quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith I admit i am surprised to see that Iraq has used a SCUD missile. I believed they were gone. This brings up another point though, the US may also be using banned weapons: http://news.independent.co.uk/world...sp?story=383006

here's a quote from the first sentence

quote:

The US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq

oh no, those poor iraqi's are going to get pepper spray in their eyes.... boo-hoo... both those gasses are common place in riot control and law enforcment around the world. the article says its in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention but if thats the case i would give little heed to it. i would much rather prefer the US troops use non lethal weapons to bring about a quicker win.
and btw if saddam uses contraband first (scuds) why now is america binded to not use its? a treaty implies both sides agree to it, if one decides not to obey it then the other side has all the right in the world to dis-obey it as well.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

LOL pepper spray...hahhahahhahaha wow those are severe weapons....that the same as mase....big deal their eyes will burn and they will cough...that will all go away in 10 minutes with flushing the face with water....hahahhahhahhaha nice try John.

Maybe John Smith is suggesting we shoot them instead . You gotta admit Izzy's reply was pretty funny.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy here's a quote from the first sentence oh no, those poor iraqi's are going to get pepper spray in their eyes.... boo-hoo... both those gasses are common place in riot control and law enforcment around the world. the article says its in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention but if thats the case i would give little heed to it. i would much rather prefer the US troops use non lethal weapons to bring about a quicker win. and btw if saddam uses contraband first (scuds) why now is america binded to not use its? a treaty implies both sides agree to it, if one decides not to obey it then the other side has all the right in the world to dis-obey it as well.

well, i agree, pepper spray is no big deal. However, it is in contravention to the chemical weapons convention, so, do the ends justify the means in this case? I would agree they do, but that's not the point, it's still a violation of a signed treaty.

as for iraq violating the treay first, that is not true. The US is defying the UN by attacking. the UN allows for self defense under chapter 7. Contrary to what some think, neither resolutions 687 nor 1441 authorize an attack.

http://msnbc.com/news/887480.asp

However, iraq does appear to have had at least one scud missile, which they are prohibited from having.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith well, i agree, pepper spray is no big deal. However, it is in contravention to the chemical weapons convention, so, do the ends justify the means in this case? I would agree they do, but that's not the point, it's still a violation of a signed treaty. as for iraq violating the treay first, that is not true. The US is defying the UN by attacking. the UN allows for self defense under chapter 7. Contrary to what some think, neither resolutions 687 nor 1441 authorize an attack. http://msnbc.com/news/887480.asp However, iraq does appear to have had at least one scud missile, which they are prohibited from having.

Well I'm sure the Iraqi army isn't going to go complaining to the UN that we're using pepper spray instead of bullets hehe. If you ask me it's silly that pepper spray or riot control gas is permitted for civilian use yet it's banned for use in combat. You would think that use of pepper spray would be actually be ENCOURAGED in combat.