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

[clownboy]

SIAP, OK?

America should do something, to show it will help out American allies (for example, Israel, SE Asian countries, NATO countries, etc.).
Yes, I know you Libertarians don't like that kind of intervention, one bit.

America's war plan in Syria should ALSO accomplish certain goals: (1)destruction of WMDs and vehicles that deliver WMDs.
(2)... What else? Is it mandatory to remove Syrian president Bashar al-Assad? I don't think so, especially when you realize what kind of gov't might replace it - specifically a radical Islamic gov't. Don't think that can happen to Syria that's supposedly a moderate-Middle Eastern country? Think of what happened to the moderate-Middle Eastern country of Egypt.

Recap:America should show it is willing to assist allies and do enough in Syria. Not too much (remove al-Assad), and not too little either (don't destroy Syria's WMD capability). Why has Obama taken American boots off Syrian soil as an option?

Ummmm, you do know Syria is not a US ally, right?

 

[rocket88]

You said:

"I just think it's amazing how that's not a valid justification anymore to Republicans."

That is pure BS and you know it.

That's not BS, I can't figure out why it isn't a valid reason anymore. It was 10 years ago, right?

Look, we went to Iraq thinking they had WMD. The official conservative line I've heard is that they sent them off to Syria. So - here's the weapons that we HAD to secure in the first place, and they're being used. So we know they have WMD, we know Assad supports terrorist groups...now it's not justified because.....???

Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the President is a D....:roll:

 

[dirtpoorchris]

That's not BS, I can't figure out why it isn't a valid reason anymore. It was 10 years ago, right?

Look, we went to Iraq thinking they had WMD. The official conservative line I've heard is that they sent them off to Syria. So - here's the weapons that we HAD to secure in the first place, and they're being used. So we know they have WMD, we know Assad supports terrorist groups...now it's not justified because.....???

Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the President is a D....:roll:

How do you know all this seeing the world through some little electric box and taking the words of politicians? You would think the people you trust would lose credibility after flopping on facts? Or is it "home team" all the way! No matter what! Even though (as we can see by the maneuverings of our politicians against the will of majority) our politicians dont really represent us.

Taxation without representation??? If we drop a single bomb or send any secret troops into countries without declaring war through congress it is war without representation. And our taxes go to war so it might as well be war + taxation without representation. Its just people doing whatever the **** they want now days.

 

[rocket88]

How do you know all this seeing the world through some little electric box and taking the words of politicians? You would think the people you trust would lose credibility after flopping on facts? Or is it "home team" all the way! No matter what! Even though (as we can see by the maneuverings of our politicians against the will of majority) our politicians dont really represent us.

Taxation without representation??? If we drop a single bomb or send any secret troops into countries without declaring war through congress it is war without representation. And our taxes go to war so it might as well be war + taxation without representation. Its just people doing whatever the **** they want now days.

The United States hasn't actually declared war since 1941. Korea, Vietnam, both Iraq wars, Afghanistan, all undeclared....for Grenada and Panama they didn't even get a vote from Congress first.

I've been on record multiple times here that I am against any action in Syria. I don't know why you people get confused and think I'm going "home team." Serious lack of reading comprehension. My point was that suddenly the authoritarians of the GOP don't think that WMDs are an excuse to go to war. I guess it's "home team all the way" huh?

 

[Peter King]

He's still wrong, nothing new for Matthews. We used gas, the Germans used gas all throughout the war. We both had willie peter and what the hell would you call a flame thrower? Haber, the man who brought us pesticides and fertilizer after the war, was the German's chief chemical weapons goto guy. Where the heck do you think modern agricultural pesticides came from?

except of course that white phosphor is not seen as a chemical weapon by the treaties concerning chemical weapons. If anything it falls under the heading of conventional weapons. The reason that "Willie Pete" is not seen as a chemical weapon is because it is not used because of it's poisonous properties but because of it's incendiary properties and is used for that purpose.

