Topic 'Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about?' in forum 'In The News'

Topic 'Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about?' in forum 'In The News' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6530749 en Fri, 25 Mar 2022 10:39:51 EDT Fri, 25 Mar 2022 10:39:51 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6724998
»www.animatedsoftware.com ··· _war.htm

Just the blast of a 20 megaton blast's firestorm can cover nearly 2500 square miles. That's just the fire part.. there's much more that happens beyond that.
--
Let's Roll]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6724998 Thu, 01 May 2003 17:10:31 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6564654 said by Mashiki:

A device created by man, with no other purpose then to utterly destroy an object, place, or people; that has a long lasting(+2 generations) effect on the planet's biosphere.

edit: that of-course will change in time as WMD become more refined. You can see DJA and my comments regarding GE weapons. And other and better weapons, nano tech, ect...on and on. The definition will evolve.

Now we are getting somewhere. I would tend to agree with this statement. Not that it answers my question completely, it just goes a fair ways toward a greater understanding of what we are talking about. Perhaps the entire concept of warfare is also evolving as weapons proliferate and become more and more lethal. The argument for preemption begins to gain validity when one considers that a single attack using such weapons could cause as many casualties as the entire current war in Iraq. Thus the need to strike first becomes more of an acceptable option.

As I have said, I am trying, albeit after the fact, to understand the rational behind the action taken by the coalition. Should WMD of any kind be found in Iraq, the action will be justified, at least in my mind. I would have liked to see more being done before attacking a nation to secure the very same assurance I seek. For me, I may come around to not so much supporting the war, but at least understanding it and end my opposition to it. I am however a member of a secular and free democratic nation. I am predisposed to taking an objective view of things without having something like religion stand in my way.

The Arab states are a different matter all together with. They will be unable to see anything other than what their religious leaders tell them, and they are hopping mad! WMD or not, they will, I fear, never be swayed by smiling Iraqi's and will pose immanent danger to the west. One can only hope that these "other states" will be more interested in diplomatic solutions than the Iraqi regime was.

I'm sure we are all eager to hear if any materials are found that constitute banned weapons. Otherwise, what is left to quell the fears of preemptive action, if it is based on removing a regime that a particular nation or religion deems unsuitable? At least in my view, not much.

Regards and thanks.
--
Join Team Helix, It's fun! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6564654 Mon, 14 Apr 2003 08:35:33 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6562955 said by Turftech:

I just want a truthful, unbiased answer that can be backed up by more than just a title or a face.

A truthful, unbiased answer on the definition of a WMD without title or a face? How about this?

A device created by man, with no other purpose then to utterly destroy an object, place, or people; that has a long lasting(+2 generations) effect on the planet's biosphere.

edit: that ofcourse will change in time as WMD become more refined. You can see DJA and my comments regarding GE weapons. And other and better weapons, nano tech, ect...on and on. The defintion will evolve.
--
I use PGP do you?

The Art of War
[text was edited by author 2003-04-13 23:47:52]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6562955 Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:46:05 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6562925 Mass (as in 'massive')-Destruction.
They are imprecise, and indiscriminate.
--
Bushwacked!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6562925 Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:43:05 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6562907 said by
UN General Assembly document A/RES/43/75:

Also recalling that in the same document it is stated, inter alia, that
priorities in disarmament negotiations shall be: nuclear weapons; other
weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons; conventional weapons,
including any which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have
indiscriminate effects; and reduction of armed forces, and that it stresses
that nothing should preclude States from conducting negotiations on all
priority items concurrently,

Further recalling that in the same document it is stated that effective
measures of nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war have the
highest priority, and that real progress in the field of nuclear disarmament
could create an atmosphere conducive to progress in conventional disarmament
on a world-wide basis,

--
anonymous
[text was edited by author 2003-04-13 23:58:56]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6562907 Sun, 13 Apr 2003 23:41:03 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6561966 said by GlassRail:

So what you're saying is you believe no one. If that's case the then your search for the correct answer has ended. You are not willing to believe anything that is written down, so no one can ever answer your question to your liking.

I believe what I see. Not someone else's interpretation. It is a difficult way to be for sure, but I guess thats because I grew up watching TV and reading print that was more directed at the truth than profit. I have grown to distrust anything that is not simple and straight forward.

You over state my position however. I do not accept your conclusion as it is simply incorrect. I am in no haste to close my eyes as you seem to think I should. I am also prepared for an answer that I may not like.

I just want a truthful, unbiased answer that can be backed up by more than just a title or a face.

