Again and again and again. You people try & put words in my mouth. I come here and post against your partisan hatred of Bush that you call "patriotism," or being right. I am the other side from you. I don't think your radical views are right. I think they are based on a blind rage against Bush. I do not think any of you process thoughts coherently when it comes to this administration. I don't think you can. So you post more and more far out views and ideas and think they are the norm. They are not.
Having said that A WMD is defined as:
Any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, a disease organism, or radiation or radioactivity.
www.csa.com/hottopics/terror/gloss.php
a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) generally include nuclear, biological, chemical and, increasingly, radiological weapons. The term first arose in 1937 in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment. Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction
It could be argued that as weak as the argument would be for the weapons found to qualify, they would qualify under these accepted definitions. Should we have gone to war over 500 tons of mustard gas? Of course not. |
