4 ms·

I always see this is trotted out as to say that Iraq did not possess WMDs, however technically it is wrong, as WMDs (chemical weapons in this case) were found a

I always see this is trotted out as to say that Iraq did not possess WMDs, however technically it is wrong, as WMDs (chemical weapons in this case) were found after the invasion, (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#2003_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...). While there was no evidence of nuclear weapons or an active program I believe that a better quote should be used since the pretences that it is quoted for are technically wrong.

throwawaycuriou 5y ago
Of course, because WMD is a manufacturered phrase with tautological utility. A kitchen knife wielded in a sinister way is capable of mass destruction.
- elefanten 5y ago
  No, there's a pretty stable presumptive meaning of "weapons of mass destruction". It means radiological, biological and chemical. There are always people trying to expand the definition, but it's usually from more left-leaning critical schools of thought that want to classify landmines, sanctions or guns as WMD. But in official usage, it's been pretty stable at those three.
  - throwawaycuriou 5y ago
    The utility is in the muddying. To use the broader term (WMD) instead of the specific (chemical weapons) is to imply the broader abuse. While the specific abuse is something the US turned a blind eye to a generation previously (chemcial weapons by Iraq against Iran)
- jollybean 5y ago
  It's not a manufactured phrase. A knife is not generally a weapons. Saddam 100% had WMD's and was capable of making more. But he didn't have an active program, stockpiles were small and there wasn't really a huge risk of him selling to 'terrorists' etc.. The misrepresentation was really one of magnitude and capabilities and especially how the information is presented. "He Has WMD's" is very true and legitimate (different than 'he has a knife'), but obviously the misrepresented context makes it a giant lie. To this end, I suggest that the US would do better in their public communications if they revealed some Twitterable/TikTokable visuals and graphics which highlighted the nature of some of the incursions, so as to more strongly make their case i.e. it's easier to believe 'something material' than accusations.

throwawaycuriou 5y ago

Of course, because WMD is a manufacturered phrase with tautological utility. A kitchen knife wielded in a sinister way is capable of mass destruction.

elefanten 5y ago
No, there's a pretty stable presumptive meaning of "weapons of mass destruction". It means radiological, biological and chemical. There are always people trying to expand the definition, but it's usually from more left-leaning critical schools of thought that want to classify landmines, sanctions or guns as WMD. But in official usage, it's been pretty stable at those three.
- throwawaycuriou 5y ago
  The utility is in the muddying. To use the broader term (WMD) instead of the specific (chemical weapons) is to imply the broader abuse. While the specific abuse is something the US turned a blind eye to a generation previously (chemcial weapons by Iraq against Iran)
jollybean 5y ago
It's not a manufactured phrase. A knife is not generally a weapons. Saddam 100% had WMD's and was capable of making more. But he didn't have an active program, stockpiles were small and there wasn't really a huge risk of him selling to 'terrorists' etc.. The misrepresentation was really one of magnitude and capabilities and especially how the information is presented. "He Has WMD's" is very true and legitimate (different than 'he has a knife'), but obviously the misrepresented context makes it a giant lie. To this end, I suggest that the US would do better in their public communications if they revealed some Twitterable/TikTokable visuals and graphics which highlighted the nature of some of the incursions, so as to more strongly make their case i.e. it's easier to believe 'something material' than accusations.