Regards
--
Join Team Helix, It's fun! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6561966 Sun, 13 Apr 2003 22:07:18 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6561770 --
Except for ending slavery,fascism,nazism and communism,war has never solved anything]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6561770 Sun, 13 Apr 2003 21:49:14 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6561621
My aim is to define the meaning of WMD, aside from it's current propaganda purposes. This I believe is a broad term that is yet to be defined. I have exhibited no bias in asking this question, and find it strange that almost everyone is so defencive in replying. I continue to seek an answer. Although I think, as I have stated, the term has been expanded for political purposes, and therefore is more difficult to reveal. It was after all the main reason stated by the coalition for going to war so quickly. I think it needs defining in order to continue any rationalization of the conflict.

In other words, I am trying to find a reason to get over my objections to the war by understanding why it was ever started. It is rarely possible to know why wars start until after they have finished. Then, hopefully, sober minds comb over the details and present a version of events that is eventually free of propaganda related bias.

I am not willing to simply take someones word for it even if it is written down on some official document. It has to make sense, or it is merely theory and speculation.
--
Join Team Helix, It's fun! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6561621 Sun, 13 Apr 2003 21:33:28 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6561534 --
Fear Saddam no more...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6561534 Sun, 13 Apr 2003 21:24:42 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6556894 said by Turftech:

I'm still not convinced the term has been clearly defined internationally. Until then, it is just slang.

From my prior post:

said by TheOtherRay:
..., since this is the term used repeatedly in UN resolutions »srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/f ··· ator=adj over the years dealing with this issue...

Click on the link to the UN - you can see that this is the term the international community has used to describe these weapons for years. This is not a US-only definition, but one which is understood globally.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored - Aldous Huxley]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6556894 Sun, 13 Apr 2003 10:04:59 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6556622 said by Chip0:

You want a "definition", here you go.
Title 50, chapter 40, section 2302 of US Code
Sec. 2302. - Definitions

You just made my point. Because it is an American definition gives it no more validity than if it were any other nations as they all differ. (With few exceptions) I suppose it could be argued that it is an American expression, and therefore US definitions apply...

I'm still not convinced the term has been clearly defined internationally. Until then, it is just slang.

Regards.
--
Join Team Helix, It's fun! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6556622 Sun, 13 Apr 2003 08:50:28 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6553577 Title 50, chapter 40, section 2302 of US Code
Sec. 2302. - Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) The term ''weapon of mass destruction'' means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of -
(A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;
(B) a disease organism; or
(C) radiation or radioactivity.

***useless but interesting information alert***
British newspapers described the Nazi Luftwaffe bomber aircraft as "weapons of mass destruction" in the mid 1930's, in reference to the complete destruction of towns during the Spanish Civil War.
--
Elevators smell different to midgets.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6553577 Sat, 12 Apr 2003 21:22:46 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6553315
I have decided to ignore and disregard the term as it has no validity over a broad enough spectrum of opinion. It appears to be nothing more than a label used to objectify rather than describe anything. It also seems to only be applicable to so called "rogue regimes". In other words, a propaganda term.

I thank you all for the considerable number of links and information. Please continue discussing though! Good reading.

Regards
--
Join Team Helix, It's fun! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6553315 Sat, 12 Apr 2003 20:48:10 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/-6553310 many with embedded DU fragments. An additional 29 of the friendly-fire victims were added to the follow-up program in 1999. In 1998, the scope of the program was expanded to include Gulf War veterans who may have been exposed to DU through close contact with DU munitions, inhalation of smoke containing DU particulate during a fire at the Doha depot, or by entering or salvaging vehicles or bunkers that were hit with DU projectiles. The published results of these medical evaluations indicate that the presence of retained DU fragments is the only scenario predictive of a high urine uranium level, and those with embedded DU fragments continue to have elevated urine uranium levels ten years after the incident. It is unlikely that an individual without embedded DU fragments would have an elevated urine uranium level, and consequently any uranium-related health effects. Those individuals with normal urine uranium levels now are unlikely to develop any uranium-related toxicity in the future, regardless of what their DU exposure may have been in the Gulf War. Those individuals with elevated levels of urine uranium ten years after the Gulf War have not developed kidney abnormalities, leukemia, bone or lung cancer, or any other uranium-related adverse outcome. The DU Medical Follow-up Program will continue to monitor those individuals with elevated urine uranium levels to enable early detection of any adverse health effects due to their continued exposure to embedded DU fragments." »deploymentlink.osd.mil/d ··· th.shtml

I would also like to point out that the conditions that you describe(cancer, leukemia, infertility, birth defects, still born...), are indicative of exposure to mustard gas. Not one, not 50%, not 75%, all of them.
--
Elevators smell different to midgets.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/-6553310 Sat, 12 Apr 2003 20:47:15 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6552884 said by mikepd:

Suttonian, we've been down this road before. DU is certainly not a WMD by any stretch of the imagination................So once more, DU is not a WMD, if you are concerned with weapons that are truly evil, I suggest you direct your efforts toward land mines. They, while not WMDs, can maim more than kill and should be removed from every corner of the earth. I am not pleased that my country still deploys them.

