Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

:lamo I love how apacherat responds to the criticism of "spouting random things does not make your case" by spouting more random things that do not make his case. I can't decide if that was an epic fail or an epic win. All i know is it gives me lulz.

the_recruit said:

:lamo I love how apacherat responds to the criticism of "spouting random things does not make your case" by spouting more random things that do not make his case. I can't decide if that was an epic fail or an epic win. All i know is it gives me lulz.

Click to expand...

Redress claims that the M-2 flamethrower was replaced by better technology.

I claim the main reason why the M-2 and the napalm that went with it are no longer used by the U.S. military because of political correctness. We can't have our troops using such an awful weapon where our enemies on the battlefields become crispy critters.

I'm pretty well aware of what was taking place with in our military services during the 1970's.

It was also during the same time that the Democrats in Congress castrated the CIA so they were no longer able to do their job. Even the 9/11 Commission Report pointed that out, when they said there was enough blame to go all around going back during the Carter administration.

It was also when many of the liberals were leaving the Democrat Party and the beginning of the neoconservative movement. One of the last liberals to leave was Jean Kirkpatrick.

The political left in America has been waging a war or trying to take away the weapons that kill our enemies and save Americans from bleeding and dieing in combat since the early 70's.

Back in 2007 the libs in Congress took aways the Marine Corps bomb of choice for it's FA-18's and AV-8 B's, the cluster bomb. Are you going to tell me it had nothing to do with politics ?

Should chemicle weapons be illeagal?

I think that if you can't spell a topic you'd be best advised to avoid trying to discuss it.

Jredbaron96 said:

Most Modern Armies have ways to counteract a chemical attack. We have gas masks, NBC suits, that sort of thing. Unless completely by surprise, a chemical attack is just a hindrance. Like during the Gulf War, US troops had equipment on standby in case Saddam decided to use his chemical stockpiles.

As a result, chemical weapons are only really effective against targets that are incapable of defending themselves. AKA, civilians.

Click to expand...

That is all true but as I recall we hesitated going into Iraq because we thought Saddam had and may use chemical weapons. You are probably right though that armies would adapt and only civilian populations would be effected by their wide spread use.