Land of Oz

one more time

Heard the latest about Iraq, Saddam and WMDs?

As far as I can tell, we went to war because Saddam was using WMD, then he was about to use WMD, then he was producing WMD, then he was ready to produce WMD, then he was thinking about getting ready to produce WMD, then he was thinking about getting ready to plan to produce WMD, and now his intent was at some time in the future to pursue plans to get ready to produce WMD.

By the way, does any one else hate the term weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and its corresponding bullshit level? Here's one definition:

U.S. Department of Defense, Proliferation Threat and Response 2001, "Message of the Secretary of Defense," refers to weapons of mass destruction as those with "...capabilities to inflict mass casualties and destruction: nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapons or the means to deliver them."

What exactly differs a WMD from say, a 20mm modern Gatling gun - or a .30 cal Civil War Gatling gun for that matter? If a Buff drops a CBU-75 Sadeye in the Middle East is it a device for policy change or a WMD.

I'm confused here. Is an Indian or Pakistani nuke a WMD or does it have to be owned by only certain people. And if the southwest Asian versions are WMDs, why don't we bomb them? Sometimes I think only the Middle East folks have WMDs, but then Israel pops up. They have nukes and missiles and stuff, but they don't seem to have WMDs either - at least not the kind of WMDs that we don't like.

2fers: One side or The Other