Dixie, are you delusional, a liar, or just wrong?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I have never said that in some circumstances it is not a WMD...!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Web sites don't determine what is or isn't a WMD. I think the term originated in the Geneva Conventions, and applies to all lethal nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Sarin is not always a WMD, before it's weaponized, it is just a deadly chemical agent used to make WMD's, but it's still illegal to stockpile or produce, as well as the precursors.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Dixie. To be a WMD does the weapon have to be capable of mass destruction or is WMD a misnomer?
Ohhh, so because YOU THINK the term applies to all ethal nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.. it must.
So now you are changing your tune, you previously said Seirn is ALWAYS a WMD! Once its been weaponized however you belive it will ALWAYS be a WMD?
You claim the various documents you refered to define Seirn as a WMD... I am asking you to show me the wording because you are untrustworthy in your claims!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/bact.htm
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (1972)
TIAS 8062
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 26 March 1975
The States Parties to this Convention,
Determine to act with a view to achieving effective progress toward general and complete disarmament, including the prohibition and elimination of all types of weapons of mass destruction, and convinced that the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons and their elimination, through effective measures, will facilitate the achievement of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective control,
Recognizing the important significance of the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on June 17, 1925, and conscious also of the contribution which the said Protocol has already made and continues to make, to mitigating the horrors of war,
Reaffirming their adherence to the principles and objectives of that Protocol and calling upon all States to comply strictly with them,
Recalling that the General Assembly of the United Nations has repeatedly condemned all actions contrary to the principles and objectives of the Geneva Protocol of June 17, 1925,
Desiring to contribute to the strengthening of confidence between peoples and the general improvement of the international atmosphere,
Desiring also to contribute to the realization of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Convinced of the importance and urgency of eliminating from the arsenals of States, through effective measures, such dangerous weapons of mass destruction as those using chemical or bacteriological (biological) agents,
Recognizing that an agreement on the prohibition of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons represents a first possible step towards the achievement of agreement on effective measures also for the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons, and determined to continue negotiations to that end,
Determined, for the sake of all mankind, to exclude completely the possibility of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins being used as weapons,
Convinced that such use would be repugnant to the conscience of mankind and that no effort should be spared to minimize this risk,
Have agreed as follows:
Art 1 Art 2 Art 3 Art 4 Art 5 Art 6 Art 7 Art 8
Art 9 Art 10 Art 11 Art 12 Art 13 Art 14 Art 15
ARTICLE I
Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never in any circumstance to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain:
(1) Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;
(2) Weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.
ARTICLE II
Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to destroy, or to divert to peaceful purposes, as soon as possible but not later than nine months after the entry into force of the Convention, all agents, toxins, weapons, equipment and means of delivery specified in article I of the Convention, which are in its possession or under its jurisdiction or control. In implementing the provisions of this article all necessary safety precautions shall be observed to protect populations and the environment.
ARTICLE III
Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, directly or indirectly, and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any State, group of States or international organizations to manufacture or otherwise acquire any of the agents, toxins, weapons, equipment or means of delivery specified in article I of the Convention.
ARTICLE IV
Each State Party to this Convention shall, in accordance with its constitutional processes, takes any necessary measures to prohibit and prevent the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition or retention of the agents, toxins, weapons, equipment and means of delivery specified in article I of the Convention, within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction or under its control anywhere.
ARTICLE V
The States Parties to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to cooperate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objective of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention. Consultation and cooperation pursuant to this article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter.
ARTICLE VI
(1) Any State Party to this Convention which finds that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all possible evidence confirming its validity, as well as a request for its consideration by the Security Council.
(2) Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to cooperate in carrying out any investigation which the Security Council may initiate, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of the complaint received by the Council. The Security Council shall inform the States Parties to the Convention of the results of the investigation.
ARTICLE VII
Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to provide or support assistance, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, to any Party to the Convention which so requests, if the Security Council decides that such Party has been exposed to danger as a result of violation of the Convention.
ARTICLE VIII
Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as in any way limiting or detracting from the obligations assumed by any State under the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on June 17, 1925.
ARTICLE IX
Each State Party to this Convention affirms the recognized objective of effective prohibition of chemical weapons and, to this end, undertakes to continue negotiations in good faith with a view to reaching early agreement on effective measures for the prohibition of their development, production and stockpiling and for their destruction, and on appropriate measures concerning equipment and means of delivery specifically designed for the production or use of chemical agents for weapons purposes.
ARTICLE X
(1) The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the use of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins for peaceful purposes. Parties to the Convention in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing individually or together with other States or international organizations to the further development and application of scientific discoveries in the field of bacteriology (biology) for prevention of disease, or for other peaceful purposes.
