Quote:
Originally posted by Mantus
Sarin has a life span of no more then 10 years. Case closed.
It?s pathetic that people are still jumping on these ?discoveries?, especially a poorly contrived piece of gibberish as this article. How many lies must some one fall for before they learn their lesson?
As fearless leader said, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... ... ... ...wont get fooled again!"
|
Are you saying that these warheads did *not* contain Sarin? No, you don't; you're saying that they were rendered useless because of the limited life span. Now... what does this mean? It means that a) Saddam did have WMDs around at a time that he should not have had them. b) These WMDs are now no longer a threat.
But the point you seem to be making is that this article is lying about the WMDs, even though there were in fact (at one time) WMDs in those warheads. Therefore, there is no lie, period.
This pretty much goes to the heart of the argument, doesn't it? My interpretation of the positions:
- On the one hand we had a perfectly clear UN resolution, with a pro-war position that Saddam shouldn't have *any* WMDs, no matter how small the amount, no matter how deteriorated the material, no matter what. Any trace of WMD is therefore proof that they are right. Basically, it's not a matter of how much WMDs are found, it's a matter that they are found at all.
- On the other hand we have the anti-war position that there weren't any useful weapons left, which is proven with every find. A small amount of working material can then justifiably be dismissed as useless/old/irrelevant, or in the more extreme cases as part of a US conspiracy (bush=evil, after all). Here, it's not a matter of that they are found, it's a matter of them being found in a large enough cache to justify the war to *them*.
In short, I'd say that there's no real need to argue, as both sides are promoting (and arguing for) another logical position.