US, Britain, and Israel have used chemical weapons within the last 10 years

[Manatee]

I'm a veteran. I doubt you are.

I do not subscribe to the armchair patriotism that you seem to enjoy.

 

[jbombelli]

I'm a veteran. I doubt you are.

I do not subscribe to the armchair patriotism that you seem to enjoy.

Ahhh... pulling the "I'm a veteran" card, as though that somehow lends weight to your words. I have news for you: it doesn't. That will probably come as a huge blow to your ego, but there it is.

And I see you have a very difficult time sticking to a topic. This isn't about Iraq. This isn't about claims of WMDs in Iraq. This is about White Phosphorous being put into the same category as nerve gas and mustard gas. This is about claiming rounds tipped with depleted uranium are "technically nuclear weapons."

 

[indiucky]

Hah why not throw abortion into the mix.

I was hoping to take advantage of the conversation...You know..For the children...Little trick I picked up from the left...

"Kumbaya My Lord...
Kumbaya....."

"Come on...Everybody SING!"

"Oh Lord...
Kumbaya....

Now let's add some Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger into the mix!!! Come on!

"This train is bound for Glory this train..
This train is bound for Glory this train..."

Wow...Lookie here..I done went made myself a good old fashioned hippie drum circle...And all I had to do was hop on a patented INGO "America Sucks" thread... Now if I can just remember the chords to John Prines "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You into Heaven Anymore" our little circle will be complete!

Save the Whales...Peace out...Word....

 

[Manatee]

It's a red herring that draws attention away from more serious problems. It is a false equivalency where more relevant facets are completely ignored. The real question might be: Assuming we have a moral obligation to intercede, how do we define the mission so that we don't spend a trillion dollars over 10 more years in the region? I would also add that I have little faith that this commander-in-chief is the right man at the right time.

Our history of intervention in other countries post-WWII and post-Cold War, whether by subversion of existing governments or direct military presence, is not something that I am proud of.

And yes, I'm a veteran which means I fought to defend your right to be an a**hole. I sometimes wonder if it was worth it.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

It'd be It's own category, whatever dirty bombs fall into

A dirty bomb is some type of radioactive material spread by conventional explosives. I don't think the DU rounds fit that definition.

 

[indiucky]

And yes, I'm a veteran which means I fought to defend your right to be an a**hole. I sometimes wonder if it was worth it.

It was...I love reading his posts..

Thank You for your service...I too am an armchair patriot and never served but thanks for fighting for my right to be an ***hole....I excercise that right daily....It may not have been worth it to you but I sure enough appreciate it anyway...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Manatee]

Thanks. I just get irritated at times by some of the attitudes that result in our 19 and 20 year olds losing a limb or life, or dealing with ptsd because a politician wants to bring "our way of life" to others who abhor our way of life. It is now estimated that we will spend over $1 trillion dealing with the injuries to our combat veterans who served in A-stan and Iraq. It makes me sick.

The guys from my war are still suffering from the effects of Agent Orange (not to mention what we've done to the local population). Can we seriously say that between our own WMD deliveries and chemical tactics we've used in the past, we now have God's imprimatur to deal with Syria? Methinks not.

 

[possum_128]

 

[Jludo]

A dirty bomb is some type of radioactive material spread by conventional explosives. I don't think the DU rounds fit that definition.

How's that? You have radioactive materials being propelled by explosive charges, I can't think of anything more similar than that. The only distinction to be made would be the intent, one intends to cause complications due to radiation while for the other that's just a side effect.

 

[Principal Skinr]

The U.S., Britain and Israel have Used Chemical Weapons within the Last 10 Years | Washington's Blog
do as we say... not as we do...

I suppose you'll consider the use of lead in ammo to be chemical warfare, too. Sorry man, not buying what you are selling.

That doesn't mean I support going into Syria. Quite the contrary. I just don't consider DU a chemical weapon, same as I don't consider gun powder or lead a chemical weapon. Just my humble opinion.

