Chemical weapons

peterchen

Yes, Iran did too, and the "mass-slaughtered civilians" got caught inbetween.

If you go to war, you will destroy a great country a stoned greek chick to the richest man of the world
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

KaRl

You forget WWI, chemical warfares are WMD

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Marc Clifton

This is not the same thing. Why? What's the difference between dropping a bomb on a city vs. herding entire populations into gas chambers, and in the process killing millions more than died by atomic bombs? Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka
Microsoft deliberately adds arbitrary layers of complexity to make it difficult to deliver Windows features on non-Windows platforms--Microsoft's "Halloween files"

Jon Newman

OK, in reply to all the replies i got to this. By funny, i meant, its a bit ironic that they have such a passion against them. And also, if you want a generic description of what WMD's are and where to draw the lines. The only 'real' WMD is human beings. Dubya will be a WMD if he goes ahead. Saddam is a WMD. The guy next door could be a WMD if he filled a can with anthrax and set it off in a large buldings ventilation system. Its all a matter of opinion. However, Dubya seems to mean CNB weapons. Which to me means, obviously nukes, large rockets with large quantities of poison gas or rockets with a bi-agent that could take out a city. My definition of 'mass destruction' is a city-wide disaster/explosion/whatever or more, i.e. a nuke, a rocket of poison gas etc...
I walk these roads, I climb these mountains, Though they are nothing, But paths and hills, for the only mountain is success, and the only road is life.

Lost User

Sadly, I agree. Knee jerk responses to this kind of subject are depressing. The tigress is here :-D

Nitron

I understand that. What I don't get is how it's funny? I don't recall anyone laughing when the US ended the war with [edit]atom[/edit] bombs. - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Dy

Funny as in ironic, not as in "ha-ha". Just a fugure of speach.

Dylan

Rohit Sinha

Jonny Newman wrote: By funny, i meant, its a bit ironic that they have such a passion against them. Why don't you edit your original post to indicate this? It seems a lot of people are taking the word "funny" literally. And besides, I think it can be argued that because the US has used those weapons, they know what kind of catastrophic effect it can have, and don't want it to happen again.
Regards,

Rohit Sinha

Character is like a tree, and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.
- Abraham Lincoln

The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going.
- Anonymous

Chris Maunder

I think he meant: funny == ironic cheers, Chris Maunder

Nitron

Dylan Kenneally wrote: Funny as in ironic Ok, then how is it ironic? Since the claim is that the US was the only country ever to use WMD, then only the US should have the right to say they know the results first hand, and never want it repeated. Remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a different time, with different thinking. Like Slavery or the Roman Empire. Sure it seems like a bad idea looking back on it, but the times and the rationalization was different. - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Chris Losinger

Marc Clifton wrote: What's the difference between dropping a bomb on a city vs. herding entire populations into gas chambers in one case, you do the job from a plane 3 miles up (or these days, from an underground bunker or a submarine). in the other, you stand there and watch actual people walk into the chamber. one is cold and sterile, the other is brutal and cruel. i don't think either is really much less evil than the other. -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

Nitron

OK, we cleared up the "funny" part. Now you say: Jonny Newman wrote: the US is so anti-WMD when it is the only country to have used them against another country Well, then does this not grant the US the right to be the only country to claim they know first-hand the internal consequences of using such weapons? Thus the US does not want such a thing repeated. No other country can make that claim. - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Chris Losinger

Nitron wrote: I don't recall anyone laughing when the US ended the war with hydrogen bombs. well, they didn't use hydrogen bombs. nobody has ever used a hydrogen bomb on anything but a test range. in 1945, they used good old atomic/fission bombs. a hydrogen bomb is a fusion device - and is essentially a fission bomb wrapped in a layer of material that will go into a fusion reaction when the atomic bomb goes off. it's like an M-80 inside a can of gasoline. -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

Nitron

Chris Losinger wrote: they didn't use hydrogen bombs discrepency noted. thanks. - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Jon Newman

Rohit Sinha wrote: Why don't you edit your original post to indicate this? Will do. Rohit Sinha wrote: And besides, I think it can be argued that because the US has used those weapons, they know what kind of catastrophic effect it can have, and don't want it to happen again. I think the Japanese have a good idea of how it felt too. They knew it would be catastrophic. It to me was for many reasons. One being to stop the Japanese, which IMHO could have been done in conventional ways. and Two, to show the Russians what they could do.
I walk these roads, I climb these mountains, Though they are nothing, But paths and hills, for the only mountain is success, and the only road is life.

Jon Newman

Is the US going to clean up the entire world of WMD? If so shouldn't it start with itself? I'm not sure of the figures, but the US has a substantial number of tactical nukes and other weapons that could devastate a large nation. Leading by example should be taken over leading by 'bullying'. PLus, if the US is so 'pro-democracy' in the sense that it wants to spread democracy to the rest of the world. Why is it threatening to go ahead with the war with or without the UN, which is a democratic orgonisation itself is it not, at its core.
I walk these roads, I climb these mountains, Though they are nothing, But paths and hills, for the only mountain is success, and the only road is life.

Nitron

Jonny Newman wrote: Is the US going to clean up the entire world of WMD? No. Just take them out of the hands of people who wouldn't hesitate to use them. I am pretty certain the US would surely "hesitate", as would other countries who have such power. Jonny Newman wrote: with or without the UN, which is a democratic orgonisation itself is it not, at its core. Well, not when oil's involved. From what I can tell is that France and Russia don't want in on it because they have oil deals that they don't want to lose. Although only the US is is interested in the oil, right :~ - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

benjymous

Jonny Newman wrote: * hope this makes my point clearer to understand Only to the proble who understand irony... -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!

Jon Newman

Nitron wrote: as would other countries who have such power. But Iraq has such power and the US say they will use them. Nitron wrote: Although only the US is is interested in the oil, right Well, it would give them an insentive to go for Iraq, there are bigger and worse fish out there, but this little fish has a lot of money behind it. I was watching a program on TV here last night. A debate set in new york and Amman, getting opinions on both sides of divide (so to speak). THe americans who were for the war seemed to think that it was right for them to have an interference policy in other countries. They didn't seem to realise that a war would only create more terrorism and general hatred in the Middle-East. Do americans not stop to think WHY they are hated? its not because of their 'wonderfull democracy' or religious grounds. The religious side is sparked up from existing hatred that exists because the US has an aggressive presence in that part of the world. A war will NOT stop the hatred, only cause more. I'm not anti-american, I'm just anti-'the opinion americans have of their influence in the world'. Ok this may be a product of government propoganda/persuasion. An american woman on this debate at one point said: "The UN shouldnt decide, that allows Chilli and angola to decide, why should they decide? America is the superpower, we went into Kosovo, we should go into Iraq" :omg: Why does the US have more right to invade another country influence another country than any another country?
I walk these roads, I climb these mountains, Though they are nothing, But paths and hills, for the only mountain is success, and the only road is life.

Jon Newman

benjymous wrote: Only to the proble who understand irony... Those people would have got stuck at the "push-pull" sign on the door.
I walk these roads, I climb these mountains, Though they are nothing, But paths and hills, for the only mountain is success, and the only road is life.