FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Thatcher Wanted to use Chemical Weapons
Thatcher Wanted to use Chemical Weapons
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
Newly release documents show that Margaret Thatcher wanted to use chemical weapons against Iraq. I wonder how many forum contortionists are going to try to defend this revelation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40667031 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Well to be honest it would depend on what type of chemical weapon was used. You see much of the time when we are told nerve agents are used they are not, what is used are blister and choking agents.
Now to be brutally honest I would much prefer to use nerve agents rather than conventional munitions. The reason behind this is simple, with nerve agents you either die or you live. If you die it is relatively quick, about 20 seconds after being exposed to a lethal dose your start to shake, 40 seconds later you lose consciousness and a minute after that you are dead. If you have an atropine autoject and you administer the shot in time you may survive, but the main point is if you survive there are no long term physical side effects and after about 20 minutes the nerve agent has broken down and is no longer a danger to anyone. When compared to the suffering caused by conventional munitions to those are lethally wounded but not killed outright and the injuries and pain caused to those who suffer life changing but non lethal wounds I would respectfully suggest that the use of nerve agents could be justified on grounds of reducing human suffering in war zones.
I am sure I will now be attacked as some sort of ghoul by many here. but while you're all telling me what a bad person I am remember that in doing so you lend your support to those who would limit warfare to the use of weapons that for the most part don't kill and when they do kill inflict massive physical trauma on the victim and often fail to produce 'clean' kills leaving the victim conscious and in great physical pain and fear as the watch their life blood drain out of their bodies.
Also remember regardless o the use of nerve agents or not the conflict and the dying associated with it will still happen. So really it's not a question of if you kill but how you kill. I for one would rather the 'clean' death of a nerve agent than spending time trying to stuff my guts back inside the massive hole ripped in my abdomen by a piece of white hot shrapnel (that cauterised much of the wound slowing the speed of my death) while watching myself slowly bleed out over half an hour/hour/day on a battlefield or in a war zone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
From what the article states it isn't clear if she said we need to use them.
To me she is asking the question if they use chemical weapons do we retaliate with like for like and do we have chemical weapons to do so.
It's bad enough to kill with conventional weapons never mind using chemicals or as has been suggested nerve agents.
No country on the planet should have such weapons and if it is suspected they do then a unilateral agency should be able to go in and make sure they are destroyed.
Easier said than done I know.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
"
"If we wished to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available."
You dont think there is a "want" there?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
"If we wished to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available."
You dont think there is a "want" there? "
To "want" to use them, no. To want is to have desire, and there is plainly no desire by anyone in their right mind to use such a weapon.
Do we even have a chemical weapon arsenal, or even the means of delivering them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well to be honest it would depend on what type of chemical weapon was used. You see much of the time when we are told nerve agents are used they are not, what is used are blister and choking agents.
Now to be brutally honest I would much prefer to use nerve agents rather than conventional munitions. The reason behind this is simple, with nerve agents you either die or you live. If you die it is relatively quick, about 20 seconds after being exposed to a lethal dose your start to shake, 40 seconds later you lose consciousness and a minute after that you are dead. If you have an atropine autoject and you administer the shot in time you may survive, but the main point is if you survive there are no long term physical side effects and after about 20 minutes the nerve agent has broken down and is no longer a danger to anyone. When compared to the suffering caused by conventional munitions to those are lethally wounded but not killed outright and the injuries and pain caused to those who suffer life changing but non lethal wounds I would respectfully suggest that the use of nerve agents could be justified on grounds of reducing human suffering in war zones.
I am sure I will now be attacked as some sort of ghoul by many here. but while you're all telling me what a bad person I am remember that in doing so you lend your support to those who would limit warfare to the use of weapons that for the most part don't kill and when they do kill inflict massive physical trauma on the victim and often fail to produce 'clean' kills leaving the victim conscious and in great physical pain and fear as the watch their life blood drain out of their bodies.
