The US, GB & Israel Used Chemical Weapons

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So you advocate getting rid of bullets, since the lead in them causes problems? Perhaps we should go in to wars fighting with sticks and stones?

well that do break bones...

[Stellar]

Maybe we shouldn't get into any wars? Just a thought.....

Indeed! The entire world should avoid wars! I agree with that thought. Having said that, it seems people are unable to avoid violence, so lets be realistic here with our demands.

The goal of war is to kill the enemy so that they can't hurt you anymore. People are going to get hurt, people are going to die. You can't have a war and yet avoid people getting hurt. This is the very reason why war should be avoided... but when it can not be avoided, you cant demand one side essentially fight with sticks and stones. Its completely irrational.

[Yamato]

Indeed! The entire world should avoid wars! I agree with that thought. Having said that, it seems people are unable to avoid violence, so lets be realistic here with our demands.

The goal of war is to kill the enemy so that they can't hurt you anymore. People are going to get hurt, people are going to die. You can't have a war and yet avoid people getting hurt. This is the very reason why war should be avoided... but when it can not be avoided, you cant demand one side essentially fight with sticks and stones. Its completely irrational.

It can be avoided. If someone has actually made you believe that starting a war on Syria is unavoidable I'm sorry.

it seems people are unable to avoid violence

It seems governments are unable to avoid violence. Even against non-violent people who never hurt anyone. They can't help but to violently put them in a cage or even kill their children because they're suspects on some unknown analyst's list for some unknown reason.

[Harte]

Your an idiot. Seriously, the links I posted above PROVE that you are wrong.

Here IS ANOTHER site:

Army to be sued for war crimes over its role in Fallujah attacks

Parents of children with birth defects say Britain knew of US chemical weapons use

Link: http://www.independe...ks-1961475.html

You don't appear to understand the meaning of the word "prove."

And, could you tell us what became of the lawsuit you trumpeted?

If you will look at the links I provided, you will see the pictures Jeremiah posted came from the above news stories. And the links provide the data.

Please note:

There are also other avenues of investigation besides uranium weapons. One recent study examines the possible contributions of mercury and lead to the health crisis in Iraq. Metal Contamination and the Epidemic of Congenital Defects in Iraqi Cities, by Al-Sabbak et al, compared the levels of lead and mercury in hair, nail and teeth samples from Fallujah and Basrah. The study found that the population studied in Fallujah had been exposed to high levels of "two well-known neurotoxic metals, Pb and Hg".

In Basrah, the authors found even higher levels of lead exposure than in Fallujah. Basrah has the highest ever reported level of neural tube defects, and the numbers continue to climb. The authors of this study note:

"Toxic metals such as mercury (Hg) and Pb are an integral part of war ammunitions and are extensively used in the making of bullets and bombs … the bombardment of al-Basrah and Fallujah may have exacerbated public exposure to metals, possibly culminating in the current epidemic of birth defects."

The conclusion of this study is not abstract, and it is not merely an intellectual or medical issue. It has real world importance. The modern means of warfare may be inherently indiscriminate. This is a scientific finding worthy of discussion at the highest levels of academia, politics and international affairs. While it may yet get some attention outside the borders of the United States, its "controversial" nature (its implications of the US military's guilt in creating possibly the worst public health crisis in history) ensures that it will be ignored at all costs by the callous and corrupt US government and its subservient media establishment.

Source

That's some evidence the other way.

I have to laugh at the reporter's sensibilities though. "The modern means of warfare may be inherently indiscriminate." LOL

I suppose earlier "means of warfare" were less indiscriminate?

Harte

[Yamato]

Means of warfare, yes. Politics, no.

Killing with forks, knives, staves, swords, axes and hammers was far more discriminate surely. When women and children were killed in wars over thousands of years, the term "collateral damage" never came up because it wouldn't have made sense. So when Christians killed every man, woman and child in Jerusalem after they sacked the city in their great Crusade, that wasn't indiscriminate.

[Yamato]

We should be making phone calls and sending emails to the Very Important People to stop this lunatic Obama Administration from starting WW3. Just a thought.

Instead, we're playing partisan politics over making mousefart tweaks to Obama's foreign policy. John "We need to do more in Syria, and faster" McCain is the only appreciable difference to Obushma Inc. or the rest of this clueless litany of federal embarrassments in our legislature.

[Stellar]

It can be avoided. If someone has actually made you believe that starting a war on Syria is unavoidable I'm sorry.

