US Hypocrisy

[kiwimac]

From the Uk INDEPENDENT


04.03.2003

By GEOFFREY LEAN and SEVERIN CARRELL

The United States is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoking the first split in the Anglo-US alliance.

"Calmative" gases, similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the Moscow theatre siege last year, could also be used.
The convention bans the use of these toxic agents in battle, not least because they risk causing an escalation to full chemical warfare.

This applies even though they can be used in civil disturbances at home: both CS gas and pepper spray are available for use by British police. The US Marine Corps confirmed last week that both had already been shipped to the Gulf.

It is British policy not to allow troops to take part in operations where riot-control agents are used. But US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has asked President George W. Bush to authorise their use. Bush is understood to have agreed.
Internal Pentagon documents also show the US is developing a range of calmative gases - including sedatives such as the benzodiazepines and new drugs that affect the nervous system - also banned for battlefield use.

US defence sources predict these could be used in Iraq by elite special forces units to attack command and control bunkers deep underground. Rear-Admiral Stephen Baker, senior adviser to the Centre for Defence Information in Washington, said US special forces had knock-out gases that could "neutralise" people.
"I would think that if they get a chance to use them, they will."
The Pentagon said last week that the decision to use riot-control agents "is made by the commander in the field".

Rumsfeld became the first senior figure on either side of the impending conflict to announce his wish to use chemical agents in a little-noticed comment to the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on February 5.

He attacked the "straitjacket" imposed by bans in international treaties on using the weapons in warfare and specified that they could be used "where there are enemy troops in a cave [and] you know there are women and children in there with them".

General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke of using them against human shields. The revelations leave the Bush Administration open to charges of double
standards at a time when it is making Iraq's suspected arsenal of chemical and biological weapons the casus belli.

Leading experts and Whitehall officials fear that using even pepper spray and CS gas would destroy the credibility of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoke Iraqi chemical retaliation and set a disastrous legal precedent. Professor Julian Perry Robinson, an authority on the convention, said: "Legally speaking, Iraq would be totally justified in releasing chemical
weapons over the United Kingdom if the alliance uses them in Baghdad. "When the war is over and these things have been used they will have been legitimised as a tool of war, and the principle of toxic weapons being banned will have gone."

The Ministry of Defence has warned the US that it will not allow British troops to be involved in operations where riot-control agents are used, or to transport them to the battlefield, but Britain is even more concerned about the calmatives.

A special working group of the Federation of American Scientists concluded last month that using even the mildest of these weapons to incapacitate people would kill 9 per cent of them. It added: "Chemical incapacitating weapons are as likely as bullets to cause death."

The use of chemical weapons by US forces was explicitly banned by President Gerald Ford in 1975 after CS gas had been repeatedly used in Vietnam to smoke out enemy soldiers and then kill them as they ran away. Britain would be in a particularly sensitive position if the US used the weapons as it drafted the convention and is still seen internationally as its most important guardian.

The Foreign Office said: "All states parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention have undertaken not to use any toxic chemical or its precursor, including riot-control agents. This applies in any armed conflict."


- INDEPENDENT

Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=383006

(Edited to add 2 paragraphs I had missed and to add the source)

Typical:argh:

[Captain Ochre]

03-04-2003 @ 05:09 AM
kiwimac:

From the Uk INDEPENDENT



Typical:argh:

Yes, it's typical of kiwimac (thus far) to present a poorly researched borrowed argument to press into play for his anti-US propaganda campaign.

Here's a link to the FAS site. Reading it provides several clues that he UK reporter is as liberally biased as the average US newspaper reporter.
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n5/nonlethal.htm

You'll note that the article presented to us by kiwimac plays up the supposedly possible use of "calmative" agents. It seems extremely likely that the "calmative agents" referred to do not include pepper spray or CS gas.
Just a wee bit of journalistic deception.

The following article discusses the ambiguities in the convention that the US is supposedly hypocritically violating.
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:c-pF06xGjqgC:www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsp/bulletin/cwcb23.pdf+%22cs+gas%22+%22calmative%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

You'll see that the convention is constructed ambiguously.
The UK probably opposes the use of such agents on a primarily political basis, since Tony Blair is taking a popularity beating at home owing to his support of the US stance against Iraq.

