Thought this has no beairng on the war on Iraq, if you filled a room slowly to a 'non-lethal' level they wouldn't kill anyone inside. That's what I was getting at. I'm sure that there are experts out there that would refute his claim, hence that is why they are still considered 'non-lethal' gases.
Maybe you should consider reading this document I am now posting for the 5th time:
thus your statement, "if you filled a room slowly to a 'non-lethal' level they wouldn't kill anyone inside," is not only technically impossible and flat out wrong (people have different sensitivities that wouldn't be known), it ends up in the realm of the truely ignorant since it has already been shown to be false by a document that has been posted 5 times now.
and check out section 5.3 specifically because it explains the U.S. use of 'Holds' on goods imported into Iraq.
Ok... I read that (had read it before but I re-read) and I see how the US acted very very badly, but how exactly did blocking wrist watches and shoe soles cause the humanitarian crisis that wouldn't otherwise be there?
The US exacerbated the problem, absolutely, but I contend that the problem existed in the first place because of the UN's limp-wristed way of dealing with problems like these.
Early in the process the US made it clear that sanctions would not be lifted while Saddam remained in power. For the good of the Iraqi people the rest of the UN should've worked out a way to get Saddam out so the sanctions could be lifted. Instead they played political games (just as the US) did and all parties are responsible for the deaths (some more than others).
It was a Security Council decision to keep 30% of oil revenue for "war reparations", not a US decision. And since European nations paid a large part of the war cost, guess who gets the oil-for-reparations.
These are probably the most severe war reparations since the Treaty of Versailles, at the end of World War I. Taking a lesson from the interwar crisis, the victors of World War II did not impose war reparations on Germany and Japan, in spite of terrible damage they inflicted on other countries and personal hardship imposed on millions of people.
The UN Security Council is a failure, plain and simple.
And if Saddam wasn't developing a nuclear weapons program AT ALL and documents were forged to look like he was and George bush used those very forged documents to lie to Congress that he should have full and complete authority to attack Iraq and Congress fell for the lie then George bush is a war criminal and a traitor and should probably receive the death penalty for high treason resulting in the deaths of multiple American and foreign citizens.
as hard as this was to read, I've no choice but to agree.
More ant-american ranting from the pro-saddam left. Hey SJO you still think Saddam didn't gas his own people? Maybe Hitler was a good guy too?
The thread started with a list of reasons given re. the war, from the admin. and those opposing. Then I put the question "why are we at war", trying to see what people felt was the "real" reasons.
Scott, since when is is "anti-American" to ask a question or to have dialog? Or is the admin's word considered beyond questioning, verboten, a taboo? Would you prefer harsh penalties for those who dare question the wisdom/stupidity or good intent/malevolence of the Bush admin? Do you prefer the Ari Fleischer take.. "Americans had better watch what they are saying"? You like the idea of protesters being treated as terrorists (because they dare to question the goverment?).
Would you prefer that America became a closed society? I am not sure why you regard asking questions to be anti-American....this kind of notion sounds very "soviet" to me.
thus your statement, "if you filled a room slowly to a 'non-lethal' level they wouldn't kill anyone inside," is not only technically impossible and flat out wrong (people have different sensitivities that wouldn't be known), it ends up in the realm of the truely ignorant since it has already been shown to be false by a document that has been posted 5 times now.
Maybe you should stop posting it and start quoting out of it for an arguement. I have read it. Just because this one person writes and article doesn't mean there aren't others that disagree. I don't care *if* you agree with him. That doesn't mean that everyone else does. I question if you read the article...
From the article:
Quote:
However, this will mean that some areas will contain higher concentrations of the agent, enough to cause significant lethality.
If you make sure that the highest concentration of the agent is below concentrations that are lethal then the gas would diffuse into the room and eventually reach a pretty much equal concentration that was under lethal levels.
Did I once say that this 'way of doing it' would have any bearing on the war? I'm trying to say that just because this article says "There is no way of using it" doesn't mean it isn't true.
Quote:
when aerosol agents (droplets or tiny particles) are used in enclosed spaces, they do not dissipate quickly and are likely to remain close to the original concentration for some time.
If this is why you are saying I'm wrong, I'll ask you this: When did I ever say anything in my example about aerosol agents?
Clinton was impeached. Reagan should have been. Carter was probably honest, though he was a horribly incompetent maker of policy and could have been impeached because of that. Ford was honest about his pardon of Nixon though his motives might have themselves been grounds for impeachment and Nixon was impeached and resigned from office because of his lies and crimes.
Of all of these, the only ones who directly caused multiple deaths of Americans were Reagan (by arming Iran and perpetuating war in the Middle East, and we all know how that turned out) and Bush, by starting a deadly war under ulterior motives and false authority.
