Americans to use Chemical Weapons

Should the Coalition forces use Tear Gas and Pepper Spray?

  • No...it's against the Geneva Convention

    Votes: 6 46.2%

  • No...it's inhuman...and can kill children and old people

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • Yes...it's not a leathal weapon

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Yes...it's better than bullets

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • Total voters
    13
MrBishop said:
President Bush has OK'd the use of Tear Gas and Pepper-Spray during the attack of Baghdad. Both of these items are considered Chemical Weapons and restricted by the Geneva Convention.

Will the use of these weapons remove the moral high-ground that the USA has used to invade Iraq?

Does this break in the Geneva Concention lessen your support for this war?



Comments?
Click to expand...

You know I did not see a link for this? Do you have one? How about the decree that Bush signed?

Do you equate tear-gas and pepper-spray to mustard gas etc..?
Click to expand...

No, how could you. You may find this funny or stupid but when i was a kid I used to spray my parents tear gas in the living room when they were not there. It didn't bother me that bad.

Another time I sprayed the tear gas my dad had in his glove box while he was taking a piss. He hopped back the car and freaked out. For some reason I guess tear gas doesn't bother me that much. It was only the kind you could buy in the stores though and police or military tear gas may be worse. I was used to getting pelted with chemicals like cigarette and pot smoke from my parents when a child tear gas is not much worse;)
 
Tear Gas and pepper spray are totally inhumane. Let's stick to more humane lead and depleted uranium bullets and high explosives.


Much more humane:rolleyes:
 
wtf??( Should we use fart spray to disperse crowds?! No that might offend someone and we can't have that. Maybe a can of o2?

Gimme a break.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
wtf??( Should we use fart spray to disperse crowds?! No that might offend someone and we can't have that. Maybe a can of o2?

Gimme a break.
Click to expand...

Yeah that would contain H2S(deadly poison), CH4, indole and others.... I don't think "fart" would work:D Farts are against the geneva convention.
 
Circumventing? Fine... I don't have a problem with the military using tear gas and pepper spray. War isn't exactly a PC game of playgroung tag.
 
I find this to be the definition of dilemma. Personally, I'm still unsure much becase of the GC reasoning & the "he started it first" argument. It has a potential to be lethal or near lethal. That is almost never the case.

The advantages would be in the civilian population. 5 million people live in Baghdad. Getting a group of 5000 pissed off Iraqis won't be hard. Tear gas beats the shit out of M-16 fire & JDAMs. Disperse the crowd before rioting starts. However, with the history of saddam & his thugs, once smoke canisters come out & gas masks go on there is a real possibility of panic which in turn usually turns to violence & the M-16's may have to get used anyway.

As I type this, I've changed my mind...BAD IDEA.
 
I have very mixed feelings about this. The tactics the Iraqis have used (dressing as civilians, sending civilians on suicide missions, arming women and children, faking surrender, etc., etc....) have put us in a very difficult position. Protecting our own troops is a priority of course, but I can see a case made for saving the lives of Iraqi civilians by using such non-lethal methods. A tactic that wouldn't have to be used if... civilians were civilians.

On the other hand, it is obviously hypocritic to condemn Saddam for breaking the GC and then doing it ourselves, and should probably be avoided if for no other reason than the backlash that will come from European nations. There is also the possibility that more civilians could die as a result of using them, but I find that unlikely. It's more likely that they would simply be really pissed off at us for giving them a miserable experience, undermining much of what we are trying to accomplish there.

Personally, I feel the use of these tactics is perfectly moral, but since much of the rest of the world probably wouldn't agree (and about 99% of the fucking French population), it might be better in this case to risk the greater danger as a compromise for better political relations with pratically the whole world down the road. Or, was our troops safety a priority? I get so confused here...
 
unclehobart said:
Circumventing? Fine... I don't have a problem with the military using tear gas and pepper spray. War isn't exactly a PC game of playgroung tag.
Click to expand...

All's fair in love and war? The whole reason why we're even in Iraq is that we suspected Saddam of owning the kissin' cousin of what we're planning on using on them.

Not trying t' tick you off unc...just justifying my opinion and those of others.
 
are you like my wife? Whenever she says "I'm not mad" you know the shit is about to fly or it'll be days of quiet uneasiness. :D
 
Not really. When I get mad, I'm not all that good at containing it... and I work on the order of years of uneasiness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top