troll:

Depends on one's definition of WMD?

Firstly, I don't think we should dismiss the use of Nuclear weapons at the end of WW II. We has options. Like dropoping the bomb on a less populted area like over water and just told the Japanese to observe the danged thing. That wouyld have had the same effect and brought about the same conclusion.

Now, fast forward to Vietnam, where the US bombed and bombed and bombed and hundreds of thousands folks were blown the heck up.

Then to the last two days of the Persian Gulf War where the US bombed and bombed and bombed and tens of thousands of folks were blown the heck up.

Now, take the sanctions against Iraq which only time will tell how amny thousands of folks have died of starvation of lack of medical care.

Oh, lets not forget the WMD the US uses on its own folks. Millions die in poverty every year without health care, without food, without that safety net that the US boasts of. And now we're going to turn our back on the elderly. Oh sure, those folks who came through the system will do fine. The double dippers. The gov't retirees. But the working class elderly are gonna die in poverty. That, as far as I'm concerned, troll, is a weapon of mass destruction.

So lets keep John Wayne's America in some perspective here, my friend.

Bobert