• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

Should chemical weapons remain illeagal

  • Total voters
    29
sawyerloggingon

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,697
Reaction score
5,704
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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?
Click to expand...

Curious. Are we allowed to use words like "Jap" and "Nigger" on this forum?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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?
Click to expand...


I think Agent Orange in Vietnam answers that. 40 years after we saturated large areas of Vietnam with poisonous chemicals people are still dying and will continue dying as a result. I don't see the USA trying to help these people that we are still harming. The recent Iraq debacle and the long term after effects of DU weapons are doing the same thing. It's all been very profitable from the Corporate point of view that "War is good business, and business is good," but it really isn't what the average American wants his gov't to be doing in his/her name, don't you think? We're talking poison chemicals and it's genuinely nasty and preventable. I acknowledge some prejudice here as I believe that the USA is a permanent war economy because it is good for business otherwise why would we have a $700 billion Military Offense budget when there are no significant threats?
 
DaveFagan said:
I acknowledge some prejudice here as I believe that the USA is a permanent war economy because it is good for business otherwise why would we have a $700 billion Military Offense budget when there are no significant threats?
Click to expand...

You have it backwards. There are no significant threats because of that budget.
 
DaveFagan said:
I think Agent Orange in Vietnam answers that. 40 years after we saturated large areas of Vietnam with poisonous chemicals people are still dying and will continue dying as a result. I don't see the USA trying to help these people that we are still harming. The recent Iraq debacle and the long term after effects of DU weapons are doing the same thing. It's all been very profitable from the Corporate point of view that "War is good business, and business is good," but it really isn't what the average American wants his gov't to be doing in his/her name, don't you think? We're talking poison chemicals and it's genuinely nasty and preventable. I acknowledge some prejudice here as I believe that the USA is a permanent war economy because it is good for business otherwise why would we have a $700 billion Military Offense budget when there are no significant threats?
Click to expand...


Ostensibly agent orange was not a weapon but good point on duration. Same could be said for land mines though. In many parts of Africa they are the gift that keeps on giving.
 
Kanstantine said:
Curious. Are we allowed to use words like "Jap" and "Nigger" on this forum?
Click to expand...

Yes. The word censor takes care of those words we can't use. Hate speech using those words is something else again.
 
DaveFagan said:
I think Agent Orange in Vietnam answers that. 40 years after we saturated large areas of Vietnam with poisonous chemicals people are still dying and will continue dying as a result. I don't see the USA trying to help these people that we are still harming. The recent Iraq debacle and the long term after effects of DU weapons are doing the same thing. It's all been very profitable from the Corporate point of view that "War is good business, and business is good," but it really isn't what the average American wants his gov't to be doing in his/her name, don't you think? We're talking poison chemicals and it's genuinely nasty and preventable. I acknowledge some prejudice here as I believe that the USA is a permanent war economy because it is good for business otherwise why would we have a $700 billion Military Offense budget when there are no significant threats?
Click to expand...

We didn't know the harm we were doing -- it was used to defoliate, not to kill. Hell, we sprayed our own soldiers.
 
Kanstantine said:
Curious. Are we allowed to use words like "Jap" and "Nigger" on this forum?
Click to expand...

I guess so.

You just did.

Obama's "red line" statement was one of the dumbest he's ever made. Now, he's furiously trying to backpeddle and avoid having to back up that statement with action.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Ostensibly agent orange was not a weapon but good point on duration. Same could be said for land mines though. In many parts of Africa they are the gift that keeps on giving.
Click to expand...


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."
 
MaggieD said:
We didn't know the harm we were doing -- it was used to defoliate, not to kill. Hell, we sprayed our own soldiers.
Click to expand...


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.
 
DaveFagan said:
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.
Click to expand...

The military has an interesting way of crunching numbers on these sort of things. I'm sure some blue eye shade twit who never even saw a jungle estimated US lives saved by defoliation VS lives lost and opted to spray us "for our own good".
 
MoSurveyor said:
It's kinda' like a Brit calling us a Yank. ;)
Click to expand...

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.


sawyerloggingon said:
Used in context I think "jap" is acceptable. We didn't incinerate young Japanese men in bunkers, we incinerated Japs.
Click to expand...
 
lizzie said:
Frankly, I am never offended by a Brit calling us Yanks. I think it's kind of cute. :lol:
Click to expand...
I agree and don't know why anyone would be offended on either side of that exchange. 'Brit' isn't much different than 'Jap'.


I'm not sure they like the 'limey' label, though. Personally, I think it's fine (for the British navy) considering it's origin.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Used in context I think "jap" is acceptable. We didn't incinerate young Japanese men in bunkers, we incinerated Japs.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware of any negative connotation of 'Yank'.
 
So what is Obama going to do? Propose a UN resolution?
 
MoSurveyor said:
I wasn't aware of any negative connotation of 'Yank'.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom