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 Violates Chemical Weapons Convention - 2000+ CW Deployed In Iraq

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   




As much as I enjoyed reading your philosophy on war, you did not, however, bring forth any evidence that the U.S. military is using chemical weapons in Iraq. Has anyone actually read the wiki article? Does anyone have any other evidence that the U.S. is using chemical weapons?



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
cs gas is the same thing all recuits have to endure in the gas chamber in basic traning or boot camp. its harmless unless you have asthma or something like that. yeah its a chemical in the same since that tobasco sauce is or windex. and to my knowledge its killed less people than the tazer id hate to see what yall had to say if they were using those over there.

having gone through the gas chamber myself about 8 times in my military experince, rest asured that it is quite harmless..



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaleGribble
having gone through the gas chamber myself about 8 times in my military experince, rest asured that it is quite harmless..


Regarding the general 'conservative' nature of your posts I would say that it most definitely is not harmless



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chyort
As much as I enjoyed reading your philosophy on war, you did not, however, bring forth any evidence that the U.S. military is using chemical weapons in Iraq.


wiki white phosphorus (...an incendiary device)


...it should only be manipulated with forceps since contact with skin can cause severe burns. Chronic white phosphorus poisoning leads to necrosis of the jaw called "phossy jaw". Ingestion of white phosphorus may cause a medical condition known as "Smoking Stool Syndrome".


globalsecurity.org


symptoms include irritation of the eyes and the respiratory tract; abdominal pain, nausea, and jaundice; anemia, cachexia, pain, and loosening of teeth, excessive salivation, and pain and swelling of the jaw; skin and eye burns


globalsecurity.org


White Phosphorus (WP) creates a smoke screen as it burns.




wiki CS gas



Another method typically used for grenades is to combine CS with a pyrotechnic composition which burns to generate an aerosol of CS-laden smoke. As the smoke disperses, tiny CS crystals 'ride' the smoke molecules to their targets, where they affect the eyes, nose, throat and skin causing extreme irritation.
[]
Although described as a non-lethal weapon for crowd control, many studies have raised doubts about this classification. As well as creating severe pulmonary damage, CS can also significantly damage the heart and liver.
[]
Many reports have associated CS exposure with miscarriages,[35] this is consistent with its reported clastogenic effect (abnormal chromosome change) on mammalian cells. Furthermore, individuals who are exposed to CS Gas should not have contact lenses in their eyes, since exposure to the gas causes the lens to fuse to the cornea of the eye.
[]
When CS is metabolized, cyanide can be detected in human tissue.[35] According to the United States Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, CS emits "very toxic fumes" when heated to decomposition, and at specified concentrations CS gas is an immediate danger to life and health. They also state that those exposed to CS gas should seek medical attention immediately.



Depleted Uranium

Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective - Rita Hindin,Doug Brugge, and Bindu Panikkar

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...



Methods
We reviewed toxicological data on both natural and depleted uranium. We included peer reviewed studies and gray literature on birth malformations due to natural and depleted uranium. Our approach was to assess the "weight of evidence" with respect to teratogenicity of depleted uranium.

Results
Animal studies firmly support the possibility that DU is a teratogen. While the detailed pathways by which environmental DU can be internalized and reach reproductive cells are not yet fully elucidated, again, the evidence supports plausibility. To date, human epidemiological data include case examples, disease registry records, a case-control study and prospective longitudinal studies.

Conclusion
In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU.


Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh Lord yeah


wiki Box Cutter



The genuine Stanley knife has a cast-metal body, and comes both in retractable versions and in fixed blade versions which allow no depth adjustment.


I am,

Sri Oracle

Mod Note: You Have An Urgent U2U- Click Here.

[edit on 14/11/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by AotearoaSon
 


like i said ive been cs'ed 8 times its never done more to me than clear a cold or clean my sinuses. but like i said that is just my first hand experince with it. im it makes you itch for a hour or two. i did a 12 kilometer road march after my first time and all it did was make me a stronger person.

if anything cs has saved more people than it has harmed. ever had limon juice in your eyes. yeah its the same it just stings a little. and the avarage person cant shoot a rifle or kill people when their eye burn. it allows the enemy to be apperhended rather than be killed..

[edit on 15amu12007 by DaleGribble]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Sri Oracle
 


You've posted what all that stuff does to a person, but you haven't posted evidence that the U.S. military is using chemical weapons in Iraq. I'm also not sure what depleted uranium and box cutters have to do with this topic.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Do as I say and not as I do.


