I may be wrong, but aren't Chemical Weapons basically all poisons? Nerve agents, resparatory agents, etc? And the reason why the vast majority of nations banned them is because of their unstable nature: a cloud of gas just goes where it will go: a civilized country applies controllable and directed violence.

As Mitch points out, White Phosphorous is used to create obscuring smoke, or to mark targets or locations. Prolonged exposure to the smoke can be harmful, but then, prolonged exposure to any smoke can be that as well.

It's typical stupidity on the left, who expose their ignorance, to cry about a smoke bomb. Chemical Weapons are another thing entirely, but I've never expected anything like nuance from the left.

Pious, first WP is NOT merely a smoke bomb, it's an incendiary that CANNOT be put out. If it contacts your skin it burns MORE fiercely than in the open air (because phosporous burns better in water). The field treatment for exposure is to turn the injured person in such a way that the 'granules' burn out in the least damaging manner possible pulled out by gravity. That's not a smoke bomb.

Having said that, Mitch, it's hardly just the looney left that makes mountains out of molehills. I remember an impeachment for perjury not too long ago, but let's be perfectly clear, when I heard Randi Rhodes (I think) having a cow about WP, I wrote a rebuke to her, telling her she was wrong to characterize WP as a chem weapon, it's not any such thing, it's also not napalm (as she called it). Chemical weapons refer to a specific class of weapons specifcally designed to kill or incapacitate by exposure to it's toxins. Further, they must be area of effect weapons designed to cause widespread (within the limits of the area of use) casualties. Examples, Sarin, Mustard and Phosgene Gas (I misspelled Phosgene, sue me), Carbon Monoxide (yep, it can and has been used as a non-persistent Chem weapon).

The point is, WP isn't such, and oh by the way, many people on the left pointed it out to Ms. Rhodes.

How many on the right challenged the President's specious claim that Rycin is a Bio-Weapon. It's never been classified as such, it's extremely hard to weaponize, CANNOT be used as an area weapon, is NOT communicable (a fundamental requiement for consideration - even Anthrax can at least be communicated from sheep to humans). Rycin is about as much a bio weapon as is rattle-snake poison.

So... to parody Mitch:

Note to the American Radical Right

* Naturally occuring compounds - Rattlesnake venom, castor beans - are made of biological agents.
* Insect poisons - Bee stings, scorpions, are made of biological agents.
* The hemp that you appear to be smoking, is made of...you guessed it, biological agents.

Yet the President falsely claimed that Rycin, a poison concocted of castor beans, was a Bio-Weapon found in (as I recall) a London apartment and in Northern Iraq. Sure, and so is blow-fish (Fugo).

Mitch, I must assume then, following my lead, you'll deride the President for his hysterics and mistatement (LIE) to the American people? Further, that you grasp the difference between some left-wing radio yahoo and the President of the United States? Finally, I also assume you're ready to start challenging Limbaugh when he makes statements like Nazi's were communists?

The only salient point about WP is that it in FACT is a violation of International law to use it against civilians (as in use in a way that they are either targets or highly likely to become injured by it's use unless it's use is totatally unavoidable). Mitch's quip about killing people who are trying to kill you is, once again and not surprisingly, excessively simplistic. It's fine to use WP as an incendiary, it's even permissable, though frowned upon, to use it against soldiers/combatants, but it's entirely unacceptable (and should be) to use it in an area where civilians are likely to be harmed if other options exist. We have adequate other options as a smoke round (called "smoke" surprisingly - gosh). The use of WP is for "fast smoke" (45 second build) when normal smoke won't do the trick, or for burning fuel, igniting ammunition depots, etc..

Using WP as a mechanism to simply injure, and doing so indiscriminately is a violation of US Military directive, and International law. It should be. It creates IMMENSE ill-will to burn innocent poeple with weapons that cannot be extinguished. Using those weapons and then in some purient fit of glee - gloating about it is repulsive. That Mitch, or anyone, would excuse it as "boys will be boys" or "that's the nature of war" is indicative not only of a lack of moral rectitude, but also a lack of understanding of the realities of war. You simply don't engage in reckless destruction and injurious actions unless you are hoping for the same back not only from these folks, but in the next war, and the one after that and so on...

There are rules of war that CIVILIZED nations follow even when their opposition doesn't. Chief among those rules is, DONT KILL CIVILIANS unecessarily. We have violated those rules (e.g. fire bombing Tokyo), and nearly always, to our discredit.

So yes Mitch WP is not a chemical agent, but claiming the left is the only one hyping news related to weapons is a lie, but NO Mitch, WP is not simply a weapon used "whenever and wherever." and suggesting turning a blind-eye to our responsibilities is disgusting.

