If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I know that they would only use in retaliation but that is not a justification in itself.....
Basically I think they are trying to emphasise the moral 'badness' of Iraq with this argument when they don't nedd to and frankly it detracts from more sensible arguments as do the other lies and attempots to make the Al-Qaida link, they discredit the proper arguments........
You can kind of see how people could get the impression that the US administration, then and now, lacks a consistent approach.
I think that may be why we don't use them routinely, don't you?
But it's only when both sides recognise this that they are an effective deterrence. A the while one side is happy to use them...
@ Joe. You missed out the attack on Iraqi civillians, not just Iran. And yes, I know that it doesn't distract from US silence at the time.
Unless of course 'extreme circumstances' mean whenever the US is losing a conflict.
And there is generally overlooked issue of fuel-air bombs, as powerful as so-called 'battlefield nukes', that the US was happily dropping in Afghanistan while the media went into a wankfest about the "awesome power" of such devices.
I still don't buy that he will use them if he had them in circumstances any less extreme than the ones we would use them in.
Iraq had the chance to comply. Even now, all they have to do is show the world where they destroyed the weapons. Meantime, some are supposedly in Syria with one son. Whatever. This is going to end quickly and many countries will be involved in building a new Iraq because of the new oil deals that will be made. France is sending their carrier to the region now.
Well I do not support torture. Israel also tortures its population all the time and so does Turkey which is a member of NATO. Seeing how both of those countries are supported by the US and UK I honestly did not believe either had a problem with torture.
After 911, I don't care what they had to do to get information from Al Qaeda to prevent another attack.
Interesting to see the rhetoric from the Bush camp after any Iraqi invasion when it is likely Saudi and other arab nations will ask the US to remove all military personnel and equipment from their soil permanently.
He also missed out on the use during the Gulf War.
What exactly are you attempting to refer to here, Aladdin? There was no use of WMD in Vietnam, and Fuel-air explosives are not classified as WMD either.
Objects of Inspection
Sarin Gas in the first two days of the ground war. Czechs detected it.
Also used Sarin and Mustard Gas in March of 1991 against rebels.
Nice try though. How bout offering the same diligence to scrutinizing the claims of our own GW veterans that Uncle Sam tested agents on our own troops for effect. Certainly our MIC likes nothing better than ready made guinea pigs to test its arsenals and response mechanisms.
Not true, Clandestine. That was generally assumed to be the case, however detailed analysis of both communications and detection has made it obvious that is not so.
A side result is that the VA is testing the possibility that GWS is related to Sarin gas.
For fairly obvious reasons, this is an area where I have to be up to date. I can understand why you would think what you posted was correct, but there is significant data that has changed the conclusions.
No, the US did not use chemical agents in Vietnam. CNN made an allegation that they had. That was proven false.
Napalm is not banned as far as I know. The US has moved to other incendiary weapons as more effective in general. Btw, Napalm is not especially new. The jellied gasoline in flame throwers, used in both World Wars, is virtually identical to Napalm. It just wasn't considered for aerial delivery until late in the war in the Pacific.
You are correct about the rebels. A lot of us (my brethren) who worked with those people aren't very happy about how the administration encouraged them and then left them high and dry.
Saddam is being criticized for it, but more in internal military circles than probably anywhere else. The military units who are preparing for duty in the Gulf are preparing extensively for the possibility of the use of biochem weapons, because it is evident that he is willing to use them. It may also be why President Bush has been so outspoken on reminding the world what the US policy is on retaliation for attack by WMD.
Besides compliance with the UN resolutions regarding WMD, there are also the issues of complying with the terms of the cease-fire, which they have not done since the very first month the cease-fire was in effect.
Firstly, the Gulf War was no actual war, as layed out by our Constituion, since Bush Sr. did not obtain a formal declaration of war from Congress. Added to this the fact that the terms of the action he launched was merely to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait, that objective was accomplished. That in political terms ended that matter.
What ensued in terms of ceasefire declarations was and remains the sole perview of the UN, not the US or any coalition, both in implementation as well as enforcement.
That's why, at present, one of the factors being hotly debated in policy circles is that Bush Jr. looks set to ursurp the power of declaring "war" on the basis of the lame authorisation given by congress to use force, issued last October. The fallacy therein is that Congress cannot cede to the executive the power to singlehandedly set our nation on the path to war, a fact Bush is trying to sidestep to whatever extent he can deviate public attention away from his admin's shameful antics.
So if Bush intends to wage war, he must according to our Constitutional provisions, seek a Congressional debate and formal declaration before doing so. Anything less is an abuse of his office.
Did the coalition fight in blue helmets and white vehicles?
No.
Was the cease-fire signed in the name of the UN?
No.
It was signed in the name of each participating nation. Of course they have perview. They are sovereign states, which the UN is not.
...then why didn't you (collectively; those against the war) brought impeachment proceedings against Daddy Bush?
Is it because you'd lose?
No, of course the Gulf War combatants did not fight under the UN blue helmet, Bush Sr. made it his personal crusade and pre-empted any such contingency.
I would actually prefer that the matter be resolved by Blue Helmets rather than a massive contingent of our own men and women. At least then it could truly be called a response of the international community and not a unilateral US lead exercise in further geo-political self interest.