Did i say they were WMDs? No... :( I agree with your statement. However, the depleted Uranium i am sure is dangerous...i have met people who have had who have been doctors in Iraq. They have no reason to lie when they say there is a real increase in cases of cancer, leukemia, infertility, birth defects, still born...

About the landmines, you are right.. and they probably kill more people.. The UK exports loads too, to the THird World countries.. as if there arent enough already.

There are some misunderstanding on this thread.... DU doesnt just affect the area it was used, but can spread widely around the area... it gets into vegetation, from vegetation into animals.. into the water sources... DU doesnt just stay in the tank the shell hits... yeah..

DU is an effective weapon. The military wont drop it, they dont care if some non-western civillians get killed... its denser then lead and so pierces through armour..... yet it damages the enviroment and people for years to come...

»www.stopnato.org.uk/du-w ··· ico.htm
--
The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable-
H.L.Mencken American Writer 1880-1956
[text was edited by author 2003-04-12 19:55:16]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6552884 Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:54:09 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6552504 said by nixen:

However, you miss the critical point. While thousands of individual munitions were expended, each munition had a limited area of initial effect: the point of impact. This is on the order millimeters. Classification as a WMD means that a single munition has to have a wide area of initial effect.

No, you're missing the point. Each munition upon impact evaporates, dispersing DU particles far and wide.

quote:

As to Dr. Durakovic's findings... Dubious at best

Dr. Durakovic is only one in many. I pointed to Dr. Durakovic and Dr. Rokke because of their military positions. Here's a more academic link, if you wish to read through it.

»www.antenna.nl/wise/463- ··· 610.html
--
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. --- Lord Acton, 1887 ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6552504 Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:33:39 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6551998 said by dja:

First and formost how is that a misleading fact? Low-yield, battle-field nukes are in all truth an old program. The russians were developing them in the 60's, the US is currently undusting their old programs now. Most of the research is done, and whatnot. But, that is where the MOAB comes in...as a "phsycological" weapon. After all...if you know the enemy has a tactical nuke program, with developed weapons...and suddenly something goes "whoomp" and you see a mushroom cloud rising...was that a nuke...or a MOAB? Are you more likely to surrender or fight to the end? Tactical battle field nukes have their advantages, bunker buster nukes as well. Neither is a violation of treaty tho.

As for GE bioweapons...and those articles you've posted. I didn't see anywhere where it said the the US and Israel are developing them. Or would you like to edit your post and stick some more linking in? I don't mind...please feel free. I did see in all three of those articles listed that the main fear is rouge ex-russian scientits who have hit hard times and may sell their knowlege of the old russian bio-weapons programs to the highest bidder.

But I still remember reading some of the odd articles from back in the USSR days when they did manage to created several GE versions of anthrax and the plauge.

So what is the solution? You seem very willing to lay things out for all to see without offering a solution to a problem. So let me take something from one of your own articles: " but this needs to be strengthened by an effective verification protocol and fully implemented so we can be sure states comply with their obligations "

Overall so far...it looks like the USSR has already broken the treaty(1990 scan the previous linked articles), and let the GE bioweapon plauge into the world already. Not too much of a surpise, they did break a good number back in the day.
--
I use PGP do you?
The Art of War]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6551998 Sat, 12 Apr 2003 17:26:32 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6551814 said by MeeToo7:

said by nixen:

Not an Example: depleted Uranium munitions. While there may be lingering effects of the weapons, they are directed force weapons. That is to say, they have a VERY limited area of initial effect (typically the few milimeters where it punches through armor or fortified structure).

the process used to MAKE weapons-grade Uranium

highly enriched

Factual and evidentiary process gaffs like these make the claims weak, at best. Throw into the mix conspiracy rhetoric like "According to Dr. Durakovic, he left the US because he was told his life was in danger if he continued his research" and you have a very weak article.

As to the other citation, it was a speech. No evidence is in effect. It essentially falls into the category of hearsay. There is no real context to the statements. The fact that he is speaking to a group of people that have a vested interest in there being a problem with the munitions in question, impugns the the overall validity of the claims. What is needed are detailed and significant (with an effect population of potentially several hundred thousand veterans, you would need several hundred data points in your sample) statistical data to back the claims.

While I am not stating there is no link between DU and "Gulf War Syndrome", you would be better served citing better articles. Preferably, you would cite articles that had detailed and significant statistical data backing the claims.

-tom
--
You can be only -so- accurate with a sledgehammer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6551814 Sat, 12 Apr 2003 16:58:02 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6551616 said by fiqqq:

Ok, I think we have established that the MOAB is not a WMD. But, we are still struggling on why it was brought to Iraq.

This late in the war, there is no purpose for the MOAB so; it had to be brought in to scare the remaining leaders to get the hell out.

There is a bunker in Iraq, as yet unexplored, which can house up to 20,000 people, for more than one month. It has been speculated that the disappearance of the Special Republican Guard as well as that of the top level of the Regime, has now retreated to that location. This device's arrival, may be in response to that probability.
--
Bushwacked!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6551616 Sat, 12 Apr 2003 16:28:29 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6551506 said by Mashiki:

said by WildGod8:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the US didn't sign a cease-fire and agree to give up all WMDs.

No your not wrong. They've agreed to give up almost all of their nuclear stockpile, except for a manageable stock plus redundant spares(somewhere around 1,000) same as russia.

This is a misleading fact.
Even though a reduction in the numbers of weapons has occurred a very disturbing 'chain-of-command' change has happened as well, with regards to low-yield, battle-field nuclear devices. Richard Perle, who has long advocated a complete withdrawal from all nuclear weapons treaties, succeeded in getting legislation passed which gives the authority for the decision to use low-yield nuclear devices to divisional battle-field commanders. That's as high up in the chain as needs to be consulted before their use. Not good.

Also on the WoMd front...
The U.S. and Israel, are currently researching the development of bio-weapons, that are racially specific. Thanks to the Genome project, very precise genetic racial identifiers have been isolated, and those genetic 'keys', may be programmed into a pathogen, as their 'on-switch'. This means, that if a bio-weapon was programmed to only respond to a certain segment of DNA/RNA specific to those of a particular race, then it could be released indiscriminately, within the targeted region, and would only kill those individuals, who had the right genetic 'switch'.

This would be a perfect genocide weapon. It could be deployed even within a county's own territory, without affecting any one, but the 'target-race'.

---------------
John Eldridge in the new edition of Jane’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence, warns, that "World-wide advances in laboratory technology mean that it will not be long before any country could theoretically develop an ethnic weapon arsenal."

The LONDON TIMES reported that "Israel is working on a biological weapon that would harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources. The weapon, targetting victims by ethnic origin, is seen as Israel's response to Iraq's threat of chemical and biological attacks." 5

The article continues: "The intention is to use the ability of viruses and certain bacteria to alter the DNA inside their host's living cell. The scientists are trying to engineer deadly micro-organisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes." 6

A scientist involved with the Israeli facility that is sponsoring the project was quoted as saying the researchers "have succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in the genetic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people." 7

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

I guess only the U.S. and Israel can develop, and use WoMd.

»www.unesco.org/courier/1 ··· xt1.htm
»online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GE ··· ons.htm
»www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/a ··· A258707
--
Bushwacked!
[text was edited by author 2003-04-12 16:18:02]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6551506 Sat, 12 Apr 2003 16:13:37 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6550729
This late in the war, there is no purpose for the MOAB so; it had to be brought in to scare the remaining leaders to get the hell out.

said by »www.foxnews.com/story/0, ··· 00.html:
It is one of the weapons likely to be used in Iraq, part of a military approach known as 'Shock and Awe.' The idea of it being that so impressive, terrifying enemy at the onset of a war that the impulse is to surrender.

Meaning that, they had some trouble finding regime members, so they brought the MOAB to scare them out of their holes.

But are they going to use it? No. Used in Baghdad, it would level blocks and kill hundreds of civilians. And our ethics have certainly changed since WWII so; the likelihood of us using the MOAB in Iraq is %0.
--
Programmer n.: an ingenious device that turns caffeine into code.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6550729 Sat, 12 Apr 2003 14:26:41 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6550611
Re: What Western media shy away from.
Nice one line response. Very typical of someone who does not let facts get in the way of his opinions. Here are some facts:

"Although a very large body of existing scientific and medical research clearly established that such a link between Depleted Uranium ammunition and the reported illnesses was extremely unlikely, NATO Secretary General George Robertson immediately established an Ad Hoc Committee on Depleted Uranium to serve as a clearing house for information to be shared among interested nations.

To date, the scientific and medical research continues to disprove any link between Depleted Uranium and the reported negative health effects. Furthermore, the present evidence strongly suggests that NATO troops serving in the Balkans are not suffering negative health effects different from those suffered by their colleagues who have not served in the Balkans. Nevertheless, NATO is not complacent about this matter, and will continue to share information about this issue. The following web pages, which contain a large volume of material on this subject, represent part of NATO's effort in this regard."

Full Nato Report:

»www.nato.int/du/home.htm[?]

