If this pans out does it count as WMD's??

[ma4t]

According to this <http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=436769§ion=news>, mortar shells with chemical warheads have been found in Iraq.

If it pans out how many here would consider it valid evidence of WMD's?

[cavebat2000]

1. uh

They arn't warheads.. lol

[Coldgothicwoman]

2. They were buried

beneath a highway. Atrios also has pictures of the suspected 'WMD's and they are flattened and corroded beyond belief, let alone use. :)

So no. Not to mention, the only chemical claimed is Mustard Gas, which from my readings has a life expectancy of somewhere near three whole years.

[Sparky McGruff]

3. Weapons of Major Deterioration

"But they were pointed at us!"

[cthrumatrix]

12. lol...good one

[w13rd0]

4. Haha...

....

a) not warheads, rusty mortar rounds
b) what's the shelf life of biochem agents, I'm sure it ain't 10-20 yrs
c) weren't they buried around the time Rummy was over reassuring Saddam that his use of biochem in the Iraq-Iran war wouldn't impede better relations between Saddam and Reagan?

VALID evidence of WMD...not bloody likely.

[lcordero]

5. nope

not even close

http://www.sierrafoot.org/soapbox/Bush_lies_iraq_powell.html

Is this even close to the "100-500 tons of chemical weapons agent"?

Is this even close to the "4 tons of VX"?

Was this even close to what supposedly "U.N. inspectors estimated it could have made up to 25,000 liters."?

No

[xxqqqzme]

6. only if U R

a rabid, racist, religious right winger!

[Skittles]

7. HA HA, HA HA HA HA

nice try

[ma4t]

8. Hey, I'm just trying to understand..

I think some here have misinterpreted my question. I'm not arguing for or against any particular point of view; I'm just trying to understand where the concensus might be on what would constitute valid evidence of WMD's in Iraq.

It seems to me that there's a sprectrum of "convincability" ranging from, "I don't have to see any evidence; I know they're there. My mind is made up," at one extreme to "Even if you show me 100 loaded rockets on their launch vehicles it's just proof that Bush planted them," on the other.

I think it's reasonable to assume that most people fall somewhere between those two extremes. My question is does the Reuters story make anyone tilt one way or another? Asked another way, what would you have to see to make you believe that Saddam did, in fact, have WMD's? Would 5000 liters of gas be enough? Would 50? Or would it take 50,000? I'm just curious as to where the DU community stands on the "rules of evidence" for this case.

Thanks.

[durutti]

9. No.

If they do in fact contain mustard gas, their shelf life was over years ago. Furthermore, they'd been buried for at least 10 years, and could have been buried during the Iran-Iraq war, then forgotten.

[johnfunk]

10. No -- and American Politics Journal's Hot Headlines tells you why...

Here's how APJ spells it out:

Hey, Richard Perle, you want some mustard with your crow?
Danish soldiers embarrass American "experts" and find 36 buried, corroding artillery shells possibly containing mustard gas* that even Saddam had tried to account for after the Gulf War (* they're not WMDs -- the shells can't be fired, so they're not weapons)

[yellowdog]

11. The Danes that found them

stated that they were very old and dated from the Iran-Iraq war. Anyone that points to them as justification for the war is just blowing smoke.