Chemical warfare - hypocrites

[Smoking Frog II]

Why do the US claim to be fighting Iraq partly over chemical weapons, when they themselves uses Napalm in Vietnam?

When someone takes up the debate, I shall elaborate...

[Liberty Lover]

These are two completely different wars, in completely different eras.

[Chiak47]

LL,

Not only that but there happens to be a BIG diference between sarin nerve gas and napalm.

Thanks,
Money

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 11:18 pm on April 8, 2003
These are two completely different wars, in completely different eras.


thats true, however what about the Naplam dropped in Afganistan about a year ago?

[Liberty Lover]

Was there napalm used in Afghanistan?

[Chiak47]

I am not aware of any napalm in Afganistan.I read it was all mothballed.Sent from Indiana to Utah for destruction due to old age or some shit.
Do you have a link?

[Invader Zim]

no link, but its not like it was not shown enough in the news, when they were bombing the hills and caves.

[Anonymous]

I thought they stopped using napalm years ago? Perhaps it was some other type of incendiary. In any case, as Chiak said, there is a big difference between an incendiary such as napalm, and nerve or blister agents such as VX and mustard gas.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 11:51 pm on April 8, 2003
I thought they stopped using napalm years ago? Perhaps it was some other type of incendiary. In any case, as Chiak said, there is a big difference between an incendiary such as napalm, and nerve or blister agents such as VX and mustard gas.

which all happen to be banned by the geneva convention.

Thank you i rest my case.

[CopperGoat]

Don't forget Agent Orange in Vietnam.

That was a chemical weapon for sure.

[Anonymous]

Agent orange was a herbicide used to clear densely forested areas.

[Chiak47]

Big difference.

Remember-EQUIVALENT of 5 gallons of milk a day has caused abnormal growth's in lab rats.

Chemical warfare?YOU be the damn judge...

[RedPirate]

Ok! Different wars and eras yes, but now that we are fighting against chemical "weapons" in Iraq, Now that they have supposedly found them in barrels they thought it was the evidence they needed all along. Today majority to nothing they were tested negative of chemicals agents, and positive for PESTICIDE! WOW! We don't jump to conclusions or anything in the states!

[Tkinter1]

Napalm is an unwieldy munition, and an indiscriminate killer... Much like carpet bombing, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, etc.

It should be removed from the battlefield.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 3:33 am on April 9, 2003)


(Edited by Tkinter1 at 3:36 am on April 9, 2003)

[Smoking Frog II]

no matter what you argue against, Napalm is a chemical weapon.

"Hey look, it's a seven year old. He must be a vietcong. Let's gas that fucker!"

"Yeah! and then we can eat him for breakfast!"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 12:21 am on April 9, 2003
Agent orange was a herbicide used to clear densely forested areas.


It's still causing abnormalities today, and should NEVER have been used, not even once.

[Moskitto]

Botulinum toxin - Nerve colapsing agent
VX - Nerve hyperstimulation agent
Sarin - Nerve hyperstimulation agent
Cyanide - Respiratory metabolic toxin
Napalm - Incendary agent
Agent Orange - Defoliant (also suspected carcinogen)
Ricin - Di-polypeptide ribosome self destructor

other toxins are really quite useless as chemical agents, although if you ever need to know a formulae for carbon monoxide poisoing, this is extremely useful.

[COHb]/[O2Hb]=M[PCO]/[PO]

M=220 at pH 7.4 in humans.

Carbon Monoxide would be a suitable poison, however it's difficult to produce in large quantities.

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from CopperGoat on 12:15 am on April 9, 2003
Don't forget Agent Orange in Vietnam.

That was a chemical weapon for sure.


In the 1960s Agent Orange was dangerous to you if you had clorophyl in your cells. If it was meant to be used to kill people on a battlefield, it did a poor job, because it kills you 20 years later. Should you fear Agent Orange? Yes. On a battlefiled? You got bigger problems.

[Moskitto]

Cyanide is reckoned to be the most likely terrorist nerve gas threat. It is very easy to make and the name "Cyanide" strikes fear into the minds of those who are not directly attacked because of its association with the holocaust and worldwide poisonings. However unlike VX it is lighter than air so staying low means you reduce your poisoning risk, although most people hear about holocaust victims moving to the top of the chambers and asume it is the opposite and the panic that would insue if Cyanide was used would make giving such instructions very hard, it also causes toxic effects after as little as 30 seconds.

[Liberty Lover]

I'm studying Vietnam at school, here's something really sickening from a US pilot:

"The original naplam bomb wasn't so hot-if the gooks were quick they could scrape it off. So the boys started adding polystyrene-now it really sticks. But then if the gooks jumped under water it stopped burning, so they started adding white phosphorous so as to make it burn better. It'll even burn under water now. And one drop is enough, it'll keep on burning right down to the bone so they die anyway from phosphorous poisoning"

[Chiak47]

LL,

Wonder what the burning flesh with the phosphorous smelled like..

Thanks,
cooking eggs and steak

[Liberty Lover]

Err..glad you enjoyed it.

