NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/17/white.phosphorous/index.html

Now after denying then admitting that WP was used as a weapon on insurgents (which, technically, isn't strictly illegal,) there are now allegations that WP was used on civilians.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/17/white.phosphorous/index.html

Now after denying then admitting that WP was used as a weapon on insurgents (which, technically, isn't strictly illegal,) there are now allegations that WP was used on civilians.

You should be more precise:

Right after Fallujah, the Marines made no secret of their use of WP against insurgents.

The State Department denied it, but you've got to ask yourself who would know - the State Department or the Marines. They don't talk to each other very much.

The Defense Department admitted it.

Stop trying to make it as though someone was trying to keep a secret, when it's obvious that at least the Marines and Defense Department were not keeping it secret.

You should be more precise:

Right after Fallujah, the Marines made no secret of their use of WP against insurgents.

The State Department denied it, but you've got to ask yourself who would know - the State Department or the Marines. They don't talk to each other very much.

The Defense Department admitted it.

Stop trying to make it as though someone was trying to keep a secret, when it's obvious that at least the Marines and Defense Department were not keeping it secret.

I'm sorry, I forgot that unless I absolve the President and Vice President and Cabinet of any wrongdoing, ill intent, distortion of the facts and flatulence, you take it to be an egregious case of bias.

All we know is that the State Department denied using it as a weapon, even though "everyone in the world" knew about it previously. I never said that it was being kept a secret. So stop trying to change the subject or attack the messenger, mmmkay?

What you completely ignored is the fact that this article deals with something that WASN'T made obvious by the Marines or the Defense Dept. which is that WP might have been used on civilians. Now this has become credible enought that the Iraqi government itself (our allies!) is investigating.

God damn, you knee jerk defend everything, don't you? You realize that your defense HAS NOTHING to do with the subject at hand, don't you?

Okay, how does this stuff work?

They just kinda drop it outta the plane, correct? Then how in heaven's sake can they exclude hitting civilians...it's not exactly a precision weapon.

I'm against using things like that in urban environments, regardless of the circumstances.

I'm sorry, I forgot that unless I absolve the President and Vice President and Cabinet of any wrongdoing, ill intent, distortion of the facts and flatulence, you take it to be an egregious case of bias.

All we know is that the State Department denied using as a weapon, even though "everyone in the world" knew about it previously. I never said that it was being kept a secret. So stop trying to change the subject or attack the messenger, mmmkay?

What you completely ignored is the fact that this articles deal with something that WASN'T made obvious by the Marines or the Defense Dept. which is that WP might have been used on civilians. Now this has become credible enought that the Iraqi government itself (our allies!) is investigating.

God damn, you knee jerk defend everything, don't you? You realize that your defense HAS NOTHING to do with the subject at hand, don't you?


No, my defense has everything to do with it.

That AAR was all over the place just a few weeks after Fallujah. They detail EXACTLY how it was used (in far more ways than has been covered in the mainstream media). Additional flame weapons were also covered.

Sure, they can investigate allegations. I don't have a problem with that. But when you say that we denied using it in the first place, you have to present ALL the facts - that the Marines admitted its use a long time ago in detail, that the State Department subsequently denied it, and the Defense Department admitted it.

That is the unbiased way to present it.

No, my defense has everything to do with it.

That AAR was all over the place just a few weeks after Fallujah. They detail EXACTLY how it was used (in far more ways than has been covered in the mainstream media). Additional flame weapons were also covered.

Sure, they can investigate allegations. I don't have a problem with that. But when you say that we denied using it in the first place, you have to present ALL the facts - that the Marines admitted its use a long time ago in detail, that the State Department subsequently denied it, and the Defense Department admitted it.

That is the unbiased way to present it.

The Marines might have admitted using it, but it wasn't publicized...whereas the State Department's comments were made publicly. There's a big difference and your assertion that it was all just an innocent snafu is at least as equally biased as stating the simple fact that the State department made a false statement to the American people which was demonstrably false before and after the fact. We have no way of knowing why the State Department said what it did, yet you would have us believe it was just a mistake.

The Marines might have admitted using it, but it wasn't publicized...

It certainly was publicized. The AAR was released as part of a public relations package immediately after the battle.

It's just not the Marines fault if the mainstream media doesn't bother to read the packets, while the bloggers post the contents.

I would call that bias right there - the media either assumed it was too boring to bother reading, or they felt the Marines were gladhanding themselves, and we can't have that made public, can we?

It certainly was publicized. The AAR was released as part of a public relations package immediately after the battle.

It's just not the Marines fault if the mainstream media doesn't bother to read the packets, while the bloggers post the contents.

I would call that bias right there - the media either assumed it was too boring to bother reading, or they felt the Marines were gladhanding themselves, and we can't have that made public, can we?

Apparently, the State Department felt the same way...

I would call that bias right there - the media either assumed it was too boring to bother reading, or they felt the Marines were gladhanding themselves, and we can't have that made public, can we?
CNN Breaking News: "Marines to use Phosphorous in Urban Combat"
Me the same day: "Bastards, they shouldn't do that"
Deep Kimchi the same day: "Anti military news!!! Teh Bias!"

Apparently, the State Department felt the same way...
It's a long known fact in this town that the State Department and the Defense Department have a hate/hate relationship, that they don't communicate, and if they do, they communicate as little as possible and very poorly.

I would NEVER ask the State Department any questions about what the military was doing - especially a technical question about weaponry - because the odds are 99 percent that the State Department spokesman wouldn't know a WP round if it was sitting in front of him.

Why don't we go to the Defense Department and ask them stupid questions about our trade and monetary policy with China? You'll get an equally idiotic answer.

CNN Breaking News: "Marines to use Phosphorous in Urban Combat"
Me the same day: "Bastards, they shouldn't do that"
Deep Kimchi the same day: "Anti military news!!! Teh Bias!"

It's not anti-military news to report that they used it in urban combat (which is not illegal by any agreement signed by the US).

It's not anti-military to accuse them of using it on civilians (we can always investigate).

But it does show bias to present only a single fact (the State Department denied it) and omit the fact that the Marines publicized its use a long time ago, and imply therefore that someone is covering up.

It's a long known fact in this town that the State Department and the Defense Department have a hate/hate relationship, that they don't communicate, and if they do, they communicate as little as possible and very poorly.

I would NEVER ask the State Department any questions about what the military was doing - especially a technical question about weaponry - because the odds are 99 percent that the State Department spokesman wouldn't know a WP round if it was sitting in front of him.

Why don't we go to the Defense Department and ask them stupid questions about our trade and monetary policy with China? You'll get an equally idiotic answer.

So NO ONE in the State Department reads these widely publicized reports you speak of? The State Department is less aware of what's going on in a foreign country than your average American?

Wow, you're right Kimchi, these guys are incompetent.

So NO ONE in the State Department reads these widely publicized reports you speak of? The State Department is less aware of what's going on in a foreign country than your average American?

If I put a WP mortar round in front of a State Department employee (with the exception of Gen. Powell), and an HE mortar round in front of the same employee, he would have a 50 percent chance of misidentifying which one was WP.

If they saw films of shell detonating on a target, they would have no idea which one was WP and which was not.

You need to ask military people those questions.

And no, the State Department does not read the press releases of the US Marines.

And no, how is the American public going to know about something that the Marines intended for wide distribution if the mainstream media NEVER PUTS IT ON THE AIR - and only military bloggers put it on the Internet?

Is that the fault of the Marines? Or does that show that the mainstream media is biased against publishing what the Marines tell them?

Wow, you're right Kimchi, these guys are incompetent.

Incompetent, empire building, turf war fighting, idiotic, lazy, shit for brains people who spend more time defending their department, its image, and its budget against the other cabinet level departments.

There is NO cooperation between State and Defense unless someone puts a boot up their ass and forces it.

Considering how many details each one deals with, it's no mystery that one doesn't know what the other is doing enough to answer a question about WP.

You must be under the naive illusion that our government is some streamlined, computerized, all-knowing, perfect in real-time institution.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Incompetent, empire building, turf war fighting, idiotic, lazy, shit for brains people who spend more time defending their department, its image, and its budget against the other cabinet level departments.

There is NO cooperation between State and Defense unless someone puts a boot up their ass and forces it.

Considering how many details each one deals with, it's no mystery that one doesn't know what the other is doing enough to answer a question about WP.

You must be under the naive illusion that our government is some streamlined, computerized, all-knowing, perfect in real-time institution.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The problem isn't that they didn't answer the question, the problem is that they answered it negatively.

And no, I don't think our government is some ultra-efficient entity. You apparently do, since you never miss an opportunity to defend it.

Okay, how does this stuff work?

They just kinda drop it outta the plane, correct? Then how in heaven's sake can they exclude hitting civilians...it's not exactly a precision weapon.

I'm against using things like that in urban environments, regardless of the circumstances.

I was under the impresion it was some kind of smoke grenade

I was under the impresion it was some kind of smoke grenade

wp can be air dropped for sure,and i do believe they have mortar and arty rounds as well.

all of which are are extremely accurate with the fire control computers they use,even counter battery mortar fire is accurate to a very small area.

so unless the terrs/enemies/combatants are intermingled with civilians at a very close proximity(i'm talking feet/few yards) the chances of them hitting civilians accidently is very slim.(mistakes do happen though,finger error for example)however...if the terrorists didn't use civilians as shields this would not be an issue.(maybe we should look at the terr's with the jaded eye in this case)

wp is a type of smoke/cover grenade thing...however,it is more like a small waxy napalm round....dual purpose i suppose.

it is used to basically flush out the enemy(much like a flamethrower in ww2)and then shoot or bomb them out in the open,due to the burning and smoke.

very nasty stuff,but then again so is war..period.

it is also more area specific(more pinpoint)then napalm for example.napalm is also used for similar situations,ie.flushing people out of bunkers and tunnels.however i think napalm does that by sucking the oxygen out of the bunkers/holes/tunnels and by incinerating anyone above ground were it lands.
wp i think is more containable/aimable?
sorta like carpet bombing vs. precision guided munitions.

i am not sure if i have this absolutely perfect,however i think it is pretty accurate from my feeble old memory..lol;)

...if the terrorists didn't use civilians as shields this would not be an issue.(maybe we should look at the terr's with the jaded eye in this case)
"Insurgents", not "Terrorists".

Okay, how does this stuff work?

They just kinda drop it outta the plane, correct? Then how in heaven's sake can they exclude hitting civilians...it's not exactly a precision weapon.

I'm against using things like that in urban environments, regardless of the circumstances.

This (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm) site explains it pretty well. In the case of Fallujah, it was artillery rounds.

For a more indepth look at it, check this article: The Fight For Fallujah By Captain James T. Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour and Sergeant First Class William H. Hight Field Artillery March-April 2005 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/2-2AARlow.pdf). (That's a fairly large pdf, by the way.)

Damn i was going to post a topic on this but ask is the use of Phosphorous in Grenade form or other morally wrong.

i say hell no.
Free the bitches Lungs
It is legit.

"Insurgents", not "Terrorists".
Freedom Fighters not Insurgents.

Freedom Fighters not Insurgents.
Well, not so sure about that...matter of perspective I guess.

"Insurgents", not "Terrorists".

So you'll call them insurgents even though they are killing civilians?

I say they are terrorists for doing that. Insurgents if they just attacked our forces but they are attacking civilians. That makes them terrorists.

And Deep Kimchi? Forget argueing with Gymoor. He's not worth it since his mind is already made up and hasn't learned a thing regarding WP. I'm sure he doesn't even know what HE stands for.