Of all of these, the only ones who directly caused multiple deaths of Americans were Reagan (by arming Iran and perpetuating war in the Middle East, and we all know how that turned out) and Bush, by starting a deadly war under ulterior motives and false authority.
So what you're telling me is that only Reagan & Bush II "directly caused multiple deaths of Americans" out of the following list: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton & Bush II?
Clinton was impeached. Reagan should have been. Carter was probably honest, though he was a horribly incompetent maker of policy and could have been impeached because of that. Ford was honest about his pardon of Nixon though his motives might have themselves been grounds for impeachment and Nixon was impeached and resigned from office because of his lies and crimes.
Of all of these, the only ones who directly caused multiple deaths of Americans were Reagan (by arming Iran and perpetuating war in the Middle East, and we all know how that turned out) and Bush, by starting a deadly war under ulterior motives and false authority.
Sorry, but if my memory is right Clinton was never impeached (even if Kenneth Starr tried to do it), nor even Nixon who leave the job before his impeachment (to avoid this disgrace).
And if Saddam wasn't developing a nuclear weapons program AT ALL and documents were forged to look like he was and George bush used those very forged documents to lie to Congress that he should have full and complete authority to attack Iraq and Congress fell for the lie then George bush is a war criminal and a traitor and should probably receive the death penalty for high treason resulting in the deaths of multiple American and foreign citizens.
I suggested this once before and I was ridiculed. It's very true though.
If you have an argument to present that isn't already refuted by this (your most recent ones explicitly are), please put it forward. Otherwise, be a adult and accept that your view on this is not congruent with reality.
The UN Security Council is a failure, plain and simple.
I think that's a bit extreme. It's certainly slow as molassas, but that doesn't mean it's worthless.
In section 6, they talk about targeted sanctions (something I've advocated for in a number of threads) and it's a policty the U.N. came up with. Were it thought out prior to '91, it's what would have been used instead and they would have been far more effective. As it stands, they would be in place to be used in the next crisis (which ultimately should have been Iraq v.2, the return of the inspectors) and would have been far more effective than what the U.N. originally had in place for Iraq.
So, it's not that the Security Council is a failure. It may have failed the first time around with Iraq. But it's not as if large government bodies don't fail from time to time everywhere. The ability of the body to come up with targeted sanctions is evidence that the U.N. (and Security Council) is still improving, not failing.
To me, Bush failed. We had a viable no-war solution ready to go. Bush didn't even try to implement it, instead he pushed for war with no other options. Had he persuaded the Security Council to impose targeted sanctions (which I think even you will agree would have been easy to do since everyone was trying to avert war) Bush would be a hero.
And had he pushed for targeted sanctions, and the Security Council refused, even I'd be willing to support a unilateral war.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say Bush is 100% crusading for the good of the Iraqi people the removal of Saddam Hussein is far from "unintended", it's the stated goal.
If you're going to speculate on Bush's motives don't take it personally and get pissy when I respond.
I think that's a bit extreme. It's certainly slow as molassas, but that doesn't mean it's worthless.
Not the UN as a whole, but the Security Council... absolutely.
Quote:
But it's not as if large government bodies don't fail from time to time everywhere
Of course, but shouldn't they also do something right? Shouldn't they succeed sometimes?
Give me some UN Security Council successes.
I'll give you a list of failures and we can decide multi-laterally whether or not the UN Security Council is borderline worthless and, by and large, a failure.
I'll start off with a failure: Iraq.
Now you give me a success.
Quote:
To me, Bush failed.
You've got it. Ignore the 3 years of Bush I and 8 years of Clinton. Bush II's fault.
Quote:
Had he persuaded the Security Council to impose targeted sanctions (which I think even you will agree would have been easy to do since everyone was trying to avert war) Bush would be a hero.
It would've helped the humanitarian crisis, but would've done nothing to hurt Hussein or speed disarmament. So yes, better sanctions have been necessary for the last 12 years, but now it's all moot because BushII is removing them entirely.
Comments
Originally posted by pyr3
Thought this has no beairng on the war on Iraq, if you filled a room slowly to a 'non-lethal' level they wouldn't kill anyone inside. That's what I was getting at. I'm sure that there are experts out there that would refute his claim, hence that is why they are still considered 'non-lethal' gases.
Maybe you should consider reading this document I am now posting for the 5th time:
http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/pp_che...apacitants.pdf
thus your statement, "if you filled a room slowly to a 'non-lethal' level they wouldn't kill anyone inside," is not only technically impossible and flat out wrong (people have different sensitivities that wouldn't be known), it ends up in the realm of the truely ignorant since it has already been shown to be false by a document that has been posted 5 times now.
and check out section 5.3 specifically because it explains the U.S. use of 'Holds' on goods imported into Iraq.
