When are chemical weapons not chemical weapons?

RE: Ok, just for you love

I was making a comment that war is not something you can govern as though it's a game of football or something. That if your opponent isn't fighting to the rules of engagement then that puts you at a disadvantage.
I'm not "associating" myself with any "sort of people".
Back in the 19th century the rules of engagement were that you'd arrange a battlefield to meet on and a time to commence hostilities - look at what happened in 1914 when somebody decided to dispense with those niceties.
What did you want the US military to do - sit back and wait til they were sprayed with white phosphorus.

 

RE: Ok, just for you love

The difference being that Iraq no longer possessed such weapons.

 

But you put rounds in a rifle

There may be an actual definition that differentiates between a bullet and a round, but I haven't found one. The two are interchangeable and are used as such. What you are referring to as a round is what I thought was commonly referred to as a shell. But all that is beside the point, when I used the word 'bullet' you knew damn well what I meant.

Nuclear? No it's not the same. It's the amount of people that are killed and the after effects that have to be questioned in that instance.

Do I want chemical weapons using? No, of course I don't. Horrible, horrible things. Gerram banned. However, is that as important to me as the thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis that have been killed so far using conventional weapons. No, it's not.

 

dead is dead

apparantly

 

RE: But you put rounds in a rifle

When you used the word bullet I wasn't actually sure what you meant.

The point about nuclear weapons are that they are indiscriminate, have horrific effects and after effects and are condemned by the international community - which is the same as chemical weapons.

I agree, the number of innocents killed by using both conventional and chemical weapons is disgraceful. Nobody is saying that the usage of chemical weapons overshadows that fact, it just adds to it in my opinion. In the same way as the image of the young Vietnamese girl covered in Napalm highlights the killing and injuring of innocents in Vietnam.

 

RE: So what you were really arguing with me about

I went off on one? LOL Anyhow........water off a ducks back.......

The article used the word 'round' several times. You then used the word 'bullet', given the the article and the context of how it was being used what did you expect me to think? There may be no difference in the dictionary definition between the two but in the real world there's a massive difference on how it effects people and how they are used.

And no, of course the deaths of all people matter regardless of how they died, the point was, which you originally missed/ignored was that whilst Saddam was removed for using these disgusting weapons, the US government is now doing so.

 

RE: Ok, just for you love

Which we found out after we invaded.

Saddam consistently refused full access to the weapons inspectors - why? Probably because if they had reported that there were, categorically, no WMD he'd have had Iran paying a visit pretty damned sharpish.
He was playing a game of bluff and counter-bluff that backfired on him, he was relying on the toothlessness of the UN.

 

RE: Ok, just for you love

We knew that before we invaded. A UN report in 2002 stated that there was no renewed chemical weapons program and Saddam hadn't used them since the 80's.

That and their stocks were destroyed between 92 and 94.

 

RE: But you put rounds in a rifle

Well said.

 

"I went off on one? LOL Anyhow........water off a ducks back......."

You see the problem? I never accused you of going off on one. And after all that about me not reading what you write...

Bullets are not rounds then. Right, I'll remember that. The news is going to be confusing in future.

 

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

I was referring to 'those sorts of people' in the US government who make decisions to allow the use of such weapons. Not the kind of people Id want to associate with since we went in their to remove WMD. See my point?

 

"Nothing but ideologists with absolutely no idea. "

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! and what are you?!!

 

no I don't see your point

You don't want to be associated with the US government? Well I hate to be the one to break this to you Acky but there has never been any danger of anyone associating you with them on account of you being an insignificant nobody just like me.

 

Mr Brown, long time no see

How are you? And how's the wonderful F?

 

I've decide to become super boring about this

The following is from the Telegraph about the shooting of that Brazilian bloke in the tube station.

"Several witnesses said he was shot on the floor of the carriage by an officer who fired four or five rounds to the head. Security experts suggested that the severity of these tactics meant police were treating the man as a possible suicide bomber, perhaps wearing a bomb belt. Forensic tests indicated that he had no explosives."

Were they like bombs he shot in his head then? Or chemical weapons or summat?

 

lol

 

RE: Ok, just for you love

Were you referring to Iraq here? Cos clearly those Iraqis running around in flip flop, baggy pants and kalashnikov's are far dirtier than the US with the largest armoury of weapons, tanks, bombs, chemical weapons and planes on the planet. You went on and on about Saddam and chemical weapons yet you're trying your best here to somehow make it sound like its 'not so bad' in some weird way.

See, you are associating yourself with them because you're tacitly defending the US's use of chemical weapons even though those they are fighting haven't used or got any form of chemical weapons.

It's amazing how you manage to hold two completely contradictory views in your own head at the same time and use each one (whilst forgetting the other) when it suits you're argument.

More Orwell 'Doublethink'.

 

LOL

 

LOL

Is anyone in your family capable of an original thought?

 

RE: I've decide to become super boring about this

No - they were forcing rounds of vodka shots down his neck!

You've bloody gone and done it now haven't you - gone and brought the Brazilian shooting into it.