[kiwimac]

So because I do not support this war, because I do not believe that a pre-emptive strike against an enemy who has yet to be proven a danger is wrong, I am peddling "anti-US Propaganda"

Heiferdust!

The problem with you Americans is that you cannot tell your enemies from your friends. I can and will expect you, who have so often told the rest of us what a beacon of enlightenment you are, to live up to your high-ideal!

If you don't like it, simply admit that the US is solely out to feather its own nest, enough of this moral-high-ground, war against terrorism donkey-pellets.

As for the FAS site, you say
Reading it provides several clues that he UK reporter is as liberally biased as the average US newspaper reporter

I have read this site, indeed, I have studied this particular question closely for some time, please show me how the FAS site discredits the Journalist's comments?

Let me quote from the Article you referenced:


In fact, a categorical distinction between lethal and non-lethal agents is not scientifically feasible. Not only are certain individuals more susceptible to some agents, but synergy between two different non-lethal agents may make their combination highly lethal to everyone.

Rational strategies to discover such synergistic pairs will soon be available. Thus, the development of multiple non-lethal agents may provide a lethal CW capability, in clear violation of the Convention.

Even without synergism, stockpiles of non-lethal weapons and munitions would defeat a fundamental goal of the Convention, to exclude completely the possibility of the use of chemical weapons by preventing states from entering a war with a stockpile of CW whose use is proscribed, but which might nevertheless be employed under pressure of military necessity.

Further you say


You'll note that the article presented to us by kiwimac plays up the supposedly possible use of "calmative" agents. It seems extremely likely that the "calmative agents" referred to do not include pepper spray or CS gas.

What the journalist says is this :


The United States is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoking the first split in the Anglo-US alliance.

AND


"Calmative" gases, similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the Moscow theatre siege last year, could also be used.

The convention bans the use of these toxic agents in battle, not least because they risk causing an escalation to full chemical warfare.

Let me make it clear for you, CO, he is not saying that Pepper spray or CS gas are the "Calmative agents" of which he writes, indeed the structure of the sentences quoted make it quite clear it is something in ADDITION to Pepper Spray and CS Gas

Indeed he makes it quite clear in this sentence that he is not speaking of Pepper Spray/ CS Gas.


It is British policy not to allow troops to take part in operations where riot-control agents are used. But US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has asked President George W. Bush to authorise their use. Bush is understood to have agreed.

Internal Pentagon documents also show the US is developing a range of calmative gases - including sedatives such as the benzodiazepines and new drugs that affect the nervous system - also banned for battlefield use.

For further information you might want to try this US paper, paying especial regard to the last couple of paragraphs.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/061/economy/U_S_tear_gas_use_in_Iraq_may_v:.shtml


Frankly, I am sick and tired of the belief that not supporting this leperous, mis-begotten, sick child of Western-Diplomacy means I am "Anti-American", I am not!,

I am however, totally, unequivocally opposed to this war



Kiwimac

[Ryokan]

the problem with critics of the US is you insult us so much we can't help but feel you hate us and are peddling something. IF you toned down the rhetoric, maybe we would too. And maybe you'd convince some one. But until then, you, your articles, and your ideas are just going to seem like anti-US radicalism to Americans.

[Captain Ochre]

03-04-2003 @ 10:12 AM
kiwimac:

So because I do not support this war, because I do not believe that a pre-emptive strike against an enemy who has yet to be proven a danger is wrong, I am peddling "anti-US Propaganda"


Yeah, that's exactly what I said (not)!
:rofl:

[edit to add]
Kiwimac: It's propaganda because it puts a spin on the truth, nothing more and nothing less.
[]



The problem with you Americans is that you cannot tell your enemies from your friends. I can and will expect you, who have so often told the rest of us what a beacon of enlightenment you are, to live up to your high-ideal!

If you don't like it, simply admit that the US is solely out to feather its own nest, enough of this moral-high-ground, war against terrorism donkey-pellets.


Eventually (decades from now?) you'll explain to us how not observing the particular conservative reading of the chemical agreement equates with waging a war in order to "feather its own nest"???
You're doing the same thing the reporter is doing: Presenting a story in such a way that it makes it easy for the careless reader to draw the wrong conclusion.



