2
   

U.S. Lies About Use of Chemical Weapons

 
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 08:04 pm
Quote:
Couldn't therefore the act of firing WP shells right at an enemy fighter in a battle rightfully be characterized as chemical warfare?


At the risk of being a bit obvious, it depends on the definition of "chemical warfare" but it seems intuitively correct to me. I reckon it would be right up there with "war crime".
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 08:59 pm
old europe wrote:
Why so agressive, englishmajor? That was exactly the point stated here.


I was responding to Fedral, whom I find an offensive warmongering pedantic. Smile
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 09:03 pm
Fedral wrote:
I was posting that this TOPIC was posted multiple times before, not that YOU yourself posted it multiple times you self important prig , so lets talk about shuting another piehole as you are fond of saying.

Just because you desperately want to turn the U.S. into the moral equivalent of Saddam's military will not make it so.

Just because I say over and over: Hillary Clinton is the Anti Christ doesn't make it true... I may believe it, but it doesn't make it true.

Do you see the freaking difference?



Yeah, so who's got their underpants in a twist here? Freakin Fedral Fighter methinks. Razz
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 09:08 pm
englishmajor wrote:
But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm". (Quoted from article)


Guess I have to state the obvious again. What part of the above don't you get? Would you like some of this stuff on YOUR backside? Thought not.


So if my artillery batteries lay a barrage of a few thousand persistent nerve agents up and down an unoccupied highway to deny its use to an enemy, it REALLY doesn't count as chemical warfare until the first person is killed, even though I am denying you the use of that road?

Thats ridiculous.

Just as ridiculous as a conventional weapon 'magically becoming a chemical weapon when the first person is killed by it.

If you really believe that, I appreciate you vindicating President Bush's invasion of Iraq, since the Iraqis both HAD and USED White Phosphorus rounds against U.S. forces during the invasion. (3rd ID took fire from several WP mortar rounds and the 82nd AB was in a protracted firefight that involved WP and frag rounds hitting their emplacements.

So I guess that the Iraqis DID have WMDs (Chemical Weapons ARE WMDs) and whats more, they used them against Americans.

My GOD, George Bush was RIGHT.

You see how foolish your logic is ...

WP is NOT ... has NEVER BEEN ... WILL NEVER BE classified as a Chemical Weapon.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 09:20 pm
englishmajor wrote:
old europe wrote:
Why so agressive, englishmajor? That was exactly the point stated here.


I was responding to Fedral, whom I find an offensive warmongering pedantic. Smile


Offensive: My first post to you was firm, factual and polite ... you replied that I should 'shut my piehole' so the offensive began on your end.

Warmongering: Correcting factual errors in another's posts is not warmongering. I am 4th Generation military and trust me when I tell you that NO ONE, not the Peacenicks of the '60s, the Buddhist Monks of Tibet or the most arrogant Canadian on the boards hates War more than the soldiers who have seen and lived it. I grew up hating the very idea of being involved in a war and yet I joined the Service out of Duty. If you read my posts here, I am in no way condoning, encouraging nor am happy about the use of WP and napalm in these cases, I am merely correcting an error of fact.

Pedantic: Really had to pull that one out of the Unabridged Oxford Dictionary didn't you? And yet you use it so poorly. It is pedantic to refute your emotional posts with logical arguments and postings? Perhaps you should check your Thesaurus and get back to me.
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 09:25 pm
blah blah blah
you related to bush? you make as much sense.....

Your tagline shows your ignorance about an ancient country. Course, Sean Penn has BEEN to Iraq, right? More Hollywood bullshit.

Team America....yeah...now the Iraqis have no running water, electricity, they are SO much better off! Why do you think they hate Americans so much? Because they are worse off.

America, in comparison, is a mere baby. What arrogance to go around teaching democracy to a people who are 4,000 years old. What gives you the right? Especially democracy is not what most people would term America nowadays. Dictatorship. Totalitarian. Now, that's America!

