NationStates Jolt Archive

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/15/national/w150214S49.DTL

Flip flop!

What I don't understand, if the downplaying of it's use is to be believed, is why the State Department initially denied using it as a weapon?

The US lying and being untrustworthy? Get out!

The US lying and being untrustworthy? Get out!

Try not to blame my entire country for the scumbags we have in office. There are many who are still trying to fight the good fight.

Try not to blame my entire country for the scumbags we have in office. There are many who are still trying to fight the good fight.

The US government's actions are the actions of the US.

The US lying and being untrustworthy? Get out!
I was shocked to, did you hear that cigarette smoking may cause cancer?

Try not to blame my entire country for the scumbags we have in office. There are many who are still trying to fight the good fight.

Where did the US say they weren't using WP? This doesn't pass the "So What" test.

I was shocked to, did you hear that cigarette smoking may cause cancer?

Hmm, I better stop smoking in these asbestos garments of mine, then.

"There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using `outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the department said. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."

So, if they flip flopped on using WP, how long until they flip flop on this one and say, "Well... actually... there may have been a couple illegal weapons used?"
I find it amusing that most of the rest of the world didn't want Bush to get elected a second time, yet he won, and America seems to JUST NOW be coming to the realization that Bush sucks. Below 40% approval. Keep it goin' Bush.

Kinda frustrating that they'd go and deny using something that we've always used, and can use as a matter of policy.. but then, the whole Falluja thing was a tough spot, PR-wise.

This is most likely a case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing.
The State Department made a statement about Defense Department polices that proved to be incorrect and the Defense Department corrected it. This simply means that the State Department official who made the original statement was ignorant and that the two departments have a communication failure.

So, if they flip flopped on using WP, how long until they flip flop on this one and say, "Well... actually... there may have been a couple illegal weapons used?"
I find it amusing that most of the rest of the world didn't want Bush to get elected a second time, yet he won, and America seems to JUST NOW be coming to the realization that Bush sucks. Below 40% approval. Keep it goin' Bush.


Once again: Where is the flip-flop?

The US government's actions are the actions of the US.

No.

That's like saying every Iraqi is a terrorist, or every Frenchman opresses minorities. Such broad statements are never helpful.

Specifics, my freind, specifics.

The US lying and being untrustworthy? Get out!

Although, this can be said about some people in US government right now, it cannot be said for the whole of the US people, it is unfair to tar American people with the same brush as the US Government...2 different things really, government rarely reflects the people in that country.

I don't know why there is such a scandal when Saddam killed all those people using chemicals which is known and proven and the media are making a big hoopla over something that MIGHT have happened, fuck sake. The argument of course being that civilians may have died because of WP.

I am sorry, but for all the mistakes the US Army might have made in Iraq they are not barbaric enough to DELIBERATELY attack civilians, it might have to come down to wrong place, wrong time if this story is true and in that case, what could the US Army have done!? This is war, soldiers and unfortunatly civilians die, especially in urban warfare.

Graham Harvey

Where did the US say they weren't using WP? This doesn't pass the "So What" test.

Uh, you did read the article didn't you? It's always so amusing when someone comes in an asks something that's already been answered.

Kinda frustrating that they'd go and deny using something that we've always used, and can use as a matter of policy.. but then, the whole Falluja thing was a tough spot, PR-wise.

There's a difference between using WP as illumination and cover and using it as a weapon.

They never denied the use of WP. They denied using it as a weapon...which turns out to be untrue.

Reading comprehension. It's everyone's friend.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

Why is this a big deal though? Even had there been no WP available, I am sure they would have still killed lots of people.

Why is this a big deal though? Even had there been no WP available, I am sure they would have still killed lots of people.

Because WP is classed by some groups as a chemical weapon, even though it is not classed as such in any treaty.

The question is not whether the United States is technically in violation of any treaty obligations. It is not. The issue here is the use of a weapon that is further eroding the US's moral standing in this war. We supposedly invaded because of Saddam's use of chemical weapons and torture. Well, now we torture and use WP. And if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck (http://www.nsc.org/library/chemical/phsphor.htm):

"White phosphorus is a poison which can be absorbed through skin contact, ingestion, or breathing. If its combustion occurs in a confined space, white phosphorus will remove the oxygen from the air and render the air unfit to support life. Long-term absorption, particularly through the lungs and the gastrointestinal tract, can cause chronic poisoning, which leads to weakness, anemia, loss of appetite, gastrointestinal weakness, and pallor.

Eating or drinking less than one teaspoon of white phosphorus can cause vomiting; stomach cramps; liver, heart or kidney damage; drowsiness; and even death. Being burned with white phosphorus can cause heart, liver, and kidney damage. Breathing white phosphorus may damage lungs and throat.

White phosphorus can cause changes in the long bones; seriously affected bones may become brittle, leading to spontaneous fractures. White phosphorus is especially hazardous to the eyes and can severely damage them.

High concentrations of the vapors evolved by burning white phosphorus are irritating to the nose, throat, lungs, skin, eyes, and mucus membranes.
Breathing white phosphorus can cause coughing and the development of a condition known as phossy jaw -- poor wound healing in the mouth and a breakdown of the jaw bone. The most common symptom of exposure to white phosphorus is necrosis of the jaw.

Exposure to white phosphorus can also cause nausea, jaundice, anemia, cachexia, dental pain, and excess saliva."

WP has legit military applications for battlefield illumination and artillery spotting. But from a moral standpoint, its use as an anti-personnel munition is, by all measures, unconscionable. That is, unless we're willing to abandon outrage over Saddam's use of chemical weapons.

-- More Proof of White Phosphorus Use in Iraq (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/10/131319/08)

WP is very effective, and it's not banned.

However, it comes off like cigarette smokers castigating marijuana smokers.

"You are addicted to a mind-altering drug that will lead to your destruction, you freakish hippie! Damn! Now I need a smoke."

One has a legal killer. The other has an illegal killer.

I guess we had the better lawyers, eh?

Because WP is classed by some groups as a chemical weapon, even though it is not classed as such in any treaty.

So not really a big deal then.

There's a difference between using WP as illumination and cover and using it as a weapon.

They never denied the use of WP. They denied using it as a weapon...which turns out to be untrue.

Reading comprehension. It's everyone's friend.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

...

Were did I say differently? They denied using it as a weapon at one point, and now admit it. I recognize this.. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

It is perceived by the media to be a big deal atm, because they think the US have admitted to using WP as an anti-personal weapon...which although allowed, is frowned upon.

WP is very effective, and it's not banned.

However, it comes off like cigarette smokers castigating marijuana smokers.

"You are addicted to a mind-altering drug that will lead to your destruction, you freakish hippie! Damn! Now I need a smoke."

One has a legal killer. The other has an illegal killer.

I guess we had the better lawyers, eh?

The Geneva Convention also outlaws incendiary weapons...but fails to specify WP. Therefore WP, because it has legitimate non-weapon uses, is basically being justified as a weapon because of a legal loophole.