A Wealth of Information:

»www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/dris.html[?]

Try and read everything with an eye toward learning something. Of course, if all you are interested in, is finding things which support your opinions, move on for then there is nothing here. Here you will only find research and documented facts with no opinions allowed.

So once more, DU is not a WMD, if you are concerned with weapons that are truly evil, I suggest you direct your efforts toward land mines. They, while not WMDs, can maim more than kill and should be removed from every corner of the earth. I am not pleased that my country still deploys them.
--
Always Reach Beyond Your Grasp]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6550611 Sat, 12 Apr 2003 14:10:53 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6549390
»www.benjaminforiraq.org/ ··· ium.htm

An international scientific symposium on the use of Depleted Uranium and its impact on man and environment in Iraq was held in Baghdad between December 2-3, 1998.

"Several Iraqi and international researchers attended the symposium, in which 11 researches were presented on the effects of the use of the radioactive weapon -Depleted Uranium (DU)- on human beings and their environment (soil, water, plants and animals). Most of these studies focussed on the investigation of the frequency and the pattern of cancer primarily in southern Iraq, and on the health implications for future generations in view of the high incidence of congenital deformities. Data on the relationship between the high incidence of cancer and DU explosions were also presented."

The first people ever to use WMDs were the British.. Churchill used chemical weapons to kill Iraqis.. (after thte British army was defeated by peasant farmers and their spades...)

Tens of thousands of Iraqis and Kurds were killed by the British. Today Churchill is seen as a hero, even though he was doing more or less of the same thing Saddam Hussein has done... The irony of it all.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-12 08:08:06]

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6549390 Sat, 12 Apr 2003 07:58:22 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6549341 said by nixen:

Not an Example: depleted Uranium munitions. While there may be lingering effects of the weapons, they are directed force weapons. That is to say, they have a VERY limited area of initial effect (typically the few milimeters where it punches through armor or fortified structure).

Not according to these doctors;

"Former US army colonel, Dr Asaf Durakovic, who was at the center the government's supposed attempts to diagnose 'gulf war sydrome', told a conference of eminent nuclear scientists in Paris that "tens of thousands" of British and US soldiers are dying from radiation from depleted uranium (DU) shells fired during the Gulf war."

»www.mercola.com/2000/sep ··· nium.htm

"The following is a copy of the Address given by Dr. Doug Rokke, former head of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project, "

(This doctor paints a very grim picture for our soldiers and the environment)

»sftimes.editthispage.com ··· eader$61
--
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. --- Lord Acton, 1887 ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6549341 Sat, 12 Apr 2003 07:36:02 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6546921 said by Misu2:

Turftech, I don't know if this is the answer you're looking for, but from what I have understood of the definition of a WMD, is the fact that it continues to cause damage long after it's detonation.

A WMD is an wide-area effect weapon that has effects that surpass the initial deployment of the main weapon or submunitions.

said by Misu2:
For example: Nukes. Nukes not only blow things up - they leave radiation, which affects those outside the "ring of fire" or "ground zero". It takes years for radiation to clear out, and in that time, can spread through the environment and cause genetic mutations in organisms living in radiated areas where the radiation isn't high enough to quickly kill you.

For example: Mustard gas: French farmers for decades after World War I would suffer blisterings if, during the course of plowing a field, they happened to till up buried mustard gas residue - Not unspent munitions or submunitions, but residue of the original ordinance.

Not an Example: cluster bombs. While unexpended submunitions may still stay in the disbursement area, the individual effect of the submuntion is neither wide ranging nor persistent. Also, the overall disbursement pattern of all submunitions is not "wide-area".

Not an Example: depleted Uranium munitions. While there may be lingering effects of the weapons, they are directed force weapons. That is to say, they have a VERY limited area of initial effect (typically the few milimeters where it punches through armor or fortified structure).

-tom
--
You can be only -so- accurate with a sledgehammer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6546921 Fri, 11 Apr 2003 22:54:40 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6546853 said by MeeToo7:

Also, the Depleted Uranium amunition we use, according to the former military doctor in charge in the first Gulf War, is breathed in the air during battle by both civilians and our troops, and remains in the environment long after the war is over, stirred up by sand storms etc, microscopic particles breathed in and embedding in lungs, causing cancer and other problems.

but you also have to remember that a uranium slug won't kill 1000 people, the ammo left behind from an entire battle may cause cancer in some. A nuclear bomb will always cause death to many.
--
So, by process of elimination, the neutron must taste like grape-aid.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-11 22:47:46]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6546853 Fri, 11 Apr 2003 22:46:55 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6544264 said by MeeToo7:

But the cluster bomblets don't move around - they stay where they were dropped. It's unfortunate that not all the bomblets detonate upon impact, but they don't move around, either. Like land mines, they sit and wait until an unsuspecting person walks by. Which I agree with you, it totally sucks - but it's still affecting the area it was dropped onto.