Flamethrowers are also not chemical weapons. They use chemical fuels to make flames, not kill with poisonous or toxic properties.

Haber might have been the go to guy for chemical weapons but they have not used them during the second world war. Both the Germans and the US/Allies had chemical weapons but when you do not use them that is not an issue IMHO.

Zyklon B was invented in the beginning of the 1920's and not for the use against the Jews, that was it being misused by the nazi's.

 

[Jredbaron96]

You're projecting

Irony.

You never answered my previous questions. You're also now either lying or don't know the facts. It's is an undeniable FACT that Mussolini was a hardcore Communist before he became disillusioned with Marxism and created Fascism. His goal never changed. Only his belief in the way to achieve that goal.

It's funny to see you throw the word 'Fact' around like it somehow makes your argument any less wrong.

Your quote looks like it's right out of some left wing textbook.

Yea the workers rose up in 1917. They rose up in China under Mao. Oh wait, no it never happens like that. The peasants are fooled into creating a dictatorship. Same thing happened in Cuba.

Marxism-Leninism is an evil ideology laced with false promises of a utopia. It is based in dialectical materialism. A dictatorship of the proletariat. Not even Marx himself had an answer for how once this dictatorship is established, how it gives up it's power. He said it would "eventually wither away ...". He was wrong.

Still not Fascism.

From Mein Kampf



Here's another quote

When did I mention Hitler?

Fascism is just a different brand of Socialism.

Again, incorrect.

Serious question:

Why do you think the Nazis were so racist?

Because Adolf Hitler pushed the idea of the Aryan Superman. They distorted Nietzsche Ubermench theory and put a racial spin on it.

Read your past posts. 90% of what you're typing lacks substance.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh, you're serious? Let me laugh harder.

Who said they were overstepping?

A lot of people. Do you think the Obama administration was justified in their actions?

They were competing. Nationalist SOCIALIST German Workers Party against The Communists. Both had the same end goal. They just believed there were different ways to achieve those goals.

North Korea is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. How accurate do you think that title is?

 

[Grim17]

That's not BS, I can't figure out why it isn't a valid reason anymore. It was 10 years ago, right?

Look, we went to Iraq thinking they had WMD. The official conservative line I've heard is that they sent them off to Syria. So - here's the weapons that we HAD to secure in the first place, and they're being used. So we know they have WMD, we know Assad supports terrorist groups...now it's not justified because.....???

Alone, it was never a valid reason... As I said, that was only one in a long list of reasons why Saddam posed a threat to us and our interests.

Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the President is a D....:roll:

You know as well as I do that today, politics always plays a part in things... That's just the way it is... But to make it seem as if that alone was the reason for the republicans approving military action in Iraq, is just plain dishonest.

 

[Grant]

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.

That's not so. Zyklon B - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Grant]

That's not BS, I can't figure out why it isn't a valid reason anymore. It was 10 years ago, right?

Look, we went to Iraq thinking they had WMD. The official conservative line I've heard is that they sent them off to Syria. So - here's the weapons that we HAD to secure in the first place, and they're being used. So we know they have WMD, we know Assad supports terrorist groups...now it's not justified because.....???

Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the President is a D....:roll:

Or, conversely, could the Democrats after voting for Iraq turn against it because the President was a Republican?

Using poison gas in Iraq was only one of several reasons for the invasion. In Syria it is the only reason, and it's not yet clear what will be done or what the long term plan might be.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

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.

As I recall that was used to show that he had chemical weapons. I don't recall the war ever being specifically about retaliation for gassing the Kurds.

 

[Peter King]

That's not so. Zyklon B - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes so.

