10 Breathtaking Examples Of Government Hypocrisy

[Capt Worley PE]

It’s no secret that our leaders aren’t always perfect—but there’s a difference between screwing up and flagrantly violating international treaties, breaking your own laws, and throwing morality out the window, all in the name of making a quick buck. And boy, do our respective governments sure like some easy money.

http://listverse.com/2013/10/20/10-breath-taking-examples-of-government-hypocrisy/

 

[Road Guy]

The section on WP – “Willy P” is a joke, it is used all the time & yes the military does some dangerous ****, don’t like it don’t join? But it is an effective tool at disabling vehicles and destroying things that you don’t want the enemy to recover..

At Fort Benning we had a demonstration on it in 1990, it was pretty cool, they laid one on the top of an old deuce and a half engine block and it made a hell of a show..

The US Policy may have changed, but when I was a student at Officer Candidate school (1996) the US policy on chemical weapons was that we would never use them “first” and that the US reserved the right to retaliate with chemical weapons. With regard to Nuclear, the US policy we were told was that regardless of the International Community we reserved the right to use them “as we see fit”.

They did state that we would never use Biological weapons though…

 

[wilheldp_PE]

The section on WP – “Willy P” is a joke, it is used all the time & yes the military does some dangerous ****, don’t like it don’t join? But it is an effective tool at disabling vehicles and destroying things that you don’t want the enemy to recover..

At Fort Benning we had a demonstration on it in 1990, it was pretty cool, they laid one on the top of an old deuce and a half engine block and it made a hell of a show..

The US Policy may have changed, but when I was a student at Officer Candidate school (1996) the US policy on chemical weapons was that we would never use them “first” and that the US reserved the right to retaliate with chemical weapons. With regard to Nuclear, the US policy we were told was that regardless of the International Community we reserved the right to use them “as we see fit”.

They did state that we would never use Biological weapons though…

That's all well and good, but if that is your policy, it is outright hypocritical to admonish other governments from having the same policy. The article doesn't say that our use of WP, chemical weapons or nukes is "wrong*," just that our verbal or physical assaults on other governments for their use is hypocritical (which it absolutely is).

* The article technically does say that the use of these weapons is wrong, but it's wrong for everybody...not just the USA or "rogue" nations.

 

[Road Guy]

It may be hypocritical but its a large deterrent..

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Yeah, Willy Pete is not a chemical weapon by any stretch. I thought that was a joke when it first came out back in the aughts.

I think that is more a function of anti-Iraq people who wanted to find anything and everything to hang on Bush the Second. White phosphorous sounds chemical, so it must be a chemical weapon, right?

 

[Road Guy]

But I will agree we are pretty hyprocritical but I think we as a Country cant give away our rights to nuke's (especially since all our enemies have them)

 

[Sapper PE LS]

RG, I'm pretty sure that our policy on chemical weapons is we don't use them, just like we don't use anti-personnel mines or anti-handling devices (****y traps) on mines. I think the policy on nuclear weapons is that we reserve the right to retaliate with them if they are used against us. I'm not saying that for sure though, because it's been a long time since my last law of land warfare course, and I might just be speaking out of my ***.

White Phosphorus (willie-pete) is not a chemical weapon, it doesn't attack the nervous system, blood, or skin in a persistant (like it just stays there for ever) manner like chemical weapons do. WP is nothing more than extremely hot material that burns until it is burned out, it does a lot of damage in that time period, but it isn't persistent.

 

[engineergurl]

I really wanted to post a reply comment to the guy from the UK

 

[Capt Worley PE]

RG, I'm pretty sure that our policy on chemical weapons is we don't use them, just like we don't use anti-personnel mines or anti-handling devices (****y traps) on mines. I think the policy on nuclear weapons is that we reserve the right to retaliate with them if they are used against us. I'm not saying that for sure though, because it's been a long time since my last law of land warfare course, and I might just be speaking out of my ***.

Our nuclear retaliatory policy is launch on impact, IIRC.

