Re: 17,000 deaths a year from the cold

"George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Listen George. Until you find actual physical evidence that is evaluated
> by
> > trained legal and forensic people, you are blowing wind out your anus.
> >
> > ---------------- What is known ( fairy well established at
least ) ------
> >
> > Both Iran and Iraq used chemical agents in their conflict.
> >
> > Chemical weapons do not 'point fingers' back at the originators so some
> > conflicts have little evidence as to which side used them. There are
some
> > other incidents where it was clearly Iran or clearly Iraq.
>
> You obviously have not heard of chemical fingerprinting, a very common
test
> to determine the origin/manufacturer of a chemical.  You are such a dork!

Both Iran and Iraq used thiodyglycol as the precursor. It is relatively easy
to obtain under the designation of 'pesticide production' and easy to
convert to mustard gas with limited technology. Fingerprinting cannot make
fine distinction such as you suggest. You might be able to pinpoint the
country of origin of the precursor material but you cannot say who USED the
gas. Both Iran and Iraq could easily get the same material from the same
exporting country.

>
> > The origin of the materials for chemical and biological weapons was
often
> > the U.S. which backed the Iraqis in their war as a check on the power of
> > Islamic Iranian Fundamentalists.
>
> And Belgium, and Germany, etc, etc, etc.  Your point is?

That the use of chemical weapons in the war was supported by the U.S.

> You said above
> that "Chemical weapons do not 'point fingers' back at the originators so

They do not. If country A uses them or country B, unless there is something
unique about the precursor/production ( which there are not ) you cannot
distinguish which country threw it. There are many examples of this,
including the Kurdish village, which the CIA could not attribute to one side
or the other.

> some
> conflicts have little evidence as to which side used them."  I say they
can
> easily be traced.  and Yet you have no problem pointing the finger at the
US
> for providing chemical precursers despite the fact that you have no
evidence
> whatsoever that Iraq actually used those provided chemicals to make the
> weapons in question.

I have no problem finding who supplied the precursors. That can be done with
export receipts. My god you are a dim shit. The question is who USED them.
And the answer is BOTH countries.

>
> > The Geneva Convention ( to which both are a signatory ) prohibits the
use
> of
> > Chemical or Biological weapons but the fact is that both Iran, Iraq, and
> the
> > U.S. thumb their noses at the convention whenever they like. The real
> > recourse for the convention is that once one side uses them, the other
is
> > free to do so.
>
> Using that seriously fucked up reasoning, its ok to pollute Canadian
waters
> with our pollution because they are doing it to us.  Your argument is
flawed
> kimosabi.

You failed the Logic 0.0009 course. There is no moral evaluation of what is
":right" here. When one talks about a protocol or treaty one is talking
about legal sanction. If morals were being discussed, the U.S.'s massive
stockpiles and misuse during tests would be the talking point.

Obviously use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons is abhorent and
thus banned in the first place. I have been talking about the practical
legal ramifications. There is no basis for invasion based on the use of
Chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq war. It was not a threat to the U.S. nor
is there any sanction from the use during this conflict. The WMD
restrictions stem from the Kuwait war and the U.N restriictions on military
equipment that were imposed.

>
> > There were approximately 375,000 war dead on the Iraqi sides so until
you
> > have accounted for those 375,000 casualties you have no 'excess' of mass
> > burials.
>
> You are a tea-totally idiot.  You must really get your jollies off sucking
> all that wahhabi dick.

This is about as rational as the rest of your idiocies. I.E. not much.