War on Iraq - The Hypocrisy Revealed

Dancing Monkey

Here's some information worth knowing that you'll never get on CNN.

Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?

Take the War on Iraq Test:

1. Q: What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have?

A: 6%

2. Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have?

A: 50%

3. Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves?

A: Saudi Arabia

4. Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves?

A: Iraq

5. Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide?

A: $900+ billion

6. Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.?

A:50%

7. Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world, according the the UN?

A: 10% (that's about $40 billion, the amount of funding initially
requested to fund their retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).

8. Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II?

A: 86 million

9. Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?

A: Since the early 1980's.

10. Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical and biological weapons on their own?

A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along with Britain and private corporations.

11. Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran?

A: No

12. Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988?

A: 5,000

13. Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time?

A: 0

14. Q: How many gallons of Agent Orange did America use in Vietnam?

A: 17 million.

15. Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist attack?

A: No

16. Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War?

A: 35,000

17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western
forces during the Gulf War ?

A: 0

18. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs mounted on the front?

A: 6,000

19. Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War?

A: 40 tons

20. Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994?

A: 700%

21. Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had
destroyed in 1991?

A: 80%

22. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything
other than deterrence and self defense?

A: No

23. Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago?

A: No

24. Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2002/3?

A: 10,000

25. Q: What percentage of these will be children?

A: Over 50%

26. Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq?

A: 11 years

27. Q: Was the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?

A: No

28. Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?

A: 20 million

29. Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions on Iraq's imports and exports?

A: 12 years

30. Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)?

A: 38

31. Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000 births)?

A: 131 (that's an increase of 345%)

32. Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions?

A: 1.5 million

33. Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to sanctions since 1997?

A: 750,000

34. Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq?

A: No

35. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998?

A: 300

36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems?

A: 5

37. Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ?

A: Yes

38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history.

A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.

39. Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction did the UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled?

A: 90%

40. Q: Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in?

A:Yes

41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?

A: Over 65

42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990?

A: 30+

43. Q: How much does the U.S. fund Israel a year?

A: $5 billion

44. Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons?

A: 8

45. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Iraq have?

A: 0

46. Q: How many nuclear warheads does US have?

A: over 10,000

47. Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons?

A: the US

48. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have?

A: Over 400

49. Q: Has Israel ever allowed UN weapons inspections?

A: No

50. Q: What percentage of the Palestinian territories are controlled by
Israeli settlements?

A: 42%

51. Q: Is Israel illegally occupying Palestinian land?

A: Yes

52. Q: Which country do you think poses the greatest threat to global peace: Iraq or the U.S.?

A: ?

53. Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"?

A: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

Cork

How long have UN inspectors been in Iraq over the last 12 years?

About 8 years and 3 months by reckoning.

Where there is hypocrisy to revealed - I think we need not look to the US but start with the EU.

Look at the Haider situation in Austria:

The European Commission further declared that if the Austrian government violated any of the common European values, it would not hesitate to start the procedure leading to the cancellation of Austria's voting rights in the Council. This could be a first step towards Austria's expulsion from the EU.

But - the EU has not taken such a strong view on Iraq. Maybe, the EU feels that we are safe aganist Al- Queda and other tin pot dictators.

Johnmb

I could be wrong, but last I checked, kicking Iraq out of the EU was not an option. And kicking a country out of a group is not the same as invading the country.

Cork

Originally posted by Johnmb
I could be wrong, but last I checked, kicking Iraq out of the EU was not an option. And kicking a country out of a group is not the same as invading the country.

Austria is no Iraq.



Link

Johnmb

Austria is no Iraq

So why did you bring it up, it is (by your own admission) irrelevant to the contents of the post you were supposedly replying to.

Cork

Their atitude in sidelining Austria is in marked contrast to that of Iraq. Iraq has not complied with UN resolutions - but instead of taking action aganist Saddam - France & Germany are pretty slow to act on Saddam - despite over 8 years of inspections - giving him the benefit of the doubt.

This was in marked contrast to the side lining of Austia.

Johnmb

Their atitude in sidelining Austria is in marked contrast to that of Iraq.

Your previous post staed that "Austria is no Iraq", so it would be fairly obvious that both will be dealt with differently. If Iraq were a member of the EU, then Iraq would have been dealt with the same way, but it is not so you comparison is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Iraq has not complied with UN resolutions - but instead of taking action aganist Saddam - France & Germany are pretty slow to act on Saddam - despite over 8 years of inspections - giving him the benefit of the doubt.

The EU has upheld the sanctions, and the inspectors stated that it was a matter of months to finishing the job. France and Germany took the view that giving the inspectors a few months to peacefully disarm Iraq was a much better option than spending the next several years trying to rebuild Iraq after a war, and the next several decades looking over our shoulders worried about revenge attacks.

Meh

I should hope I wouldn't see this information on CNN, because a lot of it is quite simply incorrect.

17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western
forces during the Gulf War ?

A: 0

Well, that's wrong for a start. Allied losses were about a few hundred, not all of them caused by friendly fire.

26. Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq?

A: 11 years

Wrong too. Airstrikes have only been going on since the inspections collapsed in 1998 -- only 5 years.

Given those two inaccuracies, I'd be inclined to doubt the rest of the statements without some sort of independent confirmation.

As for the Israeli and Vietnam stuff, that would appear to be irrelevant to the situation in Iraq.

bonkey

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
Here's some information worth knowing that you'll never get on CNN.

Funny you should mention CNN.....

17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western
forces during the Gulf War ?

A: 0

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/

This would seem to refute that, claiming 148 battlefield and 145 other deaths.

While some of those deaths were undouibtedly friendly-fire related, there were casualties. Special Forces had a plane which had a wing sheared off by a SAM (IIRC) whilst under fire from Iraqi soldiers. which resulted in 14 deaths - the largest loss of Special Forces in a single event in the Gulf War.

Now, the numbers are still tiny, but îf you want to make a point about something, then use facts and not propaganda.

Then again, the whole quiz is propagandist in nature anyway, so Im probably making a moot point.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Cork
But - the EU has not taken such a strong view on Iraq. Maybe, the EU feels that we are safe aganist Al- Queda and other tin pot dictators.

The EU has not taken a strong view on Iraq because its members have adopted strong opposing views, making a united view which has not been watered down to become meaningless diplomatically impossible.

It is also quite natural for the EU to be more concerned in the makeup of the government of one of its member states than that of a foreign nation.

Europe is not safe from terrorism, it has plagued us for decades (Red Brigade, ETTA, Provisional IRA, etc.) - Al- Queda is just another group of madmen to be worried about.

As for other tin pot dictators (another issue altogether), we’ve never worried about them. We fund them, just like everyone else. Did you mean other peoples tin pot dictators?

As for the initial post - what bonkey said.

Victor

Originally posted by Meh
Airstrikes have only been going on since the inspections collapsed in 1998 -- only 5 years.

No they have been there almost as long as the no fly zones.

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
16. Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War?

A: 35,000

Actually it was more like 235,000.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Their atitude in sidelining Austria is in marked contrast to that of Iraq.

Id just loooove to see an explanation of this. No really, please. I would.

I'll give you my take.....

The EU has threatened to take diplomatic steps against Austria if it feels there is justification.

The EU (by which we both must only mean most of it, given the UK support for the war) has also pushed for a diplomatic solution to the situation in Iraq, and has supported previous peaceful, diplomatic attempts at finding a resolution.

So...they wish to use peaceful means in both cases, and in neither case are willing to even consider that war is a necssary step given the current situations.

So explain to me where the marked contrast is???

Besides, weren't you one of the posters arguing that the existence and acceptance of other oppressive regimes in no way means that we must accept the existence of teh Iraqi regime. Now youre saying that people are hypocrites for taking the same double-standards stance (as you would see it - I see no such stance here at all).

