catapult magazine

Now that there seem to be no chemical weapons in Iraq, we’re told that they’re in Syria. Is Syria next? Where will Syria move their chemical weapons to if they are invaded? Iran? I can’t believe the American people will buy this shit. Why does nobody ask questions about American chemical weapons? We have huge stashes—and then we act surprised when we find gas masks in Iraqi trenches. Can anyone explain to me why America still has chemical weapons (in violation of international law of course)?

Alright. It was a pointless, cheap shot. But man, it felt GOOOOOOOOD.

if you want to, we can start another thread dedicated to Canada bashing. That might be fun.

For some reason, I can’t log-out and log-in under my own username here. This is grant.

I just wanted to say I agree that there may be some Americans who support the war only because the government is saying it’s a good thing to do, but I would be very surprised if that were a majority of Americans. And I appreciate how important it is that Americans become aware of the perspectives of other nations around the world. But I myself am in contact with anti-war and anti-American stances all the time. Even within our own American news organizations, I watch interviews challenging Powell on the Israeli-preference issue and Rumsfeld on issues of the treatment of Iraqi civilians. I wonder if perhaps nations around the world do not get enough of the American perspective, and therefore do not know what it’s like to see the world from the stance of a nation that doesn’t want terrorism to put it’s democratic values in jeopardy.

you’re right. few non-Americans buy the line that the Iraq invasion has much to do with terrorism. that means either America isn’t getting the message out, or else the message only resonates with Americans. i tend towards the latter.

Tens of thousands of Canadians rallied in favor of the U.S. led war, and many other nations leaders signed on early with the coallition. I think the idea that everyone is against this and America is doing it anyway is a myth.

There have a been few vocal nations against the war, but you could easily argue that their reasons for being against the war are just as selfish politically as those reasons people accuse the U.S. of for pursuing the war.

I think you’d find support outside the US very weak. Blair and Howard (Australia’s PM) both got close to losing their jobs over this. Compared to the pro-war rallies of mostly a few hundred people in Canada, the rallies against numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Millions rallied against invasion all across Europe, especially in “supporting” countries like Spain and Italy. It was unprecidented opposition by the public. If the governments supported the effort, they went against their people, as was the case in most of Eastern Europe, but even in Britain and Australia. I think the myth is that there was broad popular support for this outside the United States. The British public only came on board once the soldiers were fighting and once they found another reason to disparage the French.

They may not have the most (yet), but apparently Israel has the most secretive chemical and biological weapons development program.

http://www.indexonline.org/news/20030301_103_sammonds.shtml

well, apparently after Taco Bell tonight, The answer might be me.

I just read a bit of the discussion, good stuff… especially the parts where dan was railing against the US.

I do find it interesting that US Presidential administrations have not encouraged and supported the UN and organizations like it. Administrations seem to be willing to have a sort of democracy here in the States but they can not tolerate coming under the authority of an internationally democratic organization. (I don’t mean by the above that we don’t have a “real” democracy here, just implying that there are different kinds.)

This just occured to me from hearing about how we have rocky relationships with a lot of other countries in the UN right now.

And I find it disheartening that we would throw around our will in the world with our military. Is this democractic for the other countries? Why can’t we at least try to be a little consistent?

It seems that the only democracy the US likes is the one it can control within its own borders by mass marketing, secret energy strategies, campaign contributions, etc.

The Bush Administration is so keen on fulfilling their “Christian” calling as the US government by punishing the evil doers, keeping Isreal strong, and spreading the gospel of corporate America by creating a satellite TV system in the Middle East full of US “news”. Why don’t they just give in to the ONE WORLD GOV’T and let the last days begin?

OK, I will make this answer very clear and easy for you. I had to join this formal because I ran across your comment on a Google search at work and realized you try to speak intelligently about something you obviously know nothing about. The only international law that we could be “violating” is the Chemical Weapons Convention, of which the US (and also Iran and Syria) are state parties to. Within the Convention, the ONLY obligatory international treaty regarding the prohibition of chemical weapons, it is illegal to USE, PRODUCE, and PROCESS chemcial weapons. A state party can legally stockpile, store, transfer etc. chemical weapons so long as it is a declared action with the OPCW. ALL US chemical weapons are kept at declared sites. Also legal under the treaty is producing a limited amount of schedule 1 chemicals for defensive purposes. Schedule 3 chemical (no less deadly than shcedule 1) are produced in massive amounts by chemical companies worldwide. I do not mean to demean you publically, simply spread the truth and reality about the legality of US Chemical Weapons. It is not illegal to possess chemcial weapons (which is a VERY common misunderstanding), but simply to possess, produce, stockpile them undeclared or clandestinely as we have claimed Iraq has done. If you want to actually want to educate yourself about these things look at OPWC.org the official and legal organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons. And yes, the US has enormous “stashes”, but the Russians have us beat any day of the week. They are the masters of chemical weapons because they tested on humans unlike the US who tested on animals. Furthermore they continue to develop undeclared agents (which is illegal). Look up novichok on the web and then look at the Russian Theater gassing a few months ago. Rather than rant and rave-learn the reality so that you can be really scared. Just to test your knowledge, what country in the world mines more uranium than any other? CANADA. Don’t ever think your country is pure and innocent…I know mine is not!