.

It does matter whose and how it got there.

To you yes but not Re: the treaty unless you are saying it was planted by the US?

I just don't get how you see this as full proof evidence? Do you think the US is only one who could have brought it into the country? What if it was unexploded ordinance left over from the Iran Iraq war, I mean there are many many plausible answers to why it was there including it was part of Saddam's "secret" arsenal that Bush and his cronies were certain he had. But until any of this is proven how can you be satisfied that this bomb justifies Bush and Co. claims of WMD and iminent threat to the US garbage?