|
Prohibited Weapons
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Izzy |
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. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| 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. |
|
|
| occrider |
| Maybe John Smith is suggesting we shoot them instead :D. You gotta admit Izzy's reply was pretty funny. |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
| 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. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
