I become afraid of my own anti-Americanism

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Willem
Try taking a drink of it sometime and see how long you live.

Next, you'll be calling Windex a chemical weapon.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

If those same chemicals are used in a combat situation then they would be considered chemical weapons.

They're not being used in combat situations. Agent Orange was used in Vietnam to kill off the vegetation in the jungle to make US operations easier.

And is that not a combat situation? You don't think that the fact it caused harm or even death to the people who were exposed to it, which was generally the Vietnamese, was an added bonus? I was around then, and there was alot of controversy over it's use. Even some of your vets have suffered long term medical complications because they came into contact with it.

Roundup is sprayed on coca fields in Colombia to kill the plants. They're herbicides, not chemical weapons.

Well yes, in that instance, I'd say defining it as a chemical weapon is stretching it. It's all a matter of context however. If they're used to kill or injure, even indirectly, they are chemical weapons.

[Dom Pedro II]

Windex would be a chemical weapon if you put it into an enemy's water supply... so yes, it CAN be a chemical weapon.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Next, you'll be calling Windex a chemical weapon.

If it's used in a combat situation in order to kill or injure, directly or indirectly, yes.

[Drake Tungsten]

Even some of your vets have suffered long term medical complications because they came into contact with it.

Which should be a pretty good indication that America didn't view Agent Orange as a chemical weapon; I can't see us dropping sarin on our own troops. It was a herbicide with unknown side effects...

[Willem]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Even some of your vets have suffered long term medical complications because they came into contact with it.

It was a herbicide with unknown side effects...

They used it for years, they knew full well what it could do to a human body. The fact that some of yyour own troops where affected was simply collateral damage and an acceptable risk in warfare. People get maimed or injured all the time by friendly fire.

By your definition, that wasn't a bomb that the Oklahoma Bomber used, since it was made primarily from ordinary fertilizers and chemicals found on a farm.

[Drake Tungsten]

They used it for years, they knew full well what it could do to a human body.

No they didn't. They banned the use of Agent Orange when they found out what it was doing to people.

By your definition, that wasn't a bomb that the Oklahoma Bomber used, since it was made primarily from ordinary fertilizers and chemicals found on a farm.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

They used it for years, they knew full well what it could do to a human body.

No they didn't. They banned the use of Agent Orange when they found out what it was doing to people.

Before or after people became aware of the dangers and started to raise a fuss over it's use?

PS I was around then and I remember that the military was very reluctant to stop using it. They only did so because of public pressure.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Even some of your vets have suffered long term medical complications because they came into contact with it.

Which should be a pretty good indication that America didn't view Agent Orange as a chemical weapon; I can't see us dropping sarin on our own troops. It was a herbicide with unknown side effects...

It's nice to think that, but at many times in our history, the higher-ups have thought of our boys as expendable. Consider how the Vietnam war was fought. Our ground troops were sent out as bait for Vietnamese soldiers. Once contact was initiated, our troops were supposed to call in air support to do the real job of fighting. In that context, our soldiers were quite expendable. This in just one of the reasons the war was so unpopular among our own soldiers. I highly recommend the book, The Perfect War by James William Gibson.

Remember, this was the same military command that marched US soldiers out into the desert and dropped atomic bombs near them to see how they'd be affected. What makes you think that these same bastards wouldn't knowingly expose our boys to dangerous chemicals?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Well I have heard news reports that indicate that many of the missles fired at Kuwait were indeed scuds, missles Saddam claimed to have gotten rid of.

So far, there is no conclusive evidence that the Iraqi used Scuds. A missile was supposedly shot down over Kuwaiti City yesterday, but there is no picture of it.

Originally posted by Jack_www
Also Have you heard about the hosipital that they found that had chemical suits and antidotes for nerve gas? We know that US will not use chemical weapons on Iraq, so why would the Iraqies have this stuff??

Just for the record, Iraq also said it doesn't have any chemical weapons. So why do the US soldiers have combat environ suits and drugs for chemical weapons?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Willem
Before or after people became aware of the dangers and started to raise a fuss over it's use?

What the hell? After, of course. Did you expect them to ban it before people were aware of the dangers?

PS I was around then and I remember that the military was very reluctant to stop using it. They only did so because of public pressure.

The military is always reluctant to stop using something because it has side effects. That doesn't make it a weapon.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
What the hell? After, of course. Did you expect them to ban it before people were aware of the dangers?