"Insurgents", not "Terrorists".

good point and point taken.

however,i do believe from my casual news viewing(granted american news..lol..however i do love bbc and npr)that a good percentage of the "insurgents" are really arabs of other nationalities that are in reality fighting as jihadists.
i can understand a native iraqi resenting an american "occupation" and fighting a guerilla type war(how else could they fight given our overwhelming tech. and weaponry?)
i cant understand an iraqi insurgent using his own people as shields,given he is fighting for his national soveirnty and for his countrymen.if i was in his shoes,i would hide in the population and commit attacks against the invaders only at the time and place of my choosing...and innocent countrymen of mine would definately factor into my tactics and plans..ie..not wanting to hurt/kill my own in a crossfire or putting them in a position of being held culpable for my actions.(the french resistance went to great lenghts to distance themselves from there community but did use them as a support base without involving them directly)
now on the other hand,arab jihadists from neighboring countries,fighting an "unholy..err...holy war" against the great satan would probably not be very sqeamish at using innocent iraqis as shields or worse,as bait or even killing them themselves to further there goals.
a true patriot or nationalist would do everything in there power to minimize pain and suffering on there own people..imho...but i cant understand or fathom the jihadist"ends justify the means" mentality of the people that kill in the name of god...anyone(muslim/christian/jew/whatever)

i guess my point is,i dont think they give a flying @#%$ about iraqis or anyone but there own distorted idea of reality.
so they arent really insurgents or resisting the occupation of iraq,but furthering at any means possible there twisted world view..no matter the cost in innocent lives.

sorry for the novel...lol...i just cant understand the idea of blowing up my own people/innocent bystanders to further my cause..so i find there rational...wanting to say the least.

also...lastly(phew..lol)i am no blindly apologist for america kinda guy..i am definately not a bush supporter...(a libertarian actually)but the mere thought of ANY american soldier intentionally targeting innocents is absolutely foolish and stupid.
i know many american soldiers,from top ranks to grunts,and they are just not raised or i guess..it's not in our dna to intentionally hurt innocent people..hell most people i know would be court martialed if ordered to attack a target they knew to be an innocent party.there is always the abhorrant malcontent,but they are just as likely to attack there mates because they have a screw loose somewhere.
the same cannot be said about the fanatics that are detonating bombs in markets.
and i strongly doubt they are mostly insurgents...rather insane..dare i say ..terrorists.

and i dont even want to get into the whole..occupation vs.liberation argument...just trying to differentiate "insurgents"vs."terrorist" thing

"Insurgents", not "Terrorists".

They are terrorists when they deliberately target civilians, but maybe to anti-war people as long as the terroirists kill some coalition soldiers in the attempt then the civilian deaths don't matter. And yet, when the coalition forces accidentally kill a civilian they are called terrorists by the anti-war movement.....how strange, why don't they call Saddam a terrorist then? Or is it all right for a leader to kill his own people? I guess then the anti-war movement won't mind one bit if the US government decides to take more forceful action to stop the movements anti-iraqi freedom & democracy protests.

-snip-
So you'll call them insurgents even though they are killing civilians?
I say they are terrorists for doing that. Insurgents if they just attacked our forces but they are attacking civilians. That makes them terrorists.
I take your points...AQ are terrorists, Al-Zarqawi's grunts are terrorists (I assume "member of a terrorist group" to be enough of a criterion - even though they may not actually be involved in a terrorist act).

Question is how many of the guys trapped in Faludja were actually members of groups like that, and how many were simply kids like me, or Corny, who refuse to flee with their families and instead get their gun and think they can be heroes fighting the allegedly evil Americans and their campaign against your home town.

I take your points...AQ are terrorists, Al-Zarqawi's grunts are terrorists (I assume "member of a terrorist group" to be enough of a criterion - even though they may not actually be involved in a terrorist act).

Question is how many of the guys trapped in Faludja were actually members of groups like that, and how many were simply kids like me, or Corny, who refuse to flee with their families and instead get their gun and think they can be heroes fighting the allegedly evil Americans and their campaign against your home town.

Those kids you can probably call insurgents.

So you'll call them insurgents even though they are killing civilians?

I say they are terrorists for doing that. Insurgents if they just attacked our forces but they are attacking civilians. That makes them terrorists.

And Deep Kimchi? Forget argueing with Gymoor. He's not worth it since his mind is already made up and hasn't learned a thing regarding WP. I'm sure he doesn't even know what HE stands for.

He's gone from "OMFG!!! Teh US is using chemical weapomns illegally!" (Exagerated for effect.) to "The US is using incendiary weapons that are not illegal in a possibly illegal manner." I'd say that's having learned something.

He's gone from "OMFG!!! Teh US is using chemical weapomns illegally!" (Exagerated for effect.) to "The US is using incendiary weapons that are not illegal in a possibly illegal manner." I'd say that's having learned something.

Even though its been proven that it wasn't used in an illegal manner nor was it covered up as Gymoor is still implying.

Even though its been proven that it wasn't used in an illegal manner nor was it covered up as Gymoor is still implying.

Well, I'm going to wait and see. If the allegations that civilians were deliberatly targeted turn out to be true, then it certainly hasn't been proven to have not been used illegally.

Well, I'm going to wait and see. If the allegations that civilians were deliberatly targeted turn out to be true, then it certainly hasn't been proven to have not been used illegally.

Apparently you are forgetting that there was an after action report filed by the Marines (at least according to Deep Kimchi).

We do not target civilians indiscriminately. Accidents do happen but I doubt that anything was intentional.

I take your points...AQ are terrorists, Al-Zarqawi's grunts are terrorists (I assume "member of a terrorist group" to be enough of a criterion - even though they may not actually be involved in a terrorist act).

Question is how many of the guys trapped in Faludja were actually members of groups like that, and how many were simply kids like me, or Corny, who refuse to flee with their families and instead get their gun and think they can be heroes fighting the allegedly evil Americans and their campaign against your home town.

another good point..wow...your winning me over with your openmindedness..no sarcasm.
i could easily see myself doing exactly that,especially if i was not well educated and mostly taught by religous schools.(an alien concept to me,but i am trying to understand the point of view..lack of questioning authority and fundamentalist teachings)

to answer your question..hmmm..if my family was still there,i would fight and most likely die(given the forces arrayed against me...ie falludja)
however...hating violence like i do...and being a bit of a pussy(not wanting to be shot to pieces)if my family heeded the daily announcements for the month previous to the offensive(which was pretty nice of us, and allowed alot of top tier terr's to escape by the way)and my family split...shit..i would be long gone b4 the shooting started..asses and elbows would be all you saw of me...haha,family was there,i would definately grab a gun and fight the invader.
although that is simplistic in away..the question you asked.
the iraqi gov and the americans pretty much did backflips telling them what was coming and that there fight was with the terrorists..not the average iraqi

another good point..wow...your winning me over with your openmindedness..no sarcasm.
*blushes*
Thanks. May sensibility prevail on all sides of the pond.

Well, I'm going to wait and see. If the allegations that civilians were deliberatly targeted turn out to be true, then it certainly hasn't been proven to have not been used illegally.

if the us military intentionally targeted civilians with wp...i'll eat my hat!

never happen in a million years...i cant see any true american dropping a wp round down a arty tube or mortar KNOWING IT WAS AIMED AT AN INNOCENT.

i am cynical enough to maybe..maybe think some asshole commander said shoot at this coordinate and the trooper(the one that gets killed and maimed)dutifully shoots not knowing the true target.

even that is farfetched to the extreme...given that us americans know all about scandals and know even better how to cya.
even a nutso commander lashing out heard about the mai lai massacre and knows you will be strung up for that nonsense..some may think it..the sick behaviour...a miniscule amount would ever even contemplate acting on there sick ideas.

i can see a stressed out trooper losing it...but calling a wp attack on civvies by an officer..never.

*blushes*
Thanks. May sensibility prevail on all sides of the pond.

amen to that my friend!

i can honestly say you got me thinking..and that is a good thing.

my dad use to say there is 3 sides to every coin/debate/argument.....1 side...the other side...and the truth!

i aint trying to make your head big...but i honestly never considered the point you made about some some scared kid grabbing a gun and defending his home or town.funny,i should have thought of that myself.

damn i love the internet,if you keep your mind somewhat open and actually listen to what people are saying,rather then biding your time to respond...you can actually learn a thing or two.

i would like to thank you for an intelligent debate,rather then just kneejerk responces based on affiliation with certain political talking points pov.
i actually learned something of value!

of which i am occasionally guilty of..usually alcohol induced..lol

it was truly my pleasure interacting with you..i do read your posts with interest usuallly,even though i do at times disagree with your pov,but thats why we need to talk i think..all of us that is.

i think i read you may be going to germany with your family again,and something about military service?is it compulsary?if you go...just remember ...keep your head down and never volunteer for anything..lol

and of coarse....be safe

thanks

I just sent this to GlobalSecurity.org, spotting a typo.

Also, there's a clarification below.

To: john@globalsecurity.org
From: (me)
Subject: WP correction and clarification
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:09:27 -0800

Hello, John,

On this page about WP:

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

It says:

Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC),
the 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.

However, the actual applicable protocol is Protocol III, which you
have on your site elsewhere:

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

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

Protocol II is related to mines, booby traps, and other devices:

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

Also, the context of the application of WP is the issue of specific
contention. While the argument can fall one way or the other, and
whether one agrees or disagrees, the argument is as follows:

> 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;
>
> (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or
> fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as
> armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs
> and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary
> effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to
> persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as
> armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

Therefore WP is definitely useable under 1(b)(i).

However, under the main article 1 itself, if a weapon is primarily
designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury, then it is
banned. In this case, the issue is the context of its application, or
the construal of the word 'design.'

If it was specifically employed to cause burns and heat effects, and
not primarily deployed for illumination or obscuration, thus it is
arguable it constitutes a violation of Protocol III.

Neither the US nor Iraq are state parties to Protocol III, and thus
are not technically held to it, but it is the standard against which
the world is attempting to hold the United States. Israel was also
called out for it in 1996 by Human Rights Watch in Lebanon for the
employment of WP or a similar substance in 1992.

http://hrw.org/reports/1996/Israel.htm

Neither Israel nor Lebanon are state parties to Protocol III either.
Yet 90 other nations are.

By the way, love the site, and cite it often.

I understand some of you believe there's nothing wrong with using WP in a military context. Interestingly, I believe WP was employed after Donald Rumsfeld found out the use of CS (tear gas) was banned from military use because of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the US is a signatory.

In March of 2003 (http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/brief-riotControl.html), Donald Rumsfeld supported using CS, but realized he could not argue with the letter of the law.

Of course, Donald Rumsfeld should have remembered National Security Decision Memorandum 279 of November 1974, being in the Ford administration at the time along with Dick Cheney, how that US President banned the use of CS (http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/document/nsdmnssm/nsdm279a.htm) and herbicides.

Why over 30 years later he wished to employ them in direct contravention of both NSDM 279 and CWC is a bit of a question.

My thoughts involving this is that WP was employed as a second choice, once the more optimal solution was taken off the table.

Elsewhere I have argued that CS could be used if the situation was downgraded from a military action to a police action performed by domestic riot police.

If terrorists were dealt with by the Iraqi police, they could indeed use CS to smoke them out.

By the laws governing warfare, our military is banned from using it as a method of war.

However, neither the US nor Iraq are signatories to Protocol III, so therefore -- it can all burn legally.

Morally and ethically, it is an intractible position, since the US stands in judgement of 90 other nations who are signatories to this Protocol.

Remember that the vast majority of people are not going to know or care what is legal. They are going to let their emotions be swayed by what they think is right or wrong.

You can argue it was "allowed" all you want. The ref can even call the foul in your favor. The home team crowd in the stands is still booing you.

We can't afford more booing if we wish to keep the nation of Iraq from falling towards civil war. We need to behave better simply because it is expected of us.

