US considering chemical weapons in Iraq
-
The United States is considering using Chemical weapons to disable Iraqi soldiers in the event of a war. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0214/p02s01-usmi.html
Of course, there are serious health concerns. Just look at Russia's use of "chemical weapons" in the theatre terrorist event. However, most will just use the story to prop up their no-war stance. I guess they would rather see thousands of people killed to prove that war is a bad thing. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
The United States is considering using Chemical weapons to disable Iraqi soldiers in the event of a war. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0214/p02s01-usmi.html
-
The United States is considering using Chemical weapons to disable Iraqi soldiers in the event of a war. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0214/p02s01-usmi.html
-
The United States is considering using Chemical weapons to disable Iraqi soldiers in the event of a war. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0214/p02s01-usmi.html
Ok, first of all, this is the CSM. :-D Not considered, at least by me, to be a reliable news source. This is shown by the misleading (although effective) title they gave the article. Second, I don’t know way anyone has a problem with this. It seems to me that anything that will help put a swift end to what could end up being a bloody conflict (for both sides) can be a good thing. The point that was made about the police being able to use these but not the armed forces points out just how ludicrous this is. "In many instances, our forces are allowed to shoot somebody and kill them, but they're not allowed to use a nonlethal riot-control agent," Mr. Rumsfeld complained to lawmakers. Some find it ironic, if not incomprehensible, that under the Chemical Weapons Convention, civilian police forces may use chemicals to put down riots but military units may not fire them at enemy soldiers. What is the problem with using proven nonlethal chemicals? Why do people always have to see evidence (others die) before they understand the term 'lesser of two evils" ?
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
Of course, there are serious health concerns. Just look at Russia's use of "chemical weapons" in the theatre terrorist event. However, most will just use the story to prop up their no-war stance. I guess they would rather see thousands of people killed to prove that war is a bad thing. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
I think the problem here was that they used too much. Any time you need to deal with dispensing a product like thi you have to take into account all the variables (area size, air flow, etc...) Could thier be some cases of deaths of civilians? Sure, but I bet they would be lower numbers than a street war. We also have to take into account that they have a previous history of using thier own civilians as sheilds.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
US is considering anything just to catch all the petroleum. It was really pathetic the arguments that US presented today to justify the need for the war. And what about Spain and UK? Little dogs
-
Please back up your assertion with a logical argument that goes beyond "Bush use to be an oil man and Iraq is full of oil, thus the war must be about oil." Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Tim Smith wrote: "Bush use to be an oil man and Iraq is full of oil, thus the war must be about oil." Either that or he thinks he's in a western movie.
"Where would you rather be today?"
-
Ok, first of all, this is the CSM. :-D Not considered, at least by me, to be a reliable news source. This is shown by the misleading (although effective) title they gave the article. Second, I don’t know way anyone has a problem with this. It seems to me that anything that will help put a swift end to what could end up being a bloody conflict (for both sides) can be a good thing. The point that was made about the police being able to use these but not the armed forces points out just how ludicrous this is. "In many instances, our forces are allowed to shoot somebody and kill them, but they're not allowed to use a nonlethal riot-control agent," Mr. Rumsfeld complained to lawmakers. Some find it ironic, if not incomprehensible, that under the Chemical Weapons Convention, civilian police forces may use chemicals to put down riots but military units may not fire them at enemy soldiers. What is the problem with using proven nonlethal chemicals? Why do people always have to see evidence (others die) before they understand the term 'lesser of two evils" ?
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
Ray Cassick wrote: What is the problem with using proven nonlethal chemicals? a bunch of countries got together and signed a document saying they wouldn't do it - that's the problem. if they want to fix the problem, they can change that document. -c
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. --Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
-
Please back up your assertion with a logical argument that goes beyond "Bush use to be an oil man and Iraq is full of oil, thus the war must be about oil." Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
Of course, there are serious health concerns. Just look at Russia's use of "chemical weapons" in the theatre terrorist event. However, most will just use the story to prop up their no-war stance. I guess they would rather see thousands of people killed to prove that war is a bad thing. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Tim Smith wrote: However, most will just use the story to prop up their no-war stance. I guess they would rather see thousands of people killed to prove that war is a bad thing. Jeez, the hypocrisy of you rabid right-wingers astounds me. We're fighting this war because this dictator might have nukes, might have chemical weapons, and might use them if we attack. So we've invaded his country (yes, it's already started), and have announced plans to use pre-emptive strikes of nukes and chemical weapons, should we deem it necessary. What a f*cked up world.