Walter Heerdt was named the official inventor of Zyklon B in a Degesch patent application from 20 June 1922 (number DE 438818). Reichspatentamt awarded the patent on 27 December 1926. The main invention in Zyklon B consisted of the absorption of liquid hydrocyanic acid into a highly porous adsorbent. Initially, heated diatomite (diatomaceous earth) was used as an adsorbent. Later, high-porosity gypsum pellets called Erco-dice (described by eye witnesses as "crystals") as well as disks made from wood fibre were also used. The adsorbed hydrocyanic acid was very safe in handling and storage when placed in inexpensive airtight cans of various sizes. Gerhard Peters, manager of Degesch, cites M. Kaiser to the effect that

Heute ist die Zyklon-Blausäure als "das Mittel der Wahl" [...] nicht nur zur Entwanzung und Entlausung, sondern ganz allgemein zur Entwesung großer Räume in allen Erdteilen bekannt. ("Today Zyklon-prussic-acid is known on all continents as the means of choice [...] not only for debugging and delousing but also, in general, for disinfesting large rooms.)

From 1929 onwards the United States used Zyklon B to disinfect the freight trains and clothes of Mexican immigrants entering the U.S. Farm Securities Administration photographer Marion Post Wolcott recorded the use of cyanide gas and Zyklon B by the Public Health Service at the New Orleans Quarantine Station during the 1930s.

In other words, just a regular pesticide/disinfectant used in Germany and for example the United States. It was misused by the Nazi's as a method of exterminating people rather than rats and other pests. But sadly, this is also how the Nazi's saw most of their enemies (like gypsies, communists, socialists, handicapped people, etc. etc. etc.).

 

[Grant]

Yes so. In other words, just a regular pesticide/disinfectant used in Germany and for example Mexico. It was misused by the Nazi's as a method of exterminating people rather than rats and other pests. But sadly, this is also how the Nazi's saw most of their enemies (like gypsies, communists, socialists, handicapped people, etc. etc. etc.).

Whether it was 'misused' or not doesn't make it any less of a chemical.

 

[rocket88]

Or, conversely, could the Democrats after voting for Iraq turn against it because the President was a Republican?

Absolutely. I'm sure some did.

Using poison gas in Iraq was only one of several reasons for the invasion. In Syria it is the only reason, and it's not yet clear what will be done or what the long term plan might be.

True, but it was one of the reasons, which was my point in the first place. I didn't support invading Iraq and I don't support getting involved in Syria.

Saddam and Assad are basically cut from the same cloth. So we knew Saddam had chemical weapons and used them therefore we had to take him out, but Assad has chemical weapons and used them and it's not justified? They're obviously not the same situation but some of the circumstances are very very similar. Why one and not the other?

 

[Deuce]

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.

It's actually caused by a nuclear reaction. rof:

A chemical reaction is where two substances combine or react, exchanging electron states, releasing or absorbing heat, and resulting in a transformation of those substances. Sometimes this is good, like your body metabolizing mustard into energy to keep going. Sometimes this is bad, like exposing your body to mustard gas and the resulting serious blisters forming on your skin and in your lungs. (note that mustard gas is not actually made from mustard or mustard derivatives. Your hot dog is safe)

In a nuclear reaction, changes occur in the nucleus, i.e. an exchange of protons and/or neutrons resulting in a combining (fusion) or breaking up of (fission) the substance in question. This sort of reaction results in a matter/energy conversion, which releases a huge amount of energy if it's fusion of elements lighter than iron or fission of elements heavier than iron.

rof:

I say forget the missile strikes and other big dick options. Just have a CIA team covertly assassinate the ****ers who made that decision. Then when the word gets out and everyone is all "Assad assassinated! US involvement suspected!" You respond with "Yeah, it was us. And if the next guys in charge don't shape up real ****in fast, we'll do it again."

Missile strikes and invasions just kill more innocent people. Killing innocent people with conventional weapons isn't an appropriate response to killing innocent people with chemical weapons.

 

[rocket88]

Alone, it was never a valid reason... As I said, that was only one in a long list of reasons why Saddam posed a threat to us and our interests. .

There are a long list of reasons why Assad is a threat to our allies and our interests as well. It's easy to draw a straight line from Assad to Hezbollah who regularly threaten Israel.