The lesson: any other unconventional tactics in counter-insurgency operations should probably be discussed with the Iraqi government before employment in the future. If we have their explicit approval, it is far better than to be seen unilaterally deploying them.

I just sent this to GlobalSecurity.org, spotting a typo.

Also, there's a clarification below.



I understand some of you believe there's nothing wrong with using WP in a military context. Interestingly, I believe WP was employed after Donald Rumsfeld found out the use of CS (tear gas) was banned from military use because of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the US is a signatory.

In March of 2003 (http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/brief-riotControl.html), Donald Rumsfeld supported using CS, but realized he could not argue with the letter of the law.

Of course, Donald Rumsfeld should have remembered National Security Decision Memorandum 279 of November 1974, being in the Ford administration at the time along with Dick Cheney, how that US President banned the use of CS (http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/document/nsdmnssm/nsdm279a.htm) and herbicides.

Why over 30 years later he wished to employ them in direct contravention of both NSDM 279 and CWC is a bit of a question.

My thoughts involving this is that WP was employed as a second choice, once the more optimal solution was taken off the table.

Elsewhere I have argued that CS could be used if the situation was downgraded from a military action to a police action performed by domestic riot police.

If terrorists were dealt with by the Iraqi police, they could indeed use CS to smoke them out.

By the laws governing warfare, our military is banned from using it as a method of war.

However, neither the US nor Iraq are signatories to Protocol III, so therefore -- it can all burn legally.

Morally and ethically, it is an intractible position, since the US stands in judgement of 90 other nations who are signatories to this Protocol.

Remember that the vast majority of people are not going to know or care what is legal. They are going to let their emotions be swayed by what they think is right or wrong.

You can argue it was "allowed" all you want. The ref can even call the foul in your favor. The home team crowd in the stands is still booing you.

We can't afford more booing if we wish to keep the nation of Iraq from falling towards civil war. We need to behave better simply because it is expected of us.

The lesson: any other unconventional tactics in counter-insurgency operations should probably be discussed with the Iraqi government before employment in the future. If we have their explicit approval, it is far better than to be seen unilaterally deploying them.

for once i will be concise.........WELL SAID

"Insurgents", not "Terrorists".
:rolleyes: Does it matter what you call people who blow themselves up in marketplaces?

:rolleyes: Does it matter what you call people who blow themselves up in marketplaces?


i can accept insurgent...but i have a tough time with "freedom fighter":headbang:

i can accept insurgent...but i have a tough time with "freedom fighter":headbang:

Does it matter what you call people who blow themselves up in marketplaces?


yes...the iraqi lady buying..i don't know fruits or dates...that gets blown to bits and orphans her children feels real free...free of the shackles of life maybe..but free...ask her kids, or her husband..or damn..even her..oh you cant,she's blown to bits so some bearded fellows can tell us all how to live!..i am baffled,i am suppose to think of these abhorrant miswired people as freedom fighters?:headbang:

freedom fighter...i seriously doubt that title...what a misnomer.

sorry..i was suppose to edit my last post and came off as a new post...bed time me thinks

So you'll call them insurgents even though they are killing civilians?
They are not all killing civilians therefore there are freedom fighters and terrorists.

I say they are terrorists for doing that. Insurgents if they just attacked our forces but they are attacking civilians. That makes them terrorists.
The majority are insurgents.

And Deep Kimchi? Forget argueing with Gymoor. He's not worth it since his mind is already made up and hasn't learned a thing regarding WP. I'm sure he doesn't even know what HE stands for.
This is laughable.:rolleyes:

Even though its been proven that it wasn't used in an illegal manner nor was it covered up as Gymoor is still implying.

More proof that you can't read Corny. Daistallia 2104, I can argue with and appreciate because there is some interplay. I even probaly owe Daistallia 2104 an apology, because I reacted more negatively to him/her than I really should have. My bad. He makes a point that I have to concede, and he'll concede when I've made a point. You never concede, Corny, at least to my knowledge. You never admit to not knowing something. You don't incorporate items that have come up into future arguments. You simply stick by your talking points come hell or high water. Daistallia 2104 and I may disagree, but I recognize his intent to argue rationally and address specific points.

Secondly, it has NOT been proved that WP hasn't been used in an illegal manner. This is why the Iraqi government is investigating.

Third, I am not saying it's been covered up. What I am saying is that the State departemnt answered a question to the negative when there was information available to anyone that they were full of it. While I don't expect the government to be a paragon of truthfulness and efficiency, I expect them to at least be as informed as a two-bit blogger. Therefore the State Department's denial of it's use (as a weapon) is either gross incompetence or an effort to cover something up. An important distinction that doesn't enter into evidence information that we simply don't have (such as your contention that anything has been proven.)

Zealots (http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Zealots).

You might not consider them to be, but they consider themselves to be.

They see the US as the hated supporters of Zionism. They see the US as the Great Satan.

Just as we demonized the Soviet Union during the Cold War, they are demonizing us as the latest colonial power.

One thing that would help in defeating them is to understand their position. To truly get into their psychology and at least for a time suspend your own prejudices.

The Navy did an article on this in 2002 (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/sept02/homeland.asp).

The issue of the fallacy is called 'mirror-imaging.'

You think a certain way, so you cannot see how your opponent would be able to think differently.

Just because you do not believe martyrdom is the way to achieve a place in heaven does not mean that those who propound that philosophy will simply give it up.

You could even point out the mullahs preach the credo of hate yet never do we see them committing suicide-homocide themselves. No, they sit back and ask the young unemployed men to go kill themselves.

It would not necessarily sway them.

To defeat this, you have to admit what they see as the primary motivators. Zealotry is only part of the picture (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2005_09.php).

You have to also argue convincingly to them it is in their society's common best interest (http://www.shma.com/may02/david.htm) to put aside their ways and move into the 21st Century, rather than the 15th.

If the mullahs stopped preaching for young men to kill themselves, or if the young men simply told the mullah to shut up and that they wanted a different, better life, you'd see the problem evaporate.

Until they both decide to stop, it will be a long road, strewn with IEDs and RPG ambushes.

More proof that you can't read Corny.
:D

You never concede, Corny, at least to my knowledge. You never admit to not knowing something.
Of course not Gymoor, that would simply be unCornstitutional!!

You don't incorporate items that have come up into future arguments. You simply stick by your talking points come hell or high water.
*CanuckHeaven pictures Cornman treading water.

Well, not so sure about that...matter of perspective I guess.
OK how about remnants of the Iraqi regime wishing to put their competent leader back on his throne?

We do not target civilians indiscriminately. Accidents do happen but I doubt that anything was intentional.

Whose this "we" you're talking about? Last I remember was that you weren't anywhere in the army.

OK how about remnants of the Iraqi regime wishing to put their competent leader back on his throne?
I don't think that all, or even many, of them would be ex-Ba'athists either.

And I think "competent" may not be the right word either...seeing as to where Iraq was at when the war started. You could argue that it was all due to the sanctions (incorrectly IMHO), but even then - it is the job of the leader to keep relations with other countries at a reasonable level.

We do not target civilians indiscriminately. Accidents do happen but I doubt that anything was intentional.


I used to believe that.

However, given that the number of civillian casualties in this war have are numbering over 100,000, over 2/3 of wich, the American military is directly responsible for, I just cant believe that.

Thats a lot of "accidents".

Im thinking instead, that they are chalked up as "acceptable losses".
Meaning, if x number of suspected insurgents are killed in such bombings, that y number of civillian deaths are acceptable.

When considering that even our staunch allies of Britian are shocked as to the number of civillian deaths, as reported by the BBC, and certainly NOT reported by American news agencies, i just dont understand why even hard-core Bush supporters and Conservatives like yourself can continue to swallow this load of crap.

I used to believe that.

However, given that the number of civillian casualties in this war have are numbering over 100,000, over 2/3 of wich, the American military is directly responsible for, I just cant believe that.

Thats a lot of "accidents".

Im thinking instead, that they are chalked up as "acceptable losses".
Meaning, if x number of suspected insurgents are killed in such bombings, that y number of civillian deaths are acceptable.

When considering that even our staunch allies of Britian are shocked as to the number of civillian deaths, as reported by the BBC, and certainly NOT reported by American news agencies, i just dont understand why even hard-core Bush supporters and Conservatives like yourself can continue to swallow this load of crap.

This is very, very disturbing. As you say, when even Blair is distancing hiself, you know you have a very serious question to answer.

Other world powers have agreed not to use WP as a weapon, either against military or civilian targets. Genuine question: Why has the USA not done so? I don't understand the necessity for it.

Okay, how does this stuff work?

They just kinda drop it outta the plane, correct? Then how in heaven's sake can they exclude hitting civilians...it's not exactly a precision weapon.

I'm against using things like that in urban environments, regardless of the circumstances.

WP is not in any air-dropped munitions. So get that idea out of your head.

WP is a filler in artillery shells, mortar shells, and there's even a WP hand grenade.

The artillery shells today are extremely accurate. Even when fired from a distant location, they are going to land within a few meters of the designated target on the first try.

They do have a radius of effect. WP shells use a small explosive to immediately scatter fragments of burning WP upwards and outwards - they shower to the ground as burning bits and a white opaque cloud instantly forms. I have been directly inside such a cloud and it is not poison gas.

If you get a fragment on you, it will burn you. It can't be extinguished - you have to knock the fragments off of you (they fall on you lightly and if you're quick, you can do this). The cloud has no stinging properties at all - it's nothing like a riot gas (in fact, it's not a gas at all).

WP shells were also used as an improvised means of cleaning insurgents out of basements. If insurgents in a basement refused to come out, and showed a willingness to keep fighting (usually by throwing grenades of their own up the stairs), a WP shell rigged with a block of C-4 was thrown down into the basement. In a confined space like that, WP will set every burnable item on fire - clothing, furniture, people - it will also nearly instantly use up all of the breathable air in the confined space, heat the air, and create choking combustion byproducts (smoke). Much more effective than the explosive alone.

This is very, very disturbing. As you say, when even Blair is distancing hiself, you know you have a very serious question to answer.

Other world powers have agreed not to use WP as a weapon, either against military or civilian targets. Genuine question: Why has the USA not done so? I don't understand the necessity for it.


I wish I had an answer for you.

The only one I can come up with, as to why the US still uses it, is becuase we refuse to allow anyone, even our own allies, to tell us how to conduct warfare.
Bush has an agenda in Iraq, and obviously, the safety of the people of Iraq, has very little to do with it, if such weapons are still being used.

Arrogance, is all I can say.
Arrogance and hippocracy.

They are not all killing civilians therefore there are freedom fighters and terrorists.

This has got to be the dumbest statement ever in the history of Nationstates. I guess you do not follow the news what so ever.

Suicide Bombings Kill at Least 60 in Iraq
Targets Include Shiite Mosque and Hotel for Journalists (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051118013809990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

You were saying that they are not terrorists?

The majority are insurgents.

Only if they attack our forces but they are not. They are terrorists since they are deliberately targeting civilians.

This is laughable.:rolleyes:

Your the laughable one.

Whose this "we" you're talking about? Last I remember was that you weren't anywhere in the army.

We=the United States.

WP shells were also used as an improvised means of cleaning insurgents out of basements. If insurgents in a basement refused to come out, and showed a willingness to keep fighting (usually by throwing grenades of their own up the stairs), a WP shell rigged with a block of C-4 was thrown down into the basement. In a confined space like that, WP will set every burnable item on fire - clothing, furniture, people - it will also nearly instantly use up all of the breathable air in the confined space, heat the air, and create choking combustion byproducts (smoke). Much more effective than the explosive alone.
I suppose this is one of those situations where I am left with a bad feeling in my stomach while you guys celebrate a victory over the evil terrorists...

