Printable View
Didn't offend me at all - it just shows how narrow minded some are when it comes to understanding soldiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
Its a par for the corse, statement from individuals who have no clue about how the military functions - nor do they wish to actually learn. Some people just like being stuck on their generalizations without attempting to gain knowledge, it seems that maybe you fit this generalization very well.
whatever you say,
you seem rather resentfull and bitter,
Thats a shame,
never mind.
Note to self....
no point talking to redleg
whoa there lil feller if you dont want to talk to someone thats fine but you could at least have the class to say good day. Not to mention Redleg is respected on these boards unlike a few other posters ~:rolleyes:
What a shame that you are rather resentfull and bitter toward soldiers that you feel it is necessary to make such a generalization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
Make a note to yourself concerning this.
Without the soldiers you decided to generalize as brainwashed - you wouldn't be living in a free society. (and I don't mean soldiers from the United States - I am talking about the brave men and women of the United Kingdom that stood up to Hilter and fought Nazi Germany.)
Tell u the truth redleg,
I couldnt give a monkeys wether the romans owned the world, the nazis The brits Or whoever els wants it,
There all gonna make a hell of a mess and Say They were right to murder all those people,
So dont give me that.
Thanx for offering But i think wed be better off with no soldiers Ta,
"gas chambers, white phosperous, roting cows thrown over walls, nukes"
Who cares aslong as you think your right huh
I hate idiots. I mean god forbid you write a sentnence that people could actually read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
Yes thats right,
Resort to insults,
Thats very clever of you.
Maby its you who fails to comprehend.
This is probably where i will stop talking to you,
But please feel free to spout more Childish remarks,
Becuase calling soliders brainwashed isnt an insult~:rolleyes: and its not only that. Its the way you veiw soldiers you wouldnt be able to do half the things under stalin or hitler or pol pot. All you show is a lack of respect and it sickens me
Hence you get back to the earlier statements - and the individual who is bitter and resentful is not I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
i see, You just want to argue about any thing?
Thats fine by me,
PM me,
Just stop wasting these peoples times With your insane arguments of Justification about the use of white phospherous.
Most countrys officials decided
ITS NOT SUPOSED TO BE USED ON PEOPLE.
And then theres you guys with your
"I was in the forces for x Years."
"I know whats best for them"
If you want a pointless argument pm me,
I dont think il bother to post in here again Its redundant.
Oh so you don't like being called on using a generalization is that it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
This thread happens to be about just that subject - so it is approiate and revelant to discuss it here. Next I guess you will want to call me a war criminal for firing WP as a smoke screen in combat, as a marking round for an air strike in combat, and for setting a ammunition and petro dump on fire in combat? All these purposes are what the munition is designed for.Quote:
PM me,
Just stop wasting these peoples times With your insane arguments of Justification about the use of white phospherous.
Who said "I know what best for them." I was in the Field Artillery for over 15 years - I know how the munition is suppose to be used and against what type of targets. Maybe you should go back and read a few comments before making such a generalization. Again before calling someone resentfull and angry - maybe you should evaluate the way in which you decided to post on the topic. You get the treatment that the tone of your statement warrants.Quote:
Most countrys officials decided
ITS NOT SUPOSED TO BE USED ON PEOPLE.
And then theres you guys with your
"I was in the forces for x Years."
"I know whats best for them"
So it seems you can't handle any public discussion that doesn't follow exactly the way you want people to think. Is that it?Quote:
If you want a pointless argument pm me,
I dont think il bother to post in here again Its redundant.
Redleg,Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Once more, I have no problem to accept the dominance of your erudition! To me the use of nukelar weapons against towns is a terrible crime. However, I know that there are many people who think the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were right. Even Ser Clegane, who I think is a very integer person. So I was looking forward to discuss this topic with you and others who share your point of view and learn new arguments.
But I see that I do not have the right to bother you. I will take your advice and search the net.:bow:
Well start a new thread - and I will share - but not in this one. The Truman Library though is a great place to start if you want to review it from source documents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
OK Ill bite. What would you like to know?Quote:
I only dared to ask Gawain for this exchange of arguments and hoped he would let me learn from his superior argumentations.
This thread happens to be about just that subject - so it is approiate and revelant to discuss it here. Next I guess you will want to call me a war criminal for firing WP as a smoke screen in combat, as a marking round for an air strike in combat, and for setting a ammunition and petro dump on fire in combat? All these purposes are what the munition is designed for.
Do you mind if I butt in here Red ~;) Isn't this thread about people using these munitions outside the scope of what they are designed for . So as you used them in the scope of their design then your protestations about possible war crimes are just hot air . Though I must admit that your writings on chemical warfare have been educational , especially your mustard gas(thats a misnomer isn't it) in training exercises , I encountered that wonderful liquid at an old but still active (at the time) British Army depot , nice stuff eh~:eek:
So are your protestations just a smoke screen as it were~D
You know full well the implications of this issue , as it relates to the real issue that has been raised but largely ignored .
