Oh…
Ok, I’ve been whooshed…
never mind…
:o
Jesus, I really should read those OP’s all the way through. I’m an idiot.
Let me start over…
AHA!!! What do you say to that, hawkies? You’re own presi…
naw…it’s not working. just pretend i never posted in this thread.
[skulking away]
The truely sad part is, it probably makes a significant difference that Bush is being boned here for DtC. Admit it Diogenes, you agree with the OP now don’t you? Irony be damned . 
Y’know, I didn’t support this immoral war, and I still don’t support this immoral war, but the OP is just a stupid asshat piece of nonsense.
OF COURSE you don’t. You don’t support ANYTHING this administration does. You have been bitching to all of us for more than 2 years about Bush. I mean it’s friggin’ unbelievable how much time you spend here bitching about GWB. JESUS CHRIST!
Been a while since I read through it, but IIRC, the use of teargas would be in violation of the Geneva conventions, which includes all chemical weapons, lethal or non-lethal. Under those conventions, as mentioned in the article, it would be a war crime. Does seem like a kind of minor thing to be a war-crime, but I guess it would still be one. Then again, the restrictions against using hollopoints or other types of ammunition designed to expand or fragment seems like a rather minor thing to be a war-crime, but it’s one very strictly followed by every nation, including the US. Though considering how things go, I rather doubt anyone will be charged with war crimes if US forces do use teargas… It does seem rather screwy to use one nation’s (probable, but unconfirmed) chemical weapon stocks as reason to attack that country, expressing a need for urgency because past actions show a willingness to use chemical weapons, and then going and using chemical weapons on them. Hipocracy? Check.
I also have the feeling that if Iraq launched a massive attack using teargas, in the same level that many were fearing would be done with more dangerous chemical weapons, there would be quite a bit of ranting about Iraq using chemical weapons, and I would not be surprised one little bit if the US carried through on its threat of treating the officers and soldiers who carried out the attack as war criminals.
It is kind of stupid to call teargas a WMD, but the only people who did compare teargas to WMDs were the ones attacking the OP. Then again, IMO, calling just about any chemical weapon a WMD is kind of stupid. They don’t cause much destruction at all, a prepared force will take minimal casualties, and their only real use for combat is suppression and area denial. They are much more dangerous to civilian populations than military units, but will usually cause less deaths than a similar explosive bomb. And we’re grouping these weapons in the same category as nukes? You’d get more “mass destruction” for a similarly-sized conventional warhead than you would a chemical one.
But you have to admit, the term “NBC weapons” just doesn’t have that dramatic and ominous sound that “Weapons of Mass Destruction” carries…
And an idiotic justification, too… it completely ignores ALL the factors involved in the situation and narrows it down to a 2-second sound bite. I don’t know what’s sadder… that Bush has done this, or that, apparently, Americans have become too collectively stupid that we can’t pay attention to any in-depth discussion…
(Yeah, I’m feeling a mite depressed, so forgive the melodrama…)
Sure, one wasn’t considered a WMD 90 years ago in WWI and the other wasn’t invented.