PDA

View Full Version : Who is Rumsfeld's advisors?



Ichhabe
02-16-2003, 06:42 PM
From the Independent.


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.

_____________________________________________________________


After reading this I must ask; Who came up with that idea? Yeah! Sure! I is only to calm them down, I can hear some of the replies that will come. Any remember thos shots soldiers got before entering the Gulf area back in '91? They were given a chemickal coctail of everything so they could be preapered for the worst. Well, a lot of them today is still going through the worst, tnx to that mix that was given to them. And now they talking/planning to use chemical agents on civilians? And don't come up with that the terrorists already used anthrax. They are terrorists. Aren't civilized countries supposed to be better? This may also just be the case for the terrorist to REALLY make havoc. I'm normally a person who's not so easally being disturbed in what I read in the media. But if only 25% of this is correct... Ai ai ai.

Apogee
02-16-2003, 07:29 PM
I think the Independent is getting a little excited about nothing. Secretary Rumsfield was refering using CS gas. Police forces in both the US and the UK employ CS gas against rowdy crowds of their own citizens. Personally, I've 'expirianced' CS gas. Its not a pleseant expiriance, but it is no where near sarin or anything like that. CS has been used in many situation, and really only presents a threat of serious injury to the elderly and infants. Neither of which should be in an Iraqi line unit.

Ichhabe
02-16-2003, 07:33 PM
It says "calmative". And CS doesnt calm ppl down. And I know what CS is. Hell, I use it for medical treatment on myself, hehe.(I **** u not!)

StarvingStudent47
02-16-2003, 09:47 PM
With things like this, I always wonder "Would you rather we use high explosives? Would that make the UN happier?"

Ichhabe
02-16-2003, 09:51 PM
Take a little trip to Vietnam and see how Agent Orange is still in effect. Or if u cant afford the trip, look up your local Veteran-club. I'm quite sure you find a Vietnam veteran that is not so happy with the after effects on AO.

JiJoMacLE45
02-16-2003, 10:08 PM
I don't think any of us are going to be to happy if Saddam or one of these terrorist groups let rip with a dirty bomb.

JiJoMacLE45
02-16-2003, 10:17 PM
Added to which Saddam has already violated any chemical weapons protocals when he gassed the Iranians and then the Kurds. Is it me or are we(the US) the only ones who abide by the Geneva convention. Where was it when our men were being starved and abused by the Japanese. I hardly think the Bataan death march fell under Geneva convention rules. How about when our men were abused in Vietnamese POW camps, where was it when Iraq abused captured US and UK soldiers during the Gulf War, how about when they launched SCUDs on Israel, a non-combatant, I think's their is something in that convention about attacking non-coms. I mean come on, when prisoners surrunder to us we feed them and house them, make sure they can follow their religious beliefs. And now because we might have crowd control agents like OC which is essentially upgraded pepper spray, we are made to be the bad guys, come on. Give me a break. We're talking about OC which temporarily renders you a retard(believe, I've been hit with it during the Academy and caught it accidently on the street it is not fun at all, but hardly lethal) and anthrax and VX which kill you dead upon mere contact. We're not even in the same ballpark here.

FallenAngel
02-16-2003, 10:37 PM
JiJo...once agree we agree completely.

If I remeber correctly...part of the Geneva convention forbade the arming and targeting of clearly marked madivac units.

The US does not arm it's medivac....save for the personal sidearms of the crew and (maybe) an M16 on board for survival purposes. If memory serves, the VC, NVA, Iraqis, etc. STILL haven't realized what the hell the big red cross on the side means. :bash:

And during the First Gulf War....we went to EXTREME lengths to treat the surrendering Iraqis humainly. I mean, some of our troops gave up their MREs so that the mass amounts of prisoners would have SOME food.

