BF2S Forums A breif, and by no means complete, history of American WMD's

Bubbalo wrote:

The US stance, however, would be that they can be trusted.  Not that I agree, but...........

Lol, true, although being the only ones to use nuclear and chemical warfare on any kind of scale goes a long way to showing they can't be trusted.

So what?

We have WMD's. 
And???

only ones to use chem warfare? Oh wait it's ric, the selective historian.

The US stance is that it, like your infallible England and Aus, have and will only use them in a defensive posture.

Funny how there is no mention of the international opposition to the space-based defense initiative, which would have allowed the US to abandon the mutually assured destruction defense posture. You also fail to reference things like Anniston Army Depot, the incincerators of which have been runnin full throttle destroying chem weapons for years now. BTW, you may wish to look up some of England's policies on these things. A director named Terry Gilliam filmed a gret documentary on England's developement of the world's deadliest joke which it unleashed on the nazis in a most unreleenting and inhumane manner.

We can do that {throw them around} already, don't be jealous.

Seriously though, in order to be efficient they are designed to be purely defensive, and the original intention was to just cover the north western quadrisphere (is that the correct term? never had to use it before), you're welcome Canada and Mexico.

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-10 06:22:26)

kr@cker wrote:

only ones to use chem warfare? Oh wait it's ric, the selective historian.

The US stance is that it, like your infallible England and Aus, have and will only use them in a defensive posture.

Funny how there is no mention of the international opposition to the space-based defense initiative, which would have allowed the US to abandon the mutually assured destruction defense posture. You also fail to reference things like Anniston Army Depot, the incincerators of which have been runnin full throttle destroying chem weapons for years now. BTW, you may wish to look up some of England's policies on these things. A director named Terry Gilliam filmed a gret documentary on England's developement of the world's deadliest joke which it unleashed on the nazis in a most unreleenting and inhumane manner.

'Selective historian'...what, you mean I include the relevant stuff...damn right! Going by your reasoning Saddam only used them in a defensive posture too. He got shot at so he gassed a village. Someone squeeks communism at your country so you gas theirs and drop nukes on another. Defensive, lol...

kr@cker wrote:

We can do that already, don't be jealous.

Seriously though, in order to be efficient they are designed to be purely defensive, and the original intention was to just cover the north western quadrisphere (is that the correct term? never had to use it before), you're welcome Canada and Mexico.

Hey I've got a cheaper version, don't piss off so many countries!

"A brief, and by no means complete, history of American WMD's"

LOL - A link to a blog website, Agent Orange & an article three years old.

What a waste of your time.

Agent Orange was used as a defoliant, not as a chemical weapon.  This is not a difficult concept to get one's mind around.  Once it was discovered to be harmful, its use was discontinued:  We haven't used it since Vietnam.

DU may be a carcinogen, but (as I said in another thread) calling it a Weapon of Mass Destruction is silly.  Nuclear weapons can kill millions in seconds, Chemical weapons can kill thousands in minutes, and Biological weapons can kill tens of thousands in days.  Depleted Uranium exposure MIGHT kill someone exposed to it in tens of years.  The level of concern is a bit different; more along the lines of agent orange - which is also a carcinogen, and NOT a WMD.

To say that the US has done the same thing as Iraq with WMD's is not accurate: When we used nuclear weapons in Japan, we didn't have any concept of what they represented.  We do now, and you might have noticed that we gotten out of the habit of using them.  Saddam knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he used them against Iranians and Kurds.  Not at all the same thing.  Furthermore, as noted above, DU and Agent Orange are on a very different level from Sarin or weaponized Anthrax.

Your labelling of these as WMDs '100 times worse' than Saddam's is ignorant or disingenuous.  Given your posting history and agenda, I suspect both are true.

whittsend wrote:

Agent Orange was used as a defoliant, not as a chemical weapon.  This is not a difficult concept to get one's mind around.  Once it was discovered to be harmful, its use was discontinued:  We haven't used it since Vietnam.

DU may be a carcinogen, but (as I said in another thread) calling it a Weapon of Mass Destruction is silly.  Nuclear weapons can kill millions in seconds, Chemical weapons can kill thousands in minutes, and Biological weapons can kill tens of thousands in days.  Depleted Uranium exposure MIGHT kill someone exposed to it in tens of years.  The level of concern is a bit different; more along the lines of agent orange - which is also a carcinogen, and NOT a WMD.

