Also see: Torturegate: Truth, But No Consequences
Seriously, the guy is BLIND!!!
"If poison gas can go, why not nukes?" by James Carroll | June 23, 2008
".... A model for such restoration is right in front of us - the success of the century-old movement to eliminate chemical weapons. That project has evolved so slowly that it is hardly noticed. Yet, with the full abolition of chemical weapons in sight, it should be celebrated as an astonishing triumph of the dream over "realism."
I really don't know what he is talking about.
Please see: Israel and the Bomblets
The U.S. Has Already Used Nukes in Iraq and Afghanistan
Occupation Iraq: Basra Has Been Nuked!
Weapons of Mass Destruction Found In Iraq!
Afghanistan is the New Auschwitz
U.S. Wages Chemical Warfare on Afghanistan
US used DU in Afghan war?
The D.U. in You
Occupation Iraq: Birth Defects in Fallujah
Occupation Iraq: Future Generations
Occupation Iraq: Done In Your Name
Occupation Iraq: Evidence of War Crimes
Memory Hole: Willie Pete
Army 'vacuum' missile hits Taliban
That enough of the CURRENT troubles with the CHEMICAL WARFARE!!!?
Let's see HOW MANY CARROLL PEGS!
For all the barbarities of World War II, gas, including newly developed nerve agents, was hardly used as a weapon in Europe (German use of it in death camps was in its own category and the Japanese used it in Asia, although rarely against Allied forces). Such restraint was grounded more in fear of retaliation than in humanism.
Which is why Saddam never used what he didn't even have, right?
Once nuclear weapons were introduced in 1945, all devils were loosed, and both sides in the Cold War accumulated vast stocks of weaponized poison, now designated as "chemical."
Yeah, and WHO LOOSED THOSE, anyway, Jim?
What is it with LIBERALS and thier AMERIKAN EXCEPTIONALIST BLIND SPOT, huh?
Though the mushroom cloud dominated nightmares, multiple scenarios for civilization-ending mass destruction became possible. Chemical weapons, having been made morally acceptable by the relatively even more heinous nukes, had come into their own by the time Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev tried to call the whole business off....
After accumulating stockpiles, they wanted to pull the ladder up.
Never mind that chem weapons are considered the poor man's atom bomb.
Yeah, and never mind all the proxy wars of the two great powers that killed so many!
They were great peacemakers, huh? At least, on Gorby they got it right.
But he's just another globalist, too!
With chemical weapons they began to succeed. (Saddam Hussein, against both Iran and his own people, was showing that chemical weapons could still actually be used - and to what dread effect.)
In 1990, Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush signed a bilateral treaty agreeing to begin the destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles, and in 1993, the global Chemical Weapons Convention was agreed to - a realization of the dream first articulated at the Hague and Geneva nearly a century before. The 1993 convention, outlawing chemical weapons, has been ratified by almost every nation on Earth. Stockpiles and production facilities remain, but are being reduced and closed. Chemical weapons are being destroyed. Their legitimacy has been entirely removed, their permanence rejected...."
Maybe you would like to reside in Fallujah for a while, Jim?
Is this incredible or what, readers?
After the links I provided above, this guy can't see the U.S.' USE of CHEMICAL WEAPONS and he is CROWING ABOUT the SUCCESS of their elimination?
This is just SICK and SHITTY 'journalism," folks!
Been sniffing too much fart mist, 'eh, Carroll?
