Chris Matthews claims Hitler and US did not use WMD in WWII [W:99]

[APACHERAT]

Strictly speaking though, as a weapon of war, Gas was never used as far as I know by any side during World War II.

I believe that's what he was trying to say.

Matthews is an idiot but if we're strictly speaking in terms of actual warfare, Chemical weapons were not used in the second world war.

But yeah he's still an idiot.

Anyway

Here you have a situation where chemical weapons were used in battle as a weapon of war in a highly populated area.

My issue with this, is its a bit too convenient.

The Rebels know their only hope of getting Western support is if Assad uses Chemical Weapons.

And Assad knows the sure fire way to get the west involved (precisely what he doesn't want) is to use chemical weapons.

Therefore this suggests the Rebels have more to gain from an apparent use of Chemical Weapons than Assad...

Which leads me to be monumentally cautious about involvement in this predicament.

The Japanese used chemical weapons during WW ll. But most libs give the Japanese a complete pass because they aren't white or they are as usual misinformed.

>" By the time of the Second World War, several international powers possessed chemical weapons. However, since these countries feared retaliation in kind, the majority did not use them. The only country that engaged in large-scale battlefield use of chemical weapons was Japan, primarily against China..."<

A Research Report on Japanese Use of Chemical Weapons during the Second World War | International Committee for the History of the Second World War

 

[Gipper]

No I'm seriously asking you to find me historical examples of professional, military, academic, government papers or documents that refer to chemical and atomic weapons as the same thing.

Heck just use some common sense, a chemical weapont released over a city is not going to inflict the same type of change in the same way as a nuclear bomb released over a city, and the recovery from such an attack will be very different as well. Its obvious why one would naturally treat the two as different, sure the science behind nuclear weapons involves some chemistry, but after the explosion the two aren't the same as all.

Okay then, what is the difference in protocols involved between the A-bomb or if the Enola Gay just dumped tons of VX over Hiroshima? Are long-term effects different with chemical weapons?

 

[Dooble]

Chris Matthews verbalizes what most libs are thinking, so if ever one wants to gain insight on these idiots, just tune in to Hardball on MSNBC.

 

[pbrauer]

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.

A nuclear chain reaction is not the same as a chemical reaction. A nuclear reaction involves the splitting of atoms which result in the creation of different elements, a chemical reaction involves rearrangement of elements to create different chemicals (compounds).

 

[WCH]

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 first world war was full of chemical warfare the second world war did not use chemical warfare.

And sorry, but killing Jews and others with gas is not the same as chemical warfare, what the Germans did to the Jews and others were crimes against humanity. The Germans did not do it on the battle field nor did the Americans so Matthews is absolutely right, the US nor the Germans deployed chemical weapons during the war.

No one mentioned the firebombing of Tokyo. Incendiary chemicals were used to set the city ablaze.

Incendiary device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These weapons were developed by the Chemical Warfare Service

Chemical Corps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[APACHERAT]

Napalm is IMHO a weapon of mass destruction.

When napalm is properly employed it's not used to turn the enemy into crispy critters but used for asphyxiation of the enemy.

When napalm is burning it sucks the oxygen right out of the air.

U.S. Marines in the Pacific heavily used the flame thrower on bunkers and caves.

On a bunker a one second blast of napalm into the bunker and all inside would die because of asphyxiation. When used on caves a few seconds of napalm from the flame thrower being shot at the entrance of a cave would suck all of the oxygen out of the cave and Japanese troops who were a hindered yards from the cave opening would die from asphyxiation.

When napalm was used in Vietnam during CAS missions if you were close to the burning napalm you could feel the air being sucked towards the burning napalm. Some time later you would find Charley a hundred feet from where the napalm was burning and Charley was dead Charley from asphyxiation.

In 2001 the U.S. military wished they still had napalm to use on the caves of Tora Bora. We might have gotten OBL back then.

