Because Saddam gassed his own people, we're entitled to do the same thing? There are many practical and legal reasons we shouldn't do this, but the main reason we shouldn't is because WE ARE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! And why are we only getting this stuff from the foreign press? ______________ War analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Out of the straitjacket The US wants to use potentially lethal chemicals against Iraq - despite the fact that this would contravene international law Alastair Hay Wednesday March 12, 2003 The Guardian The US secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, recently argued that the military should again be allowed to use chemicals as weapons of war in Iraq - not the tonnes of lethal nerve gases, such as sarin or tabun, which the US possesses, or its supply of mustard gas, which causes severe injuries and sometimes kills; no, Rumsfeld wants to take advantage of the US's stockpile of the misleadingly named "non-lethal" chemical agents, particularly those used for riot control. These cause temporary incapacitation for the majority, but can be lethal in confined spaces. What Rumsfeld is proposing is illegal. The rules are set down by the chemical weapons convention (CWC), which became international law in 1997. It states that "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacition or permanent harm to humans or animals" is forbidden as a method of warfare. The US, along with some 140 other countries, including the UK, has signed this treaty and is pledged to uphold it. Rumsfeld, in his testimony to the House of Representatives armed services committee last month, referred to the CWC as a "straitjacket" limiting US options in war. What the US should be able to do, Rumsfeld claims, is resort to the use of non-lethal agents in combat situations when there are civilians present and there is a need to preserve life. He gave two examples. The first was "when transporting dangerous people in a confined space", such as an aircraft. The second was when "women and children" are trapped with enemy troops "in a cave". Such action is forbidden by international law. The CWC explicitly forbids the use of riot-control agents except for domestic law enforcement purposes. Under the CWC these and other chemicals can also be used for policing operations if the country's own laws permit them. The exemption applies only to those policing operations and not to any external armed conflict. It would be stretching credulity to argue that any prospective conflict with Iraq was a simple, policing operation. Rumsfeld's desire to protect civilians is, in any case, totally impractical. In a confined space - an aircraft, or a cave - there is no way to guarantee that civilian exposure to the chemicals will always be low, and in high concentrations they kill. Another group of chemicals Rumsfeld may be thinking of using are the so-called calmatives. There are a vast number of possible chemicals in this category based on the known substances used to relieve anxiety, treat depression or reduce pain. Precisely what calmatives the US possesses is not known. Here, too, there are great risks, particularly in war. The recent Moscow Opera House siege was ended through the use of a calmative fed into the building through the air conditioning system. The Russian special forces are said to have used an opiate-based compound, a derivative of a chemical fentanyl, which is generally used in operations. But as we all now know it may have ended the siege, but at a terrible cost involving over 120 dead. Why so many died is still a matter of dispute. What is incontestable is that many people were exposed to lethal concentrations. Although calmatives are effective at non-lethal concentrations, it is extremely difficult to ensure that everyone is only exposed to those amounts. To guarantee that individuals in the middle of a large room are sedated it is inevitable that those at the periphery and near air vents will be exposed to lethal amounts. Deaths are inevitable and if emergency services are not equipped to counteract the effects of the chemicals, the death toll will rise. The Moscow siege would appear to exemplify all these problems. In a war the situation would be even worse. Guaranteeing low exposure to chemicals would be very difficult, and as for providing emergency medical help in time, this is a forlorn hope. The CWC is meant to be a straitjacket. Its provisions, elaborated over nearly 30 years of negotiations exist precisely to constrain combatants in war. There is, or should be, a mutual recognition that certain codes of conduct are important to uphold, such as accepting the surrender of an enemy and protecting prisoners and civilians. The CWC rules are an attempt to civilise war, if that is possible, and to protect non-combatants. This one group is increasingly vulnerable to the use of chemical warfare agents because it is always likely to have no protection against them. The irony of all this is that should Rumsfeld persuade President Bush to authorise use of non-lethal agents (riot-control and/or others) Iraq would be entitled under the 1925 Geneva protocol to retaliate in kind. This protocol (of which both Iraq and the US are signatories) forbids first use of chemicals in war. And if, as is likely, use of chemicals resulted in deaths, Iraq could arguably resort to the use of lethal agents in its arsenal. In the heat of battle it would be difficult for Iraq's forces to discern that only non-lethal agents were being used against them. It would be understandable therefore, that they might resort to whatever was available to them to use. If, of course, they have any. Should the US resort to the use of non-lethal agents it will seriously undermine the CWC. This fledgling disarmament treaty is universally cited as a model set of rules which we will all benefit from. Because a few members of the current US administration object to its constraints, this treaty may be about to be holed below the waterline.
Rumsfeld is a moron. The Bush team really needs to yank his leash a few times to get him under control. While his request hasn't been approved, the mere fact that he's bringing this up in publicized hearings will only make the US look even worse in the international community. This administration has got to take a better look at the big picture here.
Did any of you even read the article? He was talking about using non-lethal weapons such as riot control agents, not throwing fu*king VX around. So, you'd all prefer that the non-lethal option not be used? You're concerned about human life, but you'd apparently rather we just used bullets and bombs? And don't yada-yada me about how these "non-lethal" weapons can be lethal sometimes - so can asprin. They are called "non-lethal for a reason - 9999 times out of ten thousand, their use causes absolutely no permanent damage at all. The only morons here are the ones who would equate our use of non-lethal riot control agents to Saddam's use of fu*king VX. Morons.