PB - 13F60 (ret) + C Co FSS 1/410th Inf, Det 1 3/14th FA, 6 ID (Light) Anchorage, AK. - all that means is I happen to be exprienced regarding US artillery and munitions. I doubt Mitch would claim greater expertise, but who knows. Mitch?

P.S. The primary difference here is that I don't advocate hypocrisy nor do I claim the ENTIRE right is advocating a falsehood or sustaining a baseless arguement. I condemn both sides for poor conduct, when do you expect you'll start holding your side to the standard you expect of the left?

I missed something...

Did Mitch ACTUALLLY say that long-term exposure may be harmful??

Yeah, long-term exposure to cyanide also MAY be harmful.. well, actually, it's fatal, just like long-term exposure to WP particulates (if inhaled) is ENTIRELY fatal.

Pious (and Mitch?).. you both appear to be entirely ignorant if you actually think the only danger WP presents is the smoke. Mitch, you also appear ignorant of the fact that for smoke, we have a MUCH superior round that is not particularly dangerous (it's superior because it lasts 3x as long). WP as smoke is used solely for it's quick build nature - it's used when troops are under fire, or smoke is needed in a hurry for some other reason. Whatever... I suppose I should no longer be surprised at your continuing ignorance of the military. Your friend Fingers sounded far less informed than you billed him as, he mostly sounded like another rightwing military-ophile who may have extensive background but a clear unwillingness to apply objectivity and rationality to his comments. Two peas in a pod on the latter there.

PB

PB,

Hard to know where to start - brevity is the soul of many things besides mere wit - but for starters I never said WP isn't exceptionally nasty. It is. I know that.

So are HEAT rounds, frag grenades, cluster bombs, and a zillion other things.

I'm pointing out the illiteracy, selectivity and ignorance of too many of the military's critics. That is all.

Well Mitch.

Perhaps you could start by rebuking the President for falsely claiming Rycin was a Bio-Weapon. A statement they have NEVER corrected.

Interestingly, Rhodes IMMEDIATELY stopped saying WP was a chem weapon. Your comments are/were predictable, I told Rhodes in that e-mail that the right would castigate her - and so you and others have - not just her but the left in general, despite the fact that the WaPo story DOESN'T claim WP is a chemical weapon.

Apply your own standards FOR ONCE Mitch. I'm sure you don't know where to start because the fact that the President claimed Rycin was a bioweapon is irrefutable.

While you didn't say WP wasn't dangerous, you also didn't SAY IT WAS, which that WaPo story clearly identified. Further, that story pointed out that there are better smoke rounds. Equally, you failed to comment on the "shake and bake" usage, which is candidly borderline conduct. WP is not "supposed" to be used as an anti-personnel round. It CAN Be, if necessary, and so those folks are not in legal trouble, but if it were used as such, and caused civilian casualties, they've violated our own agreements.

Regardless, the point is that you piss and moan about the left's exageration (and rightly so - though belated and obvious it might have been) and you fail to also note they've subsequently stopped, but you don't hold your own "leader" to accounts for hyping the existence of Rycin as proof of bioweapons in Iraq.

Double-standards, omissions, and distortments or under-representations of facts do you no credit. Attempting to suggest the use of WP is "just the way things go" abets immoral conduct. In short, as a combatant you attempt to destroy the enemy's ability to fight, including kiling them, but you have no place simply causing them wickedly painful injury for your own pleasure. That you cavalierly discount conduct that if used as a "pshycholigical weapon" i.e. to cause fear because it does in fact cause grevious, pointless suffering, means you don't understand that it has been used to cause grevious, pointless suffering. We loose our moral standing, and blow away the moral compass of our troops, when we allow an "anything goes" mentality. It appears you refuse to hold the President to a standard you expect of left-wing radio because it appears you lack a standard yourself.

As for brevity being the soul of wit.. try that on for yourself sometime.. but living in a glass house has never prevented you from throwing stones.. to wit.. here.

PB

PB:

I don't HAVE to explain what WP does. This post is not a clinical examination of incendary/smoke munitions.

As to brevity - let me slip into writing teacher mode (have you ever taught writing? No? I have! You're a hypocritical writinghawk!), I usually try to start with a point, explain it, and write a conclusion based on it. Your comments (god bless 'em, keep 'em coming) tend so much to meander among topics and ideas that they're really difficult to read - and have spawned, if you've noticed, a caricature or two.

And that doesn't even address the amount of long-debunked stuff you keep recycling.

