Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

eissa

(4,238 posts)

7. Lawrence Wilkerson made a great point on

Reply to ForgoTheConsequence (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:29 PM

Sep 2013

Chris Hayes' show. Basically said that we (and most countries) signed off on the chemical weapons ban, not because their use is so atrocious and immoral, but because conventional weaponry is more efficient. If we thought the use of chemical warfare were in any way of benefit (like land mines) we wouldn't have signed off.

Btw, pretty sure depleted uranium and white phosphorous are chemicals.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why hasn't the United States ratified the ban on cluster bombs? [View all] ForgoTheConsequence Sep 2013 OP

because, like Assad, 'Murica doesn't have to live according to the rules (land mines anyone?) nt msongs Sep 2013 #1

Seems to be the case. ForgoTheConsequence Sep 2013 #2

U.S. Using Cluster Munitions In Iraq ForgoTheConsequence Sep 2013 #3

Because they have better uses and worse uses. Igel Sep 2013 #4

So you support land mines and cluster weapons? ForgoTheConsequence Sep 2013 #6

We have also not joined the Land Mine Ban 161 nations are Party to the treaty, the US one of 36 Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #5

Lawrence Wilkerson made a great point on eissa Sep 2013 #7