Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 91

Thread: Dozens died in Syria-Iran missile test

  1. #41
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by mikenostic View Post
    Buffalo,

    Considering you have a great point there, expect Sam to try to discredit your post by saying your sources are from Fox news or something like that.
    Why?
    Its common news.
    In August 1991, UN arms inspectors - UNSCOM - compiled a list of companies which had supplied technology to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons program. The list was not made public, but governments can obtain information on the involvement of companies from their own country upon special request to the UN.(5) The German, US, UK, French, Russian, and Chinese governments should release the list of companies which supplied technology to the Iraqi chemical, biological and other weapons programs.

    German companies have been subjected to criminal investigations on suspicion of violation of the arms embargo against Iraq. The UK and the USA have been accused of supporting the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons program through the sale of chemicals and technology.

    "British firms sold thousands of kilos of the basic ingredients of nerve and mustard gas to Iraq and Iran last year, the Department of Trade confirmed yesterday... the Department's figures show that 2,000 kilograms of methyl phosphonyl difluoride has been exported to Iraq. This is the basic ingredient of the nerve gas Sarin... British firms also sold 38,000 kilograms of dimethyl methylphosphonate and other Sarin ingredients to Iraq." Andrew Beitch, the Guardian, 6 April 1984.

    Four years after this article was published, in March 1988, an estimated 5,000 people were deliberately killed and thousands wounded as a result of chemical weapon attacks by Iraqi forces on the town of Halabja in Northern Iraq. Most of the victims were civilians, many of them children and women.
    http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/422063023.html


    Detailed list of US companies:
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USmadeIraq.html

  2. #42
    Stop pretending you're smart! mikenostic's Avatar
    Posts
    4,624
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    That is used for defense purposes. I see no problem with testing chemical and biological agents in order to find out what we're up against and how to defend against it. Same principle as practicing medicine. You have to experiment sometimes. Big deal.
    Sorry for not clarifying that. I shall now; The U.S. has never used biological or chemical weapons in combat, on another country.

    Did you miss this part?
    The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples to Iraq under Saddam Hussein up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research.
    Do you honestly think we're going to equip another country with WMDs so they can use it to kill someone else? Conventional weapons? Sure, but not WMDs.

  3. #43
    Registered Senior Member Xev's Avatar
    Posts
    10,943
    Quote Originally Posted by mikenostic
    The U.S. has never used biological or chemical weapons in combat, on another country.
    Agent Orange. Now, whether the government knew at the time that it was carcinogenic, is up for debate. But we have used a chemical weapon, if not explicitly against people.

  4. #44
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post


    Most of the tests made public today used the benign bacterium bacillus globigii to simulate how biological weapons agents would spread through the hold of a ship.

    None of the tests were done to gauge the human response to chemical or biological weapons, Kilpatrick said. In each test, military personnel were protected from the agents by shelter, protective clothing or vaccinations.



    Under the Geneva Convention, IHL, and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction White Phoprous is a legal use item,

    From the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, Article II (definitions) :

    "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

    (a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

    (b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

    (c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    I don't think designing a weapon is automatic assumption for attack; more like deterrence. Imagine how nervous a nuclear Israel must make them, considering the tendency of Israel to indulge in secret raids and ground troop invasions.
    they weren't designing a weapon. they were trying to make the weapon war ready -- to mount it on a missile. this is a hostile act. why would Syria do that? any act that upsets the scale of power is antagonistic

  6. #46
    Stop pretending you're smart! mikenostic's Avatar
    Posts
    4,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Xev View Post
    Agent Orange. Now, whether the government knew at the time that it was carcinogenic, is up for debate. But we have used a chemical weapon, if not explicitly against people.
    Yeah. Forgot about that one. However, it was intended to disintegrate the foliage of the vegetation so the VC would have a harder time hiding. It wasn't intended to be used on personnel.

    Dang. I should have clarified even more. We've never used biological or chemical weapons on personnel, with the intent to use them on personnel.

  7. #47
    The US is in the process of incinerating all of it's chemical weapons at Umatilla. They have already destroyed about 30%.

  8. #48
    Registered Senior Member Xev's Avatar
    Posts
    10,943
    Quote Originally Posted by mikenostic View Post
    Yeah. Forgot about that one. However, it was intended to disintegrate the foliage of the vegetation so the VC would have a harder time hiding. It wasn't intended to be used on personnel.

    Dang. I should have clarified even more. We've never used biological or chemical weapons on personnel, with the intent to use them on personnel.
    We did manufacture poison gases during the first world war, but I'm unclear as to whether we actually used them or not.
    And yes, I know agent orange wasn't (well, officially) meant to be a human toxin. Whether the US government knew of the health risks involved is, as I said, up to debate. It's been established that the chemical manufacturers did.

