Is Bush microwaving Iraqis?

[Urban Ranger]

There are a lot of technical errors in the article quoted in the OP, however it's quite possible that the Bush admin is doing funny stuff in Iraq.

[DinoDoc]

Like microwaving Iraqis?

[techumseh]

2 minutes and you have a nice bowl of popcorn!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Like microwaving Iraqis?

They must have tested the equipment on you. It shows

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
The question is, did those chemicals have a battlefield function? Yes, they were used to create a better battle condition for one army. Its obviously a tool of warfare.

Gepap thatis a silly definition. I'm sure every military in the world uses chemicals to dye the fabric of their clothes or something similiarly mundane so by your definition they are all using chemical weapons to help one side on the battle field. Let's be realistic and use the tradition definition of chemical weapons which everyone already recognizes.

[Agathon]

Let's be realistic and use the tradition definition of chemical weapons which everyone already recognizes.

You mean like Agent Orange?

[Dinner]

Pay attention Aggie, we are already discussing that.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The only "chemical weapons" used in Vietnam was a knock out gas used a handful of times by the special forces then discontinued since it was to weak to be effective and the chain of command wouldn't approve of a higher dossage. There were no "chemical weapons" used in either gulf war and the atom bombs in WW2 were fairly well restrained. By that I mean Japan was repeatedly threatened that unless it surrendered new weapons would be used against it. Japan refused so who is to blame?

Agent Orange was definitely chemical, and it was definitely used as a weapon. It caused widespread disease and birth defects to those that had been exposed to it. American soldiers as well as Vietnamese civilians. Just Google for "Effects of Agent Orange" if you don´t believe me.

Likewise can "Gulf War Syndrome" be attributed to the use of experimental drugs used on US troops as well as the use of depleted uranium in bombs and missiles. While it´s not chemical, the the outcome is pretty much the same. Again Google for "Gulf war Syndrome" if you don´t believe me.

As to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was in ruins and would´ve surrendered by november even if there was no invasion or nuclear bombings (as told in Howars Zinns "The people history of the United States"). But the US refused to sign a peace treaty, they had put enormous time and effort into developing the atom bomb. And no snivelling japanese would deny the mighty US a live test of their new weapon. Besides the russians were already acting up, and this would be a perfect oppurtunity to show the russkies who the boss was. Life is cheap from a geopolitical standpoint, so who cares about a few hundred thousand japanese?

[Tuberski]

Japan would have surrendered based on 1 book written by hack?

ACK!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Agent Orange was definitely chemical, and it was definitely used as a weapon. It caused widespread disease and birth defects to those that had been exposed to it. American soldiers as well as Vietnamese civilians. Just Google for "Effects of Agent Orange" if you don´t believe me.

Thanks I am well aware of Agent Orange and we have been discussing it for half a page now. Agent Orange was not intended to be used on people so most people would not consider it a weapon. Instead it is a designed to clear roads sides of bush and trees. It's a sucky choice loss men to enemy ambushes or clear roads of folliage and risk birth defects years later. They made the right choice.

Gulf War Syndrome has been studied for over a decade now and the only conclusions which have been reached are that there are likely multiple unrelated illnesses occuring. The best explination I've seen says that some people were exposed to small doses of chemcial weapons which the Iraqis stored in bunkers and which the Allies destroyed from the air thus releasing the chemicals.

Your version of WW2 is interesting and I'm sure make an example out of the Japanese to teach the Russians a lesson was part of it, however, you have missed the big picture.
The US estimated it would take 1 million killed or wounded soldiers to completely capture Japan's home islands; we can argue if that estimate was correct or not but that's the numbers Truman was looking at when he had to decide to us the bomb or not. Also you may recall that at the Yalta Conference all of the Allies agreed to continue fighting until Germany and Japan both agreed to unconditional surrender and while the Japan did make conditional peace overtures in 1945 they were rejected based upon the Yalta agreement that only unconditional surrender was acceptable.

With an invasion estimated at killing or wound 1 million allied service men and about ten to twenty times as many Japanese then dropping two atom bombs starts to look pretty attractive doesn't it?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Life is cheap from a geopolitical standpoint, so who cares about a few hundred thousand japanese?

I don't want to disturb you from your rant but what is the real alternative? Japan had repeatedly rejected unconditional surrender and an invasion would have killed or wounded 1 million allies and 10-20 million Japanese. Crunch the numbers yourself; any way you look at it fewer people died because of the atomic bombs and the war ended several months sooner.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


They must have tested the equipment on you. It shows

Who's the one displaying severe symptoms of paranoia?

[Patroklos]

Likewise can "Gulf War Syndrome" be attributed to the use of experimental drugs used on US troops as well as the use of depleted uranium in bombs and missiles.

Ohhh if only conclusions based on zero evidence counted, we would have so much fun on Apolyton.

On second thought I guess we do

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Gepap thatis a silly definition. I'm sure every military in the world uses chemicals to dye the fabric of their clothes or something similiarly mundane so by your definition they are all using chemical weapons to help one side on the battle field. Let's be realistic and use the tradition definition of chemical weapons which everyone already recognizes.

People dye their uniforms on the battlefield- maybe you guys have a bit too much time.

Defoliating mass strenches of jungle (essentially devastating the local environment) is not a mundane use. Last time I looked in fact this mass use of defoliants was the ONLY time such widespread use of chemical defoliants occured in order to fight a war (the only other mass use is the spraying of drug area), and I doubt it will ever be tried again.

Oh, and as for the definition "everyone recognizes", here is a nice, simple everyday definiton from a common source, like say, http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c1/chem-war.asp

NOte the inclusion of Agent Orange. Infoplease has the same article.

Here is another:

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0011145.html

another:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4239/chemweapons/history.html

another:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNchemical.htm

and yet another:

http://www.rainbowpediatrics.net/faq/24.14.html

I could keep going, but at least a simple google search seems to indicate that Agent Orange most certainly fits the "everyday definition" of chemical warfare.

[Dinner]

I noticed that most of your own links called Agent Orange a chemical agent and not a chemical weapon. Yes, herbicides are chemicals but to claim they are a chemical weapon is just plain stupid. Weapons are used offensively against the enemy where as defoliants are used to clear plants from certain areas.