"Is a 767 driven into a building killing over a thousand people a WMD?"
You're kidding right? You CAN
make a distinction between a hijacked 767, a strictly civiliian aircradft used to take passengers on holiday or business trips :-i, not being used for the puropse it was intended right
. If a 767 is a weapon of mass destruction, so is a bus, a train or a cruise ship. Any thing can be used as a weapon now can't it?
"So I guess the coalition forces are a collective "Weapon of Mass Destruction". Because over the last week they have inflicted massive casualties."
If 370 is "mass casualties"
what do you call approx. 3000??? armegeddon?
"...maybe we should have come up with an alternative plan other than forcing his hand in this war that is destabilizing the region more and more each day."
Many things were tried, the UN, 12 years worth of grovelling...er ... inspections, negotiations, even France paying blackmail and it hasn't kept him quiet. As far as this action destabilizing the whole region, it certainly says alot about the condition of the various dictatorships, theorcracies and tyrannies that typify a >majority< the "governments" of the area...
"They describe the US nukes as "tactical". That's an attempt to avoid classifying them as WMDs. They even go so far as calling some "mini-nukes". How precious! Tactical weapons, whether they are nukes or not, have the ability to cause a great deal of deaths."
As do 767's
again it comes to "intent" now doesn't it. It is highly doubtful that the US would use any sort of nuke in the area firsty, where as SH
would if he had them. Tactical is a defencive term, WMD's are more than likely used offensively a tyrant such as Hussein or the Cazalwearing /high heel shoed/big haired Kim Jung Il, first to commit an act of barbarism...but again a bomb is a bomb--and how it is used is the key. I would rather use a bomb th blow up SH
's palace/rape room/laboratory that have him bomb the Sears Tower or the Louvre....