That article cracks me up. America brought its own chemical weapons to Iraq.
Got any basis for that statement?
The article's from a week ago, and I have heard NOTHING about this on any other kind of news, so I'm tempted to believe it's not entirely credible.
Quit being lazy and do a simple google search 
Two seperate parts of your post, I know, one reply:
I did a google search (criteria: America Iraq Chemical Weapons, you can check it yourself) and I did not immediately see anything about what you're talking about. BUT, I did find this:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/chem-n11.shtmlSure, not a very credible site (*cough neither is fox cough*) but if I was bothered, I could find many others with the exact some allegations, including some VERY credible sites.
Besides, it's Fox. When was the last time THEY were impartial?
Who needs impartial? I could care less about opinions, more about facts.
Their lack of credibility comes from their readiness to present their opinions as facts.
Apart from Fox, isn't that lovely for you? Also, in relation to what I'm gonna say later, check the meaning of the word "fact".
It's not just Fox. Unlike some people, I'm actually constantly watching news, reading articles, listening to talk radio, and I'm aware of what's going on in the world. Clearly, one source shouldn't be relyed on. That's why I rely on multiple sources.
Fair enough.
Whereas you're relying completely upon your own opinion... not even bothering to check the news.
Nope. I'm not relying on my opinion, or anyone else's opinion (Not even Fox's!
). I read a national newspaper (sometimes more than one) every day. Most days, I watch BBC and Sky news (on the television... hear about it?) as well as listen to BBC Radio, and the news presented on that. I read the news on the internet (when I can be bothered) usually from multiple sources, to verify whatever I read.
And I have still not heard about this. I somehow doubt that a major newspaper and two major news channels would have skipped over this entirely. Who knows? Maybe it was covered by one of the many thousands of newspapers I don't read. If it was a major, credible story, it would be covered in some depth by the major newspapers and news networks, not just Fox.
So, please, do not make allegations about ME when you know nothing about what you are talking about.
OOOOOHhhhhh, did you say "prove"? Because I doubt a document, no matter how wonderful and lovely, could prove ANYTHING. I just wrote a document on a machine that can turn poo into chocolate. Wanna read it? Thought not. The document's poo in itself. ^_^
See folks, I want everyone to see this post, and notice how he'll demean the other side, and completely dodge the actual statements within the document, instead of addressing the actual points. This is a classic example of what people will do, when they can't win an argument through facts and logic... they'll start skewing things.
Your previous post misused language, to make it sound like what was known was a definite, known fact. I skewed nothing; you skewed the entire debate by suggesting that it was "fact" and that a document (a mere DOCUMENT) had proven it.
*shrug* Who knows? Very few people want to pick a fight with the US, which is a real problem in the world these days. You think you can do whatever the funk you like, and guess what? You get away with it.
Then why do they constantly attack the US? They're always demeaning the US, why don't they quit talking and actually do something about it?
'Cos a) you have the largest supply of nukes, b) you have the best way to dispatch these nukes, c) you're the only country ever shown to be willing to use nukes, d) you're the most war-like country in the past century? Also, see what's happened to Cuba. They've been CRIPPLED by the US, without a single military action taking place.
Like I said, is there. Any. Evidence. That they were developed, built or kept by the previous government? 500 is a lot to hide in a country and be completely missed by a team of weapons inspectors examining the country twice.
I'm beginning to doubt that you read the entire article from beginning to end. Google news has a few good links to stories on it: you also may want to try some of those.
I'm sorry, how's that for debating? "Read the article"? Try debating. ^_^
Read it. The best I could find, towards what you're saying, is this: "The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s"
THOUGHT to be. Any reason for this? Just an assumption without evidence? Or vague evidence that could very easily be fabricated? Or actual evidence that would implicate the previous Iraqi government? Doesn't say.
And the weapons inspectors made visits to isolated areas. It's not like they can cover the whole country 
Fair enough. 500 is still a lot to hide, though.
It is, however, rather easy to hide the weapons somewhere ELSE, then hide them in Iraq... after the war. ^_^
Again, what are you basing your deragatory, slanderous statements off of, other than your opinion?
[/quote]
Common sense, that's what. Think about: What would stop a country from storing weapons outside of Iraq and then moving them into Iraq after the war, to plant them as evidence? For starters, that would "validate" the American war actions.
Y'know, the kinds of things prosecutors would have to consider in normal criminal acts... or criminal actions against international law?
Also: "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
So, uhm. These could have been weapons that (perhaps) even Iraq didn't believe they had? This, like the last one, is a supposition (that is easily POSSIBLE, by previous evidence). Like, say, weapons that were hidden by corrupt officials that were thought to be decomissioned by the central government. At the same time, this means it does NOT validate America's actions for war: intelligence suggested a different kind of weapon, on which assumption the military went to action. It was a suspicion of something else that led them to go to war.
Sure, in theory, it's good they went to war in the long run - but they went to war for the wrong reasons, on false assumptions.
