Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Henry-Finland · 03-04-2003, 02:57 PM

When does the other countries begin to destroy their chemical weapons?
USA?

Henry

Henry-Finland · 03-04-2003, 03:14 PM

Loren Petchel:
'The only one who doesn't benefit from that strategy is Saddam.

And some million others; in Iraq and all the other countries where the terrorists gets new "causes" if USA strikes.

Im God
I like Your idea!

Henry

Mr. Superbad · 03-04-2003, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry-Finland
When does the other countries begin to destroy their chemical weapons?
USA?

Chemical Weapons Convention

Quote:

The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the Depositary of the Convention. The Convention was opened for signature on 13 January 1993 in Paris by the Secretary-General of the United Nations with 130 States signing the Convention. On 31 October 1996, Hungary became the 65th State to deposit its instrument of ratification, thus triggering the process of entry into force of the CWC 180 days later. The Convention entered into force on 29 April 1997.

Chemical Weapons Convention Fact Sheet

Quote:

With or without the CWC, the United States is already destroying its chemical weapons in accordance with a law Congress passed more than a decade ago requiring destruction of the bulk of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile. That process is under way, with completion slated by the end of 2004. The CWC now requires all States Parties that possess chemical weapons to destroy their stockpiles by April 2007.

theyeti · 03-04-2003, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Superbad
Chemical Weapons Convention Fact Sheet

Um, that page is only current as of 1997. Bush has since gutted the chemcial weapons ban -- one of his more successful attempts at pissing off the world. While I believe the ban still remains in effect, Bush ruined the proposed protocol to ensure enforcement. So bascially, while chemical weapons are technically supposed to be destroyed, no one has any way of knowing if and when this gets done, so we can keep unofficial stockpiles forever (I don't know for sure if Bush plans on doing this though). The argument was basically that they didn't want international inspectors coming in and pestering US chemical companies and such, so instead they suggested....nothing. It does make Bush's cries about Hussein's supposed chemical weapons -- and the inspections forced at gun point -- just a tad bit hypocritical. (To use Bush's logic, the rest of the world has the right -- nay, the duty -- to invade the US and force regime change over this.)

US spurns chemical weapons ban.

Quote:

By throwing out the protocol, the US can only encourage other countries such as China, Pakistan, India and Iran, which are none to keen on verification, to turn their back on the protocol inspection plans - and ultimately the treaty itself. The American move will also provide a propaganda boon to Iraq, which has steadfastly opposed renewed UN inspection of its weapons programmes.

Please note that this article was written prior to Bush's current saber rattling and the current UN inspections.

theyeti

Mr. Superbad · 03-04-2003, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theyeti
US spurns chemical weapons ban.

Please note that this article was written prior to Bush's current saber rattling and the current UN inspections.

That article title is kind of misleading, since it was talking about a biological weapons ban. The CWC is something different.

Autonemesis · 03-04-2003, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Superbad
Huh?

What a lovely website. Very professionally designed.

John Hancock · 03-04-2003, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kind Bud
What a lovely website. Very professionally designed.

Bud

I couldn't have been so kind as not to be threaten again with banishment from the board; I bit my tongue.

Martin Buber

Mr. Superbad · 03-04-2003, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kind Bud
What a lovely website. Very professionally designed.

I agree.

The report which says:

Quote:

Funds to be obligated in January, 2003 include:

$1.2 million to maintain primary health services (funds to be determined);
$1.5 million for UNICEF immunization cold chain (funds to be determined);
$2.5 million for 14 Women's Centers;
$1 million for accelerated learning programs for girls;
$300,000 for continued work by Camp, Dresser, McKee on water systems in Kandahar and Kunduz;
$600,000 for the Famine Early Warning System to deploy in Kabul;
$2.88 million to expand DAI/HAFO's irrigation rehabilitation work in Helmand;
$500,000 to the UN for the Human Rights Commission; and
$5 million Supplemental to support the Constitutional Commission and upcoming electoral processes.

...is particularly well designed and easy to read.

leonarde · 03-04-2003, 04:52 PM

Partial post by Amen-Moses, referring to demand by US for extradition of bin Laden:

Quote:

It is unreasonable to expect them to hand people over without:

1) Any evidence of their involvement.
2) A guarantee that they will be tried under international law rather than some kangaroo court.

Well, considering that bin Laden was the head of one of the biggest terrorist organizations in existence, headquartered in Afghanistan, and was simultaneously in tight with the head of the Taliban, there was no "evidence" really necessary: the Taliban knew better than anyone that al Qaeda was behind the attacks and merely refused to give up bin Laden because he was, and for a long time, in cahoots with the Taliban. But for the people of Afghanistan it worked out better that way anyway: they were soon free of the Taliban's draconian regime.

Cheers!

Henry-Finland · 03-04-2003, 07:17 PM

The Independent:

http://austin.indymedia.org/front.ph...&group=webcast

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
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.

Bolding mine.

Quote:

Internal Pentagon documents also show that the US is developing a range of calmative gases, also banned for battlefield use. Senior US defence sources predict these could be used in Iraq by elite special forces units to take out command and control bunkers deep underground.

Rear Admiral Stephen Baker, a Navy commander in the last Gulf War who is now senior adviser to the Centre for Defence Information in Washington, told The Independent on Sunday that US special forces had knock-out gases that can "neutralise" people. He added: "I would think that if they get a chance to use them, they will."

Quote:

The Defence Secretary attacked the "straitjacket" imposed by bans in international treaties on using the weapons in warfare. He specified that they could be used "where there are enemy troops in a cave [and] you know there are women and children in there with them". General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke of using them against human shields .

Very "Calmative" news indeed.

Quote:

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.

"When the war is over and these things have been used they will have been legitimised as a tool of war, and the principle of toxic weapons being banned will have gone. The difference between these weapons and nerve gas is simply one of structural chemistry."

So much about our "higher civlilsation".
Just asking: If the Iraq soldiers goes to a (e.g.) train in London, takes of their trench-coats, when they see that a wagon filled with English soldiers are coming, relieving their uniforms and push this gas into the wagons.
Then they shoot everyone that tries to come out.
- Are they terrorists if they have full uniforms and target soldiers from a country that has declared war?
Or are they Iraqian soldiers?
- The same question if they do it in Germany against US-soldiers?
- The same question if they do it in USA? Against soldiers.

- All the questions again, but now the soldiers has also their wifes and children, or other human shield elements with them.

Or is the war only allowed in countries with camels?
And I do not mean the brand of cigarettes.

And what happens if the "human shield element", (look how I have learned to write 'objectively'), is wounded or killed?

From Siberia with love

Henry

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-04-2003, 02:57 PM	#31
Henry-Finland Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Finland Posts: 7,018	When does the other countries begin to destroy their chemical weapons? USA? Henry

03-04-2003, 03:14 PM	#32
Henry-Finland Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Finland Posts: 7,018	Loren Petchel: 'The only one who doesn't benefit from that strategy is Saddam. And some million others; in Iraq and all the other countries where the terrorists gets new "causes" if USA strikes. Im God I like Your idea! Henry

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.