I become afraid of my own anti-Americanism

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Willem
Try taking a drink of it sometime and see how long you live.

Next, you'll be calling Windex a chemical weapon.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

If those same chemicals are used in a combat situation then they would be considered chemical weapons.

They're not being used in combat situations. Agent Orange was used in Vietnam to kill off the vegetation in the jungle to make US operations easier.

And is that not a combat situation? You don't think that the fact it caused harm or even death to the people who were exposed to it, which was generally the Vietnamese, was an added bonus? I was around then, and there was alot of controversy over it's use. Even some of your vets have suffered long term medical complications because they came into contact with it.

Roundup is sprayed on coca fields in Colombia to kill the plants. They're herbicides, not chemical weapons.

Well yes, in that instance, I'd say defining it as a chemical weapon is stretching it. It's all a matter of context however. If they're used to kill or injure, even indirectly, they are chemical weapons.

[Dom Pedro II]

Windex would be a chemical weapon if you put it into an enemy's water supply... so yes, it CAN be a chemical weapon.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Next, you'll be calling Windex a chemical weapon.

If it's used in a combat situation in order to kill or injure, directly or indirectly, yes.

[Drake Tungsten]

Even some of your vets have suffered long term medical complications because they came into contact with it.

Which should be a pretty good indication that America didn't view Agent Orange as a chemical weapon; I can't see us dropping sarin on our own troops. It was a herbicide with unknown side effects...

[Willem]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Even some of your vets have suffered long term medical complications because they came into contact with it.

It was a herbicide with unknown side effects...

They used it for years, they knew full well what it could do to a human body. The fact that some of yyour own troops where affected was simply collateral damage and an acceptable risk in warfare. People get maimed or injured all the time by friendly fire.

By your definition, that wasn't a bomb that the Oklahoma Bomber used, since it was made primarily from ordinary fertilizers and chemicals found on a farm.

[Drake Tungsten]

They used it for years, they knew full well what it could do to a human body.

No they didn't. They banned the use of Agent Orange when they found out what it was doing to people.

By your definition, that wasn't a bomb that the Oklahoma Bomber used, since it was made primarily from ordinary fertilizers and chemicals found on a farm.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

They used it for years, they knew full well what it could do to a human body.

No they didn't. They banned the use of Agent Orange when they found out what it was doing to people.

Before or after people became aware of the dangers and started to raise a fuss over it's use?

PS I was around then and I remember that the military was very reluctant to stop using it. They only did so because of public pressure.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Even some of your vets have suffered long term medical complications because they came into contact with it.

Which should be a pretty good indication that America didn't view Agent Orange as a chemical weapon; I can't see us dropping sarin on our own troops. It was a herbicide with unknown side effects...

It's nice to think that, but at many times in our history, the higher-ups have thought of our boys as expendable. Consider how the Vietnam war was fought. Our ground troops were sent out as bait for Vietnamese soldiers. Once contact was initiated, our troops were supposed to call in air support to do the real job of fighting. In that context, our soldiers were quite expendable. This in just one of the reasons the war was so unpopular among our own soldiers. I highly recommend the book, The Perfect War by James William Gibson.

Remember, this was the same military command that marched US soldiers out into the desert and dropped atomic bombs near them to see how they'd be affected. What makes you think that these same bastards wouldn't knowingly expose our boys to dangerous chemicals?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Well I have heard news reports that indicate that many of the missles fired at Kuwait were indeed scuds, missles Saddam claimed to have gotten rid of.

So far, there is no conclusive evidence that the Iraqi used Scuds. A missile was supposedly shot down over Kuwaiti City yesterday, but there is no picture of it.

Originally posted by Jack_www
Also Have you heard about the hosipital that they found that had chemical suits and antidotes for nerve gas? We know that US will not use chemical weapons on Iraq, so why would the Iraqies have this stuff??

Just for the record, Iraq also said it doesn't have any chemical weapons. So why do the US soldiers have combat environ suits and drugs for chemical weapons?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Willem
Before or after people became aware of the dangers and started to raise a fuss over it's use?

What the hell? After, of course. Did you expect them to ban it before people were aware of the dangers?

PS I was around then and I remember that the military was very reluctant to stop using it. They only did so because of public pressure.

The military is always reluctant to stop using something because it has side effects. That doesn't make it a weapon.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
What the hell? After, of course. Did you expect them to ban it before people were aware of the dangers?

Obviously he meant the general public.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Of course I do. But on the scale of things, he's a much smaller and less dangerous bully than the US. I can count on no fingers the amount of democracies Hussein has overthrown. The US has overthrown dozens, some in my own lifetime. It's trying to destabilize a few even now.

so? If a democracy is belligerent, then who cares? an enemy is an enemy, i could care less under what type of regime it was controled.

[Willem]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
The military is always reluctant to stop using something because it has side effects. That doesn't make it a weapon.

Weapon: (Oxford Dictionary)

noun 1: thing designed, used, or usable for inflicting bodily harm 2: means for gaining an advantage in a conflict

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Willem
Weapon: (Oxford Dictionary)

noun 1: thing designed, used, or usable for inflicting bodily harm 2: means for gaining an advantage in a conflict

If that were true, a flashlight or a pair of night-vision goggles would be a weapon because they help me gain advantage. Is that true?

Che: IIRC, it was the action of scientists and not the general public that got the ball rolling on the banning of AO, in addition to the fact that the military discovered it wasn't very effective anyway. I really don't see the "AO conspiracy theory" that you seem quick to insinuate. The history seems rather straightforward: Scientists discover dangers after seeing effects of exposure, in a few years these concerns grow until the military decides to remove it for various reasons, including health issues and the fact that the compound is a military and propaganda failure.