Welcome to the Brave New World, Army boy.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 09:37 pm
englishmajor wrote:
blah blah blah
you related to bush? you make as much sense.....

Your tagline shows your ignorance about an ancient country. Course, Sean Penn has BEEN to Iraq, right? More Hollywood bullshit.

Team America....yeah...now the Iraqis have no running water, electricity, they are SO much better off! Why do you think they hate Americans so much? Because they are worse off.

America, in comparison, is a mere baby. What arrogance to go around teaching democracy to a people who are 4,000 years old. What gives you the right? Especially democracy is not what most people would term America nowadays. Dictatorship. Totalitarian. Now, that's America!

Welcome to the Brave New World, Army boy.


Ahhh yes, the last resort..
When you can't refute the facts of someone elses argument and you have nothing constructive to say...

Mock them and change the subject.

During practice in Debate Society, when an opponent got to this stage, they automatically lost.

But thats ok, you seemed to run out of anything new so say on page 3.
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 09:39 pm
pedantic: overconcerned with details and rules.

Like someone already posted to you: you miss the forest for the trees.

You miss the point.

Correcting YOUR idea of factual errors.

Still did not answer me: if you think phosphorus is ok, put some on you butt; yeah, the very same stuff that the Iraqis had fired at them. Let me know how it feels. I'd really like to know.
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 09:41 pm
go to page one. re-read what the article says.

that you disagree means not a whit to me or anyone else with an analytical brain.

America lied about the use of chemical weapons. Period. You lose.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 09:45 pm
Fedral wrote:
Chemical Weapons ARE WMDs


Fedral, according to the definition in the Convention you posted, that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. It seems.
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 09:51 pm
AGAIN: the article clearly states that the US state dept. lied. "Confronted with the new evidence, on Thursday it changed its position." You bet they did. Now, if white phosphorus is not harmful, why did they lie in the FIRST place??? EH???

Until last week, the US state department maintained that US forces used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes". They were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters". Confronted with the new evidence, on Thursday it changed its position. "We have learned that some of the information we were provided ... is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e. obscuring troop movements and, according to... Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes...' The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds." The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.

EM: How shameful of the U.S. But then, they used Agent Orange on their own troops in Vietnam with devastating results that are still affecting GI's. Why would they have any qualms against using it on Iraqis? I mean, Iraqis aren't real people - what is it most Americans call them? Towel heads? Sand niggers?

Get the F*&K out of Iraq, America. You are not wanted, nor were you EVER wanted. What is wanted is oil. You got it, so leave these poor people be, for God's sake.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 12:05 am
Englishmajor,

What is with you? I have seen you go from being civil to now cussing? (Ok, you didn't actually type the whole word but we all get the picture.)

Is there really any need for that? You constantly verbally attack America and Americans and expect us to sit idly by? Turning the other cheek is one thing, but standing there and letting someone hit you with a sledgehammer is another.

We get it. You don't like America! But, you don't live here! You left, remember? So please, just leave it alone.

I just hope you don't have high blood pressure.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 04:50 am
Re: Fedral
Fedral wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Fedral, unintended consequences or whatever the US military used it for, it became a deadly weapon when it made contact with human bodies.

BBB


BBB,
I'm not arguing with you about the horror of war, or the tragedy of people being blown apart by the weapons of modern war.

What I am objecting to is the characterization of conventional weapons as Chemical Weapons (WMD's)

This is blatantly false.

In my day, when night vision goggles were only issued to Special Forces/Rangers and other elite units, we used to be issued glowing tritium front sights for our M-16's. (Tritium is a nuclear byproduct material that causes the sight to glow so you could aim at night). We also were issued extra tracer rounds for night fire which allowed us to see where our weapons were firing. (Tracer rounds use a glowing, burning chemical incidiary effect when fired which can result in idcindiary effects at the target point)

By the measure of the original article, my M16A1 rifle which I used in the late '80's would be considered both a nuclear and chemical weapon and I would have needed an ok by the President and Joint Chiefs of Staff to fire each round. I also would have been in violation of several treaties by the mere act of firing my weapon at the firing range.

