The U.S. continues to fight wars with one hand tied back and blindfolded while our enemies use whatever means at their disposal. Question: If we are so concerned about damaging the Najaf Mosque, why don't we use Tear Gas? Please don't tell me that a non-lethal chemical irritant, still used by police to break up rioters, is verboten!

We don't use tear gas because it is a non-lethal use of force and the persons fighting against us are using lethal force. Personally, I think we should use lethal gas that damages the lungs or nervous system but there have been treaties which outlaw the use of lethal gas for quite awhile, and it is no longer "politically" accepatble to use such means in warfare. I also think that if a group of people chooses to defile a religious structure by using it as a base from which to kill others, that structure should be destroyed along with its occupants.

Yeah, I found out that George Bush Sr signed on to that ridiculous treaty. That shouldn't stop the Iraqis from using it though. I'm reasonably certain they never signed any such treaty.

The Iraqis won't bother with tear gas because it doesn't kill people. They wouldn't use lethal gas either because it would show that Bush was right to invade Iraq because one of his main reasons for doing so was that there was lethal gas there.

Once again I find myself agreeing with JimGunther. It is lethal force issue. Besides tear gas really only is bothersome it's effects last a few hours. I am sure these insurgents probably have gear comparable to ours. We should just bomb it.

We don't use tear gas because it is a non-lethal use of force and the persons fighting against us are using lethal force. Personally, I think we should use lethal gas that damages the lungs or nervous system but there have been treaties which outlaw the use of lethal gas for quite awhile, and it is no longer "politically" accepatble to use such means in warfare. I also think that if a group of people chooses to defile a religious structure by using it as a base from which to kill others, that structure should be destroyed along with its occupants.

We continue along the path leading to capitulation. We have almost eliminated all means by which we can win a war. This all began under the auspices of the United Nations. We haven't won a war outright since their inception. Can't use tear gas, flame throwers, etc. What can we do? How about we clear an area, then bulldoze it to the ground. We may have to level Iraq and we will certainly create hordes of refugees but at least we haven't KILLED anyone. Let the U.N. worry about the refugees. They're good at that.(Worrying, that is. Not doing anything is their specialty).