Also remember regardless o the use of nerve agents or not the conflict and the dying associated with it will still happen. So really it's not a question of if you kill but how you kill. I for one would rather the 'clean' death of a nerve agent than spending time trying to stuff my guts back inside the massive hole ripped in my abdomen by a piece of white hot shrapnel (that cauterised much of the wound slowing the speed of my death) while watching myself slowly bleed out over half an hour/hour/day on a battlefield or in a war zone."
That's quite a good answer  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's bad enough to kill with conventional weapons never mind using chemicals or as has been suggested nerve agents.
No country on the planet should have such weapons and if it is suspected they do then a unilateral agency should be able to go in and make sure they are destroyed.
Easier said than done I know.
"
May I point out that nerve agents are chemical weapons and chemical weapons break down into 4 groups, blister agents, blood agents, choking agents and nerve agents. I would hate to be attacked by the first 3 but as I have said before if it is a choice between the sorts of traumatic injuries caused by conventional weapons and a quick death or survival without any physical harm from a nerve agent attack I'll take the latter.
But hey obviously you think it is much more acceptable to kill slowly with bombs shells and bullets and then screw up others have others have to clean up the mess and deal with the shattered bodies of those who did not die than to kill quickly with a lot less pain and trauma to all those involved.
Maybe you are right and war should be extremely bloody and battles full of people screaming in agony and fear whiles others whimper their last moments away. Me, having a little first hand experience of what it is like would not wish that on my worst enemy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
"If we wished to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available."
You dont think there is a "want" there? "
Not in the slightest. But then I'm not completely blinkered in my opinions! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
"If we wished to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available."
You dont think there is a "want" there?
To "want" to use them, no. To want is to have desire, and there is plainly no desire by anyone in their right mind to use such a weapon.
Do we even have a chemical weapon arsenal, or even the means of delivering them?"
Short answer is no, we don't have them.
We could manufacture them very quickly if we needed to.
And we could deliver them onto a target fairly easy too if required.
The UK signed up to removing all chemical and biological weapons from our capabilities years ago, and now we only hold a small supply in laboritories for research purposes.
The UK Armed Forces do, however, have some of the best detection, and protection equipment against chemical weapons in the world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
"If we wished to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available."
You dont think there is a "want" there?
Not in the slightest. But then I'm not completely blinkered in my opinions!"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
"If we wished to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available."
You dont think there is a "want" there? "
The only want is in the mind of a blinkered wishful thinker. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Tony Blair had no qualms in scattering depleted uranium all over Iraq, go have a look at the deformed birth rate in places like Fallujah!.
"
The Brits were never in Fallujah |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
"If we wished to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available."
You dont think there is a "want" there?
To "want" to use them, no. To want is to have desire, and there is plainly no desire by anyone in their right mind to use such a weapon.
Do we even have a chemical weapon arsenal, or even the means of delivering them?"
We used to have them in our arsenal, and obviously Thatcher wanted to have them available to deploy. I dont see how you can deny that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
"If we wished to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available."
You dont think there is a "want" there?
To "want" to use them, no. To want is to have desire, and there is plainly no desire by anyone in their right mind to use such a weapon.
Do we even have a chemical weapon arsenal, or even the means of delivering them?
We used to have them in our arsenal, and obviously Thatcher wanted to have them available to deploy. I dont see how you can deny that. "
I've never denied that. If your headline had used the word "considered" instead of "wanted", then that would have been more factually accurate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
"If we wished to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available."
You dont think there is a "want" there?
To "want" to use them, no. To want is to have desire, and there is plainly no desire by anyone in their right mind to use such a weapon.
Do we even have a chemical weapon arsenal, or even the means of delivering them?
We used to have them in our arsenal, and obviously Thatcher wanted to have them available to deploy. I dont see how you can deny that.
I've never denied that. If your headline had used the word "considered" instead of "wanted", then that would have been more factually accurate."
