US Violates Chemical Weapons Convention - 2000+ CW Deployed In Iraq

reply to post by Rockpuck

So - if you did not notice, certain chemicals do not stick only to "The Bad Guys", but have a certain way of their own; which means, that chemical weapons used in Iraq war, could very easily effect also the American soldiers, which were on the ground at that time. But I guess you could not care less about them also. That is why certain chemical weapons are banned by international coventions, since it was probably seen what kind of effects can they have on a HUMAN body.


[edit on 14/11/07 by Souljah]

reply to post by Souljah



The point is that the chemicals in question are riot agents and incendiary devices, neither of which are gonna be a long lasting/persistent threat to anybody. The debate isn't about chemical warfare, as clearly these are not even in the same category. I think we're mostly in agreement if what are normally understood chemical weapons are in question, and the horrors they cause. People need to stay on topic though, rather than merely look for things to critique.

iit's no secret that the US uses CS gas grenades to flush out insurgents, CS gas is nothing but a irritant to the respitory system and mucus membranes, all US soldiers are exposed to it during basic training and sometimes in follow up excercizes, CS gas is often used in riots too by the police, it is not illegal.

White Phosphorus is a different story, while not a chemcial weapon persay, it is a an incendiary, it had lethal effects in close quarters due to fire and inhallation.

I am a US Army soldier, Cannon crewmember (Artillery) and all the people that have been to Iraq have uses these weapons, esspecially WP (Willy Pete as we call it), it's no secret.

Originally posted by adjay
Simple answer to why nothing will be done about this, or the DU rounds, or anything else similar:

When you act as the world police, you get the right to do whatever you want, as you can make the rules of the game up as you go along. The victor of a war dictates the history books - and it's no different in a "live" situation.

What happened to Saddam when he killed the kurds with chemicals?

How many deaths are attributable to Saddam, in total?

How many deaths are attributable to Bush's actions since 9/11?

Yeah,... sad and true...
Actually I'd say there was NO war in Iraq. There was an invasion of Iraq by the US breaking many conventions ie using Depleted Uranium shells, and there's the occupation of Iraq. BOTH actions illegal

And what happens ? nada

It's funny in a sick way how several of the high profile media sources ( and I'm not talking about Fox) have carried stories about the current attempts to remove explosives discarded by insurgents throughout Iraq, when the US has littered the Iraqi countryside with cluster bomblets, toxic munitions, and have MISSLAID thousands upon thousands of weapons yet they complain that Iran is arming the insurgents. JEEEEZ

We are sooo *snip*


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 15-11-2007 by Jbird]

reply to post by Rockpuck


I agree with you regarding enforcement of such laws. On the other hand your view of punishment is quite narrow. We do not have only incarceration or financial damages as a mean of punishment, we also have a moral condemnation that (if you are a moral person) hurts more than some prison or depleted bank account.

But I dissagree that "flawed" law is void or non existant. It's still a law. When a country sign a treaty and than ratifie it in their legislatve body it becomes a part of their legal system or Law of the Land. So if one would say his/hers country is a country where there is a rule of law, that treaty bears a certain responsibility. Failling to do so takes "We are the good guys" out of equation.

I also find your rhetoric and views quite interesting. For a Freemason you certainly fail to follow one of your principal guidelines, obeying or following the Law of the Land.

reply to post by yanchek


A treaty is different than a host nation's laws. It's an agreement that multiple parties reach with regards to certain topics, but is not enforced the same way as the "law of the land." Signatories have the right to back out of treaties should they deem it necessary, or the treaty has outlived its purpose.

reply to post by BlueRaja


This is not correct.

The important word here is ratification. You can sign hundreds of treaties and you can follow them or not. But when you ratifie them they become a part of your internal legal system or "law of the land".

You see, If let's say you BlueRaja wanted to deploy a truck of CS gas in Iraq and your authorities saw a New York - Baghdad on the shiping manifesto you would be in breach of CWC. The law enforcement agencies and courts would than decide how to penalise you. (seizing your cargo, paying a fine, incarceration ...)

I think I few people already said it, but I'll say it again to clarify. CS gas is the same as tear gas, it sucks when you're exposed to it but it's non-lethal.

The U.S. military is NOT allowed to use CS gas during war. It is however allowed to use it for law enforcement. For example, I couldn't use CS gas if I get ambushed while driving down the highway. I could use it, however, if I'm working at a prison or detention facility and a riot starts. The commander must authorize it and while I was in Iraq I never saw it happen.

reply to post by yanchek


ABM Treaty?
Landmines?