I don't know about the depleted uranium in our current weapons - I was just giving my understanding of what a WMD is, and how it stands apart from other powerful weapons.
--
The things I do for love...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6544264 Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:12:56 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6541633 www.foxnews.com/story/0, ··· ,00.html

It's clear by at least how the US press uses the term "weapons of mass destruction", these are nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological (dirty bombs) weapons. Maybe by some stretch the e-bomb may be considered a WMD, but since it's primary function is not to kill but to disable electrical and electronic devices, I have a hard time agreeing with that.

If you want to invent an alternative definition because you think you can, fine. Maybe the debate is that the press and the government is manipulating the term "mass destruction" to meet their needs (not likely, since this is the term used repeatedly in UN resolutions »srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/f ··· ator=adj over the years dealing with this issue). But in terms of how the term is being used in conventional reporting by the press and the US government, the UK government, the UN, etc., the MOAB is not a WMD, nor is a cluster bomb, nor is a JDAM, nor are depleted uranium slugs, nor is an artillery shell.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored - Aldous Huxley]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6541633 Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:06:04 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6541046 said by Misu2:

Turftech, I don't know if this is the answer you're looking for, but from what I have understood of the definition of a WMD, is the fact that it continues to cause damage long after it's detonation.

In that case, wouldn't a cluster bomb qualify for WMD, since it continues to do damage and kill long after the war is over, as much of its bomblets do not detonate initially upon falling, but much like land mines sit where they fell until someone steps on it or pick it up (like a curious kid for example).

Also, the Depleted Uranium amunition we use, according to the former military doctor in charge in the first Gulf War, is breathed in the air during battle by both civilians and our troops, and remains in the environment long after the war is over, stirred up by sand storms etc, microscopic particles breathed in and embedding in lungs, causing cancer and other problems.
--
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. --- Lord Acton, 1887 ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6541046 Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:45:16 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6540131
For example: Nukes. Nukes not only blow things up - they leave radiation, which affects those outside the "ring of fire" or "ground zero". It takes years for radiation to clear out, and in that time, can spread through the environment and cause genetic mutations in organisms living in radiated areas where the radiation isn't high enough to quickly kill you.

The MOAB is really just a big conventional bomb. It's supposed to just kill those within it's target - I suppose if detonated at higher altitudes, it could kill more - but it's not a nuclear weapon. 1 nuke can wipe an entire city and affect its suburbs with radiation. As far as I know of the MOAB, it does not contain anything radioactive.
--
The things I do for love...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6540131 Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:21:16 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6539931
Off point;

quote:
Also, by merely being the occupiers of Iraq, and de facto it's regime for however long, means that the UK and US must comply with UN resolution 1441! LOL

This was a joke for those that obviously missed it.

Getting warmer;

quote:
»www.mw-line.at/download/mw_line_factsh..[?]

says hundreds of meters. I misread it but it is still much less than a mile.

Sure, when used as mentioned in the tests as a surface burst. However, if exploded under different parameters, the damage would be over a much larger area. This is unlike any other "conventional" bomb. It is designed to cause enormous concussion and evacuate air volume at such a rate as to cause wide spread destruction. I digress though, as the exact detail of the weapon is not to my point. Lets just say that it is, as someone mentioned to the contrary, far more than a "Texas firecracker".

To my point again;

If a relatively small shell containing mustard gas, Sarin etc., which might under ideal conditions kill a few thousands at best, and a MOAB which has the potential to kill tens of thousands in a densely populated area, why is the former considered WMD and the latter not? Are we talking about kill rates or method? Cluster bombs, when used accordingly, are much more lethal than virtually anything the Iraqi's had or have. Yet it is argued that cluster bombs are conventional.

What truly defines WMD from conventional weapons?

Regards.
--
Join Team Helix, It's fun! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6539931 Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:42:03 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6539294
Nuclear bomb is much different.
Read this:>> »www.animatedsoftware.com ··· _war.htm
--
Let's Roll]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6539294 Fri, 11 Apr 2003 04:03:08 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6538231 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6538231 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:59:06 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6538085
The term WMD itself was born of propaganda, and there is no absolute definition. Commercial aircraft used as weapons caused death and destruction on a grand scale at the WTC, and a few hundred pounds of well placed explosives could have caused more.

