Americas own irresponsible use of chemicals on its people and to wage war.

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Lets not forget our history, more so at a time when we are about to wage yet another war abroad. Against a foe that poses NO military threat to the US.


1942-1944 U.S. Chemical Warefare Service exposes thousands of US serviceman to Mustard gas to test equipment.

1948 US injects Guatemala prostitutes with Syphilis to study spread.

1950-1953 U.S. Army Sprays toxic chemicals over 6 cities in the U.S. And Canada, Zinc Cadmium Sulfide is one chemical used.

1951-1974 Holmesburg Prison Pennsylvania prisoners are used for chemical experiments, US Army, Johnson and Johnson and Dow chemical all involved. Including injecting of Dioxin into some prisoners.

1950-1972 Mentally disabled wards at a state school injected with Viral Hepatits.

Unethical human experiments US

Back to Dioxin, now a known Carcinogen, Used in mass with agent Orange during Vietnam.

Agent Orange, Vietnamese children suffering 40 years later.


Think of the children?






What about them America?

Take the log out of your own eye before you try to take the splinter out of your neighbors.




posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


How many people died because of this?
Not that it matters just curious.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by benrl
 


How many people died because of this?
Not that it matters just curious.


Dunno, Look at the Wiki link, there are farm more I am not listing.

Tuskegee experiment for one.

To this day the US maintains chemical weapon stock piles as well.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Luckily we have the beacon of morality, Russia, to hold the US accountable!

Or not...



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by AlphaHawk
 


What has Russia got to do with the OP?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by benrl
 


Luckily we have the beacon of morality, Russia, to hold the US accountable!

Or not...



Exactly

So lets drop the facade that its about Humanitarian aid, or for the "children"

Its all economic plain and simple, the U.S. does not care for the children killed in Syria one bit.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Todzer
 


What do things that happened over 40 years ago have to do with today?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by Todzer
 


What do things that happened over 40 years ago have to do with today?





I view all of it as relevant.

From your Russia comment, to the US history of disregard for human life.

This moral high ground we all thought the US had never existed, and Russia was never the big evil bad guy we all thought it was.

We are all just people, and we are letting the worlds situation spin out of control.
edit on 28-8-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by AlphaHawk
 


The OP wrote an article about these events just like other people write articles about Roswell, Op's article he can write what he wants, you are off topic, so again, what does Russia have to do with the OP?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by benrl
 


How many people died because of this?
Not that it matters just curious.


Dunno, Look at the Wiki link, there are farm more I am not listing.

Tuskegee experiment for one.

To this day the US maintains chemical weapon stock piles as well.


Well I am not sure about your claim that the US still stockpiles chemical weapons. I know there is research still being done I believe that is done at Fort Detrick however back in the mid-90s I was stationed at Johnston Island where we were tasked with destroying the stockpiles. So if there are still stockpiles then neither you nor I are privy to that information but as far as the books are concerned they have been destroyed.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

You were military? Everyone knows we still stockpile that stuff. Look it up ...



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Here you go: from the Department of Defense.

://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=729T

"The U.S. chemical weapons stockpile consists of 30,599.55 tons of unitary (single component) agent and 680.19 tons of binary components. Specific information on the type and number of items and tonnage stored at each site is shown on the attached stockpile lists. Changes will occur as chemical weapons are destroyed at chemical demilitarization facilities."

edit on 2010 by mysterioustranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Of course we still stock pile it. And Russia is relevant because like it or not that good old boy kgb mentality just won't go away, thanks to putin most Americans were paying the cold war was over and that Russia had moved toward democracy. But sadly it is still alive and well and we will continue to hold in Reserve the same weapons they do.

What is wrong with them being ex military, there are many veterans here.

The Bot



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Todzer
 


Comes off as blind anti-US rhetoric, I figured I'd add some balance to it.

Sorry of you are unable to see that, perhaps you're too far gone to be helped?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
After reading what the OP stated, here is what can be done:

In what the Op has put down, that we can not condem the use of chemical weapons as in the past history of the US, that chemical weapons were used. And because of that, the US should not be so vocal about such. However the OP was mistaken in some of his postings and here is how this conclusion that was came to.

The history of Chemical Weapons, the raise and fall did not start in the 1940's but much earlier. In short what this involves is using the toxic properties of a chemical substance as weapons on the battlefield. This kind of weapon is distinct from nuclear and biological warfare.

This kind of warfare has been around since the dawn of time, more notably in the 3rd century, in one of the Roman wars.
Then again through history off and on, with say the development of different weapons, such as Greek Fire. And then there was the use of quicklime by Henry III. So this concept has been around a while.

It did not come to show the true horrors until World War I, when it was devestating and ultimately why it was quickly banned by most. The problem with Chemical weapons is that they do not kill right away, rather it is slow, destroying the body and as it does the damage, the mind knows it is dieing, so there is a psycological aspect that is a far worse torture than anything that could be come up with.

Chemical weapons, when you break it down affects either the nerves, or the blood, or the skin, or the pulmonary, or as a cytotoxic protien, or as an incapacting agent. Thought the latter is very rarely leathal.

Now the OP brought up the 1942 to 1944, yet failed to mention that what this was to test to effectiveness of the protective gear, both the clothing and gas mask. How else at the time could you figure out what was or was not effected deterent for such?

The 1948 Syphillis was biological, As was the 1950 to 1972 tests.

Before that there was extensive testing many agents were not known to be toxic or cause problems until later on, so can you hold the US government for use of Agent Orange, a defolliant used in Vietnam? Many of the chemicals used, at the time that was thought to be a god send, turned out to be toxic later on, like Asbestos. Asbestos was found to be good for antifire properties, but later on found to cause cancer.