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
Actually it was more like 235,000.

Do you have a source for this Vic?

Just wondering, because there do seem to be differing figures about. I know CNN is very pro-US, but what they stated in the article linked above is :

In June 1991, the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner. Many human rights groups claimed a much higher number of Iraqis were killed in action. According to Baghdad, civilian casualties numbered more than 35,000. However, since the war, some scholars have concluded that the number of Iraqi soldiers who were killed was significantly less than initially reported.

Why would Baghdad play down the numbers of civilian deaths, or are you including the post-war deaths that can be attributed to actions in the war (e.g. infant mortality, etc.)?

Just curious really....

jc

Dancing Monkey

Originally posted by Meh
Airstrikes have only been going on since the inspections collapsed in 1998 -- only 5 years.

I think you'll find they haven't.

Given those two inaccuracies, I'd be inclined to doubt the rest of the statements without some sort of independent confirmation.

Right.

As for the Israeli and Vietnam stuff, that would appear to be irrelevant to the situation in Iraq.

If you fail to see the relevancy, forget it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
If you fail to see the relevancy, forget it.

Maybe youd care to explain the relevancy? You started the thread after all, or are you not willing to discuss the issues that you posted about?

More to the point, perhaps you could outline what should[ have been done, and we can line up the hypüocracy associated with that solution as well. Then you can explain why hypocracy would be acceptable in your solution, but isnt acceptable here.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
I think you'll find they haven't.

On closer inspection, you are right on this point. My apologies.

If you fail to see the relevancy, forget it.

But I do fail to see the relevance. There are no Chapter VII Security Council resolutions calling on either Israel or the US to disarm or "face serious consequences". There are eighteen Chapter VII Security Council resolutions calling on Iraq to do this. Hence any comparison between US/Israeli WMDs and Iraq's WMDs is specious.

Johnmb

I think the relevance he is refering to is the fact that the US has used Iraq's failure to deal with about 16 resolutions over 12 years as one of their excuses for war, while ignoring Israel's failure to deal with a lot more resolutions over a much larger amount of time. Also, Iraq's failure to comply was not leading to deaths (although there was potential), whereas Israel's failure to comply is directly leading to many deaths and other crimes against humanity.

Bateman

As regards the propaganda of the initial post, I'd suggest using Fox News as the source that is least likely to tell you what's in the post, and in fairness, the bulk of it is true. I'd share some of the reservations listed below, but most of the more important answers are accurate.

Bateman

Anywhere in the past that the US has intervened militarily in the affairs of another nation is relevent to this discussion. If it is deemed irrelevant, so should any past aggression on the part of Iraq in the past.

also the point of the US using Agent Orange in Vietnam, is relevent since there is such talk about Iraq's chemical weapons.

Dancing Monkey

Originally posted by klaz
also the point of the US using Agent Orange in Vietnam, is relevent since there is such talk about Iraq's chemical weapons.

Precisely.

I thought that much was obvious.

Victor

Originally posted by Victor
Actually it was more like 235,000.

Originally posted by bonkey
Do you have a source for this Vic?

Me.

Actually I misread the item, the 235,000 or so (I'm rounding) was for total casualties, not just civilians. The figure was in the news in 1991 and was down to individual people. None of the following seem to be very coherent, it just goes to show "how does one calculate casualties?"

158,000 to 205,000 (all - disputed US figure - including uprisings) htp://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/feb2003/nf2003026_0167_db052.htm

1,500 to 100,000 (military only)http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00003.html

15,000 to 100,000 (military only)
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00003.html

62,400 to 99,400 (civilians - Greenpeace to 15 July 1991)

162,400 to 219,400 (all - Greenpeace to 15 July 1991) http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1991/25/25p14b.htm

20,000 military and 2,300 civilian http://www.historyguy.com/GulfWar.html

Cork

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
Precisely.

I thought that much was obvious.

We could talk about year dot - But Vietnam is long past. we can learn from history - But the situation at the situation we have now is Saddam has chemical weapons at his disposal.