(2) This Convention shall be implemented in a manner designed to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of States Parties to the Convention or international cooperation in the field of peaceful bacteriological (biological) activities, including the international exchange of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins and equipment for the processing, use or production of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.
ARTICLE XI
Any State Party may propose amendments to this Convention. Amendments shall enter into force for each State Party accepting the amendments upon their acceptance by a majority of the States Parties to the Convention and thereafter for each remaining State Party on the date of acceptance by it.
ARTICLE XII
Five years after the entry into force of this Convention, or earlier if it is requested by a majority of the Parties to the Convention by submitting a proposal to this effect to the Depositary Governments, a conference of States Parties to the Convention shall be held at Geneva, Switzerland, to review the operation of the Convention, with a view to assuring that the purposes of the preamble and the provisions of the Convention, including the provisions concerning negotiations on chemical weapons, are being realized. Such review shall take into account any new scientific and technological developments relevant to the Convention.
ARTICLE XIII
(1) This Convention shall be of unlimited duration.
(2) Each State Party to this Convention shall in exercising its natural sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Convention if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of the Convention, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties to the Convention and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
ARTICLE XIV
(1) This Convention shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Convention before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph (3) of this Article may accede to it at any time.
(2) This Convention shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification and instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which are hereby designated the Depositary Governments.
(3) This Convention shall enter into force after the deposit of instruments of ratification by twenty-two Governments, including the Governments designated as Depositaries of the Convention.
(4) For States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instrument of ratification or accession.
(5) The Depositary Governments shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or of accession and the date of the entry into force of this Convention, and of the receipt of other notices.
(6) This Convention shall be registered by the Depositary Governments pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.
ARTICLE XV
This Convention, the English, Russian, French, Spanish and Chinese texts of which are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Depositary Governments. Duly certified copies of the Convention shall be transmitted by the Depositary Governments of the signatory and acceding States.
===================================
Now, I have a simple question for a simple mind.... Regardless of what you consider to be a WMD, and regardless of what the CWC defines as a WMD, was Iraq in violation of this treaty? Yes or No?
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Dixie, why are you avoiding my question? (I know the answer to this question.)
Does a WMD have to have the capability to create mass destruction?
Does a WMD have to have the capability to create mass destruction?
maineman
Banned
who gives a shit? there are lots of countries that violate treaties... must we invade conquer and occupy them all? rusty old cans of goo that used to be weapons grade sarin is not reason to waste the lives of thousands and flush billions of dollars that could be better spent down the shitter all the while making us LESS safe than we were before we invaded.
Again, while what you posted does mention WMD, it does not say that Seirn is a WMD... You are CONFUSED. Just because a document talks about both Seirn and WMD does not mean that document defines seirn as a WMD!
This is stuff they should have taught you in Grade School! But I know you were in Alabama soo I can understand!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Why haven't any of you pinheads answered my question? Why are you continuing to insist that Sarin is not a WMD, as defined by the CWC and GC? Why are you continuing to take cheap shots at me personally, my state of my education, rather than addressing the topic? The posted document, Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (1972), defines Sarin, along with other chemical and biological weapons, as weapons of mass destruction. You want me to post a specific line of text that reads; "We hereby proclaim that all Sarin is a WMD!" And I am afraid that line doesn't exist anywhere, but that doesn't mean that Sarin has not been defined as a WMD, nor does it mean that you would accept the body who determined it, even if I showed you the exact text, I am sure you'd have some ridiculous spin, regardless of what you are shown, because in your pinhead minds, you've decided that Sarin isn't a WMD, and nothing is going to change it.
"Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a term used to describe any nuclear, chemical or biological weapon produced for the sole purpose of killing people. It was so defined by the 1926 Geneva Convention, the 1972 Chemical Weapons Convention, and numerous UN resolutions. It's not a subjective term applied to only weapons capable of mass destruction by your own standards of judgement, it is a term specifically applied to certain nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and without regard for their age or what some pinhead weapons inspector's assessment of their capacity is.
Your stupid argument is little more than obfuscation. It's like telling your wife.... That's not lipstick on my collar, it's a greasy red cosmetic substance! The point is moot to begin with, because regardless of what you personally want to call the Sarin bombs, they violate the fuck out of treaties signed by Iraq.
"Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a term used to describe any nuclear, chemical or biological weapon produced for the sole purpose of killing people. It was so defined by the 1926 Geneva Convention, the 1972 Chemical Weapons Convention, and numerous UN resolutions. It's not a subjective term applied to only weapons capable of mass destruction by your own standards of judgement, it is a term specifically applied to certain nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and without regard for their age or what some pinhead weapons inspector's assessment of their capacity is.
