2
   

U.S. Lies About Use of Chemical Weapons

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 11:01 am
englishmajor wrote:
Of course. Why should the US follow Geneva Conventions.


Are you talking of the CIA torture?

Why indeed? Our POWs have been tortured in probably every war that we've been in during the last 60 years. No one seems to care to prosecute those crimes.



englishmajor wrote:
They don't follow any other rules.


That's silly.



englishmajor wrote:
I think as does the REST OF THE WORLD that you're a very sick country.


You don't speak for the world.



englishmajor wrote:
You refuse to acknowledge any of my comments about world opinion.


Balderdash!



englishmajor wrote:
Blinders on? You bet you do.


No I don't



englishmajor wrote:
You still have not given me ONE country that admires the US.


So?



englishmajor wrote:
You like to blow people up who had nothing to do with 9/11? Why?


Are you asking why invade Iraq?

I think the Neocons wanted to bring democracy to the Arabs.

Bush himself seemed concerned about Saddam's nuclear program.



englishmajor wrote:
You must believe in Santa as well.


Not as such, but I am big on the Christmas spirit.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 11:05 am
joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If you ever have to choose between being hit with WP or napalm or thermate, choose the WP.

I wasn't aware that the US troops were offering anyone a choice.


They aren't. But the ones shelled with white phosphorus had a better time of it than the guys who were napalmed by Marine fighter jets to clear the way in their race to Baghdad as the war opened.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 11:09 am
The US military, golly, just a churnin urn of burnin funk.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 12:22 pm
oralloy wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If you ever have to choose between being hit with WP or napalm or thermate, choose the WP.

I wasn't aware that the US troops were offering anyone a choice.


They aren't. But the ones shelled with white phosphorus had a better time of it than the guys who were napalmed by Marine fighter jets to clear the way in their race to Baghdad as the war opened.

I'm sure that some Iraqi right now who is being burned to death by white phosphorus is spending his last, agonizing moments expressing his gratitude to the US military that he isn't covered in napalm.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 11:57 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If you ever have to choose between being hit with WP or napalm or thermate, choose the WP.

I wasn't aware that the US troops were offering anyone a choice.


They aren't. But the ones shelled with white phosphorus had a better time of it than the guys who were napalmed by Marine fighter jets to clear the way in their race to Baghdad as the war opened.

I'm sure that some Iraqi right now who is being burned to death by white phosphorus is spending his last, agonizing moments expressing his gratitude to the US military that he isn't covered in napalm.


Would it be any better if they were hit by a non-incendiary weapon? Say if they were blown apart by a grenade instead?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 06:19 am
Gosh no. Incendiaries are FAR more fun. It's the slow burn thing.

IDEA! Let's take a lead here from that wonderful military propensity for euphemism AND that really keen idea of hiring PR companies to pretend they are real Iraqi reporters (or, obviously, real American reporters) and let's do up a cartoon for Iraqi and American kiddy TV.

The characters will all sorts of neat weaponry from the US arsenal! Like a Hummer with eyebrows and he speaks kinda dumb Arkansas-like and brags about his big gun all the time.

And then there'd be (this would be GREAT for the family-values thing AND the goddamn immigrant problem) the chicano cluster-bomb extended family characters.

And I see Whitey Fosfor as a KEY character. Talk about incendiary! He'll do hilarious things like open the door to an Iraqi shitter and you'll see like Osama shitting! Or in some Iraqi 'community' where everyone is a terrorist and they say really bad things about America and good ole Whitey Fosfor rains down like manna all over them terrorists and the animated smoke is like curling off their skin and flesh and good ole Whitey is doing the cool rap-type moves as he burns down through the flesh and he's singing his motto song..."I'm bad. Bad to the Bone. Oh yeah, I'm bad. Right down to the bone"

Ain't that a neat idea all around?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 09:24 am
oralloy wrote:
Would it be any better if they were hit by a non-incendiary weapon? Say if they were blown apart by a grenade instead?