Though it must be said that it appears with the latest operations that they have finally taken steps to partially reduce the possible implications of war crimes allegations.
OK Ill bite. What would you like to know?
What is Jordan , and what land is allocated to the state of Israel ~D ~D ~D
I await your superior arguementations , but please try and stick to facts ~;)
Correct -Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Of course it was hot air - or a strawman - because of the comments made by some about the munitions. Two can play the game that is going on around here with this discussion. Anyone care to call me a war criminal because of my ordering 4 howitzers to shoot the munitions at enemy targets - know that when I shot those munitions at the proscribed targets - I also knew that real life human beings were in the area that I shot those muntions - you know Iraqi soldiers.Quote:
So as you used them in the scope of their design then your protestations about possible war crimes are just hot air .
What chemical warfare - I have fired smoke in combat and training. I have fired incendaries in training and in combat.Quote:
Though I must admit that your writings on chemical warfare have been educational
Again it seems you show a bit of a strawman here - apply the correct terms - or not - but now you see why I use the strawman arguement that your attempting to criticize. Calling smoke and incedenary muntions chemical warfare is along the same lines as my strawman above - which you correctly identified - but seems you can't not recongize in your own writings.
Lewisite (SP) and we don't use it in training exercises. I have been around left over agent that stays on the ground for many many years - and its restricted to one area that I am aware of in the United States. Its CS that is used ,common name is Tear gas.Quote:
especially your mustard gas(thats a misnomer isn't it) in training exercises
Been around worse at Dugway -Quote:
, I encountered that wonderful liquid at an old but still active (at the time) British Army depot , nice stuff eh~:eek:
As long as people attempt to call it chemical warfare - I will protest such by informing them where they are incorrect - you can call it smoke screen if you wish - but those who call White phosphorous a chemical weapon are incorrect.Quote:
So are your protestations just a smoke screen as it were~D
Yes the real issue is being ignored chasing the drama of calling smoke munitions and incedary munitions - chemical weapons. However I don't see you jumping off that band wagon and attempting to inform people that they are blowing smoke in labeling them in the wrong terms. When you do that - I will dicuss the real issues involved in better detail - but it seems many are just stuck on emotional appeal and generalizations without knowing what they are talking about.Quote:
You know full well the implications of this issue , as it relates to the real issue that has been raised but largely ignored .
The war crime that possiblity exists will remain until an investigation is done and determines wether or not someone ordered civilians back into the combat zone in which they were trying to flee. Someone needs to be charged if the article Aurelin posted has any facts and truth in it.Quote:
Though it must be said that it appears with the latest operations that they have finally taken steps to partially reduce the possible implications of war crimes allegations.
Calling smoke and incedenary muntions chemical warfare is along the same lines as my strawman above - which you correctly identified - but seems you can't not recongize in your own writings.
Not at all , if the munition is used as it is specified to be used then that is conventional , if however it is used to exploit the caustic/toxic properties of the chemicals contained then it is indeed chemical warfare , even if it is only to scare the people by those properties .And using it in civilian areas is indeed a war crime even if you havn't signed up to the latest protocols as it is in earlier protocals that have been signed .
Shake and Bake falls into the latter .
Still on the bandwagon Red, and I ain't jumping off till there are answers , it will be a long ride , it's lucky I bought a picnic for the hayride.~:joker:
What chemical warfare - I have fired smoke in combat and training. I have fired incendaries in training and in combat.
Didn't you write somewhere about the effects of Mustard on soldiers on the training grounds , was that all residual?
Its CS that is used ,common name is Tear gas.
A variant of , Tear gas/CS isn't a blister agent is it , mouth and eye protection are sufficient to counter that .
Been around worse at Dugway -
yeah , same as , and that was at a defense contractor rather than a defense establishment , this crap is in all sorts of unusual places isn't it , it does freak you out a little when men in funny spacesuits start rounding you up for decontamination don't it .
Tsk TskQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Actually the way the article described the effects is correct - however the targeting was not how I learned that fire mission. The bake was to set the fuel on fire on the T72 and T62 tanks, have to cracked the fuel tanks on the back.Quote:
Shake and Bake falls into the latter
.
Well as long as you want to use Strawman arguements - I will use them in returnQuote:
Still on the bandwagon Red, and I ain't jumping off till there are answers , it will be a long ride , it's lucky I bought a picnic for the hayride.~:joker:
I believe that is what I stated - that it remains on the ground and 50 years later was still effecting soldiers if they walked through it and kicked up dust.Quote:
What chemical warfare - I have fired smoke in combat and training. I have fired incendaries in training and in combat.
Didn't you write somewhere about the effects of Mustard on soldiers on the training grounds , was that all residual?