Ok... I read that (had read it before but I re-read) and I see how the US acted very very badly, but how exactly did blocking wrist watches and shoe soles cause the humanitarian crisis that wouldn't otherwise be there?
The US exacerbated the problem, absolutely, but I contend that the problem existed in the first place because of the UN's limp-wristed way of dealing with problems like these.
Early in the process the US made it clear that sanctions would not be lifted while Saddam remained in power. For the good of the Iraqi people the rest of the UN should've worked out a way to get Saddam out so the sanctions could be lifted. Instead they played political games (just as the US) did and all parties are responsible for the deaths (some more than others).
It was a Security Council decision to keep 30% of oil revenue for "war reparations", not a US decision. And since European nations paid a large part of the war cost, guess who gets the oil-for-reparations.
These are probably the most severe war reparations since the Treaty of Versailles, at the end of World War I. Taking a lesson from the interwar crisis, the victors of World War II did not impose war reparations on Germany and Japan, in spite of terrible damage they inflicted on other countries and personal hardship imposed on millions of people.
The UN Security Council is a failure, plain and simple.
Originally posted by tonton
So you agree that if George bush did in fact lie to the people, he should be impeached and tried on war crimes, then. I'm glad we're in agreement.
May i humbly suggest you to impeach each (US or foreign) president, past , present or future ?
Originally posted by tonton
And if Saddam wasn't developing a nuclear weapons program AT ALL and documents were forged to look like he was and George bush used those very forged documents to lie to Congress that he should have full and complete authority to attack Iraq and Congress fell for the lie then George bush is a war criminal and a traitor and should probably receive the death penalty for high treason resulting in the deaths of multiple American and foreign citizens.
as hard as this was to read, I've no choice but to agree.
Originally posted by Scott
More ant-american ranting from the pro-saddam left. Hey SJO you still think Saddam didn't gas his own people? Maybe Hitler was a good guy too?
The thread started with a list of reasons given re. the war, from the admin. and those opposing. Then I put the question "why are we at war", trying to see what people felt was the "real" reasons.
Scott, since when is is "anti-American" to ask a question or to have dialog? Or is the admin's word considered beyond questioning, verboten, a taboo? Would you prefer harsh penalties for those who dare question the wisdom/stupidity or good intent/malevolence of the Bush admin? Do you prefer the Ari Fleischer take.. "Americans had better watch what they are saying"? You like the idea of protesters being treated as terrorists (because they dare to question the goverment?).
Would you prefer that America became a closed society? I am not sure why you regard asking questions to be anti-American....this kind of notion sounds very "soviet" to me.
Originally posted by giant
Maybe you should consider reading this document I am now posting for the 5th time:
http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/pp_che...apacitants.pdf
thus your statement, "if you filled a room slowly to a 'non-lethal' level they wouldn't kill anyone inside," is not only technically impossible and flat out wrong (people have different sensitivities that wouldn't be known), it ends up in the realm of the truely ignorant since it has already been shown to be false by a document that has been posted 5 times now.
Maybe you should stop posting it and start quoting out of it for an arguement. I have read it. Just because this one person writes and article doesn't mean there aren't others that disagree. I don't care *if* you agree with him. That doesn't mean that everyone else does. I question if you read the article...
From the article:
However, this will mean that some areas will contain higher concentrations of the agent, enough to cause significant lethality.
If you make sure that the highest concentration of the agent is below concentrations that are lethal then the gas would diffuse into the room and eventually reach a pretty much equal concentration that was under lethal levels.
Did I once say that this 'way of doing it' would have any bearing on the war? I'm trying to say that just because this article says "There is no way of using it" doesn't mean it isn't true.
when aerosol agents (droplets or tiny particles) are used in enclosed spaces, they do not dissipate quickly and are likely to remain close to the original concentration for some time.
If this is why you are saying I'm wrong, I'll ask you this: When did I ever say anything in my example about aerosol agents?
Originally posted by tonton
Clinton was impeached. Reagan should have been. Carter was probably honest, though he was a horribly incompetent maker of policy and could have been impeached because of that. Ford was honest about his pardon of Nixon though his motives might have themselves been grounds for impeachment and Nixon was impeached and resigned from office because of his lies and crimes.
Of all of these, the only ones who directly caused multiple deaths of Americans were Reagan (by arming Iran and perpetuating war in the Middle East, and we all know how that turned out) and Bush, by starting a deadly war under ulterior motives and false authority.
I didn't see Bush anywhere in your list.
Of all of these, the only ones who directly caused multiple deaths of Americans were Reagan (by arming Iran and perpetuating war in the Middle East, and we all know how that turned out) and Bush, by starting a deadly war under ulterior motives and false authority.
So what you're telling me is that only Reagan & Bush II "directly caused multiple deaths of Americans" out of the following list: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton & Bush II?
That's what you're saying.
heh
heheheh
Originally posted by tonton
Clinton was impeached. Reagan should have been. Carter was probably honest, though he was a horribly incompetent maker of policy and could have been impeached because of that. Ford was honest about his pardon of Nixon though his motives might have themselves been grounds for impeachment and Nixon was impeached and resigned from office because of his lies and crimes.
Of all of these, the only ones who directly caused multiple deaths of Americans were Reagan (by arming Iran and perpetuating war in the Middle East, and we all know how that turned out) and Bush, by starting a deadly war under ulterior motives and false authority.
Sorry, but if my memory is right Clinton was never impeached (even if Kenneth Starr tried to do it), nor even Nixon who leave the job before his impeachment (to avoid this disgrace).
Originally posted by tonton
And if Saddam wasn't developing a nuclear weapons program AT ALL and documents were forged to look like he was and George bush used those very forged documents to lie to Congress that he should have full and complete authority to attack Iraq and Congress fell for the lie then George bush is a war criminal and a traitor and should probably receive the death penalty for high treason resulting in the deaths of multiple American and foreign citizens.
I suggested this once before and I was ridiculed. It's very true though.
biggety-bam!
Poor Bill.
Chemical Incapacitating Weapons Are Not Non-Lethal
?Oh, What a Lovely War, If No One Dies,? exclaims the title of a recent New York
Times article (William Broad, November 3, 2002) about so-called non-lethal weapons.
But the fact is that chemical incapacitating weapons are as likely as bullets to cause
death.
A number of events have brought ?non-lethal? chemical incapacitating agents into the
news recently, most prominently, their use in the rescue of hostages held in a Moscow
theater in October 2002. The rescue of most of the hostages encouraged advocates of the
military development of such weapons, but others were alarmed that 17% of the hostages
died from the effects of the chemical agent, and almost all of their captors were executed
by security forces while they were comatose, in violation of international law.
Approximately 120 of the hostages died. Is this level of lethality typical of incapacitating
agents? Are truly non-lethal chemical weapons feasible? To investigate these questions
we have developed a mathematical model to predict fatalities from such agents (see
?Beware the Siren?s Song: Why ?Non-Lethal? Incapacitating Chemical Agents are
Lethal,? Lynn Klotz, et al., March 2003). Applying this model to an incapacitating agent
that is exceptionally safe by pharmacological standards (therapeutic index (TI) =1000),1
delivered under ideal conditions to a uniformly healthy population, 9% of victims would
die when the goal is to incapacitate almost everyone (99%) in a particular place (often an
enclosed space), as in hostage rescue or urban military operations.
Considerably higher levels of lethality are predicted when typical pharmaceutical agents
(TI= 100 or less?) are used as incapacitating weapons. This is exactly what happened in
the Moscow hostage rescue, where lethality was 17%. The agent reportedly used was a
derivative of the analgesic/anesthetic fentanyl.
In clinical settings, anesthetics are not usually fatal because dose can be precisely
controlled, and any potentially fatal consequences can be managed?conditions that
clearly would not obtain in military or police use. This is so even for exceptionally safe
incapacitating agents, for several reasons.
First, it is difficult to deliver a chemical agent quickly and uniformly to a large area.
Thus, concentration will not be uniform throughout the area. Where the concentration is
higher, lethality will be greater; and where the concentration is lower, the agent will be
less effective. The only practical way to maintain effectiveness in the face of uneven
1 The safety of a drug is commonly expressed as its therapeutic Index (TI), which is the ratio of drug
concentration causing 50% fatalities to the concentration causing the desired effect in 50% of cases. For an
incapacitating agent, a TI of 1,000 means it will take 1,000 times more drug to kill 50% of victims than to
incapacitate 50%. Most anesthetics have TIs well below 100.
concentration is to use enough agent to guarantee that the minimal concentration in any
area exceeds that needed to achieve effective incapacitation. However, this will mean
that some areas will contain higher concentrations of the agent, enough to cause
significant lethality.
Second, the agent will need to act quickly, before the victims can react with defensive or
offensive action. Anesthetics generally take at least a few moments to act. The
requirement for faster incapacitation will require greater doses, and concomitantly will
inflict more deaths.
