When are chemical weapons not chemical weapons?

RE: You really are obsessed by USA

Didn't they opt out of a ban on white phosphorus, which is the loophole they're using to claim that they did not use illegal weapons? i.e. if the Brits used it they would be accused of a war crime as they have labelled it an illegal chemical weapon.

 

RE: There's nothing about WP bullets?

Rounds aren't necessarily bullets (and aren't in this case) it refers to rounds of ammunition. Pretty much indiscriminate killing with a substance that most countries have banned.

 

A round is a bullet is a round is a bullet

Shot by a gun anyway. For the use of killing people.

"The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships"

 

RE: A round is a bullet is a round is a bullet

It isn't the same thing. Would you rather someone shot at you with a rifle or a cannon?

I agree that both are methods of killing people, but so is carpet bombing. Would carpet bombing a country be an appropriate means of liberating it?

There is also the initial point about GWB's double standards: Saddam uses White Phosphorus and it's grounds for invading the country and removing the head of state, but when the US use it it's fine - why?

 

As was my initial point

I don't think either way is the right way to go. We've created a mess and looking at the side issues just stops people looking at the whole point of should we actually be there.

As to whether a bullet is a round, well it's just semantics isn't it? A bullet is a projectile shot from a gun. These phosphorous rounds were projectiles shot from a gun. There's no difference. Acky claimed I had no right to be talking about WP rounds because that's not what the article is about. It's exactly what the article is about. I called them bullets not rounds. Does that mean you didn't understand what I meant?

 

PS

If I had the choice I'd rather just not be shot, which is what I attempted to say. I made the schoolboy error of trying to say it in a humourous way. Rifle or cannon would make no difference to me, I'd be dead.

 

RE: There's nothing about WP bullets?

Oh, you even put a full stop in so I knew which swear words you were using, im touched.

Anyhow make your mind up, you said nothing about rounds in the first post, you said bullets - there is a massive difference, especially in the use of a round to distribute a chemical based weapon that burns when exposed to oxygen such as white phosphorus.

WP rounds are fired in order to cast the substance over a large area indiscriminantly, they often explode in mid-air. It will burn you to death and it falls from the sky. If you put it out with water it will carry on burning once the water has dried up. That's why chemical weapons are banned by most countries.

 

RE: As was my initial point

I understand what you meant but disagree with the confusion over terms.

 

RE: PS

Ah, but with a cannon your family and neighbours would probably be dead too.

 

RE: Ok, just for you love

Might have known you'd sit on the fence. Why not just call something for what it is regardless of who is responsible? The US went there to remove 'chemical and biological weapons' from Saddam and ended up using them on the Iraqi poeple themselves. If that's the sort of people you want to associate yourself with then go ahead.

 

did you just label the entire United States of America

as 'that kind of people'?

 

So what you were really arguing with me about

Was the definitions of bullets and rounds. 'kin 'ell, I really should watch what I say, even though my dictionary and thesaurus don't help me as they claim them to be the same thing. Projectiles shot from a gun.

As I tried to say in a humorous way that you interpreted as me going off on one, dead is dead. Surely the fact that our armies have invaded a country and are killing the locals is the big problem here isn't it? Or is killing them all right so long as we do it with those lovely conventional bullets?

 

RE: did you just label the entire United States of America

sorry, 'SORT of people'

 

But thats life son

For what purpose is your crusade ?

I for one seem to be missing the point

 

i can help out here

Bullet: a projectile shot by a gun, usually made of a metal alloy. In contrast to a shell, a bullet does not contain explosives. The term bullet refers specifically to the metal slug that is propelled from a firearm. A cartridge without a bullet is called a blank

Round: A cartridge (firearms), a single unit of ammunition. A cartridge or round packages the bullet, gunpowder and primer into a single metallic case.


So a round without a bullet is a blank. If it isn't a round then surely essentially they are pretty much the same thing.

 

In this case...

bullet = rifle
round = gun/cannon

Yes it is an issue that innocents are being killed, but when you use indiscriminate killing methods that's always going to be the case. With a rifle you can see who you are shooting at more clearly and are less likely to kill everybody else in the street as a by-product.

It's like comparing conventional weapons with nuclear weapons - "dead is dead" right?

 

RE: There's nothing about WP bullets?

I think Mr Frodo has been in the company of Gollum too much

 

RE: i can help out here

"In contrast to a shell, a bullet does not contain explosives."

A WP round would be a shell containing WP, no bullets involved.

 

RE: As was my initial point

Can't believe you're arguing about this whilst innocent children die in the futile pursuit of "freedom".

You two should be shot

 

RE: As was my initial point

Thankyou, but would you like to shoot us with bullets or WP rounds?