On 4/10/17 4:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2017 1:24 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/17 1:14 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are
not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but
the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear
weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead.
Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not
technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Is tough on the victim but was not know to cause human problems. My
brother is an Agent Orange vet. He and others looked at it as what it
was
advertised. A defoliant. Not a nerve agent. But you would not admit
that
ever.




There were studies and reports available during the time Agent Orange
was used that indicated it was a severe health hazard to humans, but
since it was the US military that was using it, the reports were ignored.

You must have inhaled a snootful while you were over there searching for
dead bodies. It permanently screwed up your thought process.

Meanwhile, the poor *******s actually doing the fighting appreciated
being able to see where the *live* enemy bodies were.




You seem incapable or unwilling to discuss this rationally. The point
is, the military continued to use Agent Orange after it was known the
stuff was extremely harmful to humans.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:24:51 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/10/17 1:14 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies." What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead. Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Is tough on the victim but was not know to cause human problems. My
brother is an Agent Orange vet. He and others looked at it as what it was
advertised. A defoliant. Not a nerve agent. But you would not admit that
ever.


There were studies and reports available during the time Agent Orange
was used that indicated it was a severe health hazard to humans, but
since it was the US military that was using it, the reports were ignored.

I'm sure you could find liberal articles stating ice cream was used as a weapon against someone. My
brother, who died of lung cancer in 2015 was frequently exposed. He never thought the US military
was using it as anything more than a defoliant. I never thought, as helicopters were spraying over
us, that it was anything more than a defoliant.

But I'm sure you think you know best, coward.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:50:09 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:24:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


There were studies and reports available during the time Agent Orange
was used that indicated it was a severe health hazard to humans, but
since it was the US military that was using it, the reports were ignored.

"The military" had nothing to do with it.
Dioxin (2,4,5-T) was still in wide use in the US until the 70s and not
really outlawed until the 80s. You could buy it at Hechingers up into
the early 70s. It was the "go to" herbicide in agriculture.
The more dangerous TCDD (2,3,7,8) is a byproduct of 2,4,5-T,
particularly if it is burned. That may explain the spotty occurrence
of "Agent Orange" disorder and why farmers were not affected as much
as soldiers. There was also a dosage factor. Farmers use as little as
necessary because it is not cheap. DoD used it by the truckload.
The other component of Agent Orange, 2,4-D is still available anywhere
they sell weed killer. It is in most "lawn safe" weed killers like
"weed n feed".

I suspect anything with "killer" or "...cide" in the name is going to
come with human health dangers and is not good for you.
Most military chemical agents started as insecticides. That is why it
is hard to control them. A country can quickly switch their bug spray
factory over to making poison gas and it is not even a major change,
just a slightly different recipe. The application method is also
similar.

Your facts don't support Harry's agenda.

On 4/10/17 4:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2017 2:50 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:24:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


There were studies and reports available during the time Agent Orange
was used that indicated it was a severe health hazard to humans, but
since it was the US military that was using it, the reports were
ignored.

"The military" had nothing to do with it.
Dioxin (2,4,5-T) was still in wide use in the US until the 70s and not
really outlawed until the 80s. You could buy it at Hechingers up into
the early 70s. It was the "go to" herbicide in agriculture.
The more dangerous TCDD (2,3,7,8) is a byproduct of 2,4,5-T,
particularly if it is burned. That may explain the spotty occurrence
of "Agent Orange" disorder and why farmers were not affected as much
as soldiers. There was also a dosage factor. Farmers use as little as
necessary because it is not cheap. DoD used it by the truckload.
The other component of Agent Orange, 2,4-D is still available anywhere
they sell weed killer. It is in most "lawn safe" weed killers like
"weed n feed".

I suspect anything with "killer" or "...cide" in the name is going to
come with human health dangers and is not good for you.
Most military chemical agents started as insecticides. That is why it
is hard to control them. A country can quickly switch their bug spray
factory over to making poison gas and it is not even a major change,
just a slightly different recipe. The application method is also
similar.


How many countries have used chemical weapons in warfare since WW1? Only
ones I can think of is Syria and Iraq when Saddam was around.




This is really getting hilarious, in a sad way.

How many countries have used nuclear weapons in warfare since WW I?
There's only one I can think of.

How many countries have used napalm in warfare since WW II? I don't know.

On 4/10/2017 4:28 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:01:03 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Apr 2017 16:16:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

I've already stated it was used as a weapon, but not as a 'chemical weapon'. As stated above, it was
an incendiary weapon. Napalm is not windborn as is mustard gas and sarin and most other 'chemical'
weapons. It's the windborn trait that makes chemical weapons so effective against large numbers of
people at a very small cost.

Actually, as a military weapon, the experience in WWI proved gas
wasn't really that effective. There were a number of cases where the
wind shifted a little and they ended up gassing themselves.
It is, at best, a terror weapon and that is why it was easy to get it
banned in 1925.

WW1 saw a lot of trench warfare where the trenches were pretty close. As the gasses were windborn,
you're correct - a shift in the wind can cause havoc. According to Wiki, gas in WW1 did not cause a
great number of fatalities, but...

"The killing capacity of gas was limited, with only about 90 thousand fatalities from a total of
some 1.2 million casualties caused by gas attacks."

Casualties take more soldiers out of action than fatalities.