Also...there was a SF mission where the team was spotted by some children. Rather than eliminate the children as many others would have done...the US men held their fire, let the children run off to give away their position, and then fought off dozens of Iraqis before a helo from the 160th could come in and pull them out. THankfully there were no friendly casualties.

That's why I don't like some tree-huggin' hippy saying "poor Iraqis civilians" when we use glorified tear gas on them. Could be a hell of alot worse. We could fire fire with fire and just make Baghdad a smoking crater.

Coincidentally....the Isrealis have made it *EXCEPTIOANLLY* clear that if any non-conventional weapons are used on Isreal.....Non-conventional weapons WILL be used on Iraq in combination with/ before a ground invasion.

Then the **** would REALLY hit the fan.

PS...i meantioned Medivas crews in the beginning of my post. I heard this before and it relates to the common Medivac call-sign "Dust Off". It goes as follows:

"Dedicated Un-Selfishly To Our Fighting Forces"

Godbless all Medivac crews and Corpsmen.

Ichhabe
02-17-2003, 12:34 AM
That's why I don't like some tree-huggin' hippy saying "poor Iraqis civilians" when we use glorified tear gas on them. Could be a hell of alot worse. We could fire fire with fire and just make Baghdad a smoking crater.



Why do ppl use that term. I aint no tree-huggin hippy. For the last time, get it?

What I am trying to say is that u dont undo a wrong with a another wrong. And what was done during WW II by the Japanese can't the Iraqi civilian population answer for now. Get real! And I'm not talking about CS or pepper spray here. I think Rumsfeld and his "advisor-stampee" has something more sinister and ugly up his sleeve. And I am not trying to get a conspiracy theory up in the daylight here. The fact is that I dont trust that man further than I can throw him. Specially after he weant sobbing back to Washington D.C after being here a couple of days in Europe.

JiJoMacLE45
02-17-2003, 01:23 AM
So your saying that the US would use their own chemical or biological weapons against Baghdad. If you are, you're off your rocker man. If you have listened to what President Bush and SecDef Rumsfeld have said from the start, the goal if we attack is to remove Saddam from power. Whether it is to have him pack his bags and seek asylum elsewhere or if we have to use force to go in and get him. How would using any NBC munitions on Baghdad or Tikrit or Basra or any Iraqi enclave benefit our cause, if anything using the use of these munitions would only cause to bring more heat on ourselves.

As far as trying to compare Japan to Iraq, I was not saying the Iraqis should pay for what the Japanese did. I meant that when, if ever, do you see the Geneva convention being abided by during war time. It has become irrelevant, just like the UN is becoming through its lack of backbone.

As far as Rumsfeld goes, hey, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Personally, I like the man. I like the whole administration. They don't just pay lip service to our interests. I think it is a bold move to stand against Iraq, even it comes down to us doing it alone. For once we are seeing politicians put the best interest of our country ahead of their personal politics, even if in the long run it means they will not be re-elected, they are doing the right thing.

Light Fighter
02-17-2003, 01:23 AM
it seems that the US has helped many a country when they needed it, if a country needed food after we bombed them, we gave them food (afghanistan) or if a country was afraid of beign attacked and over run by a neighbor (Kosovo and S. Korea) we put AMERICAN soldiers in the region. We have US soldiers doing the jobs that the said countries soldiers should be doing.

Yet, when we (US) want to take action agaisnt a known criminal who has not complied with UN sanctions for years and to this day still has/creating WMD, every country wants to take a dig at us and tell us no, we cant. We must wait untill the rest of the world see's a "smoking gun" untill we are permited to try and stop it, after the fact. So either way it is an unwinable situation.

I too have been hit with PS and CS, does sting for a bit but nothing to the point of blinding pain. I say any Iraqi civilian that decides they want to try and stop us should get a face full of it.

JiJoMacLE45
02-17-2003, 01:26 AM
Excuse the English, it's 1:30 AM and I am stuck spending the night at work because of a blizzard after working a 10 hour shift in a snow storm. God loves me.