It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US to use gas in Iraq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 02:29 PM
link   
US Plans for Use of Gas in Iraq

(Austin and Hamburg, 7 February 2003) - Top US military planners are preparing for the US to use incapacitating biochemical weapons in an invasion of Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed the plans in February 5th testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee. This is the first official US acknowledgement that it may use (bio)chemical weapons in its crusade to rid other countries of such weapons. The Sunshine Project and other nonprofits have warned since late 2001 that the "War on Terrorism" may result in the United States using prohibited biological and chemical armaments, thereby violating the same treaties it purports to defend. The US announcement creates grave concerns for the future of arms control agreements, particularly the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Rumsfeld stated that plans are being made for multiple applications, including use of gas or aerosols on unarmed Iraqi civilians, in caves, and on prisoners. Rumsfeld reiterated the confusing, typical US official language about so-called "non-lethal" biochemical weapons. Rumsfeld described applications of a "riot agent" that clearly imply the complete incapacitation of victims, combatant and non-combatant, in armed conflict - a definition and usages that are at odds with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Rumsfeld acknowledged US ratification of the CWC but expressed "regret" about its restrictions, stating that the US has "tangled ourselves up so badly" on policy for use of incapacitating biochemical weapons. Rumsfeld indicated that - in his opinion - if President Bush signs a waiver of long-standing restrictions on US use of incapacitating chemicals, that the US will be able to legally field them in Iraq and elsewhere.

Listen to Rumsfeld's testimony here:
www.sunshine-project.org...

(**The speakers:
The first speaker, who poses the question, is Rep. Meehan of Massachusetts. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld replies (including a follow-up question from Meehan), followed by remarks from Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.**)




So let's recap:

1) We are going to terrorize a country based on an unsubstantiated link to terrorist organizations and/or for pontential yet-to-happen terror enabling moves.......by bombing them with more ordnance than dropped in the Gulf War, over 48 hours.

2) We are going to use chemical and biological weapons on THEM because they may some day use them as well. "Non Leathal" has yet to work out that way in any mass dispersion application; you can't control it on a large scale from crossing the line between non-leathal debilitator to leathal CBW.
( hope we didn't buy the stuff from Russia!
)

Hmmmm? We're justified to do this because of...... 9/11?!??! I mean to become what we're supposedly fighting against.... by doing what they do?


[Edited on 10-2-2003 by Bout Time]




posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Yeah, uh-huh. Hamburg Germany is really in the know above the major media outlets in the US...as well as I take it, Austin Texas...a well known liberal town.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Shhheeessh, one reply and already off topic..TAKE BACK ATS!!!!!
The above is from Project Sunshine....look it up. The degree from Basketball U. you purport to have should have entailed a modicum of research skill, no? Lord knows they didn't teach you quality debate skills for real world application.

[Edited on 10-2-2003 by Bout Time]



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Basketball U??? I believe you're talking about a Public Ivy that I graduated from in Economics, eh? Speaking of research...figure out who the Public Ivy schools are...while I'm looking up your conspiracy theory.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 03:11 PM
link   
"Bout Time"

I have read many of your posts and some of them I must admit I either agree with OR can see your point of view. This is NOT one of them!

What you have here is an attempt to confuse the use of a "gas" that you have identified as having an ability to "incapacitate"., Not to Kill, Wound, or Maim, No this gas might/may incapacitate those on whom it may
be used on. Give me a break !

All Police departments around the world use Tear Gas
and make no mistake, that (Tear Gas) can incapacitate
people. If, and remember I said "IF", the US would use "incapacitating gas" in the event of a War, be it in Iraq or anywhere else, it would be to lessen the amount of death, wounds or maiming of Soldiers and the unavoidable Civilians caught-up in that war. As one of our Mod's/Admin. says: "Think before you Post"
I for one am proud and heartened to know our government wishes to take such a compassionate stand.