Gas is especially effective against large masses of soldiers (or civilians) or in cities where it's
windborn properties take it into, over and around buildings. One chemical artillery round or bomb
can cover a lot of area and cause a lot of casualties.



For the life of me, though, I can't understand Assad's reason for using it, unless it's simply to
scare the rebels into inaction.

It could be that he is simply low on conventional bombs and the Russians
can't supply them fast enough. It would explain his use of cheap
"barrel" bombs also.

The main reason LeMay started using napalm on Japan was because he was
running out of conventional bombs.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:24:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

How many countries have used chemical weapons in warfare since WW1?

Germany in the camps (maybe Crimea) and Japan in China during WWII.
The Soviets in Afghanistan.
There have also been other sporadic reports of use of chemical
weapons.

On 4/10/2017 4:34 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/17 4:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2017 2:50 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:24:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:


There were studies and reports available during the time Agent Orange
was used that indicated it was a severe health hazard to humans, but
since it was the US military that was using it, the reports were
ignored.

"The military" had nothing to do with it.
Dioxin (2,4,5-T) was still in wide use in the US until the 70s and not
really outlawed until the 80s. You could buy it at Hechingers up into
the early 70s. It was the "go to" herbicide in agriculture.
The more dangerous TCDD (2,3,7,8) is a byproduct of 2,4,5-T,
particularly if it is burned. That may explain the spotty occurrence
of "Agent Orange" disorder and why farmers were not affected as much
as soldiers. There was also a dosage factor. Farmers use as little as
necessary because it is not cheap. DoD used it by the truckload.
The other component of Agent Orange, 2,4-D is still available anywhere
they sell weed killer. It is in most "lawn safe" weed killers like
"weed n feed".

I suspect anything with "killer" or "...cide" in the name is going to
come with human health dangers and is not good for you.
Most military chemical agents started as insecticides. That is why it
is hard to control them. A country can quickly switch their bug spray
factory over to making poison gas and it is not even a major change,
just a slightly different recipe. The application method is also
similar.


How many countries have used chemical weapons in warfare since WW1? Only
ones I can think of is Syria and Iraq when Saddam was around.




This is really getting hilarious, in a sad way.

How many countries have used nuclear weapons in warfare since WW I?
There's only one I can think of.

How many countries have used napalm in warfare since WW II? I don't know.


Sorry you find my question so hilarious. It was a serious question and
I don't know the answer.

The fact that I was asking about chemical weapons, (i.e. nerve gases)
and not nuke bombs or napalm seems to have gone over your head.

On 4/10/2017 4:31 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/17 4:22 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2017 1:24 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/17 1:14 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 2:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 12:09 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 11:47 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:36:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


So, what if next time Assad merely has his planes drop 25 barrel
bombs
on civilians, and kills a few hundred, including 50 "babies."
What
will
Trump do? Not cry over the dead babies? Not send in 59 cruise
missiles?
Would those babies be less dead than the ones he cried over?


Why is this so hard for you to understand? Chemical weapons are
banned
by international law, period. Bombs, including barrel bombs are
not.

Assad's use of them is horrible, killing innocent people and
babies is
horrible and he should be caught and tried as a war criminal but
the
ordnance itself is not banned by international law.


It is an interesting dichotomy. Sarin and mustard is illegal but
napalm and white phosphorous is legal. For that matter nuclear
weapons
are legal.
It makes you wonder.



When you are dead as a result of military action, you are dead.
Does it
really matter what specifically was the weapon of choice? Oh, and we
used chemical weapons in Vietnam and who knows where else. Remember
Agent Orange?


Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm. It's not
technically a
"weapon". Both are defoliants. Not saying they don't cause harm to
people. The difference between them and the purpose of nerve gas is
what makes the latter illegal according to international law.




Oh, I am sure the millions impacted by Agent Orange feel better about
their ailments because it isn't a chemical weapon. Sheesh.


Is tough on the victim but was not know to cause human problems. My
brother is an Agent Orange vet. He and others looked at it as what it
was
advertised. A defoliant. Not a nerve agent. But you would not admit
that
ever.




There were studies and reports available during the time Agent Orange
was used that indicated it was a severe health hazard to humans, but
since it was the US military that was using it, the reports were
ignored.

You must have inhaled a snootful while you were over there searching for
dead bodies. It permanently screwed up your thought process.

Meanwhile, the poor *******s actually doing the fighting appreciated
being able to see where the *live* enemy bodies were.




You seem incapable or unwilling to discuss this rationally. The point
is, the military continued to use Agent Orange after it was known the
stuff was extremely harmful to humans.




I can't discuss this rationally with someone who has unilaterally
decided what is chemical warfare and what is not. Until the Geneva
Committee decides to change classifications of things like napalm and
agent orange, I'll stick to what international law says.

3:34 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text -
This is really getting hilarious, in a sad way.

How many countries have used nuclear weapons in warfare since WW I?
There's only one I can think of.

How many countries have used napalm in warfare since WW II? I don't know.
......

You don't know it- it's getting hilarious in a sad way, huh? "LOIL!"

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:48:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The main reason LeMay started using napalm on Japan was because he was
running out of conventional bombs.

I have never heard that one. If anything he was running out of
targets. When you are dealing with cities made from paper and wood,
fire is a better weapon than explosives.