← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Zoroaster
Thread ID: 5311 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2003-03-02
2003-03-02 17:27 | User Profile
[url=http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=383006]http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...sp?story=383006[/url]
US prepares to use toxic gases in Iraq By Geoffrey Lean and Severin Carrell 02 March 2003
The US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoking the first split in the Anglo-US alliance. "Calmative" gases, similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the Moscow theatre siege last year, could also be employed.
The convention bans the use of these toxic agents in battle, not least because they risk causing an escalation to full chemical warfare. This applies even though they can be used in civil disturbances at home: both CS gas and pepper spray are available for use by UK police forces. The US Marine Corps confirmed last week that both had already been shipped to the Gulf.
It is British policy not to allow troops to take part in operations where riot control agents are employed. But the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has asked President Bush to authorise their use. Mr Bush, who has often spoken of "smoking out" the enemy, is understood to have agreed.
Internal Pentagon documents also show that the US is developing a range of calmative gases, also banned for battlefield use. Senior US defence sources predict these could be used in Iraq by elite special forces units to take out command and control bunkers deep underground.
Rear Admiral Stephen Baker, a Navy commander in the last Gulf War who is now senior adviser to the Centre for Defence Information in Washington, told The Independent on Sunday that US special forces had knock-out gases that can "neutralise" people. He added: "I would think that if they get a chance to use them, they will."
The Pentagon said last week that the decision to use riot control agents "is made by the commander in the field".
Mr Rumsfeld became the first senior figure on either side of the impending conflict to announce his wish to use chemical agents in a little-noticed comment to the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on 5 February ââ¬â the same day as Colin Powell's presentation of intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to the UN.
The Defence Secretary attacked the "straitjacket" imposed by bans in international treaties on using the weapons in warfare. He specified that they could be used "where there are enemy troops in a cave [and] you know there are women and children in there with them". General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke of using them against human shields.
The revelations leave the Bush administration open to charges of double standards at a time when it is making Iraq's suspected arsenal of chemical and biological weapons the casus belli. Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said last night: "This all adds to the confusion over how the war will be conducted. If the argument with Saddam Hussein is over disarming him of weapons of mass destruction, it is perverse of the US to push the boundaries of international chemical warfare conventions in order to subdue him."
Leading experts and Whitehall officials fear that using even pepper spray and CS gas would destroy the credibility of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoke Iraqi chemical retaliation and set a disastrous legal precedent. Professor Julian Perry Robinson, one of the world's foremost authorities on the convention, said: "Legally speaking, Iraq would be totally justified in releasing chemical weapons over the UK if the alliance uses them in Baghdad.
"When the war is over and these things have been used they will have been legitimised as a tool of war, and the principle of toxic weapons being banned will have gone. The difference between these weapons and nerve gas is simply one of structural chemistry."
The Ministry of Defence has warned the US that it will not allow British troops to be involved in operations where riot control agents are used, or to transport them to the battlefield, but Britain is even more concerned about the calmatives. This is shown by documents obtained by the Texas-based Sunshine Project under the US Freedom of Information Act. These reveal that the US is developing calmatives ââ¬â including sedatives such as the benzodiazapines, diazepam, dexmeditomide and new drugs that affect the nervous system ââ¬â even though it accepts that "the convention would prohibit the development of any chemically based agent that would even temporarily incapacitate a human being".
A special working group of the Federation of American Scientists concluded last month that using even the mildest of these weapons to incapacitate people would kill 9 per cent of them. It added: "Chemical incapacitating weapons are as likely as bullets to cause death."
The use of chemical weapons by US forces was explicitly banned by President Gerald Ford in 1975 after CS gas had been repeatedly used in Vietnam to smoke out enemy soldiers and then kill them as they ran away. 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.
The Foreign Office said: "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." 2 March 2003 11:
====================================================== The Rummy creep is ready to use all America's power. After all, no gas will blow back in his face.
To be a great turd you must first be a monumental creep.
-Z-
2003-03-02 20:12 | User Profile
Zoroaster,
No, it wont blow back in his face, but as you imply, others. This is bad for the troops, in view of all the stories weve heard about leaky gas masks and MOPP suits that leak as well. Oh well, to the Neo-cons, "thats alright. Its just G.I.s, No one important."
2003-03-03 14:16 | User Profile
:o The US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention,
2003-03-03 18:28 | User Profile
** the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has asked President Bush to authorise their use**
I'm becoming convinced that this man is truly demonic.