Did Thatcher want chemical weapons available to deploy against Iraq? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well to be honest it would depend on what type of chemical weapon was used. You see much of the time when we are told nerve agents are used they are not, what is used are blister and choking agents.
Now to be brutally honest I would much prefer to use nerve agents rather than conventional munitions. The reason behind this is simple, with nerve agents you either die or you live. If you die it is relatively quick, about 20 seconds after being exposed to a lethal dose your start to shake, 40 seconds later you lose consciousness and a minute after that you are dead. If you have an atropine autoject and you administer the shot in time you may survive, but the main point is if you survive there are no long term physical side effects and after about 20 minutes the nerve agent has broken down and is no longer a danger to anyone. When compared to the suffering caused by conventional munitions to those are lethally wounded but not killed outright and the injuries and pain caused to those who suffer life changing but non lethal wounds I would respectfully suggest that the use of nerve agents could be justified on grounds of reducing human suffering in war zones.
I am sure I will now be attacked as some sort of ghoul by many here. but while you're all telling me what a bad person I am remember that in doing so you lend your support to those who would limit warfare to the use of weapons that for the most part don't kill and when they do kill inflict massive physical trauma on the victim and often fail to produce 'clean' kills leaving the victim conscious and in great physical pain and fear as the watch their life blood drain out of their bodies.
Also remember regardless o the use of nerve agents or not the conflict and the dying associated with it will still happen. So really it's not a question of if you kill but how you kill. I for one would rather the 'clean' death of a nerve agent than spending time trying to stuff my guts back inside the massive hole ripped in my abdomen by a piece of white hot shrapnel (that cauterised much of the wound slowing the speed of my death) while watching myself slowly bleed out over half an hour/hour/day on a battlefield or in a war zone."
So you'd say to someone who had been injured in a battle but survived that it would be better if they had died an agonizing death by chemical agent?
Less than 8% of those harmed in battle die according to figures from the Afghan war.
And your figure of 40 seconds from first symptom to fatality is wrong. It depends hugely on which chemical agent, the strength of the mixture and the dose recieved. It can be a long, agonizing and excruciating death. A description of footage from the use of chemical weapons in Syria: "Men sprawled on a tile floor, shirtless and convulsing. Children, too, seemingly unable to control their shaking and flailing. Panic and screams in the background."
Nerve agents (seperate from other chemical weapons) are also not as efficient as you make out. Death is not in under a minute and there are survivors who suffer from severe damage for the rest of their lives.
The sarin gas attack in Tokyo killed 8 and injured 5,000. Nearly 50 are permanently and severely disabled and over 1,100 are receiving disability payments to this day as a result of the attack. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Tony Blair had no qualms in scattering depleted uranium all over Iraq, go have a look at the deformed birth rate in places like Fallujah!.
The Brits were never in Fallujah"
.
So they say |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
"If we wished to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available."
You dont think there is a "want" there?
To "want" to use them, no. To want is to have desire, and there is plainly no desire by anyone in their right mind to use such a weapon.
Do we even have a chemical weapon arsenal, or even the means of delivering them?
We used to have them in our arsenal, and obviously Thatcher wanted to have them available to deploy. I dont see how you can deny that.
I've never denied that. If your headline had used the word "considered" instead of "wanted", then that would have been more factually accurate.
Did Thatcher want chemical weapons available to deploy against Iraq?"
No she didn't. She considered the options.
There is a hell of a difference between the two.
However a rabid Thatcher hater will always (want to) see the worst.
Personally I think she was the greatest PM Britain ever had (OK a few mistakes but we're all human) and the scumbags that try to besmirch her memory should hang their heads in shame.
I lived through Wilson/Callaghan so I know all too well what shitheads the Labour party were (are)
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
"If we wished to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available."
You dont think there is a "want" there?
To "want" to use them, no. To want is to have desire, and there is plainly no desire by anyone in their right mind to use such a weapon.
