wonder why they need these? [Archive]

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 24th 2003, 11:50 PM

Today @ 09:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44198#post44198)
tizzidale:

Not to mention the recent info about the Iraqi regime giving the Republican Guard the go-ahead to use chemical weapons.
Where did this information come from? I've been watching the news off and on all day and heard nothing of it. Take care that you're not jumping on another dead-end wagon like the "huge chemical weapons plant" that turned out not to be.

No, I'm not making excuses for past US mistakes, but I refuse to ignore the evidence in order to make a losing case.
I'm not making a case one way or the other, because I don't know. None of us do. But you say you refuse to ignore evidence in order to make a losing case, yet you laugh off evidence that is counter to your own opinion in this case. Looks to me like you're doing precisely what you just said you refuse to do, ignoring evidence in order to make what might be a losing case. We have a rich history of using weapons of mass destruction against our foes -- Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Dresden, Vietnam. And we knowingly sold chemicals to Iraq (many of the same chemicals we now fear they will use against us) knowing all the while that they were using chemicals in warfare against the Iranians. So, believe me, it's not a far stretch at all for someone to conclude that we could use them now. And it certainly would not be beyond reason for an Iraqi to conclude that we might use them, and so concluding, protect themselves accordingly. Sure, Iraq has a rich history of chemical and biological warfare. So do we.

Jaltus

March 25th 2003, 12:26 AM

CNN, Fox, ABC, and NBC all reported tonight that the CIA has uncovered a plan for the Royal Guard to use chem agents on the US. This is currently considered only a possible understanding, but the most likely by far of the information they have found.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 25th 2003, 01:10 AM

Today @ 10:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44283#post44283)
Jaltus:

CNN, Fox, ABC, and NBC all reported tonight that the CIA has uncovered a plan for the Royal Guard to use chem agents on the US. This is currently considered only a possible understanding, but the most likely by far of the information they have found.
I was just getting ready to post on that. I was in the kitchen popping a homemade pizza into the oven when I heard them talking about it on MSNBC. Said they got it from a supposed radio intercept.

Captain Ochre

March 25th 2003, 01:12 AM

Today @ 03:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44178#post44178)
Eireann:

Well, I honestly don't know if they have chemical weapons or not, but the discovery of Iraqi soldiers with gas masks and decontamination kits does not stand as evidence of the existence of chemical weapons in Iraq. Remember, as I've said before, the US has the second largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. And in our past wars, we've shown a remarkable willingness to use them (ever heard of Agent Orange?). Could it be just slightly possible that they outfitted themselves because they expect us to use them?

Sure. Or maybe they think they look more terrifying while wearing the masks, hoping to frighten the wuss coalition forces. Or maybe they control the stench of nearby oil fires . . .

Agent Orange was designed to defoliate trees and other plants, btw, not to directly hurt enemy (or friendly, ftm) soldiers. You really have no business bringing it into the discussion (in terms of logic). There's no comparison to mustard gas, or even to CS gas.
http://www.lewispublishing.com/orange.htm

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 25th 2003, 01:18 AM

Today @ 11:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44357#post44357)
Captain Ochre:

Agent Orange was designed to defoliate trees and other plants, btw, not to directly hurt enemy (or friendly, ftm) soldiers. You really have no business bringing it into the discussion (in terms of logic). There's no comparison to mustard gas, or even to CS gas.
http://www.lewispublishing.com/orange.htm
Uh oh, sorry, I forgot that 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not bring forth any fact that suggests Saddam ain't the only one guilty of misuse of technology. Forgive me for that huge transgression. It'll never happen again ... until next time I decide to bring it up again.

Agent Orange was designed to defoliate trees and other plants, btw, not to directly hurt enemy (or friendly, ftm) soldiers. You really have no business bringing it into the discussion (in terms of logic). There's no comparison to mustard gas, or even to CS gas.
Tell that to the victims of Agent Orange. They knew the effects it had and they still used it. Your attempts to exxonerate the US of wrongdoing in the past fall on deaf ears.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 25th 2003, 01:24 AM

By the way, Captain Ochre, your Agent Orange website only suggests that they didn't find out the cause of the ill effects of the chemical until later, it doesn't say that they weren't aware during its use that it had disease-causing effects, and numerous Vietnam veterans testify (some of the on C-span the other night) that they were warned of its harmful effects on humans prior to using to it in Vietnam.

kiwimac

March 25th 2003, 04:28 AM

More to the point its SOP for ground troops, in most armies, to have bio-chem protection in a war zone.

Kiwimac

flipper

March 25th 2003, 07:00 AM

Eireann:

The US isn't in the world's best PR position right now. If they used nerve agents in the prosecution of the war, there would be a move to have Bush declared a war criminal and things would get very awkward indeed.

I don't think they want Iraq that much, oil or no oil. I would not rule out the use of chemical or nuclear weapons as a retaliatory strike against hold-outs, but I would find it very, very hard to believe that they would use it for first strike.

Agent Orange is simply not comparable to Sarin or VX. US troops were exposed to Agent Orange without protective gear, simply because the risk was seen to be neglible, if it was considered at all. No one is going to release a nerve agent without due cause.

However, if you are thinking about using a gas, it is common sense to ensure your own troops are adequately protected against it. As I understand it, gas provides a reasonably shortlived advantage (vx is actually quite persistent) and you need to have troops onhand to take advantage of the disruption a gas attack creates in order to achieve break through.

You are right. The US has a rather patchy record with defoliants and incapacitating agents. It was the first and only country to use the A-bomb in anger. It does have a very large chemical, biological, and nuclear stockpile. Nuclear and chemical responses have too often been considered as options at the highest level. Sometimes they made sense (Schwartzkopf's indirect warning to Saddam H during gulf war I), and sometimes they didn't (Nixon's brief consideration of using a nuclear weapon in North Vietnam).

Nevertheless, the fact remains, the US has not used lethal poison agents in a war to this day, and is well aware of what thresholds this would cross, and what it would mean for the war for public opinion. There are those who would argue that this is not part of a war at all, but that is quite naive. Those same people would complain bitterly about the vacillation of domestic and global public opinion that helped to force the US out of Vietnam. The Chinese and Vietnamese were very aware of its importance.

However, from an Iraqi perspective, it would make sense to consider using these weapons as they are looking at a war of national survival. Iraq has not been stripped of its nation state status. Iraq is very, very likely to have chemical weapons. Nation states that are in danger of falling to an invading enemy are likely to consider all sorts of desperate options. Heck, the policy of deterrence is based on exactly that sort of calculation.

Why would SH bother building up a chemical arsenal if he didn't intend to use it when fighting for the life of his own regime? The question is, do his troops feel the same way? I fear that at the moment, many of them do. My biggest concern is that he will attack his own people and try to blame the US for it. The civilian casualties could be fearful - at least soldiers have the appropriate equipment, treatments, and training to minimize the effects of such an attack as best as possible. And with the mood of the world the way it is, if such a thing happened there are a lot of people who will choose to believe it was an American act.

Ryokan

March 25th 2003, 12:46 PM

Iraq isn't really a nation state. A state, but not a nation state. A small and off topic quible, but important, I think.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 25th 2003, 04:53 PM

Today @ 05:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44450#post44450)
flipper:

Eireann:

The US isn't in the world's best PR position right now. If they used nerve agents in the prosecution of the war, there would be a move to have Bush declared a war criminal and things would get very awkward indeed.