2003-03-03 22:36 | User Profile
Just another example of the lies and deception, the hypocrisy and the posturing !!! As Sadaam Hussein ( notice how the War Party always verbalizes phoenetically " Sodom " or " Sad-Damn " instead of Sah-Dahhm ") is revealing the facts about Iraqi VX, Anthrax, and bulldozing his primo missles, we are right now bombing the surface-to-surface defence of Iraq beyond the no-fly zone and the Pentagon has already established anti-war emigrant protesters from the UK as " enemy combatants "......fine, then.. just get it over with, George W. Bush. Because it is increasingly APPARENT that if we had another President, this war would not be marching forward as bull-headedly. You WANT IT, you GET IT.
2003-03-03 23:17 | User Profile
I don't think the U.S. is bothering with even the pretense of observing the Geneva Conventions anymore.
I saw an article in the latest Shotgun News reporting on the failure of the M855 62-grain ball ammo that is current issue for the M-16. Seems that it's not bringing down the enemy as well as it should, much the same complaint troops had about the round in Somalia. The M855 was designed to counter the threat of body-armored (or at least flak-jacket wearing) Soviet troops, not underfed goatherds scampering around and it zips right through the body with much less damage than the old M193 55-grain round that would tend to yaw and/or fragment inside the body. The short term solution has been to issue Black Hills ammo to troops, though I don't know if the use is restricted to Spec Ops or not. The ammo in question is 77-grain HPBT, which stands for Hollow Point Boat Tail. Hollow points for use in warfare are of course forbidden by the Convention. Should anyone point this out, I expect the answer to be that the enemy is not actualy uniformed troops and therefore are not afforded the protections of the Convention. Granted, I'm sure the Taliban isn't real concerned with the finer points of international law, but aren't we supposed to be the "good guys?"
The use of gas is not surprising in this light. In fact, it may be trumpeted as a "humanitarian" gesture to the Iraqis. Instead of having to burn them out, they can be gassed into the open, where presumably they'll be captured and treated to McDonalds and reprogramming or at least humanely shot.
2003-03-04 09:22 | User Profile
**> ** I'm becoming convinced that this man is truly demonic. **
Demonic is such an ugly word, Tex. Perhaps we should simply say that Mr. Rumsfeld is well suited to his position in the Bush administration. **
Indeed. Ascribing supernatural qualities to a man who is a mere realist is uncalled for.
Once upon a (brief) time war was a sport of kings and chivalry flowed as freely as did blood on battlefields. Victors could afford compassion for vanquished because the stakes were minimal. One could settle for an insignificant piece of real estate, or reasonable ââ¬Åwar reparations,ââ¬Â or make things better via marriage between the scions of warring monarchs. City-states give way to nations and hence nationalism which brought progress during the Napoleonic wars. The twentieth century witnessed significant advances but the reality of the killing fields made necessary the growth of a state lying apparatus to protect the tender hearted by means of propaganda and war crimes tribunals.
War is killing and true war is killing by any means necessary; all else is dicking around. If this administration fails to deliver the prize it will be replaced by one that will. Why object if some tool/opportunist deems it necessary to employ more robust methods to achieve the aim sought ââ¬â a quick and painless (for us, anyway) victory. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with the conduct of war, and asserting the right to use weapons you have deemed illegal for others to handle is a logical development flowing from the above history. We do so because we can.
A war whose public aims are extermination of enemy population and appropriation of living space may be perceived as less moral but is certainly more honest than most. Ultimate reality cares little for the construct of morality for the only issue is power to effect the desired goal. The administration estimates that in the context of our little reality it lacks the power to sustain a war involving heavy American casualties, therefore it will employ the power it is certain it has to hasten it once it begins. Legitimacy or morality, such as it is, comes by way of propaganda power and it is a foregone conclusion that America will liberate democracy yearning Iraqis and evil doers will incinerate in their bunkers or live to swing another day. Justice will be served, demonic qualities of judges or executioners notwithstanding.
2003-03-04 19:31 | User Profile
Oh Really, Sisyfos.. are you being sarcastic or so you mean what you said ? The handshake Donald Rumsfeld gave to Sadaam Hussein in the 80's had a buzzer in it did it not.. when we funded the Iranians behind their back, betraying them and killing Iraqis who thought us to be their ally.. I don't have to go further.. my point here is that fine, if you want to say that Might is Right, which is basically all your post said, then the automatic response is that there is an afterlife, and more importantly there will be a time when Christ returns to this Earth. Without Christianity, the destruction which Mankind has fomented would be 100 fold what actual history is. Do you have a soul ? If you think might makes right, then how about I just slit your throat and get it over with ?
