[Silver]

Atropine Sulfate is indicated for the treatment of anticholinesterase poisoning. If I remember my biology correctly, cholinesterase lets the body break down acetylcholine. (If I'm wrong, please correct me. Biology was a long time ago, and I slept through large parts of it.)

In layman's terms, it's a possible antidote to certain nerve agents.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Silver
Atropine Sulfate is indicated for the treatment of anticholinesterase poisoning. If I remember my biology correctly, cholinesterase lets the body break down acetylcholine. (If I'm wrong, please correct me. Biology was a long time ago, and I slept through large parts of it.)

In layman's terms, it's a possible antidote to certain nerve agents.

So not something you just coincedentally have laying around.

 

[Silver]

Not unless you have a very very very serious roach problem.

Many insectisides are anti-cholinesterase agents.

 

[fluff]

It would probably be better for me to remain silent here as I will no doubt be attacked for being a liberal, a coward, a supporter of Saddam, anti-american or all of the above.

There a certain stances being taken here which are based on supposition yet stated as if they were based on immutable facts, and there is plenty of flawed logic..

Iraq was being disarmed, slowly it is true but probably more successfully than any nation in history that was not either conquered or disarming voluntarily. Inevitably an involuntary disarmament process will take time, how long we do not know and whether it would have been successful we also do not know. In any process of disarmament there will still be arms up until the process is complete or stops, neither of these points had been reached. The fact does remain that up until just a few days before the intial attack upon Iraq the regime was still destroying weapons upon UN orders. I know that this was due to the threat of force being used against them but in reality that would have to be the case, otherwise why would they need to?

Therefore Iraq was attacked whilst disarming. Arguably Saddam is extremely dangerous, but as he was being disarmed, his teeth were being pulled. No one can say with certainty that he would have used chemical or biological weapons again (and equally no one can say the opposite).


This war is not really part of the wonderfully flexible 'war on terrorism'. It is an attack on a state unfriendly to the west and many of its neighbours. It is an attack on a dangerous regime with a cruel dictator at the helm. It should not be justified by linking it to 9/11, that has not been proven and in many ways is an insult to memory of those who died that day. I know I would feel it wrong if my death was used as justification to attack another country that cannot be directly linked to the attack, many innocent people will die and that should not be done in the name of other innocent victims.

We need to be clear and honest about the reason for the war before we can talk about whether it is justified.

War on terrorism? Not really, not linked directly enough.

9/11? No for the same reasons.

Weapons of mass destruction? Maybe but disarmament was taking place (albeit slowly).

Breach of UN resolutions? Perhaps but plenty of resolutions are broken by other nations without any consequence. If we are attacking because of broken UN resolutions surely it should only be with UN backing, which was not there (despite attempts to link force tenuously to earlier resolutions), clearly demonstrated by the position of Russia, France, China and Germany to name but four.

Human Rights abuses? As has been pointed out there are many countries with equally poor records who remain unchallenged.


Personally I believe the war is about power and influence within the middle east. Which makes it indirectly about oil. If the oil were not neither would our troops be there.


As this is a debating forum clearly I expect to see rebuttals and other opinions which I will read with an open mind. Insults and personal attacks are stupid and unhelpful so why bother?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by fluff


Personally I believe the war is about power and influence within the middle east. Which makes it indirectly about oil. If the oil were not neither would our troops be there.

Well fluff,

You are correct in a sense. I mean, if the oil were not there, Saddam would have now way to fund his regime and bio-chem arsenal. Iraq would be simply another Afghanistan.

I think that there's no argument for leaving someone like Saddam Hussein in power. Can anyone provide a valid reason? No. not in my mind.

You said it yourself that, he has broken sanctions. We know he supports terror. We know he's done awful things to his own people. We know his people are suffering because of sanctions he;s forced us to emplace. Perhaps there's no clear cut reason because its a culmination of many.

I certainly think that no matter what the case, a Saddam free Iraq will make Iraq a better place for Iraqis, and the world a safer place for us all.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well fluff,

You are correct in a sense. I mean, if the oil were not there, Saddam would have now way to fund his regime and bio-chem arsenal. Iraq would be simply another Afghanistan.

I think that there's no argument for leaving someone like Saddam Hussein in power. Can anyone provide a valid reason? No. not in my mind.

You said it yourself that, he has broken sanctions. We know he supports terror. We know he's done awful things to his own people. We know his people are suffering because of sanctions he;s forced us to emplace. Perhaps there's no clear cut reason because its a culmination of many.

I certainly think that no matter what the case, a Saddam free Iraq will make Iraq a better place for Iraqis, and the world a safer place for us all.

Well, more like another Rwanda, Afghanistan still has strategic oil connections.

I agree a world without Saddam would be a better place, the problem is the cost of removing him as opposed to the cost of rendering him (relatively) harmless.

My thoughts were more based around the justifications used to support the war and the selective application of these. I would have more respect for our esteemed leaders if they were pressuring other regimes with human rights issues and showed the same commitment to help oppressed citizens of other equally nasty regimes.

It's the apparent lack of honesty coming out of Washington ad London that bugs me.