Typical attitude of the American government if you ask me.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   




Can you cite an example of the American government telling any other countries that they shouldn't use CS, WP, DU, or boxcutters?
Let's please compare apples to apples, and stop being disengenuous.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I must say it's great to se that people are debating this and asking questions! I see alot of people saying the use of CS gas is okay because it's non-lethal, but the fact remains that it is illegal for use in warfare as this treaty states. I also see there are reasons to believe that CS gas is not quite as safe as they would have us believe. Exactly how dangerous it is might not be easy to assertain, but once you sign and ratify the treaty you have agreed to not use it. We can only assume there is good reason for that treaty. Some have also said that no once can enforce this law so then it's okay to ignore it, but honestly, what kind of signal to the world is that??

What bothers me are these people saying "there are no rules in war" or "the enemy doesn't follow the rules, so why should we?". By this logic, the US could start placing their own roadside bombs and their own terror attacks. The way I see it, the only way to fight a "war on terror" is if you have the moral high ground, and once you start breaking the rules, that high ground is gone. There is no longer anything that makes you "better" than the enemy.

I think that is why so many have lost faith in the US. They are no longer seen as the guardians of right and upholders of the law, but rather as a raging bull that will do whatever it takes to get what they want and if there are laws against what they want to do they will either change the laws or ignore them. Surely you can understand that this has nothing to do with hating the US or anything like that, but with the world expecting the US to lead the world by good example, respect and a desire for diplomatic solutions rather than violence?



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrLeary

What bothers me are these people saying "there are no rules in war" or "the enemy doesn't follow the rules, so why should we?". By this logic, the US could start placing their own roadside bombs and their own terror attacks. The way I see it, the only way to fight a "war on terror" is if you have the moral high ground, and once you start breaking the rules, that high ground is gone. There is no longer anything that makes you "better" than the enemy.



You're right, in respect to why there are laws of war. A country like the U.S. must take the moral high ground in the "War on Terror." Like you said, if it doesn't, you become equal to the enemy.

CS gas is a non lethal chemical. If used improperly, it could be dangerous. However, I believe that this information is irrevelant to this topic, because almost anything used improperly could be dangerous.

I posted evidence earlier that this article is bogus, as it is full of errors and mistakes. The U.S. military has a policy not to use chemical weapons in war. The conflict in Iraq falls under the Geneva Conventions, Chemical and Biological Weapons Ban, and the bunch of other laws of war. That is why the U.S. military does not use chemical weapons in Iraq.

I don't understand why people post topics like "2000+ CW Deployed in Iraq" without backing it up with good evidence. From what I've read in this thread, most people haven't even looked at the source. They just read the title and it confirms whatever incorrect beliefs they held about the military, Iraq, U.S. goverment, godzilla, etc.

If there is good evidence behind the title, then that's a different story. But when people post sensational topics and no one researches it, it can damage reputations for no reason.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaleGribble[/i

like i said ive been cs'ed 8 times

[edit on 15amu12007 by DaleGribble]


So, what I can take from this is that the U.S. uses chemical weapons against its own!

Go U.S.A., go go go



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by AotearoaSon
 


no they dont use it aginst use they use it for traning purposes. well at least the times i did it. 2 of the 8 times were volintary. its really not that bad i would rather someone use cs on me that kill me. if i were a hostage i wouldnt mind my eyes burning for a few minutes over someone shooting in my direction..

[edit on 15pmu32007 by DaleGribble]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chyort
The U.S. military has a policy not to use chemical weapons in war. The conflict in Iraq falls under the Geneva Conventions, Chemical and Biological Weapons Ban, and the bunch of other laws of war. That is why the U.S. military does not use chemical weapons in Iraq.


Just a quick question regarding the upholding of the Geneva convention.
Where does this place the detainees in Guantanamo?

Sort of unrelated, I know, but I was curious about the reference to the Geneva Convention.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AotearoaSon
 


I believe detainees held in Guantanamo Bay are currently covered under the Geneva Conventions (USA Today). Before the Supreme Court stepped in detainees held at Gitmo didn't fall under the category of 'prisoners of war.' They were called something else, I think, and therefore did not fall under the Geneva Conventions.

I'm sure you know this, but for anyone out there who doesn't the Geneva Conventions cover a lot of stuff in regards to war. Here is the part that pertains to how to treat prisoners of war.