 

[Peter King]

Whether it was 'misused' or not doesn't make it any less of a chemical.

but that still does not make it a chemical weapon or chemical warfare, it is the worst misuse of a disinfectant imaginable but it is not a weapon.

A grenade of the active ingredient of Zyklon B would be a chemical weapon, zyklon B is not. Zyklon B is not a weapon, it is incapable of being a weapon because in itself it is not dangerous at all.

 

[zimmer]

Explain that to the cities that got leveled by allied bombers during ww2 in germany. Those military targets that just so happened to be entire towns, which got leveled to the ground.... At least there was no town left from what I could see in some of the pictures. Let alone the whole atom bomb thingy.

I fail to see the relevance of your post about bombing German cities... except to say that yes... we used WMD against Japan. And Hitler used WMD against Jews. Which Chris Matthews in all his loyalty so willfully forget during his attempt to help Obama.

 

[zimmer]

but that still does not make it a chemical weapon or chemical warfare, it is the worst misuse of a disinfectant imaginable but it is not a weapon.

A grenade of the active ingredient of Zyklon B would be a chemical weapon, zyklon B is not. Zyklon B is not a weapon, it is incapable of being a weapon because in itself it is not dangerous at all.

Tell that to the mountains of Jews that died due to WMD...

From The Dept. of Revision:

...Sorry Dear Jews... it's not a weapon, and you weren't seen as an enemy of Hitler, and we don't think you partook in WWII. You were a byline. We didn't notice you having military uniforms. Therefore, this use of WMD is all a fiction because you were not on the official Chris Matthews/ Obama/ Demokrat WWII battlefield.

Once again, to be very clear... we are very sorry. But we cannot consider your massive losses to WMD as viable losses to WMD because it was in a controlled environment. Hence it's not considered WMD. Once again... sorry. We have other fish to fry now, and that's called protecting Obama's dumb ass from himself. So... sorry. This is the latest historical rewrite.

Thank you... now go away.

And for the record, we have officially deleted Sec. of State John Kerry's remarks about Hitler and Saddam using WMD against their own people from the record. Like the non-use of WMD against Jews by Adolf Hitler... the remarks of John Kerry are now officially non-remarks.

The Office of Revision on Matters Concerning WMD thanks you for your cooperation.

Dept. of Revision Circular Nr. 666

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You should reread your post. You contradict yourself within the first 5 sentences :lol:

What newspaper was Mussolini the editor of between 1912 and 1914?

What was the name of the newspaper that Mussolini founded in 1914?

Fascists were anti communists because they were a different brand of Socialism like Coke and Pepsi are different brands of soda.

Both are competing for the same customers.

I read my post. It destroyed your position... or actually, MUSSOLINI destroyed your position with his own words.

 

[Peter King]

Tell that to the mountains of Jews that died due to WMD...

From The Dept. of Revision:

...Sorry Dear Jews... it's not a weapon, and you weren't seen as an enemy of Hitler, and we don't think you partook in WWII. You were a byline. We didn't notice you having military uniforms. Therefore, this use of WMD is all a fiction because you were not on the official Chris Matthews/ Obama/ Demokrat WWII battlefield.

Once again, to be very clear... we are very sorry. But we cannot consider your massive losses to WMD as viable losses to WMD because it was in a controlled environment. Hence it's not considered WMD. Once again... sorry. We have other fish to fry now, and that's called protecting Obama's dumb ass from himself. So... sorry. This is the latest historical rewrite.

Thank you... now go away.

And for the record, we have officially deleted Sec. of State John Kerry's remarks about Hitler and Saddam using WMD against their own people from the record. Like the non-use of WMD against Jews by Adolf Hitler... the remarks of John Kerry are now officially non-remarks.

The Office of Revision on Matters Concerning WMD thanks you for your cooperation.

Dept. of Revision Circular Nr. 666

From the Department of accurate and historically correct statement:

Dear media and people of the United States

Sadly we have to warn you about something that has been written by jokingly by someone who calls itself the department of revisions. Ironically he/she has chosen that name accurately because they are perpetrating the act of historic revision when it comes to the fate of the Jews before and during the second world war and the actions of Germany and the USA during that war.