  9. #49
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    All you have shown is that the U.S. identified all site that contained chemical weapons, what you failed to do is point out that, the U.S. has been in the process of destroying those Chemical weapons since 2000,

    Asia Times
    Syria's chemical weapons program dates back to the early 1970s when they first ... the US destroy more than 98 percent of its chemical weapons stockpile. ...
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED19Ak05.html

    imson Center - Stimson Center Releases Progress Report On US ...
    Stimson Center Releases Progress Report on US Program to Destroy Its Chemical Weapons. CONTACT: Elizabeth Blumenthal (202) 223-5956, ext 3466 ...
    http://www.stimson.org/media/?SN=ME20040709701

    We haven't been trying to mount them on Missiles, we have removed them from the inventory, in fact we have been helping Russia, Albania, Libya, to destroy their stock piles to, so what the hell is Syria and Iran trying to do? Mount their Chemical weapons on a IRBM, a Scud, yes S.A.M. more vomit from you, all is fair if it is done in the name of Islam and Arab Victimhood, yes what kind of Victim do you have when they arm long range offensive weapons with Chemical Agents.

  10. #50
    Registered Senior Member Xev's Avatar
    Posts
    10,943
    All you have shown is that the U.S. identified all site that contained chemical weapons
    The United States has met and surpassed the 29 April 2000 disposal milestone of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). By this date, participating CWC nations must have destroyed one percent of their Category 1 chemical weapons (this amount includes stockpiled as well as certain other chemical weapons known as non-stockpile chemical materiel). The United States has destroyed over 15 percent of its Category 1 chemical weapons since the CWC entered into force, far surpassing the disposal milestone. The next CWC milestone was April 29, 2002, when nations must have destroyed 20 percent of their Category 1 chemical weapons.
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/cw.htm

    Shocking, seems we have to know where they are in order to destroy them.

  11. #51
    they weren't designing a weapon. they were trying to make the weapon war ready -- to mount it on a missile. this is a hostile act. why would Syria do that? any act that upsets the scale of power is antagonistic
    I dunno, why would Israel do a hostile act such as sending in spec-ops troops and bombing Syria? Not to mention the flyovers of the president's house back when they invaded Lebanon last year and numerous other things they've done. Hell, I'm surprised it's taken them this long to do whatever it is they're doing since it's pretty obvious we're gonna attack both Iran and Syria; at least now someone is preparing to put up a fight, unlike the joke of the first days of Iraq.

    - N

  12. #52
    Stop pretending you're smart! mikenostic's Avatar
    Posts
    4,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Neildo View Post
    I dunno, why would Israel do a hostile act such as sending in spec-ops troops and bombing Syria?
    Not for sure, but I read that Israel bombed trucks that were carrying weapons destined for Hezbollah fighters.
    The spec op troops were the target 'painters'.

    Not to mention the flyovers of the president's house back when they invaded Lebanon last year and numerous other things they've done.
    I'd bet large sums of money that Israel did that to let Syria know that they can't run or hide. They know where to find them.


    Hell, I'm surprised it's taken them this long to do whatever it is they're doing since it's pretty obvious we're gonna attack both Iran and Syria; at least now someone is preparing to put up a fight, unlike the joke of the first days of Iraq.
    I'm sure the U.S. and the EU have something to do with Israel not going balls to the wall on them. Israel attacking Syria or Iran could cause the whole region to destablize much further than it already is.

  13. #53
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by mikenostic View Post
    Yeah. Forgot about that one. However, it was intended to disintegrate the foliage of the vegetation so the VC would have a harder time hiding. It wasn't intended to be used on personnel.

    Dang. I should have clarified even more. We've never used biological or chemical weapons on personnel, with the intent to use them on personnel.


    As well as explosive bombs the United States Air Force dropped a considerable number of incendiary devices. The most infamous of these was napalm, a mixture of petrol and a chemical thickner which produces a tough sticky gel that attaches itself to the skin. The igniting agent, white phosphorus, continues burning for a considerable amount of time. A reported three quarters of all napalm victims in Vietnam were burned through to the muscle and bone (fifth degree burns). The pain caused by the burning is so traumatic that it often causes death.

    During the war about 10% of Vietnam was intensively sprayed with 72 million litres of chemicals, of which 66% was Agent Orange. Some of this landed on their own troops and soon after the war ended veterans began complaining about serious health problems. There was also a high incidence of their children being born limbless or with Down's syndrome and spina bifida. The veterans sued the defoliant manufacturers and this was settled out of court in 1984 by the payment of $180 million.

    The TCCD dioxin used in Agent Orange seeped into the soil and water supply, and therefore into the food chain. In this way it passed from mother to foetus in the womb. In Vietnam the dioxide remains in the soil and is now damaging the health of the grandchildren of the war's victims.

