Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you hear the phrase WMD...Do you think of Nuclear weapons of Chemical weapons.
I think of George Orwell....
Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called PACIFICATION.
Well, lets see what the National Defense University, Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction says the definitation is:
Quote:
The Center maintains a broad mandate for education, research, and outreach, and pursues ambitious initiatives in these areas. Its research contributes to the understanding of the security implications of WMD, as well as to the challenge of fashioning effective responses. The Center is actively engaged on
pressing and emerging WMD issues, such as interdiction, elimination, consequence management, deterrence, and escalation management. It also examines responses to new and evolving WMD threats, including nuclear terrorism, bioterrorism and nontraditional agents, and assists combatant commands in preparing to deal with the operational impact of chemical and biological weapons.
The Army’s dictionary served a joint function, and, as noted in the dictionary’s February 1963 edition, the Department of Defense accepted the Army’s definition for joint usage. This new definition was as follows:
In arms control, usage, 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. Can be nuclear, chemical, biological, and
radiological weapons, but excludes the means of transporting or
propelling the weapon where such means is a separate and divisible
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas
No, I will not pick one, because Both are consider WMD's since both are capable of killing large numbers of people in one single application.
im not arguing the legal definition. My post was specifically about what comes to mind when someone says the phrase.
Just like when someone says Congressmen, most people mean Member of the House of Representative and not a Senator.
The colloquial meaning if you will. anyways, by the time i Left this poll last night, it was 6 to 1 for Nuclear. Now that the story has broken(well, been picked up), my poll has been changed for what ever reason the mods have given and the results have skewed far more along political lines.
An Unbiased poll got an entirely different result than that of one where people voted based on the letter beside their name.
im not arguing the legal definition. My post was specifically about what comes to mind when someone says the phrase.
Just like when someone says Congressmen, most people mean Member of the House of Representative and not a Senator.
The colloquial meaning if you will. anyways, by the time i Left this poll last night, it was 6 to 1 for Nuclear. Now that the story has broken(well, been picked up), my poll has been changed for what ever reason the mods have given and the results have skewed far more along political lines.
An Unbiased poll got an entirely different result than that of one where people voted based on the letter beside their name.
its already 4 to one so im going to end this experiment.
the NYT's reported tonight that Chemical weapons were found in Mosel.
The top trending topic for the last hour(on twitter) has been WMD's
My argument is simple. In every speech i have seen of President Bush talking about Iraq, both pre and post invasion. The phrase WMD seemed to stand for Nukes and chemical weapons were set aside in their own category of weapon.
Many conservatives seem to be taking this as a vindication/exoneration of President Bush.
Heck, even the NY Times article(its behind a paywall, thats why im not posting it, link doesnt work) even says it was found in 2004, and yet here in 2006, the President clearly states he was wrong.
I have continued to point this out to Conservatives, and yet their argument is that he meant all along that the 2 were one in the same(which wouldnt make sense for him to admit he was wrong) or claim it is a conspiracy theory and that the Army hated him and wanted his down fall.
You all decide.
It is a stretch to consider Chemical and Biological weapons as WMD. I can see the latest WWI documentary now, WMDs used at Ypres.
Convenient at this time to forget the African yellow cake episode?
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6040
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Cannot help that people are ignorant..
So when people were given an unbiased poll, they answered truthfully, but became untruthful when Party ID came into frame.
At least you admit it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