2003-03-05 07:35 | User Profile
Oh Really, Sisyfos.. are you being sarcastic or so you mean what you said ?
No sarcasm here, though I do have a tendency to needlessly go on about trivialities, but given your commentary I see I have restrained myself unduly.
The handshake Donald Rumsfeld gave to Sadaam Hussein in the 80's had a buzzer in it did it not.. when we funded the Iranians behind their back, betraying them and killing Iraqis who thought us to be their ally...
Your governor Harrison (later president) feigned prospective alliance with Tecumseh but betrayed him by attacking his village when he was absent, thereby driving him into the arms of the English. Wilson betrayed the electorate by ââ¬Ëgoing over there,ââ¬â¢ while his trainers and backers betrayed the Germans since they did not refrain from doing business with her milch cows right up until the declaration of hostilities, to say nothing of the 14 cherries/points dangled before Germany which was saddled with a dictat. In round two, the Bushes and others had stakes in IG Farben and ensured that the works in Ruhr escaped the destruction that Anglo-American barbarism reserved for the rest of Europe. Roosevelt betrayed his own, e.g., see the Arizona memorial for particulars, and supported the Chinese during WWII, but did not live long enough to see them betrayed to the Chairman. Johnson and Nixon betrayed the South Vietnamese by fighting a half-hearted war and concluded by signing a worthless treaty (Is there another kind?) they knew would not be preserved since they lacked the domestic political might to intervene and keep the North honest. George I betrayed his old chum Noriega, and Hussein by pretending indifference to their respective activities and then punishing them severely. All fascinating and instructive in their ways, but I fail to see your point. Waitââ¬Â¦ something appears on the horizonââ¬Â¦
**I don't have to go further.. my point here is that fine, if you want to say that Might is Right, which is basically all your post said, then the automatic response is that there is an afterlife, and more importantly there will be a time when Christ returns to this Earth. **
A tad too concise since ââ¬ÅRightââ¬Â is a construct devised to make believers feel better about the outcome of their proclivities, i.e., essential for man but nonexistent in nature. Further, the ââ¬ÅMightââ¬Â is hindered, perhaps decisively so on occasion, by publicââ¬â¢s perception of being in the ââ¬ÅRight.ââ¬Â This accounts for the necessity of suffocating propaganda apparatus in modern states, particularly in inefficient and morality-invested democracies. But your characterization is close enough.
How concepts such as the afterlife and the arrival of the magnificent one become ââ¬Åautomatic response[s]ââ¬Â to my premise escapes me.
**Without Christianity, the destruction which Mankind has fomented would be 100 fold what actual history is. **
As you say.
**Do you have a soul ? **
Irrelevant, particularly for those who find value in quoting Napoleon, and, presumably, are familiar with his take on religion, but intriguing. I believe -- quite possibly wrongly since I lack proof, save circumstantialities -- that my consciousness is the product of more than mere chemical interactions and electrical neural activity, i.e., some other interaction beyond our ability to identify, record and evaluate is implicated in that which we call self-awareness. To cut to the chase: yes, I have a soul, but this is a token admission since I do not use the term in its common religiously imbued connotation. Concerning the afterlife, I prefer to think in terms of remnants of molecules (so much for particle accelerators; I still await the breakdown of many atoms into something primal and indivisible) and their interaction if any. With this said you can infer what I think of religion imposed boundaries on who gains admission into a given place of permanent residence, but I will not deny you the possibility that we -- that is your soul and my atomic remnants -- may well have the opportunity to rehash the matter in the ether.
If you think might makes right, then how about I just slit your throat and get it over with ?
This, I assume, is the aforementioned sampling of Mankindââ¬â¢s destructive tendencies, a propensity you propose is more elusive to Christians. BTW, always a pleasure to converse with a man who prefers the slice method and instinctively knows that killing with the tip lacks artistry. :rolleyes:
2003-03-05 20:07 | User Profile
I'm sorry Sisyfos, that last statement was too bold. I think you know that I only meant it as an example of the ultimate fruits of the Might=Right mindset. It certainly was not to be taken personally, so I truly apologize if you inferred it that way. The other part of my post was trying to emphasize the fact ( in my mind its a fact at least ) that what keeps this world going, what truly keeps the majority of mankind in relative peace, is our souls, is the Holy Spirit. Can you imagine what the world would be like if we all worshipped Wotan, or Zeus, or any of the other pagan gods ? A mess !! If those people in those times had the kind of weapons we have, we wouldn't even be here now. I don't think this human condition and the obvious duality, unexplained phenomena, and other mysteries can be explained empirically. Anyway, Peace Out.