    A report published in 2003 claimed that 650,000 people in Vietnam were still suffering from chronic conditions as a result of the chemicals dropped on the country during the war. Since the war the Vietnamese Red Cross has registered an estimated one million people disabled by Agent Orange. It is estimated that 500,000 people in Vietnam have died from the numerous health problems created by these chemical weapons.

    http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNchemical.htm

  14. #54
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    16,556
    Quote Originally Posted by mikenostic
    The U.S. has never used biological or chemical weapons in combat, on another country.
    Biological, maybe not - unless you count the Indian wars. But chemical, definitely: The US has used WP and napalm on people, in combat, in Iraq.

    Also in Vietnam.

    The US has also supplied several of its proxy and colonial armies - such as Saddam's - with the ingredients and other technology for chemical weapons (supplying the ingrediants is supplying the weapons - they have to be made fresh before actual use. They don't store easily or well.)

    Iran may be getting desperate - they may have actually believed themselves they could make nukes in time to forestall the coming storm, up until they got into the program and found out why it takes a large industrial power to do that.

    Or they may have been "helping" Syria the way the US "helped" Saddam. Iranians enjoy the distinction of having been direct victims of US supplied chemical weapons,including sarin. That may have reduced any moral or ethical objections to them they had.

  15. #55
    Registered Senior Member Xev's Avatar
    Posts
    10,943
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Biological, maybe not - unless you count the Indian wars. But chemical, definitely: The US has used WP and napalm on people, in combat, in Iraq.
    What is WP?
    And doesn't napalm constitute an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon per se?

    Quote Originally Posted by SAM
    As well as explosive bombs the United States Air Force dropped a considerable number of incendiary devices. The most infamous of these was napalm,
    Again, until I am shown to be wrong, I believe that napalm is classified as an incendiary agent.

  16. #56
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Xev View Post
    What is WP?
    And doesn't napalm constitute an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon per se?



    Again, until I am shown to be wrong, I believe that napalm is classified as an incendiary agent.
    Is an incendiary agent a chemical?

  17. #57
    Wasn't this thread about a Syria-Iran missile test?

    Why all the discussion about the US?

  18. #58
    Registered Senior Member Xev's Avatar
    Posts
    10,943
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Is an incendiary agent a chemical?
    Is it a form of chemical warfare according to international treaty?
    Everything, SAM, is made out of chemicals. By your logic, shooting someone is a form of chemical warfare.

  19. #59
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    16,556
    WP is White Phosphorus. It is not specifically listed among "chemical weapons", and the US has refused to amend the official treaty lists or sign treaties banning its use against people. The US has also denied using it against people in combat, until caught red-handed.

    I leave it to you to judge whether WP used against people is a "chemical weapon" in fact:
    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    White phosphorus can cause injuries and death in three ways: by burning deep into soft tissue, by being inhaled as a smoke and by being ingested. Extensive exposure in any way can be fatal.

    [edit] Effects of exposure to WP weapons
    Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multi-organ failure.[21] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed, in some cases burning right down to the bone. In some cases, burns may be limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed. According to GlobalSecurity.org, quoted by "The Guardian", "White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries"[22] .


    [edit] Exposure and inhalation of smoke
    Burning WP produces a hot, dense white smoke. Most forms of smoke are not hazardous in the kinds of concentrations produced by a battlefield smoke shell. However, exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) does have the potential to cause illness or even death.

    WP smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. With intense exposures, a very explosive cough may occur. However, no recorded casualties from the effects of WP smoke alone have occurred in combat operations and to date there are no confirmed deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes.[22] The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has set an acute inhalation Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for white phosphorus smoke of 0.02 mg/m³, the same as fuel oil fumes. (By contrast, the chemical weapon mustard gas is 30 times more potent: 0.0007 mg/m³.)[23]


    [edit] Oral ingestion
    The accepted lethal dose when white phosphorus is ingested orally is 1 mg per kg of body weight, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death.[24] It may also cause liver, heart or kidney damage.[25][26] There are reports of individuals with a history of oral ingestion who have passed phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome").[24]

  20. #60
    All I know about napalm is...it sticks to kids.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By madanthonywayne in forum World Events
    Last Post: 01-02-08, 01:14 PM
    Replies: 444
  2. By Exhumed in forum World Events
    Last Post: 09-13-07, 02:07 PM
    Replies: 14
  3. By Brian Foley in forum World Events
    Last Post: 05-17-07, 03:09 AM
    Replies: 26
  4. By Raven in forum World Events
    Last Post: 01-19-06, 12:46 AM
    Replies: 44
  5. By Kiwi123 in forum World Events
    Last Post: 11-08-05, 08:54 PM
    Replies: 26

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •