Any1,Oct 29 2004, 12:58 PM Wrote:I thought that WMD did not refer to conventional arms such as high explosives, since any conventional army will have tonnes of this stuff. I always assumed it refered to chemical, biological, and nuclear arms. I'm not trying to discount the story, I'm just trying to get a grip on the terminology.
[right][snapback]58631[/snapback][/right]
You are correct Any1.
The confusion may start with people using any Iraqi situation as an election talking point - which invariably leads to talks of WMDs and whether they existed at all or are missing. These explosives are currently in the missing category and there was a lot of it - creating the potential for massive destruction. Also, some of the explosives listed can be used as a component of nuclear weapons.
When the picture presented by the media is drawn with crayon "so the common folk can understand it" the lines will definitely become blurred and the people with the desire for facts get left behind.
EDIT: check this new development out:Questions answered? Or more questions created?
The Bill of No Rights
The United States has become a place where entertainers and professional athletes are mistaken for people of importance. Robert A. Heinlein
The United States has become a place where entertainers and professional athletes are mistaken for people of importance. Robert A. Heinlein