I become afraid of my own anti-Americanism

[SlowwHand]

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
... the USA has used any chemical weapons against anybody. ...

What would you call the bombings of water treatment and sanitation plants in GW1, if not bio-chemical warfare against civilians? People died in thousands because of this, especially children.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

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?

To save them from exposure to the dust created by depleted uranium ammo? Nuclear waste has never been extremely healthy, has it?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
What would you call the bombings of water treatment and sanitation plants in GW1, if not bio-chemical warfare against civilians?

I wouldn't call it chemical warfare, and you wouldn't either if you had the slightest clue about what chemical warfare is. Conventional bombing against any kind of target is, by definition, not chemical warfare. Please consult a dictionary in the future before speaking.

People died in thousands because of this, especially children.

Which is relevant, how?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


I wouldn't call it chemical warfare, and you wouldn't either if you had the slightest clue about what chemical warfare is. Conventional bombing against any kind of target is, by definition, not chemical warfare. Please consult a dictionary in the future before speaking.



Which is relevant, how?

No remorse, right? After all, they are just camel-jockeys...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
No remorse, right? After all, they are just camel-jockeys...

What the f*ck is wrong with you?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


What the f*ck is wrong with you?

After getting children of my own, I get extremely upset when children are killed, wounded or become orphans. If you think that attitude is wrong, that tells us what kind of person you are, doesn't it?

[Cyclotron]

What kind of twisted world is this where the fact that you are wrong makes me insensitive or a racist?

You said that bombing such facilities is chemical warfare. I don't know whether you are purposefully lying, but you certainly are wrong. The fact that you can't tell chemical warfare from a hole in the ground does not mean that I am insensitive or advocate whatever sick racist trash you think I believe in.

If you think that I support the killing of children because I pointed out that you were wrong, you are a much sicker SOB than I originally realized.

[Gibsie]

Where's a moderator when you need 'em?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Where's a moderator when you need 'em?

You are right. I should not get more hot-headed than this. MtG-apulco is a very boring place, from where I have just returned.

However, I still think attacking water and sanitation plants is indirect bio-chemical warfare. So is the use of ammo made from nuclear waste. Isn't that what you call a "dirty bomb"?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
However, I still think attacking water and sanitation plants is indirect bio-chemical warfare. So is the use of ammo made from nuclear waste. Isn't that what you call a "dirty bomb"?

It is conceivable that ammo made from nuclear waste is a "dirty bomb," I don't really know the definition of "dirty" in this case. However, bombing a civilian sanitation facility is most decidedly not chem-bio warfare.

How exactly did you get from my explanation of that to the assumtion that I am for the killing of children or some crap like that?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
...
How exactly did you get from my explanation of that to the assumtion that I am for the killing of children or some crap like that?

This:

Which is relevant, how?

But perhaps I misunderstood what you really meant?



It also seems like we have a consensus that depleted uranium ammo is the same thing as "dirty bombs", or did I misunderstand you again?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
But perhaps I misunderstood what you really meant?

relevant: Having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand.

Indeed, thousands of people dying, even children, is not relevant to the discussion about chemical weapons. It has no bearing on or connection to the matter at hand. The amount or type of people that die have nothing to do with the question of whether something is a chem/bio weapon or not.

It also seems like we have a consensus that depleted uranium ammo is the same thing as "dirty bombs", or did I misunderstand you again?

I said it was conceivable, meaning that one could choose to define "dirty" to include depleted uranium munitions. I myself don't really know and so I will decline to comment.

The reason that it might not be a dirty weapon is that depleted uranium rounds are not indended to cause radiation problems: radition is merely a side effect of the material, and a minimized one at that. Additionally, there is to my knowledge no scientific evidence that depleted uranium munitions cause cancer or any other problems.

However, I do not know exactly what is meant by a "dirty" weapon, unlike a chemical weapon, so I say that it is conceivable to call them that. If you define as "dirty" any weapon with a trace or greater amount of radiation, then I suppose such weapons are "dirty."

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


relevant: Having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand.

Indeed, thousands of people dying, even children, is not relevant to the discussion about chemical weapons. It has no bearing on or connection to the matter at hand. The amount or type of people that die have nothing to do with the question of whether something is a chem/bio weapon or not.

These people died of bio-chemical causes inflicted by the deliberate action of the American Military. That's bio-chemical warfare to me.

