The problem is, I don’t like it, first of all I’m rather dovish, I don’t like what I’m going to say but it’s true. If you basically put down a red line and say don’t use chemical weapons, and it’s been enforced in the Western community, around the world — international community for decades — don’t use chemical weapons. We didn’t use them in World War II, Hitler didn’t use them, we don’t use chemical weapons, that’s no deal.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ious-claim-about-hitler-and-chemical-weapons/
Yep... he said it... in defense of Obama's soon to be unilateral war.
I do believe Hitler used gas to kill many of the millions of Jews he murdered, and I do believe we dropped a couple of nukes on Japan.
Amazing the crap Leftists will come up with to defend Mr. Hope & Change.
Yep... he said it... in defense of Obama's soon to be unilateral war.
I do believe Hitler used gas to kill many of the millions of Jews he murdered, and I do believe we dropped a couple of nukes on Japan.
Amazing the crap Leftists will come up with to defend Mr. Hope & Change.
My best guess, it's liberal revisionism.
Gas was used by the Nazis to murder millions of Jews, gypsies and commie socialist.
America did nuke Japan so I could be conceived and participate on the PD.
Yep... he said it... in defense of Obama's soon to be unilateral war.
I do believe Hitler used gas to kill many of the millions of Jews he murdered, and I do believe we dropped a couple of nukes on Japan.
Amazing the crap Leftists will come up with to defend Mr. Hope & Change.
Wasn't one of the justifications for the Iraq war that Saddam used chemical weapons "on his own people?"
I don't favor intervention in Syria, I just think it's amazing how that's not a valid justification anymore to Republicans.
Hitler used gas to to exterminate the Jewish people, he didn't use it as a terror weapon like Saddam Hussein did against the Kurds.Yep... he said it... in defense of Obama's soon to be unilateral war.
I do believe Hitler used gas to kill many of the millions of Jews he murdered, and I do believe we dropped a couple of nukes on Japan.
Amazing the crap Leftists will come up with to defend Mr. Hope & Change.
Yeah, from what I read he only said the US and the Germans did not use chemical weapons. He did not say the US did not use weapons of mass destruction, everybody knows that the US nuked Japan but they did not use chemical weapons.
The OP claims things that Matthews did not say, not using chemical weapons is not the same as not using weapons of mad destruction.
So what was the atomic bomb then? Did we drop two Trojan horses over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and when they hit the ground they broke apart and a bunch of little midget soldiers came out to shoot everything?
I'm no chemist, but I think the damage caused by atomic bombs has something remotely to do with a chemical reaction. Feel free to play science teacher and prove me wrong if you'd like.
I know some libs who consider napalm to be a WMD.
But then again, I know many Americans who have come to the conclusion that Obama is a WMD to the American way of life.
Yes if you throw out the standing definitions of "Atomic Bomb" and "Chemical Weapon" that have stood for what 70 years at least? If you do that, you may have a point.
Do you know also that US Soldiers use chemical weapons every day in Afghanistan? I'm no chemist but I'm pretty sure the damage of a bullet hitting you has something remotely to do with combustion inside a rifle, which is a chemical reaction, and the bullet is made of steel too which is the result of the chemical reaction between iron and carbon.
Jesus that means police use chemical weapons against our own people every day too!!
I'm currently deployed in Afghanistan, you'll have to explain your argument as youtube is blocked over here on this computer.
Sheldon Cooper on Big Bang Theory explaining the concept of reductio ad absurdum.
Ok and how do you feel that concept relates to my post, seriously man can you just type out a resposne? I'm assuming you feel I went to far with my analogy?
Fine, but still you have to admit that to call an A-bomb a chemical weapon would throw out the meaning of "chemical weapon" that's been in use for almost 100 years now, and the meaning of "Atomic Weapon" as has been used for nearly just as long. You'd basically be redefining a word to suit your position.
For example in the Army there's something called "CBRN training" or "Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear training" which teaches Soldiers how to survive in these types of enviroments, you'll notice that chemical and nuclear are both listed because they both have different meanings.
They're different in that nuclear also includes a physical, concussive force - but I'm guessing that both "chemical" and "nuclear" environmental training include certain aspects that are either very remotely visible, or invisible altogether.
Also, I'm not redefining the word. Frankly, this shouldn't even be a discussion, but for some reason liberals want to defend Matthews' (and Obama's) intense stupidity.
I haven't even thrown out the fact that the man behind what's commonly referred to as the "greatest human rights violation ever"...was a Democrat.
The good thing about this forum is that you can easily point out the kookiest of kooks on DP - not you, but some names come to mind (that will, of course, remain anonymous).
So what was the atomic bomb then? Did we drop two Trojan horses over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and when they hit the ground they broke apart and a bunch of little midget soldiers came out to shoot everything?
I'm no chemist, but I think the damage caused by atomic bombs has something remotely to do with a chemical reaction. Feel free to play science teacher and prove me wrong if you'd like.
I know some libs who consider napalm to be a WMD.
But then again, I know many Americans who have come to the conclusion that Obama is a WMD to the American way of life.
Let me put it to you this way, I've literally never seen in any professional setting or text a nuclear weapon referred to as a form of chemical warfare or as a chemical weapon. This is literally the first time I've ever heard of chemical weapon meaning an atomic bomb.
If you can show me an example of a professional or academic paper or document listing atomic weapons as chemical weapons, that would help support you're argument. Even better if you found a military source, since we are discussing the military, that called them the same thing. I can tell that you won't find such a source in the US Army, so either the US Army, and the entire US military, has been mislabeling these weapons for decades, or you're wrong :/
Did you actually read what I wrote? Or did you miss me saying "everybody knows that the US nuked Japan".
Simple:
nuclear weapons use splitting nuclear materials or fission of nuclear materials, the reaction that creates a thermobaric pressure wave that can destroy structures, vehicles and personnel causing radiation that can linger for weeks, even months if high enough in the atmosphere.
chemical weapons are exactly what they sound like, they use chemicals to inflict injury and death. They can be packed in shells, mortars, etc. etc. The chemical weapons can have nerve gas, toxins or other chemical compounds that can cause suffocation, blindness. Chemical weapons are usually liquid at room temperature and when released they are gasses that do their deadly or harmful work.
So you're asking me to prove that "military intelligence" is oxymoronic? Okay, back in a few.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?