The Pentagon has acknowledged using incendiary white-phosphorus munitions in a 2004 offensive against insurgents in the Iraqi city of Fallujah and defended their use as legal, amid concerns by arms control advocates.

Army Lt Col Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said the US military had not used the highly flammable weapons against civilians, contrary to an Italian state television report this month that stated the munitions were used against men, women and children in Fallujah who were burned to the bone.

"We categorically deny that claim," Lt Col Venable said.

"It's part of our conventional-weapons inventory and we use it like we use any other conventional weapon," added Bryan Whitman, another Pentagon spokesman.

Col Venable says white phosphorus weapons are not outlawed or banned by any convention.

However, a protocol to an accord on conventional weapons which took effect in 1983 forbids using incendiary weapons against civilians.

The protocol also forbids their use against military targets within concentrations of civilians, except when the targets are clearly separated from civilians and "all feasible precautions" are taken to avoid civilian casualties.

The United States is a party to the overall accord, but has not ratified the incendiary-weapons protocol or another involving blinding laser weapons.

White phosphorus munitions are primarily used by the US military to make smoke screens and mark targets, but also as an incendiary weapon, the Pentagon says.

They are not considered chemical weapons.

The substance ignites easily in air at temperatures of about 30 degrees Celsius and its fire can be difficult to extinguish.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, questioned whether the US military was using the weapons in a manner consistent with the conventional weapons convention.

"White phosphorous weapons should not be used just like any other conventional weapon," Mr Kimball said.

Mr Kimball called for an independent review of how the United States was using the weapons and possibly an investigation by countries that are parties to the convention "to determine whether their use in Iraq is appropriate or not".

US forces used the white phosphorus during a major offensive launched by Marines in Fallujah, about 50 kilometres west of Baghdad, to flush out insurgents.

The battle in November of last year involved some of the toughest urban fighting of the two-and-a-half-year war.

Col Venable says in the Fallujah battle "US forces used white phosphorous both in its classic screening mechanism and ... when they encountered insurgents who were in foxholes and other covered positions who they could not dislodge any other way".

He says soldiers employed a "shake-and-bake" technique of using white phosphorus shells to flush enemies out of hiding and then use high explosives artillery rounds to kill them.

The Italian documentary showed images of bodies recovered after the Fallujah offensive, which it said proved the use of white phosphorus against civilians.

"We don't target any civilians with any of our weapons, and to suggest that US forces were targeting civilians with these weapons would simply be wrong," Mr Whitman said.

- Reuters



Whats the problem ? Seems like a good way to kill or flush out the enemy and protect yourself from being shot . Since when is using good tactics somehow illegal ...its not like they are playing touch football .
Just more anti - war drivel .

This has got to be the dumbest statement ever in the history of Nationstates. I guess you do not follow the news what so ever.

Suicide Bombings Kill at Least 60 in Iraq
Targets Include Shiite Mosque and Hotel for Journalists (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051118013809990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001)
Quit posturing and learn to read. The majority of "insurgents" DO NOT target civilians (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8745655/site/newsweek/):

The distinction between resistance and terror is an important one—and one not often made by U.S. officials in Iraq. Take, for example, the daily press releases from the U.S. military via their combined public information center, a.k.a. CPIC—here in Baghdad. A military operation in Mosul: 10 terrorists captured, is a typical comment. A firefight in outside Baghdad: three terrorists killed. A security sweep based on good intelligence—a terrorist operation thwarted. It all sounds pretty clear. But it's not. The vast majority of these so-called terrorists that the U.S. military brags about killing and capturing are actually insurgents fighting the American occupation and the fledgling Iraqi government. Categorizing them as terrorists has probably played well with a gullible American public—indeed, it probably makes them feel safer—but factually speaking it's wrong.

The vast majority of attacks against U.S. and Iraqi security forces are perpetrated by former members of Saddam Hussein's regime and Sunnis fearful of being politically marginalized by the Kurds and majority Shiites. Then there are the foreign Muslims coming into Iraq to wage jihad against the United States and its allies, primarily through suicide bombings. The first group sees itself as resisting an army of occupation, the second neither cares about the Iraqi people nor the country's political status, wanting only to thwart the Americans by creating fear and chaos. The latter group can fairly be called terrorists.

I guess you would be one of those "gullible" ones, or perhaps it is just denial that has a hold on you. You are like a fountain gushing forth the Bush mantra.


You were saying that they are not terrorists?
I didn't say there wasn't terrorists there, just that the majority are not. If you want to debate, please improve your comprehension skills.:eek:

I didn't say there wasn't terrorists there, just that the majority are not. If you want to debate, please improve your comprehension skills.:eek:
*Smacks CanuckHeaven in the head*
Who are you debating? And you want him to do what? What are you expecting--a miracle from above? :D

In Iraq you are fighting an insurency along with foreign terrorist like Al- queda in Iraq . Although both may at times use terror tactics . Both have targeted civilians especially Shiites by the Sunni Insurgents and Al - queda to foment civil war . Saying that they BOTH do not target civilians is BULLSHIT of the highest order . They do not think of " civilians " the way we do .

The first group sees itself as resisting an army of occupation, the second neither cares about the Iraqi people nor the country's political status, wanting only to thwart the Americans by creating fear and chaos

Whats missing here is ...as long as they are SUNNI and SUNNIs we like we wont kill them but civilian SHIITES are fair game because we are insurgents being marginalised....blowing up a group of police cadets along with their families and friends waiting in line and scattering body parts for blocks is fucking terrorism by the insurgents on civilians . So the insurgents are fucking terrorist unless they only target military personel .
They need to be introduced to some WP therepy .

*snip*

Then why have the terrorists shifted targets and started to go after civilians?

*Smacks CanuckHeaven in the head*
Who are you debating? And you want him to do what? What are you expecting--a miracle from above? :D
I call always pray for the lost ones and I do.:D

However, after debating (which is debatable) with said individual for over a year now, I am beginning to believe that said individual doesn't want to be found.

Since when is using good tactics somehow illegal ...its not like they are playing touch football .
Just more anti - war drivel .


Hmmm. Seems to me that suicide bombing is a pretty effective tool when it comes down to it. :rolleyes:

Suicide bombing is one of the most effective tools ever . So whats your point ?

Then why have the terrorists shifted targets and started to go after civilians?
You obviously didn't read the article. For a university guy, you sure do like to go off half cocked? When you do read the article, stick to the black type and avoid the space in between.:D

Yes these poor marginalised insurgents are not terrorist nor do they attack civilians ...

NEWS : INTERNATIONAL

11/18/2005 - 11:49 Suicide attack kills at least 52 inside Shi'ite mosque

Two suicide bombers detonated themselves inside a Shiite mosque in a largely Kurdish town near the Iranian border, killing at least 52 people and injuring at least 50, Iraqi army Col. Hazim al-Sudani said.


At least 52 people were killed and more than 50 wounded on Friday when suicide bombers strapped with explosives blew themselves up inside a Shi'ite mosque in the eastern Iraq town of Khanaqin, police said. The blasts went off as worshippers were performing Friday prayers and left the mosque completely destroyed, they said.

Khanaqin is a mixed Shi'ite and Kurdish town northeast of Baghdad. It has experienced very little violence over the past 2-1/2 years of Sunni Arab-led insurgency that followed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

It was the latest in a string of attacks on Shi'ite mosques by militants. Earlier this month, at least 29 people were killed in an attack on a Shi'ite mosque in Musayyib, south of Baghdad. Sunni mosques have also occasionally been attacked in reprisal.

Tensions between Iraq's majority Shi'ite Muslim community and the Sunni Arab minority have grown sharply in recent months in the run-up to elections scheduled for Dec. 15, when Shi'ite and Kurdish parties are expected to dominate.

Police said the bombers entered the small mosques in Khanaqin with explosive belts strapped to their waists and detonated themselves when the buildings were at their most busy, during prayers on the Muslim holy day.



Except when they are in a Mosque praying .

Suicide bombing is one of the most effective tools ever . So whats your point ?

Simply that just because it is effective doesn't make it acceptable. Napalm was pretty effective. Mustard gas, chlorine gas and phosgene did the trick too. One of the reasons we (the US and UK) allegedly went into this mess was an objection to the use of illegal weapons. The US is to me knowledge the only significant world power to continue to sanction the use of WP as a weapon. Catching on?

Simply that just because it is effective doesn't make it acceptable. Napalm was pretty effective. Mustard gas, chlorine gas and phosgene did the trick too. One of the reasons we (the US and UK) allegedly went into this mess was an objection to the use of illegal weapons. The US is to me knowledge the only significant world power to continue to sanction the use of WP as a weapon. Catching on?

WP is NOT an illegal weapon . Why do you claim it to be ? Since its not illegal whats your point ?

These insurgents ...the marginalised ones...seem to also be terrorist...


Death toll of Musayyeb''s suicide attack up to 27, injured 64

MIL-LD IRAQ-UNREST
Death toll of Musayyeb's suicide attack up to 27, injured 64

BAGHDAD, Nov 3 (KUNA) -- According to medical reports, the death toll of Wednesday's suicide attack in Musayyab city climbed to 27 and the number of injured went up to 64, including women and senior Iraqi citizens heading to a Shiite mosque, said an Iraqi official on Thursday.

In statements to Kuwait News Agency (KUNA), Babel police spokesperson, Captain Muthanna Abu Al-Hareth, said the suicide car-bomb was a minibus, which exploded some 10 minutes before iftar local time.

In a separate development, Multinational forces (MNF) and Iraqi forces arrested 34 gunmen in several operations.

A statement by MNF said that 11 of the gunmen were arrested in the last 48 hours in Mosul for suspicion of involvement in murders, kidnapping, bombing and shooting at on MNF.

In another statement, the MNF said that three gunmen were arrested shortly after an attack on an American plane. The gunmen were chased by US helicopters and then caught in a farm in Al-Dholoeyya area. In Babel, Iraqi security forces arrested another 11 gunmen north of Al-Hilla. Bombs and other weapons were found with the gunmen.

In Baqouba, while an Iraqi army force was crossing a river in the area a bomb exploded near them, followed by an attack with machineguns, said the Iraqi Defense Ministry.

The Iraqi Army retaliated forcing the gunmen to flee the scene. The army, then assisted by MNF, surrounded the gunmen in a nearby town and arrested nine of the attackers, said the Iraqi Defense Ministry.

Meanwhile, an Iraqi Ministry source said that five Iraqi soldiers were arrested and another four were wounded last night as a bomb targeted their duty vehicle in a highway in south-east Baghdad. (pickup previous) mhg.

rb
KUNA 031726 Nov 05NNNN



Seems to be alot of this terrorist stuff going on there Canuck...so what are you talking about ?

Yes these poor marginalised insurgents are not terrorist nor do they attack civilians ...



Except when they are in a Mosque praying .

Forget it Beer and Guns. He doesn't understand nor will he understand. He won't understand because he's been listening to the Press for far too long.

Simply that just because it is effective doesn't make it acceptable. Napalm was pretty effective. Mustard gas, chlorine gas and phosgene did the trick too. One of the reasons we (the US and UK) allegedly went into this mess was an objection to the use of illegal weapons. The US is to me knowledge the only significant world power to continue to sanction the use of WP as a weapon. Catching on?

I guess that explains why the Russians still make and use flamethrowers and flame warheads for shoulder fired rockets, and France, Italy, Russia, and China make thermobaric warheads (more flame) and employ them as a combat weapon.

Better than napalm or WP at burning people alive.

What are the international conventions?

Washington is not a signatory to any treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus against civilians.

White phosphorus is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas.

The US - unlike 80 other countries including the UK - is not a signatory to Protocol III.