Do we even have a chemical weapon arsenal, or even the means of delivering them?
We used to have them in our arsenal, and obviously Thatcher wanted to have them available to deploy. I dont see how you can deny that.
I've never denied that. If your headline had used the word "considered" instead of "wanted", then that would have been more factually accurate.
Did Thatcher want chemical weapons available to deploy against Iraq?
No she didn't. She considered the options.
There is a hell of a difference between the two.
However a rabid Thatcher hater will always (want to) see the worst.
Personally I think she was the greatest PM Britain ever had (OK a few mistakes but we're all human) and the scumbags that try to besmirch her memory should hang their heads in shame.
I lived through Wilson/Callaghan so I know all too well what shitheads the Labour party were (are)
"
She didn't want chemical weapons available, yet said "we must have chemical weapons available"
To me that's crystal clear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Tony Blair had no qualms in scattering depleted uranium all over Iraq, go have a look at the deformed birth rate in places like Fallujah!.
The Brits were never in Fallujah.
So they say"
Well do you have any proof that they were? We're not talking about special operations forces here, we are talking about Main Battle Tanks. Fairly easily recognisable and traceable back to the country of origin. How many other countries have Challenger IIs? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
"If we wished to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available."
You dont think there is a "want" there?
To "want" to use them, no. To want is to have desire, and there is plainly no desire by anyone in their right mind to use such a weapon.
Do we even have a chemical weapon arsenal, or even the means of delivering them?
We used to have them in our arsenal, and obviously Thatcher wanted to have them available to deploy. I dont see how you can deny that.
I've never denied that. If your headline had used the word "considered" instead of "wanted", then that would have been more factually accurate.
Did Thatcher want chemical weapons available to deploy against Iraq?
No she didn't. She considered the options.
There is a hell of a difference between the two.
However a rabid Thatcher hater will always (want to) see the worst.
Personally I think she was the greatest PM Britain ever had (OK a few mistakes but we're all human) and the scumbags that try to besmirch her memory should hang their heads in shame.
I lived through Wilson/Callaghan so I know all too well what shitheads the Labour party were (are)
She didn't want chemical weapons available, yet said "we must have chemical weapons available"
To me that's crystal clear. "
I don't read it that way at all.
*If we wish to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available"
That's a simple statement of fact, not a statement of intent. "if we whish..." being the important phrase. The sentence would only mean what you're suggesting if "if we whish..." was not included.
She was basically saying that if we say we will retaliate against a CW attack with one of are own then we should have the ability to carry that threat through. I would go on to say that It's actually saying we should not make the threat to retaliate if we don't have the means to actually retaliate. I definitely don't read this as her saying we should threaten to retaliate, that she thinks we should retaliate or that she thinks we should even threaten to retaliate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
"If we wished to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available."
You dont think there is a "want" there?
To "want" to use them, no. To want is to have desire, and there is plainly no desire by anyone in their right mind to use such a weapon.
Do we even have a chemical weapon arsenal, or even the means of delivering them?
We used to have them in our arsenal, and obviously Thatcher wanted to have them available to deploy. I dont see how you can deny that.
I've never denied that. If your headline had used the word "considered" instead of "wanted", then that would have been more factually accurate.
Did Thatcher want chemical weapons available to deploy against Iraq?
No she didn't. She considered the options.
There is a hell of a difference between the two.
However a rabid Thatcher hater will always (want to) see the worst.
Personally I think she was the greatest PM Britain ever had (OK a few mistakes but we're all human) and the scumbags that try to besmirch her memory should hang their heads in shame.
I lived through Wilson/Callaghan so I know all too well what shitheads the Labour party were (are)
She didn't want chemical weapons available, yet said "we must have chemical weapons available"
To me that's crystal clear. "
I don't read it that way at all.
