Not bad! Not bad!
When I holidayed in the U.S., I may have littered. Should I be concerned? 
I don’t see any mention of a requisite number of casualties.
Also no such mention.
Also no such mention.
You will note that all these are referred to as “standard” definitions, thus would apply before the invasion.
Actually, what seems to have happened is that the definition of WMD changes almost immediately upon the announcement that these chemical munitions had been discovered. At least on the SDMB.
The definition now seems to be
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, do you consider tear gas grenades to be chemical weapons as per those definitions of WMDs?
Shodan . While I have seldom agreed with you, I always thought you had better critical skills than many conservative posters to this board.
Sorry, I seem to have been mistaken.
When did we find any of those things in Iraq?
Shodan, come on, man. If we consider a Weapon of Mass Destruction to be anything nuclear, biological, or chemical, we can find them almost anywhere. I mean what’s the point? I own pepper spray, a chemical weapon. Can I call it a Weapon of Mass Destruction? If I mace someone who mugs me, am I Gassing My Own People? Is that fair? Is this extremely superficial and semantic point so worth making?
I mean if you want to call this a Weapon of Mass Destruction, I guess I’ll agree with you if you’ll agree that such an insiginificant example of a Weapon of Mass Destruction nowhere near approaches the level of retroactive justification for the war in Iraq.
A chemical weapon has to be capable of discharging a chemical payload, by definition. These rusty artifacts are capable of no such thing, ergo they are not chemical weapons, ergo we have not found WMD in Iraq .
Your last quoted source, Shodan; I fear you missed the very next sentence.
Ah well. I’m sure you didn’t notice it; after all, that it was the *very next sentence * does make it hard to spot.
To be fair, your other two sources I found no problems with; I still disagree with their definitions, though, and again I’d like you to answer the question I posted previously - a pinch of sarin, a particle; does this constitute a weapon of mass destruction?
Fish in a bucket? A coffee mug?
IIRC, Bush was citing unaccounted for Mustard gas and nerve gas shells as WMDS to justify the Iraqi invasion before the fact.
Are these shells WMDS?
If not, what constitutes the minimum for a WMD?
Personally, I’m not to excited about this.
It’s like finding really good porn five seconds after you’re done jerking off.
Uhm…I have no idea what you’re talking about, here. Enlighten me?
I’d say they were before they expired. Reading over this Wikipedia, I’m thinking it might not be a bad idea to define the term under some sort of international treatise.
So… finding a shoddy expired chemical weapon that is perhaps all that exists of a weapons cache whose purported existence was used to justify a massive expenditure of human life and American tax money is like finding good pornography after masturbation. I fear you and I may not have too much in common, Scylla.
Say I’ve got a high-caliber firearm, and I’m looking to shoot me a big, juicy fish. Now, I could try to shoot one in a lake. That would be difficult. Even a medium-sized swimming pool could present a challenge, what with all the space it can dart to, and diffraction. Usually when we want to make blowing the fish to kingdom come a relatively easy proposition, we stick 'em in a barrel. “Like shooting fish in a barrel”, they say…Not all that sporting, but OK for a lark so long as you don’t pretend it’s a challenge. I suppose there could be easier ways to shoot a fish. You could stick it in a small bucket. You might even put the poor little bastard in a mug (or, he could stupidly swim in there himself, if you get my drift). I might feel a little guilty about that. Plus, you’d probably not only hit the fish, but blow the whole damn mug to bits, and then you’d be picking scales out of your hair, which might not be all that pleasant. Granted, it would be some pretty impressive destruction and scattering of fish innards, but not worth the mess, I’ll reckon.
Ah. I have heard the expression, but I don’t understand what it means.
Isn’t “expired” what happens to all the people around if you crack one of those shells? I read how in Europe there all terrified and shit if they find a WWI mustard gas shell. Phosgene doesn’t get any less toxic with age, it just loses the burning sensation part.
Do they have an expiration date? Are they safe, or will they kill a bunch of people if you crack 'em?
What exactly are you insinuating with “expired?”
Thank you, Jebus!
A target that’s too easy to hit! If you’re arguing with someone, like, say, this entire thread, and their argument is so inaccurate, so weak, so pathetic, that refuting it is effortless, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Or, as in this case, maybe more like a bucket, or a mug.
Boy! If it wasn’t funny before, it’s really not funny by now! 
Ahhhhhhh. Gotcha. I’m sure everyone who doesn’t share my ignorance (and Shodan) found it funny.
More like finding a 20 year old condom at the dump, then trying to convince your girlfriend that it’s a ‘device of pregnancy prevention.’
I’d say it’s like finding a National Geographic and calling it porn.