US uses banned Chemical Agents in Iraq

The Voice Of Doom is heard very loudly by the saner amongst your countryfolk, FM.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, etc etc.

Put away your history books and wake up.

I'm sorry but a kid who thinks that because most Americans are ok with Bombing the crap out of psycho Saddam, that the US is "falling from what it was originally founded as", does not mean that he speaks for the "Saner" people of the USA.

Face it, you along with Voice_of_Doom have little understanding of the workings of the US Government

I think you need a beer...

PEACE...
m...

FM

I meant the REAL Voice Of Doom, for whom the ATS Voice Of Doom is a regular representative.

I'm OK with my knowledge of the US government (and most governments) and what needs changing.

Arch conservatives with no vision will have no part in the positive changes, though.

The bell tolls for them.

Now I NEED a beer!
PEACE...
m...

Springer

Funny.

I was on my second.

'Bavaria', a Dutch brew in spite of its Germanic name, 440ml cans, 5.0%.

Seems to not be affecting my intellectual center but flattening my emotional center.

Soon I shall be departing to see Paul Crowther, Alistair Riddell, Eddie Rainer & Chris Knox.

I have been enjoying the FINE work of Mr. Bill Samuels myself...

PEACE...
m...

I don't know how you can call me an Arch Conservative MA

Unless you like gay couples running around with adopted children and everyone on drugs...but then...you are Canadian

As for on topic issues.

The US has no reason nor obligation to listen to the UN in anyway.

The US has no obligation to listen to the UN, agreed. No reason, though? I would disagree. The purpose to the UN is to establish a political body in which consensus may be reached for the benefit of humanity, nationality aside. The UN fails in this at times. It is as strong as the ideals of its member states and their dedication to support those ideals. When a friend questions my judgment on a subject, I give pause and attempt to objectively re-evaluate, and sometimes re-evaluation has served me well. Yes, I think the US has good reason to listen to the UN.

Just the same as Great Britain has no obligation to listen to the EU...and they choose not to...why?

Because as GB stands to lose more to the EU than gain, so does the US.

What precisely do you see Britain losing by participating in the EU? There are things it would lose, but I am curious to see your reasoning. More importantly, what do you see the US losing by listening to and participating within the UN? The US, as I see it, is a country founded upon checks and balances. Refusal to �listen� to the UN is an expression of autonomy and a simultaneous refusal to accept checks and balances.

Frankly there are some things we aren't giving up.

Our Constitution, and frankly no where in the Constitution does it state that the UN is the soveriegn entity in legislation in the US.

Our Constitution is a good thing, it should not be surrendered to foreign nations or to John Ashcroft.

Because it is not, we shall do as we see right, not as the rest of the world sees right.

And if we see it is right to participate in and accept the guidelines of a global political body? And recognize that mindlessly pursuing the path of righteousness can sometimes lead us to regrettable excess, therefore it is beneficial and desirable to have check and balances in place to prevent said excess?

And napalm, is right in our eyes. Just as removing vile torturous dictators and terrorists.

No, napalm isn�t right in our eyes. �Almost� napalm is right, or at least justifiable in our eyes, for now. Removing vile torturous dictators and terrorists is probably also ok, assuming you point out that�s what you�re doing. Removing scum is fine and dandy, lying about why you�re doing so isn�t. Lying about why you�re doing so while you�re in the process of supporting equally vile torturous dictators and terrorists is morally questionable, if not reprehensible.

The rest of the world thinks it is wrong to remove vile torturous dictators and terrorists...but that's ok, just like it is the US's right to do what we feel is right, it is your right to do what you feel is right.

No, the rest of the world thinks it�s wrong to lie and so do some Americans.

Seekerof: "How about show me where the US said that."

Hey, glad to. It was in the San Diego Union-Tribune, here's a link to it.


www.people-link.org...

""This additive has significantly less of an impact on the environment," wrote Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily, in an e-mailed information sheet provided by the Pentagon.

He added, "many folks (out of habit) refer to the Mark 77 as 'napalm' because its effect upon the target is remarkably similar.""

I repeat, it's effect is "remarkably similar" to napalm. Remarkably similar as in practically identical.

They used it in Afghanistan too, here's a link to Central Command's site : www.centcom.mil...

"Q General, there was a report on Al-Jazeera today that we're using napalm at Tora Bora.

Can you comment on that, sir?

GEN. FRANKS: Right. We're not using -- we're not using the old napalm in Tora Bora."

I repeat. The General in charge of the attack said "we're not using the OLD napalm in Tora Bora." There's only one possible way to interpret that. New napalm.

You do understand and interpret that correctly right?

Thomas Crowne: "Jakomo, as far as the landmine ban goes, we do not drop'em and forget'em. When we mine an area, a card is made, indicating where every mine is. That is so we can maneuver around them and also so that we can retrieve them. Because others might drop them in the patties and fields so that children can blow themselves up doesn't mean that we will. "

Um, yeah. "The United States exported over 5.5 million antipersonnel mines to 38 countries between 1969 and 1992. Of this total, 4.14 million were non-self-destructing mines and approximately 80,000 were self-destructing mines. The remaining 1.36 million were Claymore mines.[16] Antipersonnel mines manufactured by the United States are found in the ground in at least 28 countries"

"The United States has the third largest stockpile of antipersonnel mines in the world. The U.S. stockpiles approximately 11.2 million antipersonnel mines, including about 10 million self-destructing mines and 1.2 million �dumb� mines."
www.icbl.org...

VoiceOfDoom: "How can the US claim any righteous foundation when it traffics in WMD more than any other country for a living?!"