 

[slein]

fluff: i agree with your stance. i believe everyone could have waited for another resolution from the UN.

however, it wasn't going to happen. the vetoes of other nations were going to kill any resolution advocating/abdicating (?) the use of force. i was all for the UN until it was clear that, due to many, many reasons, something effective was not going to come out of that organization.

i still have a hard time swallowing the oil strategy. CANADA supplies 60% of the US's oil. the fact that the most of IRAQ's oil reserves have not been tapped could be reason why. the talk about FRENCH, GERMAN and RUSSIAN oil contracts with the regime could also be the reason. maybe the US feels the need to extent its colonial will and piss off the middle east. that region has never been conquered, so its about time to change that. after all, HUSSEIN thinks he's the guy to unite the arabs and persians. he's wrong... that guy it GEORGE W. BUSH.

a humanitarian mission is necessary, and the use of force warranted to do this. the force had to be substantial because of the scare tactics used by the regime. this use of terror supports other types too, i'm willing to wager.

above all, the processs of disarmament is ultimately completed by the soldier. the political process is just impotent enough to comply this ultimate solution. i don't like it, for innocent people are gonna get killed. innocent people get tortured and killed already, and its high time that the nations with the power to stop it, stop it.

the ****ty thing is the other powers couldn't agree.

 

[Drunken_Ninja]

Originally posted by Damn True
Fact-Hussein is taking hostage the families of men to conscript them into service under the threat of killing their wives and children if they do not fight.

Fact-Hussein has employed troops of teenage and pre-teen boys (but the libs balk at Hitler comparisons) and threatend to kill their mothers if they do not fight.

Does this sound like a man who has seen the error of his ways? The fact that you can for an instant, even consider giving this guy another, after 12 years of chances amounts to nothing more than tacit approval and displays a yellow streak as wide as Canada itself.

Fact-Hussein used chem weapons against Kurds. Which means he has them.

Fact-Hussein used chem and bio weapons against Iran. Which means he has them.

Fact-Husseins troops have been issued orders to use chem-bio weapons. Which means he has them.

Fact-Husseins troops have been issued chem-bio suits. What are the suits for if not to protect his troops from chem-bio weapons? Circumstantial, but it dosent take a genius to surmise that this means he has them.

Fact-Husseins troops have been issued atropiene. An antidote for (DRB, help me out here I went to SEER 7 years ago) some sort of chem-bio weapons. Circumstantial, but it dosent take a genius to surmise that this means he has them.

Fact-Hussein has fired at least one misslie a day that was either an Al-Sammud or Al-Hussein missile. They know the type because of the distance covered. Hussein, under 687, 688, and 1441 is not supposed to have them. He claimed not to have them. Yet.....he fired them which means he has them.

Canadian Participation in Iraq

So you do understand that Canada choses to sit this one out for awhile and volunteer some of its resources and personnel unofficially right?

 

[Drunken_Ninja]

NDP Demands Canadian Ships Be Withdrawn “Either Canada is involved in Bush’s war or we are not”: Layton


- OTTAWA – After a week of seeking clarity on whether Canadian personnel in the Gulf were involved in George Bush’s war on Iraq, NDP Leader Jack Layton today called for ships to be withdrawn.


“It is clear Canadian frigates are escorting ships involved in a war in which Canada is not involved,” said Layton. “This is complicity in an illegal war which Canadians oppose, and the government cannot explain where Operation Apollo ends and where Bush’s war on Iraq begins.


“Either Canada is involved in Bush’s war or we are not. The Liberals cannot have it both ways,” said Layton. “Parliament has authorized involvement in Operation Apollo, but has not authorized any involvement whatsoever in Bush’s war on Iraq. If escorting ships that are helping to illegally invade Iraq isn’t involvement, what is?”


Each day this week, the NDP has demanded the government clarify the involvement of Canadian personnel in the war on Iraq. Each day, the government refused to answer, although did answer specific questions on the involvement of other personnel – notably JTF2 – in Bush’s war.


Last week, Canadian ships were permitted to travel further north to Kuwait after previously operating only as far north as the Strait of Hormuz. On Thursday, the Liberals voted against withdrawing personnel that may be involved in the war from the Gulf, yet voted in favour of not being involved in Bush’s war.


“How can Canada say it’s uninvolved in the war when we are escorting ships of war?” asked Layton. “The NDP repeatedly sought reassurance that there were rules of engagement that protected Canadians from being involved in Bush’s war. There are clearly no such rules, and our personnel must be withdrawn.”


Canada has more personnel in the Gulf than all but three members of Bush’s ‘coalition of the willing.’


“Canada’s position on the war is again becoming murky and confused,” said Layton. “On whether George Bush’s pre-emptive strike without any UN authorization is legal, Canada says Bush thinks it is. And when specifically asked if Canada is involved in Bush’s war, the government refuses to answer. This is completely unacceptable.”

Drunken_Ninja : I agree the NDP's platform. I also think that war cannot be warranted based on conjecture.

 

[Stellite]

Canada: Try Saddam for genocide
27/03/2003 19:32 - (SA)

Print article email story










Ottawa - The Canadian house of commons called unanimously on Thursday for the establishment of an international tribunal to try Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials for genocide and other crimes.

Canada's Liberal government has refused to join the US-led war on Iraq, upsetting the United States, but it agreed on Thursday to support a motion by the right-leaning Canadian Alliance party asking for such a tribunal.

The motion, adopted unanimously by the house of commons, parliament's elected chamber, calls on the government to help "bring to justice Saddam Hussein and all other Iraqi officials responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity and war crimes - including through the formation of an international criminal tribunal."