As for the FAS site, you say

I have read this site, indeed, I have studied this particular question closely for some time, please show me how the FAS site discredits the Journalist's comments?


It discredits his presentation of the facts. What he wrote is technically accurate, and appears calculated to leave a different impression than what it actually does. These techniques are common in advertising and the speeches (and courtroom testimony) of William Jefferson Clinton.



Further you say



What the journalist says is this :


I'm quite aware of what the journalist says. You laid a charge of hypocrisy and used the article to back yourself up. Reading more closely, the "hypocrisy" comes down taking a more liberal interpretation of the chemical agreement. How dare you compare that to what Iraq has done, which you implicitly have done with your charge of hypocrisy (and, yes, I'd like an answer to that question)?



AND


Let me make it clear for you, CO, he is not saying that Pepper spray or CS gas are the "Calmative agents" of which he writes, indeed the structure of the sentences quoted make it quite clear it is something in ADDITION to Pepper Spray and CS Gas

Indeed he makes it quite clear in this sentence that he is not speaking of Pepper Spray/ CS Gas.


No, it's not clear, really. There's no reason for the writer to mention "calmative agents" which "might" be used without presenting evidence that calmative agents might be used, instead substituting the knowledge that CS gas and pepper spray are available to the US military in the Gulf region. It's a guilt-by-association ploy.




Frankly, I am sick and tired of the belief that not supporting this leperous, mis-begotten, sick child of Western-Diplomacy means I am "Anti-American", I am not!,


:rofl:
We're getting used to your unleashing of invective far out of proportion to the facts.
Did you have any desire to go back and attempt to address the facts presented in the other war-related threads, or will you simply continue to start a thread, get mol rebutted, then start another propaganda thread?

Do you think that I misrepresented any of the links I provided here? I deliberately went to the sources you provided, and the story they tell appears to undercut your claim that the US is being hypocritical. Would you care to deal with that issue, rather than the supposed intimations that you hate the US?
Just look at the article you fed us! Does it mention the ambiguity in the chemical agreement? No! It doesn't! Why not?

[Vorkosigan]

03-04-2003 @ 01:45 PM
Ryokan:

the problem with critics of the US is you insult us so much we can't help but feel you hate us and are peddling something. IF you toned down the rhetoric, maybe we would too. And maybe you'd convince some one. But until then, you, your articles, and your ideas are just going to seem like anti-US radicalism to Americans.

Speak for yourself. Plenty of us vociferously oppose this massively stupid war which will greviously damage our alliances with Europe, cause the world economy to nosedive, balloon the national debt, maim and kill tens of thousands of Iraqis, call down a century of terrorism on the US, and require tens of thousands of troops on a long-term basis to carry out the occupation.

Thanks Kiwimac. Keep up the good fight. There are lots of rational Americans out there who are deeply distressed by our President and this insane push toward a needless and destructive war.

BTW, did you catch the State of the Union address. You heard it here first: the next target is Iran.

Vorkosigan

[Ryokan]

I am skeptical that this war, whether it goes bad or well, will save or end the free world as we know it, Vorkosigan. And I am even more skeptical we will, after fighting one massively unpopular war, beready to jump into another. Even Paul Wolfowitz wants to keep his job. And if you wonder why people like me don't take you seriously, see my previous thread. There is room for people of good faith, to disagree. We should deal with the facts, and our interpretations of them, not say "He's insane, this is the end of the world, Americans are fat, greedy, and stupid, the West ruined the world, no blood for oil!!!!" yadda yadda yadda. It is not very productive, and just gets people worked up.

[Alden]

well said

[Vorkosigan]

03-04-2003 @ 03:17 PM
Ryokan:

I am skeptical that this war, whether it goes bad or well, will save or end the free world as we know it, Vorkosigan. And I am even more skeptical we will, after fighting one massively unpopular war, beready to jump into another. Even Paul Wolfowitz wants to keep his job. And if you wonder why people like me don't take you seriously, see my previous thread. There is room for people of good faith, to disagree. We should deal with the facts, and our interpretations of them, not say "He's insane, this is the end of the world, Americans are fat, greedy, and stupid, the West ruined the world, no blood for oil!!!!" yadda yadda yadda. It is not very productive, and just gets people worked up.


