Terrorist gas attack.

One of the justifications for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein was that Iraq had WMDs. If anything capable of "killing many" is a WMD and every country that has anything, has that, then every country in the world is a justified target for US invasion, ripe for a pre-emptive strike.

 

Thank you for interjecting some common sense into this thread.

No, the airplanes themselves are not weapons of mass destruction, but they were used as such in the hands of islamic murderers.

 

I agree. If I hit someone with a baseball bat under the laws of the US (and most countries), I will be arrested for "assault with a deadly weapon." In fact, if I were to attack someone with my martial arts skills and it was not a clear case of self defense, even my hands might be considered deadly weapons. Yet an airplane is not consider a WMD even if it kills thousands? This is where international "law" is political correctness, and not common sense, and not parallel to the laws of the countries that espouse it.

 

John of Japan: //In fact, if I were to attack someone with
my martial arts skills and it was not a clear case
of self defense, even my hands might be considered
deadly weapons.//

My hands are such highly honed instruments of
mayhem and destruction that I must be very careful
when I pick my nose, lest I rip off my face

Chlorine trucks are WMDs -- they are frequently found
in rich countries with lots of home swimming pools.

 

Was the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" used before the run up to the Iraq invasion?

As far as I can tell, it was a political construct coined by the Bush administration to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq. If you expand the meaning to include anything capable of causing widespread destruction, then nearly every country is ripe for invasion by the US.

 

I would consider the liberals stance and policies on war and terrorism to be a WMD. Liberal policies are/will be responsible for huge numbers of deaths.

 

Daisy: //Was the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
used before the run up to the Iraq invasion? //

The data says 'yes':

Today a Google search of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
and '2-000' yields 1,260,000 hits. Other years are:

1970 1,040,000
1980 1,090,000
1985 --720,000
1990 1,080,000
...
1995 1,140,000
1996 1,160,000
1997 1,170,000
1998 1,220,000 (year UN weapons inspectors left Iraq)
1999 1,220,000
2000 1,260,000
2001 1,260,000
2002 1,250,000
2003 1,290,000 (year of the allied invasion of Iraq)

There is an interesting discussion of:

Global warming is now a weapon of mass destruction at:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/comment/0,9236,1007302,00.html

(I.e. GREENS use 'WMD' also ) -- edited to say when I wrote this line,
I hadn't read HillClimber1's post

 

WMD


W=weapons ; weap·on (wěp'ən)
n.

1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.

M= mass ; mass /mæs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mas] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a body of coherent matter, usually of indefinite shape and often of considerable size: a mass of dough. 2.a collection of incoherent particles, parts, or objects regarded as forming one body: a mass of sand. 3.aggregate; whole (usually prec. by in the): People, in the mass, mean well. 4.a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity: a mass of errors; a mass of troops. 5.bulk, size, expanse, or massiveness: towers of great mass and strength. 6.Fine Arts. a.Painting. an expanse of color or tone that defines form or shape in general outline rather than in detail. b.a shape or three-dimensional volume that has or gives the illusion of having weight, density, and bulk. 7.the main body, bulk, or greater part of anything: the great mass of American films. 8.Physics. the quantity of matter as determined from its weight or from Newton's second law of motion. Abbreviation: m Compare 9.Pharmacology. a preparation of thick, pasty consistency, from which pills are made. 10.the masses, the ordinary or common people as a whole; the working classes or the lower social classes. –adjective 11.pertaining to, involving, or affecting a large number of people: mass unemployment; mass migrations; mass murder. 12.participated in or performed by a large number of people, esp. together in a group: mass demonstrations; mass suicide. 13.pertaining to, involving, or characteristic of the mass of the people: the mass mind; a movie designed to appeal to a mass audience. 14.reaching or designed to reach a large number of people: television, newspapers, and other means of mass communication. 15.done on a large scale or in large quantities: mass destruction. –verb (used without object) 16.to come together in or form a mass or masses: The clouds are massing in the west. –verb (used with object) 17.to gather into or dispose in a mass or masses; assemble: The houses are massed in blocks.


D= destruction ; e·struc·tion /dɪˈstrʌkʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-struhk-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.the act of destroying: wanton destruction of a town. 2.the condition of being destroyed; demolition; annihilation. 3.a cause or means of destroying.

When you add these three together you get Weapons of Mass Destruction. Why would that be defined as anything other than what it is?

 

I think you're right.


Ed, Thanks, I really was wondering.

 

This doesn't really tell if the expression was used then, only that the weapons were.

The first one 1970 - there wasn't an internet then, so unless old documents were subsequently posted or the words explicitly quoted from a dated document - the references seem to be roughly contemporary.

I'm afraid we'll have to actually read the references to be able to tell.

 

Yes you have. :laugh:

 

:laugh: :laugh:
Brother Ed, I always knew you were a very dangerous man!

 

There's the irony. The world seems to want the US to be their policeman, then complains no matter what we do. My wife and I joke about how we should build the "Great Wall of Mexico" and become complete isolationists. Why should we have to save the world every time? :BangHead:

 

Who other than Isreal wanted us to invade Iraq?

 

Exactly my point. The world wants us to be policeman in some areas, but then in other areas immediately attacks us viciously in their news media. It's like a mayor in a small town trying to control who the cop arrests. (A poor analogy, but it will do.) Should we have gone into Iraq this time? I don't know, to be strictly honest. (As I said I'm not a political animal.) But then, if we're in there let's stay until we make the arrest.

The day the first Gulf War started I went out to the store. Walking by an open air market, I heard the radio describing the beginning of Desert Storm. I was incredibly conflicted. Here I was an American in another country, and my country had just gone to war. Was it right or not? What were they thinking of me as an American?

But here's the thing. Countries all over the world immediately believe the worst of America. Every single criticism of the current war in Iraq immediately appears on the news in Japan, right or wrong. Can you imagine what it's like to have a sweet, good believer in your church tell you your president is a "Hitler"? I just wish you folk in America would weigh your criticisms of the current war very carefully and consider both sides before deciding how wicked America is. (I don't mean you in particular, Daisy--I'm venting.) I had to read "Soldier of Fortune" magazine of all things (an ex-Marine colleague gets it) to find out some positive things happening in Iraq.

Gotta go and do "dendo" (evangelism).

God bless.

 

:laugh: :laugh:
Just be careful where you saw that limb, brother!

 

I am curious. I wonder why all the many many good thigs going on in Iraq are almost never reported?

 

It's very simple. "Man Bites Dog" sells papers. "Man Feeds Dog" does not.

The average person would much rather hear gossip ("Bush lied") than they would like to hear good news ("Town in Nothern Iraq Turned Over to the Iraqis."). Thus, when Britain announced it was pulling some troops out of Iraq, the US (and British) media immediately assumed the worst (Tony Blair is backing down) rather than the best. (The Brits are not needed in that zone anymore.)

 

Such as? ...