Chemical weapons are outlawed for a reason, and each one shouldn't have to be spelled out.

There's a difference between using WP as illumination and cover and using it as a weapon.

They never denied the use of WP. They denied using it as a weapon...which turns out to be untrue.

Reading comprehension. It's everyone's friend.

The State Department, in response, initially denied that U.S. troops had used white phosphorus against enemy forces. "They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

The department later said its statement had been incorrect.

Indeed, reading comprehension should be everyone's friend. ;)

Why is this a big deal though? Even had there been no WP available, I am sure they would have still killed lots of people.

It's being made a big deal by certain anti-US and anti-war-in-Iraq (mostly European) journalists and activists. The idea is to make the US military look bad by preying on the ignorance of the general populace.

Here's a Google cahe of an article that goes a bit more into it. (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Rf7NTQG9H6UJ:www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/articles/20051111.aspx)

So not really a big deal then.

Spoken like a true Bushevik.

Spoken like a true Bushevik.

And your point is?

You might want to actually read and research about it more before dismissing it out-of-hand.

Unless you like coming off as an ignorant fool.

What the US had argued for with the people of Iraq was that we were better than Saddam Hussein. We put forth that we would not savage them with chemical weapons.

Used in this fashion, it was effective. Just as mustard gas is "effective."

Politically, it lowers us down on the same level as a psychotic dictator.

Apparently you don't mind that.

Which could lead to inspiring an entire new wave of jihadi warriors.

Such ignorance and callousness causes more people to die. Our own people.

And if you are a US taxpayer, or you will be once you achieve adulthood, you'll be left with a greater financial burden due to a higher cost of settling the conflict.

Just as we frittered away worldwide goodwill in the wake of 9/11, this can cause us to lose allies, cool relations, and require us to fight additional foes.

The Islamicist insurgents had lost a great deal of sympathy in the wake of the Jordanian hotel bombings. Their public sympathy was weakening.

All we need to do is not screw up, and we can settle the war in time.

This sort of thing, while not obviously penetrating certain thick skulls, is the sort of thing that can erupt -- like an improvised explosive device -- against our troops.

It might have been effective in Falluja, but they should have used a non-persistent agent like CS instead. It too can lead to long-term effects, but is considered a far lower toxicity. WP is indeed very effective, but therefore it is considered inhumane, especially if there were residential populations also affected.

Indeed, reading comprehension should be everyone's friend. ;)

The part you quote reinforces my argument. Thank you.

It's being made a big deal by certain anti-US and anti-war-in-Iraq (mostly European) journalists and activists. The idea is to make the US military look bad by preying on the ignorance of the general populace.

Here's a Google cahe of an article that goes a bit more into it. (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Rf7NTQG9H6UJ:www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/articles/20051111.aspx)

It is a big deal. To say it's okay to use a chemical weapon because of a legal loophole is similar to being opposed to marijuana use but being okay with the use of another drug, not specifically spelled out as illegal, that had identical effects. It's called being more concerned about the letter of the law than the spirit of the law...and then claiming moral high ground.

And your point is?

It should be clear by now.

The Geneva Convention also outlaws incendiary weapons...but fails to specify WP. Therefore WP, because it has legitimate non-weapon uses, is basically being justified as a weapon because of a legal loophole.

Incorrect. The four Geneva Conventions only address the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces (I), for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (II), the Treatment of Prisoners of War (III), and the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (IV).
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/auoy.htm

The only treaty that is relevant is the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1980e.htm). This treaty entered into effect in 1983 and restricts the use of incendiary weapons. It does not ban their use. There is no treaty banning their use.




Chemical weapons are outlawed for a reason, and each one shouldn't have to be spelled out.

This is the exact sort of ignorance that those trying bto make a big deal out of this are preying on. The various protocols on "chemical weapons" make it quite clear that they are banning substances who's primary effect and purpose is toxic. WP is an incendiary weapon not a toxic weapon. (And before you take that the wrong way, consider that most explosives are toxic, but are not considered chemical weapons. Nor do the lead and copper that compose the bullets make them chemical weapons.)

Apparently people did not read my post because it passed their short mental buffers.

White phosphorus is a poison which can be absorbed through skin contact, ingestion, or breathing. If its combustion occurs in a confined space, white phosphorus will remove the oxygen from the air and render the air unfit to support life. Long-term absorption, particularly through the lungs and the gastrointestinal tract, can cause chronic poisoning, which leads to weakness, anemia, loss of appetite, gastrointestinal weakness, and pallor.

Eating or drinking less than one teaspoon of white phosphorus can cause vomiting; stomach cramps; liver, heart or kidney damage; drowsiness; and even death. Being burned with white phosphorus can cause heart, liver, and kidney damage. Breathing white phosphorus may damage lungs and throat.

White phosphorus can cause changes in the long bones; seriously affected bones may become brittle, leading to spontaneous fractures. White phosphorus is especially hazardous to the eyes and can severely damage them.

High concentrations of the vapors evolved by burning white phosphorus are irritating to the nose, throat, lungs, skin, eyes, and mucus membranes.
Breathing white phosphorus can cause coughing and the development of a condition known as phossy jaw -- poor wound healing in the mouth and a breakdown of the jaw bone. The most common symptom of exposure to white phosphorus is necrosis of the jaw.

Exposure to white phosphorus can also cause nausea, jaundice, anemia, cachexia, dental pain, and excess saliva.

-- NSC (http://www.nsc.org/library/chemical/phsphor.htm)

A poison that causes vomiting and even death? Necrosis of the jaw?

In what world of imagination is that non-toxic?

The part you quote reinforces my argument. Thank you.

Umm... no. As I understand your statement, you are contending that they lied. That they corrected their statement indicates they simply made a mis-statement.

It is a big deal. To say it's okay to use a chemical weapon because of a legal loophole is similar to being opposed to marijuana use but being okay with the use of another drug, not specifically spelled out as illegal, that had identical effects. It's called being more concerned about the letter of the law than the spirit of the law...and then claiming moral high ground.

See my above post. WP is not a chemical weapon, anymore than lead or TNT are.

Politically, it lowers us down on the same level as a psychotic dictator.


Exactly. Saddam always made sure to evacuate civilians out of city before a battle began, so as to reduce casualties, and only for military purposes, rather than gassing towns inhabited by political rivals.. a regular humanitarian, that guy. :p

Umm... no. As I understand your statement, you are contending that they lied. That they corrected their statement indicates they simply made a mis-statement.

They can SAY that they merely made a misstatement, but how are we to know if that's not just another lie. All we DO know for sure is that they clearly made contradictory staements.

Tell me, how did you recieve the supposed Kerry "flip-flops"?


See my above post. WP is not a chemical weapon, anymore than lead or TNT are.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Protocol III
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
Geneva, 10 October 1980


Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

Tell me...did Saddam ever sign any treaties concerning the use of Chemical weapons?

Apparently people did not read my post because it passed their short mental buffers.

A poison that causes vomiting and even death? Necrosis of the jaw?

