Okay. Let's try this one more time....

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" are nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that belong to countries that are, for whatever reason, not on friendly terms with The United States of America. At this time, that would mean Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the countries Bush has labelled "An Axis of Evil". The very same weapons belonging to any other country are not called "weapons of mass destruction". If I am mistaken, please cite one instance when the term has ever been used to refer to the weponry of a "friendly" country. Pakistan is currently a "friendly" country and, therefore, it's nuclear bombs are not WMD's. But let an Islamic revolution take place there or let their ongoing tiff with India heat up to the point where the U.S. has to take sides and they suddenly will be. Get it? It's all just a matter of semantics.

And for anyone who thinks that Iraq's chemical weapons have some special staus because it is the only country since World War One to actually use them, remember who is the only country to ever have actually used atomic bombs.

I'm in no way trying to defend SH here. I just think that it's important that we realize how politicians use perjorative terms to try to influence public opinion. Personally, I think they're all weapons of mass destruction regardless of whose hands they're in. Let's get rid of all of them.

Bruce