He has had no regard for resolution 1441. He has ruled Iraq with an iron hand. I deplore war but Iraq will be a far better place without Saddam.

Arms inspections went on for 8 1/3 years. It was akin to Gardaí trying to find poteen out the west.

But Vietnam is long past. we can learn from history

But cork, you've been more than happy to comment on items that Saddam has performed 12 years or more ago. His use of chemical weapons was a long time ago, as was his invasion of Kuwait. Surely by your reasoning, it shouldn't be brought up again and again.

I deplore war but Iraq will be a far better place without Saddam.

You deplore war, but for the past few weeks you've been saying how Saddam has failed to comply with 1441, and therefore this war is ok.

Cork, i'd suggest you look at Blix's statements regarding this war, he's not too happy with the US response.

Arms inspections went on for 8 1/3 years. It was akin to Gardaí trying to find poteen out the west

Not really.

Poteen is politely ignored, unless it kills someone. And when they do move in on the poteen Makers, they don't use assault rifles, tanks.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Klaz
also the point of the US using Agent Orange in Vietnam, is relevent since there is such talk about Iraq's chemical weapons.

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
Precisely.

I thought that much was obvious.

I dont know where you both got the idea that agent orange was a chemical weapon.

Agent orange was developed and used as a defolliant (eg: to kill off plants and trees - NOT to in any way affect/disable/kill people). It was used in vietnam on dense jungle to try and take away the cover that the vietnamese used so effectivly. It was only once american troops had been exposed to the chemical and developed problems when they were rotated back to the us did people realise it wasnt safe. As such, it was taken out of service in 1971.

If your going to discuss things like this it would be nice if you got at least _some_ of your 'facts' straight.

Éomer of Rohan

We could talk about year dot - But Vietnam is long past. we can learn from history - But the situation at the situation we have now is Saddam has chemical weapons at his disposal.

He has had no regard for resolution 1441. He has ruled Iraq with an iron hand. I deplore war but Iraq will be a far better place without Saddam.

America obviously has not learned that much from History. The only real difference in the situations between Iraq and Vietnam is that, apart from the obvious geographical, it is not over the American paranoia regarding Communism and it is not 'defending' another state unless you wish to class the practically independent north of Iraq as being under attack, which it isn't, oh, and Vietnam did not have vast oil supplies. This war is simply one mor example of America, her huge arrogance and larger military flexing themselves to the detriment of everyone. What is more, this time they managed to convince the Brits to join in somehow. Fools.

So what that he has no regard for this resolution? I hear this all the time but it is entirely hypocritical to mention Saddam's regime w.r.t. this war and his abuses of the UN without mentioning the flagrant disregard the US has for such resolutions over Israel and Cuba among others.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
America obviously has not learned that much from History. The only real difference in the situations between Iraq and Vietnam is that, apart from the obvious geographical, it is not over the American paranoia regarding Communism and it is not 'defending' another state unless you wish to class the practically independent north of Iraq as being under attack, which it isn't, oh, and Vietnam did not have vast oil supplies. This war is simply one mor example of America, her huge arrogance and larger military flexing themselves to the detriment of everyone. What is more, this time they managed to convince the Brits to join in somehow. Fools.

So what that he has no regard for this resolution? I hear this all the time but it is entirely hypocritical to mention Saddam's regime w.r.t. this war and his abuses of the UN without mentioning the flagrant disregard the US has for such resolutions over Israel and Cuba among others.

I'd agree, the U.s have made some woefully bad judgements, but proportionate to their size and influence in the world, thats understandable.
Where I disagree with you, is on whether, they as a nation are entitled, to take the ultimate step of war.
The legality of recent Wars from an international perspective, may be questionable, but, who is standing up and Militarily trying to stop them??
No body of any consequence really.
probably because, they are being clever, ie Shouting Boo in public, but being realistically pragmatic in private.
Surely China, Russia,France , the FCA under the command of Michael D, could get together to mass forces, on Iraq's borders to counter , the U.S influence.
Either that, or we'll have endless conversations about how awfull it is that the U.S declares war for ever .....:rolleyes:
mm

Éomer of Rohan

The legality of recent Wars from an international perspective, may be questionable, but, who is standing up and Militarily trying to stop them??