Never having been scalded to death by white phosphorus or blown apart by a grenade, I cannot speak from experience. I would note, however, that quite a few governments have made a distinction between incendiary and non-incendiary weapons. For instance, Protocol III of the UN Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW)
    "prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.
Obviously, the 86 or so countries that have ratified the CCW think that there's a difference between incendiary and non-incendiary weapons, and decided that burning someone to death is, all things considered, worse than killing them by some more conventional method (I'll add that the US has not ratified Protocol III, but it has signed onto other parts of the CCW).

So yes, judging by the general consensus, I suppose I would prefer to be blown apart by a grenade than burned to death by white phosphorus. I would understand, however, if your tastes inclined more to the latter than the former. Chacun a son gout.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 03:14 pm
blatham wrote:
Gosh no. Incendiaries are FAR more fun. It's the slow burn thing.


I'm not sure the burn is all that slow, though WP would be slower than the others.

However, while a grenade may be fast in causing damage, the injuries caused by it aren't necessarily quick and painless.

People could linger in pain for days with severe injuries from shrapnel before dying.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 03:14 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Would it be any better if they were hit by a non-incendiary weapon? Say if they were blown apart by a grenade instead?

Never having been scalded to death by white phosphorus or blown apart by a grenade, I cannot speak from experience. I would note, however, that quite a few governments have made a distinction between incendiary and non-incendiary weapons. For instance, Protocol III of the UN Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW)
    "prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.


Actually, it was already illegal to make civilians the target of an attack, regardless of type of munition. The thing that Protocol III really achieves is more restrictive guidelines on the use of incendiaries against military targets.

These guidelines are designed to make it less likely that there will be collateral damage with incendiaries than if the normal rules of warfare are followed.



joefromchicago wrote:
Obviously, the 86 or so countries that have ratified the CCW think that there's a difference between incendiary and non-incendiary weapons, and decided that burning someone to death is, all things considered, worse than killing them by some more conventional method (I'll add that the US has not ratified Protocol III, but it has signed onto other parts of the CCW).

So yes, judging by the general consensus, I suppose I would prefer to be blown apart by a grenade than burned to death by white phosphorus. I would understand, however, if your tastes inclined more to the latter than the former. Chacun a son gout.


I'd prefer to avoid either.

It is true though that the international community seems to see collateral damage from incendiaries as worse than collateral damage from high explosive.
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 10:02 pm
blatham wrote:
Gosh no. Incendiaries are FAR more fun. It's the slow burn thing.

IDEA! Let's take a lead here from that wonderful military propensity for euphemism AND that really keen idea of hiring PR companies to pretend they are real Iraqi reporters (or, obviously, real American reporters) and let's do up a cartoon for Iraqi and American kiddy TV.

The characters will all sorts of neat weaponry from the US arsenal! Like a Hummer with eyebrows and he speaks kinda dumb Arkansas-like and brags about his big gun all the time.

And then there'd be (this would be GREAT for the family-values thing AND the goddamn immigrant problem) the chicano cluster-bomb extended family characters.

And I see Whitey Fosfor as a KEY character. Talk about incendiary! He'll do hilarious things like open the door to an Iraqi shitter and you'll see like Osama shitting! Or in some Iraqi 'community' where everyone is a terrorist and they say really bad things about America and good ole Whitey Fosfor rains down like manna all over them terrorists and the animated smoke is like curling off their skin and flesh and good ole Whitey is doing the cool rap-type moves as he burns down through the flesh and he's singing his motto song..."I'm bad. Bad to the Bone. Oh yeah, I'm bad. Right down to the bone"

Ain't that a neat idea all around?


Rolling Eyes I think your idea does not compute with the americans. They don't get it. But yes, I like the idea of an animated Hummer with eyebrows - what do you think, y'all? It'd be just hilarious to watch that Willie Pete, maybe drawn/animated as a big tall white guy with a corncob pipe and a No Fear t-shirt, raining that stuff down on those evil Iraqi people! In fact, it'd make a great video game for the american brats who just love that ****. They could tally up how many women and kids (babies too) that they kill on their video screen......who can rain the WP the fastest before those women and kids reach safety? Great game idea. I bet Hasbro will pick it up.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 10:14 pm
What?! There are videogames in Canada!?
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 10:22 pm
blatham wrote:
The US military, golly, just a churnin urn of burnin funk.