In what world of imagination is that non-toxic?

I assume that was aimed at my statement above. If so, go back and read my posts.

Simply being toxic does not make something a chemical weapon. Lead is infamously toxic. Trinitrotoluene is also very toxic. (1 (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp81.html)), as are many other explosives. This does not make them chemical weapons.

I assume that was aimed at my statement above. If so, go back and read my posts.

Simply being toxic does not make something a chemical weapon. Lead is infamously toxic. Trinitrotoluene is also very toxic. (1 (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp81.html)), as are many other explosives. This does not make them chemical weapons.

Lead is not readily absorbed and is not reactive to lipids as WP is. There are no continuing effects after a TNT blast. Trinitrotoluene requires sustained exposure.

It's when something creates painful chemical burns IMMEDIATELY, lasting toxic effects, necrosis, lung damage etc.. That it should be considered a chemical weapon.

Under you cavalier attitude, mustard gas and ricin would be acceptible...and then why did we go after Saddam in the fiorst place?

They can SAY that they merely made a misstatement, but how are we to know if that's not just another lie. All we DO know for sure is that they clearly made contradictory staements.

:) Yes. However, it appears our interpretation differs. I consider it was most likely a misstatement, because, as a general rule, I assure "cock-up before conspiracy" to be accurate.

Tell me, how did you recieve the supposed Kerry "flip-flops"?


And how is that germane to anything in this discussion?


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm

Yes, and? I posted the exact same treaty above, and it's provisions have not changed to ban incendiary weapons in the intervening minutes. As I said, it restricts their use. It does not ban their use.


Tell me...did Saddam ever sign any treaties concerning the use of Chemical weapons?

And again, how is that germane to the question of the the legality of the use of WP?

"Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives. "


Note that this addresses civilians.. civilians were told to leave before the battle began, and were evacuated over a period of days before our military went into Fallujah.. that's why the DoD statement was concerned with use against civilians.

"Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives. "


Note that this addresses civilians.. civilians were told to leave before the battle began, and were evacuated over a period of days before our military went into Fallujah.. that's why the DoD statement was concerned with use against civilians.


New Orleans was ordered to evacuate too...

Innocent people stay and there's no way to evacuate an entire city but manage to keep the insurgents in. So either they evacuated the entire citty (in which case they were shooting at no one,) or some insurgents and some civilians stayed.

I take whatever they have left! Bwahahaha!

:) Yes. However, it appears our interpretation differs. I consider it was most likely a misstatement, because, as a general rule, I assure "cock-up before conspiracy" to be accurate.

Unless it's someone else in charge, right?


And how is that germane to anything in this discussion?

Just wondering how forgiving you were of Kerry's supposed misstatements.

Yes, and? I posted the exact same treaty above, and it's provisions have not changed to ban incendiary weapons in the intervening minutes. As I said, it restricts their use. It does not ban their use.

Yes. It restricts the use of incendiary devices in cities, since there's no way to make sure the civilian population won't be affected. Evacuations can't remove everyone. (See Hurricane Katrina)




And again, how is that germane to the question of the the legality of the use of WP?

Well, you seem to be concerned witht he letter of the law, rather than acting in a humane manner. So I was just wondering if Saddam signed anything that prohibited him from using chemical weapons before he used them.

New Orleans was ordered to evacuate too...

Innocent people stay and there's no way to evacuate an entire city but manage to keep the insurgents in. So either they evacuated the entire citty (in which case they were shooting at no one,) or some insurgents and some civilians stayed.

I'm sure the military would've liked it if everyone left.. Falluja was trouble, and I'm sure they'd have liked to clean out the weapons caches and safehouses without meeting any resistance.. but it didn't happen that way. It's possible that some civilians didn't leave, but if they didn't take up arms, they probably weren't targetted.. I can't vouch for every dropped bomb, but I'm willing to give our military the benefit of the doubt, especially since they gain nothing by aiming at civilians, rather than shooting at people who are shooting at them..

I'm sure the military would've liked it if everyone left.. Falluja was trouble, and I'm sure they'd have liked to clean out the weapons caches and safehouses without meeting any resistance.. but it didn't happen that way. It's possible that some civilians didn't leave, but if they didn't take up arms, they probably weren't targetted.. I can't vouch for every dropped bomb, but I'm willing to give our military the benefit of the doubt, especially since they gain nothing by aiming at civilians, rather than shooting at people who are shooting at them..


...and if an insurgent takes flight into a house which may or may not have civilians in it and the military can't flush them out with conventional weapons?

I too give the troops the benefit of the doubt...but they're only human.

Under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, releases of more than one pound of white phosphorus into the air, water, and land must be reported annually and entered into the national Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).

The M57/M57A1 81mm WP mortar round has a weight of 12.46 lb (5.65 kg). The filler weight is 4 lb (just less than 2kg).

In other words, if we did this in the US, there would be a mandatory notification of the use of even one of these shells as a toxic hazard.

This is a particularly poisonous element with 50 mg being the average fatal dose (white phosphorus is generally considered to be the lethal form of phosphorus while phosphate and orthophosphate are essential nutrients). The allotrope white phosphorus should be kept under water at all times and therefore presents a significant fire hazard due to its extreme reactivity to atmospheric oxygen, and it should only be manipulated with forceps since contact with skin can cause severe burns. Chronic white phosphorus poisoning of unprotected workers leads to necrosis of the jaw called "phossy-jaw". Ingestion of white phosphorus may cause a medical condition known as "Smoking Stool Syndrome". Fluorophosphate esters are among the most potent neurotoxins known but most inorganic phosphates are relatively nontoxic. Phosphate pollution occurs where fertilizers or detergents have leached into soils.

When the white form is exposed to sunlight or when it is heated in its own vapor to 250 °C, it is transmuted to the red form, which does not phosphoresce in air. The red allotrope does not spontaneously ignite in air and is not as dangerous as the white form. Nevertheless, it should be handled with care because it does revert to white phosphorus in some temperature ranges and it also emits highly toxic fumes that consist of phosphorus oxides when it is heated.

-- Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus#Precautions)

In other words, it is poisonous. Even after it stops burning it is still poison, and creates poison fumes.

I have no idea where some of you monkeys got your education, but there's a reason they treat WP rounds with utmost care.

I suggest again you read more about it before just shrugging and saying "So?"

Makes you sound imbecilic.

Lead is not readily absorbed and is not reactive to lipids as WP is. There are no continuing effects after a TNT blast.

It's when something creates painful chemical burns, lasting toxic effects, necrosis, lung damage etc.. That it should be considered a chemical weapon.

Under you cavalier attitude, mustard gas and ricin would be acceptible...and then why did we go after Saddam in the fiorst place?

Contamination from lead, TNT and other explosives have affected the drinking water near several operational ranges.

http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/DODexemptions/fact_sheet.1.htm
http://www.miltoxproj.org/munitions_and_ranges.htm
http://www.womenshooters.com/wfn/lead.html

And, to repeat myself, the treaties regarding chemical weapons make it abundantly clear that they are outlawing weapons who's primary purpose is toxic. Are you contending that WP is primarily intended to create a toxic effect?

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1925a.htm
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1972a.htm

And, to repeat myself, the treaties regarding chemical weapons make it abundantly clear that they are outlawing weapons who's primary purpose is toxic. Are you contending that WP is primarily intended to create a toxic effect?

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1925a.htm
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1972a.htm

When used to screen and illuminate. No. When used as a weapon. Yes. Why else use it?

The US gov't doesn't need WP anymore...we have something FAR more dangerous. I forget what it is exactly, but it like phophorus since it burns till no more oxygen..but it burns hotter and longer.

Might I had that a thermoberic weapon is far more dangerous and we have used those in Afghanistan. The thermo is a poor man's nuke made from gasoline and explosives. When the case first blows, it spreads the vaporized gas over a large area then a secondary explosion sets all that off. Lack of better description it acts like a vacum and people who live are unlucky as they start to bled from nearly everywhere on their body.

Russians have thermoberics..but they modified them to use as RPG rounds to fire into Chechen apartment complexes.

My opinion, Iraq is a big screwup and Bush only attacked it cause Saddam wanted to kill his dad back in the 1990s.

Unless it's someone else in charge, right?

Nope. It's a general rule that applies to everybody equally.

Just wondering how forgiving you were of Kerry's supposed misstatements.

Didn't give a care either way. Just more of the GOP's attack dogs blathering.

Yes. It restricts the use of incendiary devices in cities, since there's no way to make sure the civilian population won't be affected. Evacuations can't remove everyone. (See Hurricane Katrina)

Exactly. No use of air delivered incendiary weapons. And care taken not to target civilians. Unless you can show that civilians were specifically targeted, will you accept that the letter of the law was followed?

Well, you seem to be concerned with he letter of the law, rather than acting in a humane manner. So I was just wondering if Saddam signed anything that prohibited him from using chemical weapons before he used them.

As far as I know, Iraq was bound by the previous protocols, but not the CWC.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwcataglance.asp

When used to screen and illuminate. No. When used as a weapon. Yes. Why else use it?

Because sometimes an incendiary is the best weapon for the job.

Are you opposed to the use of all incediary weapons or just WP? How about other weapons with toxic side effects?

I hear that the US army uses octane as well. Octane (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0470.html)

So, if they flip flopped on using WP, how long until they flip flop on this one and say, "Well... actually... there may have been a couple illegal weapons used?"
I find it amusing that most of the rest of the world didn't want Bush to get elected a second time, yet he won, and America seems to JUST NOW be coming to the realization that Bush sucks. Below 40% approval. Keep it goin' Bush.
How about you spend a little more time reading the quote you used? White Phosphorus is NOT an "illegal" weapon. Also, as I recall, the world's opinion counts for very little...nay, counts not at all in US elections. So, in reality, 61million American voters told the world to "butt out" of our elections, more famously in Ohio, where voters received letters from readers of a British newspaper, begging them not to vote for Bush.

As for Bush's approval rate (according to Rasmussen, the only truly non-biased pollster in the USA,) it currently stands at 46%, much higher than all you Kool-Aid drinkers on the Left would like. Also, there is a poll out (again, by Rasmussen) that shows over 65% of Americans approve of Al-Qaeda terrorist interrogations "by any means necessary." Again, so much for the vaunted "world opinion."

All weapons are deadly. That's their purpose.

I don't want to confuse the issue of whether they are efficient killers with the key difference made between certain weapons and others -- and that is their discrimination and long-term chronic effects.

A thermobaric weapon to clear a landing zone will kill just about anything nearby. That's its devastating purpose.

But once it's done it's job, it is inert. It needs to be. If you were landing in an LZ you'd not want to come into a hazardous site.

However, WP causes long-term toxic effects. CS could have been employed. Especially since it would not cause a long-term toxicity in an urban environment.

Furthermore, WP, to a far greater degree than CS, risked starting fires which could have gotten out of control. That should have been a consideration before using it in an urban environment.

Again, I'm not questioning the effectiveness of it as a weapons system. It worked.

However, it led to toxic contamination, indiscriminant civilian casualties and suffering, and degraded the moral justifications for the war.

Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. [2] The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III. -- White Phosphorus Arms Control Status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus#Arms_control_status)

The US can technically claim it's not illegal because we never signed.

We can technically claim that we evacuated the city.

The same way Saddam Hussein claimed he had the right to develop chemical weapons because he refused to be held party to international treaties and that technically the Kurds were rebels trying to overthrow his legitimate government.

It comes off hypocritically.

Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/reports/1996/Israel.htm) similarly cited Israel for doing the same in 1982, 1993, and other times of shelling of positions in actions in Lebanon.

As this NATO manual shows, even getting burned (http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/OperationalMedicine/DATA/operationalmed/Manuals/NATOEWS/ch03/03ChemicalBurns.html) by WP can lead to a chemical reaction in your body that can lead to sudden death by heart attack. It's not just that it burns. It's that it burns and is chemically toxic.

There were similar humanitarian issues raised with our use of it during Vietnam (http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_52_Medical.html). Even during the 1971 discussions they said that it was against the Geneva Accords.

Eisenhower knew it was against the Geneva Conventions and discouraged its use in WWII (http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/bombing/Thunderclap/censored_0245.html), and asked that there be a stop to all such conversations.

This sums up the situation on the US military's doctrine rather well (http://protectedstatic.blogspot.com/2005/11/politics-more-on-willie-pete.html), citing actual field manuals. It's against our national doctrine to employ it, and against international treaty (though we have not signed).

Folks keep using it now and then, from WWII to Vietnam to today. I'm not saying that it is illegal, but to employ it degraded our position vis-a-vis the common Iraqi, the same way that the insurgents bombing the Iraqis is degrading their position.

Using it destroys our credibility.

We should not be racing towards the bottom to see who is the most atrocious destroyer of the Iraqi civil populace.

Which do you believe is the most barbaric:
a. Saddam Hussein
b. Al Qaeda
c. The United States

Right now, we need to ensure that such a question is never answered with "c", or the mission will have failed. Furthermore, any other future missions will be met with increased risk, contempt, distrust, and non-cooperation if we go beyond what others see as a clear violation of the rules of war, even if we have not agreed to them.

You can pretend that others are not judging you, but that would not make you immune to the ramifications of your actions.

I just think it's unfortunate. We need to minimize questionable behavior, or the mission gets muddied like it did in Vietnam.

I hear that the US army uses octane as well. Octane (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0470.html)

Yep, most likely. They do burn up a lot of gas.
:)

All weapons are deadly. That's their purpose.

I don't want to confuse the issue of whether they are efficient killers with the key difference made between certain weapons and others -- and that is their discrimination and long-term chronic effects.

A thermobaric weapon to clear a landing zone will kill just about anything nearby. That's its devastating purpose.

But once it's done it's job, it is inert. It needs to be. If you were landing in an LZ you'd not want to come into a hazardous site.

