>>>>if the percpeption is that VFP is not sustainable, viable, and contempary, or whatever, then it is not. It is that simple.
>>
>>
>So... if the perception is that Iraq has WMD, then it does. It is that simple.
>>
>
>Irag having WMD is a statement of fact, not opinion. VFP being sustainable, viable, and contemporary is a statement of opinion, not fact.

What kind of logical contortion is this????
You stated "...if the percpeption [sic] is that VFP is not sustainable, viable, and contempary, or whatever, then it is not.". That sure looks like a "statement of fact" to me. Did I miss where you said it was "opinion"?

That "Iraq having WMD is a statement of fact" clearly is not. If it is a "statement of fact" then it has to be a fact, which sure seems not to be the case. So shall we call it "a statement for warring" instead?

Your statement "...then it is not.", you claim, is "opinion". Just how is it that the reader is supposed to understand that when "...then it is not." looks to be every bit as much a 'statement of fact' as the Iraq phrase?
Given that the Iraq phrase turns out to be a statement of NON-fact it is logical to conclude that "then it is not" is also a statement of NON-fact.

Jim