Should the US use chemical weapons against Iraq?

[Sandia]

In Congressional testimony last February, Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told the Armed Services Committee his department was looking for ways to circumvent the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield.

Rumsfeld favors the use of "non-lethal" chemical weapons - like the ones used by Russian Special Forces last October - which could be especially useful in the crowded urban battlefields of Bahgdad, where conventional weapons have killed journalists and dozens of Iraqi civilians in the last few days.

The Chemical Weapons Convention defines chemical weapons as "Any chemical that can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm."

It further prohibits the use of "riot control agents as a method of warfare."

George Bush authorized the use of tear gas in Iraq last week, and Asia Times says that "US Marine Corps confirmed that CS gas and pepper spray had already been shipped to the Gulf."

 

[Guest]

 

[Bluesboy2]

No we should have used nukes and never sent in ground forces. There is nothing quite like a glass parking lot in the sun...

 

[Azwed]

Any non-lethal weapon can still be lethal if used incorrectly. Several people have died from pepper spray and I am sure some people have died from tear gas too.

The stink pellet guns might be the only truly non-lethal weapon around.

 

[Guest]

No

Not only no but Hell no !

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

They shoulda sent STD over...he has natural gas.

 

[Linedrive]

I know what the convention says, and due to potential public outcry they should probably not use them. I do however have a hard time classifying pepper spray in the same tense as sarin or other severely lethal chemical.

That reminds me of the time in California a cop stopped to tell me a ticket for pissing in public meant I would have to register as a sex offender. You know, the same list with serial rapists.

 

[marksgirl]

They shoulda sent STD over...he has natural gas.

LMAO! He is a real stink bomb!

 

[Guest]

They shoulda sent STD over...he has natural gas.

Frimost as well



How is Secret doing Bob?

 

[weed]

It's tempting to say yes. That non-lethal means to chemically restrain or incapacitate enemies is better than the conventional means we are using now.

But the are not foolproof, can backfire on the user in some circumstances and responses are individualized. Then there's the ethical matter where does it stop. Especially when the use of newer agents comes into play. Wouldn't presume agent orange and the Gulf War Syndrome taught us anything.

I voted no.

 

[Alvin Brickrock]

Tear gas, lysol and glade are ok in my book. Not the other stuff though.

 

[MunchinMark]

Tear gas, lysol and glade are ok in my book. Not the other stuff though.

Don't know about where you are but here Glade is an air freshener. Use that and the Iraqi generals will all come out smelling of roses.

 

[Alvin Brickrock]

Don't know about where you are but here Glade is an air freshener. Use that and the Iraqi generals will all come out smelling of roses.

I was thinking of post-war ambiance.

 

[The_Dragon_Tamer]

HELL NO!

Take if from someone who has been there and done that and am presently paying the consequences o f Iraqs actions from before!

 

[RobDownSouth]

Well the U.S. signed a treaty saying they wouldn't use chemical weapons waaaay back in 1925.

But then again, we have a President who treats treaties with contempt, so who knows?