However, WP causes long-term toxic effects. CS could have been employed. Especially since it would not cause a long-term toxicity in an urban environment.

Furthermore, WP, to a far greater degree than CS, risked starting fires which could have gotten out of control. That should have been a consideration before using it in an urban environment.

Again, I'm not questioning the effectiveness of it as a weapons system. It worked.

However, it led to toxic contamination, indiscriminant civilian casualties and suffering, and degraded the moral justifications for the war.



The US can technically claim it's not illegal because we never signed.

We can technically claim that we evacuated the city.

The same way Saddam Hussein claimed he had the right to develop chemical weapons because he refused to be held party to international treaties and that technically the Kurds were rebels trying to overthrow his legitimate government.

It comes off hypocritically.

Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/reports/1996/Israel.htm) similarly cited Israel for doing the same in 1982, 1993, and other times of shelling of positions in actions in Lebanon.

As this NATO manual shows, even getting burned (http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/OperationalMedicine/DATA/operationalmed/Manuals/NATOEWS/ch03/03ChemicalBurns.html) by WP can lead to a chemical reaction in your body that can lead to sudden death by heart attack. It's not just that it burns. It's that it burns and is chemically toxic.

There were similar humanitarian issues raised with our use of it during Vietnam (http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_52_Medical.html). Even during the 1971 discussions they said that it was against the Geneva Accords.

Eisenhower knew it was against the Geneva Conventions in it use in WWII (http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/bombing/Thunderclap/censored_0245.html), and asked that there be a stop to all such conversations.

This sums up the situation on the US military's doctrine rather well (http://protectedstatic.blogspot.com/2005/11/politics-more-on-willie-pete.html), citing actual field manuals. It's against our national doctrine to employ it, and against international treaty (though we have not signed).

Folks keep using it now and then, from WWII to Vietnam to today. I'm not saying that it is illegal, but to employ it degraded our position vis-a-vis the common Iraqi, the same way that the insurgents bombing the Iraqis is degrading their position.

Using it destroys our credibility.

We should not be racing towards the bottom to see who is the most atrocious destroyer of the Iraqi civil populace.

Which do you believe is the most barbaric:
a. Saddam Hussein
b. Al Qaeda
c. The United States

Right now, we need to ensure that such a question is never answered with "c", or the mission will have failed. Furthermore, any other future missions will be met with increased risk, contempt, distrust, and non-cooperation if we go beyond what others see as a clear violation of the rules of war, even if we have not agreed to them.

You can pretend that others are not judging you, but that would not make you immune to the ramifications of your actions.

I just think it's unfortunate. We need to minimize questionable behavior, or the mission gets muddied like it did in Vietnam.


Right on.

How about you spend a little more time reading the quote you used? White Phosphorus is NOT an "illegal" weapon. Also, as I recall, the world's opinion counts for very little...nay, counts not at all in US elections. So, in reality, 61million American voters told the world to "butt out" of our elections, more famously in Ohio, where voters received letters from readers of a British newspaper, begging them not to vote for Bush.

As for Bush's approval rate (according to Rasmussen, the only truly non-biased pollster in the USA,) it currently stands at 46%, much higher than all you Kool-Aid drinkers on the Left would like. Also, there is a poll out (again, by Rasmussen) that shows over 65% of Americans approve of Al-Qaeda terrorist interrogations "by any means necessary." Again, so much for the vaunted "world opinion."

World opinion meant very little to Saddam too.

Considering how interconnected the word is, how vital other economies are to our own (record trade deficits anyone?) and our supposed role as the world policemen (otherwise, how do we justify our incursion into Iraq?) isn't it wise to give a shit about our standing in the world?

The world was with us after 9/11 to a level that hadn't been seen since WWII, and all of that is gone. The world sees us in a worse light than ever before...and not one of you Bush ass kissers ever stops too question why.

The US lying and being untrustworthy? Get out!

My sentiments to all the opposing forces that faced and suffered under the specific attacks of white phosphourous. But it does not surprise me, if I had the choice..I would try and get away with it myself if I knew it might help the war go faster, or save lives, or whatever. But then again, and thank God, I am not in the military.

USA TODAY/CNN GALLUP POLL (http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2005-11-14-poll.htm) gave Mr. Bush a 37% approval rating.

PollingReport.com (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm) shows all the major poll results at one go.

None show him higher than 42% since October.

You can also see that the "sea change" in public opinion for the War in Iraq (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) came when the US public, in Jan 2004 decided that they disapproved of how Bush was handling Iraq, and then in June 2004, decided that the economic cost was not worth it.

The war was deemed to be worth fighting -- for the first year. Then public approval dipped in Feb 2004, then wavered at about 50% until Sep 2004, and then sunk below 50% permanently. It was years after 9/11, and the war had simply gone on too long.

It's now been over a year since then. The public is now impatient.

The first part of public sentiment to slip was the acceptability of US casualties. That slipped below 50% after July 2003. It's been 30% or less since mid-2004. News flash: that was over a year ago.

Right now, the next element that is slipping and wavering is whether this action has actually helped protect the long-term security of the US. Right now, people are on the fence. They're not sure that this war has actually made us more secure. They are still nominally in support of keeping troops there until order is restored, but generally want that force commitment reduced.

In one poll, 57% say we're doing somewhat badly or very badly, while 40% believe we're doing somewhat well or very well. However, only 4% believe we are doing very well, while 26% believe we are doing very badly.

In another, the split was 55% badly/very badly, and 45% well/very well. A similar but more polarized split occurred where only 7% thought we were doing very well, but 28% thought we were doing very badly.

The biggest problem is that 94% of the US public, at least according to survey, believe that it will take longer than two years to create a stable democracy in Iraq, if it can ever do it at all (48% don't think it can ever happen).

So you can say 44% support Mr. Bush, but the question is "on what point do they support him?" and even then, that's still less than a majority.

How about you spend a little more time reading the quote you used? White Phosphorus is NOT an "illegal" weapon. Also, as I recall, the world's opinion counts for very little...nay, counts not at all in US elections. So, in reality, 61million American voters told the world to "butt out" of our elections, more famously in Ohio, where voters received letters from readers of a British newspaper, begging them not to vote for Bush.

As for Bush's approval rate (according to Rasmussen, the only truly non-biased pollster in the USA,) it currently stands at 46%, much higher than all you Kool-Aid drinkers on the Left would like. Also, there is a poll out (again, by Rasmussen) that shows over 65% of Americans approve of Al-Qaeda terrorist interrogations "by any means necessary." Again, so much for the vaunted "world opinion."

here's another poll by your precious Rasmussen:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Right%20Track%20November%2014.htm

gee, only 25% think the country is going in the right direction.

Oh, and Rasmussen has Bush's approval rate at 43%, not 46%, with a 56% disapproval.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

So you can't even quote your favorite (and outlying) sources right.

Oh, and if you look at the table to the left, you'll see that almost twice as many (40%) strongly disapprove of Bush compared to 21% who strongly approve.

