Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

From the Independant

Quoting the bits that may or not be surprising to some folks...

quote:

---

The US 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 employed.

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.

The Defence Secretary attacked the "straitjacket" imposed by bans in international treaties on using the weapons in warfare.

Professor Julian Perry Robinson, one of the world's foremost authorities on the convention, said: "Legally speaking, Iraq would be totally justified in releasing chemical weapons over the UK if the alliance uses them in Baghdad.

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.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalie
From the Independant

Professor Julian Perry Robinson, one of the world's foremost authorities on the convention, said: "Legally speaking, Iraq would be totally justified in releasing chemical weapons over the UK if the alliance uses them in Baghdad.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

Agreed Mr Chips, this one particularly got me...

quote:

---

This applies even though they can be used in civil disturbances at home.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: MadCo
Posts: 1801

They have a point, even if it's not morally equivalent, it's still illegal, and we shouldn't do this.

I'm getting a little iffy on this. I supported the war fully until Bush destroyed our Budget surplus, and now with shit like this? Fucking A.

And yea, Saddam was in Material Breach, and we should have either given him another chance, or immediately blasted his ass. Instead we pretended to give him another chance and we're going to blast his ass anyways? Eh. Should have just dropped in a couple hundred spec ops troops and kidnapped him. Much more effective if he and every member of his personal guard just disappeared. The fucking food delivery truck pulls into the palace gate the next morning and everyone's gone, and they never find the bodies.

Melesse

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

well, some poeple have said that Bush et al are equivalent to Churchill standing alone in WW2. Now seeing as Churchill was the first person to want to use gas on the people of Mesopatania, its only fitting that any decision should be in keeping with old Winnie. I'm quite looking forward to seeing the photos.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melesse
They have a point, even if it's not morally equivalent, it's still illegal, and we shouldn't do this.

I'm getting a little iffy on this. I supported the war fully until Bush destroyed our Budget surplus, and now with shit like this? Fucking A.

And yea, Saddam was in Material Breach, and we should have either given him another chance, or immediately blasted his ass. Instead we pretended to give him another chance and we're going to blast his ass anyways? Eh. Should have just dropped in a couple hundred spec ops troops and kidnapped him. Much more effective if he and every member of his personal guard just disappeared. The fucking food delivery truck pulls into the palace gate the next morning and everyone's gone, and they never find the bodies.

Melesse

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

Melesse, whilst kidnap might seem like a sensible option, its not exactly a very practical one. Logistically speaking it would be a nightmare. If Baghdad sat nicely on the coast or something it might be ok, but it doesn't, not to mention you have to know where the target is, and of course not forgetting what happened in Somalia when a kidnap was attemtped.

Oh yeah, and whilst I see the point Zim is making, I do think that a state kidnapping another head of state (however illegitimate one might consider that head of state to be) is a tad 'out of order', not to mention that it implies you actually fear having a serious scrap with your enemy. Its not exactly honourable or courageous.

Last edited by philjit on 03-05-2003 at 08:49 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: MadCo
Posts: 1801

I was thinking less kidnap then kill the motherfucker and make the bodies disappear, but whatever works for you The SEALs had some success with the tactic in Vietnam, though never for something this big.

Melesse

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

How you going to find him? Which one is him?. He never spends two nights in the same place. He has a huge number of residences that he sleeps in at random. The staff never know ehen he will arrive until he actually turns up. Sometimes he drops in to his officials houses and spends the night there. He has someone to taste his food for gods sake. He has at least 15 doubles, four of whom are absolutely identical to him, to the extent that they appear on national television AS him. And as for the soldiers around him. You don't think they're any good? Good enough to keep him alive since he became head of the Baath party in 68. It's not that easy. Special Forces make a lot of fuck ups. They just never admit to them. Could be the SEALS that just go missing

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged