View Poll Results: Should chemical weapons remain illeagal

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, chemical weapons cross a line

    30 90.91%
  • No, they are just another weapon

    3 9.09%
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 79

Thread: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

  1. #21
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    Used in context I think "jap" is acceptable. We didn't incinerate young Japanese men in bunkers, we incinerated Japs.
    Whats this we crap? I didn't realize you served much less in the Pacific in WWII. What regiment?

    Victors get to say what was a war crime and what isn't. As it stands many nations are trying to eliminate land mines or at least put a self destruct device in them. Napalm is now classified as a chemical weapon and Willy Pete is not labeled for use on humans- though the tongue in cheek answer is it was used on the enemy's web gear.

    Most of the chemical weapons we think of- Mustard, phosgene, VX, and of late sarin are true horror weapons and their use in WWI lead to banning them as soon as practical. As a young man being trained to protect myself from the rather impressive varieties of chem weapons the Warsaw Pact had and the very feeble methods we had, no MOPP gear back them, sticky fatigues kept in a special wrapper and some sticks to scrape the crap off and a powder puff to neutralize the residue I am double D damn glad 'we' wised up and refrain from chem weapons.

    As far as bringing them back... the 'we' who ponder that are not the 'we' who will face it.

  2. #22
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    No, it's not. It's like a Brit calling us American - for 99% of people. Of course, for some people it might mean something else.
    I wasn't aware of any negative connotation of 'Yank'.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  3. #23
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,306

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    So what is Obama going to do? Propose a UN resolution?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #24
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,400

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I wasn't aware of any negative connotation of 'Yank'.
    I've heard such.

    Anyway, I'm not coming back to this thread. I simply cannot stand to see a title so misspelled.

    You guys play nice.

  5. #25
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,199

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    All this talk about Obama's red line in Syria has me wondering just why we have outlawed the use of chemical weapons. Do we not fight wars to win? We used nukes in Japan, we incinerated people in Dresden and Japs were burned alive with flame throwers on islands across the pacific theatre. Napalm is not a pleasant way to die and a bullet in the guts is just a bit agonizing so what's the deal with chemical weapons?
    Mainly because if one country is going to use them then the opposing force will use them. There's no benefit to using them...all you do is open a Pandora's box that makes warfare even uglier and brutal than it already is.

    So there's no benefit...just like the US and the USSR throwing nukes at one another. In the end everyone loses.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Whats this we crap? I didn't realize you served much less in the Pacific in WWII. What regiment?

    Victors get to say what was a war crime and what isn't. As it stands many nations are trying to eliminate land mines or at least put a self destruct device in them. Napalm is now classified as a chemical weapon and Willy Pete is not labeled for use on humans- though the tongue in cheek answer is it was used on the enemy's web gear.

    Most of the chemical weapons we think of- Mustard, phosgene, VX, and of late sarin are true horror weapons and their use in WWI lead to banning them as soon as practical. As a young man being trained to protect myself from the rather impressive varieties of chem weapons the Warsaw Pact had and the very feeble methods we had, no MOPP gear back them, sticky fatigues kept in a special wrapper and some sticks to scrape the crap off and a powder puff to neutralize the residue I am double D damn glad 'we' wised up and refrain from chem weapons.

    As far as bringing them back... the 'we' who ponder that are not the 'we' who will face it.
    It's called historical context. On your chem weapons stand though it is my opinion that all weapons that kill and maim are horror weapons. I do seem to be in the extreme minority though as per usual. "It aint easy bein me"

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    I've heard such.

    Anyway, I'm not coming back to this thread. I simply cannot stand to see a title so misspelled.

    You guys play nice.
    Geeez, I spelled it right in the poll question. Does a typo scar me for life? Suck one cock and you're a cocksucker?

  8. #28
    Educator
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 10:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    675

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    You'd have to be incredibly naïve to think that the Corporate Chemical manufacturers were not aware of the extremely toxic nature of their product. I'm just as sure the military knew and US soldiers fall into the category of collateral damage. I don't see any high moral ground demonstrated by our Nation in any of these campaigns/misadventures. I do see lies, obfuscation, deceit, treachery, chaos, death, destruction, etc. and all producing huge profits for The Corporate Welfare Network known as the Military Industrial Complex to the current tune of $700 billion per year.
    You must be a fan of Smedley Butler.

  9. #29
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    It's called historical context. On your chem weapons stand though it is my opinion that all weapons that kill and maim are horror weapons. I do seem to be in the extreme minority though as per usual. "It aint easy bein me"
    Ahhh historical context or as we call it, the mouse in pocket rhetoric.

    I can see from your civilian only but very ahhh militant attitude all weapons are useful with the only goal winning the war, though there would be a huge difference between the firebombing of Dresden and widespread dropping of gas on the German civilians. I can see how to your untrained eye all weapons are horror weapons, but to me there is a huge difference between mustard gas and HE.

    and yeah it sure ain't easy being you.

  10. #30
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:00 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,299

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by hfd View Post
    You must be a fan of Smedley Butler.

    I don't have a clue who Smedley Butler is.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •