|
Busy day at the office ...
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:46:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/8/2017 12:20 PM, wrote: OK you tell me, what would be worse? If we were not prosecuting the air war in Iraq in the 90s, there would not have even been a 9/11 (attack) and if we had simply followed up the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan with a minimal level of aid, Bin Laden would not have been there. In fact with no troops in Saudi Arabia, bombing Iraq almost daily, he would not have even had the issue he rose to power on. Always difficult (and dangerous) to speculate but the rise of Islamic extremist religious groups attacking globally dates back to the late 1970's and escalated during the 1980's. Bush 41's liberation of Kuwait certainly was not the cause or beginning. A constant in Bin Laden's complaints about the US was the presence of US troops on Saudi soil and using those bases for bombing other muslims. That is also the rallying call he used when he recruited other Saudis (the majority of the 9\11 attackers) 41's liberation of Kuwait may have received good reviews from Islam but he was warned not to go to Baghdad and yet he continued to wage war with Saddam for a decade for dubious reasons and eventually we did go to Baghdad as a logical conclusion to the 10 year war we waged. Nothing improved from the end of the 100 hour war until today ... 2 trillion dollars and 6000 GI lives later. |
Busy day at the office ...
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:32:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/8/2017 2:18 PM, wrote: On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:46:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/8/2017 12:20 PM, wrote: OK you tell me, what would be worse? If we were not prosecuting the air war in Iraq in the 90s, there would not have even been a 9/11 (attack) and if we had simply followed up the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan with a minimal level of aid, Bin Laden would not have been there. In fact with no troops in Saudi Arabia, bombing Iraq almost daily, he would not have even had the issue he rose to power on. Always difficult (and dangerous) to speculate but the rise of Islamic extremist religious groups attacking globally dates back to the late 1970's and escalated during the 1980's. Bush 41's liberation of Kuwait certainly was not the cause or beginning. A constant in Bin Laden's complaints about the US was the presence of US troops on Saudi soil and using those bases for bombing other muslims. That is also the rallying call he used when he recruited other Saudis (the majority of the 9\11 attackers) 41's liberation of Kuwait may have received good reviews from Islam but he was warned not to go to Baghdad and yet he continued to wage war with Saddam for a decade for dubious reasons and eventually we did go to Baghdad as a logical conclusion to the 10 year war we waged. Nothing improved from the end of the 100 hour war until today ... 2 trillion dollars and 6000 GI lives later. So, you are saying we should never have military stationed with allied nations? bin Laden's beef was much more than just having US troops in Saudi Arabia. His reasons for the "holy war" against the West, including the USA, were given in a letter by him in 2002. In it he bitched about: 1. Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia. 2. Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya. 3. Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir. 4. Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon. 5. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. 6. US support of Israel. 7. Sanctions against Iraq. So, I guess in order to have escaped his wrath the USA would have to completely withdrawn from world events, stuck our head in the sand and hope it all blew over before he noticed us. The troops in Saudi was the biggest complaint and the main recruiting tool to get the Saudi hijackers (long before that letter). Remember the 1st WTC attack was in 93, before Somalia. The Russians, Indians, Israelis and Europeans had little to do with choosing New York City. OTOH if we had handled the post Joe Wilson Afghanistan better, there may not have even been a Bin Laden. That lands squarely on 41's desk. .. |
Busy day at the office ...
7:23 PMKeyser Soze
- show quoted text - 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? ...... What would you do, Harry? |
Busy day at the office ...
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 19:02:57 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
7:23 PMKeyser Soze - show quoted text - 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? ..... What would you do, Harry? Harry would look for the negatives and whine a lot. |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/8/2017 8:30 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:32:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/8/2017 2:18 PM, wrote: On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:46:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/8/2017 12:20 PM, wrote: OK you tell me, what would be worse? If we were not prosecuting the air war in Iraq in the 90s, there would not have even been a 9/11 (attack) and if we had simply followed up the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan with a minimal level of aid, Bin Laden would not have been there. In fact with no troops in Saudi Arabia, bombing Iraq almost daily, he would not have even had the issue he rose to power on. Always difficult (and dangerous) to speculate but the rise of Islamic extremist religious groups attacking globally dates back to the late 1970's and escalated during the 1980's. Bush 41's liberation of Kuwait certainly was not the cause or beginning. A constant in Bin Laden's complaints about the US was the presence of US troops on Saudi soil and using those bases for bombing other muslims. That is also the rallying call he used when he recruited other Saudis (the majority of the 9\11 attackers) 41's liberation of Kuwait may have received good reviews from Islam but he was warned not to go to Baghdad and yet he continued to wage war with Saddam for a decade for dubious reasons and eventually we did go to Baghdad as a logical conclusion to the 10 year war we waged. Nothing improved from the end of the 100 hour war until today ... 2 trillion dollars and 6000 GI lives later. So, you are saying we should never have military stationed with allied nations? bin Laden's beef was much more than just having US troops in Saudi Arabia. His reasons for the "holy war" against the West, including the USA, were given in a letter by him in 2002. In it he bitched about: 1. Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia. 2. Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya. 3. Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir. 4. Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon. 5. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. 6. US support of Israel. 7. Sanctions against Iraq. So, I guess in order to have escaped his wrath the USA would have to completely withdrawn from world events, stuck our head in the sand and hope it all blew over before he noticed us. The troops in Saudi was the biggest complaint and the main recruiting tool to get the Saudi hijackers (long before that letter). Remember the 1st WTC attack was in 93, before Somalia. The Russians, Indians, Israelis and Europeans had little to do with choosing New York City. OTOH if we had handled the post Joe Wilson Afghanistan better, there may not have even been a Bin Laden. That lands squarely on 41's desk. . Maybe your memory is starting to fail you Greg. :-) When Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait his action was in violation of international law. The UN condemned his action and applied economic sanctions on Iraq. (this was after he invaded and occupied Kuwait but before the US led coalition was formed to boot him out). When the UN sanctions were applied, Saddam started threatening Saudi Arabia as well, vowing to invade and light all the Saudi oil fields on fire. Remember, this was in 1990, Saudi Arabia was a founding member of OPEC and an ally of the USA and other Western nations. It was in our national interests to defend Saudi Arabia from any threats or potential attack by Iraq on Saudi oil fields. Additional troops were deployed to Saudi Arabia at Saudi Arabia's request to help defend against any invasion by Iraq. This is what ****ed off bin Laden. Tough ****. |
Busy day at the office ...
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. |
Busy day at the office ...
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:49:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/8/2017 8:30 PM, wrote: On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:32:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/8/2017 2:18 PM, wrote: On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:46:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/8/2017 12:20 PM, wrote: OK you tell me, what would be worse? If we were not prosecuting the air war in Iraq in the 90s, there would not have even been a 9/11 (attack) and if we had simply followed up the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan with a minimal level of aid, Bin Laden would not have been there. In fact with no troops in Saudi Arabia, bombing Iraq almost daily, he would not have even had the issue he rose to power on. Always difficult (and dangerous) to speculate but the rise of Islamic extremist religious groups attacking globally dates back to the late 1970's and escalated during the 1980's. Bush 41's liberation of Kuwait certainly was not the cause or beginning. A constant in Bin Laden's complaints about the US was the presence of US troops on Saudi soil and using those bases for bombing other muslims. That is also the rallying call he used when he recruited other Saudis (the majority of the 9\11 attackers) 41's liberation of Kuwait may have received good reviews from Islam but he was warned not to go to Baghdad and yet he continued to wage war with Saddam for a decade for dubious reasons and eventually we did go to Baghdad as a logical conclusion to the 10 year war we waged. Nothing improved from the end of the 100 hour war until today ... 2 trillion dollars and 6000 GI lives later. So, you are saying we should never have military stationed with allied nations? bin Laden's beef was much more than just having US troops in Saudi Arabia. His reasons for the "holy war" against the West, including the USA, were given in a letter by him in 2002. In it he bitched about: 1. Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia. 2. Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya. 3. Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir. 4. Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon. 5. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. 6. US support of Israel. 7. Sanctions against Iraq. So, I guess in order to have escaped his wrath the USA would have to completely withdrawn from world events, stuck our head in the sand and hope it all blew over before he noticed us. The troops in Saudi was the biggest complaint and the main recruiting tool to get the Saudi hijackers (long before that letter). Remember the 1st WTC attack was in 93, before Somalia. The Russians, Indians, Israelis and Europeans had little to do with choosing New York City. OTOH if we had handled the post Joe Wilson Afghanistan better, there may not have even been a Bin Laden. That lands squarely on 41's desk. . Maybe your memory is starting to fail you Greg. :-) When Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait his action was in violation of international law. The UN condemned his action and applied economic sanctions on Iraq. (this was after he invaded and occupied Kuwait but before the US led coalition was formed to boot him out). When the UN sanctions were applied, Saddam started threatening Saudi Arabia as well, vowing to invade and light all the Saudi oil fields on fire. Remember, this was in 1990, Saudi Arabia was a founding member of OPEC and an ally of the USA and other Western nations. It was in our national interests to defend Saudi Arabia from any threats or potential attack by Iraq on Saudi oil fields. Additional troops were deployed to Saudi Arabia at Saudi Arabia's request to help defend against any invasion by Iraq. This is what ****ed off bin Laden. Tough ****. The problem was that after Kuwait was liberated, we stayed in Saudi and continued to bomb Iraq. Personally I think we should have just told Saudi and the emirates to defend themselves with all of that hardware we sold them. If they wanted help, call the Israelis. |
Busy day at the office ...
|
Busy day at the office ...
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 12:09:40 -0400, 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? That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are still paying for the injured GIs) |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/17 1:05 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 12:09:40 -0400, 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? That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are still paying for the injured GIs) Chemical weapon, nonetheless. |
Busy day at the office ...
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:08:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
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? That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are still paying for the injured GIs) Chemical weapon, nonetheless. Black powder is a chemical weapon if you want to look at it that way. |
Busy day at the office ...
|
Busy day at the office ...
|
Busy day at the office ...
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. |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/2017 1:05 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 12:09:40 -0400, 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? That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are still paying for the injured GIs) Napalm is also technically a defoliant. |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/2017 2:18 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 1:33 PM, wrote: On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:08:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: 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? That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are still paying for the injured GIs) Chemical weapon, nonetheless. Black powder is a chemical weapon if you want to look at it that way. Oh, please...stop rationalizing, at least on Agent Orange. It was chemical warfare, no different than other forms of chemical warfare. Very different. Agent Orange was legal to use according to international law. Nerve agents like Sarin is illegal. You can have your personal opinion but it doesn't make it technically or legally correct. |
Busy day at the office ...
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. |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/2017 11:50 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:49:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/8/2017 8:30 PM, wrote: On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:32:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/8/2017 2:18 PM, wrote: On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:46:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/8/2017 12:20 PM, wrote: OK you tell me, what would be worse? If we were not prosecuting the air war in Iraq in the 90s, there would not have even been a 9/11 (attack) and if we had simply followed up the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan with a minimal level of aid, Bin Laden would not have been there. In fact with no troops in Saudi Arabia, bombing Iraq almost daily, he would not have even had the issue he rose to power on. Always difficult (and dangerous) to speculate but the rise of Islamic extremist religious groups attacking globally dates back to the late 1970's and escalated during the 1980's. Bush 41's liberation of Kuwait certainly was not the cause or beginning. A constant in Bin Laden's complaints about the US was the presence of US troops on Saudi soil and using those bases for bombing other muslims. That is also the rallying call he used when he recruited other Saudis (the majority of the 9\11 attackers) 41's liberation of Kuwait may have received good reviews from Islam but he was warned not to go to Baghdad and yet he continued to wage war with Saddam for a decade for dubious reasons and eventually we did go to Baghdad as a logical conclusion to the 10 year war we waged. Nothing improved from the end of the 100 hour war until today ... 2 trillion dollars and 6000 GI lives later. So, you are saying we should never have military stationed with allied nations? bin Laden's beef was much more than just having US troops in Saudi Arabia. His reasons for the "holy war" against the West, including the USA, were given in a letter by him in 2002. In it he bitched about: 1. Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia. 2. Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya. 3. Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir. 4. Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon. 5. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. 6. US support of Israel. 7. Sanctions against Iraq. So, I guess in order to have escaped his wrath the USA would have to completely withdrawn from world events, stuck our head in the sand and hope it all blew over before he noticed us. The troops in Saudi was the biggest complaint and the main recruiting tool to get the Saudi hijackers (long before that letter). Remember the 1st WTC attack was in 93, before Somalia. The Russians, Indians, Israelis and Europeans had little to do with choosing New York City. OTOH if we had handled the post Joe Wilson Afghanistan better, there may not have even been a Bin Laden. That lands squarely on 41's desk. . Maybe your memory is starting to fail you Greg. :-) When Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait his action was in violation of international law. The UN condemned his action and applied economic sanctions on Iraq. (this was after he invaded and occupied Kuwait but before the US led coalition was formed to boot him out). When the UN sanctions were applied, Saddam started threatening Saudi Arabia as well, vowing to invade and light all the Saudi oil fields on fire. Remember, this was in 1990, Saudi Arabia was a founding member of OPEC and an ally of the USA and other Western nations. It was in our national interests to defend Saudi Arabia from any threats or potential attack by Iraq on Saudi oil fields. Additional troops were deployed to Saudi Arabia at Saudi Arabia's request to help defend against any invasion by Iraq. This is what ****ed off bin Laden. Tough ****. The problem was that after Kuwait was liberated, we stayed in Saudi and continued to bomb Iraq. Personally I think we should have just told Saudi and the emirates to defend themselves with all of that hardware we sold them. If they wanted help, call the Israelis. Knowing your Libertarian mindset I can understand your argument but most don't see it that way. As I have mentioned before, the USA has a major role and responsibility in the global balance of power. It's not something we volunteered for but it has grown with us since the end of WWII. It would be nice to stick our head in the sand and ignore the rest of the world but it just isn't realistic.\ |
Busy day at the office ...
|
Busy day at the office ...
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:48:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 4/9/2017 11:50 AM, wrote: On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 07:49:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/8/2017 8:30 PM, wrote: On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 17:32:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/8/2017 2:18 PM, wrote: On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 13:46:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/8/2017 12:20 PM, wrote: OK you tell me, what would be worse? If we were not prosecuting the air war in Iraq in the 90s, there would not have even been a 9/11 (attack) and if we had simply followed up the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan with a minimal level of aid, Bin Laden would not have been there. In fact with no troops in Saudi Arabia, bombing Iraq almost daily, he would not have even had the issue he rose to power on. Always difficult (and dangerous) to speculate but the rise of Islamic extremist religious groups attacking globally dates back to the late 1970's and escalated during the 1980's. Bush 41's liberation of Kuwait certainly was not the cause or beginning. A constant in Bin Laden's complaints about the US was the presence of US troops on Saudi soil and using those bases for bombing other muslims. That is also the rallying call he used when he recruited other Saudis (the majority of the 9\11 attackers) 41's liberation of Kuwait may have received good reviews from Islam but he was warned not to go to Baghdad and yet he continued to wage war with Saddam for a decade for dubious reasons and eventually we did go to Baghdad as a logical conclusion to the 10 year war we waged. Nothing improved from the end of the 100 hour war until today ... 2 trillion dollars and 6000 GI lives later. So, you are saying we should never have military stationed with allied nations? bin Laden's beef was much more than just having US troops in Saudi Arabia. His reasons for the "holy war" against the West, including the USA, were given in a letter by him in 2002. In it he bitched about: 1. Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia. 2. Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya. 3. Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir. 4. Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon. 5. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. 6. US support of Israel. 7. Sanctions against Iraq. So, I guess in order to have escaped his wrath the USA would have to completely withdrawn from world events, stuck our head in the sand and hope it all blew over before he noticed us. The troops in Saudi was the biggest complaint and the main recruiting tool to get the Saudi hijackers (long before that letter). Remember the 1st WTC attack was in 93, before Somalia. The Russians, Indians, Israelis and Europeans had little to do with choosing New York City. OTOH if we had handled the post Joe Wilson Afghanistan better, there may not have even been a Bin Laden. That lands squarely on 41's desk. . Maybe your memory is starting to fail you Greg. :-) When Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait his action was in violation of international law. The UN condemned his action and applied economic sanctions on Iraq. (this was after he invaded and occupied Kuwait but before the US led coalition was formed to boot him out). When the UN sanctions were applied, Saddam started threatening Saudi Arabia as well, vowing to invade and light all the Saudi oil fields on fire. Remember, this was in 1990, Saudi Arabia was a founding member of OPEC and an ally of the USA and other Western nations. It was in our national interests to defend Saudi Arabia from any threats or potential attack by Iraq on Saudi oil fields. Additional troops were deployed to Saudi Arabia at Saudi Arabia's request to help defend against any invasion by Iraq. This is what ****ed off bin Laden. Tough ****. The problem was that after Kuwait was liberated, we stayed in Saudi and continued to bomb Iraq. Personally I think we should have just told Saudi and the emirates to defend themselves with all of that hardware we sold them. If they wanted help, call the Israelis. Knowing your Libertarian mindset I can understand your argument but most don't see it that way. As I have mentioned before, the USA has a major role and responsibility in the global balance of power. It's not something we volunteered for but it has grown with us since the end of WWII. It would be nice to stick our head in the sand and ignore the rest of the world but it just isn't realistic.\ No it isn't. Soon Russia and China would own what's left out there. I wonder which would get Canada? |
Busy day at the office ...
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 1:44:16 PM UTC-5, 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. You're gasping for air Harry. |
Busy day at the office ...
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 12:09:40 -0400, 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? Again your head is buried deeply. Agent Orange was not used as a weapon, it was a herbicide and defoliant. I know. I've been under helicopters spraying it. The after effects were certainly not known when the stuff was sprayed. We did use tear gas in Vietnam, which is not considered a 'chemical weapon'. You know little, and you're a liar. |
Busy day at the office ...
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:18:19 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 1:33 PM, wrote: On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:08:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: 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? That was a weapon against plants, not quite the same, at least in theory. The fact that it also affected people was just a byproduct and it affected GIs as much as the Vietnamese. (maybe more since we are still paying for the injured GIs) Chemical weapon, nonetheless. Black powder is a chemical weapon if you want to look at it that way. Oh, please...stop rationalizing, at least on Agent Orange. It was chemical warfare, no different than other forms of chemical warfare. Harry, you're simply showing your ****ing ignorance. The goal of chemical warfare is to maim and kill people. The goal of our Agent Orange use was to defoliate areas so they couldn't be used as hiding grounds for the North Vietnamese Army and/or the Viet Cong. How ****ing stupid are you? |
Busy day at the office ...
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:41:09 -0400, "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. Napalm is not a 'chemical' in the sense of spreading across a wide area. Napalm was used as both a defoliant and a weapon during the Vietnam war. Napalm was not spread by helicopters as was Agent Orange. I used it as a defoliant in one area, but we dropped 55 gallon drums of the stuff to defoliate and to set off secondary explosions from booby traps and mines. We didn't get them all, either. |
Busy day at the office ...
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:44:13 -0400, 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. As one who will be receiving VA benefits because of Agent Orange, I have no reason to believe the US forces purposely exposed me to something they deemed a 'weapon'. You are a total f'ing idiot. |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, 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. Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people. Sheesh. |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/2017 3:40 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 14:44:13 -0400, 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. As one who will be receiving VA benefits because of Agent Orange, I have no reason to believe the US forces purposely exposed me to something they deemed a 'weapon'. You are a total f'ing idiot. I think it's these misconceptions that makes Harry resent the military so much. Ignorance breeds ignorance. |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/17 3:30 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 1:44:16 PM UTC-5, 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. You're gasping for air Harry. Bull****. I'm aware of the history of the use of Agent Orange and other substances used by the USA in the area of herbicidal warfare, and the attempts, successful at the time, of the USA to keep Agent Orange from being classified as a chemical or biological weapon. Millions and millions of SE Asians were made ill by our use of Agent Orange. The attempts of you and others here to state that our hands are clean in use of chemical weapons is pathetic. |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, 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. Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people. Sheesh. Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is... "Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser. Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and Vietnam War." You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs. |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/2017 3:55 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 3:30 PM, Tim wrote: On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 1:44:16 PM UTC-5, 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. You're gasping for air Harry. Bull****. I'm aware of the history of the use of Agent Orange and other substances used by the USA in the area of herbicidal warfare, and the attempts, successful at the time, of the USA to keep Agent Orange from being classified as a chemical or biological weapon. Millions and millions of SE Asians were made ill by our use of Agent Orange. The attempts of you and others here to state that our hands are clean in use of chemical weapons is pathetic. Nobody said their use was "clean" or that they were not misused. Greg posed the question as to why napalm and phosphorus were "legal" for use but sarin (a nerve gas) is illegal. The legality or illegality is governed by international law. That was the question that started this thread. You've taken it off in another direction entirely, as usual. |
Busy day at the office ...
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 2:55:42 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 3:30 PM, Tim wrote: On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 1:44:16 PM UTC-5, 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. You're gasping for air Harry. Bull****. I'm aware of the history of the use of Agent Orange and other substances used by the USA in the area of herbicidal warfare, and the attempts, successful at the time, of the USA to keep Agent Orange from being classified as a chemical or biological weapon. Millions and millions of SE Asians were made ill by our use of Agent Orange. The attempts of you and others here to state that our hands are clean in use of chemical weapons is pathetic. Harry, who is bringing guilt an innocence into this. No one but you. you're trying to throw the subject. You do that a lot when you have no more corners to back into. AO is a chemical defoliant and the majority of the Us military who were effected by it would tell you it's a defoliant that wasn't intended nor used as a chemical weapon. They didn't realize that if you got splattered with it you'd develop weird cancers 20 and 30 years later. who knew? You're trying to make a case out of nothing Harry. You're really looking desperate. |
Busy day at the office ...