I don't think they want Iraq that much, oil or no oil. I would not rule out the use of chemical or nuclear weapons as a retaliatory strike against hold-outs, but I would find it very, very hard to believe that they would use it for first strike.
You might find it hard to believe, and I might find it hard to believe (I don't find it too hard to believe, though), but that's not the question. The question is whether the Iraqis would find it hard to believe, and with the rhetoric Saddam has been feeding them -- "If you get captured, US and British will inject you with deadly poison" (reported last night on MSNBC) -- then I doubt the Iraqis would have a hard time believing it at all.

Agent Orange is simply not comparable to Sarin or VX. US troops were exposed to Agent Orange without protective gear, simply because the risk was seen to be neglible, if it was considered at all. No one is going to release a nerve agent without due cause.
Nevertheless, knowing the effects of Agent Orange, and knowing (or at least suspecting) that we weren't unaware of some of its effects on humans prior to Vietnam, do you think the Iraqis would go out unprepared for the possibility of chemical warfare against a country that is well-known to have engaged in chemical warfare. Even if the effects of A.O. are much less than those of Sarin and VX, I know I still wouldn't let that be an excuse to go unprotected into a spray of the stuff. And let's not forget, no matter how dangerous A.O. is by comparison, the Iraqis know we have everything they have and more. And as I said above, it isn't a question of whether we believe our forces will use it, it's a question of whether the Iraqis believe it ... and I'll wager they do.

Again, though, I'm not arguing that that is the reason they are outfitted against chemical weapons. I was merely offering it up as a possible answer to the question, "If they don't have chemical weapons, why would they need decon kits?" predicating it on the opening clause, "If they don't have chemical weapons ..." Although the question wasn't specifically asked in that way, it was certainly implied, and it would take much to infer precisely that question from the way this thread was opened.

Captain Ochre

March 25th 2003, 05:15 PM

Today @ 05:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44366#post44366)
Eireann:

Uh oh, sorry, I forgot that 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not bring forth any fact that suggests Saddam ain't the only one guilty of misuse of technology. Forgive me for that huge transgression. It'll never happen again ... until next time I decide to bring it up again.

Nice selective memory, Eireann. You didn't use agent orange as an example of "misuse of technology" you used it as an example of the past use of a chemical weapon by the US.
"Remember, as I've said before, the US has the second largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. And in our past wars, we've shown a remarkable willingness to use them (ever heard of Agent Orange?)."
Aren't you the guy who said that he hated being lied to?

Tell that to the victims of Agent Orange. They knew the effects it had and they still used it. Your attempts to exxonerate the US of wrongdoing in the past fall on deaf ears.

I'm pretty sure that the victims of agent orange (by and large & not counting the plants) know that agent orange was an herbicide and not a chemical weapon.
It was wrong to use an agent that could have such serious side-effects during the war, more particularly since it caused health problem for US troops. Wrong, wrong, bad US for doing so.
Wrong, wrong, bad Eireann for intimating that agent orange was a chemical weapon and then wrong wrong bad Eireann for trying to whitewash his misrepresentation.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 25th 2003, 05:41 PM

Today @ 03:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44810#post44810)
Captain Ochre:

Nice selective memory, Eireann. You didn't use agent orange as an example of "misuse of technology" you used it as an example of the past use of a chemical weapon by the US.
"Remember, as I've said before, the US has the second largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. And in our past wars, we've shown a remarkable willingness to use them (ever heard of Agent Orange?)."
Aren't you the guy who said that he hated being lied to?
Use of a chemical weapon with known side-effects on humans against targets where humans will be known to be exposed = misuse of technology. You're really reaching now, Capt, in fact, I think that was the most desperate stretch I've seen you make yet. Bravo!

I'm pretty sure that the victims of agent orange (by and large & not counting the plants) know that agent orange was an herbicide and not a chemical weapon.
A weapon isn't determined by its content or structure, it is determined by its use. Anything that is used to cause destruction in such a way that is designed to either create an edge for your own troops or negate an edge for your enemy in wartime is a weapon. It doesn't matter whether or not the intended target is human or not. Those missiles that destroyed the palace were targeting buildings, not humans. The humans in those buildings were consequential targets, just as were the humans in the jungles that were attacked with Agent Orange. The Agent Orange was as much a weapon as those missiles. Your suggestion that it wasn't is weak and baseless.

It was wrong to use an agent that could have such serious side-effects during the war, more particularly since it caused health problem for US troops. Wrong, wrong, bad US for doing so. Wrong, wrong, bad Eireann for intimating that agent orange was a chemical weapon and then wrong wrong bad Eireann for trying to whitewash his misrepresentation.
Childishness doesn't become you, Capt. Check again, who was it who misrepresented? Was it me who said that A.O. was not a weapon, despite the fact that it was used for strictly military purposes in order to destroy the cover and shelter of enemy troops and to give an added edge to US troops? Your assertion that it's a herbicide and not a weapon is pointless. A chemical that is not being used as a weapon is just a chemical (an herbicide, for instance). A chemical that is being used as a weapon, as A.O. clearly was in Vietnam, is a chemical weapon. Captain Ochre's protests do nothing to change that simple fact.

Captain Ochre

March 25th 2003, 07:13 PM

Today @ 09:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44823#post44823)
Eireann:

Use of a chemical weapon with known side-effects on humans against targets where humans will be known to be exposed = misuse of technology. You're really reaching now, Capt, in fact, I think that was the most desperate stretch I've seen you make yet. Bravo!

Again, your point was obviously that agent orange was a chemical weapon and not merely "misuse of technology". You're whitewashing again.

A weapon isn't determined by its content or structure, it is determined by its use. Anything that is used to cause destruction in such a way that is designed to either create an edge for your own troops or negate an edge for your enemy in wartime is a weapon.

Notice how the word "chemical" magically disappears from your rhetoric while you try to spackle over the exposure of your misleading comments?
I send 1,000 sheep out into the scrublands to munch away all the leaves, so that the enemy cannot hide. Sheep are a weapon, right?

It doesn't matter whether or not the intended target is human or not. Those missiles that destroyed the palace were targeting buildings, not humans. The humans in those buildings were consequential targets, just as were the humans in the jungles that were attacked with Agent Orange. The Agent Orange was as much a weapon as those missiles. Your suggestion that it wasn't is weak and baseless.

If sheep are a weapon, then so is agent orange.
OTOH, agent orange is not a chemical weapon, as you plainly intimated.
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html

Childishness doesn't become you, Capt. Check again, who was it who misrepresented?

You did, and you haven't stopped.

Was it me who said that A.O. was not a weapon, despite the fact that it was used for strictly military purposes in order to destroy the cover and shelter of enemy troops and to give an added edge to US troops? Your assertion that it's a herbicide and not a weapon is pointless.

Nonsense. I drew a distinction between herbicide and chemical weapon, in full accord with the definitions offered at the CWC. If sheep are a weapon when used to strip away foliage, then so is agent orange. You continue to try to downplay your misleading statements, to your shame.

A chemical that is not being used as a weapon is just a chemical (an herbicide, for instance). A chemical that is being used as a weapon, as A.O. clearly was in Vietnam, is a chemical weapon. Captain Ochre's protests do nothing to change that simple fact.

Well, I hate to be redundant, but:
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html
See Article II "Definitions and Criteria".