To say that the US has done the same thing as Iraq with WMD's is not accurate: When we used nuclear weapons in Japan, we didn't have any concept of what they represented.  We do now, and you might have noticed that we gotten out of the habit of using them.  Saddam knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he used them against Iranians and Kurds.  Not at all the same thing.  Furthermore, as noted above, DU and Agent Orange are on a very different level from Sarin or weaponized Anthrax.

Your labelling of these as WMDs '100 times worse' than Saddam's is ignorant or disingenuous.  Given your posting history and agenda, I suspect both are true.

Yeah, you made all the trees lose their leaves so that's why you've paid millions in compensation to the effected countries...grow up mate! You also knew what you were doing when you used white phosphorus in Iraq to 'flush out' insurgents...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

I still stand by what I said, the american government has some nasty shit it's fully prepared to use, all I'm asking is you think about that.

Colfax wrote:

Lets say theoretically the U.S. could remain self sustained for 100 years+  and we pulled all military to defense on our land and water borders and stepped back from the world community.  Economies would fall,  countries would be destroyed, and we would just smile and say see.  You don't want us involved and look what happens.

Europeans would be speaking german if it was't for the United States (period)  Like you had a handle on that (haha). 

With out the U.S. the world as we know it would cease to exist.  We are rich money hungry and supply half the economies in the world with their income by giving them our income.  If we fall you fall and everyone falls.

Oh God thats funny...spoken like a true nine year old! lmao..

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Colfax wrote:

Lets say theoretically the U.S. could remain self sustained for 100 years+  and we pulled all military to defense on our land and water borders and stepped back from the world community.  Economies would fall,  countries would be destroyed, and we would just smile and say see.  You don't want us involved and look what happens.

Europeans would be speaking german if it was't for the United States (period)  Like you had a handle on that (haha). 

With out the U.S. the world as we know it would cease to exist.  We are rich money hungry and supply half the economies in the world with their income by giving them our income.  If we fall you fall and everyone falls.

Oh God thats funny...spoken like a true nine year old! lmao..

I laugh at you with pity...  We should have stayed out of WWII and left germany to finish you off. 

Ask any educated economist and they will tell you if the United States fails economically it will be the end of life as we know it.

Call me whatever you want.  I don't care.   The U.S.  has saved so many countries its not even funny.  Especially you cheeky fellows over there in the UK.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

whittsend wrote:

Agent Orange was used as a defoliant, not as a chemical weapon.  This is not a difficult concept to get one's mind around.  Once it was discovered to be harmful, its use was discontinued:  We haven't used it since Vietnam.

DU may be a carcinogen, but (as I said in another thread) calling it a Weapon of Mass Destruction is silly.  Nuclear weapons can kill millions in seconds, Chemical weapons can kill thousands in minutes, and Biological weapons can kill tens of thousands in days.  Depleted Uranium exposure MIGHT kill someone exposed to it in tens of years.  The level of concern is a bit different; more along the lines of agent orange - which is also a carcinogen, and NOT a WMD.

To say that the US has done the same thing as Iraq with WMD's is not accurate: When we used nuclear weapons in Japan, we didn't have any concept of what they represented.  We do now, and you might have noticed that we gotten out of the habit of using them.  Saddam knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he used them against Iranians and Kurds.  Not at all the same thing.  Furthermore, as noted above, DU and Agent Orange are on a very different level from Sarin or weaponized Anthrax.

Your labelling of these as WMDs '100 times worse' than Saddam's is ignorant or disingenuous.  Given your posting history and agenda, I suspect both are true.

Yeah, you made all the trees lose their leaves so that's why you've paid millions in compensation to the effected countries...grow up mate! You also knew what you were doing when you used white phosphorus in Iraq to 'flush out' insurgents...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

I still stand by what I said, the american government has some nasty shit it's fully prepared to use, all I'm asking is you think about that.

I wasn't aware that we did pay any compensation to the "effected" [sic] countries.  Link?

Furthermore, you didn't say we had some 'nasty shit,' and were fully prepared to use it.  That is a statement I'd be prepared to agree with.  It is also a statement true of any reasonably equipped modern army.  Instead, you said:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

So really, no matter what the american government say about Iraq's so called WMD's they've done exactly the same and about 100 times worse.

Which was, and remains, untrue and unjustified.  Again:  Comparing DU or Angent Orange, or, yes, even White Phosphorus to WMDs is ignorant or disingenuous, or both.  None of them kill the numbers/time of a true WMD.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-07-10 08:20:59)