This doesnt mean that the US can use WP against civilians ..by treaty its illegal to use ANY weapon against civillians no matter what treaty you signed .
As a tool of WAR WP is a legal weapon JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER SHIT THAT BLOWS YOU UP OR PUNCHES HOLES IN YOUR ASS .
The whole WP story is a bunch of anti war drivel meant for people who have no clue what WP is .

I guess that explains why the Russians still make and use flamethrowers and flame warheads for shoulder fired rockets, and France, Italy, Russia, and China make thermobaric warheads (more flame) and employ them as a combat weapon.

Better than napalm or WP at burning people alive.

The US Marines ..God bless 'em ...are using thermobaric weapons of their own .

War is hell. But it’s worse when the Marines bring out their new urban combat weapon, the SMAW-NE. Which may be why they’re not talking about it, much.

This is a version of the standard USMC Shoulder Mounted Assault Weapon but with a new warhead. Described as NE - "Novel Explosive"- it is a thermobaric mixture which ignites the air, producing a shockwave of unparalleled destructive power, especially against buildings.

A post-action report from Iraq describes the effect of the new weapon: "One unit disintegrated a large one-storey masonry type building with one round from 100 meters. They were extremely impressed." Elsewhere it is described by one Marine as "an awesome piece of ordnance."

It proved highly effective in the battle for Fallujah. This from the Marine Corps Gazette, July edition: "SMAW gunners became expert at determining which wall to shoot to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms."

The NE round is supposed to be capable of going through a brick wall, but in practice gunners had to fire through a window or make a hole with an anti-tank rocket. Again, from the Marine Corps Gazette:

"Due to the lack of penetrating power of the NE round, we found that our assaultmen had to first fire a dual-purpose rocket in order to create a hole in the wall or building. This blast was immediately followed by an NE round that would incinerate the target or literally level the structure."

The rational for this approach was straightforward:

"Marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes. The economic cost of house replacement is not comparable to American lives...all battalions adopted blast techniques appropriate to entering a bunker, assuming you did not know if the bunker was manned."

The manufacturers, Talley, make bold use of its track record, with a brochure headlined Thermobaric Urban Destruction."

The SMAW-NE has only been procured by the USMC, though there are reports that some were 'borrowed' by other units. However, there are also proposals on the table that thousands of obsolete M-72 LAWs could be retrofitted with thermobaric warheads, making then into effective urban combat tools.

But in an era of precision bombs, where collateral damage is expected to be kept to a minimum, such massively brutal weapons have become highly controversial. These days, every civilian casualty means a few more “hearts and minds” are lost. Thermobaric weapons almost invariable lead to civilian deaths. The Soviet Union was heavily criticized for using thermobaric weapons in Afghanistan because they were held to constitute "disproportionate force," and similar criticisms were made when thermobarics were used in the Chechen conflict. According to Human Rights Watch, thermobaric weapons "kill and injure in a particularly brutal manner over a wide area. In urban settings it is very difficult to limit the effect of this weapon to combatants, and the nature of FAE explosions makes it virtually impossible for civilians to take shelter from their destructive effect."

So it’s understandable that the Marines have made so little noise about the use of the SMAW-NE in Fallujah. But keeping quiet about controversial weapons is a lousy strategy, no matter how effective those arms are. In the short term, it may save some bad press. In the long term, it’s a recipe for a scandal. Military leaders should debate human right advocates and the like first, and then publicly decide "we do/do not to use X". Otherwise when the media find do find out – as they always do -- not only do you get a level of hysteria but there is also the charge of “covering up.”

I'm undecided about thermobarics myself, but I think they should let the legal people sort out all these issues and clear things up. Otherwise you get claims of “chemical weapons” and “violating the Geneva Protocol.” Which doesn't really help anyone. The warfighter is left in doubt, and it hands propaganda to the bad guys. Just look at what happened it last week’s screaming over white phosphorous rounds.

-- David Hambling

November 14, 2005 10:22 AM | Ammo and Munitions


I try to keep up with all the good stuff that go's BOOM .:D

The US Marines ..God bless 'em ...are using thermobaric weapons of their own .

I try to keep up with all the good stuff that go's BOOM .:D

There's an improvised munition called "house guest" that the Marines used in Fallujah. A filled propane tank with a few blocks of C-4 on the outside, placed on the first floor of a building where you knew people were holed up downstairs.

Leave the building and detonate it - takes the whole building down and crushes in the basement.

I find it odd that people get upset because insurgents get killed. In a war.

I must be wired differently..I get upset when insurgents kill people in a mosque while they are at prayer . I want to send out thank you cards when insurgents get Willie petered in a bunker .
Wrapping a bunch of clymore's around a ruck and throwing into a room is said to create a nice red sauce . you have to add onions and mushrooms though .

I must be wired differently..I get upset when insurgents kill people in a mosque while they are at prayer . I want to send out thank you cards when insurgents get Willie petered in a bunker .

I get upset when terrorists kill people in a mosque as well.

I get upset when terrorists kill people in a mosque as well.

That makes you a right wing conservative tool of the ruling class monsters from hell .

These insurgents ...the marginalised ones...seem to also be terrorist...
That would be your take on the situation? The article that I posted clearly defines the differences between insurgents and terrorists.

Seems to be alot of this terrorist stuff going on there Canuck...so what are you talking about ?
There is also a lot of "stuff going on" that is not terrorist in nature.

Once again, from the article:

The vast majority of these so-called terrorists that the U.S. military brags about killing and capturing are actually insurgents fighting the American occupation and the fledgling Iraqi government.

And for those of you who will:

Categorizing them as terrorists has probably played well with a gullible American public—indeed, it probably makes them feel safer—but factually speaking it's wrong.

I tend to believe that the Bush apologists tend to push the idea that they are ALL terrorist in nature, which I find absurd.

That makes you a right wing conservative tool of the ruling class monsters from hell .

LOL! To some, I'm sure that is how I'm viewed because of this stance. Alwell, I don't care. At least I know the difference between an insurgent and a terrorists. Can't say the same for those same people.

I must be wired differently..I get upset when insurgents kill people in a mosque while they are at prayer . I want to send out thank you cards when insurgents get Willie petered in a bunker .

I think what people are concerned about is that non-insurgents may have been killed.

The first piece of disinformation DURING the battle of Fallujah said that we had carpet bombed the whole place and levelled it (obviously false).

Yes, we used WP. On insurgents. In a war.

It was part of the SOP (standard operating procedure) to try to avoid civilian casualties. But, if there are insurgents in the basement, and they find that throwing grenades upstairs where you are is fun, then there's no real way to get people out of the basement without violating international law (using tear gas, which is illegal for military use) or without killing people (throw something hot and explosive down there).

Yes, no one wants to be bunkmates with an incendiary device. But the insurgents knew the job was dangerous when they took it - and thousands of civilians had more than a week to leave the city in advance (most took advantage of this, and so did a lot of insurgents).

I find it interesting that in other AARs in other battles against insurgents, (Somalia, the West Bank, Iraq, Afghanistan), there's a common theme with insurgents. They like using their own women and children as human shields, and they like firing from mosques. Then they claim outrage if any of the women and children die, and they are outraged if the mosque is fired on.

Tell you what - why don't you go try to find a story where US forces held women and children in front of them as human shields. You might be gone for quite a while trying to find a story like that.

That would be your take on the situation? The article that I posted clearly defines the differences between insurgents and terrorists.


There is also a lot of "stuff going on" that is not terrorist in nature.

Once again, from the article:

The vast majority of these so-called terrorists that the U.S. military brags about killing and capturing are actually insurgents fighting the American occupation and the fledgling Iraqi government.

And for those of you who will:

Categorizing them as terrorists has probably played well with a gullible American public—indeed, it probably makes them feel safer—but factually speaking it's wrong.

I tend to believe that the Bush apologists tend to push the idea that they are ALL terrorist in nature, which I find absurd.


I get my news from the front, not from Bush or Fox. If you have people downstairs who throw grenades up the stairs at you, they aren't civilians. They are, by definition, insurgents. And killing them is not against any law.

That would be your take on the situation? The article that I posted clearly defines the differences between insurgents and terrorists.


There is also a lot of "stuff going on" that is not terrorist in nature.

Once again, from the article:

The vast majority of these so-called terrorists that the U.S. military brags about killing and capturing are actually insurgents fighting the American occupation and the fledgling Iraqi government.
by slaughtering civilians at prayer and standing in line for jobs

You forgot to add that , I thought I would help you out...you seem to want to ignore that part .

And for those of you who will:

Categorizing them as terrorists has probably played well with a gullible American public—indeed, it probably makes them feel safer—but factually speaking it's wrong.


I tend to believe that the Bush apologists tend to push the idea that they are ALL terrorist in nature, which I find absurd.

So all the gullable people who see blown up civilians on TV and read almost every day about the blown up civilians in Mosques and in the streets in homes or just found in a mass grave..we are all wrong to see terrorist actions and describe those commiting them as terrorist ?

I see now .

Iraq Bombing Kills 50, Wounds Dozens, Outside Shiite Mosque
Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- More than 50 people died and dozens were wounded when two suicide bombers blew themselves up outside two Shiite mosques north of Baghdad, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan said.

Unidentified police officials told the Kurdish political party that the blast, at 12:30 p.m. local time, occurred in the town of Khanaqin as people were gathering for Friday prayers.

Khanaqin, located near the Iranian border about 110 miles (170 kilometers) from the capital, is in the mostly Sunni and Kurdish Diyala province.

No further details were immediately available


terrorist did not do this . Insurgents did .

I get my news from the front, not from Bush or Fox.
And of course, all the news from "the front" is unbiased?:rolleyes:

If you have people downstairs who throw grenades up the stairs at you, they aren't civilians. They are, by definition, insurgents. And killing them is not against any law.
The 'insurgents" just want their country back. The terrorists just want to kick the US in the butt, wherever that butt may be.

This is not terrorism its INSURGENCY ...dont be so gullible says Canuck heaven....

Car bomb kills Iraqis shopping for holiday
Six U.S. troops die, two in copter crash
Thursday, November 03, 2005
BY ROBERT H. REID
Associated Press
BAGHDAD -- A suicide bomber exploded a minibus yesterday in an outdoor market packed with shoppers ahead of a Muslim festival, killing about 20 people and wounding more than 60 in a Shi'a town south of Baghdad.

Six U.S. troops also died yesterday and Tuesday, including two in a helicopter crash and three in roadside bombings.

The U.S. command confirmed moves to step up training on how to combat roadside bombs -- now the biggest killers of American troops in Iraq. At least 2,035 U.S. military service members have died since the Iraq conflict began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count

And of course, all the news from "the front" is unbiased?:rolleyes:

Well, I noticed that I heard about the use of WP right when it happened. And the Marines made a press release at the time, but the biased mainstream media ignored it and never publicized it. So it remained only on military blogs. Then they come out and act like they're surprised, or insinuating that the military covered it up. Sorry - we used it openly.

The 'insurgents" just want their country back. The terrorists just want to kick the US in the butt, wherever that butt may be.

Then the Sunni insurgents knew the job was dangerous when they took it. It's fairly well fatal to directly confront US forces in a firefight nowadays.

You forgot to add that , I thought I would help you out...you seem to want to ignore that part .
Please remove that from my quote, because I did not say that and do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth.

So all the gullable people who see blown up civilians on TV and read almost every day about the blown up civilians in Mosques and in the streets in homes or just found in a mass grave..we are all wrong to see terrorist actions and describe those commiting them as terrorist ?
I didn't say anything like that at all. I did quote an article from Newsweek, you are the one reading between the lines?

This is NOT terrorism its an insurgency..do not be so GULLIBLE says Canuck Heaven ...

Baghdad restaurant bombing kills 30
11 November 2005

BAGHDAD: A suicide bomber killed 30 people and wounded at least 20 more in a crowded restaurant in central Baghdad where people were gathered for breakfast on Thursday morning (local time), police said.


