PDA

Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Chemical Weapons of the US ....


honeybee
Apr 27th, 2003, 11:20 PM
SECRET AGENTS
Outlook, April 28, 2003

Is it the mother of all double standards in the war against Iraq, turning the stated aim for Operation Iraqi Freedom on its head? Apart from the unrivalled arsenal of the US military in Iraq, its troops are also armed with "riot control" agents and "calmative" chemicals to deal with tough urban situations. President George Bush reportedly authorised the Pentagon to use "riot-control" agents such as tear gas and pepper spray in certain battlefield scenarios before the war started. Experts contend the order violates the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which bans the use of any chemicals in warfare. But Washington claims the use of "non-lethal riot-control" gases can save lives, acting once again by its own set of rules and pitching itself in a lonely corner of world opinion.

Chemical weapons and arms control experts told Outlook that Bush gave a green signal through an "executive order" before the US attacked Iraq. One report says the toxic agents were shipped to the Gulf early March. The controversial move angered British officials, who told the Pentagon they wouldn't allow their troops to be part of any operation involving chemical agents.

The US plans came to light when Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld publicly lamented the "straitjacket" the CWC imposed on US forces, listing situations where "non-lethal riot-control" agents might come in handy. He was testifying on February 5 before the House Armed Services Committee, the same day Secretary of State Colin Powell tried to convince the UN Security Council of Iraqi stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

"It would be a disaster if the US used any chemical agents. Most countries think it would severely undermine the CWC," John Issacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, a group working against weapons of mass destruction, told Outlook. "It is another case of the world thinking one way and the US going the other way." Commented Victoria Samson, a research associate at the centre for Defence Information, "This administration seems more than willing to step around its international obligations."

During the CWC negotiations, the US claimed that under 1975 presidential executive order no. 11850, it was entitled to use riot-control agents under five specific circumstances, a stand all major countries opposed. The US exemptions are not legally recognised byt other signatories.

In his February 5 testimony, Rumsfeld gave examples where riot-control agents might be desirable - situations involving "transporting dagerous people in a confined space" or where women and children are caught with enemy troops "in a cave". He further said he had devised "rules of engagement" for ground commanders to specify situations in which "non-lethal" agents might be sprayed or lobbed. George Bush Sr had barred the Pentagon from using any chemical agents in the 1991 Gulf War, according to Stefen Baker, a retired naval commander who was part of that war. "They made attempts to request but were denied, I don't support the use of any chemicals even though weighed against the negatives of using bullets on crowds, tear gas is preferable," he told Outlook.

But experts dismiss the whole concept of "non-lethal" agents - in a confined space things can turn lethal, as shown by the Moscow Opera House terrorist incident last November. The chemical used is believed to have been a derivative of fentanyl, varieties of which the US military has researched, according to Barbara Rosenberg, a bio-weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists. She said there was no "calmative" which is truly reversible and that "even a riot-control agent can kill in high dosage in an enclosed space."

The military brains began exploring new ideas after the 1993 Somalia debacle in which US troops were ambushed in an urban setting. The Pentagon launched the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) in 1997 with a budget of $25 million to explore chemicals for crowd control but by 2001 the directorate was exploring their use in "the full spectrum of warfare". A chilling report submitted to the JNLWD in October 2000 talked about the "choice administration route, whether application to drinking water, administration to the skin, aerosol spray inhalation or a drug-filled rubber bullet, will depend upon the environment". Possible situations include "hungry refugees excited over food distribution", "a prison setting" and "hostage situation".


.

simonm
Apr 28th, 2003, 11:27 AM
So, is the problem here the possibility that the "riot control" gasses could turn lethal or merely that they are using are using chemical gasses attall (be they lethal or not)?

The former is of genuine concern but the latter is not. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be better if more people died in a violent situation just so that America can be seen to not using chemical agents? Tell that to the relatives of the families of those who are killed because of such a policy.

honeybee
Apr 28th, 2003, 01:57 PM
The problem here is the US seems to be framing its own rules and regulations, and its own exemptions and exceptions from the international law and regulations.

.

kleinma
Apr 28th, 2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by honeybee
The problem here is the US seems to be framing its own rules and regulations, and its own exemptions and exceptions from the international law and regulations.

.

boo hoo... cry me a river.. give it up already.. no one cares what you have to say

Xanith
Apr 28th, 2003, 02:01 PM
Honeybee your really reaching on this one. Tear gas? Give me a break...

X

honeybee
Apr 28th, 2003, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Xanith
Honeybee your really reaching on this one. Tear gas? Give me a break...

X

:) For your kind info, I shall re-quote the particular statement about tear gas here, so you can read and interpret it better ;)


I don't support the use of any chemicals even though weighed against the negatives of using bullets on crowds, tear gas is preferable

To me, it looks like this chap is saying tear gas is better than using any chemicals, although some may argue the use of chemicals is safer than the use of bullets.

Get your English straight, before you get your mind straight :p

.

MasterBlaster
Apr 28th, 2003, 02:40 PM
Bleh! you bunch of sissies. Tear gas isn't that bad. It just makes your eyes water, vomit and feel like you have a sunburn for a little while. Sorta like a long day of drinking and partying at the beach minus the partying/drinking part.:p

Xanith
Apr 28th, 2003, 03:28 PM
Don’t forget exhaust fumes from cars eventually lead to the ozone layer being depleted, which in turn leads to a greater number of skin cancers. More proof that the US and other countries are using chemical weapons to kill people!!

X

NotLKH
Apr 28th, 2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by honeybee
:) For your kind info, I shall re-quote the particular statement about tear gas here, so you can read and interpret it better ;)



To me, it looks like this chap is saying tear gas is better than using any chemicals, although some may argue the use of chemicals is safer than the use of bullets.

Get your English straight, before you get your mind straight :p

.
I believe you need to read it this way:


I don't support the use of any chemicals


Interpretation: He is Anti Chemical


even though weighed against the negatives of using bullets on crowds

Interpretation: However,


tear gas is preferable


Interpretation: Sometimes some people might prefer a wiff of Non-Lethal Chemicals over becoming a bullet ridden corpse.


Perhaps he should have used the word "although" instead of the words "even though".

;)

honeybee
Apr 29th, 2003, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Bleh! you bunch of sissies. Tear gas isn't that bad. It just makes your eyes water, vomit and feel like you have a sunburn for a little while. Sorta like a long day of drinking and partying at the beach minus the partying/drinking part.:p

:rolleyes:

.