2003-03-06 01:11 | User Profile
That quote from Maximus of Tyre was truly beautiful & moving. He clearly was a wise, understanding man.
2003-03-07 01:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by MadScienceType@Mar 3 2003, 18:17 ** Should anyone point this out, I expect the answer to be that the enemy is not actualy uniformed troops and therefore are not afforded the protections of the Convention. Granted, I'm sure the Taliban isn't real concerned with the finer points of international law, but aren't we supposed to be the "good guys?" **
Indeed America is a bunch of Pharisees swating at gnats and swallowing camels.
2003-03-07 03:49 | User Profile
I am surprised this thread is continuing. Don't think for a minute that you've got me on this one, Wintermute, because every single point you made I can refute. ANd as far as your so-called quote from the Bible, thanks for the non-reference point !
2003-03-07 17:13 | User Profile
As a young child a lazy mother pushed me out the door on Sunday mornings to attend Church and Bible School. These were organized along fundamentalist lines. At the age of 5 or 6 I remember laughing at the eye closing holy rollers. I was severely admonished and hints were given that if I did not return, I would not be missed. Yet through my childhood I believe I read the Old Testament and then forgot it. I have now come to believe along with the sainted Lord Boldingbroke on interpreting the message.> Writing shortly after the birth of George Washington, a grand ornament of the English Enlightenment, Lord Bolingbroke, [color=blue]commented on the claim of Jews to the Holy Land. The Lord thought the prophecies and curses of the Bible to be the ranting of lunatics or drunks. These dreadful utterances contradicted his notion of order and justice. No man in his senses would be capable of such oaths. No writer but a Jew could impute to divine Providence the fulfillment of such predictions nor make a Supreme Being the executor of such a curse. Bolingbrokee over 250 years previous observed Jews never had full possession of the land they claimed as their own, and never was the land peaceful. While cosmopolitans may despise Falwell, they must respect Bolingbroke, an anti-Zionist of the 18th century.[/color]
Acknowledging hypocrisy, I insist the Old Testament be studied in school for historical and cultural reasons. I do not care if it is believed or not, but the English is beautiful. Smart children, as ever, will form their own opinions on the writings. In this case I place beauty and manners above truth.
2003-03-08 00:28 | User Profile
all of your references are about the destruction of Babylon. Babylon was an affront to God and his loving plan for mankind. I don't have time right now to go further..
2003-03-09 14:08 | User Profile
[url=http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=385283]http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politi...sp?story=385283[/url]
Use of CS gas in Gulf is illegal, says Red Cross By Severin Carrell 09 March 2003
The International Committee of the Red Cross has led protests by medical and human rights groups at plans by the US to deploy tear gas and pepper spray to the Gulf.
Senior officials in the ICRC, which champions legal rights for soldiers and civilians in wartime, warn that using these "riot control agents" would violate the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
Peter Herby, an arms and mines control specialist with the ICRC, said: "We can say quite categorically that the use of chemical agents, whether riot control agents or lethal agents, in warfare would be entirely prohibited."
Their protests, which follow The Independent on Sunday's disclosure last week that US troops could use CS gas and pepper spray in the Gulf, were supported by the British Medical Association and the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists.
They claimed that using even CS gas would undermine the prohibition on using chemical and biological weapons in war, and would be exploited by rogue states to justify their use of more dangerous weapons.
In the Commons, four senior Labour MPs have tabled questions asking the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, whether the Government had objected to the US plans. British officials also believe the use of CS gas in war would be illegal.
But, in a letter to the IoS, a senior Pentagon official insisted the use of tear gas for "defensive purposes to save lives" and to "protect non-combatants" would be "consistent" with the convention.
Victoria Clarke, the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs, denied allegations from a senior US military expert and Gulf War veteran that US special forces could use "knock out" gases.
The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said using tear gas against human shields or to pacify prisoners would be justified ââ¬â claims disputed by international legal experts. 9 March 2003 08:04