Medical sources at two hospitals said the death toll was at least 25.

It was one of the biggest attacks in recent weeks and came the day after at least six people were killed and 25 wounded when two car bombs exploded near a police station and a mosque in a mainly Shi'ite area of Baghdad.

"A suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest went into a restaurant," a police official said shortly after the loud blast which could be heard from several kilometres (miles) away, rocking the city shortly after 9.30am (7.30pm NZT).

The police official said the restaurant, which was crowded with people eating breakfast, was thought to be regularly frequented by Iraqi security forces, although it was not clear who was in the restaurant at the time of the blast.

Iraq's Shi'ite- and Kurdish-led government is fighting a Sunni Arab insurgency that has killed thousands of people since the March 2003 US-led invasion


I am getting sick of this shit ...but I think I made my point .

I guess that explains why the Russians still make and use flamethrowers and flame warheads for shoulder fired rockets, and France, Italy, Russia, and China make thermobaric warheads (more flame) and employ them as a combat weapon.

Better than napalm or WP at burning people alive.

So what exactly? Does that excuse the US from using "efficient" chemical weapons in a war to get rid of -errr-chemical weapons?

So what exactly? Does that excuse the US from using "efficient" chemical weapons in a war to get rid of -errr-chemical weapons?
White Phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon.

I've been inside the burst radius of a 155mm WP round. It isn't poison gas, and it isn't the end of the world (as long as you're outside).

The flame weapons I mentioned are used by those nations for infantry combat.

Against people.

If we use WP against entrenched insurgents, we are breaking no international law or agreement to which we are a signatory.

It works very well, without bringing down a whole building.

You know, instead of using WP, maybe we should have called for aircraft to drop 2000-lb bombs on each building in the city - would have prevented any US casualties, would have killed every insurgent in town, and would have been perfectly legal under international law.

Unfortunately, the world press was already claiming on Day One that we had already done that (when it didn't occur). And orders were given to avoid civilian casualties and avoid destruction of buildings. Orders that specify that a mosque cannot be fired on unless a) you're being fired on and b) you get the battalion commander's permission to fire back.

WP is a good way to clean out stone buildings while leaving the building intact. Would you rather that we kill people the good old fashioned way, by dropping huge amounts of explosives on them and blowing them and their homes into tiny bits?

This is not terrorism its INSURGENCY ...dont be so gullible says Canuck heaven....

Car bomb kills Iraqis shopping for holiday
Six U.S. troops die, two in copter crash
Thursday, November 03, 2005
BY ROBERT H. REID
Associated Press
BAGHDAD -- A suicide bomber exploded a minibus yesterday in an outdoor market packed with shoppers ahead of a Muslim festival, killing about 20 people and wounding more than 60 in a Shi'a town south of Baghdad.

The above would certainly be a terrorist action.

Six U.S. troops also died yesterday and Tuesday, including two in a helicopter crash and three in roadside bombings.
I would suggest that targetting US troops is an insurgent initiative.

The U.S. command confirmed moves to step up training on how to combat roadside bombs -- now the biggest killers of American troops in Iraq. At least 2,035 U.S. military service members have died since the Iraq conflict began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count
You are confirming what I stated? "The biggest killers of American troops in Iraq" is "roadside bombs". I would call that the work of the insurgency.

So what exactly? Does that excuse the US from using "efficient" chemical weapons in a war to get rid of -errr-chemical weapons?
And the results are in:

Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.

"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.

phosphorus:

1. chemical element that ignites and glows: a poisonous nonmetallic chemical element that ignites in air and glows in the dark. Use: matches, fireworks, incendiary devices, fertilizers.

Not a chemical huh?:rolleyes:

And the results are in:

Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.

"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.

phosphorus:

1. chemical element that ignites and glows: a poisonous nonmetallic chemical element that ignites in air and glows in the dark. Use: matches, fireworks, incendiary devices, fertilizers.

Not a chemical huh?:rolleyes:


Not a "chemical weapon". That's like saying water dropped from an airplane is a "chemical weapon".

It's not considered a chemical weapon under international law.

And like I said, I've been inside the burst radius of a 155mm WP shell - and I wasn't burned at all. The smoke itself is harmless - and that's mostly what it is, unless you're in a confined space or get a lot of the pieces on you and let them sit there.

White Phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon.

Not by the US no:http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1643680,00.html

I've been inside the burst radius of a 155mm WP round. It isn't poison gas, and it isn't the end of the world (as long as you're outside). I didn't say it was. At any time. However, since you come to mention it.....
"White phosphorus burns spontaneously on contact with air, producing phosphorus pentoxide smoke. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke "releases heat on contact with moisture, and will burn mucous surfaces. Contact ... can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage."The flame weapons I mentioned are used by those nations for infantry combat.

Against people.

We're not talking about general principles of what is or is not acceptable in war. We're talking about whether or not it was acceptable for the US to use white phosporus against military and civilian targets. Your arguments seem to be that because it is efficient it is the right choice to use, in spite of the fact that it is at least arguably a chemical weapon when used gainst people, not as a smokescreen or illuminating device

If we use WP against entrenched insurgents, we are breaking no international law or agreement to which we are a signatory.

I've already acknowledged that. I've also pointed out that many other powers have outlawed it, including your closest ally the UK. Wonder why?



It works very well, without bringing down a whole building.

You know, instead of using WP, maybe we should have called for aircraft to drop 2000-lb bombs on each building in the city - would have prevented any US casualties, would have killed every insurgent in town, and would have been perfectly legal under international law.

Unfortunately, the world press was already claiming on Day One that we had already done that (when it didn't occur). And orders were given to avoid civilian casualties and avoid destruction of buildings. Orders that specify that a mosque cannot be fired on unless a) you're being fired on and b) you get the battalion commander's permission to fire back.

WP is a good way to clean out stone buildings while leaving the building intact. Would you rather that we kill people the good old fashioned way, by dropping huge amounts of explosives on them and blowing them and their homes into tiny bits?

Total straw man. I didn't propose that, and so far as I am aware no one else has. It is an extremely efficient weapon. That has already been acknowledged. So have examples of many other weapons which are illegal. Are you seriously suggesting that the British army don't know how to clear buildings?

Amusing take on this can be found here. (http://edefense.blogspot.com) You'll have to scroll down to a post made on 16 Nov.

And the results are in:

Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.

"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.

phosphorus:

1. chemical element that ignites and glows: a poisonous nonmetallic chemical element that ignites in air and glows in the dark. Use: matches, fireworks, incendiary devices, fertilizers.

Not a chemical huh?:rolleyes:

Lead is a chemical too. It's also toxic. Are the bullets in my .38 chemical weapons?

Are you seriously suggesting that the British army don't know how to clear buildings? [/B]

They clear them by throwing large charges of explosives inside before rushing what's left of the occupants (usually hamburger), or by direct fire from a main battle tank to reduce the building to rubble.

WP is an incendiary weapon. Not a chemical weapon. Incendiary weapons are used by quite a few nations.

Maybe we should just invest in some Russian flamethrowers - next time we should clear buildings by shooting streams of flaming fuel in through the open windows and shoot burning people as they come running out.

Lead is a chemical too. It's also toxic. Are the bullets in my .38 chemical weapons?

I don't know. Do they do this?

"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.

I don't know. Do they do this?
Bullets tend to kill indiscriminately - most people hit by bullets were not hit by aimed fire. Rifle fire in particular tends to do things like evert skulls (turn them inside out), blow off limbs, eviscerate people, cause explosive separation of muscle from flesh...

And that's just lead bullets...

Left in the flesh, an unjacketed bullet can cause lead poisoning over time. They are also notorious for causing gangrene and septicemia.

But I digress...

They clear them by throwing large charges of explosives inside before rushing what's left of the occupants (usually hamburger), or by direct fire from a main battle tank to reduce the building to rubble.

WP is an incendiary weapon. Not a chemical weapon. Incendiary weapons are used by quite a few nations.

Maybe we should just invest in some Russian flamethrowers - next time we should clear buildings by shooting streams of flaming fuel in through the open windows and shoot burning people as they come running out.

Right. So the British government deliberatley denies itself a useful, efficient, and apparently rather merciful weapon in order to cause greater physical damage and reduce the chances of taking prisoners. Spare me any more of your logic. That is utter nonsense. Compare casualty figures. Oh wait, of course we can't do that, because noone collected them. I wonder why?

Flamethrowers? I would imagine the reason you use WP is in order to not have to put your troops at risk by getting too close to the enemy. That is about the only sensible and defensible reason you could possibly have.

Bullets tend to kill indiscriminately - most people hit by bullets were not hit by aimed fire. Rifle fire in particular tends to do things like evert skulls (turn them inside out), blow off limbs, eviscerate people, cause explosive separation of muscle from flesh...

And that's just lead bullets...

Left in the flesh, an unjacketed bullet can cause lead poisoning over time. They are also notorious for causing gangrene and septicemia.

But I digress...

Yes you do. And did you really mean that bit about most people being hit not being hit by aimed fire? I mean, I know we've lost a lot of troops in the past to American "friendly fire" but that is surely taking it a little too far.
It also doesn't answer my question.

Not a "chemical weapon". That's like saying water dropped from an airplane is a "chemical weapon".
However, water will not burn your skin or suck the air out of your lungs?

It's not considered a chemical weapon under international law.
The majority of countries have signed on to banning the use of this chemical in warfare. The US is not one of them.

And like I said, I've been inside the burst radius of a 155mm WP shell - and I wasn't burned at all. The smoke itself is harmless - and that's mostly what it is, unless you're in a confined space or get a lot of the pieces on you and let them sit there.
Oh yeah, this stuff is practically harmless?:rolleyes:

Effects on humans

Effects of exposure to WP weapons
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed personnel because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it disappears, in some cases burning right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin because only the larger WP particles can burn through personal clothing.

Exposure and inhalation of smoke
Burning WP produces a hot, dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus pentoxide, which are converted by moist air into phosphoric acid.

Most forms of smoke are not hazardous in the kinds of concentrations produced by a battlefield smoke shell. However, exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) does have the potential to cause illness or even death.

WP smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. With intense exposures, a very explosive cough may occur. However, no recorded casualties from the effects of WP smoke alone have occurred in combat operations and to date there are no confirmed deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes. [3]

And the long term affects?

And their use is legal?

Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty to which the US is a signatory. However, there is a debate on whether white phosphorus is a chemical weapon and thus outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The spokesman for that organization, Peter Kaiser, stated that white phosphorus was not against the convention if it was used as an obscurant, but "If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons

Yes you do. And did you really mean that bit about most people being hit not being hit by aimed fire? I mean, I know we've lost a lot of troops in the past to American "friendly fire" but that is surely taking it a little too far.
It also doesn't answer my question.
It's not just an American phenomenon.

Unless you're being shot in very close combat, or being shot by a sniper, the odds of you being hit by aimed fire by ANY military in ANY modern combat is very, very low. If you're hit by a bullet when you're outdoors when the lead is flying around, you're quite unlikely to be hit by aimed fire - even if it is likely that you'll be hit.

I think you have to learn more about what actually causes casualties in combat before you throw around terms like "friendly fire". Most rifle fire in most armies during combat is unaimed - there are many, many studies that confirm this as a universal trait of infantry across the world.

White Phosphorus may be a "chemical" but it is NOT a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary weapon.

White Phosphorus is similar in many ways to the red phosphorus that is in match heads and roadside flares. See how hot that burns? Now imagine a shower of little burning matchheads and all the smoke that would make. That's exactly what it's like - may cause panic in people who've never seen it before or don't know what it is - and cause them to run into the open where more conventional ICM can blow them into pieces smaller than your fingernail. But it burns clothes and flesh alike - it doesn't burn flesh and leave your clothes intact. If you're inside a confined space when it goes off, you can kiss your ass goodbye, because you'll be on fire from head to toe.