-
The United States is considering using Chemical weapons to disable Iraqi soldiers in the event of a war. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0214/p02s01-usmi.html
Well. it is unfortunate. I do not expect them to use it, until they do. Chemical weapons are banned by international agreement, and US has a 1971 treaty not to manufacture, stockpile, distrubute or use them. We live in changing times, and the US administration reckons that most previous treaties on eliminating certain kinds of weapons are not relevent in the post-cold war world scene. I believe that it reverses the progress made on any kind of arms control. Pointing a finger now at anyone for possessing or using it now, seems to be hypocrisy. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Ray Cassick wrote: What is the problem with using proven nonlethal chemicals? a bunch of countries got together and signed a document saying they wouldn't do it - that's the problem. if they want to fix the problem, they can change that document. -c
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. --Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
*cough* WRONG The April 10, 1975 protocol allows "Use of riot-control agents in situations where civilian casualties can be reduced or avoided. This use would be restricted to situations in which civilians are used to mask or screen attacks;" Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
The United States is considering using Chemical weapons to disable Iraqi soldiers in the event of a war. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0214/p02s01-usmi.html
Especially, as President Bush told religious broadcasters this week, because "Saddam Hussein is positioning his military forces within civilian populations in order to shield his military and blame coalition forces for civilian casualties that he has caused." Kinda like putting a daycare center in the ATF headquarters, or Israeli forces riding civilian buses to work. I think that when we invade a country, we might expect the civilians to do some fighting as well.
-
Well. it is unfortunate. I do not expect them to use it, until they do. Chemical weapons are banned by international agreement, and US has a 1971 treaty not to manufacture, stockpile, distrubute or use them. We live in changing times, and the US administration reckons that most previous treaties on eliminating certain kinds of weapons are not relevent in the post-cold war world scene. I believe that it reverses the progress made on any kind of arms control. Pointing a finger now at anyone for possessing or using it now, seems to be hypocrisy. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
*cough* WRONG The April 10, 1975 protocol allows "Use of riot-control agents in situations where civilian casualties can be reduced or avoided. This use would be restricted to situations in which civilians are used to mask or screen attacks;" Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
From the F'in Article: "But as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged in Congressional testimony the other day, the use of riot-control agents and other substances designed to incapacitate people without causing death or lasting injury violates international law - specifically, the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention." -c
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. --Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
-
*cough* WRONG The April 10, 1975 protocol allows "Use of riot-control agents in situations where civilian casualties can be reduced or avoided. This use would be restricted to situations in which civilians are used to mask or screen attacks;" Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Is war a riot in a civilian area? Does it mean that they can be used as a military weapon? If so, what was wrong with Iran and Iraq gassing each others' soldiers? My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Please see my post to Chris. Riot control agents are allowed. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
The question is: what riot are they controlling? :-D It is a war; and the exemption does not make logical sense. But, anything can happen in diplomacy. Common sense does not seem to have anything to do with it. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
From the F'in Article: "But as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged in Congressional testimony the other day, the use of riot-control agents and other substances designed to incapacitate people without causing death or lasting injury violates international law - specifically, the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention." -c
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. --Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
-
Please back up your assertion with a logical argument that goes beyond "Bush use to be an oil man and Iraq is full of oil, thus the war must be about oil." Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Tim Smith wrote: Please back up your assertion with a logical argument that goes beyond "Bush use to be an oil man and Iraq is full of oil, thus the war must be about oil." Oh, good grief. - Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, George Bush, that guy White (secretary of the Army), the new president of Afghanistan.. all former oil executives. - The Enron connection to the current administration and the refusal to release minutes of their meetings with Cheney regarding our energy policy. - The Afghan oil pipeline. - The fact that Iraq is not a threat to the US in any way, shape, or form, because even if they did have "weapons of mass destruction", they have no way to deliver them here. - Bush's bumbling of the North Korea situation. How can you miss these things? The arrogance of your signature might indicate some of your problem.
-
EDIT#2: Ok, you are right. I was looking at an older agreement from "1973" and not the current one from 1993. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
http://www.defenselink.mil/acq/acic/treaties/cwc/cwc.htm[^] the 1993 version -c
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. --Thomas Cardinal Wolsey