Very Happy Very Happy Laughing Laughing Oh yeah!!!! And bullies!!!!
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 10:35 pm
Ignoring me, are you? There are no Canadian brats playing violent videogames? I am really getting sick of your attack on Americans. If you don't like it here, fine. Do not come back. We don't want you here if you feel that strongly about America.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 10:45 pm
I'm very happy englishmajor has seen fit to head north. I just wish more America-hating liberals would follow her lead.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 10:55 pm
Well, I am willing to load the RV up with them and give them a free trip.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 02:24 pm
Well, I'm afraid englishmajor's move to BC and my own move from vancouver to manhattan tend to cancel each other out.

Still, maybe momma angel's idea (she's a retributive angel, apparently) has wings. There's certainly no good reason that any citizen who criticizes particular American policies ought to be allowed to stay inside the borders. The American fatherland would be cleaner without them. Railcars could be used - cheap and would help out Amtrac.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 03:18 pm
Mere criticism wouldn't prompt me to offer to help MA load up her RV or your railcars, Bernie. But hatred and contempt do. You haven't exhibited such, so I guess you'll be allowed to remain.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 03:58 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Would it be any better if they were hit by a non-incendiary weapon? Say if they were blown apart by a grenade instead?

Never having been scalded to death by white phosphorus or blown apart by a grenade, I cannot speak from experience. I would note, however, that quite a few governments have made a distinction between incendiary and non-incendiary weapons. For instance, Protocol III of the UN Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW)
    "prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.
Obviously, the 86 or so countries that have ratified the CCW think that there's a difference between incendiary and non-incendiary weapons, and decided that burning someone to death is, all things considered, worse than killing them by some more conventional method (I'll add that the US has not ratified Protocol III, but it has signed onto other parts of the CCW).


So then, by your definition and by the accepted description of the treaty, we can FINALLY agree that White Phosphorus is NOT a chemical weapon, but instead is a CONVENTIONAL WEAPON.

That being said, the entire premise of this bloated thread is just another of 'major's Anti-American screechfests.

I agree that they are horrible weapons.
I agree that they shouldn't be used against anyone, combatant or non combatant.
I am probably one of the few people on this board who has actually seen WP shells when they hit. (I was stationed at Fort Sill, Oklahoma 'Home of U.S. Artillery' where all America's artillerymen are trained.) This is the reason I am so vehement about what category these weapons are classified under.
I was a crewman on a mobile theater level nuclear missile.
Attempting to classify this weapon in the same classification as Nuclear and REAL Chemical Weapons (Sarin GB, Soman GD, VX Diphosgene agents) takes away so much from the horrors that are REAL nuclear/chemical weapons.

This is the same level of desensitization of horror that follows the Bush = Hitler crowd.
These are people who have absolutely NO CLUE at the true horror that Hitler brought to his people and the death he caused and yet by using Bush = Hitler, it dilutes the true crimes and horror that Hitler brought to Earth.

Calling White Phosphorus a chemical weapon takes SO much away from the absolute horror of true chemical weapons and makes it more likely that real weapons of that nature can be used in the future since the attitude of:
"Why shouldn't WE use our Sarin gas on our enemies, the Americans are using chemical weapons in Iraq."
Might happen sooner than you think as a result. TRUST ME on this, you do NOT want to see the effects of REAL chemical weapons. You would rater be burned to death with napalm that face the pain and suffering of real chemical weapons.

They're often classified by their method of action or their use:

Blister agents (vesicants) produce blisters all over your body.
Blood agents prevent tissue cells from using oxygen so that your organs quickly shut down.
Choking agents attack your respiratory system.
Incapacitating agents cause physical or mental incapacitation, such as dizziness, confusion, stupor or coma. One of these agents is Fentanyl, a narcotic used in medicine as an anesthetic and for pain relief. When Russia reportedly used this gas to end a hostage siege in the fall of 2002, nearly 130 hostages died after inhaling it.
Nerve agents, or nerve gases, disrupt proper nerve function. Exposure to these odorless, colorless substances can occur through inhalation, skin contact or ingestion. They cause paralysis or uncontrollable muscle movement, seizures and death by suffocation (asphyxiation). Although many nerve agents are called gases, they're actually liquids that can be released as an aerosol or mixed with other liquids. Atropine, a drug normally used in hospitals to treat cardiac arrest, can be an effective nerve gas antidote. As an antidote, large doses are injected into your leg using a needle called an autoinjector. Atropine is known as a dual-use drug because it has both civilian (medical) and military uses.
Riot control agentsVomiting agents cause severe vomiting.
Chemical weapons are easy to produce but not that easy to use. Their effectiveness is limited by their age and purity, how they're dispersed, quantity and even weather conditions, such as wind direction. They also pose a danger to those attempting to disperse the chemicals.

