rob-
i didnt miss it, i said exactly that: you commented on nuclear capablities only in that thread, not all wmd.
six-
and I feel bad about America even selling it to Iraq in the first place
we were talking of the mustard gas used on the kurds, im sure you know that. ive debunked this popular tale of "america selling (the gas) to iraq" on another thread, and ill do it again here for your education:
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Twelve years after the Persian Gulf War began, some American veterans of that conflict are finding new ammunition in their fight to find out who supplied Iraq chemicals that might have made them sick.
More than 5,000 veterans are plaintiffs in a lawsuit that accuses companies of helping Iraqi President Saddam Hussein build his chemical warfare arsenal. The plaintiffs are among the tens of thousands who came down with "Gulf War Illness," a debilitating series of ailments that can include chronic fatigue, skin rashes, muscle joint pain, memory loss, and brain damage.
Now, plaintiffs' attorneys have acquired, for the first time, what they believe is strong evidence of which companies supplied Iraq the chemicals that might have been used to produce mustard gas, sarin nerve gas and VX.
The Iraqi list names 56 suppliers of chemicals and equipment to process them. A majority are based in Europe.
Germany is home to the most major suppliers listed in Iraq's 1998 U.N. declaration. The Netherlands and Switzerland each are home to three companies on the list. France, Austria and the United States each are home to two. The declaration says Singapore was the largest exporter of chemical weapons precursors. Other countries home to alleged chemical exporters to Iraq include India, Egypt, Spain and Luxembourg, with one each.
Neither American company listed -- Alcolac International, based in Baltimore, Maryland; and Al-Haddad Trading, based in Nashville, Tennessee -- are still in business.
No one from Al-Haddad could be reached.
Alcolac paid a fine in 1989 under U.S. law for one charge of exporting thiodiglycol, a chemical that could be used to make mustard gas, but that shipment was destined for another country.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/18/iraq.chemical.suit/
so, if by "america selling" you meant two former companies based in the u.s. having no ties to the u.s. government, and indeed being fined by it for shipping illegal chemicals, then you are correct. is that what you meant?
i assume by your post that you dont believe mustard gas warheads should be included in the term "weapons of mass destruction". just out of curiosity, whats your interpretation of that phrase? nuclear weapons only? you stated:
The politics surrounding this war seems to have gotten people pretty sloppy with the term wmd however.
this is not a new precedent. including mustard gas in this definition has nothing to do with getting "sloppy with the term".........the definition used by the u.n. way back in 1991, in resolution 687 (long before the "politics surrounding this war"), included "all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents". here you go:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
check paragraphs 8 and 14. if you have an issue with the definition supplied by the u.n., thats one thing, but dont make the issue about "this war".
simon-
It seems the people who believed that now look at wee bit silly IMO and are trying to change their claims to save some face.
i hope youre not including me in this statement (im guessing maybe you were, considering it was my quote you were responding to). i stated from the beginning, (let me know if i need to dig up some links for you), that my personal belief that saddam still had wmd came not from any recent "evidence", but solely from the fact that we knew he had them at one point, and he couldnt ever prove they were destroyed (an easy task). my personal "claims" havent changed a bit.
aa
