posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:09 PM
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.