 

[APACHERAT]

No one mentioned the firebombing of Tokyo. Incendiary chemicals were used to set the city ablaze.

Incendiary device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These weapons were developed by the Chemical Warfare Service

Chemical Corps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like a "gotcha."

Why don't libs just grow a pair and admit that Chris Mathews and using liberal revisionism is an embarrassment ?

 

[Peter King]

It sounds as if the only difference between your two descriptions is the lethality (although both are obviously lethal in large and excessive amounts). An atomic bomb is "packed in a shell". It has chemical compounds that cause...well, death. Also, atomic bombs are not "hot to the touch" pre-release.

Sounds like semantics to me.

I am sorry, but you have to really really really, really, really want to disregard all the differences to think the only difference is lethality.

 

[Peter King]

No one mentioned the firebombing of Tokyo. Incendiary chemicals were used to set the city ablaze.

Incendiary device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These weapons were developed by the Chemical Warfare Service

Chemical Corps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am sorry, but that still is not the same as chemical warfare.

Even with regular bombs you can achieve weapons of mass destruction. The bombing of Dresden is another example of that one.

And about the Chemical corps, the wikipedia stub says:

The Chemical Warfare Service deployed and prepared gas weapons for use throughout the world during World War II. However, these weapons were never used in combat.

 

[ChezC3]

Chris Matthews has turned from a semi talented anchor to a partisan shill and a pathetic excuse maker.

 

[Hicup]

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 first world war was full of chemical warfare the second world war did not use chemical warfare.

And sorry, but killing Jews and others with gas is not the same as chemical warfare, what the Germans did to the Jews and others were crimes against humanity. The Germans did not do it on the battle field nor did the Americans so Matthews is absolutely right, the US nor the Germans deployed chemical weapons during the war.

We used chemical weapons in WWI though.. What's 25 years..


Tim-

 

[Peter King]

We used chemical weapons in WWI though.. What's 25 years..


Tim-

That would be the difference between WW1 and WW2. One war was a trench war, the other was a blitzkrieg. 25 years as said between the two and as said, it also is the difference between a correct quote (which Matthews had made) and the incorrect quote from the OP (with regard to accusing Matthews of saying the US and Germany did not use WMD's in WW2)

 

[Hicup]

That would be the difference between WW1 and WW2. One war was a trench war, the other was a blitzkrieg. 25 years as said between the two and as said, it also is the difference between a correct quote (which Matthews had made) and the incorrect quote from the OP (with regard to accusing Matthews of saying the US and Germany did not use WMD's in WW2)

Ok, well besides weapons of mass destruction and all, one cannot deny that there was mass destruction, and the volume of which would accomplish that task is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things, wouldn't you say?


Tim-

 

[Peter King]

Ok, well besides weapons of mass destruction and all, one cannot deny that there was mass destruction, and the volume of which would accomplish that task is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things, wouldn't you say?


Tim-

wars are usually rife with mass destruction, every war except restaurant wars (and things like that).

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Matthews, "...chemical weapons. We didn’t use them in World War II, Hitler didn’t use them..."
It4rweb5_01, "Matthews said no one used WMD in WWII."
It4rweb5_02, "Well we used nukes and thems is WMD. So what Matthews said is a lie."
It4rweb5_03, "Some weapons are made of chemicals. Weapons made of chemicals are chemical weapons. We used these weapons in WWII. So what Matthews said is a lie."
It4rweb5_04, "Saying that nuclear weapons are not chemical weapons is a logical fallacy. And btw, Matthews delenda est"

 

[Hicup]

wars are usually rife with mass destruction, every war except restaurant wars (and things like that).

The term is meant to obfuscate the reality of war, usually for political support.


Tim-

 

[APACHERAT]

I am sorry, but that still is not the same as chemical warfare.

Even with regular bombs you can achieve weapons of mass destruction. The bombing of Dresden is another example of that one.