Alas, PB, the BBC and the London broadsheets have been toting the white phosphorous canard for quite some time. It is an old shoe our own slacker MSM liberals have only recently begun to endorse, and rather sheepishly at that, because even they know this dog won't hunt.

You are, nonetheless, to be congratulated on finally finding a topic upon which you can write intelligently, if a bit hysterically, although you conveniently ignore the Allied fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, the morality of which is still very much debated, but occurred in response to Germany's and Japan's relentlessly indefensible conduct on all fronts in the war ultimately requiring the deployment of not one, but two, nuclear weapons to produce the unconditional surrender of Japan. Berlin, as was most of Germany, was bombed into oblivion with all manner of incendiary devices intended to produce precisely the deliberate, calculated, "grievous pointless suffering" you deplore. That war is hell implies moral failure, which is why we endeavor to avoid it.

You are incorrect, however, that ricin is not a biological toxin with the potential for use as a chemical weapon. It is a poison derived from castor bean plants, which are grown worldwide, and can be produced relatively easily and inexpensively in very large quantities. It can be turned into an aerosol and inhaled or used to contaminate food and water supplies. Ricin has no vaccine or antidote and is included on Schedule 1 of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Eracus,

Actually, I didn't conveniently ignore Dresden.. I mentioned Tokyo as an example

And actually, you are fully in error by saying Ricin can be weaponized, it's damned near impossible. As I said, it is made from castor beans, thanks for reiterating that fact for me. I'm curious that you missed both the fact that I criticized fire bombing, and the Ricin castor beans thing.

Ricin is not, under any international agreement I am aware of, defined as a biological agent. It fails on two main scores. First, it is NOT an area weapon, it cannot be aerosolized...despite your claims to the contrary. It was discovered as the poison used to kill a couple of dignitaries (Russian poison pellet gun) in the very early 80's. At that time it was clearly identified as pretty well unable to be weaponized. The limitations then are the same as they are now. It has to be powderized.. it has to not decay (which it does very rapidly).. and it has to be inhaled in decent enough quantities. Ricin is terribly poteent as a poison, it certainly can be grown in sufficient quantities, but the processing of it is dangerous as hell - akin or worse (probably worse) than anthrax processing, and as I said, it decays, because it is in fact of course a biological agent.

But the area it mostly falls down, and is why it's in no way considered a biological weapon, unless you consider WP a chemical one, is that it is utterly not communicable. As such, it cannot provide "MASS" destruction. The key danger of a bioweapon is it's ability to break containment. Ricin is a local area poison, really an individual poison. If you believe Ricin is other than this, please provide me any example (there are none) of it ever being used as an area weapon. You won't find any, it hasn't happened. Your facts on Ricin are, unfortunately, flawed.

PB

As Mitch mentioned, PB, so many and so much of your posts are convoluted and difficult to follow, which is why I missed your reference to the firebombing of Tokyo, which was justified, as were Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by the recalcitrance of the Japanese and what they did to China and our own advancing forces. But I digress....

Under both the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, ricin is listed as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Ricin is also listed as a category B bioterrorism agent by the Centers for Disease Control, which also notes that ricin is a stable substance unaffected by temperature changes. Recognizing the terror threat of ricin if used as a contaminant in air, water and food supplies, the U.S. Congress has funded the development of a vaccine, which is currently laboriously making its way through trials with the Division of Integrated Toxicology at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Ft. Detrick, MD. It is also a matter of public record that the toxin turned up in an envelope in the mailroom that serves Senator Bill Frist's office as well as the White House, and also at a post office facility in Greenville, SC, in October 2003. It was also discovered at the center of a plot in London, according to Scotland Yard, where suspected al-Qaeda members were trying to make it for dispersion in the subway system. In the U.S. cases, it was contained in a vial and found to be pure.

Your larger point, however, that the production and deployment of ricin is problematic and not cost-effective as a bio-chemical weapon, given the alternatives, is not in dispute. In World War I, the U.S. attempted to deploy powderized ricin in cluster bombs but could not effect high enough concentrations to be lethal. The alternative was its use as a coating for bullets and shrapnel, but this was rejected for ethical reasons, not because it didn't work, as the 1978 murder of the Bulgarian diplomat shot in the leg at close range with a BB established. And not to put too fine a point on it, PB, but anybody who has suffered the effects of Montezuma's revenge, salmonella poisoning, or any other food-borne illness, would no doubt dispute your claim that a bio-chemical agent must "break containment" or be "communicable" to be effective. The British navy nearly died from scurvy and whole armies have been stopped in their tracks by trenchfoot. The true genius of Patton was not just on the battlefield, but in his supply lines, which consistently delivered his infantry 2 pairs of clean and dry socks every day. It's how he got to Bastogne.