I have no answer for that, unless hypocrisy is an answer. What astounds me is how they can UNSIGN the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court for war criminals. In other words, Clinton signed it and Bush UNsigned it. And the US refuses to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on Nuclear Weapons. ?! This is the paragon of hope for humanity?

FreeMason: "The rest of the world thinks it is wrong to remove vile torturous dictators and terrorists...but that's ok, just like it is the US's right to do what we feel is right, it is your right to do what you feel is right.

That just simply means we're going to ignore you fools.


Actually, speaking as a non-American, the rest of the world thinks you're mostly pompous blowhards who couldn't find your asses with a map and a flashlight (heck, two flashlights). I know many Americans who sew a Canadian flag on their bag when they travel outside of Uhmerica so that they won't be treated badly. Haha! Hey, glad we can help!

The US has INSTALLED far more vile, torturous dictators than it has removed. Please ask for a list, I would be happy to oblige.

The rest of the planet knows it's history, don't project your ignorance past your own borders, please.


Jakomo

Jackomo in the house!
MA, are you really Canadian??? I am thinking of moving there....
I have traveled to Europe twice and both times put a canadian flag on my gear.
Freemason, my wife is Nicaraguan and she would like to personally tell you her experiences with "America exporting democracy" to her country. The constitution was a phrenomenal document that changed the world. The men who put it together were world class thinkers and philosophers but wake up man, the last century of our history has been about imperialism abroad and class warfare at home.
Take a class in the struggles of unions in this country...take a class in the struggle of women's and minority rights...take a class in the covert toppling of soveriegn nation by the CIA...take a class about the dictators and human rights abusers for whom we have looked the other way while our domestic corporations profits soared into the stratosphere.
I have never voted because I am aware to the fact that if voting could change the system it would be against the law...and if NOT-voting could change the system it would be against the law.

[Authority is an illusion in the minds of govenors - Lao Tse]

Yea ummm ... Haven't read the whole topic yet, just the first page so far.

Anywho, if the weapon was banned, then Dubya used it in war, it's a war crime. No and's, if's, or but's about it. Unfortunatly, this wouldn't be the ONLY war crime he's commited since this war.

Funny, we can keep a president bent on commiting war crime after war crime, but we have no choice but to impeach a president for getting a little head?

Even more funny, Dubya didn't win the election, he was placed into offfice by the supreme court. Thought the whole point of an election was for the PEOPLE of america to decide who lead's them for the next 4 year's, not for the SC to do that for us ...

From Jakomo's link to the San Diego Times, I quote:

"Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces."

and to clarify what the U.S. did not sign on:

"The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets." THAT is the UN agreement that the US abstained from, there was no UN banning of incendiary bombs on military targets.


Nuff said.

www.people-link.org...

I don't understand why people waste so much time and energy arguing about things that make no difference,who the heck cares about banned weapons,they really have nothing to do with anything,the real problem is why they should be need at all,the people who think they are required are only defending themselves at the expense of the taxpayer,and in some cases sending the taxpayers to their death for no good reason.

-War is just politicians playing with tanks-

It really has nothing to do with anything that has any bearing on us down here in the mud.
it is all quite meaningless,why waste your intelligence arguing about something that is meaningless?

First, you have not been empowered with the right to decide what will be considered important for discussion among interested parties on this board...right?

Second, the importance of this thread, in my mind, is to point out the lengths Moku and others of his ilk will go to in order to twist, mislead and outright falsify maliscious accusations against the US in general, and the current administration specifically.

I empower myself,I make my own reality.If you want to be lost in a false reality , that is your choice,it is my DUTY to my fellow man to point out that arguing about pointless false realities is meaningless and a waste of time.
I mean no offense to anyone

Well, it has been said before but since the mindless right-wing berserkers like to forget what they already have read in the thread, in order to resort to their favourite occupation, personal attacks :


Excerpt from the Geneva Convention

1424 It is worth noting that none of the rules explicitly protects combatants from incendiary weapons such as flame-throwers or napalm. However, it is generally admitted that these weapons should not be used in such a way that they will cause unnecessary suffering, (66) which means that in particular they should not be used against individuals without cover. Certain other weapons that may have an indiscriminate effect continue to be the object of controversy (although the Additional Protocol imposes mandatory rules in this respect in Article 51 -- ' Protection of the civilian population, ' paragraph 4 which admittedly refers to "attacks" and not to weapons). These include, for example, certain blast and fragmentation weapons, as well as small-calibre projectiles. A start has been made on examining the possibility of prohibiting or restricting their use. (67)

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

Excerpt from the Geneva Convention

1424 It is worth noting that none of the rules explicitly protects combatants from incendiary weapons such as flame-throwers or napalm. However, it is generally admitted that these weapons should not be used in such a way that they will cause unnecessary suffering, (66) which means that in particular they should not be used against individuals without cover. Certain other weapons that may have an indiscriminate effect continue to be the object of controversy (although the Additional Protocol imposes mandatory rules in this respect in Article 51 -- ' Protection of the civilian population, ' paragraph 4 which admittedly refers to "attacks" and not to weapons). These include, for example, certain blast and fragmentation weapons, as well as small-calibre projectiles. A start has been made on examining the possibility of prohibiting or restricting their use. (67)

Well, I guess we can lock this thread now, Moku. You just proved our point...

NEXT!!!

Governments are a legal fiction,the UN is a legal fiction,laws are a fiction created by fictions,the only thing that make them resemble anything real are those who follow them.

-Frustra feruntur legis nisi subditis et obedientibus-

The people in governments know these things,that is why they do not follow the laws themselves,it is all fiction,A LIE.

The weapons are real,their purpose is a ,is to perpetuate lies.