Here's their list of chemical weapons and precursors. Find agent orange on the list, won't you?
Actually, I don't think that the link is direct.
See "Annex on Chemicals" on the menu at left.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 25th 2003, 09:26 PM

Today @ 05:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44884#post44884)
Captain Ochre:

Again, your point was obviously that agent orange was a chemical weapon and not merely "misuse of technology". You're whitewashing again.
Captain, if you don't understand, just admit you don't understand. Agent Orange was used as a chemical weapon. It doesn't take a mental giant to figure that out. I had assumed that you would be intelligent enough to be able to make the connection between "chemical weapon" and "misuse of technology" used in the same context. I suppose I should not have made that assumption, though, since every other time I've assumed the intelligence of the readers you have called it "spinning." Perhaps I have overestimated your capicity to connect simple things.

Notice how the word "chemical" magically disappears from your rhetoric while you try to spackle over the exposure of your misleading comments?
It wasn't needed in that analysis. Neither of us deny that A.O. is a chemical. That much is self-evident. Your argument was that it isn't a weapon and was not used as such. It's function as a weapon, not as a chemical, was what was being analyzed. At first, I thought you were just deliberately mud-slinging, but I finally realize that it is just a consequence of how badly your wheels are spinning.

I send 1,000 sheep out into the scrublands to munch away all the leaves, so that the enemy cannot hide. Sheep are a weapon, right?
If that is your purpose for sending them out, yes, they are.

OTOH, agent orange is not a chemical weapon, as you plainly intimated.
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html
Yes, it quite plainly was used as a chemical weapon. The website you provided confirms it:

From Article II

1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
"Toxic chemicals" defined:

From Article II:

2. "Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
Purposes not prohibited:

2. Each State Party shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that toxic chemicals and their precursors are only developed, produced, otherwise acquired, retained, transferred, or used within its territory or in any other place under its jurisdiction or control for purposes not prohibited under this Convention.
Vietnam was none of the above. And although 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin does not appear on the chemical schedules, by the wording of the Convention itself, those schedules are not exhaustive.

Clearly, by the criteria set forth in the Convention and by the use to which A.O. was put, it is a chemical weapon in the context of its use during Vietnam.

Nonsense. I drew a distinction between herbicide and chemical weapon, in full accord with the definitions offered at the CWC.
No sir, you attempted to make a distinction between Agent Orange as a herbicide and Agent Orange as a chemical weapon. By the criteria of the Convention, you failed in that endeavor.

Essentially, you are trying to suggest that if 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin does not already appear on the admittedly inexhaustive list of schudules, then it cannot be considered a chemical weapon. That is a weak argument. The words "chemical weapon" distinctly imply a weapon that is of a chemical nature. It doesn't take a genius to understand that. Its nonappearance on an inexhaustive chemical schedule notwithstanding. By your argument, it would be perfectly okay for me to walk up and stab you with a pencil, since "pencil" probably doesn't appear on any official government list of weapons, so therefore it isn't a weapon. You might still die, bleed to death maybe from the wounds inflicted by some phantom non-weapon, but that's okay, because it isn't a "weapon" in your book.

:no:

Epoetker

March 25th 2003, 09:32 PM

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.

Trees are not animals. That is all.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 25th 2003, 09:33 PM

Today @ 07:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44984#post44984)
Epoetker:

Trees are not animals. That is all.
Humans are.

flipper

March 25th 2003, 09:40 PM

Ochre:

Although I generally agree with your position on this matter, I think you're on dangerous ground arguing that Agent Orange was not a chemical weapon, per se.

I would argue that it was, but somewhere out on the haziest boundaries of what constitutes a chemical weapon. Does intended use mitigate its weapon's status? If so, then Zyklon B could conceivably not be classed as a chemical weapon because it was designed as a pesticide. Alternatively, CS gas is considered to be a chemical weapon (incapacitating agent), even though it has short lived affects.

If we define a chemical weapon as something that is specifically designed and intended to be weaponized and used against mammals, then you may have a point. After all, there are certain biological weapons that shouldn't affect people at all, but will kill their livestock.

IF you take the position that anything which directly or indirectly hampers the enemies war effort by denying him resources or killing (or making it easier) to kill his troops, then "weapon" seems appropriate.

Epoetker

March 25th 2003, 09:48 PM

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.

There's PLENTY of chemicals in sheep that can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans and animals. Bring on the Flatulent Sheep of Death!

flipper

March 25th 2003, 09:51 PM

Epoekter:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.

If I saturated the fields of a country with defoliants at harvest time, that could cause permanent harm and even death to both humans and animals.

This is a dumb and rather academic argument (ipse dixit). It is highly arguable that Agent Orange can be classed as a chemical weapon, but a case can be mustered. Eireann's argument is one of intent, but I don't think anyone can prove that it was the intent of the US government to cause cancer in its own troops. It was most likely a sin of expediency. Still unlovely, but not one of primary intent.

Farmers still accidentally (and on tragic occasions, deliberately) poison themselves on a semi-regular basis with organophosphate pesticides like phosmet. Chemicals designed to kill living beings, even those many taxonomic strides away from us, often come with a long list of hazardous side affects on other species.

I think we'd all be relieved if Agent Orange was what we had to worry about these days.

Epoetker

March 25th 2003, 09:55 PM

If I saturated the fields of a country with defoliants at harvest time, that could cause permanent harm and even death to both humans and animals.

Same if you saturated it with sheep:brow:

This is a dumb and rather academic argument (ipse dixit).

Quite true. I just couldn't resist posting anything with the words "Flatulent Sheep of Death!" in it.

I think we'd all be relieved if Agent Orange was what we had to worry about these days

Also, unfortunately, quite true.:frown:

flipper

March 25th 2003, 09:57 PM

Epoetker:

I, for one, am unlikely to ever be seen out in a field eating raw sheeps' brains, or those of cows, even if I had already found it dead.

Not a single fresh spinal column from either ungulate will ever cross my lips, no matter how temptingly they are wiggled in front of me.

Never, I say!

flipper

March 25th 2003, 10:00 PM

Epoetker:

Same if you saturated it with sheep

An interesting challenge.

Would these be particularly savage sheep?

Epoetker

March 25th 2003, 10:45 PM

Flatulent Rabid Sheep of Death, I tell you!

Though, really, I was thinking more about how overgrazing and defoliation would both massively hurt the food and economic conditions of the people therein, but, uh, yeah...

flipper

March 25th 2003, 10:53 PM

Epoetker

Though, really, I was thinking more about how overgrazing and defoliation would both massively hurt the food and economic conditions of the people therein, but, uh, yeah...

Thanks for explaining that for me. I guess you were worried that Iraq had deployed their Stupidity Ray?

Anyway, I bet that the wool and the meat from these sheep would more than offset the economic destruction caused by their defoliant affects and...

I can't even believe we're talking about this even semi-seriously.

*looks up nervously*

What's that bleating sound?

flipper

March 25th 2003, 10:57 PM

Whoops, a bit of a false alarm there. I'm sorry about that. I had forgotten I had left the radio on.

It just turned out to be Michael Savage, talking to his audience in the only language they understand.

*b-boom* *tsssh*

I thankyew.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 25th 2003, 11:54 PM

Today @ 07:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44997#post44997)
flipper:

Eireann's argument is one of intent, but I don't think anyone can prove that it was the intent of the US government to cause cancer in its own troops. It was most likely a sin of expediency. Still unlovely, but not one of primary intent.
I wasn't suggesting it was the primary intent. I was suggesting that its primary intent was of a military nature, intended to give an edge to US troops and negate an edge to Vietnamese troops by defoliating their cover and shelter. The "misuse" is in the implication (from the testimonies of Vietnam vets who say they were warned ahead of time) that the government was already aware that it had harmful, possibly fatal side effects and elected to use it anyway, knowing that Vietnamese soldiers and farmers would be directly in its area of effect.