Obviously he meant the general public.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Of course I do. But on the scale of things, he's a much smaller and less dangerous bully than the US. I can count on no fingers the amount of democracies Hussein has overthrown. The US has overthrown dozens, some in my own lifetime. It's trying to destabilize a few even now.

so? If a democracy is belligerent, then who cares? an enemy is an enemy, i could care less under what type of regime it was controled.

[Willem]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
The military is always reluctant to stop using something because it has side effects. That doesn't make it a weapon.

Weapon: (Oxford Dictionary)

noun 1: thing designed, used, or usable for inflicting bodily harm 2: means for gaining an advantage in a conflict

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Willem
Weapon: (Oxford Dictionary)

noun 1: thing designed, used, or usable for inflicting bodily harm 2: means for gaining an advantage in a conflict

If that were true, a flashlight or a pair of night-vision goggles would be a weapon because they help me gain advantage. Is that true?

Che: IIRC, it was the action of scientists and not the general public that got the ball rolling on the banning of AO, in addition to the fact that the military discovered it wasn't very effective anyway. I really don't see the "AO conspiracy theory" that you seem quick to insinuate. The history seems rather straightforward: Scientists discover dangers after seeing effects of exposure, in a few years these concerns grow until the military decides to remove it for various reasons, including health issues and the fact that the compound is a military and propaganda failure.

[Willem]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


If that were true, a flashlight or a pair of night-vision goggles would be a weapon because they help me gain advantage. Is that true?

I didn't write the definition, Oxford did. It's mainly a question of how it's used. If I hit you over the head with a flashlight, wouldn't it become a weapon?

[Trevman]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

The pictures of the dead must have at least got a few giggles out of you.

What the f--k!
I don't know if you're referring to Iraqi or US dead, or both, that this is an unexcusable comment - joking or not.

[Der PH]

It seems my thread has been jacked!
No prob, people!
As long as it is interesting, keep jacking!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Trevman
I don't know if you're referring to Iraqi or US dead, or both, that this is an unexcusable comment - joking or not.

1) I was refering to the POWs executed by the Iraqis.
2) I fail to see anything wrong with the statement given Der PH's declaration that he felt satisfaction and pleasure at the sight of the American Pows broadcast by Iraqi TV.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Willem
If I hit you over the head with a flashlight, wouldn't it become a weapon?

Yes, but it would only be a weapon when you were using it as such: a flashlight sitting on the table or being used as a flashlight is not a weapon. Likewise, if I knew AO was dangerous and I used it to hurt others, it would be a weapon, but if I did not know that and used it for a non-violent purpose it would not be a weapon.

Of course, some items like guns are always weapons no matter what they are used for because they are expressly designed for such use.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Che: IIRC, it was the action of scientists and not the general public that got the ball rolling on the banning of AO, in addition to the fact that the military discovered it wasn't very effective anyway.

Nope. It was a nurse at a VA hospital who noticed its effects. She contacted Bill Curtis, a reporter for Chicago CBS news, who investigated and reported the findings. From there the public was pretty pissed, vets began suing the government, an eventually the government agreed to stop using it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Yes, but it would only be a weapon when you were using it as such: a flashlight sitting on the table or being used as a flashlight is not a weapon. Likewise, if I knew AO was dangerous and I used it to hurt others, it would be a weapon, but if I did not know that and used it for a non-violent purpose it would not be a weapon.

Of course, some items like guns are always weapons no matter what they are used for because they are expressly designed for such use.

To my knowledge, there has never, ever been a civilian, peaceful use for Agent Orange, it was designed specifically for combat situations. And if you think that the Pentagon didn't know full well what the harmful effects on humans was, you're very naive. It would have been fully tested before it ever got out of the lab. The fact that it caused bodily harm to anyone who came in to contact with it, which in most cases would have been the Vietnamese, was just a bonus. The fact that some US troops were also affected would have been just written off as collateral damage.

I really don't know why we're quibbling about semantics here, it's rather pointless really. Or perhaps you're afraid to admit that the US isn't exactly a knight in shining armour when it comes to using chemical weapons. It's really not such a blight on your national character you know, they've just done what every major power has done as well. At least they're no longer in the habit of using them, though they're fully capable of doing so.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Willem
To my knowledge, there has never, ever been a civilian, peaceful use for Agent Orange, it was designed specifically for combat situations.

Designed for combat situations != non-peaceful use

Again, think flashlight: Just because something is used exclusively in a combat zone does not make it a weapon or a non-peaceful object. AO is by definition peaceful; it's just a damn herbicide.

And if you think that the Pentagon didn't know full well what the harmful effects on humans was, you're very naive. It would have been fully tested before it ever got out of the lab.

