Poirot --having done in-depth research via Wikipedia-- tells us the knock-on effects of the CIA engineered coup in Iran were everything from Al-Qaeda to Zarqawi.

I beg to differ, there were likely only two, significant knock-on effects:
1)It moved the Left in Iran to see capitalism and the West as a more dangerous adversary than the Islamists. Which caused them to side with the Islamists and aid their rise to power.And when the Islamists got the power, they proceeded to execute most of the Left.

2)The second likely knock-on effect is that it provided old Leftists residing in the West with just one more example to cite as to how horrible America is (but then chances are even without the coup they would still have been a sad twisted lot)

csteele, sorry, did not think such a silly question required an answer, we both you and I, know America never ever would use such a weapon.
Can you however assure me the side you defend would not?
Americas past ,including its folly's, can be matched by every colonialist country, England France ,Belgium, Holland, Germany, do I need to continue?
I would have thought, wished for, the left to seek a better life for all humanity.
We hear this America trying to control the world tripe, but are we prepared to look closely at the dreadful life out comes for some in every nation bought about by control from reildgions,some are total even controlling who lives and who dies.

Dear Belly,

With respect you still have not answered my question. You had said “I csteele without reserve support America using any weapon to fight these monsters.”

I hadn't asked did you think America would ever use such a weapon. I specifically asked if by "any weapon" meant you personally would support the type of gas attack employed by Saddam Hussein?

ok I will write slowly.
America would not knowingly use such a weapon on civilians.
Any weapon they wish to use on Islamic terrorists has my support.
I am aware than is saying nuclear yes that too.
Tell me csteele in return for your answer give me one to this.
Are there in your opinion ANY WEAPONS THE TALIBAN AND ITS FRIENDS would not use if they could?
Regards.

I too would beg to differ Belly, simply by drawing on history and ask this question, " would a nation that used atomic weapons on cities, support or justify the type of gas attack employed by Saddam Hussein?.

History would suggest that it's possible that they may.

I too along with csteele, Poirot and Co,
question our own standards and values.

Dear Belly,

I will confess I am finding your answer chilling.

I put your views down to fear but I was wrong, at least in part. After your comments in the last post I think there is a good slice of hatred, deep seated and capable of agreeing with the most heinous of acts done to keep you safe.

You asked in an earlier thread “Find way the west can fight against such hate and disregard for humanity”. I answer 'First look to the mote in your own eye brother!'

Who would wish a gas or a nuclear on anyone? Many countries had stockpiles of chemical weapons during WW2 but they were essentially not used even in the most dire of circumstances. Why do you think that was?

You asked “Are there in your opinion ANY WEAPONS THE TALIBAN AND ITS FRIENDS would not use if they could?”. My answer is probably not, such is their circumstance. They are facing the best funded, most proficient, most technologically advanced war machine this world has ever seen. There is estimated to be around 15,000 Taliban in Afghanistan up against 10 times that number of highly trained troops with a virtually untouchable airforce and unlimited resources.

When the early Zionists were fighting in Palestine they were employing crude terrorist methods and massacring large numbers of innocent people in Palestinian villages. Once they became a powerful sovereign nation with a sophisticated military they put away such things and conducted themselves in ways that were more acceptable to the West but hardly less deadly.

Let me ask you this; If the Taliban were offered 50 drones with all the appropriate training and equipment on the proviso that suicide bombings were to stop do you think they would accept?

What is a suicide bomber if not in most cases the poor man's most efficient method of accurately attacking a target.

If the CIA had employed a suicide bomber to drive their carbomb through Sheikh Fadlallah's front gates then far less innocent blood would have been shed.

All is fair on your playing field.