[MAN with a RED face]

i wonder what cappies smelled like...
i wonder what puke smelled like...
i wonder what cappie puke smelled like...
i wonder what LL smelled like...

hope i will enjoy it...

[Ghost Writer]

Napalm is not considered a chemical weapon. Yes, as with every material that exists it has a chemical structure (http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/mom/napalm/napalm.html). However, it is a combustion reaction that kills people who are subject to the heat given off by this long burning exothermic reaction. If this type of chemistry were considered chemical warfare, then we could not use bullets or bombs either. For that matter, chemisty was used to forge the steal in the tanks and planes. Should we call that chemical warfare? Give me a break!

The UN defines chemical warfare as the use "chemical substances, whether gaseous, liquid or solid, which might be employed because of their direct toxic effects on man, animals and plants." Clearly, toxicity is what defines a chemical agent, not its combustibility, volatility, or any other thermodynamic property. Give me a break! What a sh*tty argument you have tried to lay forth. Surely, you can do better than that.

[El Che]

It`s okay to burn them but it`s evil to gas them.

[Ghost Writer]

Explosive and Chemical agents are a definitely different. After the effects of chemical weapons in WWI the world arrived at a general consensus that chemical weapons were far too dastardly for use in warfare.

[suffianr]

But it's okay to research the stuff in secret underground laboratories, right? :biggrin:

[Ghost Writer]

But it's okay to research the stuff in secret underground laboratories, right?

I don't suppose you would care to qualify that statement. The only research being done right now is to combat the weapons we know our enemies to possess. Our chemical and biological weapons programs went from a offensive program to a defensive one. Research is also being conducted to find efficient and safe ways to rid ourselves of the stock we have developed prior to the 1973 Convention. If you can find anything credible that would suggest otherwise, I would be happy to listen. Good luck in your search, though. If you are going to make statements, make sure you have something real to back your assertions.

[hazard]

spider man's alien symbiote said that napalm is not considered a chemical weapon. well excuse everybody. is that like saying that "handguns don't kill people, people kill people?". I guess not. that's more like saying "handguns aren't weapons, they're tools like pencil sharpeners". stupid name game. napalm IS a chemical weapon, regardless of what the pigs want to call it.

[Menshevik]

napalm, one of those things you wish could've been uninvented. It's true they don't used napalm any more, now there's no need to--they have many more fun and interesting "anti-personnel" devices at their disposal. The US is in possession of their own chemical weapons, but of course that doesn't mean theyre likely to use them. Though does that mean that the Iraqis were?

[Anonymous]

We should blast the sands of Iraq into glass.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 1:37 am on April 19, 2003
We should blast the sands of Iraq into glass.

A very disturbing comment, but good point.

It's a war. There is no such thing as less leathal or non violent methods. Soldiers do not carry handcuffs. Soldiers are trained to make a target dead. What ever the method, soldiers are going to use every means to them nice or not. What limits the scope of what weapons are used is the political price that using certain weapons will have on our politicians. Everyone should be horrified by the use of certain weapons. A horrified state of mind does not justify a legal rule regarding wither it is right to use them.

Napalm is legal.

[Menshevik]

Why should you cause unnecessary pain and suffering for the sake of "making a target dead?" Do you realize how many lives were ruined by napalm--people who had no part in the war, just bystanders?

[Iron Star]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 1:37 am on April 19, 2003
We should blast the sands of Iraq into glass.


You seem like a very sad person.

[Anonymous]

You seem like a very stupid person.

[Liberty Lover]

LOL

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Weapons of war should kill instantly on the first shot.
anything else is an instrument of TORTURE.

[Blibblob]

So, the government should finally introduce their exploding bullets? Weapons of war shouldn't kill at all, wounding is enough. But I agree that if it will kill, like poison and chemical warfare, it should be instantanious. More VX please.

[Moskitto]

organophosphate nerve agents such as VX are quite possibly the most painful things to be killed by apart from possibly cyanide.

[Ghost Writer]

Radiation poisoning is no walk in the park either.

[synthesis]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 1:37 am on April 19, 2003
We should blast the sands of Iraq into glass.
So you're proposing the destruction of one of the oldest civilizations on the planet?

[RedComrade]

The best weapon of all is the most deadly yet draws no blood. The war of words, propaganda, is what the U.S should be focusing on. The Iraqi campaign has demonstrated its affectiveness and it did unimaginable good to the U.S forces and the casualty rate. Psy-ops and the propaganda corps if used affectively can defeat the enemy without ever drawing blood, the days where brutal napalm seas and cluster bombs were necessary are over. Precision bombs combined with a well orchestrated propaganda campaign are much more humane and affective (humane and war are a rather contradictory term though...), im no peacenick and beleive whole-heartedly there will be times when war is necessary. When it comes to war though we, regardless of the side were on, should not forget our shared humanity and should fight in the most humane and affective way possible.

[Moskitto]

radiation poisoning is rather nasty as it tends to rewrite most of my DNA, but the thought of all my muscles contracting simultaneously or feeling like all my energy is leaving me and becoming dizzy and totally limp is pretty nasty as well.