 

[possum_128]

How's that? You have radioactive materials being propelled by explosive charges, I can't think of anything more similar than that. The only distinction to be made would be the intent, one intends to cause complications due to radiation while for the other that's just a side effect.

Got news for you, take some du rounds and place into something with regular explosives and you will in fact have an explosion with du rounds. But a dirty bomb? Not hardly.

I will say this, I have a background in nuclear weapons as well as a very good understanding as well as training in du rounds, as I am sure you don't and you are way off base here. Do some research and get educated instead of just writing about something you think you know about.

 

[Kagnew]

Amazing how few people even know what depleted uranium is.

 

[Que]

x 2 = ?

 

[deal me in]

I think people are missing the point when they say WP isn't a chemical weapon. The point is that it's use against civilians is banned by international law and we've used it on civilians in the last 10 years. How do we take the moral high ground/world police position on the use of chemical weapons in Syria when we don't have the best track record either? It saddens me that so many blindly support our corrupt, war-mongering gov't.

 

[jamil]

x 2 = ?

 

[KellyinAvon]

It's a red herring that draws attention away from more serious problems. It is a false equivalency where more relevant facets are completely ignored. The real question might be: Assuming we have a moral obligation to intercede, how do we define the mission so that we don't spend a trillion dollars over 10 more years in the region? I would also add that I have little faith that this commander-in-chief is the right man at the right time.

Our history of intervention in other countries post-WWII and post-Cold War, whether by subversion of existing governments or direct military presence, is not something that I am proud of.

And yes, I'm a veteran which means I fought to defend your right to be an a**hole. I sometimes wonder if it was worth it.

I'll see your DD 214 and raise you a Blue ID. What the hell's wrong man?

 

[LPMan59]

Bush's fault.


And you're all racists.



Lolz

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
[h=2]chemical warfare[/h] noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Use of lethal or incapacitating chemical weapons in war, and the methods of combating such agents. Chemical weapons include choking agents such as the chlorine and phosgene gas employed first by the Germans and later by the Allies in World War I; blood agents such as hydrogen cyanide or cyanogen gas, which block red blood cells from taking up oxygen; blister agents such as sulfur gas and Lewisite, also dispensed as a gas, which burn and blister the skin; and nerve agents such as Tabun, Sarin, Soman, and VX, which block the transmission of nerve impulses to the muscles, heart, and diaphragm. The horrific casualties suffered in World War I led to the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which made it illegal to employ chemical weapons but did not ban their production. Chemical weapons were used a number of times afterward, most notably by Italy in Ethiopia (1935–36), by Japan in China (1938–42), by Egypt in Yemen (1966–67), and by Iran and Iraq against each other (1984–88). During the Cold War the Soviet Union and U.S. built up enormous chemical arsenals; these were dismantled under the terms of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits all development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, or transfer of such weapons. Not all countries have signed the convention, and many are suspected of pursuing clandestine chemical programs. Many military forces have adopted various defensive measures, including chemical sensors, protective garments and gas masks, decontaminants, and injectable antidotes, and some have reserved the option of retaliating in kind to any chemical attack. In 1995 a religious cult killed 12 civilians and injured thousands more with Sarin gas in Tokyo; this pointed out the power of chemical agents as weapons of terror as well as the difficulty of protecting civilian populations. See also biological warfare.

Hey Manatee! _I'M_ a veteran, and I think you're wrong! And I'll bet I served longer than you did (so nyah, nyah). Oh, by the way, using the OP definition of "chemical warfare" using lead bullets qualifies because lead is bad for people and the environment. Can you spell "ridiculous'?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I think people are missing the point when they say WP isn't a chemical weapon. The point is that it's use against civilians is banned by international law and we've used it on civilians in the last 10 years. How do we take the moral high ground/world police position on the use of chemical weapons in Syria when we don't have the best track record either? It saddens me that so many blindly support our corrupt, war-mongering gov't.

WP has always been used -by policy- as a marking round for targets or as an obscurant; it's NEVER been used by US policy as an anti-personnel weapon. But it's used in mortar rounds, you say? Yep, mixed with anti-personnel rounds to cause confusion and obscure friendly movements.