[Ixa]

The concept of WMD is dishonest. When they are in friendly hands we call them defence forces

Even the most credulous supporters of Tony Blair's war are beginning to see they were sold a pup. MPs angrily demand evidence of the WMDs, which they, in their innocence, believed were the reason for the war, rather than its flimsy pretext, while the are.

But what are they anyway? The very phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is of recent coinage, and a specious one. It replaced "ABC weapons", for atomic, biological and chemical, which was neater, although already misleading as it conflated types of weaponry quite different in kind and in destructive capacity. WMD is even more empty and dishonest as a concept.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 52,00.html

[KurtFF8]

well we made ours during the cold war to defend against the soviets, and when u get a country like Iraq or N. Korea, trying to get just a few just to blackmail us (and yes N. Korea is allready trying to blackmail us) then its bad, so whats all the fuss over calling them wepons of mass destruction? (plus both countries had agreed to not have the wepons, so i dont see what the fuss about that is either)

[Proctor]

Fair enough, but it still is pretty hypocritical. Its like nuclear weapons is a 'secret club', and you have to be in favour to be in. Or something.

[Boondock Saint]

Fair enough, but it still is pretty hypocritical. Its like nuclear weapons is a 'secret club', and you have to be in favour to be in. Or something.

Yes and Its not hypoctritical in my opinion, its thinking ahead.

WOMD doesnt seem

even more empty and dishonest as a concept.

to me at all ... lets look at the big three ... or the 'ABC' ...

Atomic (nukes) - there is nothing that these weapons can be used for other then 'mass destruction' ... its not like you can use a nuke for a 'surgical' strike. I dont care if they do have 'surgical' nuke warheads ... they are still NUKES! You can drop bombs and shoot missiles at a city and not effect infrastructure other then that which you are targeting (naturally errant bombs/missiles occur.) but you cant drop a nuke on a city and say 'we were only targeting military targets.'

Biological - Spreading disease ... this is mass destruction on a human level ... one that will cause mass suffering and death with no regard for civilians, military or your own military personel if you plan to occupy the region post conflict ...

Chemical - see biological.

So ... I dont see whats wrong with the term Weapons of mass destruction ... it seems to capture the concept of these weapons rather well and damns anyone who uses them.

The first post of this thread somewhat jumps around ... what I wrote above was in response to WOMD in general. But the original post also seemed to speak about Iraq and WOMD.

I think using WOMD and the lack of their discovery in Iraq thus far is jumping the gun a bit ... Saddam had plenty of time to hide them or even remove them from their country. People were already jumping on the 'they havent found any weapons yet' band wagon while fighting was still going on! That seems rather silly to me ... and more so ... opportunistic.

[KurtFF8]

Fair enough, but it still is pretty hypocritical. Its like nuclear weapons is a 'secret club', and you have to be in favour to be in. Or something.

well would you rather more countries have nukes?

[Proctor]

No. On one level, I would like to see no countries with nukes, but there would be more wars then. But if one country is allowed them, shouldn't the others be allowed also?

I agree with you Boondock, on everything apart from Saddam having plenty of time to hid them. If this was the case, wouldn't it have made sense to give the UN a bit more time to find them? 'Cos they would, thats their job.

[Boondock Saint]

No. On one level, I would like to see no countries with nukes, but there would be more wars then. But if one country is allowed them, shouldn't the others be allowed also?

I agree with you Boondock, on everything apart from Saddam having plenty of time to hid them. If this was the case, wouldn't it have made sense to give the UN a bit more time to find them? 'Cos they would, thats their job.

Answered in order.

1. Every country is free to develop them. Just as every country is free to stop any other country from developing them.

This reminds me of a book I am reading right now. A young man is captured by 'savage' people, considered this way by the 'civilized' people because the 'savages' have no laws. Their people are free to do as they please. Anyway, this young man is taken to the head honcho of the tribes and convinces the cheif guy to allow him to join the crowd. So the young man says 'I have free now right? So, I can leave any time I want right?

The cheifs reply? 'Yes you are free to do so, just as we are free to hunt you down and kill you if you do.'

2. Wait a second here ... are you saying Saddam ol boy didnt have time to hide shit? Come on ... seriously ... the US was sitting out there in the sand for how long? Did anyone have any doubts as to what was going to happen? Saddam didnt need to really hide shit when the UN was walking around ... all he had to do was stick a 'no tresspass' sign on a door and there you go ...

You dont expect me to believe that Saddam was actually opening the door to his humble abode and allowing the UN inspectors free roam do you?

[Proctor]

Well, thats a damned good point about the nukes. I can't argue with that logic, so I'll kindly step aside.

But as for the inspectors, they do their job well. Thats why they were there in the first place. If a "Do not trespass" sign was stuck up on some factory, guess where the UN would show up the next day. No, Saddam didn't want to open his doors up to the UN. He was forced to.

[Boondock Saint]

Proctor ...

I just don't think we are going to agree on this ...

Saddam had ample time to create bunkers and secret places to hide their shiz the no one would know about ... ample time ...

US intelligence was old and lacking at best ...

Anyway ... its debating spilled milk ...

[KurtFF8]

[lies]heh (i just figured out what this feature is lol)[/lies]

anyway, i think we all know that the whole WMD thing was a joke, so that debate in iraq is usless to debate..anywho

[grinner]

useless because it changes nothing.
We have freedom of speech. 'They' have the freedom to ignore.

[KurtFF8]

useless because it changes nothing.
We have freedom of speech. 'They' have the freedom to ignore.

damn straight