Surely this would defeat the point of arguing that certain wars are illegal?

No body of any consequence really.
probably because, they are being clever, ie Shouting Boo in public, but being realistically pragmatic in private.
Surely China, Russia,France , the FCA under the command of Michael D, could get together to mass forces, on Iraq's borders to counter , the U.S influence.
Either that, or we'll have endless conversations about how awfull it is that the U.S declares war for ever .....

I think it is a widely accepted fact that the US is conventionally militarily uncghallengeable.

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
I dont know where you both got the idea that agent orange was a chemical weapon

....

If your going to discuss things like this it would be nice if you got at least _some_ of your 'facts' straight.

Yup.

As I said initially, the entire questionnaire is propagandist. Yes, there are some valid points in there, but they are hidden by a bunch of grey issues presented as stark fact, and another bunch of just plain ol' misinformation - either there through a deliberate intention to mislead, or just a lack of willingness to do correct research.

Dancing Monkey - if you believe that this "questionnaire" makes a valid point, then why didnt you just make the point without all the stupid propaganda and misinformation wrapped around it.

It may seem "obvious" to you, but exactly is relevant about the use of a pesticide as a defoliant in a war?

I notice you havent offered a non-hypocritical course of action either....could that be because you've failed to find one?

jc

Dancing Monkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
I dont know where you both got the idea that agent orange was a chemical weapon.

Its not an idea, its a fact.

You may be gullible enough to buy the idea that it was used to deny the Vietnamese cover and concealment in dense terrain by defoliating trees and shrubbery where the enmy could hide, but I don't.

Agent Orange was a 50-50 mix of two chemicals, known conventionally as 2,4,D and 2,4,5,T. The combined product was mixed with kerosene or diesel fuel and dispersed by aircraft, vehicle, and hand spraying. An estimated 19 million gallons of Agent Orange were used in South Vietnam during the war.

You get your facts straight.

Lemming

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I think it is a widely accepted fact that the US is conventionally militarily uncghallengeable.

China

bonkey

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
Agent Orange was a 50-50 mix of two chemicals, known conventionally as 2,4,D and 2,4,5,T. The combined product was mixed with kerosene or diesel fuel and dispersed by aircraft, vehicle, and hand spraying. An estimated 19 million gallons of Agent Orange were used in South Vietnam during the war.

You get your facts straight.

Now look...

if you're going to rip a quote straight out of the first google hit from searching "agent orange", then you might as well supply a link as well.

Here it is : http://www.lewispublishing.com/orange.htm
Same punctuation and everything.

Secondly, if you actually read the rest of the information on the same page, you would notice that in not one place is the word weapon used. No-one has denied that Agent Orange was made from chemicals. What they have denied is that it was designed or used as a chemical weapon in Vietnam.

Indeed, had you checked further down the google list, you would have come across this : http://www.vvvc.org/vvvc/agntor.htm

Here, we even get to find out that these two chemicals that were used to make Agent Orange, were....wait for it....herbicides! (Phenoxy herbicides to be precise). So, you are arguing that two herbicides were combined to build a "weapon" that had SFA immediate effect and caused problems years to decades later, whilst we are arguing that two herbicides were combined to produce a better herbicide, which turned out to be not too healthy for us humans after we had a chance to witness long-term effects, (especially on people who were not always in a position to thoroughly remove the stuff from their person and clothes within a short period.)

Bit of a crap weapon, wouldnt you say, unless you wish to somehow imply that it was part of a generation-spanning US program to cripple the population of a foreign nation through the use of chemical warfare.....and thats just ridiculous in my opinoin.

