Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter
He stated and I quote:
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."
And yes, the gas was tested: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts |
"Despite Claims, UK Did Not Gas Iraqis In The 1920s, New Research Finds"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1022064745.htm
Indeed, my copy of the tediously exhaustive "Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology, and History" contains no reference to it, and mentions Fascist Italy's use of chemical weapons in Abyssinia as:
Quote:
|
"the only time a European power has used such weapons since the end of World War I"
|
So let's put an end to this myth once and for all. Yes, it is attractive to use it as a prop against the absurd and unjust Iraq War, and I have heard it many times. It is, however, an urban myth at best, and bull**** at worst.
The Chigago Journals articles referenced above provide a long-overdue critical analysis of the claim:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi...10.1086/605488