In contrast to biological weapons, chemical weapons can kill rapidly, often within hours or minutes, and sometimes with just a small drop. Possible protection against chemical weapons includes gas masks, shelters and sealed suits and vehicles. Treatment and antidotes can sometimes help after exposure. If contaminated, you need to flush your eyes and skin immediately for at least five to 10 minutes while awaiting emergency help. Remove contaminated clothing and jewelry.

Some of the most common chemical agents are:

Ricin.Sarin. Sarin (SAH-rin) is a nerve gas that can cause death within minutes of exposure. It enters your body through your eyes and skin and kills by paralyzing the muscles you use for breathing. Signs and symptoms of sarin exposure vary but include a runny nose, watery eyes, dimmed vision, drooling, sweating, difficulty breathing, nausea, twitching and headache. Members of a Japanese cult released sarin in a Tokyo subway in 1995, killing 12 people and injuring thousands.

VX. A nerve agent whose natural state is liquid, VX turns into a gas when exposed to oxygen. Although it's much less volatile than sarin, it's about 10 times more toxic. VX can spread through water or air. It kills within minutes if just a drop touches your skin or you inhale it. VX blocks the transmission of nerve impulses along your central nervous system, causing convulsions, respiratory paralysis and death.

Tabun. Tabun (TA-bun) is a nerve agent that when vaporized has a fruity odor likened to bitter almonds. Both the liquid form, which is absorbed through the skin, and the vapor form, which is inhaled, can be lethal in as little as 15 minutes. Although tabun can be destroyed by its reaction with bleaching powder, that reaction causes another chemical reaction that produces the deadly blood agent cyanogen chloride.

Soman.Mustard gas. This blister agent is a liquid at room temperature, but it can also be dispersed as an aerosol. Inhalation causes burns and blisters, eye irritation and lung damage, including cough, bronchitis and lung failure. It's usually disabling but not lethal unless you're exposed to large, highly concentrated amounts. There's no antidote for mustard gas exposure. Mustard gas is not related to mustard, but its odor has been likened to mustard, horseradish, onions and burning garlic.

Chlorine. Although you probably know it as a strong-smelling disinfectant or as a purifier used in drinking water and swimming pools, chlorine is a choking agent that's corrosive to the skin and eyes, causing burns and blurred vision. Inhaled, chlorine can cause labored breathing and the buildup of fluid in the lungs. Although no antidote exists, survival is possible if treatment begins soon after exposure.

Phosgene. Phosgene is a choking agent. When released into the air as a gas, it forms a white cloud and smells like newly mown hay or green corn. If inhaled at high concentrations long enough, it causes severe breathing problems and fatal lung congestion. Like chlorine, there's no antidote, but survival is possible with quick treatment.

Hydrogen cyanide. Hydrogen cyanide is a blood agent that starves tissues of oxygen. At normal temperatures, it's a colorless gas whose smell is likened to bitter almonds. Exposure irritates your eyes, skin and respiratory tract. Inhalation of high concentrations can cause death within minutes.

These are just a few of the TRUE chemical weapons, please don't make the mistake of confusing a nasty conventional weapon with a true weapon of horror like chemical weapons.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 04:02 pm
My point is this, if you hate somewhere you are so much, then why stay? If you can't offer solutions then go. That's my point.
0 Replies
 
Stevepax
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 04:06 pm
All this talk ... all this Bull Hockey.

Lets strip down all these rightwingers and dust them down with WP and see if they think there are chemicals involved. Let's see if they can figure out what a chemical reaction is.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and shits like a duck, it's a bloody duck!!

Perhaps they might think less of the use of it if they got to experience it firsthand.
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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 12:40:14