Your stupid argument is little more than obfuscation. It's like telling your wife.... That's not lipstick on my collar, it's a greasy red cosmetic substance! The point is moot to begin with, because regardless of what you personally want to call the Sarin bombs, they violate the fuck out of treaties signed by Iraq.
maineman
Banned
the fact is: the degraded decomposed 20 year old sarin in the rusty cannisters was no more a weapon of mass destruction than the turd in my toilet was a steak.
No one is saying that a fresh, current batch of sarin mounted on the tip of a cruise missile is not a WMD..
What we are saying is that the 20 year old rusty Sarin cannisters found in Iraq were NOT WMD and had not been WMD for several decades prior to our invasion.
No one is saying that a fresh, current batch of sarin mounted on the tip of a cruise missile is not a WMD..
What we are saying is that the 20 year old rusty Sarin cannisters found in Iraq were NOT WMD and had not been WMD for several decades prior to our invasion.
Dixie you said...
""Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a term used to describe any nuclear, chemical or biological weapon produced for the sole purpose of killing people."
That is your defination, just because you call any nuclear, chemical of biological weapon produced for the sole purpose of killing people does not make it so!
So based on your defination of WMD... if I make a turd bomb ( a biological weapon ) and am dumb enough to think it will kill someone, so I
(make it for the sole purpose of killing people) you would call that a WMD?
If you have something to back up this claim show us, if not STFU.... you are making an ass of yourself!
""Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a term used to describe any nuclear, chemical or biological weapon produced for the sole purpose of killing people."
That is your defination, just because you call any nuclear, chemical of biological weapon produced for the sole purpose of killing people does not make it so!
So based on your defination of WMD... if I make a turd bomb ( a biological weapon ) and am dumb enough to think it will kill someone, so I
(make it for the sole purpose of killing people) you would call that a WMD?
If you have something to back up this claim show us, if not STFU.... you are making an ass of yourself!
Dixie, now that you see your claim was idiotic and wrong.... you are now trying to change the subject to if Iraq broke some treaty or not...
Admit that no WMD have been found in Iraq and then Ill be happy to debate with you about breaking of treaty's and the consiquences of that!
Admit that no WMD have been found in Iraq and then Ill be happy to debate with you about breaking of treaty's and the consiquences of that!
Dixie said...
"You want me to post a specific line of text that reads; "We hereby proclaim that all Sarin is a WMD!" And I am afraid that line doesn't exist anywhere, but that doesn't mean that Sarin has not been defined as a WMD, nor does it mean that you would accept the body who determined it, even if I showed you the exact text, I am sure you'd have some ridiculous spin, regardless of what you are shown, because in your pinhead minds, you've decided that Sarin isn't a WMD, and nothing is going to change it. "
My reply, you are the one who said it did exist somewhere... remember thats why I called you a LIAR!
"You want me to post a specific line of text that reads; "We hereby proclaim that all Sarin is a WMD!" And I am afraid that line doesn't exist anywhere, but that doesn't mean that Sarin has not been defined as a WMD, nor does it mean that you would accept the body who determined it, even if I showed you the exact text, I am sure you'd have some ridiculous spin, regardless of what you are shown, because in your pinhead minds, you've decided that Sarin isn't a WMD, and nothing is going to change it. "
My reply, you are the one who said it did exist somewhere... remember thats why I called you a LIAR!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Perhaps you are too retarded to read what is posted, or maybe your retardation is so profound, you just can't comprehend what is posted? I have no way of knowing which it is, but it doesn't really matter, for whatever reason, you are too retarded to understand the facts.
I, personally, do not have a definition of WMD's, the Geneva Conventions did not leave it up to me to decide what a WMD was, just like they didn't give this authority to you or Charles Duelfer. I posted what is on record from the Geneva Conventions as well as the Chemical Weapons Convention, and gave you a breif history on the terminoligy of "weapons of mass destruction" and that's about all I can do, if you are too ignorant and stubborn to accept the facts, that's your problem, I have better things to do than argue with you.
What facts? You have ignored the one relevant fact...
These munitions you call WMD are not capable of massive destruction...!
I read what you posted.....
"it (Sarin gas) is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations according to UN Resolution 687"
now you say...
"You want me to post a specific line of text that reads; "We hereby proclaim that all Sarin is a WMD!" And I am afraid that line doesn't exist anywhere, but that doesn't mean that Sarin has not been defined as a WMD"
Its inconsistand with what you are now posting!
"it (Sarin gas) is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations according to UN Resolution 687"
now you say...
"You want me to post a specific line of text that reads; "We hereby proclaim that all Sarin is a WMD!" And I am afraid that line doesn't exist anywhere, but that doesn't mean that Sarin has not been defined as a WMD"
Its inconsistand with what you are now posting!