And about the Chemical corps, the wikipedia stub says:

Most of the civilian deaths from the "fire bombing" of Dresden was from asphyxiation not from burns or becoming crispy critters.

Fire is a chemical reaction between oxygen in the atmosphere and a fuel.

Cordite and other smokeless gun powders are not classified as explosives like black powder is. Todays gun powders are nothing more than a propellant. When it's ignited a chemical reaction occurs creating a gas that expands and propels a projectile.

An Iowa class battleship was one of the most feared and effective WMD ever deployed. A squadron of B-52's carpet bombing a civilian population cold drop 612 MK.117 (750 lb) conventional bombs making it a WMD.

If President Obama orders American destroyers to launch a hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles, isn't Obama using WMD's ?

 

[Grim17]

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.

A phony comparison... What a surprise.

I tell you what, I'm going to give you a chance to rethink that one and allow some time to correct it yourself.

 

[WCH]

I am sorry, but that still is not the same as chemical warfare.

Even with regular bombs you can achieve weapons of mass destruction. The bombing of Dresden is another example of that one.

And about the Chemical corps, the wikipedia stub says:

I saw that but, I was thinking gasmasks and a lack of video cameras made a big difference.

 

[Peter King]

The term is meant to obfuscate the reality of war, usually for political support.


Tim-

That is a very interesting topic for discussion but still does not alter the fact that the OP stated (untruthfully) that Matthews said that Hitler and the US did not use WMD in WW2.

The support for war is usually not made with the full reality of war because only soldiers know that full reality.

 

[Hicup]

That is a very interesting topic for discussion but still does not alter the fact that the OP stated (untruthfully) that Matthews said that Hitler and the US did not use WMD in WW2.

The support for war is usually not made with the full reality of war because only soldiers know that full reality.

Soldiers conduct war, it is the people that wish it. Their support is needed in a free society!

Tim-

 

[Peter King]

Most of the civilian deaths from the "fire bombing" of Dresden was from asphyxiation not from burns or becoming crispy critters.

Fire is a chemical reaction between oxygen in the atmosphere and a fuel.

Cordite and other smokeless gun powders are not classified as explosives like black powder is. Todays gun powders are nothing more than a propellant. When it's ignited a chemical reaction occurs creating a gas that expands and propels a projectile.

An Iowa class battleship was one of the most feared and effective WMD ever deployed. A squadron of B-52's carpet bombing a civilian population cold drop 612 MK.117 (750 lb) conventional bombs making it a WMD.

If President Obama orders American destroyers to launch a hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles, isn't Obama using WMD's ?

Firebombing is not the same as chemical warfare no matter that it is a chemical reaction.

And this still does not change the fact that Matthews did not (as the OP claimed) said that the US and Germany did not use WMD's in WW2. They did, that is obvious but they did not use chemical warfare against each other like it was used in the first world war.

 

[Peter King]

I saw that but, I was thinking gasmasks and a lack of video cameras made a big difference.

Maybe it was used, but unlike the first world war there was no evidence of this. And in the first world war, even with the lack of camera's, there was still a lot of evidence of the use of chemical warfare.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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.

Well, according to the report he did not say Weapons of Mass Destruction, he said neither Germany nor the USA used chemical weapons. It is true that neither Germany nor the USA used chemical weapons in combat.

It is also true that Germany used a non-weaponized chemical agent to exterminate Jews in certain concentration camps. What he used was a cyanide based pesticide called Zyclon-B.

Sooo, technically the report was correct.

 

[Peter King]

Soldiers conduct war, it is the people that wish it. Their support is needed in a free society!

Tim-

Soldiers fight wars, people often wish wars to take place, BUT it is politicians (be it executive or parliamentary politicians) who wage wars/start wars.

Support IMHO is always given to the troops but sometimes not given to the politicians who decide to start wars. This lack of support can be from day one or can form during the war itself (like in Vietnam).

But however one feels about war, the soldiers have to be supported because they fight the wars, they do not decide to start wars.