Think, Think; Saddame used LETHAL GAS on Kurdish Soldiers, Men, Women and Children. Saddame used LETHAL GAS on Iran; Saddame used LETHAL GAS on Sunni Sect Muslems. This madman has had his scientists working on LETHAL bio-weapons. For God's Sake. If we have to go to war with Iraq, you cannot equate our possible use of "incapacitating gas" to what that madman Saddame Has, Can and Will (If given the oppertunity) use on our Soldiers and anyone else who gets in his way.

USAFSS_SP



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 03:25 PM
link   
USAFSS-SP

My point, that I admit is not as clear as it should be, is this: look at what happened in Russian during the Theater hostage scenario. These "non-leathal" weapons are not irritants like tear gas, these are "knock out" gases designed to drop folks instantly. They are unknowns when it comes to usage over a mass-wide open area. At their base, are chemical cocktails that knock you out in the right amount or kill you in the wrong amount. As the Chechen/theater death toll indicates, you can't really gauge them in a mass spraying, so "non-leathal" becomes leathal.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 03:38 PM
link   
According to one source,the U.S. does not have or use non-lethal gas,like the Russians.

US military has no Fentanyl but has non-lethal means of crowd control

BY JEAN-MICHEL STOULLIG

The US military does not have Fentanyl or any other incapacitating gas similar to the one used in the Moscow hostage drama Saturday, but it is constantly modernizing its non-lethal arsenal of crowd control, defense officials and experts said.

Russia broke four days of silence Wednesday when Health Minister Yuri Shevchenko revealed that the mystery gas that claimed the lives of 119 captives was based on Fentanyl, a fast-acting opiate derivative normally used for treating chronic pain and as a veterinary anaesthetic, Russian news agency Interfax reported.

"We don't have it. We don't have any kind of incapacitating agent, and have no intention of developing them," Pentagon spokesman Major Tim Blair told AFP. However, he did not exclude the possibility of privately-funded research.
www.globalsecurity.org...

The military does use pepper spray and tear gas.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 (UPI) -- The U.S. military does not have and has no plans to procure the type of chemical agent that was used to subdue a theater full of Chechen rebels and their 700 hostages in Moscow last week, but is working on a range of so-called non-lethal technologies of its own, Pentagon officials told United Press International on Thursday.
www.washtimes.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Did you listen to the mp3; what was Cheney and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs talking about then? I've heard about the 'microwave' gun, but that's a single target device.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 04:12 PM
link   
There is no such thing as Lethal / Non-lethal chemical weapons, just chemical weapons that are designed to be non-lethal.

All of the chemical incapacitates held by the US have caused fatalities. It is against the Geneva convention to use these weapons on the battle field.

It may seem odd to ban a 'non-lethal' weapon, but the truth is they can all be lethal particularly when misapplied. Also it would be impossible to define which chemicals are OK and which are not, so all chemical weapons are banned.

The long term effects of some of these weapons, particularly CZ, is a cause for concern.

To summarize; Using chemical weapons is A WAR CRIME. Though you can use CS, CZ etc against YOUR OWN civilian population as Riot Control Agents.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 04:59 PM
link   
We can discuss the short term medical as well as long term effects of Non-lethal Gases vs. A Bullet to the Head. I would be interested in your data on research, which should be available.

One of the problems considered a potential cause for the events at Wako was the application of non-lethal gasses. So I do agree if used in a concentrated area and propelled with a grenade launcher or alternative incendiary devise. There can be a problem especially if they make contact with something flammable just after they are launched.

A bullet fired into a confined area can cause the same problems and with that are the long-term effects an issue as well.

What are your thoughts?



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I think I've coverd them already.

These weapons aren't "non-lethal" and it's a war crime to use them. The US needs to be seen to be on the side of international law. If it isn't, it's just an imperialistic power with the biggest stick and that's the road to hell.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 07:18 PM
link   
The road to hell is in relation to the abuse of the innocent that seems very clear. Its not a war crime to use plastic coated bullets against your citizens? I understand that from the standpoint of certain cultures the application of a gas presents all kinds of fears. I can respect that but in an attack on Iraq there will be no plastic bullets anywhere near the battlefield. Are you aware of the death rate and long term effects of using plastic bullets? How do they compare with the application of non-lethal gas?


Would you happen to have an alternative?

International law is supsed to protect the innocent

What are your thoughts?

[Edited on 11-2-2003 by Toltec]



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlecMac
There is no such thing as Lethal / Non-lethal chemical weapons, just chemical weapons that are designed to be non-lethal.

All of the chemical incapacitates held by the US have caused fatalities. It is against the Geneva convention to use these weapons on the battle field.

It may seem odd to ban a 'non-lethal' weapon, but the truth is they can all be lethal particularly when misapplied. Also it would be impossible to define which chemicals are OK and which are not, so all chemical weapons are banned.

The long term effects of some of these weapons, particularly CZ, is a cause for concern.

To summarize; Using chemical weapons is A WAR CRIME. Though you can use CS, CZ etc against YOUR OWN civilian population as Riot Control Agents.


LINKS to bak up your information ie. what are the long term effects of CZ gas ?

If CZ seems to be as lethal as you suggest, why is it used in almost all western countries on their own citizens. I myself have been gassed by CS in Argentina, I couldn't breath and my eyes really hurt, but at no time did I feel I was going to lose my life. The para-militaries with their assault rifles were much more menacing.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Wanna hear something scary I use a program, which applies 10 search engines. I have it set to respond with 1000 responses per-search engine, per query term.

Have had it since before I assessed this site. Tonight I asked for info on Plastic bullets, using that query term and as well the term "Crowd Control and Plastic Bullets"

For the first time since I have used this program in relation to a search this specific, there was no response (that meaning 0 responses). Would ask that other who are viewing this thread report on their search, in relation to these topics/queries and post link/response to query.

Being on AOL I did a search with the same terms and found this.

aolsearch.aol.com...

I tired to access this search on ATS and did not get what I had seen on AOL search (which is enhanced by Google) So below is the first page of links accessed by my search

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.megastories.com...

www.commondreams.org...

www.iol.ie...

news.bbc.co.uk...

One other link was included but it was dead.

WTF is going on ???


Keep in mind not upset with ATS


[Edited on 11-2-2003 by Toltec]



posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
LINKS to bak up your information ie. what are the long term effects of CZ gas ?

If CZ seems to be as lethal as you suggest, why is it used in almost all western countries on their own citizens. I myself have been gassed by CS in Argentina, I couldn't breath and my eyes really hurt, but at no time did I feel I was going to lose my life. The para-militaries with their assault rifles were much more menacing.


Whoops! I meant CR not CZ.

There haven't been any epidemiological studies (published) just anecdotal evidence of seemingly high cancer rates and possible nerve damage.
Although held by both US and UK military it's rarely used. It was used against rioters in Long Kesh, northern Ireland in the 70's. These guys had become immune to CS but when exposed to CR they were immediately stopped. Some described it as "drowning" one said he thought he'd been set alight.



posted on Feb, 12 2003 @ 12:48 AM
link   
AlecMac....

I understand where you are coming from, the term "non-lethal' means that a cause of death or injury cannot be affiliated with the chemical in question.

And if there is evidence to support CR is a carcinogen or causes permanent nerve damage then we should not use it.

Otherwise it can avoid turning a person into a casualty



posted on Feb, 12 2003 @ 05:23 AM
link   
wasn't the gass they used to end the siege in Russia recently "non-lethal"



posted on Feb, 12 2003 @ 05:39 AM
link   
The gas the Russians used was a narcotic called phentonol. As with all drugs, the possibilty of a fatal overdose is always there.
These gases are completly different to the riot control gasses such as CS.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join