So before going off on a crusade telling people to get their facts straight, I would suggest you have more than a partial amount of copied technical information which you are then combining with what appears to be a conspiracy theory of truly monumentous proportions.

If you want to believe that AO was a chemical weapon, then thats your perogative. Hell, you can believe it was a candy bar for all I care.

However, if you want to try and argue your case, then maybe you should supply some information which actually backs it up, rather than just looking impressive.

jc

Johnmb

China currently wouldn't stand a chance in a conventional war if it had to move its troops any distance. Their numbers would most likely win a conventional war fought on Chinese soil, but they don't have the means to project those numbers abroad, and they don't have the technology to match the US without superior numbers.

Dancing Monkey

Originally posted by bonkey
Now look...

if you're going to rip a quote straight out of the first google hit from searching "agent orange", then you might as well supply a link as well.

Here it is : http://www.lewispublishing.com/orange.htm
Same punctuation and everything.

Secondly, if you actually read the rest of the information on the same page, you would notice that in not one place is the word weapon used. No-one has denied that Agent Orange was made from chemicals. What they have denied is that it was designed or used as a chemical weapon in Vietnam.

Indeed, had you checked further down the google list, you would have come across this : http://www.vvvc.org/vvvc/agntor.htm

Here, we even get to find out that these two chemicals that were used to make Agent Orange, were....wait for it....herbicides! (Phenoxy herbicides to be precise). So, you are arguing that two herbicides were combined to build a "weapon" that had SFA immediate effect and caused problems years to decades later, whilst we are arguing that two herbicides were combined to produce a better herbicide, which turned out to be not too healthy for us humans after we had a chance to witness long-term effects, (especially on people who were not always in a position to thoroughly remove the stuff from their person and clothes within a short period.)

Bit of a crap weapon, wouldnt you say, unless you wish to somehow imply that it was part of a generation-spanning US program to cripple the population of a foreign nation through the use of chemical warfare.....and thats just ridiculous in my opinoin.

So before going off on a crusade telling people to get their facts straight, I would suggest you have more than a partial amount of copied technical information which you are then combining with what appears to be a conspiracy theory of truly monumentous proportions.

If you want to believe that AO was a chemical weapon, then thats your perogative. Hell, you can believe it was a candy bar for all I care.

However, if you want to try and argue your case, then maybe you should supply some information which actually backs it up, rather than just looking impressive.

jc

What does it matter where I obtained the information from?

I've seen your posts around here, and your self righteous 'I'm right, never wrong, the definitive beacon of official knowledge' bollocks.

Answer me a simple question.

Was Agent Orange responsible for any deaths?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
Was Agent Orange responsible for any deaths?

Not what you originally argued though, is it?

Johnmb

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey :
Was Agent Orange responsible for any deaths?

It was, but if you want to compare its usage to the 1988 Kurdish massacre, you need to show that the US knew in advance what the effects on humans would be. You haven't done that.

Lemming

Originally posted by Johnmb
China currently wouldn't stand a chance in a conventional war if it had to move its troops any distance. Their numbers would most likely win a conventional war fought on Chinese soil, but they don't have the means to project those numbers abroad, and they don't have the technology to match the US without superior numbers.

China, afaik, HAS the numbers to offset technology. It has the largest land-based army in the world, and it's airforce isn't lacking either, although isn't at the size of the USAF

Anyway, this particular line of debate is WAYYY Off-Topic

Dancing Monkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Not what you originally argued though, is it?

I said it was a chemical weapon.

And it is a chemical weapon.

It comprises of chemicals, and it kills.

Simple.

Dancing Monkey

Originally posted by Johnmb
It was, but if you want to compare its usage to the 1988 Kurdish massacre, you need to show that the US knew in advance what the effects on humans would be. You haven't done that.

So by your rationale, a nation can lump together a few toxins, spray it over a population and beg fools pardon when it 'accidentally' causes death?

Wonderful.

Johnmb

China, afaik, HAS the numbers to offset technology.