It sounds nice when you write it out, but if you start thinking about numbers, it is easy to see you're not really thinking seriously about this. Have you checked out our national debt lately? Bush is setting new records. Looked at the economy much? Followed the stock market? Filled your gas tank? Economies all over the world are soft, and mired in public and private debt. What do you think the effect of high oil prices will have on Third World debt repayments and developing country currencies, and on US trade deficits? Remember what happened in Asia in 1997? Have you sat down and worked out, at 4-10 soldiers per person -- a moderate level -- how many men we will need to occupy Iraq? (At 10-20 -- the British level in the Malaya insurgency -- we would need nearly 250,000) -- BTW, when have US troops come home from an occupation (fifty years later we still have troops in Japan and Germany)? Quite a number of thoughtful people are worried about the effect of this senseless war will have on our future relations with Europe and the UN. Also, have you been reading the Bush Administration announcements on Iran's nuclear program? There was another one just today, well, today here in Taiwan.... And do you think Kim in N Korea is going to sit idly by whilst we invade Iraq? Have you noticed how he is getting more and more restive as we get closer and closer to war? Another missile test the other day.

Maybe we'll muddle through somehow. We probably will. But there's no reason to court disaster. All this is entirely avoidable.

Vorkosigan

[Ryokan]

with inflation and the growth of our economy, the debt is not all that big. I don't like our debt spending, but we will survive. And we are at war, so I will forgive some of it (stupid new tax cuts aside)
Just because the Iraq war could be expensive doesn't make it wrong per se, or beyond America's vast means.
And there are many ways to interpret how Iran and N.K. will act because of this. We obviously differ.
And I agree, our diplomacy is a mess. Still, my read is the benefits are greater than the costs. And since we both are using basically the same info, we will just have to see how it plays out.

[spl_cadet]

Oh no. We might use CS gas and pepper spray. Stuff that the police have been using for years. :eek:

I seriously doubt that they are banned. CS gas has been used by everyone for riot control by police and you can buy pepper spray if you want to (though military uses a percentage of pepper double what civilians can get).

[kiwimac]

The point here is Spl_Cadet,

They are illegal as weapons of war. Moreover, how can you protest the use of mustard gas in a war when you are willing to use its "little brother" in the same conflict.

Please note the following from the article:

[quote]The use of chemical weapons by US forces was explicitly banned by President Gerald Ford in 1975 after CS gas had been repeatedly used in Vietnam to smoke out enemy soldiers and then kill them as they ran away.

Britain would be in a particularly sensitive position if the US used the weapons as it drafted the convention and is still seen internationally as its most important guardian.

The Foreign Office said: "All states parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention have undertaken not to use any toxic chemical or its precursor, including riot-control agents. This applies in any armed conflict."

Kiwimac

[Captain Ochre]

03-12-2003 @ 11:56 PM
kiwimac:

The point here is Spl_Cadet,

They are illegal as weapons of war. Moreover, how can you protest the use of mustard gas in a war when you are willing to use its "little brother" in the same conflict.


Perhaps you should be asking the Iraqis that question . . .
:hrm:



Please note the following from the article:

[quote]The use of chemical weapons by US forces was explicitly banned by President Gerald Ford in 1975 after CS gas had been repeatedly used in Vietnam to smoke out enemy soldiers and then kill them as they ran away.

Britain would be in a particularly sensitive position if the US used the weapons as it drafted the convention and is still seen internationally as its most important guardian.

The Foreign Office said: "All states parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention have undertaken not to use any toxic chemical or its precursor, including riot-control agents. This applies in any armed conflict."

Kiwimac

Until Kiwimac provides other than anecdotal evidence of US intent to actually use either gas as an implement of war, I wouldn't worry about addressing the issue, Spl_Cadet.

If the Iraqis use mustard gas against US troops, Kiwimac will probably still fault the US if they use tear gas on the Iraqi armed forces. After all, how can we expect them not to use nerve agents if we're willing to use crowd control agents?