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 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 79

Thread: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

  1. #31
    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 DaveFagan View Post
    I don't have a clue who Smedley Butler is.
    Had me wondering too so I Goggled him. Interesting man and yes kind of like you.

    War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935

  2. #32
    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

    He was twice awarded the Medal of Honor.

  3. #33
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,529

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I wasn't aware of any negative connotation of 'Yank'.
    There isn't.

    "Jap" on the other hand, is the term invented in WWII to mean "someone who is not fully human, so we don't have to feel bad about killing them." We have invented a similar term in most wars, "Hadj" being the latest. We weren't killing people in Europe, either. We were killing "Krauts." In Vietnam, it was "slants" and "gooks."

    It's a psychological defense against the horrors of war.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  4. #34
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,292

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    Had me wondering too so I Goggled him. Interesting man and yes kind of like you.

    War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935
    I read the link. It is a genuine honor to be compared, even casually to Mr. Butler. That link should be required reading for every individual in the USA.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    06-19-13 @ 10:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    891

    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.
    Ah, so the Nazis didn't kill Jews, they only murdered Kikes?

    Got it.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    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?
    I miss the old and reliable M2A1-7 flame thrower. Four gallons of napalm or gasoline was an affective weapon.
    But in 1978 in the name of political correctness the libs took away the Marines and Army's flame throwers and told them to win the enemies hearts and minds instead.
    All we have to look at the American casualty rates since 2009 in Afghanistan to see how winning their hearts and minds is working out.

    Should chemicle weapons be illeagal-reading2006000001804-jpg

  7. #37
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    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.
    Actually retaliation with chemical weapons is, in many cases, unlikely. As weapons they are inefficient. There are better psychological weapons, better anti-personnel weapons, better area denial weapons.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #38
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    I miss the old and reliable M2A1-7 flame thrower. Four gallons of napalm or gasoline was an affective weapon.
    But in 1978 in the name of political correctness the libs took away the Marines and Army's flame throwers and told them to win the enemies hearts and minds instead.
    All we have to look at the American casualty rates since 2009 in Afghanistan to see how winning their hearts and minds is working out.
    Once again your knowledge of history is sadly lacking and distorted. Flamethrowers where declared obsolete because their primary target, pillboxes and fortified emplacements where largely no longer in use and where easier to destroy using modern weapons. Shaped charges killed flamethrowers, not political correctness.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Once again your knowledge of history is sadly lacking and distorted. Flamethrowers where declared obsolete because their primary target, pillboxes and fortified emplacements where largely no longer in use and where easier to destroy using modern weapons. Shaped charges killed flamethrowers, not political correctness.
    In 1978 which weapon that delivered a shaped charge was carried by a rifle platoon ?

    Now the M-2 back packed flame thrower was used in Vietnam, even though I personally never seen it used, but I did see many M-48 flame tanks in Vietnam.

    Before the use of CS gas (tear gas) was internationally outlawed by the military in 1993, the word came down in Nam that Marines and soldiers were no longer authorised to use CS when clearing out VC tunnels. Seem some libs back home had a problem with using CS, it was politically incorrect. It would be up to the tunnel rats to clear VC tunnels.

    There's also another problem with using explosives during a fire fight, "danger close."

  10. #40
    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 Dittohead not! View Post
    There isn't.

    "Jap" on the other hand, is the term invented in WWII to mean "someone who is not fully human, so we don't have to feel bad about killing them." We have invented a similar term in most wars, "Hadj" being the latest. We weren't killing people in Europe, either. We were killing "Krauts." In Vietnam, it was "slants" and "gooks."

    It's a psychological defense against the horrors of war.
    I was unaware of any negative connotations to the term 'Jap' but having done a little research you're somewhat correct in that Jap became derogatory in WWII (it did exist before that time but didn't have a negative connotation). I also researched 'Yank' and in many circles it is also derogatory.


    Yes, it's very common to assign dehumanizing names to ones enemy and that comes out even in particularly nasty interpersonal disagreements.
    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

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •