Bush is going to veto a bill to fund the troops!

burritos · May 2, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ May 2 2007, 12:45 PM) [snapback]434077[/snapback]</div>

Adolph Hitler gassed his own citizens with chemical weapons. It is worth noting that a Democratic president wanted to go to war against Hitler, but met with significant Republican opposition. This is the reason we didn't enter the war against Germany until after December 7th, 1941. Germany was allied with Japan, and when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, we pretty much automatically declared war on Germany by default.

In August 1914 (the first month of World War I), xylyl bromide was used on European battlefields. Who used it? Surprisingly, the French! Germany followed up by using chemical weapons in October of that same year on the western front, and early the following year on the eastern front. Weapons development escalated when the Germans began using chlorine gas in April 1915. The British began using chlorine gas on the battlefield in September 1915 at the battle of Loos (that backfired on the Brits when prevailing winds blew the gas toward their own troops). Over the course of the war, the weapons technology was refined by both sides - phosgene and yperite (commonly known as mustard gas) were used. There were other variations used as well, but all fall into the category of chemical weapons. The Germans used 68,000 tons of chemical weapon during World War One. The British and French used 61,000 tons.

Others? Spain used Chemical weapons in Spanish Morraco in 1924 (the Third Rif War). Libya used chemical weapons in their war against Chad in 1987. U.S. troops gave smallpox-infected blankets to native American tribes in the mid 1800's, in hopes of wiping them out with disease (the British did something similar in the 1700's). in 1935/36, mustard gas was heavily used in Ethopia (against warriors from Abyssinie). Between 1937 and 1941, the Japanese used chemical weapons in China (read up on the battle of Yichang). Egypt used mustard gas in Yemen in the mid-1960's.

During the 1980's, both the Soviet Union and the United States significantly increased Chemical weapons production. The U.S. had ceased production in the late 1960's, but began significant production in 1987.

And yes, Saddam did use chemical weapons against his own people, and against Iran in the 1980's. Of course, this shouldn't be a surprise to anyway in the U.S., because the Reagan administration had been selling Saddam Hussein Bacillus Anthracis (anthrax),Clostridium Botulinum, Histoplasma Capsulatum, Brucella Melitensis, and Clostridium Perfringens. Dr. Berman, would you care to flex your medical knowledge and remind us what those substances are good for?

Worth noting that at this time, Ayatollah Khomeini wanted the United States and the rest of the world to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he was using chemical weapons (a violation of the 1925 Geneva convention). The United States responded with the position that usage of chemical weapons (internally or externally) was not justification for regime change. Here's the quote:

<blockquote>"The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."

</blockquote>So, chemical weapons have a huge history, and have been used many times by many different governments, including governments the United States were allied with. The United States used defoliants such as Agent Orange in Vietnam. While those are technically defoliants, they had the effect of being chemical weapons - causing death injury, and birth defects to this day. AirportKid brings up the point that Truman used nuclear weapons twice on people... we're the only country that has done this. While I believe the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima (and to a lesser extent, Nagasaki) were justified, they are still WMD's, and need to be recognized as such.
Based on Mr. Cheney's history of truth-telling, I don't believe any of what he says. If fact, he was on Rush Limbaugh's show the other week talking about Saddam Hussein's unquestionable ties to the September 11th attacks. This is odd, because the White House has consistantly denied that they've ever linked Saddam Hussein to 9/11 (including just this week!).

Cheney is a liar, and has no credibility among reasonable people.
[/b]
Click to expand...

OMG! Squid and dberman, how does it feel to be so owned? Is danoday your daddy?

danoday · May 2, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 2 2007, 10:57 AM) [snapback]434139[/snapback]</div>

Historical information as such has little to no value in TODAY'S political landscape. Saddam was, and had been, the only real "loose cannon" when it came to WMD's in RECENT times.[/b]
Click to expand...

Really? History isn't significant? You asked for other heads of state who have employed weapons of mass destruction - I gave you a laundry list of nations (granted, I only named a couple of actual heads of those nations, but this is really a moot point for the argument) and when they used them. I also told you what materials we provided to Iraq; this essentially 'created' Iraq's 1980's WMD program. Evidence suggests that Saddam gave up his WMD's at the end of the first Gulf war in 1991 (despite Cheney's assertions to the contrary), twelve years before we invaded. That history isn't significant?

Let's clarify - the Reagan administration supplied Saddam Hussein with the materials to manufacture chemical and biological weapons (WMD's), knowing full well that he would use them on Iran (which he did). The U.S., therefore, knowingly played a part in violating international law banning the use of chemical weapons. The U.S. is entirely culpable in this. In this case, international law is apparently malleable (by your interpretation), I guess. We can violate the law ourselves without repercussions, but can stage a regime-changing invasion by claiming that the same laws are being violated by someone else. We can also look the other way when it suits our needs.

Now, you are probably going to say that the rules have changed... they haven't. In 1986, the U.S. bombed Libya in retaliation for a terrorist attack on a German nightclub frequented by U.S. servicemen... so we were responding to nations that sponsored terrorism even then.

efusco · May 2, 2007

Game
Set &
Match!

Mystery Squid · May 2, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ May 2 2007, 03:25 PM) [snapback]434156[/snapback]</div>

Really? History isn't significant? You asked for other heads of state who have employed weapons of mass destruction - I gave you a laundry list of nations (granted, I only named a couple of actual heads of those nations, but this is really a moot point for the argument) and when they used them. I also told you what materials we provided to Iraq; this essentially 'created' Iraq's 1980's WMD program. Evidence suggests that Saddam gave up his WMD's at the end of the first Gulf war in 1991 (despite Cheney's assertions to the contrary), twelve years before we invaded. That history isn't significant?

Let's clarify - the Reagan administration supplied Saddam Hussein with the materials to manufacture chemical and biological weapons (WMD's), knowing full well that he would use them on Iran (which he did). The U.S., therefore, knowingly played a part in violating international law banning the use of chemical weapons. The U.S. is entirely culpable in this. In this case, international law is apparently malleable (by your interpretation), I guess. We can violate the law ourselves without repercussions, but can stage a regime-changing invasion by claiming that the same laws are being violated by someone else. We can also look the other way when it suits our needs.

Now, you are probably going to say that the rules have changed... they haven't. In 1986, the U.S. bombed Libya in retaliation for a terrorist attack on a German nightclub frequented by U.S. servicemen... so we were responding to nations that sponsored terrorism even then.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Actually, the only thing I'm going to say, is simply to re-emphasize I will not argue the point any further. The point is moot, I won't convince you of anything and vice-versa...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ May 2 2007, 03:28 PM) [snapback]434158[/snapback]</div>

Game
Set &
Match!
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure, when everyone sees it the same way.... :lol:

Matters not though, Bush still invaded 2 countries, toppled 2 governments, killed Saddam and his sons...

You can argue right/wrong/criminal all you want. What's done is already done (and rightfully so mind you), YOUR arguments are all moot in this respect.

danoday · May 2, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 2 2007, 10:57 AM) [snapback]434139[/snapback]</div>

On top of that, just because no evidence might exist linking Iraq with Al Queda (even though Al Queda NOW openly states their association) at the time, most certainly doesn't mean there were none.[/b]
Click to expand...

OK, I think we've gotten to the bottom of things. Mystery Squid, even though there is absolutely no evidence that you planned and helped execute the 9/11 attacks, I hereby call for your arrest and detention for the murder of 3000 Americans.

Please go to your nearest FBI office and turn yourself in right away. You might want to call ahead and let them know you are coming.

Mystery Squid · May 2, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ May 2 2007, 03:32 PM) [snapback]434163[/snapback]</div>

OK, I think we've gotten to the bottom of things. Mystery Squid, even though there is absolutely no evidence that you planned and helped execute the 9/11 attacks, I hereby call for your arrest and detention for the murder of 3000 Americans.

Please go to your nearest FBI office and turn yourself in right away. You might want to call ahead and let them know you are coming.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, there's a pretty high degree of likelihood I'm a terrorist...

Try living in the REAL world for a while, not within this ridiculous utopia of "fairness, law, and evidence" that makes you feel better at night...

Pinto Girl · May 2, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 30 2007, 08:20 PM) [snapback]432925[/snapback]</div>

Pissing and moaning about the war now is truly a waste.
It's like complaining about the condom breaking when the kid's two years old.

[/b]
Click to expand...

Right...when, instead, we should be investing in the child's college fund.

So, regarding Iraq...are we?

efusco · May 2, 2007

Yea, 'cause the world of self-rightous presumption of guilt and egocentric sense of national superiority is a much better world.

Mystery Squid · May 2, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ May 2 2007, 03:37 PM) [snapback]434167[/snapback]</div>

Yea, 'cause the world of self-rightous presumption of guilt and egocentric sense of national superiority is a much better world.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Personally, I think it's nothing more than a global game of "King of the Hill". Do you really think a country like, let's say China, is going to "hold back" on someday achieving "Super Power" status in some utopic effort to coexist in a peaceful, equally spread power-balanced world? I'm not betting THEIR foreign policy on it. All things considered, I'd rather be at the top than be dictated to at the bottom.

Darwood · May 2, 2007

Oh fun, metaphor time, per squidward!
How about:
The nail that sticks up gets hammered! As in most of the world view as as fat, greedy, and trigger happy, and everyone likes to root for the underdogs. When peak oil is acknowledged, there will be billions of fingers outside the US, pointed squarely at us.

China's got their own set of problems. I'm not real worried about a Chineses attack on America (their main business customer). Without Americans buying useless plastic crap from China, their economic boom will turn to bust rather quickly. The real enemy to the US is...........OURSELVES!

burritos · May 2, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 2 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]434175[/snapback]</div>

Personally, I think it's nothing more than a global game of "King of the Hill". Do you really think a country like, let's say China, is going to "hold back" on someday achieving "Super Power" status in some utopic effort to coexist in a peaceful, equally spread power-balanced world? I'm not betting THEIR foreign policy on it. All things considered, I'd rather be at the top than be dictated to at the bottom.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Great Britain used to be the king of the hill. Since we've usurped them they've done just dandy. As to your assertion that China's going to be some threat, do you envision their invading us someday? Do they have a long record of invading other nations(like us)? They're existence and power depends solely on the consumption of the western world. They can't be powerful without the likes of us as customers. So I doubt they'll be invading us or any other western nation in the near future as their power relies on a relies on a benevolent coexistence with ourselves and the eurodollar.

Pinto Girl · May 2, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 2 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]434175[/snapback]</div>

Personally, I think it's nothing more than a global game of "King of the Hill". Do you really think a country like, let's say China, is going to "hold back" on someday achieving "Super Power" status in some utopic effort to coexist in a peaceful, equally spread power-balanced world? I'm not betting THEIR foreign policy on it. All things considered, I'd rather be at the top than be dictated to at the bottom.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Just because America has been a bit ruthless in pursuing its version of 'civilization,' doesn't necessarily mean that others will be too.

Perhaps your viewpoint is a bit too grounded in Western history...?

China has just as much/just as little right as we do, to move their country towards their goals. If it's okay for us, it's okay for them. If it's not okay for them, then it's not okay for us, either.

Are you saying that, now that we've built up this huge infrastructure over the last 75 years in the USA (on the back of cheap and plentiful energy, and with only recent efforts to curb pollution), we're suddenly going to change the rules and not allow the same over there? Doesn't that seem a bit duplicious, especially since we still put out such tremendous amounts of greenhouse gasses (if you even believe that sort of thing).

What happened to your American competitiveness? If you really believe in America, then you also believe that we still have what it takes to rise to ANY challenge.

You do believe in America, don't you? This concerns me.

burritos · May 2, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 2 2007, 03:13 PM) [snapback]434198[/snapback]</div>

What happened to your American competitiveness? If you really believe in America, then you also believe that we still have what it takes to rise to ANY challenge.

You do believe in America, don't you? This concerns me.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Historically every hegemony has come to an end.

scargi01 · May 2, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ May 2 2007, 02:06 PM) [snapback]434192[/snapback]</div>

The real enemy to the US is...........OURSELVES!
[/b]
Click to expand...

And that, folks, is why the democrats continue to lose presidential elections, even when possessing superior talent.

F8L · May 2, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ May 2 2007, 04:17 PM) [snapback]434328[/snapback]</div>

And that, folks, is why the democrats continue to lose presidential elections, even when possessing superior talent.
[/b]
Click to expand...

The truth hurts....

It's too bad simple-minded folk can't accept the truth and they keep electing people with a propensity for doing the wrong things. That just strengthens the original quote.

jimmyrose · May 2, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 2 2007, 02:57 PM) [snapback]434139[/snapback]</div>

Saddam was, and had been, the only real "loose cannon" when it came to WMD's in RECENT times. [/b]
Click to expand...

Yeah, that lil' guy over there in North Korea - the one who didn't hide the fact that he was developing nuclear weapons and refused to let the investigators in...he wasn't a "real loose cannon when it came to WMD's in RECENT times"?

It is, however, reassuring that we have someone here on FHOP to distinguish what history is significant and what isn't for the rest of us. Nothing like throwing out a challenge and then whining when someone steps up. "Owned" is right on.

danoday · May 2, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ May 2 2007, 07:22 PM) [snapback]434485[/snapback]</div>

It is, however, reassuring that we have someone here on FHOP to distinguish what history is significant and what isn't for the rest of us.[/b]
Click to expand...

All history is significant until we choose to ignore it. Then, it tends to repeat itself.

KD6HDX · May 3, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ May 2 2007, 01:06 PM) [snapback]434192[/snapback]</div>

Oh fun, metaphor time, per squidward!
How about:
The nail that sticks up gets hammered!
[/b]
Click to expand...

How about:
A: If the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail.

zapranoth · May 3, 2007

Squid hasn't answered the question about how it feels to be so thoroughly owned.

Dbermann has at least had the grace to stay silent.

scargi01 · May 3, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 2 2007, 05:45 PM) [snapback]434342[/snapback]</div>

The truth hurts....

It's too bad simple-minded folk can't accept the truth and they keep electing people with a propensity for doing the wrong things. That just strengthens the original quote.
[/b]
Click to expand...

So if they elect a democrat next time they won't be simple minded anymore? Somehow the same schmucks that voted in Bush would then be enlightened? You do realize how arrogant that quote sounds, I hope?

Bush is going to veto a bill to fund the troops!

burritos Senior Member

danoday Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

Mystery Squid Junior Member

danoday Member

Mystery Squid Junior Member

Pinto Girl New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

Mystery Squid Junior Member

Darwood Senior Member

burritos Senior Member

Pinto Girl New Member

burritos Senior Member

scargi01 Active Member

F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

jimmyrose Member

danoday Member

KD6HDX New Member

zapranoth New Member

scargi01 Active Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

Bush is going to veto a bill to fund the troops!

burritos Senior Member

danoday Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

Mystery Squid Junior Member

danoday Member

Mystery Squid Junior Member

Pinto Girl New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

Mystery Squid Junior Member

Darwood Senior Member

burritos Senior Member

Pinto Girl New Member

burritos Senior Member

scargi01 Active Member

F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

jimmyrose Member

danoday Member

KD6HDX New Member

zapranoth New Member

scargi01 Active Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member