I said it was conceivable, meaning that one could choose to define "dirty" to include depleted uranium munitions. I myself don't really know and so I will decline to comment.

The reason that it might not be a dirty weapon is that depleted uranium rounds are not indended to cause radiation problems: radition is merely a side effect of the material, and a minimized one at that. Additionally, there is to my knowledge no scientific evidence that depleted uranium munitions cause cancer or any other problems.

However, I do not know exactly what is meant by a "dirty" weapon, unlike a chemical weapon, so I say that it is conceivable to call them that. If you define as "dirty" any weapon with a trace or greater amount of radiation, then I suppose such weapons are "dirty."

I don't think we have a major disagreement on this topic. Except that the victims care more about the effects than they care about the intentions.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
These people died of bio-chemical causes inflicted by the deliberate action of the American Military. That's bio-chemical warfare to me.

But it's not a chemical weapon. The weapons we used were not chemical in nature. You can't stop warfare with "bio-chemical causes" because that's jsut a use of conventional weapons, but you can work against the use of chemical weapons, which is what the US is purpotedly doing now.

I don't think we have a major disagreement on this topic. Except that the victims care more about the effects than they care about the intentions.

Fair enough.

[Lincoln]

Olaf, redefining words is a cheap debate tactic.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by cyclotron7

But it's not a chemical weapon. The weapons we used were not chemical in nature.

No, just the targets you picked for your bombing raids

You can't stop warfare with "bio-chemical causes" because that's jsut a use of conventional weapons, but you can work against the use of chemical weapons, which is what the US is purpotedly doing now.

Did you find any? And how can you say you fight against the use of chemical weapons by starting a war of aggression against a regime suspected of having them? Wouldn't that rather provoke the use of such weapons? They won't use them unless they are at war, right? It's similar to chasing a cat into a corner and try to kill it. It will use any means to survive. (Don't get me wrong here. I agree that Saddam should be contained and disarmed. But a total war is not the right way to do it)

It is now time for bed in my part of the world. Don't expect me to reply very soon.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
But a total war is not the right way to do it)

That's good because we aren't waging a total war.

[GeneralTacticus]

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.

Che has already dealt with this fairly well, but:

1) Can you give even a signle example of the democracies overthrown by the US that were even vaguely belligerent towards the US?

2) Why does a country disliking you justify the imposition of tyranny on that country? Does France have the right to subvert the American governemnt and make it a puppet dictatorship because of their recent anti-French actions?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Well, I'm not certain what any of that has to do anything,

What, can't I carry on an arguemtn with more than one person at the same time in the same thread?

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?

AO is plenty. If you chose to disregard it, that's up to you.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q] Originally posted by cyclotron7
AO is plenty. If you chose to disregard it, that's up to you.

AO is not a weapon. It is thus not a chemical weapon. So, if you say AO was the only chemical weapon we have used, and it actually is not a weapon, that means we have never used any chemical weapons.

Is that satisfactory?

[Drake Tungsten]

AO is plenty. If you chose to disregard it, that's up to you.

I would disregard it, as AO is not a chemical weapon. Pretty poor showing on your part, che.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
AO is not a weapon. It is thus not a chemical weapon. So, if you say AO was the only chemical weapon we have used, and it actually is not a weapon, that means we have never used any chemical weapons.

If it was used as a weapon, it was a weapon. You are too narrowly defining the term for your own benfit.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If it was used as a weapon, it was a weapon. You are too narrowly defining the term for your own benfit.

It wasn't used as a weapon. It's a defoliant.

[Dom Pedro II]

A machete is a defoliant, but if you use it to hack someone's head off, its a weapon.

[Drake Tungsten]

AO wasn't used as a weapon! Jesus!

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, then that's really more to the point then... I don't know whether it was intentionally used to hurt or kill people or not, but if it was then it was a chemical weapon. If it wasn't, then it was not. But just saying that its intended purpose is for getting rid of plants doesn't cut it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


It wasn't used as a weapon. It's a defoliant.

I showed you the dictionary definition; if you choose to interpret it your way that's fine, but Che's interpretration is valid as well. Again, quibbling over semantics, it's a silly argument.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
AO wasn't used as a weapon! Jesus!

Read your dictionary, yes it was; or at least it can be interpreted that way. You guys could argue this till your all blue in the face, and you might all be right. Don't you think it's time to move on?