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 3:04:08 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 3:55 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 3:30 PM, Tim wrote: On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 1:44:16 PM UTC-5, 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. You're gasping for air Harry. Bull****. I'm aware of the history of the use of Agent Orange and other substances used by the USA in the area of herbicidal warfare, and the attempts, successful at the time, of the USA to keep Agent Orange from being classified as a chemical or biological weapon. Millions and millions of SE Asians were made ill by our use of Agent Orange. The attempts of you and others here to state that our hands are clean in use of chemical weapons is pathetic. Nobody said their use was "clean" or that they were not misused. Greg posed the question as to why napalm and phosphorus were "legal" for use but sarin (a nerve gas) is illegal. The legality or illegality is governed by international law. That was the question that started this thread. You've taken it off in another direction entirely, as usual. Harry seems to love having knee-jerk reactions. Especially when he has no where else to go. |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/2017 3:57 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, 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. Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people. Sheesh. Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is... "Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser. Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and Vietnam War." You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs. 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. |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/17 4:03 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 3:55 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 3:30 PM, Tim wrote: On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 1:44:16 PM UTC-5, 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. You're gasping for air Harry. Bull****. I'm aware of the history of the use of Agent Orange and other substances used by the USA in the area of herbicidal warfare, and the attempts, successful at the time, of the USA to keep Agent Orange from being classified as a chemical or biological weapon. Millions and millions of SE Asians were made ill by our use of Agent Orange. The attempts of you and others here to state that our hands are clean in use of chemical weapons is pathetic. Nobody said their use was "clean" or that they were not misused. Greg posed the question as to why napalm and phosphorus were "legal" for use but sarin (a nerve gas) is illegal. The legality or illegality is governed by international law. That was the question that started this thread. You've taken it off in another direction entirely, as usual. Not at all. The point is that "we" are not the innocents in the use of chemical weapons. We've used them, and knowingly. Their use is horrific, no matter who uses them. Our hands are not clean. |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/17 4:13 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/9/2017 3:57 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, 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. Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people. Sheesh. Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is... "Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser. Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and Vietnam War." You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs. 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. Oh. Napalm's "official" use. Well, that explains it. I hope you have a pair of rubber hip boots. We are as guilty of using chemical warfare as Syria. |
Busy day at the office ...
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:57:59 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, 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. Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people. Sheesh. Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is... "Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser. Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and Vietnam War." You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs. 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. |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/2017 4:13 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 4:03 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 3:55 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 3:30 PM, Tim wrote: On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 1:44:16 PM UTC-5, 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. You're gasping for air Harry. Bull****. I'm aware of the history of the use of Agent Orange and other substances used by the USA in the area of herbicidal warfare, and the attempts, successful at the time, of the USA to keep Agent Orange from being classified as a chemical or biological weapon. Millions and millions of SE Asians were made ill by our use of Agent Orange. The attempts of you and others here to state that our hands are clean in use of chemical weapons is pathetic. Nobody said their use was "clean" or that they were not misused. Greg posed the question as to why napalm and phosphorus were "legal" for use but sarin (a nerve gas) is illegal. The legality or illegality is governed by international law. That was the question that started this thread. You've taken it off in another direction entirely, as usual. Not at all. The point is that "we" are not the innocents in the use of chemical weapons. We've used them, and knowingly. Their use is horrific, no matter who uses them. Our hands are not clean. Who the **** said they were? Geezus Harry, if you are going to play, pay attention, will you? |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/2017 4:14 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/9/17 4:13 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 3:57 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, 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. Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people. Sheesh. Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is... "Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser. Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and Vietnam War." You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs. 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. Oh. Napalm's "official" use. Well, that explains it. I hope you have a pair of rubber hip boots. We are as guilty of using chemical warfare as Syria. Better watch out for some North Korean Tomahawks over your house tonight. |
Busy day at the office ...
On 4/9/2017 4:16 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 15:57:59 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 4/9/17 3:45 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/9/2017 2:44 PM, 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. Greg's question was why napalm and white phosphorus are not banned but nerve gases like sarin are. Agent Orange is in the same category as napalm ... a defoliant. We were not discussing the effects on people. Sheesh. Oh. Napalm is a defoliant. Right. Even Wikipedia knows what napalm is... "Napalm is a flammable liquid used in warfare. It is a mixture of a gelling agent and either gasoline (petrol) or a similar fuel. It was initially used as an incendiary device against buildings and later primarily as an anti-personnel weapon, as it sticks to skin and causes severe burns when on fire. Napalm was developed in 1942 in a secret laboratory at Harvard University, by a team led by chemist Louis Fieser. Its first recorded use was in the European theatre of war during World War II. It was used extensively by the US in incendiary attacks on Japanese cities in World War II as well as during the Korean War and Vietnam War." You militarists are full of **** higher than your eyeballs. 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. John, where was napalm usually dropped? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com