Third, when aerosol agents (droplets or tiny particles) are used in enclosed spaces, they
do not dissipate quickly and are likely to remain close to the original concentration for
some time. Thus, the total dose that individuals receive will continue to increase until all
casualties are evacuated, because even after incapacitation, the agent will continue to be
inhaled. This overdosing can easily increase the planned dose by ten-fold or more,
leading again to more deaths. This was undoubtedly a problem in Moscow.
None of these technical problems are likely to be soluble. But even if they were, there is
the added complication of considerable variation within a population in sensitivity to the
effects of any pharmaceutical agent. Typical civilian populations are quite
heterogeneous, with very young, old sickly, malnourished, or otherwise more susceptible
members. Again, since the minimal concentration of agent delivered must be based on
the dose required to incapacitate the ideal healthy individual, the targeting of civilian
populations or mixed civilian/military groups?which is specifically envisaged for these
weapons?will inevitably lead to significant levels of death.
Taking all these effects into consideration, it is obvious that chemical incapacitating
agents are anything but non-lethal. It should be of concern to the pharmaceutical and
insurance industries that lawsuits may be filed if these agents should be used in a
domestic situation, with significant fatalities. Non-combatants are the ones who will
suffer the fatalities, because if these weapons are adopted, hostage-takers and terrorists
will quickly learn to equip themselves with protective gas masks or antidotes.
For more information please contact:
Mark Wheelis, PhD
e-mail: mlwheelis@ucdavis.edu
Tel: 530 752 0562
Lynn C. Klotz, PhD
e-mail: lynnklotz@cs.com
Tel: 978 281 6015
If you have an argument to present that isn't already refuted by this (your most recent ones explicitly are), please put it forward. Otherwise, be a adult and accept that your view on this is not congruent with reality.
Originally posted by groverat
The UN Security Council is a failure, plain and simple.
I think that's a bit extreme. It's certainly slow as molassas, but that doesn't mean it's worthless.
In section 6, they talk about targeted sanctions (something I've advocated for in a number of threads) and it's a policty the U.N. came up with. Were it thought out prior to '91, it's what would have been used instead and they would have been far more effective. As it stands, they would be in place to be used in the next crisis (which ultimately should have been Iraq v.2, the return of the inspectors) and would have been far more effective than what the U.N. originally had in place for Iraq.
So, it's not that the Security Council is a failure. It may have failed the first time around with Iraq. But it's not as if large government bodies don't fail from time to time everywhere. The ability of the body to come up with targeted sanctions is evidence that the U.N. (and Security Council) is still improving, not failing.
To me, Bush failed. We had a viable no-war solution ready to go. Bush didn't even try to implement it, instead he pushed for war with no other options. Had he persuaded the Security Council to impose targeted sanctions (which I think even you will agree would have been easy to do since everyone was trying to avert war) Bush would be a hero.
And had he pushed for targeted sanctions, and the Security Council refused, even I'd be willing to support a unilateral war.
Originally posted by groverat
Clinton was impeached, Nixon was not.
biggety-bam!
Poor Bill.
My mistake, or a beginning of Alzheimer
However who was the first impeached president ?
Originally posted by alcimedes
IIRC, Clinton was the only president to ever be impeached.
Ever heard of Andrew Johnson?
Shooting a lot of blanks there, ay?
Originally posted by alcimedes
IIRC, Clinton was the only president to ever be impeached.
That's not what i read in the Evil Moderator's link
Originally posted by groverat
While I wouldn't go so far as to say Bush is 100% crusading for the good of the Iraqi people the removal of Saddam Hussein is far from "unintended", it's the stated goal.
If you're going to speculate on Bush's motives don't take it personally and get pissy when I respond.
I think that's a bit extreme. It's certainly slow as molassas, but that doesn't mean it's worthless.
Not the UN as a whole, but the Security Council... absolutely.
But it's not as if large government bodies don't fail from time to time everywhere
Of course, but shouldn't they also do something right? Shouldn't they succeed sometimes?
Give me some UN Security Council successes.
I'll give you a list of failures and we can decide multi-laterally whether or not the UN Security Council is borderline worthless and, by and large, a failure.
I'll start off with a failure: Iraq.
Now you give me a success.
To me, Bush failed.
You've got it. Ignore the 3 years of Bush I and 8 years of Clinton. Bush II's fault.
Had he persuaded the Security Council to impose targeted sanctions (which I think even you will agree would have been easy to do since everyone was trying to avert war) Bush would be a hero.
It would've helped the humanitarian crisis, but would've done nothing to hurt Hussein or speed disarmament. So yes, better sanctions have been necessary for the last 12 years, but now it's all moot because BushII is removing them entirely.