Captain Ochre

March 26th 2003, 02:11 PM

Today @ 01:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44980#post44980)
Eireann:

Captain, if you don't understand, just admit you don't understand. Agent Orange was used as a chemical weapon.

No, it wasn't, and your attempt to use my citation to establish this is comical.

It doesn't take a mental giant to figure that out.

You stand as a living illustration of that.

I had assumed that you would be intelligent enough to be able to make the connection between "chemical weapon" and "misuse of technology" used in the same context.

I knew that you had to mean the same thing based on context, and I realized that your choice of words was probably affected by your realization that your claims were indefensible.

I suppose I should not have made that assumption, though, since every other time I've assumed the intelligence of the readers you have called it "spinning." Perhaps I have overestimated your capicity to connect simple things.

You connect things too simply, resulting in error.

It wasn't needed in that analysis. Neither of us deny that A.O. is a chemical. That much is self-evident. Your argument was that it isn't a weapon and was not used as such.

No, my argument is that agent orange (I think it only needs to be capitalized when you're referring to the band) is not a chemical weapon in terms of military classification. See my admission that agent orange is a weapon if sheep are a weapon. Save your straw men.

It's function as a weapon, not as a chemical, was what was being analyzed. At first, I thought you were just deliberately mud-slinging, but I finally realize that it is just a consequence of how badly your wheels are spinning.

Cleverness quotient: one of of five stars (imho).
You are shamelessly rationalizing your claims; equivocating, in effect, over your course of your anti-war propaganda.

If that is your purpose for sending them out, yes, they are.

Thus confirming that sheep are a weapon, when employed to strip the land of cover for enemy troops (for the benefit of the audience).
Are sheep made of chemicals? Yes, or no.

Yes, it quite plainly was used as a chemical weapon. The website you provided confirms it:

It certainly does not. Did you give any thought whatsoever as to what "except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention" means? Like, perhaps, removing cover for the enemy???????
Find "removing cover for the enemy" on the list of prohibited chemical applications, eh?

"Toxic chemicals" defined:

Agent orange is a toxic chemical. So is gasoline.

Purposes not prohibited:

Bzzt. You referenced an inappropriate document for your proof-text.
2. Each State Party shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that toxic chemicals and their precursors are only developed, produced, otherwise acquired, retained, transferred, or used within its territory or in any other place under its jurisdiction or control for purposes not prohibited under this Convention.
Note the final seven words, which would leave us with an essentially circular and vacuous definition of what the prohibited purposes are.
As was already shown "toxic chemicals" for purposes of the "chemical weapons" definition means those which are toxic to humans and animals. Killing flora (or mosquitoes, for example) would not be a prohibited purpose.

Vietnam was none of the above. And although 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin does not appear on the chemical schedules, by the wording of the Convention itself, those schedules are not exhaustive.

They're not exhaustive because it's always possible to develop a new chemical weapon. That's why the purpose and toxicity are involved in the definition of "chemical weapon".

Clearly, by the criteria set forth in the Convention and by the use to which A.O. was put, it is a chemical weapon in the context of its use during Vietnam.

Clearly, you're dreamin'.

No sir, you attempted to make a distinction between Agent Orange as a herbicide and Agent Orange as a chemical weapon. By the criteria of the Convention, you failed in that endeavor.
[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, I succeeded. Any reason why a "known" chemical weapon, such as you think agent orange to be, should be omitted from a list of chemicals the CWC oversees? No? I didn't think so. I love the way you glossed over the portions that provide for the use of toxic chemicals for purposes not prohibited by the CWC, even passing off the prohibition against moving chemicals to a different state as a prohibited use (afaics--your reasoning was as murky as ever, so I could be wrong). This because you confused "activities prohibited" with prohibited use.
Rather pathetic.

Essentially, you are trying to suggest that if 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin does not already appear on the admittedly inexhaustive list of schudules, then it cannot be considered a chemical weapon. That is a weak argument.

Incorrect. If you expand "chemical weapon" to mean any chemical which can cause harm to humans and animals, then plainly agent orange is a chemical weapon. You just don't learn, do you? The CWC most definitely allows that toxic chemicals aren't chemical weapons according to their definition if the chemicals are used for a purpose which is not prohibited, provided that the amounts used are appropriate to that purpose. Pesticide could be used to repel mosquitoes, but not used to blind enemy soldiers, for possible example.

The words "chemical weapon" distinctly imply a weapon that is of a chemical nature. It doesn't take a genius to understand that.

You lack of genius has already been acknowledged. Is water a chemical? Snowballs are chemical weapons.

Its nonappearance on an inexhaustive chemical schedule notwithstanding. By your argument, it would be perfectly okay for me to walk up and stab you with a pencil, since "pencil" probably doesn't appear on any official government list of weapons, so therefore it isn't a weapon.

Excellent illustration of your persistence in equivocating (quite the straw man, too).
By my reasoning, the pencil is not a chemical weapon according to CWC guidelines.

You might still die, bleed to death maybe from the wounds inflicted by some phantom non-weapon, but that's okay, because it isn't a "weapon" in your book.

:no:

:rofl:

Captain Ochre

March 26th 2003, 02:30 PM

Today @ 03:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45105#post45105)
Eireann:

I wasn't suggesting it was the primary intent. I was suggesting that its primary intent was of a military nature, intended to give an edge to US troops and negate an edge to Vietnamese troops by defoliating their cover and shelter.

So, it's a weapon.
It's also a chemical.
Therefore, it's a chemical weapon.
Just not in the sense that mustard gas and sarin are called "chemical weapons".

The "misuse" is in the implication (from the testimonies of Vietnam vets who say they were warned ahead of time) that the government was already aware that it had harmful, possibly fatal side effects and elected to use it anyway, knowing that Vietnamese soldiers and farmers would be directly in its area of effect.

Wrong thing for the US to do, but we've already been over that.
If you want to make up a not-entirely-incriminating rationale for the Iraqis to have gas-protective gear, you need go no further than "We used it against the Iranians. If we were willing to use it, then somebody else might be willing to use it against us."

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 26th 2003, 05:04 PM

Today @ 12:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45447#post45447)
Captain Ochre:

So, it's a weapon.
It's also a chemical.
Therefore, it's a chemical weapon.
Just not in the sense that mustard gas and sarin are called "chemical weapons".
Well, I'm astounded. You finally figured it out! I never said it was in the same class or catagory of chemical weapon as sarin or mustard gas. I said that its misuse in Vietnam is well-known, and the fact that Vietnam vets testify to having been warned ahead of time that it has risky side-effects yet were still ordered to use it in areas where humans (soldiers and civilians) were known to be in the area of effect, suggests that it was used as a weapon (e.g. it had strategic military intent) with knowledge of its harmful effects on the enemy soldiers who would come in contact with it. Therefore, whether the military classifies it as a "chemical weapon" or not, it is clearly a chemical that was employed during the Vietnam conflict as a weapon, and therefore to anyone except perhaps the US military it would be considered a chemical weapon in such instances.

The whole point of bringing it up in the first place (by the way, it wasn't the only example given, it was but one of a few examples given) was to answer the implied question, "If Iraq doesn't have chemical weapons, why would they need decon kits?" It may well have been a rhetorical question (implied, since it wasn't specifically asked in that way), so the querant may not have actually wanted a hypothetical answer, but I gave him one anyway. The implied question was hypothetical, so I gave him an equally hypothetical answer. It wasn't an answer that you all wanted to hear, but that's not my problem. As I said before, it really doesn't matter whether or not you or I believe that US troops would use chemical weapons, it matters whether or not the Iraqis believe it. And I would be willing to bet you money they do believe it, especially since Saddam was supposedly telling his troops that if they got caught, US and British troops would inject them with deadly poisons, which certainly puts them in the mindset that we aren't above using poisons and chemicals against them. Whether you like that rationale or not, you cannot deny that it is sound rationale.

Wrong thing for the US to do, but we've already been over that. If you want to make up a not-entirely-incriminating rationale for the Iraqis to have gas-protective gear, you need go no further than "We used it against the Iranians. If we were willing to use it, then somebody else might be willing to use it against us."
Yes, that hypothetical answer would suffice, too. But so would the one I provided. You cannot deny that the US has misused its technology more than once in war, not just with chemicals, but with more conventional weapons, as well. If that's no big secret to us, then you can bet it's no big secret to them, either.

Either way, if someone doesn't want to hear hypothetical answers that offend their tender patriotic sensibilities, then perhaps they shouldn't start threads like this that beg for such hypothetical situations.

Captain Ochre

March 26th 2003, 05:31 PM

Today @ 09:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45535#post45535)
Eireann:

Well, I'm astounded. You finally figured it out!

Your condescension is unwarranted.

I never said it was in the same class or catagory of chemical weapon as sarin or mustard gas. I said that its misuse in Vietnam is well-known, and the fact that Vietnam vets testify to having been warned ahead of time that it has risky side-effects yet were still ordered to use it in areas where humans (soldiers and civilians) were known to be in the area of effect, suggests that it was used as a weapon (e.g. it had strategic military intent) with knowledge of its harmful effects on the enemy soldiers who would come in contact with it. Therefore, whether the military classifies it as a "chemical weapon" or not, it is clearly a chemical that was employed during the Vietnam conflict as a weapon, and therefore to anyone except perhaps the US military it would be considered a chemical weapon in such instances.

:rofl:

No, here's what you said:
"Remember, as I've said before, the US has the second largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. And in our past wars, we've shown a remarkable willingness to use them (ever heard of Agent Orange?)."

Your continued shamelessness in denying your equivocation is amazing.

The whole point of bringing it up in the first place (by the way, it wasn't the only example given, it was but one of a few examples given)

It was the only (afaics) example of the supposed willingness of the US to use chemical weapons (of which we reportedly have the second largest stockpile). Let's see your citation in support of the stockpile claim, and see if it matches your equivocation regarding your new broad understanding of "chemical weapon".
Sorry for the interruption. We continue now with Eireann's obfuscation:

was to answer the implied question, "If Iraq doesn't have chemical weapons, why would they need decon kits?" It may well have been a rhetorical question (implied, since it wasn't specifically asked in that way), so the querant may not have actually wanted a hypothetical answer, but I gave him one anyway. The implied question was hypothetical, so I gave him an equally hypothetical answer. It wasn't an answer that you all wanted to hear, but that's not my problem.

Your problem is that you left the impression that Agent Orange was a chemical weapon (narrow sense) used by the US--unless you can show us stats backing up the notion that the US has the second-largest stockpile of chemical weapons (broad sense) in the world. Got it? Get it? Good.
If your point was merely the Iraqis have reason to think that he US doesn't have their best interests at heart, and has been known to use chemical agents in the theatre of war, then that's fine, but the explanation flies in the face of Ockham's razor and tars the US via your equivocation.

As I said before, it really doesn't matter whether or not you or I believe that US troops would use chemical weapons, it matters whether or not the Iraqis believe it. And I would be willing to bet you money they do believe it, especially since Saddam was supposedly telling his troops that if they got caught, US and British troops would inject them with deadly poisons, which certainly puts them in the mindset that we aren't above using poisons and chemicals against them. Whether you like that rationale or not, you cannot deny that it is sound rationale.

It is a probabilistically unlikely rationale. The Iraqis know that the Iraqis have a history of using chemical weapons (narrow sense), and the Iraqis know that the Iraqis light oil on fire as part of their defense and scorched-earth policy. There is no need to invoke distrust of the US as a rationale for the suits.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 26th 2003, 06:56 PM

Today @ 03:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45553#post45553)
Captain Ochre:

Your problem is that you left the impression that Agent Orange was a chemical weapon (narrow sense) used by the US--unless you can show us stats backing up the notion that the US has the second-largest stockpile of chemical weapons (broad sense) in the world. Got it? Get it? Good.
Capt, you seem to be about the only one who has a problem with defining agent orange as a chemical weapon. Others have contested the point on the grounds that it isn't comparable in intensity to sarin and mustard gas, but they didn't contest that a case could be made for its being a chemical weapon. Your insistence that it can only be viewed as a chemical weapon if the US government says so only serves to demonstrate the narrowness of your own thinking (and in this case, "narrow" is not a good thing).

If your point was merely the Iraqis have reason to think that he US doesn't have their best interests at heart, and has been known to use chemical agents in the theatre of war, then that's fine, but the explanation flies in the face of Ockham's razor and tars the US via your equivocation.
That was precisely my intent, in light of the question that was implied in the initial post. And no, it doesn't fly in the face of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor (the correct spelling, by the way) says that if more than one explanation is proferred, the simplest is usually correct. In light of the question (challenge) implied in the initial post, my explanation follows Occam's Razor. Your hypothetical explanation does not, in light of the challenge that was implied.

It is a probabilistically unlikely rationale. The Iraqis know that the Iraqis have a history of using chemical weapons (narrow sense), and the Iraqis know that the Iraqis light oil on fire as part of their defense and scorched-earth policy. There is no need to invoke distrust of the US as a rationale for the suits.
You've forgotten the implication that I was answering: "If the Iraqis do not still maintain chemical weapons, why would they need decon kits?" Pay close attention to that opening clause, because it is the driver behind my reasons for offering up that hypothetical explanation.

Captain Ochre

March 26th 2003, 09:52 PM

Yesterday @ 10:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45617#post45617)
Eireann:

Capt, you seem to be about the only one who has a problem with defining agent orange as a chemical weapon.

So, you apparently intend to ignore the challenge to back up your link of "chemical weapon" for purposes of the US stockpile and "chemical weapon" in the sense that Agent Orange fulfills?
Why am I not surprised?

Others have contested the point on the grounds that it isn't comparable in intensity to sarin and mustard gas, but they didn't contest that a case could be made for its being a chemical weapon.

So what? Appeal to the people is a logical fallacy, fwiw.

Your insistence that it can only be viewed as a chemical weapon if the US government says so only serves to demonstrate the narrowness of your own thinking (and in this case, "narrow" is not a good thing).

In defense of those who don't care about your equivocation, they're probably more interested in the main issue. I just happen to take issue with your careless and misleading use of facts. You apparently equivocated, and instead of dealing with that issue, you repeatedly try to bury it.
Consider this my interlude for the purpose of showing how dedicated you are to truth.

That was precisely my intent, in light of the question that was implied in the initial post. And no, it doesn't fly in the face of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor (the correct spelling, by the way)

Both spellings are correct. I prefer the one that I use.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ockham
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=occam

says that if more than one explanation is proferred, the simplest is usually correct. In light of the question (challenge) implied in the initial post, my explanation follows Occam's Razor. Your hypothetical explanation does not, in light of the challenge that was implied.

You just backed your supposedly parsimonious explanation with an argument by assertion. Congratulations.
:rofl:

You've forgotten the implication that I was answering: "If the Iraqis do not still maintain chemical weapons, why would they need decon kits?" Pay close attention to that opening clause, because it is the driver behind my reasons for offering up that hypothetical explanation.

Isn't Iran still their next-door neighbor? Isn't the assumption that the Iraqis don't have chemical weapons contra Ockham?

kiwimac

March 26th 2003, 10:03 PM

MORE TO THE POINT, CO.

Decon kits are SOP for soldiers on the battlefield. All soldiers, not just the US ones!

Kiwimac

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 27th 2003, 01:38 AM

Today @ 07:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45756#post45756)
Captain Ochre:

So what? Appeal to the people is a logical fallacy, fwiw.
Ah yes, the old "I'm in step, it's everyone else who is out of step" conundrum. Doesn't that ever get difficult for you?

In defense of those who don't care about your equivocation, they're probably more interested in the main issue. I just happen to take issue with your careless and misleading use of facts. You apparently equivocated, and instead of dealing with that issue, you repeatedly try to bury it.
Sir, it is you who are trying to obscure the point of the thread with petty semantic arguments. You took issue with the fact that I alternately refered to "chemical weapons" and "misuse of technology." Apparently you had missed the fact that the examples I gave of the US's misuse of technology included some instances that cleary were not chemical weapons (the atomic bomb, for instance), thus my use of "misuse of technology" to make sure those bases were covered in response to a very specific post, not in respose to the lead post in the thread. But the only way your argument could appear to have any merit whatsoever would be to obscure that fact, which you have diligently attempted to do. Since you can't provide an argument with any real substance, you resort to petty semantics.

Both spellings are correct. I prefer the one that I use.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ockham
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=occam
I stand corrected, although it has been my experience that the latter version (occam) is far more commonly used, as it harkens back to the older spelling.

Isn't Iran still their next-door neighbor? Isn't the assumption that the Iraqis don't have chemical weapons contra Ockham?
Do I really need to keep explaining this to you? The issue isn't about the reality of whether or not the Iraqis have chemical weapons or whether or not they are likely to use them. This thread raised the implied challenge of "IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons, why would they need decon kits?"

IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons

Is there a reason you are having such a hard time getting this?

A challenge was raised implying a hypothetical question! As such, in order to answer the hypothetical challenge, it is necessary to work within the rules of that challenge. The key rule being:

IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons

Get it? Got it? Good!

No matter how likely the scenario in which they DO have chemical weapons, it would not answer the implied challenge. Thus any scenario in which the Iraqis DO have chemical weapons is completely irrelevent to the challenge!

Captain Ochre

March 27th 2003, 02:20 AM

Today @ 05:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45911#post45911)
Eireann:

Ah yes, the old "I'm in step, it's everyone else who is out of step" conundrum. Doesn't that ever get difficult for you?

How is that rejoinder supposed to get you off the hook for commission of the fallacy, I wonder? Compounding it with the red herring/ad hom, eh?

Sir, it is you who are trying to obscure the point of the thread with petty semantic arguments.

I'm not so much trying to obscure the point of thread as I am trying to highlight your gratuitous insinuation of anti-American propaganda into your response.

You took issue with the fact that I alternately refered to "chemical weapons" and "misuse of technology."

There's that straw man again. He's tireless!

Apparently you had missed the fact that the examples I gave of the US's misuse of technology included some instances that cleary were not chemical weapons (the atomic bomb, for instance), thus my use of "misuse of technology" to make sure those bases were covered in response to a very specific post, not in respose to the lead post in the thread.

Here's your post, the one that implies prior use of chemical weapons by the US in a manner that is equivocal.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=44178#post44178

Until you own up to your equivocation, whatever else you write about it is rationalization (assuming that it approaches that topic).

But the only way your argument could appear to have any merit whatsoever would be to obscure that fact, which you have diligently attempted to do. Since you can't provide an argument with any real substance, you resort to petty semantics.

The post that I objected to had no mention of the term "misuse of technology"--you introduced that later, in the course of your coverup. Check it out.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=44178#post44178

Credit due you for acknowledging the "Ockham" issue.
I won't forget that.

Do I really need to keep explaining this to you? The issue isn't about the reality of whether or not the Iraqis have chemical weapons or whether or not they are likely to use them. This thread raised the implied challenge of "IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons, why would they need decon kits?"

IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons

Is there a reason you are having such a hard time getting this?

Despite your emphasis-by-repetition, the only thing that I wrote the flies against that aspect of the topic is the reference to the lack of parsimony inherent in the premiss. Point of fact, I mentioned this after you began to emphasize the premise of chemical weaponlessness.
Maybe you're prescient. :wink:

A challenge was raised implying a hypothetical question! As such, in order to answer the hypothetical challenge, it is necessary to work within the rules of that challenge. The key rule being:

IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons
IF the Iraqis DO NOT maintain chemical weapons

Get it? Got it? Good!

Well since you used C&P to overemphasize your point, I'll go ahead and defend myself a bit.
All I did was to ask a question regarding the parsimony of that premiss. You never answered. Instead, you turned into the On-Topic Police. Defensive, much?

No matter how likely the scenario in which they DO have chemical weapons, it would not answer the implied challenge. Thus any scenario in which the Iraqis DO have chemical weapons is completely irrelevent to the challenge!

IOW, you refuse to answer my question because it doesn't precisely fit the topic?

Ryokan

March 27th 2003, 11:21 AM

as much as it pains me to admit it, it is very possible Iraq, chem or no chem, would make chem suits available to its soldiers. Remember, several of Saddam's neighbors have some level of chem ability, and there isn't a neighbor Saddam has that he hasn't made some sort of military action against. So kiwi is right.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 27th 2003, 03:14 PM

Today @ 12:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45940#post45940)
Captain Ochre:

I'm not so much trying to obscure the point of thread as I am trying to highlight your gratuitous insinuation of anti-American propaganda into your response.
Demonstrate how my insinuations are anti-American. Must one ignore and pretend that the US has never acted irresponsibly or heinously in war in order to be pro-American?

Here's your post, the one that implies prior use of chemical weapons by the US in a manner that is equivocal.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=44178#post44178
You've repeated ad nauseum about how I've equivocated in this thread. You have yet to support that assertion, however. I employed repitition in order to make a point clear that you had apparently been missing. You have employed repitition in the hopes that if you say it enough it'll make it true. The L. Frank Baum fallacy ("There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home") C'mon, Dorothy, back up your claim.

By the way, in response to your challenge to show that the US has the second largest stockpile of chemical weapons:

According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), as of 30 June 2001, 69,862 agent-tonnes of chemical weapons have been declared and 5,734 agent-tonnes of chemical weapons have been destroyed under OPCW supervision since the CWC entered into force. The principal contributors to the global stockpile are the United States and the Russian Federation. The United States has declared its stockpile to be some 31,495 agent-tons (short tons), which corresponds to 28,570 agent-tonnes. The Russian Federation has declared its stockpile to be about 40,000 agent-tonnes. As India and one other country, known from non-OPCW information to be South Korea, have also declared chemical weapons, the combined stockpiles for these two countries can be deduced to be about 1,500 agent-tonnes.

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PURE AND APPLIED CHEMISTRY (http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2002/2404/pac_pearson.html)

As to the reference of agent orange, it is not on current stockpiles because it is probably no longer in use. It's use in Vietnam long predates the CWC, and as it is no longer in use for military purposes, it likely would not appear on the CWC schedules. I think most of us are in agreement that it was a chemical weapon, whether it was declared by the US or not, despite the fact that it doesn't compare in intensity to modern chemical weapons. It was clearly in their stockpile during Vietnam (unless they just conjured it out of thin air).

The post that I objected to had no mention of the term "misuse of technology"--you introduced that later, in the course of your coverup. Check it out.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=44178#post44178
I was referring to your later whining that I had first said chemical weapons and then said misuse of technology.

Despite your emphasis-by-repetition, the only thing that I wrote the flies against that aspect of the topic is the reference to the lack of parsimony inherent in the premiss. Point of fact, I mentioned this after you began to emphasize the premise of chemical weaponlessness. Maybe you're prescient.
The premise of weaponlessness was implicit in Tizzidale's opening post. I began addressing this premise in my first post on this thread, the third post overall on this thread. I only began overemphasizing the premise when it became apparent that you were missing it entirely and bringing in objections that were completely irrelevent to the premise.

Well since you used C&P to overemphasize your point, I'll go ahead and defend myself a bit.
All I did was to ask a question regarding the parsimony of that premiss. You never answered. Instead, you turned into the On-Topic Police. Defensive, much?
No, exasperated much. One can only emphasize a point a few hundred times before one finally realizes that the other party just isn't getting it. The premise was implicitly introduced by Tizzidale with his opening post and title. If you have a problem with the parsimony of that premise, you need to take it up with him. If the premise flies in the face of Occam's Razor, you need to take it up with him. The challenge was issued, and I simply responded within the rules of that challenge. If you want to address premises that involve the Iraqis having chemical weapons, then you should start your own thread about it (despite the fact that that premise has been argued ad infinitum) rather than wasting space in this thread.

IOW, you refuse to answer my question because it doesn't precisely fit the topic?
It not only "doesn't precisely the fit the topic," it completely moves in the opposite direction of the topic. As I said, if you want to hash out scenarios in which the Iraqis possess chemical weapons, please don't waste space on this thread doing so, unless you're offering them up as disproof of this premise. You haven't been doing that, though, you've instead been challenging the wisdom of even addressing this premise.

Captain Ochre

March 28th 2003, 02:06 AM

Yesterday @ 07:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46243#post46243)
Eireann:

Demonstrate how my insinuations are anti-American.

I just finished doing that. Where were you? Oh, that's right, you were furiously re-interpreting your words into some fanciful foreign context that had no reasonable connection to your intimation that the US had used chemical weapons such as those we have in our second-largest stockpile (have you still failed to meet the challenge of providing a citation for that claim?).

Must one ignore and pretend that the US has never acted irresponsibly or heinously in war in order to be pro-American?

No, just don't equivocate regarding the use of chemical weapons (for instance).

You've repeated ad nauseum about how I've equivocated in this thread. You have yet to support that assertion, however.

If we're the second-largest stockpiler of the type of chemical weapons that the CWC talks about, and you have no citation regarding the US being the second-largest stockpiler of chemicals that may be used as weapons (which could be virtually anything, I guess), then I've made my case.

I employed repitition in order to make a point clear that you had apparently been missing. You have employed repitition in the hopes that if you say it enough it'll make it true.

Wow. You're so psychic.
:rofl:

The L. Frank Baum fallacy ("There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home") C'mon, Dorothy, back up your claim.

What claim is that, Scarecrow?
Your equivocation is both obvious and demonstrated unless you can find someone who keeps stats for the amounts of any chemical that can be used for warfare. Good luck, kid--you'll need it.

By the way, in response to your challenge to show that the US has the second largest stockpile of chemical weapons:

Perfect; you provided the only missing component in making the airtight case that you equivocated. Here's your link again:
http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2002/7402/7402x0187.html
At the bottom of that page is a pdf file available for download that lists each of the chemical weapons in the US stockpile that makes it #2. Agent Orange isn't among them (look on page 107 of the pdf file).
Here's what you had said, Eireann:
"Remember, as I've said before, the US has the second largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. And in our past wars, we've shown a remarkable willingness to use them (ever heard of Agent Orange?)."
"Them": used as an impersonal pronoun standing in for "chemical weapons"--no? Do you still deny that the chemical weapons in the second largest stockpile and the chemical weapons that include Agent Orange are two different meanings of the term "chemical weapon"?
And you do know what equivocation is, right?

As to the reference of agent orange, it is not on current stockpiles because it is probably no longer in use. It's use in Vietnam long predates the CWC, and as it is no longer in use for military purposes, it likely would not appear on the CWC schedules.

Plausible ad hoc explanation, but incorrect.
"Banned in the U.S. and Sweden."
http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/fuortes/Text/herb_fr.htm
"One of these, 2,4,5-T, was banned in the US about 1980 because evidence indicated that it could cause birth defects in humans; 2,4-D remains in wide use throughout the US, where it is popular for killing dandelions and other broad-leaf plants in lawns, and as an agricultural weed killer."
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1995/185/185p13.htm

Looks like they still make the active ingredients of Agent Orange:
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e31/31i.htm
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:RRfCjlUc_poC:www.fao.org/waicent/FaoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/PIC/Download/DGDs/245_t.doc+2,4,5-T+production+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

So, you were saying?

I think most of us are in agreement that it was a chemical weapon, whether it was declared by the US or not, despite the fact that it doesn't compare in intensity to modern chemical weapons. It was clearly in their stockpile during Vietnam (unless they just conjured it out of thin air).

We agree that Agent Orange is a "chemical weapon" in the broad sense you used in your coverup attempt. Having established your new definition, it was a fairly simple matter to show that definition at variance with the version you used in referring to your second largest stockpile reference.
Thanks for the unexpected assistance. :smile:

I was referring to your later whining that I had first said chemical weapons and then said misuse of technology.

You used it to downplay your blatant equivocation. You want to say the U.S. has engaged in "misuse of technology"--that's fine, but I won't let you distract from the fact that you equivocated.

The premise of weaponlessness was implicit in Tizzidale's opening post. I began addressing this premise in my first post on this thread, the third post overall on this thread. I only began overemphasizing the premise when it became apparent that you were missing it entirely and bringing in objections that were completely irrelevent to the premise.

:zzz:
Your intimation that the US had used some of its huge stockpile of chemical weapons ("Remember Agent Orange?) missed that premise entirely. If you want somebody to blame for the digression, go look in the mirror.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 28th 2003, 03:04 AM

Captain Ochre, yes I know quite well what equivocation is. I was an English major before I switched to psychology. And I have not equivocated in this thread. There was no attempt to mislead. My mistake was in not foreseeing that I would be debating someone who would limit the definition of "chemical weapon" only to what the government classifies as a chemical weapon in the narrowest sense, as opposed to what the layperson would classify in the broader sense.

I set out to demonstrate that the US has the second largest stockpile (declared, anyway) of chemical weapons in the world, and that we have shown our willingness to misuse weapons of a chemical nature in the past (agent orange is one such case, and a case could be made that napalm is another, Dresden another). You can take those together or separate. Your choice, I really don't care. Perhaps I should clarify my meaning when I speak of "chemical weapons." I am referring to any weapon used as a weapon that is of a chemical nature so that the harmful or destructive effects are the direct result of the chemicals themselves, as opposed to weapons that do damage from shrapnel or whatever that is driven or propelled by chemical reactions (fuel, powder, etc.). By that lay definition, agent orange, the gasoline gel in napalm, the phosphorous material used in the Dresden bombing are all chemical weapons (although the latter two are incendiary, not pathogenic), technically. However, I have not really classified napalm or the firebomb as chemical weapons in the sense that I've been using it up to now in this thread, because they are chemical in an even broader sense than agent orange.