It seems governments are unable to avoid violence. Even against non-violent people who never hurt anyone. They can't help but to violently put them in a cage or even kill their children because they're suspects on some unknown analyst's list for some unknown reason.

I'm not referring to Syria, I'm referring to war in general. Don't you think it's a bit absurd to demand that one side stop using bullets because lead is toxic?

[Phaeton80]

Indeed! The entire world should avoid wars! I agree with that thought. Having said that, it seems people are unable to avoid violence, so lets be realistic here with our demands.

The goal of war is to kill the enemy so that they can't hurt you anymore. People are going to get hurt, people are going to die. You can't have a war and yet avoid people getting hurt. This is the very reason why war should be avoided... but when it can not be avoided, you cant demand one side essentially fight with sticks and stones. Its completely irrational.

What youre saying is that we should continue this 'peace through war' tactic that has braught us somuch in the (recent and not so recent) past. Is that right?

I wonder why there havent been any efforts what so ever to start up some sort of dialogue between the West and Syria / Assad.. Seems like the first thing to do, if you have the best interest of the people in mind that is.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Phaeton80

[Yamato]

I'm not referring to Syria, I'm referring to war in general. Don't you think it's a bit absurd to demand that one side stop using bullets because lead is toxic?

If you're referring to war in general, Syria qualifies. I bet if some gun control nut started flopping around that argument you wouldn't be the one standing in his way.

[Stellar]

What youre saying is that we should continue this 'peace through war' tactic that has braught us somuch in the (recent and not so recent) past. Is that right?

I wonder why there havent been any efforts what so ever to start up some sort of dialogue between the West and Syria / Assad.. Seems like the first thing to do, if you have the best interest of the people in mind that is.

No, that is clearly not what I'm saying. In saying that its absurd to cry out that one side is completely immoral because they use bullets (because the lead in them is toxic).

[Stellar]

If you're referring to war in general, Syria qualifies. I bet if some gun control nut started flopping around that argument you wouldn't be the one standing in his way.

No, Syria doesn't "qualify" because I'm not speaking about whether any one specific war is or is not justified, which is what you're trying to change the subject into in order to avoid dealing with the harsh fact that the line of argument that I made my original comment on is absurd.

[Yamato]

No, Syria doesn't "qualify" because I'm not speaking about whether any one specific war is or is not justified, which is what you're trying to change the subject into in order to avoid dealing with the harsh fact that the line of argument that I made my original comment on is absurd.

In hypothetical cases where war cannot be avoided, I.E. WHEN WE'RE ATTACKED, they're justified. Principle. What a concept.

[Stellar]

In hypothetical cases where war cannot be avoided, I.E. WHEN WE'RE ATTACKED, they're justified. Principle. What a concept.

So bullets are ok to use in that instance?

[Yamato]

So bullets are ok to use in that instance?

Weapons are irrelevant. Principle applies to all weapons.

You make me think you feel the need to micromanage another crisis, to pour the money down the politically correct holes.

[Stellar]

Weapons are irrelevant. Principle applies to all weapons.

You make me think you feel the need to micromanage another crisis, to pour the money down the politically correct holes.

Weapons don't seem to be irrelevant to Jeremiah, to whom I was replying to in the first place...

[Babe Ruth]

Harte

Regarding the presence of Pb and Hg as toxins, and the suggestion that they are present as a natural result of conventional weapons, it seems that if that were the case (and it could be IMO) then similar disease levels would be found everywhere, and conventional weapons are employed country-wide.

But if they are found only in Basra or Fallujah, or the rates are significantly higher there, then it suggests that something else was present besides conventional weapons, eh?

[Harte]

Harte

Regarding the presence of Pb and Hg as toxins, and the suggestion that they are present as a natural result of conventional weapons, it seems that if that were the case (and it could be IMO) then similar disease levels would be found everywhere, and conventional weapons are employed country-wide.

But if they are found only in Basra or Fallujah, or the rates are significantly higher there, then it suggests that something else was present besides conventional weapons, eh?

Yes. Very poor hygiene and substandard (if any) public health and sanitation works.

Harte

[+and-then]

Yes. Very poor hygiene and substandard (if any) public health and sanitation works.

Harte

Possibly residue from previously moved toxic substances that were stored or manufactured near there? Possibly... nah... it must be the Great Satan

[Yamato]

Possibly residue from previously moved toxic substances that were stored or manufactured near there? Possibly...