1. first they started with distorting the words of a liberal journalist/talking head called Chris Matthews of whom they incorrectly claimed he had stated that Germany and the USA had not used weapons of mass destruction. He of course did no such thing as he only stated that Germany and the United States had not used chemical weapons during the war, something that was and is an accurate statement.

2. then, in an attempt at historic revision, they used the fate of hundreds of thousands of innocent Jews who were mass murdered by the Nazi's to further propagate their campaign of lies and revisionism. Victimizing the truth and the memory of the murdered Jews by falsely using their plight to make a partisan political point.

3. However grave the crimes of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's were, they did not use chemical weapons. Sure, they were involved in the wholesale slaughter of millions but they did not use chemical weapons to do that.

4. To efficiently murder hundreds of thousands of Jews they devised a plan to use gasses to kill many Jews at once. They first attempted this by using exhaust gasses in specially manufactured murder trucks but this was not "efficient" enough and they then experimented on Russian POW's to test a pesticide they were using to delouse the inmates of their death and concentration camps, a pesticide invented in the early twenties of the 20th century.
The pesticide itself was safe to use and was not dangerous until it came into contact with water. It then produced a toxic gas that was deadly.

5. The gas they produced by adding water to the pesticide Zyklon B can be used, when it is in a liquid form, in chemical weapons. That is a fact that nobody will ever deny, however, the does not make Zyklon B a chemical weapon. Hydrogen Cyanide/Prussian Blue acid gas was not an effective chemical weapon anyway because it evaporated too fast from the grenades to have any fatal effect.

Wollheim Memorial

6. Chemical weapons and the second world war:

There is no record of chemical warfare among World War II belligerents other than that of the Japanese. The Axis forces in Europe and the Allied forces adopted no-first-use policies, though each side was ready to respond in kind if the other acted first. Indeed, all the major powers developed extensive chemical warfare capabilities as a deterrent to their use.

chemical weapon : Weapons of mass destruction -- Encyclopedia Britannica

7. execution through chemical means is not the same as chemical warfare because if you use that principle, the USA would also have been guilty of chemical warfare when it used poisonous gas to kill prisoners and nobody would be stupid enough to even suggest such a thing. And it would be stupid because it would of course be untrue.


To make a very long story short, Matthews was correct in stating that Germany and the USA did not use chemical weapons during the second world war. There is ample evidence of that. Zyklon B and the mass murder of the Jews is the worst crime ever perpetrated upon human race. It is sad that people are misusing the horrendous fate of the Jews to make a political point in this day and age.

 

[cabse5]

Ummmm, you do know Syria is not a US ally, right?

UM, why does that matter? The US should be reacting to the use of WMDs in Syria... And showing the US is willing to be a 'player' should US allies (not Syria, for example) need assistance. The US not doing anything could be read by enemies of US allies (not Syria, for example) as unwillingness by the US to help its allies (not Syria, for example).

 

[cabse5]

And why not American boots on the ground in Syria? A short campaign, no?

 

[cabse5]

Who's gonna verify all of Syria's WMDs are destroyed if no American boots are on the ground?

 

[cabse5]

A short campaign, no? No nation building, no? Shut up, Mr. McCain.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

As I recall that was used to show that he had chemical weapons. I don't recall the war ever being specifically about retaliation for gassing the Kurds.

That's just plain silly. How does him using chemical weapons in 1988 show he had chemical weapons in 2003? Of course citing his use of chemical weapons was offered as a justification for invading Iraq and not as evidence that he was in possession of them, as you "recall."

Despite your questionable recollection, the intimation was actually that if he would use chemical weapons on his own people, he would reserve no compunction with using them on us.

And it was an oft repeated justification for the invasion. But then again, that was Republicans supporting a Republican president; so who really expects any consistency from them now that we have a Democrat president?