 

[Road Guy]

It very well may have changed since I went to the NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) Course at Fort McClellan, but there was a section on decontamination of a howitzer that had been contaminated when “firing” a chemical weapon, as in the Offensive kind.. It was a pretty cool class, about 20 stories underground, and with Live VX nerve agents.. no ****… yeah they didn’t put that in the brochure.. but somewhere I have a chemical corps certificate for completing “live “ nerve agent training..

And I would lose even more faith in my Elected Leaders if they did not retain the self-preservation right to nuke first. Kind of defeats the purpose of all the ballistic missile submarines currently sitting off the coast of Korea..

 

[Freon]

The old explanation was that you do not shoot WP at personnel, only to mark a target, place smoke on the battle field or against equipment/material. It is a causality-producing munition; but hey, I'm just trying to destroy the other guys uniform....with him still in it!

 

[Road Guy]

The other running joke was that it was against the “International” law to fire a .50 cal at the enemy. But it was perfectly acceptable to shoot at his rifle, canteen, or anything else that he might be holding..

Not due to our elected leaders, but due to a long standing military tradition of quality leaders, the US is essentially the only ones making an attempt to fight fair so that’s why I give a big “mehh” to these type opinion articles.. yes there are some very small circumstances where this didn’t happen, but by and large the US Military sets the standard in waging a fair war..

 

[Dleg]

^I'm with you. There's always a lot of finger-pointing and calling out of "hypocracies" by the U.S., but those doing the calling have often done much worse during their illustrious histories.

The section on WP – “Willy P” is a joke, it is used all the time & yes the military does some dangerous ****, don’t like it don’t join? But it is an effective tool at disabling vehicles and destroying things that you don’t want the enemy to recover..

At Fort Benning we had a demonstration on it in 1990, it was pretty cool, they laid one on the top of an old deuce and a half engine block and it made a hell of a show..

The US Policy may have changed, but when I was a student at Officer Candidate school (1996) the US policy on chemical weapons was that we would never use them “first” and that the US reserved the right to retaliate with chemical weapons. With regard to Nuclear, the US policy we were told was that regardless of the International Community we reserved the right to use them “as we see fit”.

They did state that we would never use Biological weapons though…

We dug up a few WP rounds when I was overseeing the dredging of the Saipan harbor (WWII battlefield). Once they hit the atmosphere, they burned like crazy. The EOD guys just kept everyone back and let it burn.

 

[engineergurl]

We dug some up on some of my sites too... they were far from the worst thing we found...

 

[Capt Worley PE]

And I would lose even more faith in my Elected Leaders if they did not retain the self-preservation right to nuke first. Kind of defeats the purpose of all the ballistic missile submarines currently sitting off the coast of Korea..

Launch on impact has been the nuke doctrine for first world countries for years. It saved the US and Soviet bacon on more than a few occasions.

It appears most countries that have nukes have adopted this policy, but the fear is with a regime change, they won't. Pakistan is still my best bet as to who'll start flinging nukes first.

 

[knight1fox3]

Pakistan is still my best bet as to who'll start flinging nukes first.

And who would that be against? Is any government really that misguided and dimwitted?

 

[Ble_PE]

Pakistan is still my best bet as to who'll start flinging nukes first.

And who would that be against? Is any government really that misguided and dimwitted?

India and yes.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Pakistan is still my best bet as to who'll start flinging nukes first.

And who would that be against? Is any government really that misguided and dimwitted?

India and yes.

What he said.

Religious fanatics in control of armageddon weapons..what could go wrong?

 

[knight1fox3]

^ They would seriously need to consider the repercussions of engaging in a nuclear strike. And realize that it would seal their fate, and not just from the US perspective either.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

^ They would seriously need to consider the repercussions of engaging in a nuclear strike. And realize that it would seal their fate, and not just from the US perspective either.

That's what makes religious fanatics in control of such weapons very frightening: they perceive such an outcome as the road to paradise.