*If we wish to deter a CW attack by threatening to retaliate in like manner, we must have CW weapons available"
That's a simple statement of fact, not a statement of intent. "if we whish..." being the important phrase. The sentence would only mean what you're suggesting if "if we whish..." was not included.
She was basically saying that if we say we will retaliate against a CW attack with one of our own then we should have the ability to carry that threat through. I would go on to say that It's actually saying we should not make the threat to retaliate with CWs if we don't have the means to actually retaliate. I definitely don't read this as her saying we should threaten to retaliate with CWs, that she thinks we should retaliate with CWs or that she thinks we should even threaten to retaliate with CWs. I read it as her saying what she actually said which is, IF we threaten to retaliate against a CW attract with CW attack of our own then we must have the ability to use CW weapons.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Tony Blair had no qualms in scattering depleted uranium all over Iraq, go have a look at the deformed birth rate in places like Fallujah!.
The Brits were never in Fallujah.
So they say
Well do you have any proof that they were? We're not talking about special operations forces here, we are talking about Main Battle Tanks. Fairly easily recognisable and traceable back to the country of origin. How many other countries have Challenger IIs? "
.
Its only easily recognisable if your a geek or a top trump fanatic to most folk its a tank!.
Anyhow you do know when I wrote Falluja it was a eg of what du has done!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Newly release documents show that Margaret Thatcher wanted to use chemical weapons against Iraq. I wonder how many forum contortionists are going to try to defend this revelation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40667031"
if this is true I for one wouldn't !
I'd also like to see the people who dropped napalm in Vietnam be brought to book ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well to be honest it would depend on what type of chemical weapon was used. You see much of the time when we are told nerve agents are used they are not, what is used are blister and choking agents.
Now to be brutally honest I would much prefer to use nerve agents rather than conventional munitions. The reason behind this is simple, with nerve agents you either die or you live. If you die it is relatively quick, about 20 seconds after being exposed to a lethal dose your start to shake, 40 seconds later you lose consciousness and a minute after that you are dead. If you have an atropine autoject and you administer the shot in time you may survive, but the main point is if you survive there are no long term physical side effects and after about 20 minutes the nerve agent has broken down and is no longer a danger to anyone. When compared to the suffering caused by conventional munitions to those are lethally wounded but not killed outright and the injuries and pain caused to those who suffer life changing but non lethal wounds I would respectfully suggest that the use of nerve agents could be justified on grounds of reducing human suffering in war zones.
I am sure I will now be attacked as some sort of ghoul by many here. but while you're all telling me what a bad person I am remember that in doing so you lend your support to those who would limit warfare to the use of weapons that for the most part don't kill and when they do kill inflict massive physical trauma on the victim and often fail to produce 'clean' kills leaving the victim conscious and in great physical pain and fear as the watch their life blood drain out of their bodies.
Also remember regardless o the use of nerve agents or not the conflict and the dying associated with it will still happen. So really it's not a question of if you kill but how you kill. I for one would rather the 'clean' death of a nerve agent than spending time trying to stuff my guts back inside the massive hole ripped in my abdomen by a piece of white hot shrapnel (that cauterised much of the wound slowing the speed of my death) while watching myself slowly bleed out over half an hour/hour/day on a battlefield or in a war zone."
I won't condem ! You always seem to know your subject even if it's hard to hear !  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Newly release documents show that Margaret Thatcher wanted to use chemical weapons against Iraq. I wonder how many forum contortionists are going to try to defend this revelation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40667031"
I'd say your a thread title "contortionist"
Considering using chemical weapons in retaliation in the event of a chemical attack from Iraq is a world away from your "Thatcher WANTED to use chemical weapons" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Newly release documents show that Margaret Thatcher wanted to use chemical weapons against Iraq. I wonder how many forum contortionists are going to try to defend this revelation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40667031
I'd say your a thread title "contortionist"
Considering using chemical weapons in retaliation in the event of a chemical attack from Iraq is a world away from your "Thatcher WANTED to use chemical weapons""
Well if she categorically DIDN'T want them, and would not use them under any circumstances, then she would not have said that we need them in the theatre of operations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Just because we want to have the capability to do something then I guess in your book we must want to use it then yes ?
