On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:28:59 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:41:09 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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.


I guess "ordinance" was not your forte in the Navy.
Napalm was developed in WWII to incinerate Japanese cities and in the
next 2 Asian wars it was used as an anti personnel weapon.
WP was purely a terror weapon, meant to cause wounds by chunks of
flaming phosphorus that would not go out. It simply has to be exposed
to air, at room temperature to burn.
I understand they were able to lie to themselves in Geneva in the 20s
and not outlaw WP but Napalm did not exist the last time this protocol
was updated. In the 60s they revisited it, there were some attempts to
include other things but it slipped away.


Napalm was not developed to incinerate Japanese cities. Neighbor growing
up was army in the South Pacific. He said when they got it, they first did
not realize how nasty it was, as they added the powder to gasoline and
mixed it in open barrels. They used it to root out Japanese in caves.

In Vietnam it was tunnels!

On Sun, 09 Apr 2017 23:40:12 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:44:13 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


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

I suppose you could say the same thing about asbestos and PCBs

Exactly!

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:24:18 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/10/17 11:14 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2017 10:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/17 10:05 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2017 9:30 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/17 7:50 AM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:11:58 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 11:57 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:13:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Napalm's "official" purpose in Vietnam was that of a defoliant.
Agreed, it's a incendiary mixture but is effective in clearing
cover in dense growth. The fact that it may have also been used to
target the enemy hiding in the growth is a misuse of it's official
purpose.

Nobody really believed that. It was just what they told people,
until
the Wash Po put that naked little girl running down the road, on the
cover.
Was LeMay defoliating Tokyo?


I conceded that I was wrong about the use of Napalm in Vietnam after
John provided first hand information on it's use. The images I
recalled
were those of our airplanes dropping it on areas heavily covered with
trees or natural growth that hid the Viet Cong from view.

On the other hand, it did defoliate rather well. LOL



Is that the "Christian" belief? What's funny about dropping napalm that
would earn an LOL? You are a weird little duck.





I wonder if you were in a situation where it was your ass or the
enemy's, what choice would you make?


I wouldn't be LOL'ing it. There's nothing funny about using that stuff
in a wartime setting.

I am *sure* you wouldn't be laughing. I suspect you'd suddenly get
religious and pray for a couple of F-4 Phantoms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8BgRUTJKIA




Just another example of our use of chemical warfare.

Wrong. But again, you know not of which you speak. I suppose it makes you feel good just to say
something even if it's f'ing stupid, eh Krause?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:17:53 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/10/17 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:24:18 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Just another example of our use of chemical warfare.

So was Waco, what's your point?


That when we castigate other nations for using chemical warfare, we're
hypocritical.

If we were engagin in chemical warfare and castigating other nations for doing so, you would be
correct. But your premise is false.

Of course you know that, but look at the attention you get to support that narcissism, eh?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:13:33 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/10/17 11:04 AM, Tim wrote:
9:53 AMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
What is LOlL about using napalm in war?


LOIL is what you get when you type in on an iPhone without wearing your
reading glasses.
What is LOL about using napalm in war, Tim? You think napalm is funny?

No one said napalm was funny. Your attack is as stupid as your arguments.

On 4/10/2017 1:17 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/17 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:24:18 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Just another example of our use of chemical warfare.

So was Waco, what's your point?


That when we castigate other nations for using chemical warfare, we're
hypocritical.


Good grief. Napalm and Agent Orange are not classified as chemical
weapons or outlawed by International Law in war time.

Nerve gases like Sarin are.

The use of Napalm *was* banned by the Geneva Convention in 1980 against
*civilian* population centers. That is international law which we and
most nations (including Germany in WWII) follow except for Syria and
Iraq when Saddam was using oxygen.

Keep your hypocrisy to yourself, bud.

On 4/10/17 4:13 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/10/2017 1:17 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/17 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:24:18 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Just another example of our use of chemical warfare.

So was Waco, what's your point?


That when we castigate other nations for using chemical warfare, we're
hypocritical.


Good grief. Napalm and Agent Orange are not classified as chemical
weapons or outlawed by International Law in war time.

Nerve gases like Sarin are.

The use of Napalm *was* banned by the Geneva Convention in 1980 against
*civilian* population centers. That is international law which we and
most nations (including Germany in WWII) follow except for Syria and
Iraq when Saddam was using oxygen.

Keep your hypocrisy to yourself, bud.




You militarists are a trip.

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.

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.

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.