WMDs in Iraq ?
- Thread starter A-con
- Start date
A-con
New member
Anybody?
Can anybody cite a fixed definition for “Weapons of mass destruction”?
By a reputable, non-partisan source?
One that excludes these explosives?
I’m not saying that Bush was right, but this phrase has been repeted so many times, what does it really mean?
Can anybody cite a fixed definition for “Weapons of mass destruction”?
By a reputable, non-partisan source?
One that excludes these explosives?
I’m not saying that Bush was right, but this phrase has been repeted so many times, what does it really mean?
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 separable and divisible part of the weapon. (JP1-02)
www.mema.domestic-preparedness.net/glossary.html
Nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
www.nti.org/e_research/e6_glossary.html
refers to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
cnsdl.miis.edu/npt/gloss/glossary.htm
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 separable and divisible part of the weapon. Also referred to as WMD.
www.gunnerynetwork.com/glossary/w-glossary.html
A-con- I got these definitions with the websites... Overall, I found the definitions to be the same (with a few differences).
www.mema.domestic-preparedness.net/glossary.html
Nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
www.nti.org/e_research/e6_glossary.html
refers to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
cnsdl.miis.edu/npt/gloss/glossary.htm
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 separable and divisible part of the weapon. Also referred to as WMD.
www.gunnerynetwork.com/glossary/w-glossary.html
A-con- I got these definitions with the websites... Overall, I found the definitions to be the same (with a few differences).
A-con
New member
Bingo, MattK did it, indeed, W was wrong. Thats what I was looking for.
barefooter19
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 187
I don't think so. For those who are against GB for going there in the first place. Would be against him if he did not go. All the reports stated that he had WMD. Every one whoi saw them agreed. One question. What about the bunker that was found and a solder was hert at the very begaining. there where traces of WMD there. the UN inspectors did not know anything about it. They were there so much they should have known right.And the bunker was wireerd with exposives. there still could be WMD there but we can't find them. They could be in the sand Might never find them. But all the INTELL can't be wrong. it said that there was WMD there. I believe the press is twisting this all around telling only the bad about GB. What about some of the good. It is because i would say 90% of the media are DEMOCRAT. I believe the media is one of thereasons we have some of the probles we have. :MAD |oo
cjcj
New member
No doubt the "liberal" media is a HUGE,HUGE, problem in this country.....I have yet to see a headline in the newspaper. or on TV... screaming...... ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS KILL ANOTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN....Death toll now over 100,000... including hundreds of police officers.
Nemont
Well-known member
EG,
I am shocked that you don't recall President Nixon's foray into Cambodia. I think Cambodia was sovereign and the U.S. denied ever have troops there.
You don't remember the scene from Desert One inside Iran? Our Special Forces team attempted to stage a clandestine rescue of the hostages. A C-130 and SF helicopter collided leaving bodies and wreckage strewn across the Iranian desert.
Nemont
Nemont
Well-known member
Wow!!! You may need to slow down a little on AirAmerica conspiracy theories. Have you read the supreme court ruling? I haven't but I doubt it is viewed as the Court "installing" GW as president. If I remember correctly the issue was which ballots to count and which not to count it was not the court deciding who was president. I doubt just any campaign worker will be nominated to the bench, the nominees most likely will have to have a background in Law.
I think Al Franken is getting to you. I listened to Al's show this morning on my drive from Helena back to Glasgow. He was funny when he first started but now his just sounds really, really bitter.
Nemont
JoseCuervo
New member
Nemont said:
Nemont,
Crashing rescue planes in the desert does not equate an attack.... So I don't think Carter "attacked" a soverign nation.
The whole Camboida thing was just an extension of the American War over in SE Asia. Was Nixon the aggressor?