I would argue the ultimate WMD's are religious or political extremists in positions of power.
--
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official" Theodore Roosevelt ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6538085 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:41:53 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6535452 »www.mw-line.at/download/ ··· moab.pdf

says hundreds of meters. I misread it but it is still much less than a mile.
--
We are governed by a plethora of constitutional morons.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6535452 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 18:59:04 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6535212

[text was edited by author 2003-04-10 20:38:55]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6535212 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 18:32:59 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6535156 said by ShinyTop8:

One mile damage to all buildings - no way. Tens of thousands imploding - no way. Where did you get that info?

Google search found that deaths up to 100 meters if in open might be expected. Your damage assessment would take an atom bomb. The explosive in this bomb is 18,000 lbs. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was equivalent to 13 Kilotons of TNT or 26,000,000 pounds. No, not a WMD.

Where did YOU get that info?

A JDAM, a 2,000 lbs bomb, kills within a 100 meter radius, without taking into account shrapnels.

"REAR ADMIRAL JOHN STUFFLEBEEM: Here's what we can stay about what we know so far. There was a forward air controller who called in a close air support mission, a B-52 responded with JDAM munitions. One of those JDAM weapons landed somewhere in the vicinity of 100 meters of where our troops were at, and that's what has obviously caused the casualties and injuries. This mission was called in due to the fighting that was occurring between opposition groups and those Taliban forces that were dug in. This is north of Kandahar. The rest of this, in terms of how that weapon managed to not fall where the troops intended it to, is under investigation, and it's going to take a few days to try to find out why that happened.

KWAME HOLMAN: The JDAM, or Joint Direct Attack Munition, is a satellite-guided 2,000-pound bomb. Originally a simple gravity bomb, it has been adapted to seek coordinates provided by a global positioning satellite. Stufflebeem explained how it's used in close air support."

»www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/ ··· -5a.html

"The B-2 bomber carries sixteen 2'000 lb. JDAM bombs. If all goes 100% as planned (the bomb does not fall outside of its specified margin of error of 13 meters, and the GPS guidance system is not foiled by a $50 radio jammer kit, easily purchased), then here is what one such bomb does:
everyone within a 120 meter radius is killed;

to be safe from serious shrapnel damage, a
person must be at least 365 meters away;

to be really safe from all effects of
fragmentation, a person must be 1000 meters away, according to Admiral Stufflebeem."

»www.iraqbodycount.net/
--
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. --- Lord Acton, 1887 ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6535156 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 18:25:42 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6534921 said by Turftech:

If used in an urban centre, tens of thousands would literally implode, and all structures within a mile radius would be flattened. This to me is a WMD. A bullet is not.

Tens of thousands? Sure, if you dropped it on a packed football or baseball stadium on people with no direct protection against blast and vacuum effect (any munition of sufficient quantity could do that), but asserting that it would kill that many people is speculative. A single MOAB is slightly more than twice the weight of the 4 bombs that were dropped in the middle of a residential area on Monday to try to take out the Iraqi leadership. By design, those bombs had a limited blast effect, but I doubt that if they had exploded in the air they would have killed 5,000+ people, even in the densely packed urban setting.

Yup, it's not a bullet, but anything larger than a bullet is not a WMD either.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored - Aldous Huxley]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6534921 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:59:48 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6534868 said by Turftech:

Also, by merely being the occupiers of Iraq, and de facto it's regime for however long, means that the UK and US must comply with UN resolution 1441! LOL

Come on now slim... Drop them guns real easy like.

Roflmao!

Maybe I missed something but we are not going to occupy Iraq, since our flags are not being put up. If I am wrong please advise. Also, did you really read UN 1441 or just quote someone else?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6534868 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:52:51 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6534766
Google search found that deaths up to 100 meters if in open might be expected. Your damage assessment would take an atom bomb. The explosive in this bomb is 18,000 lbs. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was equivalent to 13 Kilotons of TNT or 26,000,000 pounds. No, not a WMD.
--
We are governed by a plethora of constitutional morons.
[text was edited by author 2003-04-10 17:49:28]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6534766 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:38:23 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6534679 said by TheOtherRay:

As far as the MOAB being a WMD, I guess it is all relative. Can it cause massive destruction in the vicinity of where it hits? Yes. Can it destroy a single city like Baghdad and kill the entire population? No. So in my view this is not a WMD, since those weapons like nukes, chemicals or biological warheads can do that.

This goes more to the point I am trying to make, as well as what Wildgod said earlier.

Where do you draw the limit on WMD? By numbers of corpses or overall destruction. I have heard (so I can't post a link!) that when detonated at higher altitudes, the effect is almost the same as a small nuke. If used in an urban centre, tens of thousands would literally implode, and all structures within a mile radius would be flattened.
This to me is a WMD. A bullet is not. Also, by merely being the occupiers of Iraq, and de facto it's regime for however long, means that the UK and US must comply with UN resolution 1441! LOL

Come on now slim... Drop them guns real easy like.

Roflmao!
--
Join Team Helix, It's fun! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6534679 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:28:42 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6534328 said by DSL987:

MOAB = 20,000 pounds (10 Tons)
Little Boy = 20,000 TONS

Indeed! Thanks for clearing that up. The explosive used in the MOAB is more powerful than the GSX used in the daisy cutter, and more powerful than conventional TNT as well. That's bound to confuse the calculation as well.

G
--
I rode the bike right next to you in the gym today. Im that guy you cut in front of in traffic. I held the door open for your wife and kids going into the market too. See who walks the Streets]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6534328 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:51:31 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6533331 said by Turftech:

My question is, as the MOAB has the same amount of destructive force as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, (or darned close) isn't it the equivalent of a nuclear device?

MOAB = 20,000 pounds (10 Tons)
Little Boy = 20,000 TONS

You are confusing pounds with tons. BIG difference.

[text was edited by author 2003-04-10 15:11:16]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6533331 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:09:28 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6531354 www.foxnews.com/story/0, ··· ,00.html

quote:
Senior defense officials also told Fox News that one MOAB bomb -- the "Massive Ordnance Air Blast" munition nicknamed the "Mother of All Bombs," has been moved into the Iraqi theater, and is ready for use. The bomb is being kept on hand as a contingency.

"I can't think of a situation in which we would use one," said one senior U.S. official.

I think it is more likely that this is a psyops type of move, getting the remaining northern Iraqi resistance to consider their fate at the hands of this really big bomb.

As far as the MOAB being a WMD, I guess it is all relative. Can it cause massive destruction in the vicinity of where it hits? Yes. Can it destroy a single city like Baghdad and kill the entire population? No. So in my view this is not a WMD, since those weapons like nukes, chemicals or biological warheads can do that.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored - Aldous Huxley]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6531354 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:44:43 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6531272
It was said of the destructive power of Little Boy, "the bomb destroyed most of the houses and buildings within a 1.5 miles radius" {link -here-}. Moab only works to "several hundreds of meters." {Link -HERE-}

No doubt this is confusing, relating explosive power to thousands of pounds of TNT is a bit esoteric. The superior destruction of Atomic weapons comes from the incredible heat generated, not just the concussive power, as it's kiloton rating would suggest. Moab may be big but it pales in comparison to even the smallest of nukes.

Short story, apples and oranges...

G
--
I rode the bike right next to you in the gym today. Im that guy you cut in front of in traffic. I held the door open for your wife and kids going into the market too. See who walks the Streets]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6531272 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:30:46 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6531020 said by WildGod8:

Correct me if im wrong but the US didnt sign a cease-fire and agree to give up all WMDs.

No your not wrong. They've agreed to give up almost all of their nuclear stockpile, except for a manageable stock plus redundant spares(somewhere around 1,000) same as russia.

They've agreed to destroy all chemical and biological weapons, they allow active international monitors to watch these stockpiles and the programs which are related to make sure that they run in "defense" or research mode only.

Currently standing, the total destruction of all chemical and biological weapons is slated for 2004. Ofcourse enviromentalists are blocking the sites which have been designated for destruction of these WMD. That does make the deadline rather hard to reach doesn't it?

Treaties and treaty information are available online, tho I've posted it before. On top of that, the US is one of the only country's to give and pay to disarm the Russians. How nice...atleast we can hope by helping them out as such, plutonium won't get into the hands of some bloody terrorist group.

Anyway as for a WMD. They are geneneraly classified into the "classic trio" of NBC's. Or Nuclear, Biological and Chemical, and that is because of their long lasting effects, on the enviroment and people.

A MOAB is nothing more then a very large conventional bomb, while very destructive. It doesn't leave any long lasting effects on the enviroment.
--
I use PGP do you?
The Art of War]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6531020 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:43:33 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6530925 [text was edited by author 2003-04-10 09:45:05]
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6530925 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:24:51 EDT Re: Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6530815
It's effectively not a crime to possess weapons of mass destruction, as long as you're honest about possessing them. That's why we aren't going after North Korea with the same gusto that we took with Iraq. North Korea has them, they admit to having them, so we deal with them on a higher level than with Iraq, whose regime has had them but denies their existence.
--
"In the first place, God made idiots; this was for practice; then he made school boards." -- Mark Twain]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6530815 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 09:04:30 EDT Just who's WMD's are we talking about? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6530749
My question is, as the MOAB has the same amount of destructive force as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, (or darned close) isn't it the equivalent of a nuclear device? Sure it leaves no radio activity after exploding, but it should be considered a so called "WMD", shouldn't it?

Regards
--
Join Team Helix, It's fun! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Just-whos-WMDs-are-we-talking-about-6530749 Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:50:26 EDT