Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 15th, 2003, 11:59 PM        US plan to use illegal weapons
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=378740

US plan to use illegal weapons
By Severin Carrell
16 February 2003

While American forces invading Iraq face the threat of chemical attack, they could themselves be using biochemical agents which are banned under international law.

The US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, revealed earlier this month that American forces are planning to use "non-lethal" biochemical weapons such as anti-riot gases and crowd control agents if they invade Iraq. Mr Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee they were preparing to ask President George Bush for permission to use these weapons, known in military circles as "calmatives", on Iraqi civilians, in cave systems or to take prisoners.

But two of Britain's leading authorities on chemical weapons, Professor Alistair Hay and Professor Julian Perry-Robinson, who are collaborating on an expert guide for the World Health Organisation, said such weapons are illegal under the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention and the 1928 Geneva Protocol, which ban the use of chemical agents against people in wartime.

"It would be absolutely outrageous if they did this," said Prof Hay, an epidemiologist at Leeds University. "Surely this war against Iraq is to stop the use of those weapons, not about also using them."

The dangers of such weapons were exposed, the experts said, when Russian special forces used an opiate-based crowd control gas, with devastating consequences, on Chechen rebels holding theatregoers hostage in Moscow in October. Both men said Mr Rumsfeld's comments also threatened to put the Pentagon on a collision course with Britain.

Ministry of Defence experts have repeatedly warned their US counterparts that their proposed use of these weapons in warfare is illegal.
-30-
Reply With Quote
  #2  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Feb 16th, 2003, 12:25 AM       
That reminds me: most of the non-lethal measures taken by police forces around the world (tear gas, that really heavy foam etc) are actually illegal under international law. Funny, ain't it?
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 16th, 2003, 12:29 AM       
generally used on their own people, thus not "during war."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Feb 16th, 2003, 12:32 AM        That really peeves me....
Why would they resort to such things? It bothers me that they would even consider such a clear violoation of international law. I say we make every effort to ensure we stay within the rules, and stick to less harmful things like cruise missiles and 2000lb laser guided bombs.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 16th, 2003, 12:34 AM       
Are we planning on attacking civilians anyway? The U.S. military doesn't do that, right gasucks...?

EDIT: My point is that this is being discussed in case of the rise of the proverbial "Arab street," which IMO, raises some other ethical questions about this proposed war...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Feb 16th, 2003, 12:47 AM        Probably
I'm quite sure there are a lot of things being "discussed", many of which would probably make you want to renounce your citizenship. Doesn't necessarily translate into practice.

You're absolutely right. We are not in the business of intentionally attacking civilians. And I'm quite sure the intent of less than lethal weapons is not for "attacking". I'm pretty sure they aren't planning on setting them off in Iraqi K-Marts for the fun of it. They're talking about rioting etc. And sure you can raise ethical questions, all of which will remain hypothetical until the war happens and we get a chance to see how the "average" people of Iraq will respond.

I see where you're coming from. My point is again its sort of no win. Drop bombs, you lose. Try to come up with alternatives to lethal force, you lose.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Feb 16th, 2003, 12:58 AM       
I likewise see your point, but if you are bugged by the fact that international laws have all of a sudden become sacred, you should blame us, not Iraq. It is after all one of the justifications (I mean the violation of said laws) for this war....
Reply With Quote
  #8  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
ranxer is probably a spambot
Old Feb 16th, 2003, 02:14 PM       
we've BEEN targeting civilians! the violations are countless.
attacking infrastructure and sanctioning hospital supplies have lead to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.. siege warfare could be considered attempted genocide. our government is lieing about it on top of everything else. the non-lethal Has to be used so they can less blatantly defend corporate powers against overwhelming numbers of average people, if they didn't we'd have mass slaughter of 'civilians' this is war against 'the people' in too many parts of the world. yea this is going on in most first world nations not just the U$, but the u.s. is the king of coercion, strong arming in every variant possible
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:25 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.