There is a far different way that a treaty can be enforced, than a host nation's laws.

I'm curious why non-lethal teargas deployed against a specific known target is banned, but building a roadside bomb that will indiscriminately blow up the first vehicle coming down the road is apparently O.K. This is just another point to add to the argument that you can't go by treaties when dealing with people who have never, ever signed a treaty themselves and would never do so.

If we were allowed to use tear gas, we would finally have an answer to the problem when insurgents hole up in a school or a mosque full of innocents and start shooting at our troops. We can't shoot back, we might hit civilians. We can't bomb the building, we'll destroy a civilian target. If we could teargas the place, some civilians suffer some pain temporarily but ultimately walk away unscathed while the insurgents are incapacitated long enough for our troops to move in and neutralize the situation.

But hey, if we call teargas a "chemical weapon" and ban its use, we give ourselves another reason to hate America, and that's what the world is all about, right?

Call me the Party Pooper! Killing people, torture, threats. it all doesn't seem like any fun. DU is no health tonic.

It all seems like such a waste. (to me)

Oh, and as for white phosphorus, it's not just the U.S. that's using it. A friend of mine was showing me her pictures from Iraq just last night. She showed me a picture of some soldiers wearing gloves.

I asked her, "why are the wearing gloves?"

"They were wearing them to keep the phosphorus off their hands," she told me.

"How was phosphorus getting on their hands," I asked.

"The insurgents use it to try to burn us," she told me, "They try and get it on us so when we sweat or get wet it burns our skin."

Meanwhile, we use it as an incendiary. Damn that U.S.A. for using incendiary devices in a war!

As for depleted uranium, after reading another thread in which that was actually the topic I came to the conclusion that we should probably not be using it. By the same token, we can't afford to just suddenly discard it; its side effects might be bad but the other alternative is using massive explosions to defeat armor, which causes immediate civilian casualties all around. The answer there is to develop an effective alternative and phase D.U. out. If the insurgents don't want us using it in their country, perhaps they could try to stop killing everyone in sight so we can leave?

Originally posted by mattifikation
I'm curious why non-lethal teargas deployed against a specific known target is banned, but building a roadside bomb that will indiscriminately blow up the first vehicle coming down the road is apparently O.K. This is just another point to add to the argument that you can't go by treaties when dealing with people who have never, ever signed a treaty themselves and would never do so.

If we were allowed to use tear gas, we would finally have an answer to the problem when insurgents hole up in a school or a mosque full of innocents and start shooting at our troops.

I also find it strange that we can use CS gas on our own people for crowd control, etc, but using it in war is banned. I know CS is difficult to control, and if exposed to a high amount in an enclosed area it can be bad. Here is some more info on CS gas/tear gas.

We carried white phosphorous grenades in our vehicles. They burn extremely hot and are good at completely destroying vehicles. If our humvee was hit and we had no way to tow it back and couldn't stay with it, we would pop a white phosphorous grenade to completely destroy the vehicle along with any other equipment we couldn't take (like the radio).

As for the wiki article that the OP posted, I read it and I am very suspicious of where they got their information from. There is a list of Army units that carry "chemical weapons." I actually belonged to one of those units, crazy enough, and I never saw this "purely CS gas weapon." The unit is in fact a decon unit, meaning it cleans up messes, not creates them.

Farther down the page is a "List of chemical weapons and the U.S units employing them in Iraq." How does the author know they employed them? And, as I was looking at the list, it lists an 'FN303' as one of the chemical weapons. An FN303 is nothing more than a paintball gun, designed for crowd control or to mark an escaping detainee with bright paint.

This article is full on inaccuracies and I question how much research the author actually did.

We are sooo f****d

...........speak for ur self Willywagga....don't take the wrap..............

As for depleted uranium, after reading another thread in which that was actually the topic I came to the conclusion that we should probably not be using it. By the same token, we can't afford to just suddenly discard it; its side effects might be bad but the other alternative is using massive explosions to defeat armor, which causes immediate civilian casualties all around. The answer there is to develop an effective alternative and phase D.U. out. If the insurgents don't want us using it in their country, perhaps they could try to stop killing everyone in sight so we can leave?

...............'immediate' or long term, (4.5 billion years of radioactive contamination)...plus 'EVERYONE' getting sick & dying 3 to 12 years out..& the birth defects......betta they call it Gulf War 2 'SYNDROME'....................GB

[edit on 14-11-2007 by dave7]

Truth be told- we are NOT supposed to be using any gasses of any kind as that is considered chemical warfare.

What about all the deformed new borns- with birth defects which have been linked to enriched uranium exposure?

Could we be using micro particles? Good God, what's next?

Well in legal beagle terms. We are not at war with Iraq and its troops. We used them in many places after the war stopped to flush out terrorist. Thats why the U.S. is not breaking the law. I do find that funny though how country's can use it on their own civilians and not a country that they are at war with where Daisy cutters are dropped but thats the backward U.N. for ya.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by Sky watcher]

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Well in legal beagle terms. We are not at war with Iraq and its troops. We used them in many places after the war stopped to flush out terrorist. Thats why the U.S. is not breaking the law. I do find that funny though how country's can use it on their own civilians and not a country that they are at war with where Daisy cutters are dropped but thats the backward U.N. for ya.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by Sky watcher]

I hate to correct you- but George Bush did declare WAR ON IRAQ. We are at war- regardless of what you may think- this country is in an Official Declaration of War with Iraq.

And we are using chemical weapons against the Iraqi people. Now if you wish to haggle over whether or not we are flushing out terrorists- then fine- haggle your rationalizations out in a dark and lonely room.

Sorry- but its the truth.

reply to post by dk3000


And I hate to correct you, but...

1. The Iraq that Bush declared war on was Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which no longer exists. We aren't at war WITH Iraq because Iraq's government is now our ally.

2. The President has no authority to declare war. He can begin an attack for a certain number of days, which he did, and Congress can vote to allow that attack to continue beyond that time limit, which they did, but only Congress can officially declare a war, which they did not.

In strictly legal terms, we are not at war with Iraq; rather, we are using our military to help our ally Iraq quell a civil war and suppress an insurgency.

Originally posted by dk3000

I hate to correct you- but George Bush did declare WAR ON IRAQ. We are at war- regardless of what you may think- this country is in an Official Declaration of War with Iraq.

And we are using chemical weapons against the Iraqi people. Now if you wish to haggle over whether or not we are flushing out terrorists- then fine- haggle your rationalizations out in a dark and lonely room.

Sorry- but its the truth.

I may have misunderstood you, but the U.S. did not 'declare war on Iraq.' There is an authorization to use military force against Iraq. That link goes directly to a pdf of Public Law 107-243 written Oct. 16, 2002, which is the document that authorizes military force against Iraq.

It is not, however, the same as declaring war on a country such as Japan like we did in WWII. I just wanted to clarify that there is a difference. However, the current situation in Iraq does fall under Geneva Conventions and any other Laws of War.

When you say "we are using chemical weapons against the Iraqi people," Did you use the wiki document that the OP posted? Do you have any other evidence to prove that claim? In my last post I pointed out that it was full of errors and probably shouldn't be considered evidence that the U.S. military is using chemical weapons.

Originally posted by itguysrule
What do you expect the US or anyone else to do about it? The people trying to kill our soldiers don't seem to follow any rules at all - why don't you complain about their conduct??

Oh wait, I forgot - they are "freedom fighters" so no rules apply.

The question is what do we consider "normal" vs. what do we consider "taboo" as an international human society.

A society serving structure; government can only rationalize warfare from a "moral high ground".

This why you do not complain about the enemy's behavior... they are morally beneath you. They're all evil towelheads that fight with box cutters; you know... scum... not like the angels that called for the nuclear bombing of nagasaki, nor the angels that called for the depleted uranium usage of the past decade in the middle east.

The end goal of warfare is not to obliterate your enemy, but to free the innocent from the entrapment of the enemy's way of thought, and in the same breath to force the enemy into a position of weakness, where he must take a knee and bow to your way of thinking and your morally high culture.

And God always sides with those on the moral high ground.

Now clearly, it becomes difficult to free anyone when the distilation and harvest process of a particular form of warfare leaves chemicals and radiation in the river for the innocent to live amongst for lifetimes to come.

So...

Most of us

Don't dig it

When

A society serving structure; government

Claims to be our savior... Eliminates a supposed enemy... but in the same breath poisons our world far worse than that enemy could have dreamed.

I say, If you find you must draw blood in my name, to defend my family,

perhaps, it might be that,

in my kingdom,

I expect you to use sword.

This is my pen.

I am,

Sri Oracle

(in our fascist times, it might be that I am skirting my first amendment rights on this one)