I can see the headlines:
Alpha Battery / 3 of the 9th Field Artillery privates, using hundreds of nuclear weapons, fired THOUSANDS of Chemical Weapons at Fort Sill today!!
(Night fire used to happen a LOT when I was in)


Can you see how the spin and mischaracterization of conventional weapons as something different can reflect something totally different than the actual event???


And you don't seem to understand what I'm trying to get at.

White phosphorous if used as a weapon is not a conventional weapon. In fact, in its proper use, as illumination, it cannot be classed as a weapon. Is a torchlight a weapon? Of course, not! What I'm objecting to is the current classification of WP.

WP is not a chemical weapon as classified by the treaty, but it should be and we should open a debate and have it changed henceforth.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 06:57 am
Momma Angel wrote:
Englishmajor,

What is with you? I have seen you go from being civil to now cussing? (Ok, you didn't actually type the whole word but we all get the picture.)

Is there really any need for that? You constantly verbally attack America and Americans and expect us to sit idly by? Turning the other cheek is one thing, but standing there and letting someone hit you with a sledgehammer is another.

We get it. You don't like America! But, you don't live here! You left, remember? So please, just leave it alone.

I just hope you don't have high blood pressure.


MomaAngel

Cussing constitutes some violation of what, exactly? And would your rule for proper discourse apply to the vice-president ("Go fukk yourself") or to Karl Rove ("We'll fukk him like he's never been fukked before!")?

Apparently, you also feel that criticism of US policies by anyone outside of the US is another violation of some rule. It would be interesting to know how you would state or word such a rule. And would it apply in other directions? For example, should Americans cease all derogatory comments regarding France? Iran?

Do words and ideas commonly land as sledgehammer blows? If you, or America, are sort of teenie and fragile, I wouldn't want to cause the sort of damage your metaphor suggests. Please let me know.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 07:16 am
Re: Fedral
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

And you don't seem to understand what I'm trying to get at.

White phosphorous if used as a weapon is not a conventional weapon. In fact, in its proper use, as illumination, it cannot be classed as a weapon. Is a torchlight a weapon? Of course, not! What I'm objecting to is the current classification of WP.

WP is not a chemical weapon as classified by the treaty, but it should be and we should open a debate and have it changed henceforth.


I have NO problem having a debate on whether or not a weapon should be reclassified to a different type or should be banned outright Wolf.

Where my problem lies, is those on this thread who insist that it is ALREADY a Chemical Weapon just because 'they say so'.


Frankly, having seen the effects of a WP created smokescreen, I am 100% in agreement that WP should be banned ... Once a replacement that can accomplish the same effect in as quick a timeframe can be developed.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 07:31 am
Re: Fedral
Fedral wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

And you don't seem to understand what I'm trying to get at.

White phosphorous if used as a weapon is not a conventional weapon. In fact, in its proper use, as illumination, it cannot be classed as a weapon. Is a torchlight a weapon? Of course, not! What I'm objecting to is the current classification of WP.

WP is not a chemical weapon as classified by the treaty, but it should be and we should open a debate and have it changed henceforth.


I have NO problem having a debate on whether or not a weapon should be reclassified to a different type or should be banned outright Wolf.

Where my problem lies, is those on this thread who insist that it is ALREADY a Chemical Weapon just because 'they say so'.


Frankly, having seen the effects of a WP created smokescreen, I am 100% in agreement that WP should be banned ... Once a replacement that can accomplish the same effect in as quick a timeframe can be developed.


Actually, that's one of the few posts you've writter where I find myself in total (or nearly) agreement, fedral.

