US prepares to use toxic gases in Iraq
S. Alexander Jacobson
Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:44:57 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Your best argument is:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, JS Kelly wrote:
> very many situations in which a nation of people would wake up from the
> witch's poppy spell and be happy to have been taken over while they were
> asleep. certainly americans waking up to having been taken over by russia
> or iraq or even canada wouldn't take it very calmly, i don't think...
So the first question is whether we want to use
this weapon. The second is whether we want others
to do so.
I think this agent would be used by people who
want to be gentle. If you were indifferent to
getting people killed, why not use nukes or lethal
Wouldn't these weapons be used only if you
expected the population to be peaceful when they
If the concern that people will use these weapons
to attack us, I much prefer that they use weapons
that cause a temporary sleep rather than weapons
that cause a permanent one.
S. Alexander Jacobson i2x Media
1-212-787-1914 voice 1-603-288-1280 fax
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, johnhall wrote:
> > I can think of at least 3 reasons for that response:
> > 1) Kelly prefers using grapeshot on crowds.
> > 2) Kelly prefers anarchy, and all crowds should be surrendered too.
> > 3) Kelly is worried that effective lower cost crowd control will make it
> > easier to repress legitimate dissent. The revolutions against communism
> > might have failed if such technologies were available.
> > Maybe I missed one.
> > > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of JS
> > > Kelly
> > >
> > > > In a message dated 3/3/03 11:42:37 AM, email@example.com writes:
> > > >
> > > > >Out of curiosity, ignoring treaty commitments for
> > > > >the moment, don't you think it is better to use
> > > > >nonlethal calmatives in urban warfare than bombs?
> > > > >
> > > > >-Alex-
> > >
> > >
> > > no.
> > > -jsk