Erik in AK
New member
Sorry but I cant resist the quibbling urge
Lets assume for a moment that the Desert One mission didn't end prematurely in tragedy. Lets say for arguments sake that U.S. forces made it successfully to the place where the hostages were being held. Is it not reasonable to assume that military force i.e. death and destruction of Iranians at the hands of Americans on Iranian soil, would have been necessary in order to effect the rescue of said hostages? Is it then not also reasonable to assume that such action would by its nature have made President Carter an aggressor vis-a-vis' the use of military force to recover the hostages?
In short, intent constitutes aggression
Lets assume for a moment that the Desert One mission didn't end prematurely in tragedy. Lets say for arguments sake that U.S. forces made it successfully to the place where the hostages were being held. Is it not reasonable to assume that military force i.e. death and destruction of Iranians at the hands of Americans on Iranian soil, would have been necessary in order to effect the rescue of said hostages? Is it then not also reasonable to assume that such action would by its nature have made President Carter an aggressor vis-a-vis' the use of military force to recover the hostages?
In short, intent constitutes aggression
It's amazing how liberals like to manipulate things to thier own end. You have about 400 US troops in several aircraft, on foriegn soil-uninvited and unwanted, with the intention of wreaking death and destruction on locals..and that does not constitute agression....
Nemont
Well-known member
EG,
Then maybe we should define what "attack" means. Putting uninvited, armed troops whose purpose is to take out a target sounds like an attack to me. Did Clinton attack Serbia?
As for Nixon I do believe that Cambodia was outside the AO, It was a clandestine operation because we weren't supposed to have forces inside Cambodia. So yes Nixon was the agressor.
Nemont
Then maybe we should define what "attack" means. Putting uninvited, armed troops whose purpose is to take out a target sounds like an attack to me. Did Clinton attack Serbia?
As for Nixon I do believe that Cambodia was outside the AO, It was a clandestine operation because we weren't supposed to have forces inside Cambodia. So yes Nixon was the agressor.
Nemont
To be quite honest, I know very little of Cambodia or the hostage rescue in Iran. While I can understand Cambodia being an attack. Can someone explain how a rescue operation is an attack. Maybe, I'm just looking at it wrong.
Nemont
Well-known member
Matt,
What do you call a bunch of armed men from another country's military landing on your sovereign ground with a mission to wrench away the most vital leverage you have, ie. the hostages? Do you think the Iranian viewed as just a social visit or as an attack?
Nemont
What do you call a bunch of armed men from another country's military landing on your sovereign ground with a mission to wrench away the most vital leverage you have, ie. the hostages? Do you think the Iranian viewed as just a social visit or as an attack?
Nemont
Erik in AK
New member
Matt,
any use of offensive military force by one sovereign state against another is an "attack". In this case the attack (that never happened) was prompted by a failure of diplomacy to secure return of the hostages. (and in this case a desire to be re-elected)
any use of offensive military force by one sovereign state against another is an "attack". In this case the attack (that never happened) was prompted by a failure of diplomacy to secure return of the hostages. (and in this case a desire to be re-elected)
Nemont- I understand how the Iranians would see it as an attack (and I may be splitting hairs here) but does the definition go on how Iranians look at it or how we look at it. The old saying "a slaughter happens to you; a great military victory is done by you." I truly am curious how it would be looked at (from our perspective). Was it an attack or a rescue mission?
Nemont
Well-known member
MattK,
I don't know that perspective matters. Whose perspective are you going to say is valid. If Iran landed so much as one soldier on our soil we would say it was an attack. I think the definition of an attack would be pretty standard.
By extension then:
I guess it would matter whether we view our war in Iraq as a war of liberation or an attack on a sovereign nation. Which would it be viewed as? Does it matter how many at home view it as liberation and many others view it as an attack?
Nemont
I don't know that perspective matters. Whose perspective are you going to say is valid. If Iran landed so much as one soldier on our soil we would say it was an attack. I think the definition of an attack would be pretty standard.
By extension then:
I guess it would matter whether we view our war in Iraq as a war of liberation or an attack on a sovereign nation. Which would it be viewed as? Does it matter how many at home view it as liberation and many others view it as an attack?
Nemont