There is also a Geneva Protocol, which was signed after WWI, that bans the use of chemical weapons. There are also other international laws that prevent chemical weapons from being used in war.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I never said we should violate the treaty. I said we should never have signed it to begin with, as long as tear gas was on the banned list. Sure, I believe mustard gas and other lethal chemical weapons should be banned, but by having tear gas in the arsenal you have the potential to prevent, shorten, or delay a bloody battle in the middle of civilian populated areas.

The moral high ground isn't always to follow the word of the law. After all, what's more moral: neutralizing enemies with non-lethal gas, or gunning them down in a room full of people who might not even be involved? One teaches bystanders that their lives are important and we aren't there to kill everyone, the other puts those bystanders at risk of being taken from their families forever. Forget what the "written law" is for a minute and answer from your heart. Now tell me whether or not we should "change the law?" I think we should.

Yes, tear gas can have adverse effects on a small percentage of people, but these are much rarer than that Wiki article would have you believe. And everything has adverse effects on people. Bullets that don't go where they were intended have adverse effects on people. Buildings that collapse under artillery fire have adverse effects on people. It's a war, adverse effects are a part of it no matter what, but tear gas has less than any and all types of lethal force.

Depleted Uranium and White Phosphorus are poor choices with terrible side effects, but not chemical weapons as we use them. Their intent is not "area denial," nor is it to inflict massive uncontrollable casualties, therefor they are not chemical weapons. There's already a thread about D.U. and I'm sure if somebody wants to discuss it they could start one on the side effects of White Phosphorus.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


I completely agree with you. Changing the law would be the best way to go about it. That wiki article is full of inaccuracies, but I think most people haven't even read it.

You're right about the DU; it should be discussed in a different thread.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chyort
I posted evidence earlier that this article is bogus, as it is full of errors and mistakes. The U.S. military has a policy not to use chemical weapons in war. The conflict in Iraq falls under the Geneva Conventions, Chemical and Biological Weapons Ban, and the bunch of other laws of war. That is why the U.S. military does not use chemical weapons in Iraq.

I don't understand why people post topics like "2000+ CW Deployed in Iraq" without backing it up with good evidence. From what I've read in this thread, most people haven't even looked at the source. They just read the title and it confirms whatever incorrect beliefs they held about the military, Iraq, U.S. goverment, godzilla, etc.

If there is good evidence behind the title, then that's a different story. But when people post sensational topics and no one researches it, it can damage reputations for no reason.


I believe the evidence quoted in this case is the leaked list of military equipment in Iraq. The CS gas and launchers were on that list.



This spectacular 2,000 page US military leak consists of the names, group structure and equipment registers of all units in Iraq with US army equipment . It exposes secretive document exploitation centers, detainee operations, elements of the State Department, Air Force, Navy and Marines units, the Iraqi police and coalition forces from Poland, Denmark, Ukraine, Latvia, Slovakia, Romania, Armenia, Kazakhstan and El Salvador. The material represents nearly the entire order of battle for US forces in Iraq and is the first public revelation of many of the military units described. Among other matters it shows that the United States has almost certainly violated the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Source: Wikileaks




posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DrLeary
 


I posted an earlier reply giving my evidence why this list is incorrect, but I'll summarize.

1. The list title makes it sound like all this equipment has been used. How do they know that? A lot of military police units carry CS grenades, but are never used. If they do use CS, it is for law enforement purposes, such as riot control.
2. I've been in one of the units in which they list having a purely "CS gas weapon." I never saw it, and in fact the unit is a decontamination unit, meaning it cleans up messes not makes them.
3. It lists equipment that doesn't even make any sense. The FN303 is on that list. It's a paintball gun designed to mark fleeing detainees.

My opinion is someone found this list and made some incorrect assumptions that the U.S. military was using chemical weapons in Iraq.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chyort
reply to post by DrLeary
 



3. It lists equipment that doesn't even make any sense. The FN303 is on that list. It's a paintball gun designed to mark fleeing detainees.



no you are wrong chyort. if it doesnt kill people then its a war crime and there for its illegal to use.


im just kidding



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Terrorist are criminals
Terrorist are NOT part of a standing army of any country.
terrorist are not soldiers.
osama ben laden is not the leader of a country people under him are not troops they are criminals
he is a criminal.
his terrorist operating in iraq are criminals
anyone firing at US TROOPS that is not in a uniform is NOT a SOLDIER he is a Terrorist and/or a criminal.
this is what the Geneva convention states.
CS gas may be used on criminals

CS gas may not be used on troop of a country by another countries troops.

are you calling terrorist troops or criminals.

i call them criminals.

vietnam vet 1972-73

the VC did not wear uniforms and we could use tear gas on them.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join