Wow, Rasmussen even reports a 7 point lead for Democrats in who the people want to see in Congress.

Rasmussen also reports only 23% feel the economy is getting better.

And Democrats are leading in every single election 2006 poll rasmussen shows on their front page.

Only 39% say the US is winning the war on terror.

I couldn't even find a mention of torure and interrogation anywhere...perhaps you could linkie?

World opinion meant very little to Saddam too.

Considering how interconnected the word is, how vital other economies are to our own (record trade deficits anyone?) and our supposed role as the world policemen (otherwise, how do we justify our incursion into Iraq?) isn't it wise to give a shit about our standing in the world?

The world was with us after 9/11 to a level that hadn't been seen since WWII, and all of that is gone. The world sees us in a worse light than ever before...and not one of you Bush ass kissers ever stops too question why.

Actually i see the States in the exact same way i have always seen it...an amazing country that I would love to live in. I am not going to let a government whose foreign policy is perceived by some (but not by me) to be wrong to change my views on the States as it does not reflect the people.

I will continue to holiday in the States, as always, I am not going to let the media persuade me otherwise, the States is an awesome country IMHO.

Graham Harvey

Super.

Why dont we just start using napalm on civillian targets like in Nam?

Fuckers.

Actually i see the States in the exact same way i have always seen it...an amazing country that I would love to live in. I am not going to let a government whose foreign policy is perceived by some (but not by me) to be wrong to change my views on the States as it does not reflect the people.

I will continue to holiday in the States, as always, I am not going to let the media persuade me otherwise, the States is an awesome country IMHO.

Graham Harvey

No argument there. I love my country...which is why the current President almost makes me weep in frustration. The people who excuse "iffy" behavior by the civilian military leadership and the political machine (primarily, but not limited to, the Republicans,) make me think that some have lost their sight as to what "The Land of Opportunity" is supposed to be.

No argument there. I love my country...which is why the current President almost makes me weep in frustration. The people who excuse "iffy" behavior by the civilian military leadership and the political machine (primarily, but not limited to, the Republicans,) make me think that some have lost their sight as to what "The Land of Opportunity" is supposed to be.


Right F'ing on!

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/15/national/w150214S49.DTL

Flip flop!

What I don't understand, if the downplaying of it's use is to be believed, is why the State Department initially denied using it as a weapon?

It's very possible that the State Department doesn't communicate very well with the Defense Department.

The use of white phosphorus as a means of burning out recalcitrant insurgents who refused admonitions to surrender was documented in a publicly released After Action Report by the US Marines a few weeks after the Battle of Fallujah - and no one in the world make a stink about it then.

I will point out that even when used in that manner, it's perfectly legal under international agreements to which the US is a signatory.

I might add, that as someone who in peacetime has been inside the bursting radius of a 155mm white phosphorus shell (outdoors), that it is:

1) Not a gas
2) Not a chemical weapon
3) Really hazardous only if you're really close or catch a large fragment
4) Not something you want to be inside an enclosed space with, because it will set you completely on fire if you are.

My skin didn't melt off and I only received a few small burns. For people who don't know what it is, however, it's certain to induce panic.

Hence the "shake and bake" tactic. Fire a few WP shells on the target (usually troops who are dug in with no overhead cover), they panic and start to run just as the second barrage of ICM lands on them.

If you ever want to see a mass anatomy lesson, all you have to do is see what happens when ICM lands on infantry in the open. Far more gruesome than anything WP can do.

The use of white phosphorus incendiary shells, even against combatants in an urban area, is totally legal. White phosphorus, after burning, becomes phosphorus pentoxide, which immediately draws moisture out of the air and turns into phosphoric acid. If that phosphoric acid vapor is considered a chemical weapon, then so must every can of coca cola. Phosphoric acid is an ingredient in soda.

This is really a non-issue unless you're hell bent on smearing the US military and the facts mean nothing to you.

...Like the european media.

cunts.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/03/showdown_the_ba.html

The news on the use of white phosphorus has been out in the open since at least March 2005.

Hardly a secret, if the Marines publish an After Action Report.

It's very possible that the State Department doesn't communicate very well with the Defense Department.

The use of white phosphorus as a means of burning out recalcitrant insurgents who refused admonitions to surrender was documented in a publicly released After Action Report by the US Marines a few weeks after the Battle of Fallujah - and no one in the world make a stink about it then.

I will point out that even when used in that manner, it's perfectly legal under international agreements to which the US is a signatory.

Is the only standard for our conduct the letter of the law?

Is the only standard for our conduct the letter of the law?

White phosphorus is an integral part of the US arsenal.

If you think the US shouldn't use it, don't buy it for the military and give them manuals on how to best use it in a tactical situation.

It's the best thing for rapid smoke generation, and is effective in obscuring even against thermal sights.

Note that when used in Fallujah, there are several techniques mentioned:

1. Shake and bake. Firing a few WP shells to get the enemy to panic and run into the open, where successive rounds of ICM will kill them. The casualties and deaths don't come from the WP - even if you start out on fire from the WP, the ICM will shred your flesh from your bones.

2. Burning out a stronghold. Insurgents, according to the AAR, would hole up in a stone building or basement, and refuse to come out or surrender. One of the tactics used was to prime a block of explosive and tape it to a WP mortar shell. The combination of explosion (not large enough to bring down the stone building) and the WP effects in a confined space (suffocation, burning to death) ensured that the insurgents who refused to surrender were killed with the least risk to US soldiers and leaving the building intact.

Both of these are accepted tactics, and legal under the treaties to which the US is a signatory.

Personally, I have no problem with using fire weapons on insurgents. I fail to see how they are more inhuman than ICM - either way, you're dead and your friends won't be able to identify the body.

You didn't answer my question.

You didn't answer my question.

For the military, yes it is.

In fact, it's emphasized in training - you follow the letter of the law by following the pre-approved tactics during combat. You are constantly drilled on those tactics and methods, and use them during combat. You are allowed to improvise during combat in order to improve results, as long as you stay within those boundaries.

Firing on people who are well dug in requires innovative tactics in order to rout them and inflict casualties.

We could have stood off and dropped 2000 lb bombs from B-52 aircraft on the whole city, until the whole place was lip to lip craters. As it stands, it looks like the Marines took some pains not to level the entire place.

Minimizing US casualties is also a mission priority. So you don't have much time to inflict those casualties on the insurgents - you need a solution right now.

Firing WP on people who are fighting you is an acceptable tactic in all NATO forces. And in all US forces. You are told to avoid using it as the primary casualty generator unless it's necessary (such as burning the recalcitrant insurgents out of a basement).

I suppose if we still had flamethrowers, we would have used those instead. Do you approve of burning someone to death with jellied gasoline rather than burning phosphorus?

Having seen a lot of dismembered bits of what used to be people, from a personal perspective, it makes no difference to me whether you used white phosphorus or ICM to kill the enemy. Even a bullet can give you rather gruesome results.