If you think that military chemicals and equipment are fully tested right out of the lab to make sure there are no side effects, you're the naive one. Ever heard of anthrax shots? The Pentagon probably knew it was harmful, but not any more so than standard defoliators. Some scientists at the time claimed in full conscience that it was not harmful, and were only later proven otherwise.

The fact that it caused bodily harm to anyone who came in to contact with it, which in most cases would have been the Vietnamese, was just a bonus. The fact that some US troops were also affected would have been just written off as collateral damage.

You can't have collateral damage by something that isn't damage causing. AO was not a weapon; the military doesn't deal with "bonuses." AO was meant as a defoliant; if the army wanted to develop a chemical weapon they would have, and it would not have been AO.

I really don't know why we're quibbling about semantics here, it's rather pointless really. Or perhaps you're afraid to admit that the US isn't exactly a knight in shining armour when it comes to using chemical weapons. It's really not such a blight on your national character you know, they've just done what every major power has done as well. At least they're no longer in the habit of using them, though they're fully capable of doing so.

Well, the allegation that we use chemical weapons is fairly serious in my mind. I would think that an effort to debunk falsehoods would be welcomed, not reacted to as an effort by some American to vindicate their government. I really don't care about how perfect a record the government has, but it seems pretty obvious to me that AO was not a chemical weapon.

I am very interested to hear about chemical weapons we have used, but this is clearly not one of them. DO you know of actual agents that we have used, and when?

[Willem]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


I am very interested to hear about chemical weapons we have used, but this is clearly not one of them. DO you know of actual agents that we have used, and when?

Like I said, we're quibbling over semantics. And no, that is the only thing that comes to mind, at least used openly. I'd be very surprised if they didn't have a stockpile or two stashed away somewhere though. And they most certainly have looked into biological agents. But research and usage is two different things I'll admit.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Willem
Like I said, we're quibbling over semantics. And no, that is the only thing that comes to mind, at least used openly. I'd be very surprised if they didn't have a stockpile or two stashed away somewhere though. And they most certainly have looked into biological agents. But research and usage is two different things I'll admit.

Well, semantics seem to be very important as to the question of who has used chemical weapons: they certainly are important to people on both sides of the current war debate.

I'm sure we have done experiments in the past, but as you say research and usage are two different things. Thus, when you say:

perhaps you're afraid to admit that the US isn't exactly a knight in shining armour when it comes to using chemical weapons.

I say... well, we are a knight in shining armor when it comes to using such weapons. Generally, truth is more than just semantics.

It just seems important to me that on a war supposedly against weapons of mass destruction that American citizens are cognizant of whether their government has used chemical weapons in the past, that's all.

[Drake Tungsten]

It would have been fully tested before it ever got out of the lab.

Where'd you get a silly idea like this from? The needs of the military often lead to the use of technology that has not been thoroughly tested yet. Agent Orange is a textbook example of this...

[chequita guevara]

We're talking about a military that decided to test the effects of radiation by marching soldiers to within 500 yards of a nuclear blast. This occured even in the late 1950s. Most of them later died of cancer. You are incredibly naive if you think that the military didn't have an inkling of what AO would do to human beings.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kramerman
so? If a democracy is belligerent, then who cares? an enemy is an enemy, i could care less under what type of regime it was controled.

Ah, such blatant violations of international law. Tsk, tsk.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kramerman
so? If a democracy is belligerent, then who cares? an enemy is an enemy, i could care less under what type of regime it was controled.

Yes, Guatemala was soooo beligerent towards the US. And Bolivia, and Peru, and Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, and Indonesia were soooo hostile towards the US. Gosh, the El Salvadorans were about to attack, and lets not forget that evil Nicargua was THREE DAYS MARCH FROM BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS! My god, we had to do something, didn't we!?!

And that's just the short list. The major crime that these countries commited wasn't that they were hostile to the US 9let alone belligerent ), it was that they weren't sufficiently hostile to the Communists. In some cases, it was pure greed, as in Guatemala, where the government was overthrown for daring to nationalize United Fruit's unused lands and paid them in bonds at the value that UF had declared the land to be worth. But UF had lots of important people in the Eisenhower government, so they had it overthrown, and got vastly more for their land than it was worth. And the Guatemalan people suffered a quarter million dead from that dictatorship.

[Cyclotron]

Well, I'm not certain what any of that has to do anything, but I still have yet to see you prove to me, Che, that the USA has used any chemical weapons against anybody. Is AO your only argument?