Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
phosphorus boms aren't a WMD. They are used for traces and to make smoke for confusion of the enemy.
No, they didn't use Weapons of Mass Destruction. Again, when did Israel use Weapons of Mass Destruction? Chemical (such as VX gas), Biological (such as anthrax), or Nuclear (such as Hiroshima)?
Are you talking about air-attacks, or boots on the ground? I think air attacks with NATO should be considered. I hope Congress is discussing it already.
If America is the country to fly these air attacks America should be paid 10 million dollars per bomb dropped.
phosphorus boms aren't a WMD. They are used for traces and to make smoke for confusion of the enemy.
No, they didn't use Weapons of Mass Destruction. Again, when did Israel use Weapons of Mass Destruction? Chemical (such as VX gas), Biological (such as anthrax), or Nuclear (such as Hiroshima)?
Not true.
Hey, guess what, the title of the thread is chemical weapons.
Shooting phosphorous at people is chemical weapon use.
You're determining what you think meets your criteria, I guess you wouldn't mind phosphorous bombs being used on you or your family or in your country since they're not a problem.
You're posts portray you as quite a war monger yet you don't volunteer to do the dirty work.
Why is that?
Human Rights Watch: IDF phosphorous bombs in Gaza violate int'l law - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper Phosphorus has been used by armies since World War I. During World War II and Vietnam the U.S. and British armies made extensive use of phosphorus. During recent decades the tendency has been to ban the use of phosphorus munitions against any target, civilian or military, because of the severity of the injuries that the substance causes.
Nope. We don't have the money. Bush and the GOP bankrupted the nation with their 2 unpaid wars and tax cuts for the rich, that we cannot afford more overseas adventurism.
Maybe when Hillary is elected in 2016 and we finally have a surplus when teabaggers lose their influence and the rich pay the tax rates they paid during the Reagan and Clinton years and things return to normalcy. Maybe.
The GOP bankrupted the nation with the wars despite the fact that Democrat majorities in both houses of congress voted for it? Nice revisionist history there.
The GOP bankrupted the nation with the wars despite the fact that Democrat majorities in both houses of congress voted for it? Nice revisionist history there.
Yeah, the Bush administration's fear mongering tactics worked very well didn't they, and Americans, conservative and liberal alike bought it hook, line and sinker, by gosh, they even had me convinced saddam was behind the 9/11/01 attacks. It was but a short time later we who could think about it more clearly found that invading Iraq was a ruse.
Not true.
Hey, guess what, the title of the thread is chemical weapons.
Shooting phosphorous at people is chemical weapon use.
You're determining what you think meets your criteria, I guess you wouldn't mind phosphorous bombs being used on you or your family or in your country since they're not a problem.
You're posts portray you as quite a war monger yet you don't volunteer to do the dirty work.
Why is that?
Human Rights Watch: IDF phosphorous bombs in Gaza violate int'l law - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper Phosphorus has been used by armies since World War I. During World War II and Vietnam the U.S. and British armies made extensive use of phosphorus. During recent decades the tendency has been to ban the use of phosphorus munitions against any target, civilian or military, because of the severity of the injuries that the substance causes.
All weapons are chemical by your definition. Tracer rounds, gun powder.
These aren't weapons of mass destruction.
I think everyone knows what the op meant by chemicals
Let Syria deal with Syria. We should stay away no matter what happens.
Agreed. Syria has no energy and is of no strategic value to the US. We have Turkey (a stronger military force) as an ally to the north and Israel to the south. Whatever government takes over in Syria, it will be equally as hostile to both Israel and Turkey. So who cares?
Let them kill each other and be weaker militarily. Of course, Iran will move in and establish influence, but I can't imagine it will be worse that what is there now.
There is NO NEED TO WASTE US TROOPS AND TREASURE ON THIS MESS!
I'm torn actually... I've been a supporter of no action in Syria, but chemical weapons changes things a bit. I am leaning more toward getting involved in some way, even militarily, but it should be clear that it would be a short time thing, no nation building etc.
nope, dont really care. if syria using those chemical bombs on Israel, I hope they like the nukes in exchange coming from Israel.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