The salient point is that a sick soldier can't fight, and any contaminant in the air, food or water supply will not only put him out of commission, but could overwhelm the medical imperatives for the projection of military force. In MacArthur's campaign, for instance, the enemy was as much dysentery as it was the Japanese, who routinely poisoned the water supply, so I think your assertion that ricin is only a "local area" poison and cannot be used as a bio-chemical weapon is spurious. It most certainly can be, though I would agree with you that there are many less problematic and cost-effective alternatives.

First Eracus, you said bioweapon not bio-terrorism agent, you need to be accurate.

Second, I said show me where Ricin is listed as a Bioweapon.. it's not.

I never said it wasn't a bio-agent, in fact I said it WAS a bio agent.

Third, from the US Army..

Scientists have developed an experimental vaccine against ricin that fully protected mice from aerosol challenge with lethal doses of the potential biological weapon. The study was performed at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Md.

When inhaled as a small-particle aerosol, ricin produces severe respiratory symptoms and respiratory failure within 72 hours. When ingested, ricin can cause severe gastrointestinal symptoms followed by vascular collapse and death.

NOTE THE TERM POTENTIAL- it is not classed as a bioweapon..

The bottom line is, up until 2001, bioweapon generally has meant disease causing agent. We've conflated that now to any naturally occuring biological agent which COULD be weaponized. Ricin is a poison, prior to 2001, Ricin would have been considered a naturally occuring CHEMICAL agent, because it is a TOXIN, not a disease agent.

I'm surprised that they can find a "vaccine" in that it is a toxin, not a bacterial or viral agent, but good for them I guess, though the threat is nearly non-existent, those fools in London had about as much chance of "dispersing" Ricin effectively as they had falling from a plane and surviving. It might happen, it would be bad, but that still wouldn't make Ricin a bioweapon. They were FAR more likely to poison themselves.

Finally, conflating "getting sick" with a bacterium (like that which causes Montezuma's revenge) and the effects of a toxin to make your point, doesn't.
PB

Semantics.

Eracus and PB,
You both post such fascinating information from which I learn quite a bit. I guess I'm a lurker because I usually visit this site just to read, not to post. I would rather refrain from commenting on subjects I'm unfamiliar or have not educated myself on. But may I ask question of you?
I know this is old news, but what do each of you (or anyone else who want to put their two cents in) think of the use of so-called drones? I find it strange that the Bush administration admits that the technology exists and even claimed that Iraq used it to disperse weaponized agents, but denies that the U.S. uses it beyond trial runs. My understanding is that the Globalhawk is one type of military plane that they fly using the Cyclops remote control program. Do either of you have any specs on this technology?

Teena.. yes, I'll post a reply on it..

Eracus.. yah, just like calling WP a chem weapon is a semantic.. I mean, it's made of chemicals after all, just like Ricin is a bio-agent.

The point was that YOU and for that matter, Bush, conflated a poison, and called it a biological weapon, which it isn't. You, and he, hyped it, conflating against diseases, which it doesn't cause.

Now the LEFT was wrong to do so, but so was Bush, and so is Mitch for not condemning Bush's (at a minimum) HUGE OVERSTATEMENT of the threat Ricin represented. It's not a known Bioweapon, it's a known poison. But I'm not surprised that the right would not give a damn if Bush mislead people but get up in arms if the left did so - even if only momentarily. The left correct itself, Bush hasn't.

PB

Teena,

GlobalHawk (and I found this at)

http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/uavs/uavtab3.htm

appears to be a Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) which are commonly called "drone" aircraft. In this case, Globalhawk is a relatively new aircraft with an in service (IOC = In Operation as I recall) date of 2006. It carries a very large payload for an RPV 22,000 lbs. It certainly would be possible to equip it to dispense agents.. whether it does so.. I can't say.

That Iraq used it, seems unlikely as it's a US development by Teledyne, though there were allegations Iraq used other forms of RPV to do so (specifically the L-29 - Czech RPV), those allegations were deemed to be not credible...

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2004/09/05/build/world/40-iraqi-drone-aircraft.inc

Further, the US Air Force agreed with this conclusion..saying

"They are consistent with the views of U.S. Air Force intelligence analysts and the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, who said before the war that the drones were being developed for reconnaissance. "

Once again, you have a "hype" by Bush regarding RPV that investigation by actual independent bodies showed to be false.

Funny how the UN was correct regarding calling our intell leads, prior to the war, "wild goose chases" in leading them to supposed weapons sites, and was right about the fact that Iraq in fact did not have RPV chem delivery mechanics... they sure are corrupt...

