All war is 'inhumane', considering KILLING is the exclusive point to the effort ( ), and the way you put that is rather cheap for taking my words so far out of context, it's remarkable in it's own right. I've never said or even implied any such thing.
Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by intrptr
You've really lost me entirely on what you're saying and frankly, I don't understand where the fascination with the precise details of death by/in fire come from?
Anyway... You almost sound like you're saying Chemical warheads shouldn't have any special distinction or treatment vs a 500lb bomb or cluster munition? You DO see a difference between a blister agent like Mustard and a 155mm H.E. round, don't you??edit on 8-9-2013 by wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by intrptr
I also won't go into Fallujah and the lasting legacy of Uranium that is going to make Agent Orange look like Bath Salts.
This story about Fallujah and depleted uranium has been around for a while but as of yet I remain skeptical. We only use depleted uranium in several weapons systems none of which were required at Fallujah. I need more info to buy this. None of which I have ever seen as part of any claim about its use at Fallujah.
reply to post by intrptr
I'll say what I said to the OP.. Since you two are mirroring each other close enough.....(not for the first time on threads)...to make me wonder if you are actually TWO accounts or one? I digress on that point tho.
Essentially, on one hand, you suggest the US has used Chem Weapons....hence.. We're bad for that.
Well.. Who indeed..... The thread has been all about that distinction, right down to the title itself.
So.. no.. I'm sorry, it doesn't work where bashing the US for doing it works....until proven wrong, then bashing even MORE (rather than acknlowledging the clear factual error) by saying "well... it's all bad anyway" or words which may as well have been that simple.
Also.. as I said above? Don't hold back.. Say what you mean. (You and the OP mirrored that statement too.... Odd about that)
Yes, the US has used chemical weapons. I don't know the "internationally agreeed upon" definition. But by simple understand, yes the US has used chemical (and biological) weapons (small pox infected blankets anyone) but I digress.
However you have chosen not to share a link to this "internationally agreed upon" definition, so I've nothing except your statements.
On the other, when called on it and shown to be outright wrong by International definition of those weapons (if nothing else) you reply with saying all war is inhumane and who am I to distinguish one weapon from another?
My whole intention behind this post was to discuss the definition of chemical weapons and perhaps I erred in not looking for an "offical definition" as a beginning point.
Not US bashing (by my definition) (seems to me someone who "hates" the government - the government the founders set up.... I digress again. Just noting that on simple moral grounds - the US has no stance.
Excuse me? You made the accusation that America has used Chemical Weapons...and now you add Biological weapons by the idiotic reference to blankets given to the Native Americans, generations before either of us were born? Well how ridiculous do we want to get about going into the past? What other nation shall we look at if a COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS are on the table to look AT to find wrong doing?
This is supposed to be taken seriously??
Chemical Weapon as defined by the CWC
A common conception of a chemical weapon comprises a toxic chemical contained in a delivery system such as a bomb or artillery shell. While technically correct, a definition based on this conception would only cover a small portion of the range of things the CWC prohibits as “chemical weapons”. There are several reasons for the broad CWC definition, which, as described in Fact Sheet 2, includes munitions, precursor chemicals and equipment connected with production and use of chemical weapons. For one thing, CW components—a toxic chemical and delivery system, for example— may be stored separately, each in and of itself less than a fully developed weapon. In the case of binary munitions, a nonlethal chemical may actually be stored within a munition, only to be mixed with a second chemical inserted into the munition shortly before firing, and the toxic product disseminated upon arrival at the target.
As a ratifier of the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty, overseen by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at the Hague, the U.S. agreed in 1997 to destroy its chemical weapons stocks within 10 years, with the possibility of a 5-year extension. Yet, with the latest possible deadline of 2012 now passed, U.S. officials say that they can't destroy all of their arsenals until 2023.
The United States promised, but failed, to destroy these stocks by 2012 at the very latest. The most recent forecast from the US is that the process of "neutralising" the chemicals in its Colorado weapons dump will be finished by 2018; the date for Kentucky is 2023. That will be 11 years after the US promised to destroy its chemical weapons stockpiles, and eight years after Russia – the other major possessor of declared chemical weapons – says it will have finished destroying its arsenal.
About 2,611 tons of mustard gas remains stockpiled in Pueblo, Colorado. The second stockpile, in the Bluegrass region of Kentucky, is smaller – 524 tons – but more complicated to decommission, because it consists of a broader range of lethal gases and nerve agents, many of which are contained within weaponry.
As the Obama administration has railed against Syria for failing to ratify the convention, it has remained silent on Israel's refusal to ratify, even though the country is documented to possess chemical weapons, and like the U.S., has used them against civilians.
reply to post by FyreByrd
Just a tired resignation for the America haters we have here and the challenge it is to put up with it, some days.
Now....That's an interesting definition of....well...nothing at all really. You link something giving the vaguest definition I've really ever seen in anything like an "official" source..and that is stretching the term to the breaking point.
Now, again, you're not being vague in the silly accusations. You're being extremely specific. So, be equally specific in how you'd support that and the definitions. So far, there aren't any.
Napalm and White Phosphorous are both Incendiary weapons. That, as opposed to a chemical weapons agent. The two are very different things in international recognition as well as effect in real life. Overlapping and confusing them..simply shows ignorance or an eagerness to make a discussion (propaganda point) right past where logic can support the effort.
Ad Hominem and Black or White - Yes incendiary - and yes chemical. Not either/or. Shroudinger's Cat.
Once again though, I'll ask...Do you have anything beyond your personal opinion and personal interpretation to show that the United States has ever deployed Chemical Weapons agents against human beings outside testing and development programs? (Not that lab rat'ing people was okay, but that isn't the topic).
Read the previous post.
AND REMEMBER the OP was about 'the moral hypocrisy' of the US taking a moral stand on this issue. Not a practical stand but a moral stand. I believe it's called 'pivoting'.
You're proving as empty on support as this topic ever is, or has ever been with those claiming it. I was rather hoping you had something to support it.....and still am, actually. it would, literally, be a first in debating this area of interest. I've never seen it support....really...be the first.
You aren't debating, you are obstructing and denigrating.
reply to post by FyreByrd
What it doesn't include, interestingly, is a category for incendiary. This, again, is what your focus is...and so, your own source isn't including it as a Chemical Weapon. How do you still figure those are?
edit on 12-9-2013 by wrabbit2000 because: Added clarification