DPICM has the tendency to reduce people to tiny bits all at once.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m864.htm

What I find interesting is that the Marines made no secret of it - releasing a report months ago.

The State Department bungles the answer.

The Defense Department admits the use.

This is more of a communication screw-up than some sinister conspiracy to cover up the use of WP.

What I don't understand, if the downplaying of it's use is to be believed, is why the State Department initially denied using it as a weapon?
They didn't use it as an actual weapon weapon, more of a "look at the scary burning shit you can't put out and run away" weapon as evidenced by the frigging quote

"We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE (high explosive)" munitions.

White phosphorus sticks around, unlike HE which is just one big explosion. The amount of people actually killed by the WP was negligible at worst. That assumes it actually killed anyone at all, which contrary to the accusations running around, there is no real evidence of.

While I concede the US use of WP in Falluja is objectively not the same as, say, the indiscriminant use of mustard gas, phosgene, or VX, the issues are as follows:

1. The US is using it in disregard of existing international treaties such as the 1980 Geneva Accords, which clearly ban the use of WP and incendiaries against civilians, or militaries in civilian areas. While the US refused to sign this, this is the standard the rest of the world is holding us to, and has every right to expect us to adhere to.

2. WP's use as a chemical weapon, as opposed to an incendiary, would be prohibited under the CWC, to which the US is a signatory. An argument explaining this can be found here (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/10/84846/024) and here (http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-fallujah3.html). I'll clarify below.

3. The toxic properties and long-term health problems associated with white phosphorus exposure are significant. It is used to make rat poisons. Exposure to air creates red phosphorus, though exposure to air and water can lead to thereafter to phosorus acid and phosphoric acid, which are less deadly. But here's a quote about white phosphorus itself: Those who sniffed its vapor said it had a garlicky odor before they died. (http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/phosphor.htm)

4. Even if it is not banned outright as a CW, and even if we successfully argue it was not really used for its chemical properties to flush out enemy insurgents, most people will not be able to distinguish the nuances in the arguments, and thus, the public can and will develop a negative opinion.

5. The State Department (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/050127-fallujah.htm) denied the use of WP against targets in Jan 2005, which was later proven wrong by the admission of the WP 'shake and bake' tactics. It leads to a credulity gap that a) we're making knee-jerk defenses without actually double-checking facts, or b) we're knowingly covering up the truth.

6. To flush an insurgent, riot control agents can be used -- legally -- under certain very limited contexts. It should be used by domestic police forces -- Iraqis -- not by foreign military forces. Our allies like the UK expressly do not wish to participate in any action where riot control agents were being deployed. It is against the CWC to use them in warfare.

7. It should be noted the insurgents are not operating as per the Geneva Conventions and do not observe the rules of war themselves. They clearly target civilians. They do not identify themselves as combatants by uniforms, and thus are non-state actors not qualified for proper treatment as POWs. It is imperative for us therefore to not fall into behaviors that lower our moral ground by similarly violating or even closely skirting the rules of war.

8. It may be tempting to use WP or CS as a riot control agent, but if we do so, we need to understand the moral responsibilities and to abide by international law. If we deploy such weapons, and defend the tactic, tomorrow a thousand more terrorists around the world might themselves start launching WP and CS attacks against targets, then gun victims down with conventional weapons once they are flushed out. Then point back to US tactical doctrine as the defensible example. "Look! We do no more than what the US military says is legal!" We need to set a more positive example.

9. This collectively erodes the basic US ethical argument against Saddam Hussein's use of other prohibited weapons of war by an unnecessary use of a questionable substance.

_______

The CWC, Article II: Definitions and Criteria (http://www.cwc.gov/treaty/articles/art-02_html)

1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

2. "Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)

...

7. "Riot Control Agent" means:

Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.

...

9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:

(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes;

(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons;

(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;

(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.

Under 1(a) and 9(c), it is legal to use WP as an illumination round even though it is a toxic substance. Under 2, though there's a list of chemicals that are specifically banned or controlled, any chemical that can cause such harm is covered -- even if it's not on the schedule -- if it is used as a CW. Thus, WP is not specifically exempted, but it is not permissible to use WP's chemical properties to conduct war.

If it was argued that it was being used domestically for law enforcement, it could also be used as a riot control agent. However, this needs to be strictly limited in scope.

There is a reasonable argument to be made WP was used for its heat and smoke properties. Yet at the same time it is toxic, and exposure to it toxicologically can lead to harm covered by the CWC's prohibitions, such as suffocation (as it chemically consumes oxygen in confined spaces), nausea, long-term debilitation or death.

Thus the argument can be made that its use does indeed constitute a violation of the CWC, even if that is by secondary effect and not primary design.

This does not mean that there is a clear-cut case for it under the CWC, but that an argument can be made that it violates the CWC.

However, the entire issue could have been gotten around by not using it in the first place.

The CWC even bans the use of WP (or the more conventional CS) if used as a "riot control agent" if it is used as a method of warfare. To use them legally, the tone has to shift from "war" to "law enforcement."

It should be used only by police, and only if it was employed to capture persons during the commission, wanted in connection with, or are guilty of crimes, not to smoke out enemy combatants for the purpose of gunning them down. I know that might sound like an eye-rolling groaner to some people, but the legal difference is the purpose and intent of their deployment.

The US shipped over CS rounds in Mar 2003, but Donald Rumfseld was somewhat taken aback by being told it was illegal according to the CWC (http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/brief-riotControl.html) to use them in a combat setting. Mr. Bush was hoping to "smoke them out." Again, it is permissible to use CS for riot control or police purposes.

But on 2 Nov 1974, Gerald Ford (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0302-03.htm) put a policy to prevent riot control agents from being used to flush an enemy in order to kill them after their use in the Vietnam war. It was National Security Decision Memorandum 279 (http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/document/nsdmnssm/nsdm279a.htm), which you can read online.

The President wishes, however, to preserve the option to use riot control agents in riot control circumstances (to include controlling rioting prisoners of war), in situations where civilian casualties can be reduced or avoided, in rescue missions, and in defensive modes to save lives.

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld both served under Gerald Ford and should remember this executive order.

However, this is superceded by the language of the CWC, which outrightly bans them as a method of war. Without any exceptions.

Yet the US military had been sending over CS and other agents for employment by our military. Its tactic was called into question in 1993, though it was cited that such could save lives, and did, in Vietnam (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/3/214326.shtml).

To use WP in 1994, lieu of CS, as a riot control agent to flush out the enemy was a contravention of the spirit, if not the word, of the CWC and NSDM279.

Where did the US get started in legitimizing the use of WP?

A history of the 4.2" chemical mortar (http://www.4point2.org/mortar42.htm) talks about the US's WWII historical use of WP offensively to disrupt the enemy and its use as an incendiary. We had Chemical Mortar Battalions which ironically did not launch any of the hundreds of thousands of shells of mustard gas or other deadly chemical weapons the US stockpiled.

But they were an excellent indirect fire weapon admired and feared by the enemy. They were converted to fire HE and WP for use for illumination, for smoke cover, and for offensive effect.

