Deecups36 wrote:Do you deny that the discovery of WMD is proof of WMD? We don't know where they got this particular nerve gas weapon, and nerve gas is equally threatening to living creatures regardless of where it originated.
I don't deny the bomb allegedly contained Sarin.
What I do deny and you would be wise to do the same or risk looking like a complete fool in a week or a month, is don't jump, all jiggy with excitement to the conclusion this is evidence of WMD.
For starters, was the "roadside bomb" a hold over from Iraq's 10 year war with Iran?
Also, remember where Iraq would've procured Sarin -- the USA back in the early 1980's. A while back the Bushites started doing cartwheels over the discovery of a few mobile home buildings as proof they were WMD factories.
We all know how that turned out: egg on Bush's face.
Well, as I say in a post above, I never believed that what was found or not found after invasion was relevant to whether the invasion was justified. If the info we had or thought we had at the moment of invasion appeared to show a serious risk of WMD, then the invasion was justified, and could not be retroactively unjustified by whatever ultimately turned out to be found. I am posting this for the benefit of those who appear to attach importance to it.
Whether the sarin came from the US some time ago, or was made by Iraqi scientists, or bought elsewhere, the belief was that Hussein could not be allowed to possess them, and that his claim that he did not was questionable. The origin of the sarin does not make it less of a threat.
