Merry Christmas

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:16:08 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

But SH did use a WMD on the Kurds in 1988.

And used them in the Iran-Iraq war before that, although
chemical/biological weapons are technically *not* weapons of mass
destruction.

That will be news to those who define Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search

or:

http://tinyurl.com/y4sbjl

Yes.....And I wonder where he buried them? - and what poor tenement living
child will dig them up and play with them in 2050?

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:16:08 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

But SH did use a WMD on the Kurds in 1988.
And used them in the Iran-Iraq war before that, although
chemical/biological weapons are technically *not* weapons of mass
destruction.

That will be news to those who define Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search

or:

http://tinyurl.com/y4sbjl


Odd, I don't see the U.S. Army included among the references.
I don't, in fact, see any U.S. Government agency among the references.
Nor do I see any internationally recognized agency, such as the IAEA,
AEC, NRC, etc.

The definitions I use are the ones I learned in the U.S. Army; my MOS is
74D - Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Specialist.
(recently re-organized from 54B)

Pudentame wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:16:08 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

But SH did use a WMD on the Kurds in 1988.
And used them in the Iran-Iraq war before that, although
chemical/biological weapons are technically *not* weapons of mass
destruction.

That will be news to those who define Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search


or:

http://tinyurl.com/y4sbjl


Odd, I don't see the U.S. Army included among the references.
I don't, in fact, see any U.S. Government agency among the references.
Nor do I see any internationally recognized agency, such as the IAEA,
AEC, NRC, etc.

The definitions I use are the ones I learned in the U.S. Army; my MOS is
74D - Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Specialist.
(recently re-organized from 54B)


Hi...

Google "used wmd". Lots of hits, you'll get tired of reading. They all
contain the words USA or America as the user and (if you count depleted
uranium) continue to unashamedly use to this day.

Ken

Ken Weitzel wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:16:08 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

But SH did use a WMD on the Kurds in 1988.
And used them in the Iran-Iraq war before that, although
chemical/biological weapons are technically *not* weapons of mass
destruction.

That will be news to those who define Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search


or:

http://tinyurl.com/y4sbjl


Odd, I don't see the U.S. Army included among the references.
I don't, in fact, see any U.S. Government agency among the references.
Nor do I see any internationally recognized agency, such as the IAEA,
AEC, NRC, etc.

The definitions I use are the ones I learned in the U.S. Army; my MOS
is 74D - Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN)
Specialist. (recently re-organized from 54B)


Hi...

Google "used wmd". Lots of hits, you'll get tired of reading. They all
contain the words USA or America as the user and (if you count depleted
uranium) continue to unashamedly use to this day.

Ken



Poison gas is not a weapon of mass DESTRUCTION. The military makes that
distinction between mass destruction and mass casualty.

I don't care how many rubes misuse the term.

Pudentame wrote:
Ken Weitzel wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:16:08 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

But SH did use a WMD on the Kurds in 1988.
And used them in the Iran-Iraq war before that, although
chemical/biological weapons are technically *not* weapons of mass
destruction.

That will be news to those who define Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search


or:

http://tinyurl.com/y4sbjl


Odd, I don't see the U.S. Army included among the references.
I don't, in fact, see any U.S. Government agency among the references.
Nor do I see any internationally recognized agency, such as the IAEA,
AEC, NRC, etc.

The definitions I use are the ones I learned in the U.S. Army; my MOS
is 74D - Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN)
Specialist. (recently re-organized from 54B)


Hi...

Google "used wmd". Lots of hits, you'll get tired of reading. They all
contain the words USA or America as the user and (if you count depleted
uranium) continue to unashamedly use to this day.

Ken



Poison gas is not a weapon of mass DESTRUCTION. The military makes that
distinction between mass destruction and mass casualty.

I don't care how many rubes misuse the term.

Hi...

Whose military gets to decide? The one doing the poisoning? Or the
one(s) being poisoned?

As for the term - google define wmd. Read in particular the one from
a highly renowned university in your own country. Surely you're not
about to suggest that they're rubes?

Take care.

Ken

"Ken Weitzel" wrote in message
news:1tCnh.552207$1T2.40044@pd7urf2no...
Pudentame wrote:
Ken Weitzel wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:16:08 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

But SH did use a WMD on the Kurds in 1988.
And used them in the Iran-Iraq war before that, although
chemical/biological weapons are technically *not* weapons of mass
destruction.

That will be news to those who define Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search

or:

http://tinyurl.com/y4sbjl


Odd, I don't see the U.S. Army included among the references.
I don't, in fact, see any U.S. Government agency among the references.
Nor do I see any internationally recognized agency, such as the IAEA,
AEC, NRC, etc.

The definitions I use are the ones I learned in the U.S. Army; my MOS
is 74D - Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN)
Specialist. (recently re-organized from 54B)


Hi...

Google "used wmd". Lots of hits, you'll get tired of reading. They all
contain the words USA or America as the user and (if you count depleted
uranium) continue to unashamedly use to this day.

Ken



Poison gas is not a weapon of mass DESTRUCTION. The military makes that
distinction between mass destruction and mass casualty.

I don't care how many rubes misuse the term.

Hi...

Whose military gets to decide? The one doing the poisoning? Or the
one(s) being poisoned?

As for the term - google define wmd. Read in particular the one from
a highly renowned university in your own country. Surely you're not
about to suggest that they're rubes?

Take care.

Ken

Yes.....To the ones who are killed, any weapon was a "WMD".....I would
loosely define them as any weapon that kills indiscriminately.....That is,
that doesn't precisely define exactly who is being targeted for death....In
this sense, even a hand grenade is a WMD, since it just kills whoever
happens to be in the foxhole.......

Pudentame wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:16:08 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

But SH did use a WMD on the Kurds in 1988.
And used them in the Iran-Iraq war before that, although
chemical/biological weapons are technically *not* weapons of mass
destruction.

That will be news to those who define Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search


or:

http://tinyurl.com/y4sbjl


Odd, I don't see the U.S. Army included among the references.
I don't, in fact, see any U.S. Government agency among the references.
Nor do I see any internationally recognized agency, such as the IAEA,
AEC, NRC, etc.

The definitions I use are the ones I learned in the U.S. Army; my MOS is
74D - Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Specialist.
(recently re-organized from 54B)

Did that briefly in the Air Force (1964-1968), and the term WMD wasn't
common. Anyone who thinks biological weapons aren't 'mass destruction'
needs a crutch for a broken brain.

Pudentame wrote:

Poison gas is not a weapon of mass DESTRUCTION. The military makes that
distinction between mass destruction and mass casualty.

I don't care how many rubes misuse the term.


"Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - Generally refers to chemical,
nuclear, biological agents or explosive devices."
http://www1.va.gov/emshg/apps/emp/emp/definitions.htm

"Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a munition
with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of living
beings." --Wikipedia

I think you might think of terms that killing a human is destruction.
Killing a lot of them is mass destruction.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:25:15 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:16:08 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

But SH did use a WMD on the Kurds in 1988.
And used them in the Iran-Iraq war before that, although
chemical/biological weapons are technically *not* weapons of mass
destruction.

That will be news to those who define Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search

or:

http://tinyurl.com/y4sbjl


Odd, I don't see the U.S. Army included among the references.
I don't, in fact, see any U.S. Government agency among the references.
Nor do I see any internationally recognized agency, such as the IAEA,
AEC, NRC, etc.

The definitions I use are the ones I learned in the U.S. Army; my MOS is
74D - Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Specialist.
(recently re-organized from 54B)

"*I* know the correct meaning of words. Those rubes who use it with
other meanings are just wrong.
"WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!"
:-)

--
The Coney Island Polar Bear
Club hosted its annual New
Year's Day swim in the frigid
waters off New York City Monday.
It wasn't completely successful.
Paris Hilton and Britney Spears
came out of the water just as
drunk as when they went in.

Ken Weitzel wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
Ken Weitzel wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:16:08 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

But SH did use a WMD on the Kurds in 1988.
And used them in the Iran-Iraq war before that, although
chemical/biological weapons are technically *not* weapons of mass
destruction.

That will be news to those who define Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search


or:

http://tinyurl.com/y4sbjl


Odd, I don't see the U.S. Army included among the references.
I don't, in fact, see any U.S. Government agency among the references.
Nor do I see any internationally recognized agency, such as the
IAEA, AEC, NRC, etc.

The definitions I use are the ones I learned in the U.S. Army; my
MOS is 74D - Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN)
Specialist. (recently re-organized from 54B)


Hi...

Google "used wmd". Lots of hits, you'll get tired of reading. They all
contain the words USA or America as the user and (if you count depleted
uranium) continue to unashamedly use to this day.

Ken



Poison gas is not a weapon of mass DESTRUCTION. The military makes
that distinction between mass destruction and mass casualty.

I don't care how many rubes misuse the term.

Hi...

Whose military gets to decide? The one doing the poisoning? Or the
one(s) being poisoned?

As for the term - google define wmd. Read in particular the one from
a highly renowned university in your own country. Surely you're not
about to suggest that they're rubes?

Take care.

Ken

The distinction in the definitions are from a STANAG - STandard NAto
AGreement... so everyone is using the same terminology & understands the
what each other mean. So the people most likely to have to deal with
them in the consequences of use.

For military purposes the difference is how those weapons affect the
battlefield. Generally the distinction is whether you can "continue the
mission" if attacked with the weapon. Nuclear weapons have significantly
greater effects (order of magnitude) on the ability of military forces
to maneuver, hold territory, engage the "enemy" and reach the military
objective than Chemical/Biological weapons.

Google provides a list of sites where a search term appears, not
definitions of the search terms themselves. Google does not
differentiate between sites using a term correctly and those that are not.

Many carelessly confuse the two. I don't.