Ok, I presume you'd like us to fire everything from every Trident submarine at some random country just before their renewal then ?
Wouldn't have Trident if we didn't want to use it would we
It'd be such a waste......
Thankfully she isn't Corbyn either |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"I see that you have put your usual anti-Thatcher left wing bias into your headline.....naughty!
Mrs Thatcher did not "want" to use chemical weapons. It was merely a suggestion to Dick Cheney that the allied forces should be ready if Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against our forces. The American's thoughts were that world opinion would turn against Saddam if he took such a course of action, and that the allies should not go down that road.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Newly release documents show that Margaret Thatcher wanted to use chemical weapons against Iraq. I wonder how many forum contortionists are going to try to defend this revelation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40667031"
Churchill was prepared to bomb Germany with anthrax and wipe Germany of the face of the earth for many years,we won so nobody says a word.War is war and if we stopped playing by Geneva convention silly rules we could destroy Islamic state and the afghan problem a lot easier the reason we cannot defeat them as they do not play to our rules,our rules will destroy us in time |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Just stay in your country and mind your own business perhaps
#noweapons.
That sounds great but the op has been and is in favour of bombing Syria!"
You seem to be under the delusion that everything would be fine if the RAF weren't engaging ISIS targets |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just stay in your country and mind your own business perhaps
#noweapons.
That sounds great but the op has been and is in favour of bombing Syria!
You seem to be under the delusion that everything would be fine if the RAF weren't engaging ISIS targets "
.
No your the delusional one who thinks the West give a fuck about Syrians or that Clinton wasn't enriching herself through her own Foundation for selling weapons to Saudi to kill Yemenis or that Obama wasnt taking backhands from the banking and insurance giants to give Americans more expensive health care, that Obama didn't just assassinate his own citizens by drone without trail...I bet you still believe Assad actually gassed his own people or that the white helmets are just genuine lovey doveys out to help.
Its pretty easy to hate trump the man's a fucking corrupt moronic idiot, I just don't happen to believe your neo liberal bullshit politicans are gonna fair any better |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Just stay in your country and mind your own business perhaps
#noweapons.
That sounds great but the op has been and is in favour of bombing Syria!
You seem to be under the delusion that everything would be fine if the RAF weren't engaging ISIS targets .
No your the delusional one who thinks the West give a fuck about Syrians or that Clinton wasn't enriching herself through her own Foundation for selling weapons to Saudi to kill Yemenis or that Obama wasnt taking backhands from the banking and insurance giants to give Americans more expensive health care, that Obama didn't just assassinate his own citizens by drone without trail...I bet you still believe Assad actually gassed his own people or that the white helmets are just genuine lovey doveys out to help.
Its pretty easy to hate trump the man's a fucking corrupt moronic idiot, I just don't happen to believe your neo liberal bullshit politicans are gonna fair any better"
Right.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just stay in your country and mind your own business perhaps
#noweapons.
That sounds great but the op has been and is in favour of bombing Syria!
You seem to be under the delusion that everything would be fine if the RAF weren't engaging ISIS targets .
No your the delusional one who thinks the West give a fuck about Syrians or that Clinton wasn't enriching herself through her own Foundation for selling weapons to Saudi to kill Yemenis or that Obama wasnt taking backhands from the banking and insurance giants to give Americans more expensive health care, that Obama didn't just assassinate his own citizens by drone without trail...I bet you still believe Assad actually gassed his own people or that the white helmets are just genuine lovey doveys out to help.
Its pretty easy to hate trump the man's a fucking corrupt moronic idiot, I just don't happen to believe your neo liberal bullshit politicans are gonna fair any better"
.. ...well said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
