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 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 79

Thread: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

  1. #51
    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 Porchev View Post
    I shall go ask some of Japanese friends if they find the use of the term "Jap" to refer to them as being offensive.

  2. #52
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So much wrong information. Ever see Saving Private Ryan(Or The Longest Day? Or The Big Red One?)? They is a weapon against a bunker there called a Bagalore Torpedo. It uses(and is still in use) a shaped charge. Mortars as well now use shaped charges. Shaped charges are very effective against concrete structures.

    Do you find it embarrassing that a liberal knows more about the military than you?



    Wrong.

    Bangalore torpedos are not shaped charges.

    A Bangalore Toprpedo is made up of a number of metal tubes filled with explosive which are screwed together to make up the desired length and used to clear a path for infantry through mines, wire, underbrush, and etc.

    Do a little research.
    Last edited by shrubnose; 06-14-13 at 07:43 PM.

  3. #53
    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
    So much wrong information. Ever see Saving Private Ryan(Or The Longest Day? Or The Big Red One?)? They is a weapon against a bunker there called a Bagalore Torpedo. It uses(and is still in use) a shaped charge. Mortars as well now use shaped charges. Shaped charges are very effective against concrete structures.

    Do you find it embarrassing that a liberal knows more about the military than you?
    Most liberals get their knowledge of the military from Hollywood.

    Bangalore torpedoes are used by combat engineers, not riflemen.

    BTW: You are aware that the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is fiction and their was no Private Ryan. The last time two or more brothers would be killed on or around the same day in combat was the five Sullivan brothers during the naval battles off of the Solomon Islands (Guadalcanal) on the cruiser USS Jenuau in 1942.

    My MOS was 0849. It was my responsibility to decide (my decision not the platoon, company or battalion commanders) of what kind of gun, projectile (AP, HE, COM, WP, ILL) the type of fuse (FQ, FD, VT, TF), ground burst or air burst, and the number of guns and number of salvos would be fired on the target.

    One senario I used when I was an NGF instructor was from my own experience. Under heavy small arms and automatic fire from a NVA platoon who are out in the open but actually are dug in, trenches and fighting holes. The LT ask me what do you suggest ?
    The Army would probably fall back half a klick and call in 100 rounds of 105 HE rounds with VT fuses or fall back a whole klick and call in a CAS mission. Marines don't fight that way.

    What I did was get on my PRC-25 and "Illusive 26, Illusive 26, this is Grizzly Bear 26, Fire mission, Danger Close." What I requested for was one WP (Willie Peter aka white phosphorus) round armed with a TF fuse that would explode 100 feet over the heads of Charley. When that round detonated over their heads Charles was quick to jump out of their trenches and exposed themselves where the Marine riflemen zapped them as if they were at one of those shooting arcades at a county fair.

  4. #54
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    7,874
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    To answer the question, yes.
    "Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."
    -FDR

  5. #55
    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 shrubnose View Post
    Wrong.

    Bangalore torpedos are not shaped charges.

    A Bangalore Toprpedo is made up of a number of metal tubes filled with explosive which are screwed together to make up the desired length and used to clear a path for infantry through mines, wire, underbrush, and etc.

    Do a little research.
    Combat vets seem to have more credibility and Shrubnose is a Vietnam combat vet.

  6. #56
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:02 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Most liberals get their knowledge of the military from Hollywood.
    I get my knowledge from experience and interest. I was trying to make it easy for you.

    Bangalore torpedoes are used by combat engineers, not riflemen.
    Most generally, yes.

    BTW: You are aware that the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is fiction and their was no Private Ryan. The last time two or more brothers would be killed on or around the same day in combat was the five Sullivan brothers during the naval battles off of the Solomon Islands (Guadalcanal) on the cruiser USS Jenuau in 1942.
    I never claimed otherwise.
    My MOS was 0849. It was my responsibility to decide (my decision not the platoon, company or battalion commanders) of what kind of gun, projectile (AP, HE, COM, WP, ILL) the type of fuse (FQ, FD, VT, TF), ground burst or air burst, and the number of guns and number of salvos would be fired on the target.
    So you should know better than the **** you are claiming.

    One senario I used when I was an NGF instructor was from my own experience. Under heavy small arms and automatic fire from a NVA platoon who are out in the open but actually are dug in, trenches and fighting holes. The LT ask me what do you suggest ?
    The Army would probably fall back half a klick and call in 100 rounds of 105 HE rounds with VT fuses or fall back a whole klick and call in a CAS mission. Marines don't fight that way.

    What I did was get on my PRC-25 and "Illusive 26, Illusive 26, this is Grizzly Bear 26, Fire mission, Danger Close." What I requested for was one WP (Willie Peter aka white phosphorus) round armed with a TF fuse that would explode 100 feet over the heads of Charley. When that round detonated over their heads Charles was quick to jump out of their trenches and exposed themselves where the Marine riflemen zapped them as if they were at one of those shooting arcades at a county fair.
    None of which changes the fact that flame throwers where obsoleted due to improved technology.
    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.

  7. #57
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Look at me i know more about stuff that goes boom!

    To answer the question, yes.


  8. #58
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,444
    Blog Entries
    2

    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?
    They level the playing field between richer and poorer combatants.

    ****s up the game.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  9. #59
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,444
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I know it was used as a defoliant and that sounds a lot nicer than dioxin. Sounds kinda harmless, don't you think. Our military and their chemical corporations couldn't resist a little more corporate welfare with a nice chemical cocktail for Vietnam. Dioxin, think Bhopal, India. Our media minimized the evil intent of this "defoliant." They always fail us because they are infiltrated with Intelligence Assets influencing our news. "The more things change, the more they remain the same."
    GE owns NBC.

    No agents required.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  10. #60
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,444
    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.
    I suspect it would be REALLY difficult to get people to serve if chemicals weapons were commonplace.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 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
  •