The Arrogance and Hypocrisy of US Syria Stand

FyreByrd

wrabbit2000
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

You have been the one focus on defending a narrow definition of chemical weapons and avoiding the entire point of the OP - and that was, has I have repeated reminded you - is

That the definition of chemical weapons needs to be expanded, In my opinion.

Period.

So......by your own statement: "the definition of chemical weapons needs to be expanded, in my opinion.

Please show where the US used chemical weapons, as defined by the world (not YOUR opinion of what it should be), to defend your OP.

If you can only include weapons that are IN YOUR OPINION should be added to the list used define what chemical weapons are........then you've failed in showing that the US has indeed used actual chemical weapons...........

reply to post by FyreByrd

That the definition of chemical weapons needs to be expanded, In my opinion.

Well, thank you. It only took two contentious pages to get to that point, but we're finally at the end point. This is, in the end, based upon your opinion. That was my point from the start in addressing the accusations that the U.S. has used WMD in the form of CW.

We could have just had that cleared up on the first reply and never bothered with the rest. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you have every right to yours. Opinion isn't what rubbed my fur raw on this. It's opinion presented as fact to back a deadly serious charge against my nation. Opinion tho? heck... Maybe you're even right on that. I dunno... I just try and stick with facts and let others ponder such philosophical questions.

Napalm and/or white phosphorus were actually used by the Syrian army after the alleged chemcial weapons attack. The media briefly tried to make something out of this being a chemical weapons use but quickly stopped that propaganda for obvious reasons. The US and Israel have used both those weapons in the recent past. There is one simple reason that the US doesn't want other countries to possess chemical weapons: It is a deterrent to US military action. The one chemical weapon that the US desperately doesn't want other countries to possess is VX. It is an area denial weapon. It lasts up to a week. If you spray an area, US troops cannot cross into that area for a week. This thwarts the US plan to install puppet governments and control the Planet Earth.

eriktheawful

FyreByrd

wrabbit2000
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

You have been the one focus on defending a narrow definition of chemical weapons and avoiding the entire point of the OP - and that was, has I have repeated reminded you - is

That the definition of chemical weapons needs to be expanded, In my opinion.

Period.

So......by your own statement: "the definition of chemical weapons needs to be expanded, in my opinion.

Please show where the US used chemical weapons, as defined by the world (not YOUR opinion of what it should be), to defend your OP.

If you can only include weapons that are IN YOUR OPINION should be added to the list used define what chemical weapons are........then you've failed in showing that the US has indeed used actual chemical weapons...........

I'll show one case which conincides with the definitions in the Treaty I previously cited:

Note: The U.S. sprayed nearly 20,000,000 gallons of material containing chemical herbicides and defoliants mixed with jet fuel in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use. The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange. But that was some 50 years ago.

www.washingtonsblog.com...

You both seem to defend the use of chemicals on civilian populations as long as 1) they are called chemical weapons and 2) they don't kill quickly.

You must be sadistic is consider killing over the long term - not killing - just coincidence I suppose.

The US gave Iraq chemical weapons that killed 100,000 innocents, but by your reasoning the US did nothing wrong.

Frankly, this culture of "it's all okay, just don't get caught" and "I followed the letter of the law" perverted and the war cry of the narrow-minded and selfish.

FyreByrd

eriktheawful

FyreByrd

wrabbit2000
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

You have been the one focus on defending a narrow definition of chemical weapons and avoiding the entire point of the OP - and that was, has I have repeated reminded you - is

That the definition of chemical weapons needs to be expanded, In my opinion.

Period.

So......by your own statement: "the definition of chemical weapons needs to be expanded, in my opinion.

Please show where the US used chemical weapons, as defined by the world (not YOUR opinion of what it should be), to defend your OP.

If you can only include weapons that are IN YOUR OPINION should be added to the list used define what chemical weapons are........then you've failed in showing that the US has indeed used actual chemical weapons...........

I'll show one case which conincides with the definitions in the Treaty I previously cited:

Note: The U.S. sprayed nearly 20,000,000 gallons of material containing chemical herbicides and defoliants mixed with jet fuel in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use. The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange. But that was some 50 years ago.

www.washingtonsblog.com...

You both seem to defend the use of chemicals on civilian populations as long as 1) they are called chemical weapons and 2) they don't kill quickly.

You must be sadistic is consider killing over the long term - not killing - just coincidence I suppose.

The US gave Iraq chemical weapons that killed 100,000 innocents, but by your reasoning the US did nothing wrong.

Frankly, this culture of "it's all okay, just don't get caught" and "I followed the letter of the law" perverted and the war cry of the narrow-minded and selfish.

It becomes very telling when a poster resorts to insults in a debate. Especially when they are grasping at straws to try and prove a point.

No, I'm not sadistic. No I do not think it is okay to kill people with any thing, much less something that can take a long time, cause birth defects that hurt children or innocent people.

The use of Agent Orange by the US in Vietnam was a mistake and a stupid thing to do. I had family members over there that suffered from exposure to it.

But it wasn't used to kill people. It was being used to destroy plants. The ignorance of what it could do to people exposed to it was appalling. However, the chemical itself was not used to target people specifically to kill them.

Now add the fact the the US was not the only country to use this chemical:

Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, Philippines, all used Agent Orange too. So if you're going to use Agent Orange and list it as a chemical weapon used to kill people on purpose, you'd better also list those people too.

The purpose of your thread, to point out that the US is being arrogant and hypocritical where Syria is concerned, would have had valid points if you had gone about it about other things than the use of chemical weapons. My country IS arrogant and hypocritical as far as I'm concerned.

But the only thing you've really proved in this thread is that you simply hate the US, and will go to any means to try and put our country into a bad light.

Even if it means using straw man arguments, twisting facts, and simply going around and insulting other ATS members.

reply to post by eriktheawful


yeah that's how I react to bullying.