What's *not* WMD's?

from JoeUser Forums

Ok...now, lets take this in steps.

What are Weapons of Mass Destruction? (aka WMD's) Anyone? Here is a definition i found:

Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Weapons of mass destruction can be high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons, but exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon

Link

Now, would...lets say.. Ricin, Mustard Gas, VX gas be WMD's? Yes. By the definition above they would be.

So, you're (anti bush folks basing their opinion on "no" WMD's) telling me, that the cannisters of Mustard gas and the ricin that were found in iraq, are NOT WMD's?

I mean, technically they are. While i can understand that perhaps the way bush presented the intell, etc... may have led to current views on the war.

But to say that there weren't...thats BS.

Link

The link above talks about IED's with Sarin and MG in it. Now, tell me, how did the cannisters and shells get there? Did the magically grow legs and walk in? Or perhaps,they were there in the first place. Hmmm?

Just some thoughts...


-Lucas


Link

Link

Link
politics
3,326 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'd say that the difinition that you cite would be the "dictionary" definition. The political buzzword definition would be just "Nuclear, Biological & Chemical" weapons. At least in the artillery, those were the only projectiles that said, "Illegal WMD ammunition, keep out of reach of the UN, the Geneva Convention, The International Committee of the Red Cross and the U.S. Press (unless it's Fox News because nobody believes Geraldo anyway." ;~D
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
So, regardless of what some assinine politicians say. From a military standpoint.

-EW
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

The political buzzword definition would be just "Nuclear, Biological & Chemical" weapons.

The funny part is that all the naysayers are now trying to say that White phosphorous is a WMD!  Why?  Cause the US used some WP weapons.  Logic has nothing to do with it.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The funny part is that all the naysayers are now trying to say that White phosphorous is a WMD! Why? Cause the US used some WP weapons. Logic has nothing to do with it.


Exactly what i was thinking the other day. So, I asked one of my former teachers from HS. (Physics/Chemistry Teacher) He said similar things....

Huh, well....

C'est la vie...

-EW