"US prepares to use toxic gases in Iraq"

[Gatekeeper]

So the use of these chemicals in riotous crowd control situations may kill 9 percent of people? I wonder what the percentage might be if the military had nothing but lethal hardware at its disposal to control riots. A bit higher, I bet. And the military would be getting its ass reamed for it, too.

Ah, yes, a classical "no-win" situation for the military, particularly when it faces those who despise it in the first place and are constantly probing for openings in which to toss their own form of gas: lots of hot air.

Gatekeeper

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
So the use of these chemicals in riotous crowd control situations may kill 9 percent of people? I wonder what the percentage might be if the military had nothing but lethal hardware at its disposal to control riots. A bit higher, I bet. And the military would be getting its ass reamed for it, too.

Ah, yes, a classical "no-win" situation for the military, particularly when it faces those who despise it in the first place and are constantly probing for openings in which to toss their own form of gas: lots of hot air.

Gatekeeper

I see you are ignoring the point Gatekeeper as always.

Iraq has chemical weapons.

America demands that Iraq destroy them.

If Iraq doesn't then America will use chemical weapons on the Iraqis.

--

Why does the US get to use chemical weapons on Iraq?? What gives them the right to use them but deny all others the ability?

--

If you're part of the "Chemical Weapons Convention" then

"All states parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention have undertaken not to use any toxic chemical or its precursor, including riot-control agents. This applies in any armed conflict"

--

[DanS]

oxygen?

Yep. Even oxygen.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Demerzel

As said above, 'oh the irony'. The USA is planning to use chemical weapons to defeat a nation that they are going to war with because they say that it will use its chemical weapons on others.

I'd like to see the US/pro-war bunch defend this decision.

You're right, there is no possible way this can be defended. I guess we'll just have to burn them out.

Originally posted by Demerzel
Even us the British, the staunchest allies of the USA, are pissed off at this decision. If we're going to war to defeat a dictator who'll use WoMD, we're not going to want to fight alongside a non-dictator who uses WoMD.

You aren't making any sense here, as while CS and pepper spray are chemicals, they are not WMD. A lot of things are chemicals, and few things are WMD if that helps.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Demerzel
I see you are ignoring the point Gatekeeper as always.

Insults right off the bat, eh? Coming from you, that's a compliment.

Iraq has chemical weapons.

America demands that Iraq destroy them.

If Iraq doesn't then America will use chemical weapons on the Iraqis.

--

Why does the US get to use chemical weapons on Iraq?? What gives them the right to use them but deny all others the ability?

You'll have to refresh my memory: When does the United States military plan on using nerve agents and mustard gas on Iraq? Or are we comparing CS/pepper spray-like material use here to Iraq's possible use of its own chemical and biological stores on any U.S. forces, should a war become reality?

--

If you're part of the "Chemical Weapons Convention" then

"All states parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention have undertaken not to use any toxic chemical or its precursor, including riot-control agents. This applies in any armed conflict"

--

**whistles** I guess we'd better stick to goddamn machine guns then for riot control.

Gatekeeper

[Demerzel]

All I'm saying is that the Americans should not condemn Iraq for usages of chemical weapons and then plan to do the same.

---

"All states parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention have undertaken not to use any toxic chemical or its precursor, including riot-control agents. This applies in any armed conflict"

If chemical gases are WoMD then a pre-cursor that can kill and is used for that capacity should be considered a mini-WoMD or maybe just a WoD. The usage of chemical weapons or their pre-cursors is still an abhorrent measure to most countries and I thought that was the reason we had to disarm Iraq??

"The difference between these weapons and nerve gas is simply one of structural chemistry"

Oh look my weapon is less potent in the killing stakes, I can feel free to use it!

--

I like the way that some people are just ignoring the real issue here. Ah well it is depressing when you can't win an argument and have to ignore it. I have to do that every time we discuss England and cricket

[PLATO]

The points are well taken. While I do support the coming regime change in Iraq, I do not support the use of chemical weapons of any kind on the population. This would be a sad development in an otherwise worthy cause.

I do agree that there is some matter of degree. I do not equate pepper spray with VX nerve gas. Those of you who do are mistaken.

Once this is thought through, I hope my government will reconsider

[Sprayber]

If you are counting CS gas as WMD then every American soldier that has gone through basic training has been targets of WMD's.

Unless the Navy and Air Force pansies skipped out on the gas chamber during training.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sprayber
If you are counting CS gas as WMD then every American soldier that has gone through basic training has been targets of WMD's.

You poor bastard!

[PLATO]

Sprayber: Thought you had shipped out

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Demerzel
I like the way that some people are just ignoring the real issue here. Ah well it is depressing when you can't win an argument and have to ignore it. I have to do that every time we discuss England and cricket

Hey, I said you were right. It just seems stupid to kill people unnecessarily in order to abide by the letter of that convention, especially when so many horrific means are completley legal. Flamethrowers for instance.

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
I do agree that there is some matter of degree. I do not equate pepper spray with VX nerve gas. Those of you who do are mistaken.

Nah I'm not that stupid That's why I edited my badly phrased post to indicate that whilst calmative gases are not WoMD they still have a 9% kill rate so qualify as WoD.

Well we all know sprayber that those drill sergeants of yours like to inflict a bit of pain but yes WoMD is too strong unless they chuck in some old sweat socks too

Sikander I was referring to the people who support the war against WoMDs but refuse to spot the irony in that here.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Sikander


Hey, I said you were right. It just seems stupid to kill people unnecessarily in order to abide by the letter of that convention, especially when so many horrific means are completley legal. Flamethrowers for instance.

While this is an excellent point, these people will be afforded the opportunity to surrender. Hopefully they will.

I am more concerned with setting a precedent for future wars. Pandora's box should stay closed.

[Demerzel]

Britain would be in a particularly sensitive position if the US used the weapons as it drafted the convention and is still seen internationally as its most important guardian.

How to annoy the remaining allies you have...

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Sprayber: Thought you had shipped out

They gave us our final week to be at home. I leave Monday, after our second anthrax shot.



Here is what the aftermath of our gassing was like at Fort Sill.