Why there the second amendment is a farce believed by fools

Your question makes no sense, and I thank God that I do not understand your babbles

 

Doesn't have to have been sprayed on the vets. All it had to be was on the foliage or on the ground or in the air. And as far as I onow the only ones using chemical weapons in Vietnam was us but perhaps you have any actual evidence to support your contention that the north vietnamese used chemical weapons.

 

You said that I said small arms could hold off the US military. I'll offer you $100 if you can quote me on this.

 

I have no idea why people are entertaining Russian trolling

 

I don't have to quote you. You are maintaining that the second amendment is still real, I say that it was repealed once the first gun restriction law was put into place. Now there are 20,000 of these laws, one of the intents of these laws is to guarantee that you do not have better or stronger guns than the government. These laws work and that said your weapons can not hope to get you anything but dead against the government. You as other people note as well keep changing things to suit your own ignorant view of the World. No one has to prove anything to you as you are just not important to anyone, except in your own mind

 

Cuz you can't

Maybe you have reading difficulties.
I said the government has, can and will continue to deprive us of any right it desires, including depriving you of your life.

You seem to be very pleased with yourself to have just dicovered this.

 

So you are saying that the US government sprayed chemicals, then sent our troops thru that area. This makes as much sense as drinking your own pee to prove that one is tough (DUMB) enough to be a special forces member, say Army Ranger or Navy Seal.

All that said once it was evident that the US was spraying deadly chemicals everywhere in Vietnam, the Soviets had all the cover that they would need to spray whatever they wanted and the results would be blamed on dopey America, as it was, and fools like you have no clue

 

What makes you think that anyone cares what you say? Though I do find you highly amusing

 

Your faith in the US government is touching but totally unjustified.

 

Just discovers old news, thinks he's onto something

 

So you admit that I am correct. Thanks

 

Tell that to a dysfunctional Vietnam vet..............................

 

You proclaiming and him admitting are mutually exclusive

 

Words of wisdum from the squid

 

What part of the meaning of " totally unjustified" are you not able to understand?


History of Defoliant use in the Vietnam War

Resources state that at least 65 toxic chemicals were used during the Vietnam War. The three main ones were Agent Orange, Agent White, and Agent Blue. Each of these chemicals contains harmful toxins such as dioxin, arsenic, and hexachlorobenzen. Agent Orange was the most used defoliant during the Vietnam War. “An estimated total of 230 kg of Agent Orange was deposited in South Vietnam City” (Environmental Health Perspectives ). This was the first time in history that the United States had access to the use of chemicals in a guerrilla war. And since this was the first time this tactic was being used, scientists and leaders during that time did not know what the negative effects of this tactic would be. South Vietnam City was the most effected by the herbicides because it was sprayed many times and with great amounts of herbicides. “Nearly 10% of the territory of former South Vietnam was sprayed with herbicides, and 34% of these areas were sprayed more than once” (Environmental Health Perspectives). Chemicals were used to defoliate and destroy crops so that Vietnam would no longer have the advantage of hiding in the trees. It was used to take away their hiding places so that American men could fight on the ground without being massacred by Vietnam soldiers hiding in the brush. It flushed the Vietcong out of the brush. Between 1962 and 1971, “U.S. forces sprayed nearly 19.5 million gallons of herbicide in Southeast Asia, mostly from fixed wing aircraft” (On the Trail of Agent Orange: Measuring Risk with GIS). Herbicides were also sprayed from trucks and by hand on “more than 3.6 million hectares of forest and villages in Central and Southern Vietnam, with the aim of killing all the vegetation” (Reproductive Health Matters ). This was biggest chemical warfare and the first war of eco-destruction in history. The spraying of herbicides was a tactic that the government called Operation Ranch Hand. Spraying had begun in 1962 and didn't stop until 1971.

 

Tell em what, that you've just discovered old news and are very proud of yourself?

 

You got the " dum" part right

 

Dude, first of all

1. I never said that agent orange was not sprayed.
2. I said that the Soviets sprayed their own chemicals, and that by doing this they won the war.
3. Do you really believe everything the government tells you?

 

Tell them that the Soviets used them as testing rats

 

Funny how while I can document the US government's use of chemical weapons you cannot provide any evidence of the Soviets doing the same in Vietnam.

 

Dude any 3 year old can copy and past from Wiki............... Do you believe that spreading US lies makes you important?

Now you can copy and past how the government says that Oswald was the lone gunman who shot JFK, and that this is true because the government says so.

Dude you have a mental age of 10 at best

Here is the CIA report of Soviet use of Chemical weapons in Laos and Vietnam and Cambodia

file:///C:/Users/Jager/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/FUWHSXJ0/DOC_0000284013.pdf

 

So you can't document your claim and now have to resort to insults. Why are we not surprised that someone who cannot even understand the meaning of " totally unjustified" cannot defend his position. And the info didn't come from Wiki.

 

My claim is documented by the CIA

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...00284013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1Hx6AleHqwKAoC0a06FNKj

file:///C:/Users/Jager/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/FUWHSXJ0/DOC_0000284013.pdf

 

Until the targets decide to bring far superior firepower to bear.

The reality is that there was, once upon a time, truth in the proposition that a well-regulated Militia was necessary to the security of a free State.

That pretext no longer pertains, and being well-regulated now consists of consuming adequate fibre, not a qualification to wield weaponry.

If a rough equivalency between the firepower of the State and the Citizen were ever to be restored, it would necessitate deflating the bloated Pentagon budget as if it were the Hindenburg.