Amazon.com Widgets
  • Chemical warfare is fine if used for defense

    Not sure why people associate chemical weapons as an instrument to hit only civilians. In my opinion weapons are made with the purpose of destruction so there is not ultimate difference between them. As I see it, it's ok to use weapons only in case of defense and you should be allowed to do it in the best way it's necessary.

  • Yes Yea e

    Trump jhsoadh jsh diha h sdahas hd dhsad hasd hh shdhiajhdadhsauidhasi dhsai dhsd ksahd uiah dioash oas hso dhgso ho h dh h h hh h h h his generally not at all a good thing. There's a reason why it's been banned in almost every rule of warfare ever made. Chemical warfare might be a cheap and effective way of killing thousands, but the way in which those people die is horrific and should not be condoned under any circumstance.Bitch

  • Hell no man

    Chemical warfare is wrong and not fair to the enemies or the attacker. Look at all the pictures of ww1 and look at how sad they are with the masks on and stuff like that. It is not allowed in war in the present day and for good reason. 0

  • No Warfare is Good

    There is no type of war that should be considered good, not one. Chemical warfare is probably one of the worst types of warfare that exists today. Using chemicals on poor people who do not deserve it is uncalled for and sick. I do not see how anyone could do that or order someone to do that to another human being.

  • Chemical warfare results in much unnecessary suffering

    Chemical warfare is generally not at all a good thing. There's a reason why it's been banned in almost every rule of warfare ever made. Chemical warfare might be a cheap and effective way of killing thousands, but the way in which those people die is horrific and should not be condoned under any circumstance.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.