View Full Version : example of doublespeak i guess

02-12-2003, 05:44 PM

Top US military planners are preparing for the US to use incapacitating biochemical weapons in an invasion of Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed the plans in February 5th testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee. This is the first official US acknowledgement that it may use (bio)chemical weapons in its crusade to rid other countries of such weapons. The Sunshine Project and other nonprofits have warned since late 2001 that the "War on Terrorism" may result in the United States using prohibited biological and chemical armaments, thereby violating the same treaties it purports to defend. The US announcement creates grave concerns for the future of arms control agreements, particularly the Chemical Weapons Convention.

02-12-2003, 05:54 PM
--even if both are prohibited there are immense moral and practical differences between deadly and non-deadly weapons.

Why didn't you point up this difference too, instead of ONLY commenting on the doublespeak aspect?

What were you like in school? Did you try to cause controversy for the sake of controversy there too?

I think you sometimes make some good points but you selectively choose that which will tend to generate the greatest controversy. Why don't you just try to get at the TRUTH, and leave the slant for unprincipled newscasters?

02-12-2003, 05:56 PM
no i try to post stuff that can be argued/debated about at the table if youre in a friendly or chatty game.

02-12-2003, 06:00 PM
Why do you try to generate debate? Why not post that which you actually believe, or find interesting?

For instance, here, I doubt if you REALLY think it's doublespeak and nothing else--c'mon, admit it, you posted it that way on purpose even though you clearly saw there was more to it than that.

02-12-2003, 06:10 PM
US may use prohibited chemical weapons. thats the truth.

its also the truth that such non lethal weapons which are prohibited by treaty are not prohibited for use against civilians in a law enforcement capacity.

and i do think its interesting if you follow certain stuff.

for example, do u know that the military/police have a microwave weapon mounted on a jeep/humv for crowd control purposes? maybe well see it in action if anti war protests get too big.

02-12-2003, 06:32 PM
brad I must ask for proof of this statement of yours "for example, do u know that the military/police have a microwave weapon mounted on a jeep/humv for crowd control purposes?" I have a very comprehensive knowledge of microwave radiation and accompanying theory and find this a bit past plausible unless they are attempting to sterilize a bunch of idiots all at once. Step right up folks and get your gonads nuked by our shake n bake oven on wheels! LOL

02-12-2003, 06:45 PM
i will post a mainstream article (cnn, msnbc, etc., ok maybe washington post, heh) but i might wait until tomorrow cause i dont know if u can take me being right twice in one day (demonstrably right i mean, heh)

02-12-2003, 06:52 PM
brad I posted that you were more correct than I regarding the authority of the no-fly zone. That alone does not make you completely correct just less incorrect than I was. How do you like that for some double speak with a double negative thrown in for good measure? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

02-12-2003, 06:57 PM
i cant not comment.

02-12-2003, 07:01 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon is touting a new "non-lethal" weapon designed to control threatening crowds by using a directed energy beam to inflict a painful but brief burning sensation.


but i left you an out since this particular story doesnt go into the domestic crowd control applications that other stories ive read did.

02-12-2003, 07:18 PM
Thanks brad but you did not exactly leave me an out the facts seem to have proved my disbelief at your specified usage. Also from the article: "Computer rendering of proposed Vehicle Mounted Active Denial System prototype" and "The weapon could be fielded by 2009, officials said."

In addition you said "for example, do u know that the military/police have a microwave weapon mounted on a jeep/humv for crowd control purposes?" The year 2009 is a long way from "having" this weapon developed for everyday usage.

02-12-2003, 07:24 PM
"We've tested 72 humans that have had over 6,500 exposures," he said.

The military will test a prototype of the weapon on goats and humans in Kirtland over the next few months. The Marine Corps said $40 million was spent developing the weapon during the past decade.

The Marine Corps plans to mount the microwave weapon on top of Humvees, the Jeep-like vehicles used by both the Marines and the Army. Later it might be used on aircraft and ships, officials said.

and this was written in 2001 i think.

02-12-2003, 07:41 PM
I'm not disputing the facts of this matter but I am saying that you deliberately posted it with an incomplete comment designed to generate controversy and which comment did not portray your entire view of the situation.

In other words I believe you sometimes post in an incomplete manner which is deliberately intended to be inflammatory. What you may not realize is that this tends to detract from other posts of yours which are more completely sincere.

02-12-2003, 08:12 PM
not true i really think its doublespeak to say US is going to war because iraq has chemical/bio weapons and then the US admits its going to use chemical/bio weapons.

i mean, it just strikes me as ironical or hypocritical or something.

02-12-2003, 08:21 PM
I guess that makes sense as long as you feel that non-lethal weapons are in the same category as lethal weapons.

02-12-2003, 09:25 PM
well the point is that even non lethal chemical and i guess bio weapons are outlawed under international treaties that the US and almost everybody is party to.

the really funny thing is that non lethal chemical weapons are 'allowed' so to speak to control a countries own population, like as in riot control.

02-12-2003, 09:29 PM
The US actually isn't a party to many meaningful international treaties - especially ones which might restrict their military flexibility.

02-12-2003, 09:46 PM
im 99% sure US is party to treaties prohibiting bio/chem weapons.

(article in my original post says so too for what thats worth)

02-12-2003, 11:36 PM
This war isn't really about international law or violations of international law--nor should it be. It shouldn't be about violations of UN resolutions either. What it should be about is protecting America and our allies and the region from potential assault, either directly or through proxy, by an aggressive dictator armed with some of the world's most horrific weapons--and secondly, about doing the Iraqi people a favor and ridding them of the worst tyrant and government they have ever had.

All this about the UN isn't really the point, and I think it may be a mistake--because the next time America sees the need to take action to protect itself or its allies, we will be expected to go through a process of jumping through hoops trying to obtain the approval of a bunch of dictatorial garbage governments who aren't even the ones being threatened. As icing on the cake, we are expected to obtain approval from China, which views us as its most formidable strategic adversary, and France, which seems to be happiest when finding ways to thwarting US plans, whatever they may be. In fact the best way to gain French cooperation might be to propose the opposite of what we really want.