I don't know. Do they do this?
It's an incendiary. It's going to burn people. That's what they do. It's not like Sarin or Cyanide which poison people. Also WP isn't used on civilians. It's strictly used against combatants. The people of Fallujah were warned that the marines were coming in and given a chance to evacuate. The use of WP under those conditions was totally legal.

It's not just an American phenomenon.

Unless you're being shot in very close combat, or being shot by a sniper, the odds of you being hit by aimed fire by ANY military in ANY modern combat is very, very low. If you're hit by a bullet when you're outdoors when the lead is flying around, you're quite unlikely to be hit by aimed fire - even if it is likely that you'll be hit.

I think you have to learn more about what actually causes casualties in combat before you throw around terms like "friendly fire". Most rifle fire in most armies during combat is unaimed - there are many, many studies that confirm this as a universal trait of infantry across the world.

White Phosphorus may be a "chemical" but it is NOT a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary weapon.

White Phosphorus is similar in many ways to the red phosphorus that is in match heads and roadside flares. See how hot that burns? Now imagine a shower of little burning matchheads and all the smoke that would make. That's exactly what it's like - may cause panic in people who've never seen it before or don't know what it is - and cause them to run into the open where more conventional ICM can blow them into pieces smaller than your fingernail. But it burns clothes and flesh alike - it doesn't burn flesh and leave your clothes intact. If you're inside a confined space when it goes off, you can kiss your ass goodbye, because you'll be on fire from head to toe.

This is interesting stuff, but please don't patronise me. I've studies inorganic chemistry to graduate level (admittedly a long time ago), and I am fully aware of what phosporous can and can't do. Apparently you are not. I'm glad to see that Canuck Heaven has already put the evidence up there (as had I earler with regards to the effects of the harmless smoke you describe).

Friendly fire, of course covers a multitude of sins from mis identification to incorrectly coordinated airstrikes. I also take your point about the battlefield rifle fire. I apologise for the inference, you are of course right to bring it up. However, and to be fair, we were in fact referring to the bullets in your .38- a hand gun being used, I assume, in close quarter combat if at all?

Here's the Annex Schedule from the Chemical Weapons Convention.

It lists chemical weapons.

White phosphorus is not on the list. Read it yourself.
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_annex_on_chemicals.html#b

The definition of "chemical weapon" in Article 1 of the CWC is so vague that water itself could be considered a chemical weapon. That's why they made the Schedule of chemicals in order to keep the treaty from being silly.

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.)

However, water will not burn your skin or suck the air out of your lungs?


The majority of countries have signed on to banning the use of this chemical in warfare. The US is not one of them.


Oh yeah, this stuff is practically harmless?:rolleyes:

Effects on humans

Effects of exposure to WP weapons
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed personnel because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it disappears, in some cases burning right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin because only the larger WP particles can burn through personal clothing.

Exposure and inhalation of smoke
Burning WP produces a hot, dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus pentoxide, which are converted by moist air into phosphoric acid.

Most forms of smoke are not hazardous in the kinds of concentrations produced by a battlefield smoke shell. However, exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) does have the potential to cause illness or even death.

WP smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. With intense exposures, a very explosive cough may occur. However, no recorded casualties from the effects of WP smoke alone have occurred in combat operations and to date there are no confirmed deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes. [3]

And the long term affects?

And their use is legal?

Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty to which the US is a signatory. However, there is a debate on whether white phosphorus is a chemical weapon and thus outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The spokesman for that organization, Peter Kaiser, stated that white phosphorus was not against the convention if it was used as an obscurant, but "If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons
Do you drink soda? Look at the ingredients. It lists Phosphoric acid. Some chemical weapon you've got there. Only with prolonged exposure to high concentrations of phosphorus will you see major toxic effects (like your bones rotting). Battlefield use doesn't produce long term exposure. Phosphoric acid can act like an irritant, but so does CN, CS and OC. The last three are much more effective as irritants, and they're used on civilians by police officers regularly.

This is interesting stuff, but please don't patronise me. I've studies inorganic chemistry to graduate level (admittedly a long time ago), and I am fully aware of what phosporous can and can't do. Apparently you are not. I'm glad to see that Canuck Heaven has already put the evidence up there (as had I earler with regards to the effects of the harmless smoke you describe).

Friendly fire, of course covers a multitude of sins from mis identification to incorrectly coordinated airstrikes. I also take your point about the battlefield rifle fire. I apologise for the inference, you are of course right to bring it up. However, and to be fair, we were in fact referring to the bullets in your .38- a hand gun being used, I assume, in close quarter combat if at all?

I've been inside the burst radius of a 155mm WP shell. I didn't even get burned at all. Suffered no ill effects at all.

It's bad news if you're in a confined space, but in the open, unless you're right on top of it, or stand there and don't brush off the burning pieces, you're going to be fine.

Here's the Annex Schedule from the Chemical Weapons Convention.

It lists chemical weapons.

White phosphorus is not on the list. Read it yourself.
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_annex_on_chemicals.html#b

The definition of "chemical weapon" in Article 1 of the CWC is so vague that water itself could be considered a chemical weapon. That's why they made the Schedule of chemicals in order to keep the treaty from being silly.

Canuck has already explained why it is not, and what the exception to that rule is.

Canuck has already explained why it is not, and what the exception to that rule is.
Why is it that you want to make the US a violator just by moving the goalposts?

We're well within the treaty obligations, unless you can prove that we intentionally used it on unarmed civilians who were not in close proximity to armed insurgents.

if the us military intentionally targeted civilians with wp...i'll eat my hat!

never happen in a million years...i cant see any true american dropping a wp round down a arty tube or mortar KNOWING IT WAS AIMED AT AN INNOCENT.

i am cynical enough to maybe..maybe think some asshole commander said shoot at this coordinate and the trooper(the one that gets killed and maimed)dutifully shoots not knowing the true target.

even that is farfetched to the extreme...given that us americans know all about scandals and know even better how to cya.
even a nutso commander lashing out heard about the mai lai massacre and knows you will be strung up for that nonsense..some may think it..the sick behaviour...a miniscule amount would ever even contemplate acting on there sick ideas.

i can see a stressed out trooper losing it...but calling a wp attack on civvies by an officer..never.

(Also for Corneliu and Deep Kimchi)

Note that I have not said that the US targeted civilians. The article from the OP states that:
Iraq has launched an investigation into allegations -- denied by the Pentagon -- that U.S. soldiers aimed artillery rounds of flammable white phosphorus at civilians.

I'm simply waiting to see if anything comes of it. I doubt it will. However, it would not be the first time the US has targeted civilians.

On the otherhand, every case that has come to light that I know of, except for the No Gun Ri case, has been prosecuted. I am quite sure that if it turns out to be the case that US military personnel targeted civilians, they will be prosecuted. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

(Also for Corneliu and Deep Kimchi)

Note that I have not said that the US targeted civilians. The article from the OP states that:


I'm simply waiting to see if anything comes of it. I doubt it will. However, it would not be the first time the US has targeted civilians.

On the otherhand, every case that has come to light that I know of, except for the No Gun Ri case, has been prosecuted. I am quite sure that if it turns out to be the case that US military personnel targeted civilians, they will be prosecuted. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The US gave advance warning that the Marines were going into Fallujah. The civilians were given plenty of opportunity to evacuate. Those who stayed were either insurgents or suicidally stupid.

(Also for Corneliu and Deep Kimchi)
Note that I have not said that the US targeted civilians. The article from the OP states that:

Other posters in this thread have said that civilians were deliberately targeted.

I welcome an investigation. While civilians may have been accidentally hit (such as being holed up in the same basement as armed insurgents who were fighting from that basement, which is still legitimate), I do not believe that US forces intentionally targeted civilians.

During the battle of Fallujah it was initially claimed that we targeted the hospital for no reason - and it turns out we took it from armed insurgents who were firing from the hospital.

Then we were accused of firing on mosques for no reason - and it turned out (there's video of this) that US forces were fired on from a mosque, consulted with their battalion commander, and then received permission to fire back. Even then, they were ordered to limit damage to the actual structure - and the mosque was still standing after they took the building.

Lots of accusations - quite a few investigations - and so far, no proof that the US did anything illegal there.

I've already pointed out that it simply makes us look bad, even if it's not a technical violation of CWC, and even if we did not sign Protocol III. The miltary said we used it. The State Department said we didn't. Makes us look bad, and any credibility gap, while it can be a minor flap in western media, is turned into outright lies on the scale of genocide by the Arab-language media.

Remember that there are public sentiments being won or lost here.

Right now, the insurgents/terrorists are non-state actors. They don't fight according to the Geneva Conventions.

Why isn't the world chiding them to play by the rules? Well, probably because they don't really care to and would shoot you dead if you tried to get in their way.

Yet the US government is expected to abide by the conventions of war, simply from a moral standpoint.

It is indeed odd that a 155mm shell is not banned, but WP is. A 155mm shell is far more directly deadly.

It's tragic to see the mosques bombed today. To see the hotel bombing. Iraqi civilians are taking the casualties. It's insane by western standards.

The Iraqi people are faced with 3,000 foreign insurgents, and approximately 10,000 - 12,000 domestic insurgents.

We need to somehow get that number down by an order of magnitude by marginalizing the cause of jihad. I think the insurgents are not winning themselves any friends each time they kill civilians.

Therefore, it is imperative that we do not bring any risk to our position, ethically or morally. If we wish to use unconventional weapons, we probably should disclose this to the Iraqi government and say, "Look, this is what we wish to use. Do you agree to its deployment?"

If we do, then the Iraqis can take the issue to their own government, which can answer, "We chose to let this happen so the military operation could be executed swiftly and effectively."

Ironically, one of if not the very first historical uses of phosphorus bombs were made by Britain against the Iraqi people during their repression of the Kurds back in the 1920s.

If you want to know why the nation might be a bit twitchy over the issue, and why the Brits categorically do not want to use them, you might realize "Ah, there's also a cultural anger here."

So to you, it's not a big deal. For the local populace, it opens an old and ugly wound.

It's a hot button that does not need to be pressed. While it's a time-tested tactic we've used going back to WWII, the world has grown a bit more sensitive since then, the treaty against incendiaries that 90 other nations abide by (Protocol III) makes us seem as if we're scoffing international laws, it skirts real damn close to the limits of CWC, and generally, its tactical effectiveness was offset by the public relations bruhaha that's erupted thereafter.

Again, we need to limit the booing in the stands.

The US gave advance warning that the Marines were going into Fallujah. The civilians were given plenty of opportunity to evacuate. Those who stayed were either insurgents or suicidally stupid.

Even so, the Geneva conventions very specifically oblige US forces to take steps to avoid targeting civilians. I still won't say either way that they did or did not do so. Only that if it turns out that they did can this be considered the war crime that the anti-war European press is making it.

Even so, the Geneva conventions very specifically oblige US forces to take steps to avoid targeting civilians. I still won't say either way that they did or did not do so. Only that if it turns out that they did can this be considered the war crime that the anti-war European press is making it.
Isn't warning the civilian population and allowing them to evacuate considered "taking steps to avoid targeting civilians"? What more could have been done?

Other posters in this thread have said that civilians were deliberately targeted.

I welcome an investigation. While civilians may have been accidentally hit (such as being holed up in the same basement as armed insurgents who were fighting from that basement, which is still legitimate), I do not believe that US forces intentionally targeted civilians.

During the battle of Fallujah it was initially claimed that we targeted the hospital for no reason - and it turns out we took it from armed insurgents who were firing from the hospital.

