No matter which way you want to look at it agent orange was chemical warfare used in Vietnam may have been used to strip jungle foliage but it caused massive and grotesque birth defects for decades later.
the effects of Agent Orange
Printable View
No matter which way you want to look at it agent orange was chemical warfare used in Vietnam may have been used to strip jungle foliage but it caused massive and grotesque birth defects for decades later.
the effects of Agent Orange
I am not so sure that the full scope of long term damages agent orange was capable of doing was fully understood then. I am sure the powers to be had an inkling and just didn't care. In the concentrations used it certainly went way beyond UDA recommended exposure levels.
If it is considered a chemical weapon it is not a very good one technically. I mean ideally you want a chemical or biological weapon that causes death shortly after exposure and dissipates rapidly to allow the area to be occupied safely and used. In that respect agent orange is a poor choice. OTH it's long term effects are horrendous to say the least.
Bob
Kerry continues his Syrian war propaganda, 'Many friends stand ready to respond' - Dothan Marine Corps | Examiner.com
Something is really scary about this when you really think it through :( They want us to trust them with the details of what happened with the CW attack, yet they use a 10 year old pic from Iraq in the presentation and nobody catches it :hmmm: Maybe they better go double check the intelligence briefs from Syria again too
This is why we have the US Congress involved in the War process so it slows things down...
Yes many presidents have used the War Powers act and bypassed Congress over the years so that is a moot point...
We really need to think about this
I've been trying to get an understanding of this. I try to be informed. But, then I saw the picture I'm attaching to this and I'm more confused than ever.
Attachment 139282
The first casualty of War is the truth, and the UK and the USA are the masters of propaganda, I like to think after the 2 Gulf Wars I'm like most of the people in the UK we don't trust them and we simply don't believe much what the Government is saying.
After our little extended adventure in Afghanistan I would hope most Canadians are of the same mind as the Brits. I know I am.
Bob
Unfortunately this is the inevitable consequence of electing (and RE-electing) a community organizer to the presidency of the United States. The public put those war powers in the hands of a 'Saul Alinsky radical'. The pic might be ten years old or completely legit. It doesn't answer the question of what our national interest is in Syria. Even worse is the case being made for what actual benefit this military action can hope to achieve. Kerry was specific in that we will not consider any boots on the ground. In that very statement he ensured the public that we can't even hope to do anything to prevent those weapons from being used again. Because the only way to ensure that IS with boots on the ground. And what does our community organizer intend to do if Assad uses these chem weapons again AFTER we launch a symbolic military response? There is no up side to this. Kerry made an elaborate speech about history and how the lack of response to madmen has served us in the past. They better tone down the rhetoric on all of that before anyone follows through with the logical next question regarding the anemic efforts to prevent Iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions. This presidents foreign policy has consisted of an apology tour, a nuclear disarmament deal with Russia that yielded nothing for us but left our Eastern European allies out to dry, backing the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, backing terrorist opposition in Libya, and this. His supporters are obviously not paying any attention to what he is doing, fast asleep and content with the fact that a Republican is not occupying the White House. So who was this weak case for war being given to?Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
I believe the whole world should be involved in humanitarian goals that save lives. Using chemical weapons would IMO qualify the use of force. However as was said many times, we have no real trust in Govt as they have their own agenda. Before Govt was formed, you had tribes thatr pooled their resources to benefits everyone in the tribe. Every man had a duty to fight for, secure, provide for his tribe. Now you have politicians buying votes. That's all it is. 1000 years ago no one would knowingly poison the soil as they were farmers, yet politics are poisoning the economy. They act out of merely "looking" like theres somehow a benefit there but the devils in the details as always. The UN is a farce, the politicians are criminals and we are the suckers getting stuck with the check. Somehow the govt should have some fear or respect of the people, but it doesn't exist so more of the same.
SPOT ON OCD! Thank you for a through and factual analysis of the situation created by a community organizer elected/selected to the highest Federal office.
I ask you gentlemen this: Do you wipe your tail until you come up with clean paper & then go one wipe more?
Exactly, NONE OF MY BUSINESS!!