At any rate, my intent was to show that the US has been guilty of using chemical weapons in a theater of war in the past, and that willingness would certainly contribute to a certain wariness on the part of our enemies in wartime, because I'm sure they're aware of it, too. At no point did I say that the chemicals we had actually used were comparable in any way to what we currently have in our stockpiles, nor did I intend such an inference to be drawn. I apologize if you mistook my intent, but if I didn't expressly say or heavily imply such a comparison, then any inference to that effect was your own doing.

I believe that I accomplished what I set out to do, which was to provide a satisfactory hypothetical explanation that would fulfill the expectations of of the challenge set forth by Tizzidale.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

March 28th 2003, 03:52 AM

Today @ 12:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46711#post46711)
Captain Ochre:

I just finished doing that. Where were you? Oh, that's right, you were furiously re-interpreting your words into some fanciful foreign context that had no reasonable connection to your intimation that the US had used chemical weapons such as those we have in our second-largest stockpile (have you still failed to meet the challenge of providing a citation for that claim?).
No need to comment on this, because as you later found, I did provide a citation.

No, just don't equivocate regarding the use of chemical weapons (for instance).
There was no equivocation. I'll give you that I might not have been clear in my implications, but if such vagueness was there, it was not deliberate. Equivocation is a deliberate device, not an accidental one.

If we're the second-largest stockpiler of the type of chemical weapons that the CWC talks about, and you have no citation regarding the US being the second-largest stockpiler of chemicals that may be used as weapons (which could be virtually anything, I guess), then I've made my case.
You already found the citation, but for anyone else interested, I'll post it again:

http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2002/2404/pac_pearson.html

Looks like they still make the active ingredients of Agent Orange:
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e31/31i.htm
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:RRfCjlUc_poC:www.fao.org/waicent/FaoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/PIC/Download/DGDs/245_t.doc+2,4,5-T+production+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Yes, but they are heavily regulated. The form of 2,4,5-T that was used during Vietnam is no longer legal, according to one of your own sources:

"Legal regulations shall secure that the 2,4,5-T sold is free of dioxin, but little control for production exists. Accidents like Seveso (Upper Italy, 1976) or the unsolved disappearance of waste products in Middle Europe (1983) demonstrate the problem. 2,4,5-T has been lavishly used in the Vietnam war for defoliation (‘Agent Orange’) where it caused numerous incidents. Proof exists that the substance used then did not fit the standards of purity valid in Europe, the United States, and other industrial nations."
As this passage suggests, they have a great deal of trouble regulating the production of 2,4,5-T because the process is so unstable, but they do regulate the sale and distribution so that only the Dioxin-free version is legal to sell and distribute.

We agree that Agent Orange is a "chemical weapon" in the broad sense you used in your coverup attempt. Having established your new definition, it was a fairly simple matter to show that definition at variance with the version you used in referring to your second largest stockpile reference.
As I said before, the comparison between agent orange and what we currently have in our stockpile, in terms of comparitive intensity or governmental classification was unintentional. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to assume the Iraqis might believe we would use our chemical weapons against them. The fact that we have almost 9,000 agent-tonnes of sarin in our stockpile is enough to make anyone sit up and take notice.

You used it to downplay your blatant equivocation. You want to say the U.S. has engaged in "misuse of technology"--that's fine, but I won't let you distract from the fact that you equivocated.
No, I made the mistake of not being clear enough to someone who is only willing to accept a governmental classification of chemical weapons, and I won't let you distract from the basic fact that I provided a reasonable hypothetical answer to why the Iraqis would outfit themselves with decon kits if they don't themselves possess chemical weapons. The fact that you even brought up Occam's Razor shows that this was exactly your intention -- to distract from the fact that a reasonable explanation was provided (which is the last thing anyone on the pro-war side wants!).

Your intimation that the US had used some of its huge stockpile of chemical weapons ("Remember Agent Orange?) missed that premise entirely. If you want somebody to blame for the digression, go look in the mirror.
No, it didn't miss the premise at all. You simply tried to shake it loose from the premise by quibbling over semantics. It didn't work.

Pilgrim

March 28th 2003, 12:07 PM

03-24-2003 @ 10:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44150#post44150)
tizzidale:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/24/iraq/scene/main545829.shtml

For the same reason US soilders have chemical gear?

makes you kinda suspicious don't it now

Captain Ochre

March 28th 2003, 12:13 PM

Today @ 07:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46740#post46740)
Eireann:

Captain Ochre, yes I know quite well what equivocation is. I was an English major before I switched to psychology. And I have not equivocated in this thread.

See post #44 to this thread (that's for folks other than Eireann--I don't expect anything closer to an admission of equivocation than is found in this post).

There was no attempt to mislead.

Equivocation does not require intent. It merely requires that a word changes meanings midstream.
Well, the dictionary is arguing with me a bit, here. "Equivocation" implies intent, while "equivocal" as in "equivocal language" implies the mere misleading ambiguity. So, I unwittingly used some equivocal language.
I would maintain, however, that the type of ambiguity foisted on us by Eireann is the sort that should be expected from someone who allows his ideology to color his writing with bias, or even someone who intended to deceive.

I set out to demonstrate that the US has the second largest stockpile (declared, anyway) of chemical weapons in the world, and that we have shown our willingness to misuse weapons of a chemical nature in the past (agent orange is one such case, and a case could be made that napalm is another, Dresden another). You can take those together or separate.

What you wrote only makes sense if "chemical weapon" is given a different meaning in each instance. As I've already pointed out, nobody keeps data on who keeps the largest stockpiles of chemicals that may be used as weapons in a broad sense. When you used the impersonal pronoun to refer back to "chemical weapons", it is incorrect English (at best) if you are using "chemical weapons" in a different way--which you quite evidently were doing.

I believe that I accomplished what I set out to do, which was to provide a satisfactory hypothetical explanation that would fulfill the expectations of of the challenge set forth by Tizzidale.

Agreed, but that's a trifling matter in a country that lights oil on fire for defense and has a next-door neighbor that Iraq used chemical weapons (narrow sense) against extensively in a recent war; a neighbor that happens to have chemical weapons (again in the narrow sense) that could be used in a vengeful strike by a Shiite government against a nominally Sunni regime.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/cw/

Captain Ochre

March 28th 2003, 12:31 PM

Today @ 07:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46757#post46757)
Eireann:

There was no equivocation. I'll give you that I might not have been clear in my implications, but if such vagueness was there, it was not deliberate. Equivocation is a deliberate device, not an accidental one.

The Fallacy of Equivocation need not be deliberate. I'm disappointed in Dictionary.com for not clearly having a morally neutral version of "equivocation".
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/equiv.htm

You already found the citation, but for anyone else interested, I'll post it again:

http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2002/2404/pac_pearson.html

Again, thanks for the citation; it was very helpful in establishing unequivocally your error of ambiguity. :smile:

Yes, but they are heavily regulated. The form of 2,4,5-T that was used during Vietnam is no longer legal, according to one of your own sources:

As this passage suggests, they have a great deal of trouble regulating the production of 2,4,5-T because the process is so unstable, but they do regulate the sale and distribution so that only the Dioxin-free version is legal to sell and distribute.

You could make Agent Orange with the dioxin-free version of 2,4,5-T and it would work just as well as it did in Vietnam, except it wouldn't be anywhere nearly as dangerous to humans and other animals.

As I said before, the comparison between agent orange and what we currently have in our stockpile, in terms of comparitive intensity or governmental classification was unintentional.

Glad to hear it, and I'll accept your statement at face value.

No, it didn't miss the premise at all. You simply tried to shake it loose from the premise by quibbling over semantics. It didn't work.

Beg to differ.