I become afraid of my own anti-Americanism

[Lincoln]

Olaf, redefining words is a cheap debate tactic.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by cyclotron7

But it's not a chemical weapon. The weapons we used were not chemical in nature.

No, just the targets you picked for your bombing raids

You can't stop warfare with "bio-chemical causes" because that's jsut a use of conventional weapons, but you can work against the use of chemical weapons, which is what the US is purpotedly doing now.

Did you find any? And how can you say you fight against the use of chemical weapons by starting a war of aggression against a regime suspected of having them? Wouldn't that rather provoke the use of such weapons? They won't use them unless they are at war, right? It's similar to chasing a cat into a corner and try to kill it. It will use any means to survive. (Don't get me wrong here. I agree that Saddam should be contained and disarmed. But a total war is not the right way to do it)

It is now time for bed in my part of the world. Don't expect me to reply very soon.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Olaf HÃ¥rfagre
But a total war is not the right way to do it)

That's good because we aren't waging a total war.

[GeneralTacticus]

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.

Che has already dealt with this fairly well, but:

1) Can you give even a signle example of the democracies overthrown by the US that were even vaguely belligerent towards the US?

2) Why does a country disliking you justify the imposition of tyranny on that country? Does France have the right to subvert the American governemnt and make it a puppet dictatorship because of their recent anti-French actions?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Well, I'm not certain what any of that has to do anything,

What, can't I carry on an arguemtn with more than one person at the same time in the same thread?

but I still have yet to see you prove to me, Che, that the USA has used any chemical weapons against anybody. Is AO your only argument?

AO is plenty. If you chose to disregard it, that's up to you.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q] Originally posted by cyclotron7
AO is plenty. If you chose to disregard it, that's up to you.

AO is not a weapon. It is thus not a chemical weapon. So, if you say AO was the only chemical weapon we have used, and it actually is not a weapon, that means we have never used any chemical weapons.

Is that satisfactory?

[Drake Tungsten]

AO is plenty. If you chose to disregard it, that's up to you.

I would disregard it, as AO is not a chemical weapon. Pretty poor showing on your part, che.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
AO is not a weapon. It is thus not a chemical weapon. So, if you say AO was the only chemical weapon we have used, and it actually is not a weapon, that means we have never used any chemical weapons.

If it was used as a weapon, it was a weapon. You are too narrowly defining the term for your own benfit.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If it was used as a weapon, it was a weapon. You are too narrowly defining the term for your own benfit.

It wasn't used as a weapon. It's a defoliant.

[Dom Pedro II]

A machete is a defoliant, but if you use it to hack someone's head off, its a weapon.

[Drake Tungsten]

AO wasn't used as a weapon! Jesus!

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, then that's really more to the point then... I don't know whether it was intentionally used to hurt or kill people or not, but if it was then it was a chemical weapon. If it wasn't, then it was not. But just saying that its intended purpose is for getting rid of plants doesn't cut it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


It wasn't used as a weapon. It's a defoliant.

I showed you the dictionary definition; if you choose to interpret it your way that's fine, but Che's interpretration is valid as well. Again, quibbling over semantics, it's a silly argument.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
AO wasn't used as a weapon! Jesus!

Read your dictionary, yes it was; or at least it can be interpreted that way. You guys could argue this till your all blue in the face, and you might all be right. Don't you think it's time to move on?