Ted Rall by Ted Rall

Ted Rall

Comments (19) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    “Willy Peter” IS a chemical agent, and truly terrible!

  2. Mark

    Mark said, about 3 years ago

    Good one, Ted.

  3. NebulousRikulau

    NebulousRikulau GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    If you’re going to call depleted uranium a chemical weapon then you’re also going to have to call lead, as in bullets, a chemical weapon. Also gunpowder, and any other propellant or explosive.

  4. pbarnrob

    pbarnrob said, about 3 years ago

    @NebulousRikulau

    Wellll… Depleted Uranium is U238 (mostly), and is a free/paid-for byproduct of bomb production. It’s heavier than lead, and MUCH more poisonous. When fired through walls or armor, it leaves microscopic particles which get inhaled into lungs, (also when kicked up as dust later) and leaves a long legacy of serious illness. Look up Uranium Poisoning, it’s why it’s taken years for potters to find a good Red, Orange, Yellow glaze, once it was banned.
    Lead (if a dust, or paint chips, assuming it misses you in a bullet) makes children stupid.
    The people who came up with using this DU hazmat for bullets must have been breathing too much lead dust. We have now poisoned too many parts of the world already.

  5. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    It’s a chemical, and it was used as a weapon.

  6. magicwalnut

    magicwalnut GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    So is hot coffee , flung in someone’s face….

  7. furnituremaker

    furnituremaker said, about 3 years ago

    tell those of us that have Agent Orange in our systems that
    it isn’t a chemical weapon.

  8. pdchapin

    pdchapin said, about 3 years ago

    Chemical weapons are defined by treaty. None of the weapons mentioned here fit the definition.

  9. Ted Rall

    Ted Rall GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    @magicwalnut

    A chemical weapon is a chemical that is used intentionally as a weapon because of its chemical properties, or whose properties are/should be obvious to the user as such. Coffee, I think, does not qualify. Although obviously there was that boiling oil thing in the Middle Ages.

  10. Ted Rall

    Ted Rall GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    @pdchapin

    I prefer to use the dictionary, and common sense.

  11. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, about 3 years ago

    I think it’s more like “They are only chemical weapons if they weren’t bought from the United States”.
    Remember- if it’s stamped “Made in USA”, it’s A-OK!

  12. Rx71Wm29

    Rx71Wm29 GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    Looks like Ted has been secretly re-reading his “Boondocks” cartoons collection.

  13. rpstrong

    rpstrong GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    @Ted Rall

    You’re free to define “chemical weapon” however you like.

    My question: What’s inherently wrong with chemical weapons? The purpose of an anti-personnel weapon is to kill or otherwise disable a combatant, and certain chemicals – such as pepper spray – do so quite well. Such chemicals are within the ‘rules’.

    Of course, some CWs, such as mustard gas, are not just effective at stopping the combatant. They also cause permanent damage for the survivors, and this goes against the modern rules of war. It is these CWs that are banned. Lumping temporary disablers (tear gas) and chemicals which may (or may not) have an unintended residual effect (such as depleted uranium) is absurd.

  14. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    Gore bane: while defoliation was the intent, Orange, and dioxin is indeed very toxic to mammals as well. I was put on the “Orange Register” before everyone over there was subsequently put on, had to show what provinces I was in, what I did, and when. I now have several little “problems” as a result of that exposure.


    Which a friend died a year ago, having come down with prostate cancer and leukemia, after exposure to herbicides in large quantities spraying sagebrush, then exposure at a uranium mine over seven years. The prostate was the dioxin, the leukemia, alpha radiation (CONSUMING the dust, and also breathing it into his lungs, not surface “safe” exposure).


    Such is also a lesson on DU ammunition (it’s NOT alpha radiation, and “spent” means not fuel material, it does NOT mean no longer radioactive!), but the “industry” still tries to claim a non-existent “safety” with such weapons.

  15. Just Curious

    Just Curious said, about 3 years ago

    @pdchapin

    “Chemical weapons are defined by treaty. None of the weapons mentioned here fit the definition.”
    .
    So if someone is killed with a hammer, which is defined as a workman’s tool, that person wasn’t killed with a weapon? I’ll have to think about that for a while.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (4).