My concern relates to where the focus of attention falls towards consideration of existing definitions and classifications OVER the realworld effects of the weaponry. You are absolutely right to demand consistency of definition however as rational conversation simply can't occur in the absence of such consistency.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 12:02 pm
blatham,

I do not believe anyone should cuss anyone for any reason. Period. There is no need for it. I feel Englishmajor is pretty intelligent. I have read posts of hers that have gotten her point across quite clearly and she has done it without offending.

She has seemingly gone off on a tangent against the United States. She has made some pretty nasty remarks about America and Americans. America is not perfect. No country is perfect. But, this is my country. I love my country. I am a United States citizen. She is a United States citizen. Ok, she didn't like it here so she left. That is her God-given right and I would never say differently. But, to lump all Americans (all anything) in one single category is IMO wrong.

I just don't believe in the name calling, etc. Debate? Yes! No problem with that whatsoever. But, when name calling, etc., starts.....trouble ensues. And for what? What good does it do but upset people? Why not debate and try to find solutions instead of accuse?

Her solution was to leave America. Fine. That's her solution. Now, why try to stir up trouble between those still here?
0 Replies
 
Scorpia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 12:19 pm
WP is NOT ... has NEVER BEEN ... WILL NEVER BE classified as a Chemical Weapon.

Unless it is used on Americans. Then you can bet the classification would change. If Sadaam Hussein used WP against anyone - it would immediately be classified a chemical weapon.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 12:26 pm
Scorpia wrote:
WP is NOT ... has NEVER BEEN ... WILL NEVER BE classified as a Chemical Weapon.

Unless it is used on Americans. Then you can bet the classification would change. If Sadaam Hussein used WP against anyone - it would immediately be classified a chemical weapon.


I repeat from my earlier posting:
... the Iraqis both HAD and USED White Phosphorus rounds against U.S. forces during the invasion. (3rd ID took fire from several WP mortar rounds and the 82nd AB was in a protracted firefight that involved WP and frag rounds hitting their emplacements.

The U.S. military has never classified WP rounds as anything other than conventional weapons. Wishing, hoping and speculating on what you want to happen will not change that.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 12:45 pm
MomaAngel wrote:
Quote:
I do not believe anyone should cuss anyone for any reason. Period. There is no need for it. I feel Englishmajor is pretty intelligent. I have read posts of hers that have gotten her point across quite clearly and she has done it without offending.

It may well be your belief. There's no apparent reason for any of the rest of us to subscribe to it. The range of what individuals find 'offensive' is broad enough to cover pretty much everything but prepositions and articles. I find lies offensive. I find lack of care in knowledge claims offensive.

Quote:
She has seemingly gone off on a tangent against the United States. She has made some pretty nasty remarks about America and Americans. America is not perfect. No country is perfect. But, this is my country. I love my country. I am a United States citizen. She is a United States citizen. Ok, she didn't like it here so she left. That is her God-given right and I would never say differently. But, to lump all Americans (all anything) in one single category is IMO wrong.

That you love your country and don't like to hear or read negative opinions regarding it is hardly a factor which ought to determine or limit how others speak about your country. Do you have some understanding that Americans alone love their country, or perhaps that it is uniquely deserving of national fervor? Does you rule apply to, say, you or Bill O'Reilly or your President speaking about other nations?

Quote:
I just don't believe in the name calling, etc. Debate? Yes! No problem with that whatsoever. But, when name calling, etc., starts.....trouble ensues. And for what? What good does it do but upset people? Why not debate and try to find solutions instead of accuse?

Solutions to what? Under your terms, solutions to various problems cannot even be broached as the preceding question - eg, Is America's foreign policy driven by selfish imperialism? - cannot be asked (being offensive).

Quote:
Her solution was to leave America. Fine. That's her solution. Now, why try to stir up trouble between those still here?

Again, that you conceive of some statement as 'stirring up trouble' doesn't entail that anyone else ought to agree with your conception or the value/lack of value of such.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/10/2022 at 02:57:15