PB

Thanks, PB.
I read some time ago about the U.S. using the "drone" technology even as far back as during the time Kennedy was president, so it's no surprise to me that in the wrong hands it could be used for sinister purposes. I, too, doubt that Iraq used drones for weapons disbursement. But the Bush team sure had a lot of people fooled, didn't they?

Have you ever read about the military actually being able to control something roughly the size of a commercial jet? Conspiracy theories aside, if the technology is available, who's to say it hasn't been done? Any vets out there willing to fill us in?

Teena.. yes, in theory and in practice, nearly any plane can be controlled remotely. We've (US) has done so to test the effects of various air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles.

Eracus.. just a follow-on point. In reality, it is YOUR argument which is semantical. It attempts to suggest that a biological poison, most suitable for use as a bullet coating poison against individual targets, is what Bush was meaning when he talked about weapons of MASS destruction and "mushroom clouds." He, and you, attempt to change the subject now into a type of weapon I doubt very seriously the American People would have had any real interest ousting Houssien over (namely, a relatively easily made natural poison).

Again and again, the right starts out with hyperbole, and then tries to devolve the discussion into irrelevant sub-arguments. Houssien was NEVER going to make a weapon that qualified as a MASS Destruction weapon from Ricin. Had he such an interest, easily manufactured chemical agents (and much less costly agents) were readily available to him to manufacture. He had VX and Sarin, whose effects are essentially the same as what Ricin could do very poorly, namely, to kill soldiers/people through dispersal via artillery shells. The point is, there were and are MUCH cheaper and easier weapons. Ricin is a poison used for single target kills, the fact that it is biological in nature versus chemical is just a silly semantical twist used by a President to make a specious allegation. Perhaps then we should consider Drano a chemical weapon, after all, it certainly is deadly poisonous, and probably, through research, could be made into a powder to be delivered through artillery or aircraft dispensers.

The real issue is that the President greatly exagerated a threat, Bioweapons are generally considered to mean things like cholera or pneumonic plague, diseases capable of devestating hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. Instead he attempted to assert that Houssien was going to use a plant-based poison to do what?? kill some folks by having them ingest the poison? I'm sure that the intent of Powell's speech, the meaning of Bush's "grave threat" speech was talking about Ricin, right?

The semantics here are yours, in that you attempt to label one thing, another, and excuse grossly irresponsible conduct by the President. I shouldn't be surprised though, after all, that same President is now attempting to blame Democrats for his invasion, despite the fact that the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, and of course, the Presidency, are controlled by Republicans, or Republican appointees. When you have ALL the reigns of Government, that which happens on your watch, is YOUR fault.

PB

Mitch..

First, I don't much give a darned if you like, or don't like, my writing. As we've already established, your's is nothing to write home about (pardon the pun), especially as compared to Nick Coleman.

I don't write with care, because.. hmmm.. go take a guess as to my opinion of the sanity/breadth of your typical post-ers (posters?).

As for "long-debunked", really? Such as WP effects, Ricin or what, specifically in this line of argument. Conversely, you've claimed Clinton actively declined to take out Bin Laden, a claim that has been long debunked (albeit not on this post). You've claimed that WP is used to screen troops, which while nominally true, is in fact at best a mischarictarization, it's used for hasty smoke, CS (Chemical Smoke) is a far superior weapon, unless you need hasty smoke.

Whatever.. you say Potatoe and I'll say Potato and you can worship Dan Q.. err George Nukyalar Misoverstatement and all the long-debunked myths he trowelled out hyping Houssien.

Clinton made claims regarding Houssien's general threat and that because we could not fully inspect, there was no reason to believe he was not or would not reconstitute weapons programs. It turns out Clinton was wrong.. but Clinton NEVER claimed specific aluminum tubes were only usable for centrifuges - when his own CIA told him otherwise - never claimed fictitious trucks existed and were mobile bio-weapons labs, never claimed Houssien was building drones that would drop chem and bio weapons on Isreal, never claimed that Houssien could attack the US with a nuclear weapon and was training Al Qaeda to do so.

No, those were the lies of Bush.. and while Clinton probably exagerated Houssien at some point.. I'll even say he DID carte blanche, he never did so with such regularity, with such decided purposefulness to take us into a devestatingly negative war.

So perhaps my writings ramble, and for that, I don't much care, and perhaps I don't know everything, gosh, what a shocker... but as for long-debunked and foolish support of lies and errors, I think you, and more importantly, the President of the United States, make me look like an ametuer.

PB

big latin ass black dick latin pussy

gay rape boy gay teen

wives in pantyhose wife cheaters

free xxx latin woman pics horny latin