Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Yup. Appelation for such a weapon seems rather beside the point. Perhaps like painting a heart on a shotgun shell before unloading it into some child's stomach.

0 Replies

What do the terrorists call those bombs they make when they pack nails, BBs, and C-4 into backpacks and explode them at cafes and on buses?

0 Replies

Why does anyone care how we kill the enemy in combat,as long as we kill them?

WP is not a WMD,nor is it a banned weapon.
So,if it kills them,then use it.

0 Replies

Well, fine then. Of course it also means that other forces anywhere in the world can happily and morally use phosphorous weapons on American kids in battle too. So long as they possess the belief that their fight is righteous. That's fair.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Well, fine then. Of course it also means that other forces anywhere in the world can happily and morally use phosphorous weapons on American kids in battle too. So long as they possess the belief that their fight is righteous. That's fair.

These are standard warhead designs, currently in the inventories of most of the world's armies, very likely including Canada as well.

0 Replies

Oh goodie. Everything is fair then.

0 Replies

I don't foresee a time when a competent military organization would be in battle with American forces where these types of weapons could be used. Our superior air forces would wipe them out long before they could.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Well, fine then. Of course it also means that other forces anywhere in the world can happily and morally use phosphorous weapons on American kids in battle too. So long as they possess the belief that their fight is righteous. That's fair.

According to international law,they can use WP against our troops if they want.
It is a legitimate weapon of war and ground combat,and as george said,almost every country on earth possess's it already.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Oh goodie. Everything is fair then.

But of course war is not a game, and the notion that one side or the other should play fair is bizarre.

From a practical standpoint, it is highly unlikely that we will be engaging in a war, anytime soon, wherein our enemy will be as or more obedient to the so-called rules of war than we will. The only thing that will keep the insurgents in Iraq from using phosphorous weapons on our troops is their not having them.

I'm sure I would not want to have WP weapons used against me, but then I am equally sure I do not want grenades, rifles, knives or clubs used against me. If the Normandy Beach scene in Saving Private Ryan was at all accurate (and I've been told it was) I'm not sure it could have been any more hellish for those men if unfair weapons were used. Losing a limb is losing a limb, being blinded is being blinded and dying is dying.

Restrictions should be self-imposed on wartime behavior, not to make war more palatable but, to maintain some link to the civilized behavior to which it is hoped we will return when the carnage is over. It is not so easy a thing to achieve though. I don't think that efforts to paint bright lines of demarcation between what is fair and what is not are all that helpful.

0 Replies

All of you talk about the "rules" of war,about how we should try to retain some civility for when the war is over,etc.

These all sound good in theory,but are not applicable when you are trying to survive combat.
All you can do then is kill as many of the enemy as you can,as fast as you can,and avoid getting killed yourself.

The rules sound good in theory,but dont apply in real life.

The only rule in combat is to survive.
If it moves,carries a weapon,and is the enemy,you kill it.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

All of you talk about the "rules" of war,about how we should try to retain some civility for when the war is over,etc.

These all sound good in theory,but are not applicable when you are trying to survive combat.
All you can do then is kill as many of the enemy as you can,as fast as you can,and avoid getting killed yourself.

The rules sound good in theory,but dont apply in real life.

The only rule in combat is to survive.
If it moves,carries a weapon,and is the enemy,you kill it.

I disagree MM. I think the only rule of war is to win. If you don't think winning it to be a worthy goal, it should not be fought. If it is fought, the goal should be to stop, disarm, neutralize the enemy as quickly and expediently as it can be done. If America was less concerned with collateral damage and was a bit more uncivil; if we had used overwhelming force, Iraq would not be a point of history instead of a current event. And I think lives probably would have been saved.

0 Replies

Yeah Foxfyre that reminds me very little of Don Rumsfeld. But, it might be one of the reasons we lost the war of Iraq.

0 Replies

Ddys

dyslexia wrote:

Yeah Foxfyre that reminds me very little of Don Rumsfeld. But, it might be one of the reasons we lost the war of Iraq.

If my history memory is correct, the US has not won a war since World War II.

BBB

0 Replies

well, it was McArthur who said the Chinese would never get involved in N Korea, but it was Rumsfeld/Cheney who said we would be greeted with flowers in Iraq.

0 Replies

Dys

dyslexia wrote:

well, it was McArthur who said the Chinese would never get involved in N Korea, but it was Rumsfeld/Cheney who said we would be greeted with flowers in Iraq.

Yeah, funeral white lilies.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Ddys

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

If my history memory is correct, the US has not won a war since World War II.

BBB

Your memory of history is utterly wrong.

We can be said to have won all the important ones and most certainly won the Cold War, successfully resisting numerous Soviet confrontations and Soviet-backed insurgencies. From Berlin to Greece, Egypt, South Korea, Nicaragua, and many others, Soviet directed confrontations, wars and insurgencies were successfully resisted, finally exhausting the resources of the 'evil empire', leaving it to collapse as a result of its own internal contradictions and inability to compete with our political and economic strength.

One would have to look very hard over the major national conflicts of the past few centuries to find another such major, protracted national and political showdon that was resolved so decisively and with (considering the stakes) so little violence and destruction. Nothing in history rivals it except perhaps the position of the British Empire after the Napoleonic wars.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I don't foresee a time when a competent military organization would be in battle with American forces where these types of weapons could be used. Our superior air forces would wipe them out long before they could.

They're superior, but not that superior.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I don't foresee a time when a competent military organization would be in battle with American forces where these types of weapons could be used. Our superior air forces would wipe them out long before they could.

They're superior, but not that superior.

"Battlefield" theorists seem to be delusional.
Fallujah was a town with innocent people in it, non-combatant.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

These are standard warhead designs, currently in the inventories of most of the world's armies, very likely including Canada as well.

Interestingly in this context:
Canada allows "Phosphorous pentasulphide, (CAS 1314-80-3)" [in the cathegory of "Group 7 - Chemical and Biological Weapons Non-Proliferation List - Chemical Weapons Precursor Chemicals"] only to be exported to the USA.
Source Export Control List (Canada)

0 Replies

How quickly people forget. As George ob1 indicated, we won the most important of all wars-The Cold War.

Indeed, many in our country feared nuclear annihilation when Kennedy "faced down" Khruschev( He didn't really)

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know