The only morons here are the ones who would equate our use of non-lethal riot control agents to Saddam's use of fu*king VX. Morons. That's nice, except that no one equated its use to that of VX except for maybe you. What people did do is see that its a specific violation of a treaty that we signed on to. <I>The CWC explicitly forbids the use of riot-control agents except for domestic law enforcement purposes.</I> I guess that actually following through on treaties isn't important, though.
Oh spare me. The article gives clear reason (inability to control exposure levels) and examples (Moscow Opera House siege) of the problems with the use of these non-lethal agents. The fact that Rumsfeld has suggested using the agents in precisely those circumstances where they are most likely to be lethal makes this all the more appalling. I have no interest in endangering our troops, but I also have no interest in chucking another treaty because this administration puts its own interpretation of convenience above international consensus. If this administration is willing to break this treaty, they better damn well have an alternative ready. At some point (if not now), we will need the good will of the world to complete the democratization of the Middle East, but this administration's attitude of "screw you, we'll do what we want" will only serve to isolate us in the future.
When a treaty stipulation makes no sense - such as this - then we should ignore it. I personally think that we should use non-lethals wherever they work, damn the treaty to hell. Or that part of it, at least. What, am I to suddenly believe that our resident peaceniks suddenly would rather that we used deadly force than non-lethals? No, it's just more America/Bush bashing, with a broken treaty to use as fuel. And you don't see "Because Saddam gassed his own people, we're entitled to do the same thing?" as attempting to morally equate our use of non-lethals to Saddam's use of gas? VX was just an example, Major. You know what I am talking about.
Why change the standard Bush admin policy of ignoring or backing out of treaties now? It's not an entirely hypocritical stance -- we don't seem to care too much when North Korea does it. Besides, that man tried to kill his daddy.
subtomic: Just let me get this straight: you would rather that we use lethal force than use non-lethals? For example, the Russians should have just stormed the opera house, not tried to put everyone to sleep? And in a similar situation, I suppose that we should just storm the place, and forget about the possibility of avoiding a bloodbath? Ridiculous. As for "chucking another treaty", the important parts of the CBWC relate to *lethal* weapons - chemical and biological WMD. Were we "chucking another treaty", then we wouldn't be building a huge $1.3 billion de-mil facility right now to destroy the nation's stocks of mustard gas at the post where I am stationed? Or similar facilities for the nation's other WMD stocks? Would we? Spare me the BS about us "chucking another treaty". You have no idea what you're talking about.
It's like signing any appropriations bill - you take the pork to get the meat of the bill through. The main point of the treaty was to eliminate WMD. Are you saying that we shouldn't have signed the treaty? Such a stance would be inconsistent with your general conspiracy-theorist posture, Tex.
Since the inception of our country, honoring the treaties we sign has been an extremely high priority, even hallowed, thing. Our entire governmental system is based on the rule of law. If you say you're going to pick and choose what treaties you respect, you throw the republic out the window. If the peaceniks are worried about the untold dozens of deaths this stuff might cause, I'm not. I'd rather kill 100,000 civilian with legal bombs than break a treaty we've sworn by. The article does go on about the potential for death. They have a point, but imo it pales in comparison to the fact that we made a promise. We can formally back out of the treaty as North Korea had done with nuclear nonproliferation (at least it's honest) and then use what we like. But to ignore it is immoral and despicable. Not to mention it would make us look like the biggest hypocrites on the planet. Just when you thought our international reputation could get no worse.
Obviously, I disagree. I seriously doubt that our use of nonlethal weapons in contravention to a treaty designed to prevent the stockpiling and use of lethal weapons of mass destruction is hardly going to result in the unraveling of American society or the international legal system. I am quite sure that those who are incinerated by our bombs would much rather that we would have been a little less moral and a little more 'despicable', and just dropped some stickyfoam on them instead. I think we're somewhat distorting the meaning of morality here when we say that abiding by an illogical treaty stipulation is more important than saving lives where it is possible to do so. That is skewed morality, to say the least.
Treeman, This is slightly off-topic, but I would suggest that if there is any chance of you going over there, you spring for a top-to-bottom physical with blood work from a private physician. That way, you have baseline info with which to compare and argue for benefits should there later be any questions about you being exposed to something (be it from them or us).
This is slightly off-topic, but I would suggest that if there is any chance of you going over there, you spring for a top-to-bottom physical with blood work from a private physician. I heard from a friend that the Pentagon refused to take such blood work on the troops as they really don't want to know the before and after story. Is this true?
Well at first when I was reading this I thought it was silly that we were not allowed to use non-lethal chemical weapons. But then later the article brought back up the Russian incident where the 120 people died and that made me change my mind on this real quick. It is hard to ensure that the non-lethal weapons remain safe since if their concentrations get too high then people can die en masse. Also, there is a treaty against it and I think we should stick to it since we are attempting to disarm a nation that possesses chemical weapons. It would be pretty hipocritical if we said no to chem weapons and used them ourself, even if they were non-lethal, and killed people. Sorry Treeman, but I think you are out there with Don on this one. I liked Donny at first, but he makes some outrageous statements and he really needs to control his mouth. He puts out some bad sound bites for the Bush administration that I am sure no one else within the administration agrees with.
Come on, people. We are talking about tear gas here, not VX (as someone already mentioned), not even what the Russians used. The Guardian obviously blew this out of proportions.