Kerry says that Hitler used chemical weapons, while Kerry accidentally vindicated the Iraq war.
“Bashar Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein [who] have used these weapons in time of war,” he said.
Kerry: Samples from Syria tested positive for sarin – NBC Politics
Chris Matthews says that Hitler didn’t use chemical weapons.
We didn’t use them in World War II, Hitler didn’t use them, we don’t use chemical weapons.
I guess the thousands of tons of napalm bombs the US used to kill half a million civilians in Japan and Germany during WWII, were not made of chemicals. Also a good thing that nuclear weapons aren’t made of chemicals, because the US took out another 300,000 civilians with those.
Does anyone actually believe that Obama wouldn’t happily kill millions of Americans if a Civil War started in the US? Obama claiming morality as an excuse to bomb Syria is beyond laughable.
Mostly white phosphorus in Japan. And the targets in both Germany and Japan were civilians.
And we continued to kill them until they surrendered. Something we are unwilling to do with the Islamo-nazis.
The Nazis didn’t use chemical weapons? You might want to refresh your memory on how Zyklon B works.
Walter White once told me that explosives are chemicals.
Just very rapidly reacting chemicals.
U.S. mustard gas inflicted over 1,000 casualties in Bari, Italy, in December, 1943.
German bombers released the gas by blowing up the U.S.S. John Harvey in the Bari harbor. The Harvey cargo included U.S. mustard gas bombs.
In my latter military years I was a senior NBC, (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) instructor.
From our info, Hitler had ordered his field generals to use a nerve agent, probably sarin, in his war with Russia, However, the generals refused the order.
I had pictures of victims of Saddam Hussein (Iraqi Kurds and Iranians) who were hit with blister agents, probably mustard. Not pretty.
Nice picture of Kerry and Assad enjoying dinner together along with their wives – would love to have a transcript of their conversation 🙂
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/02/article-2408805-1B94E57D000005DC-279_634x575.jpg
What about the defoliant, Agent Orange?
Agent Orange has never been considered a chemical weapon. In Nam it was dropped everywhere including on American troops.
The US government has, for a long time, insisted that there were no long term effects due its use. However, I know of many, who had long term exposure, had children with certain abnormalities. I believe it to be a valid investigation to find out the percentage with specific abnormalities in those exposed as compared to the percentage in the general population. In short, I believe that long term exposure may show it to be a mutagen.
The U.S. government didn’t simply insist that agent orange had no long term effects they studied it inside out looking for any evidence of harm and found nothing. Most of the stories you hear about agent orange are similar to what you described, i.e. a frind of a friend had a child with “abnormalties”. But when investigated it all falls apart. The thing about agent orange is that if you can convince the VA you were exposed then all your medical care is free. Now that wouldn’t be the reaosn people claim some kind of injury or effect from esposure would it? Nothing like “free stuff to bring out the fraud.
Strikingly poor logic here. Gunpowder and other explosives are chemicals, therefore guns, bombs, grenades, missiles, etc., are chemical weapons. For that matter, steel is a chemical, so warfare in the middle ages was also chemical. I’m pretty sure that the military, and most people for that matter, would define chemical weapons as those which a) work directly on victim, and a1), work by causing pathologies in the victim, either internally or to the skin (wh. would rule out concussion, shrapnel, flying debris, intense heat, etc.). You might just squeak by w/ napalm, although I doubt the military would agree.
Most of the world condemns chemical weapons because the effects are so horrific, and because they are so indiscriminate; they drift around killing friend and foe, military and civilians, alike.
Speaking of indiscriminate, while nuclear weapons, like everything else, contain chemicals, their method of action is of course not chemical, but nuclear; also of course, redistributing nuclei yields on the order of a million times more energy than redistributing electrons.
Huh? Napalm and nuclear weapons are horrific.
From the view of the military\, of the three divisions, chemical, nuclear and biological, The US has the following doctrine: We will not use them unless we are using them in response in kind to an attack. However, only chemical and nuclear. We will never use biological under any condition. Although it is not stated, I assume that is because the results cannot be contained or controlled.
From the point of view of chemistry, everything that takes up volume and has mass is a chemical. Therefore a rose, a spider, and us are all a bunch of chemicals.
Hitler was a veteran of WWI: he knew all about chemical weapons, their difficulties,
and the likelyhood of enemy reprisals. “On 15 October 1918, he was temporarily blinded by a mustard gas attack and was hospitalised in Pasewalk.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#World_War_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Probable_use_of_poison_gas_in_Crimea_by_the_German_Wehrmacht_1942