That is what I said, but they don't have the ability to project those numbers at the moment, not like the US. That is the advantage the US has over the world, so only economic sanctions could do any damage. But they are above international law, so it would be very difficult to organise sanctions to be effective. As a result, it would seem the the UN in its current form is pointless, it cannot do anything to stop the most aggressive nations on the planet (i.e. US, Isael, China). That is why nothing is being done to stop the US, because nobody can do anything (just to bring it back to the original topic )

Johnmb

So by your rationale, a nation can lump together a few toxins, spray it over a population and beg fools pardon when it 'accidentally' causes death?
{/QUOTE]

No, but you are the one trying to make a comparison between something that may have been accidental, and stopped when the truth was realised (i.e. AO use) and something that was known to kill and used for that sole purpose. It wouldn't surprise me if the US knew AO would kill, or at least suspected it, but if you want to claim they did, you need to provide proof.

bonkey

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
What does it matter where I obtained the information from?

It doesnt...I just thought it funny that you try using partial information from a site to prove a point, when the rest of the information on the same site more or less goes against what you're trying to say.

It shows how strong your research is, thats all.

I've seen your posts around here, and your self righteous 'I'm right, never wrong, the definitive beacon of official knowledge' bollocks.

You might also have seen the posts where I put on my "moderator of politics" hat and warn poeple about attacking posters, as per the rules on this board. You might take heed of those - this is a discussion board, and if you are not willing to discuss, then you dont belong here.

Answer me a simple question.
Was Agent Orange responsible for any deaths?

Yes, it was. Then again, I'm sure that some of the medicines used in the Vietnam war were also responsible for deaths...as they are in every hospital in the world. Does that make them chemical weapons? Gosh....maybe we should be out looking to have these medications banned.

The point is that Agent Orange was not intended to cause deaths, and there is no strong evidence that the US were aware at the time that it would cause deaths, or even adversely effect humans.

At best, you could argue that the US were irresponsible in using something that they did not understand the long-term health risks from, but you're still a very long way from showing any sort of deliberate use of it as a chemical weapon. You would also have to show that there is any sort of connection between US policy 30 years ago and US policy today before any of this would become relevant.



jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
I said it was a chemical weapon.

And it is a chemical weapon.

It comprises of chemicals, and it kills.

Simple.

So's detergent. I don't see anyone bombing Procter & Gamble though

I think you're stretching definitions a bit to suit your own ends.

bonkey

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
I said it was a chemical weapon.

And it is a chemical weapon.

It comprises of chemicals, and it kills.

Simple.

So everything that kills is a weapon?

That means pretty much every substance and material, object and construction on the planet is a weapon, which isnt simple, its farcical.

jc

Dancing Monkey

In early 1965, the State Department published a White Paper whose centrepiece was the 'provocation' of the 'Gulf of Tonkin Incident', together with seven pages of 'conclusive proof' of Hanoi's preparations to invade the South.

This was cited as justification for war, despite it being a complete lie.

And you're asking me to trust that the US military didn't know of the effects of AO?

Johnmb

And you're asking me to trust that the US military didn't know of the effects of AO?

I don't think anyone is asking you to trust that, most are just saying that if you don't have any actual proof that the US DID know the effects of AO, then don't claim they did as a fact. You can say that you suspect they did if you want, and as I said earlier, it wouldn't surprise me if they did, but there is no evidence to support your suspicion as fact, so don't present it as fact otherwise people will take all your other arguements less seriously.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Dancing Monkey
And you're asking me to trust that the US military didn't know of the effects of AO?

In which case you are speculating that Agent Orange was designed as a weapon, based upon your opinion of the honesty of the US military to declare it as such.

And then you are stating this speculation as fact.

As I said, I think you're stretching definitions a bit to suit your own ends.

Dancing Monkey

Fair enough.

I stress that this is only my opinion, and it is not formed on the back of conclusive proof.

(The proof, I suspect, is classified information).