Sean Spicer

[imtommygunn]

"You even have someone as despicable as hitler, who didn't sink to using chemical weapons".

You have to wonder where they get these guys. It would be laughable but for the prospect of a russia-us war.

[BluestackBoy]

A bit of a c**k up to be sure but I must confess to liking him & enjoy watching him.

Its an impossible job & I don't think he will last long but his autobiography will be well worth reading some day.

[DuffleKing]

Heaviest documented use of Chemical weapons in history was by the Americans in Vietnam of course.

[Owen Brannigan]

Heaviest documented use of Chemical weapons in history was by the Americans in Vietnam of course.

The German use of Zyklon-B to kill millions still tops them all, even when compared to US use of Agent Orange and Napalm.

[Milltown Row2]

Heaviest documented use of Chemical weapons in history was by the Americans in Vietnam of course.

You know millions were killed by the Nazis ??

[Never beat the deeler]

Jaysus.

He apologised, of course, stating that he didn't want to distract from President Donald Trump's attempt to "destabilise the region".

[screenexile]

I have no great love for Sean Spicer but I actually feel a bit sorry for him here. I genuinely think he just misspoke under the pressure up there which is understandable.

It's a pretty f**king big gaffe though you can't be pissing off the Jews from the President's podium and I think that although we all expected Spicer's tenure to be short that timeline for the end has been pushed up on him!

[armaghniac]

I think there is a difference between chemical weapons in warfare and as a means of execution. Sure the US inject people to kill them, is that not a chemical weapon?

[Hardy]

I think there is a difference between chemical weapons in warfare and as a means of execution. Sure the US inject people to kill them, is that not a chemical weapon?

But they're not killing their own people ..... wait no ....oh yeah, I'm right - it's mostly just black people,

[Owen Brannigan]

I think there is a difference between chemical weapons in warfare and as a means of execution. Sure the US inject people to kill them, is that not a chemical weapon?

Are you saying the killing of people in gas chambers is different from using gas to kill people in the open?

[Owen Brannigan]

Use of 'chemical' weapons is banned by the Geneva Convention to avoid the use of poisonous or nerve gas during warfare.  However, there is no ban on the other chemical weapons held in large quantities and capable of killing millions either immediately or over a longer period of time, i.e. nuclear weapons that are stockpiled by US, Russia, China, UK, France, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, India, North Korea and any former Soviet Republics that held on to them.

Only one country has used these chemical/nuclear weapons in mass killing to show that it had the weapons to put fear into others, especially the Russians.

BTW the Geneva Convention on warfare is widely flouted by all of the participants in the Middle East conflicts where clearly designated (with a Red Cross or Crescent) hospitals and vehicles are regularly attacked, so using gas as a weapon is not much of a leap for these combatants.

[thejuice]

I was at the killing fields in Cambodia a few years ago, Khmer Rouge killed people by hacking their heads off with the thick toothed ends of palm leaves, this saved on the cost of bullets. It's a despicable act irrespective of the tools used. It seems to me as a matter of splitting hairs as how it was carried out, in instances such as these it is more important is establishing the fact that it happened, by whom and for what purpose. 

I don't know or care about Sean Spicer but this "gaffe" isn't interesting or newsworthy. Far too much time and energy is wasted on worrying what people say, might have said or could be interpreted as to have meant. It's nothing more than a means of obfuscation.