Nope Tear Gas/CS is used to create confidence in the NBC protective gear.Quote:
Its CS that is used ,common name is Tear gas.
A variant of , Tear gas/CS isn't a blister agent is it , mouth and eye protection are sufficient to counter that .
No what is worse is when you see the sign and don't pay attention - like I watched a young LT do when I was a private.... The Military Police were not very nice to him... ~:joker:Quote:
Been around worse at Dugway -
yeah , same as , and that was at a defense contractor rather than a defense establishment , this crap is in all sorts of unusual places isn't it , it does freak you out a little when men in funny spacesuits start rounding you up for decontamination don't it .
The bake was to set the fuel on fire on the T72 and T62 tanks, have to cracked the fuel tanks on the back
Were there many russian made tanks deployed in Fallujah ?
Nope Tear Gas/CS is used to create confidence in the NBC protective gear.
But as it isn't effective on skin how does that work ?????Its like saying heres a snorkel you can breath in the water when you are swimming , now lets swim down to the Titanic .
No what is worse is when you see the sign and don't pay attention
Ah but there was no signs for either the gas rounds or the radioactive material that had been dumped and forgotten about, it turned their profitable redevolopments into very expensive liabilities .
Nope - but the terms used do not constitute chemical warfare because the muntion was used as an incedary, and a smoke muntion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
But on the NBC gear - and you will find out. And that is funny that it doesn't work on skin - it seemed to make mine skin itch slightly.Quote:
Nope Tear Gas/CS is used to create confidence in the NBC protective gear.
But as it isn't effective on skin how does that work ?????Its like saying heres a snorkel you can breath in the water when you are swimming , now lets swim down to the Titanic .
You have never been to Dugway have you? THere signs where they tested the muntions, there are signs where the muntions were stored (and later removed, but the signs remained.)Quote:
No what is worse is when you see the sign and don't pay attention
Ah but there was no signs for either the gas rounds or the radioactive material that had been dumped and forgotten about, it turned their profitable redevolopments into very expensive liabilities .
But some places they did remove the signs - but who's fault was that - the government or a private agency?
the muntion was used as an incedary, and a smoke muntion.
Really , I thought it was being used for psycological warfare , what category does that fit into ?
Besides which what is that litle thing about using incendiaries against civilian areas ? oh yeah thats a no no just like torture , unless you are refusing to say that it is a no no , eh .
it seemed to make mine skin itch slightly.
Ah a slight dermatological irritant for sensative skin types , I thought you were more thick skinned than that Red~D ~D ~D Or are you talking about the NBC gear ? Be specific dammit , it can lead to Laurel and Hardy type discussions ~;)
Never said it wasn't a problem - just that it is not a chemical weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Psycological warfare is legal by the way.....
The CS - you have to take your mask off in the chamber - not only did it burn the crap out of my eyes, made my nose run - like a waterfall, along with my eyes tearing up so quickly that I could not see, and my neck itched like hell as soon as the protection came off.Quote:
it seemed to make mine skin itch slightly.
Ah a slight dermatological irritant for sensative skin types , I thought you were more thick skinned than that Red~D ~D ~D Or are you talking about the NBC gear ? Be specific dammit , it can lead to Laurel and Hardy type discussions ~;)
It was quite unpleasant - one of the many reasons I stay away from riots - CS just sucks to be near for me.
Yes it is. https://img31.imageshack.us/img31/34...llengif8to.gif~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I see your still making an hoof mammals rear end of yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
~:eek: ~:joker:
You will understand that I don't give a rodent's fundament. https://img259.imageshack.us/img259/...sescool5el.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Well that pretty much sums up your knowledge on the subject also. :fishbowl:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Speaking of knowledge, did you know what the Pentagon called Saddam's use of white phosphorus against Kurds in 1995?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Oh your wanting to go back on topic now is it. Why don't you enlighten me on what they called it in 1995? Why you are at it - care to describe the delivery system for the White Phosphorous and how it was used?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
That is the key - the how the munition is used based upon how it is deployed on the ground.
It seems the report your refering to leaves that part out - it only mentions the delivery systems used - not the how. The report was also used by the military to validate that the cease fire conditions were being violated by Iraq. Care to also guess what happened in 1995 after the use by Iraq?
Would I call the Pentagon officials hypocrits for their attempting to define White Phosphorous as a chemical round - back in 1995 to support the overfly missions that were happening during that time frame - sure I would.
Oh by the way if your really wanting to play that game - we can add that to the category of WMD and there you go - just finding White Phosphorous shells in Iraq would justify the invasion....~:eek: Care to guess how common White Phosphorous is in the Artillery muntion inventory, and how many were found in Iraq?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
The episode was in February 1991, the document dates from 1995. Apparently what makes all the difference is not just the method of use, but the nature of the user as well. ~:joker:Quote:
Originally Posted by Department of Defense