The same could be said for the 1950's to the 1953 experiment, they chose what was believed to be non lethal and used to determine the dispersal pattern of chemical weapons, in the event of an attack.

So here is the question, what is far worse, using a chemical that was not know to cause problems in order to save people and prepare for the use of such, or deliberately using a known chemical weapon, where the effects are fully known?

If you must condone the US for such, then condone the previous adminstrations that assissted Sadam Hussein in getting ahold of and allowing him to use such weapons during the war between Iraq and Iran.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


Your link does not work however I dug a little more and found that most of what is left will not be completely destroyed until 2017 due to the condition of what they are packaged in.


In 1988–1990, the destruction of munitions containing BZ, a non-lethal hallucinating agent at Pine Bluff Chemical Activity in Arkansas. Hawthorne Army Depot in Nevada destroyed all M687 chemical artillery shells and 458 metric tons of binary precursor chemicals by July 1999. Operations were completed at Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System where all 640 metric tons of chemical agents were destroyed by 2000 and at Edgewood Chemical Activity in Maryland, with 1,472 metric tons of agents destroyed by February 2006. All DF and QL, chemical weapons precursors, were destroyed in 2006 at Pine Bluff. Newport Chemical Depot in Indiana began destruction operations in May, 2005 and completed operations on August 8, 2008, disposing of 1,152 tonnes of agents. Pine Bluff completed destruction of 3,850 tons of weapons on November 12, 2010. Anniston Chemical Activity in Alabama completed disposal on September 22, 2011. Umatilla Chemical Depot in Oregon finished disposal on October 25, 2011. Tooele Chemical Demilitarization Facility at Deseret Chemical Depot in Utah finished disposal on January 21, 2012

Basically the all that is left to destroy are depots where the shells/containers containing agents are somehow compromised and require extra special handling to move. In some cases we are constructing disposal facilities on sight. There are other cases where stockpiles of test kits are being found which are also considered chemical agents in those cases we can often destroy on site.

When you say we have stockpiles that isn’t really true. What we do have are sites that by all means are considered toxic for us to even go into requiring hazmat suits at all times. Those “stockpiles” are not things we can use. In fact.


According to the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency by January, 2012, the United States had destroyed 89.75% of the original stockpile of nearly 31,100 metric tons (30,609 long tons) of nerve and mustard agents declared in 1997.[23] The U.S. disposed of the more dangerous modern chemical weapons before starting the destruction of its older mustard gas stockpile which presented additional difficulties due to the poor condition of some of the shells.link


So a good portion of what is left is probably mustard gas which technically yes it is a chemical weapon but hardly something to fret about in the sense of being slow to dispose of. Mustard gas is basically ammonia and bleach mixed together which is also the biggest reason the containers have corroded.

As for your question yes I was a soldier I had to become an ammunition specialist before they would let me go on to EOD.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by Todzer
 


Comes off as blind anti-US rhetoric, I figured I'd add some balance to it.

Sorry of you are unable to see that, perhaps you're too far gone to be helped?


Read my posts, I am probably one of the voices that Constantly Demands we stick to the Constitution, that the System works, and we can advocate change, I am Very pro-american.

However I am anti-government Lies.

Its only rhetoric if you ignore the facts and stick with the "america" we have been told we have always been, the past 100 or so years has seen a Degradation and hijacking of our Constitutional republic.

I am deeply disturbed by the course our country is on.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by Todzer
 


Comes off as blind anti-US rhetoric, I figured I'd add some balance to it.

Sorry of you are unable to see that, perhaps you're too far gone to be helped?



So an article about events that actually happened is anti-US, OP wrote about these TRUE accounts of what happened and your knee-jerk reaction is ah.. Russia... uh you're anti-US... aaahhh. All I did is ask what relevance Russia is to this article and you told me that I am too far gone, your first post is totally designed to derail this topic, got any logical reason as to why you mentioned Russia in this article yet or are you gonna cry about anti-US again?
edit on 29/8/13 by Todzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

Discussed in several different articles, below are quotes referencing the CWC plan to eliminate bio-chem-nuclear weapons...highlights from the article: "America's Illegal Chemical Weapons Stockpile" by Stephen Lendman 2011

America's Illegal Chemical Weapons Stockpile

"Earlier it (CWC) called on all member states to do so by April 29, 2007. Russia and America requested a delay until April 2012.... Washington now wants it extended through 2020. It's one of the few countries obstructing CWC provisions."

"America maintains huge chemical, biological, nuclear stockpiles. New more dangerous weapons replace older ones."

"Drafted in September 1992, CWC was signed on January 13 1993, and became effective on April 29, 1997. Currently, 188 State Parties are signatories, including Russia and China. Israel signed on in 1993, but hasn't ratified it. OPCW functions as its implementing organization."

"In 1997, America ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), banning development, production, stockpiling, and use of these substances for munitions or precursors."

"In 2001, the Bush administration rejected the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).

"A BWC loophole lets appropriate types and amounts of biological agents be used for "prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes." It also permits research, not development. BWC predated genetic engineering that causes harm to human health."

"Post-9/11, America paid lip service alone to disarmament. Its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs continue."



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 

Going forward from here....the US has still to this day, maintained huge chemical stockpiles. But, its HOW they keep them...by referring to them as "investigational" or "pesticides".....that they get away with it.

They...in a pinch...can be weaponized.

edit on 2010 by mysterioustranger because: grammar





top topics
 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join