Talk:Geneva Protocol

message: Isn't succession meant to be secession?, after all, it is the splitting of one country into another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.117.205 (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Although it is popularly believed that the German Army was the first to use gas it was in fact initially deployed by the French Army. In the first month of the war, August 1914, they fired tear-gas grenades (xylyl bromide) against the Germans."
Any reference for this? It is contradicted by the Chemical Warface article, which has a reference to confirm that Germany was "..the first side to employ chemical warfare on the battlefield".
138.38.150.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Does the 1925 Geneva Protocol ban the use of defoliants such as Agent Orange? If so, can we describe it as a matter of fact that the US violated the Geneva Convention in Operation Ranch Hand (Vietnam, 1962-1971)?
Or should we say that Person X accuses the US of violating this treaty / protocol, while Person / Group Y denies the accusation?
That is, do we have a case for using NPOV policy to turn a assertion of fact into a description of two contradictory viewpoints?
In case anyone's interested in presenting an opposing POV, here's something from a US law journal:
* "In February 2008, the U.S. Court of Appears for the Second Circuit [found that] applicable international law at the time of the Vietnam Wra did not prohibit the use of chemical agents such as Agent Orange as defoliants." JSTOR: The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 102, No. 3 (Jul., 2008), pp. 662-664
If no one objects, I intend to balance this viewpoint with the other viewpoint, altering the slant of the article from "USA broke the law" to "Sources differ over whether USA broke the law". --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Defoliants

message: Perhaps there is enough potential for confusion to warrant a disambiguating link to , a failed League of Nations protocol of the same name in the previous year. 108.46.137.243 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: The picture on the top-right states that Canada is still a participant to the Geneva Protocol as of 2012. It isn't. Does anybody have the software to change this? Decent_of_Darkness (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Geneva Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702004808/http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22365/Bunn_Banning_Poison_Gas_and_Germ_Warfare.pdf to http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22365/Bunn_Banning_Poison_Gas_and_Germ_Warfare.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This section includes the paragraph:
"During the 1980–88 Iran–Iraq War and the 1991 uprisings in Iraq, United States and Europe gave and funded Saddam Hussein's use of several different chemical agents, including anthrax, mustard gas, sarin, and VX, against Iran and against Iraqi civilians in instances such as the Halabja chemical attack. Although the United States provided Saddam Hussein with anthrax, it was never actually used in the conflict." 
From St Petersburg with love?
Beyond the fact that no citation is provided, the statement itself is grossly misleading.  While there is a basis for the claim that a number of powers provided certain forms of support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, there is no clear evidence from any credible source that any western power ever intentionally provided Saddam with chemical weapons, or intended to support his development or use of chemical weapons.  That claim was based upon a disingenuous and highly propagandistic reinterpretation of the dual use problem (i.e. the problem of legitimate civilian use materials and technology being diverted to chemical warfare purposes by the end user).  Likewise, there is no credible evidence that the US intentionally provided anthrax to Iraq or was willing to allow Iraq to weaponize anthrax.  The anthrax Iraq acquired from a US source came from a private biomedical research supplier that served the needs of researchers conducting legitimate civilian medical research.  As such, it was another dual use issue.  It should not be misrepresented as an intentional governmental policy to supply the Saddam regime with anthrax for the purpose of the creation of a biological weapon. 
I recommend that the paragraph in question be rewritten to the more limited, and more solidly factually based statement that:
"During the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is known to have employed a variety of chemical weapons against Iranian forces, as well as nerve agents against Kurdish civilians, the most notorious example of which was 1988 attack on Halabja."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.238.130 (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violations 

message: Are these banned by the Geneva Convention? Didn’t US and UK use these weapons in Afghanistan? 2A02:C7F:E876:6800:AD91:9C32:41D8:5B7F (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermobaric weapons 

message: Asphysiating G agents is a real threat in today's world. Article 3 and Geneva protocol just being ignored. This is terrorism. US should be aware. 174.29.95.87 (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crimes Genocidal acts