GATOR591957 wrote:
1. You are incorrect, what my statement refers to is the fact the US has used more weapons of mass destruction than any other country. The fact that depleted uranium is classified as a WMD. Once a projectile, be it bullet or missile is fired and explodes it makes for a very nasty environment. And is a major suspect in the gulf war syndrome. You really need to read more.
2.Didn't know the gas chamber was classified as a weapon. But I guess it could. By that line of rationality we could classify the bullet, bayonet, and billy club as well.
3.Depleted uranium rounds do kill more than one person at a time. Please refer to #1.
4.Please show me your verified tell all list of WMD's. However you do say it is your list, not anyone else's
5.You seem to volley on both sides here. I'm confused.
6.Yadda Yadda Yadda
In all I believe your sig sums it up best.
I had a nice response that got blotted out by the server interruption...oh well...sorry about the delayed response, real life is getting in the way.
First off, get yourself registered in an anger management class. Insults merely point out your inability to have a rational debate, or it just points out that you are an ass.
I've edited my previous post to point out the sections which actually answer your questions. I hope you absorb it this time around. Keep in mind that I'm pointing out a conflict in the statements you have made here, based on the logic you are using. Either DU rounds are WMDs or they aren't. Each choice has a consequence, so you will need to figure out which works for you.
Answer to #1 & #3A strict definition WMDs, the one I'm using is the one which includes chemical, biological, nerve, and atomic weapons that kill quickly and indestriminately in a large area, causing lasting damage. DU rounds do not fall into this category because they kill only within a few feet (if you're in the vehicle when its hit). The lasting effect doesn't irradiate the entire area either.
If you classify DU rounds as WMDs, the definition changes from "kill quickly" to "kills over a long period of time" or one might argue "makes you sick".
As far as the Gulf War Syndrome, which really has no relevance to my point about your conflicting statements:
Doctors have not determined the source of the GW Syndrome. They believe it might be because of one of five issues:
1) Exposure to DU dust
2) Reaction to the Anthrax vaccine given to all the troops
3) Infectous disease in the region, exposure to a virus/bug/parasite
4) Possible exposure to chemical or neurological weapons
5) Post tramatic stress disorder
In Sept the US Institute of Medicine released their conclusions that 30% of US troops who served have suffered or still suffer from symptoms. However, the symptoms that constitute the syndrome are not the same from case to case, and the syndrome itself is similar to symptoms past veterans have suffered after returning to normal life. Therefore, this doesn't prove or disprove anything. Mentioning DU as a possible cause doesn't mean it's a WMD.
However, lets assume it is...lets follow your logic.
Given this fact:
In 2001 the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia investigated possible war crimes for NATO's use of depleted uranium and determined there is no specific ban on the use of Depleted Uranium projectives because they kill through kinetic energy, not from exposure or inhalation. Therefore, they ruled it's conventional.
Therefore, if DU ammo is a WMD and DU ammo is a conventional weapon, any weapon similar to a DU round is a WMD. This is of course, what you are arguing - that a weapon that kills by kinetic energy should be classifield in the same ballpark as a nuke.
By the logic that DU rounds are WMDs, Iraq had tanks, artillery, rockets, mortars, jets, and other "WMDs". Of course, on the other hand, the US has therefore deployed more than 2 WMDs.
Comment on question #2Ahhh...the irony. Did you stop for a second and think that the logic I used in my post is the same as your statement? Zyklon-B = Bullets, DU ammo = Bullets.
This is basically why I'm asking you to clarify your definition of WMDs. Because it's a ridiculous conclusion, a conclusion you are whole-heartly supporting.
Answer to #4Show me exactly where I said that the US found WMDs, given the fact I'm using the US definition of a WMD and not yours.
Answer to #5A more generous definition of WMDs includes larger bombs and bombs that kill large areas. The Daisy Cutter bomb, cluster bombs, or SCUD missles fall in this category. Again, the US then used more than two, but then again Iraq had WMDs - cluster bombs and SCUDs.
Basically my point is that DU rounds kill within a few feet. But if you want to expand it to include a few feet there are some larger bombs and missiles in use that do more damage than a tank shell. Therefore, it's middle ground between chemical/biological/nuclear bombs and anything smaller than tank ammo.
Furthermore, you stated this:
You site 2 as the number of WMD's, yet fail to list the number dead or died later of complications.
If you want to include military weapons that MIGHT kill you over a period of years, do you want to expand the list to include other conventional weapons? Smoke inhalation comes to mind...
And again furthermore, you stated this:
WMD's wear never found thus the assumption was wrong. Since when does a nation go to war on "assumptions"
The Resolution congress passed had many points in it besides the threat of perceived WMDs. But lets just focus on WMDs only as the only reason for your benefit.
It also would be useful to refer you to the definition of what the US considers a WMD, which is the context of the Resolution that was passed - It's the same definition I'm using...not yours.
Your definition is expanded...which means that you can't argue that US has used more than two WMDs AND argue that none were found in Iraq at the same time. Nor can you say that the assumption is wrong in almost the same breath.
So make a choice - use your definition and US found WMDs, or use the US definition and count to two.
