|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Feb 16th, 2003 02:14 PM | |
| ranxer |
we've BEEN targeting civilians! the violations are countless. attacking infrastructure and sanctioning hospital supplies have lead to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.. siege warfare could be considered attempted genocide. our government is lieing about it on top of everything else. the non-lethal Has to be used so they can less blatantly defend corporate powers against overwhelming numbers of average people, if they didn't we'd have mass slaughter of 'civilians' this is war against 'the people' in too many parts of the world. yea this is going on in most first world nations not just the U$, but the u.s. is the king of coercion, strong arming in every variant possible 
|
| Feb 16th, 2003 12:58 AM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore | I likewise see your point, but if you are bugged by the fact that international laws have all of a sudden become sacred, you should blame us, not Iraq. It is after all one of the justifications (I mean the violation of said laws) for this war.... |
| Feb 16th, 2003 12:47 AM | |
| GAsux |
Probably I'm quite sure there are a lot of things being "discussed", many of which would probably make you want to renounce your citizenship. Doesn't necessarily translate into practice. You're absolutely right. We are not in the business of intentionally attacking civilians. And I'm quite sure the intent of less than lethal weapons is not for "attacking". I'm pretty sure they aren't planning on setting them off in Iraqi K-Marts for the fun of it. They're talking about rioting etc. And sure you can raise ethical questions, all of which will remain hypothetical until the war happens and we get a chance to see how the "average" people of Iraq will respond. I see where you're coming from. My point is again its sort of no win. Drop bombs, you lose. Try to come up with alternatives to lethal force, you lose. |
| Feb 16th, 2003 12:34 AM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Are we planning on attacking civilians anyway? The U.S. military doesn't do that, right gasucks...? EDIT: My point is that this is being discussed in case of the rise of the proverbial "Arab street," which IMO, raises some other ethical questions about this proposed war... |
| Feb 16th, 2003 12:32 AM | |
| GAsux |
That really peeves me.... Why would they resort to such things? It bothers me that they would even consider such a clear violoation of international law. I say we make every effort to ensure we stay within the rules, and stick to less harmful things like cruise missiles and 2000lb laser guided bombs. |
| Feb 16th, 2003 12:29 AM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore | generally used on their own people, thus not "during war." |
| Feb 16th, 2003 12:25 AM | |
| El Blanco | That reminds me: most of the non-lethal measures taken by police forces around the world (tear gas, that really heavy foam etc) are actually illegal under international law. Funny, ain't it? |
| Feb 15th, 2003 11:59 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
US plan to use illegal weapons http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=378740 US plan to use illegal weapons By Severin Carrell 16 February 2003 While American forces invading Iraq face the threat of chemical attack, they could themselves be using biochemical agents which are banned under international law. The US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, revealed earlier this month that American forces are planning to use "non-lethal" biochemical weapons such as anti-riot gases and crowd control agents if they invade Iraq. Mr Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee they were preparing to ask President George Bush for permission to use these weapons, known in military circles as "calmatives", on Iraqi civilians, in cave systems or to take prisoners. But two of Britain's leading authorities on chemical weapons, Professor Alistair Hay and Professor Julian Perry-Robinson, who are collaborating on an expert guide for the World Health Organisation, said such weapons are illegal under the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention and the 1928 Geneva Protocol, which ban the use of chemical agents against people in wartime. "It would be absolutely outrageous if they did this," said Prof Hay, an epidemiologist at Leeds University. "Surely this war against Iraq is to stop the use of those weapons, not about also using them." The dangers of such weapons were exposed, the experts said, when Russian special forces used an opiate-based crowd control gas, with devastating consequences, on Chechen rebels holding theatregoers hostage in Moscow in October. Both men said Mr Rumsfeld's comments also threatened to put the Pentagon on a collision course with Britain. Ministry of Defence experts have repeatedly warned their US counterparts that their proposed use of these weapons in warfare is illegal. -30- |