The same conjecture goes for Syria; stop trying to have it both ways.

It's amazing how issues like this determine whose army we're really marching in. I see you there, behind Obama...

[Yamato]

Weapons don't seem to be irrelevant to Jeremiah, to whom I was replying to in the first place...

I'm interested in what we're going to do about this, not Jeremiah.

[CORK_SNIPER]

Nothing new to me. The US finally got the excuse they desperately been searching for. Took a few years but better late than never. Only 1 more country on there list - Iran. Will WMD be the excuse for this invasion too? I give it 10 years before they try that one.

Syria has nothing whatsoever to do with US.Obama should pay more attention to his bum chums in UK & stay out of it.

Then again when Oil is on the table US do What they do best

[Michelle]

Then again when Oil is on the table US do What they do best

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=sy&v=88

Syria produces very little oil

[Kowalski]

Then again when Oil is on the table US do What they do best

http://www.indexmund....aspx?c=sy&v=88

Syria produces very little oil

Close. I believe it has more to do with their Natural Gas Pipeline....

Link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-geopolitics-of-gas-and-the-syrian-crisis-syrian-opposition-armed-to-thwart-construction-of-iran-iraq-syria-gas-pipeline/5337452

It is not difficult to notice that the rebellion in Syria began to grow two years ago, almost at the same time as the signing of a memorandum in Bushehr on June 25, 2011 regarding the construction of a new Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline… It is to stretch 1500 km from Asaluyeh on the largest gas field in the world, North Dome/South Pars (shared between Qatar and Iran) to Damascus. The length of pipeline on the territory of Iran will be 225 km, in Iraq 500 km, and in Syria 500-700 km. Later it may be extended along the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea to Greece. The possibility of supplying liquefied gas to Europe via Syria’s Mediterranean ports is also under consideration. Investments in this project equal 10 billion dollars. (1)

This pipeline, dubbed the «Islamic pipeline», was supposed to start operation in the period from 2014 to 2016. Its projected capacity is 110 million cubic meters of gas per day (40 billion cubic meters a year). Iraq, Syria and Lebanon have already declared their need for Iranian gas (25-30 million cubic meters per day for Iraq, 20-25 million cubic meters for Syria, and 5-7 million cubic meters until 2020 for Lebanon). Some of the gas will be supplied via the Arab gas transportation system to Jordan. Experts believe that this project could be an alternative to the Nabucco gas pipeline being promoted by the European Union (with a planned capacity of 30 billion cubic meters of gas per year), which doesn’t have sufficient reserves. It was planned to run the Nabucco pipeline from Iraq, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan through the territory of Turkey. At first Iran was also considered as a resource base, but later it was excluded from the project. After the signing of the memorandum on the Islamic Pipeline, the head of the National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC), Javad Oji, stated that South Pars, with recoverable reserves of 16 trillion cubic meters of gas, is a «reliable source of gas, which is a prerequisite for the building of a pipeline which Nabucco does not have».It is easy to observe that about 20 billion cubic meters per year will remain from this pipeline for Europe, which would be able to compete with Nabucco’s 30 billion, but not the 63 billion from the South Stream.

A gas pipeline from Iran would be highly profitable for Syria. Europe would gain from it as well, but clearly someone in the West didn’t like it. The West’s gas-supplying allies in the Persian Gulf weren’t happy with it either, nor was would-be no. 1 gas transporter Turkey, as it would then be out of the game.

Another link: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline_092013

[Babe Ruth]

Nothing new to me. The US finally got the excuse they desperately been searching for. Took a few years but better late than never. Only 1 more country on there list - Iran. Will WMD be the excuse for this invasion too? I give it 10 years before they try that one.

Syria has nothing whatsoever to do with US.Obama should pay more attention to his bum chums in UK & stay out of it.

Then again when Oil is on the table US do What they do best

I had to chuckle yesterday while watching a silent TV in the small diner I was eating in. CNN was on, and I could only read. One statement claimed that Syria had WMD, and that was the excuse for any invasion.

Good Lord, shades of WMD in Iraq! And there will be a certain number of americans, this time Obamabots, who will believe that sophistry.

[Harte]

Close. I believe it has more to do with their Natural Gas Pipeline....

Link: http://www.globalres...ipeline/5337452

Another link: http://www.thedailys...pipeline_092013

No doubt. After all, it's not like the US is awash in natural gas or anything.

Oh. Wait.

Harte