Smoke was a product of 4.2-inch chemical mortars and smoke generator units on land and aboard landing craft in amphibious operations, the U.S. Navy's use of smoke screens, and the then Army Air Corps' large-area screening smokes. Often on Luzon, aircraft were called upon to put down the initial screen to protect infantry assaulting a ridge line, after which 4.2-inch mortars maintained it by firing WP shells on the upwind side of the screen. The WP had physical and psychological impact on the Japanese troops in their "spider" holes covered and camouflaged with grass and brush. WP burned away their cover, and burning fragments fell into the holes onto them. WP cannot be extinguished with water, a factor that encouraged the victims to vacate their holes, exposing them to HE shrapnel.

-- Fire, Smoke and Steel:
The Jungle-Fighting 82nd Chemical Mortar Battalion (http://www.4point2.org/hist-82-p1.htm)

However, since 1944, the use of WP in an offensive capability has come under increasingly harsher international reaction, especially since the passage of Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980. (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument), the extension of the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Geneva, 10 October 1980. (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/495?OpenDocument)

1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

One reading might declare that the heat and incendiary affects of WP mean they are incidental, thus permitted under 1(b)(i). Yet if that was their primary purpose for employment, not illumination or smoke, then they are prohibitted.

While this did not apply to US use in Vietnam, and while the US, Iraq, Israel, and a few other nations never signed the Protocol, it was used as the basis for a denunciation of Israel's use in 1982, and now by the US in Iraq.

We are being judged by others who have signed it, and are being told that our behavior is beneath us if we wish to maintain the moral high ground.

Ninety (90) other nations (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=515&ps=P), including Russia, China, France, and the UK are state parties to the Protocol. For the US to technically argue it is allowed to do it because it has not signed the treaty is legally true, but disappointing, if not infuriating, to the world opinion.

That's why US allies, such as the UK, have pressured the US to abide by the 1980 accord, even if we have refused to sign.

Might I had that a thermoberic weapon is far more dangerous and we have used those in Afghanistan. The thermo is a poor man's nuke made from gasoline and explosives. When the case first blows, it spreads the vaporized gas over a large area then a secondary explosion sets all that off. Lack of better description it acts like a vacum and people who live are unlucky as they start to bled from nearly everywhere on their body.

Or you can just call it a FAE(Fuel Air Explosive). We used them in the first Gulf war and Saddam went whining to the UN that we had used nukes.

Somehow I'm not suprised.

Yes, apart from the use of WP, we refuse to sign Protocol III's ban of incendiaries because of our desire to use FAE to clear helicopter landing zones by ridding them of any vegetation, hidden personnel, and even antipersonnel mines by triggering sympathetic detonation.

It's certainly a departure from current military policy to use incendiary weapons in urban areas. The military is the same as it was since the Civil War: shoot anything and everything in sight. I thought we were trying to move towards more surgical strikes. It's important in urban warfare, and I am convinced that, in my lifetime, a major downtown area in the US will be occupied by the type of thugs we saw in Fallujah. Think of the AIM occupation of Little Big Horn, only bigger. The military would be called up, and I sure hope they have better ways of killing the bad guys than killing everyone, and hoping the bad guys are in there.

snip

How much do you want to bet that not a single proponent of using WP in a warfare setting responds directly to your excellent post?


As for those saying "this is old news!" I suspect that not everyone can read every publication every day. Not everyone has access to after action reports.

While I concede the US use of WP in Falluja is objectively not the same as, say, the indiscriminant use of mustard gas, phosgene, or VX, the issues are as follows:

-snip-

That's why US allies, such as the UK, have pressured the US to abide by the 1980 accord, even if we have refused to sign.

Finally! Someone argues it correctly.


And it may come as a shock to Gymoor II The Return and the others involved in the earlier discussions, but this is, in essence, quite close to my own position.

Go back over my posts if you don't believe me.
:)

Nowhere have I said that it *should* be used, just that the arguments being made against it were wrong. (Although my answer to the question of why use it - which was essentially becasue it works - may be construed as saying it should be used.)

And my early point that this current round of indignation is primarily a smeare agenda still stands.

How much do you want to bet that not a single proponent of using WP in a warfare setting responds directly to your excellent post?


As for those saying "this is old news!" I suspect that not everyone can read every publication every day. Not everyone has access to after action reports.

:D See the above.

We are being judged by others who have signed it, and are being told that our behavior is beneath us if we wish to maintain the moral high ground.

Ninety (90) other nations (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=515&ps=P), including Russia, China, France, and the UK are state parties to the Protocol. For the US to technically argue it is allowed to do it because it has not signed the treaty is legally true, but disappointing, if not infuriating, to the world opinion.


I guess that explains why the Russians have flame weapons like the RPO shoulder fired rocket (while the US retired the M202 Flash in the 1970s), and why thermobaric rounds (rounds that explicitly use flame and extra fuel to enhance an explosion) are marketed and used by France, Russia, China, Italy, as well as the US.

Have you ever seen me argue that the Russians are pure and innocent as the driven snow?

You won't see me crying a river to support international Chinese or Russian arms dealers.

The only red in my blood is American.

Have you ever seen me argue that the Russians are pure and innocent as the driven snow?

You won't see me crying a river to support international Chinese or Russian arms dealers.

The only red in my blood is American.

I would add that somehow you're trying to imply that the US was less than forthcoming about WP being used.

Hate to tell you, but I posted something earlier in the thread that showed that the Marines published their own After Action Report within a few weeks of the Battle of Fallujah - and it explicitly mentions the use of WP and other flame weapons.

It's very easy to make the case that the State Department doesn't really know what white phosphorus is, or who is using or not using it. The Department of Defense and State Department have traditionally had an extremely hard time communicating with each other.

If you want to know what the US is doing with its weapons, the last place to ask is the State Department.

How much do you want to bet that not a single proponent of using WP in a warfare setting responds directly to your excellent post?

As for those saying "this is old news!" I suspect that not everyone can read every publication every day. Not everyone has access to after action reports.

The After Action Reports were published on the Web on a wide variety of blogs. The mainstream media chose to ignore the AAR at the time, considering it to be boring stuff.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/15/national/w150214S49.DTL

Flip flop!

What I don't understand, if the downplaying of it's use is to be believed, is why the State Department initially denied using it as a weapon?


Because Bush and co are a bunch of typical fundamentalists...ie lying, hypocritical recta....

If you are brave enough to use it, be brave enough to admit it...

Well, back to using the "Napalm the bad guys" tactic used in Vietnam!

The After Action Reports were published on the Web on a wide variety of blogs. The mainstream media chose to ignore the AAR at the time, considering it to be boring stuff.

I would add that it seems strange that reporters don't seem to cultivate the military contacts that a few bloggers seem to have. Whatever happened to journalism?

Some of the best military affairs bloggers weren't even in the military, and aren't anywhere near Washington DC or any military base - yet they speak with far more authority and with far more contacts than any mainstream media reporter.

Go figure.