Then we were accused of firing on mosques for no reason - and it turned out (there's video of this) that US forces were fired on from a mosque, consulted with their battalion commander, and then received permission to fire back. Even then, they were ordered to limit damage to the actual structure - and the mosque was still standing after they took the building.

Lots of accusations - quite a few investigations - and so far, no proof that the US did anything illegal there.

And this is exactly what the article says is happening - an investigation into reports that the US targeted civilians.

I'm in a funny in-between spot here. :)

Isn't warning the civilian population and allowing them to evacuate considered "taking steps to avoid targeting civilians"? What more could have been done?

I think that anti-war people expect US soldiers to call out and have everyone raise their hands who doesn't want to be in the war.

Mind you, the Marines literally did this in cases where insurgents holed up in buildings and wouldn't come out. They were repeatedly asked to come out and surrender, but very few took the opportunity to do so.

Of course, the anti-war people expect us at that point to drink tea and eat cakes until the insurgents change their minds - not for us to throw explosives into the basement.

I've already pointed out that it simply makes us look bad, even if it's not a technical violation of CWC, and even if we did not sign Protocol III. The miltary said we used it. The State Department said we didn't. Makes us look bad, and any credibility gap, while it can be a minor flap in western media, is turned into outright lies on the scale of genocide by the Arab-language media.

Remember that there are public sentiments being won or lost here.

Right now, the insurgents/terrorists are non-state actors. They don't fight according to the Geneva Conventions.

Why isn't the world chiding them to play by the rules? Well, probably because they don't really care to and would shoot you dead if you tried to get in their way.

Yet the US government is expected to abide by the conventions of war, simply from a moral standpoint.

It is indeed odd that a 155mm shell is not banned, but WP is. A 155mm shell is far more directly deadly.

It's tragic to see the mosques bombed today. To see the hotel bombing. Iraqi civilians are taking the casualties. It's insane by western standards.

The Iraqi people are faced with 3,000 foreign insurgents, and approximately 10,000 - 12,000 domestic insurgents.

We need to somehow get that number down by an order of magnitude by marginalizing the cause of jihad. I think the insurgents are not winning themselves any friends each time they kill civilians.

Therefore, it is imperative that we do not bring any risk to our position, ethically or morally. If we wish to use unconventional weapons, we probably should disclose this to the Iraqi government and say, "Look, this is what we wish to use. Do you agree to its deployment?"

If we do, then the Iraqis can take the issue to their own government, which can answer, "We chose to let this happen so the military operation could be executed swiftly and effectively."

Ironically, one of if not the very first historical uses of phosphorus bombs were made by Britain against the Iraqi people during their repression of the Kurds back in the 1920s.

If you want to know why the nation might be a bit twitchy over the issue, and why the Brits categorically do not want to use them, you might realize "Ah, there's also a cultural anger here."

So to you, it's not a big deal. For the local populace, it opens an old and ugly wound.

It's a hot button that does not need to be pressed. While it's a time-tested tactic we've used going back to WWII, the world has grown a bit more sensitive since then, the treaty against incendiaries that 90 other nations abide by (Protocol III) makes us seem as if we're scoffing international laws, it skirts real damn close to the limits of CWC, and generally, its tactical effectiveness was offset by the public relations bruhaha that's erupted thereafter.

Again, we need to limit the booing in the stands.


Again, a most reasonable post which I cannot find fault with. :D

I don't remember having seen you before this series of threads, but you are quickly becoming a favorite.

And the results are in:

Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.

"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.

phosphorus:

1. chemical element that ignites and glows: a poisonous nonmetallic chemical element that ignites in air and glows in the dark. Use: matches, fireworks, incendiary devices, fertilizers.

Not a chemical huh?:rolleyes:
The following are ALSO technically chemical weapons if that's your criteria:
High explosives (symtex)
Gun Powder
Mace
Water
Tear Gas
Jet Fuel
MRE's
Morphine
Tylenol

Do I need to post the "chemical formula" for each of them?

Of course, the anti-war people expect us at that point to drink tea and eat cakes until the insurgents change their minds - not for us to throw explosives into the basement.

I do have every right to ask a straight question about why, when many other countries have stopped using this weapon against soldiers never mind civilians, the USA has decided that it will continue to do so. I would ask the same question were it the UK. I would ask the same question about APMs, phosgene or any other weapon. This is not an anti US thread from my perspective. In case you've forgotten, my country is up to its neck in this war too.

Why is it that you want to make the US a violator just by moving the goalposts?

We're well within the treaty obligations, unless you can prove that we intentionally used it on unarmed civilians who were not in close proximity to armed insurgents.

Because America is playing a different game, to continue your analogy. America's legal argument on this is right up there with Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

CS (tear gas) and OC (pepper spray) are considered riot control agents, since they are non-lethal and non-persistent.

They are indeed banned by CWC for use in warfare. Which is why we're not using them in the current action. Rumsfeld wanted to use them. CWC said he could not.

Also the schedule of CWC-controlled chemicals is not to be considered exhaustive. Those are the chemicals and precursor chemicals that are specifically controlled, but the CWC was written so that any chemical, if imployed to harm or kill humans by means of their chemical processes, is indeed covered.

A bullet does not primarily kill by its chemical process. It kills by its physical process. The same with a conventional bomb.

Don't make asinine hyperbolic posts that muddy the discussion. It undermines your point.

We, in America, have a phrase which I'd like to share with this forum.
"Innocent until proven guilty"

If I accuse you all of being rapists, and then I go find your worst enemy, and he corroborates it, does that mean I can go write an international article calling you rapists, or should I wait until after the investigation and subsequent trial?

I could even include nice pictures of you all, along with statements by a couple of your family members calling you scum.

I do have every right to ask a straight question about why, when many other countries have stopped using this weapon against soldiers never mind civilians, the USA has decided that it will continue to do so. I would ask the same question were it the UK. I would ask the same question about APMs, phosgene or any other weapon. This is not an anti US thread from my perspective. In case you've forgotten, my country is up to its neck in this war too.

Because America is playing a different game, to continue your analogy. America's legal argument on this is right up there with Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
We use weapons precisely because they are effective.

And, we seem to change things to not only make them more effective, but to eliminate objectionable qualities.

It's why we invented GPS guided munitions.

Take your APM objection. In the case of air-scatterable bomblets, people objected to a high dud rate that left civilians who happened upon the scene at risk of injury and death.

So our standard bomblet is now this:

http://www.systems.textron.com/pdf/products/blu108_datasheet.pdf

The area is safe within minutes of their use.

Maybe we'll be eliminating the use of WP - but we'll have to fashion a replacement first.

Having seen people dead from military weapons, I have no objection to the use of WP on anyone who is engaged in combat - largely because it scarcely matters whether you're roasted alive, smothered in smoke, or instantly turned inside-out by fragments from a conventional explosive. It looks nasty either way, and you have an equal chance of suffering and death.

Lol, Beer and Guns and Corn - I can't believe you can continue to say "Look! There are cases of some "insurgents" attacking civilians. Therefore, ALL "insurgents" are really terroists!

Are you thinking if you keep saying it then it will become true, or just can't see the painfully obvious flaw in your reasoning? Some American soilders, at Mai Lai, deliberately massacred innocent Vietnamese men, women and children - does that mean ALL American soilders are murderous bastards? Of course not - some does not equal all. In the same way, just because some of the people involved in Iraq are terroists, does not mean that all of them are - some, if not most, are genuine insurgents who don't target civilians but US troops specifically.

CS (tear gas) and OC (pepper spray) are considered riot control agents, since they are non-lethal and non-persistent.

They are indeed banned by CWC for use in warfare. Which is why we're not using them in the current action. Rumsfeld wanted to use them. CWC said he could not.

Also the schedule of CWC-controlled chemicals is not to be considered exhaustive. Those are the chemicals and precursor chemicals that are specifically controlled, but the CWC was written so that any chemical, if imployed to harm or kill humans by means of their chemical processes, is indeed covered.

A bullet does not primarily kill by its chemical process. It kills by its physical process. The same with a conventional bomb.

Don't make asinine hyperbolic posts that muddy the discussion. It undermines your point.
WP primarily kills by burning, not poisoning. Like a bullet, it can poison you, but by the time poisoning sets in the other effects have already killed you.

My point in mentioning CS, CN and OC was that the phosphoric acid produced in the smoke of a WP shell is much less of an irritant than those, and safer than the stuff used by police on civilians. I never said that the military used irritants like those on enemy troops in battle, but I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to.

Lol, Beer and Guns and Corn - I can't believe you can continue to say "Look! There are cases of some "insurgents" attacking civilians. Therefore, ALL "insurgents" are really terroists!

Are you thinking if you keep saying it then it will become true, or just can't see the painfully obvious flaw in your reasoning? Some American soilders, at Mai Lai, deliberately massacred innocent Vietnamese men, women and children - does that mean ALL American soilders are murderous bastards? Of course not - some does not equal all. In the same way, just because some of the people involved in Iraq are terroists, does not mean that all of them are - some, if not most, are genuine insurgents who don't target civilians but US troops specifically.
There's an easier way to state it. Lump everyone on the planet into the following 2 categories. 1)People who aren't trying to kill our troops. 2)People who are trying to kill our troops.

I never said that the military used irritants like those on enemy troops in battle, but I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to.

The US would like to, but there are two problems.

1. The CWC prevents their use by military forces (but police can do anything they like in this regard).
2. There was a lot of bad press from Vietnam when we used CS - people accused us of using deadly gas whenever we used it.

The following are ALSO technically chemical weapons if that's your criteria:
High explosives (symtex)
Gun Powder
Mace
Water
Tear Gas
Jet Fuel
MRE's
Morphine
Tylenol

Do I need to post the "chemical formula" for each of them?

Forget it! CH doesn't know half of what he is trying to prove.

We, in America, have a phrase which I'd like to share with this forum.
"Innocent until proven guilty"

If I accuse you all of being rapists, and then I go find your worst enemy, and he corroborates it, does that mean I can go write an international article call you rapists, or should I wait until after the trial?

I think most of Europe holds that particular notion fairly dear. We're pretty aware of habeus corpus too in the UK thanks. I think you'll find it is a pretty early tenent of English Common law. Which was then used in your Constitution. That really isn't helping anything.

This is not an anti American thread. In fact, two of the more articulate posters questioning the use of WP are Americans.

Asking legitimate questions about the use of a weapon that is banned by many other countries doesn't strike me as condemning the US for targetting civilians. It does question the use of the weapon full stop.

I think most of Europe holds that particular notion fairly dear. We're pretty aware of habeus corpus too in the UK thanks. I think you'll find it is a pretty early tenent of English Common law. Which was then used in your Constitution. That really isn't helping anything.

This is not an anti American thread. In fact, two of the more articulate posters questioning the use of WP are Americans.

Asking legitimate questions about the use of a weapon that is banned by many other countries doesn't strike me as condemning the US for targetting civilians. It does question the use of the weapon full stop.

I see no reason to stop using it, until there is a superior replacement.

I see no reason to stop using it, until there is a superior replacement.

But this is apples and oranges DK. It's not whether or not it's effective. It's whether or not it is considered a chemical weapon that should be used against combatants, never mind civilians. You clearly do not ave a problem with that, and that is your opinion.

I can see a great deal of evidence (in this thread alone) that means that that is exactly what it is considered to be by many, many other countries, including my own.

And you can be damn sure that that is exactly what the insurgents will call it as well, and what Al Quaida will call it, and what another deluded lunatic strapping explosives onto himself will fall for.

Quite frankly, it makes the US look bad. And right now, that is something that no one needs. Legal or otherwise, you acknowledged that earlier on with your list of incendiaries currently being manufactured by other states. It might be efficient, but it isn't going to win hearts and minds.

But this is apples and oranges DK. It's not whether or not it's effective. It's whether or not it is considered a chemical weapon that should be used against combatants, never mind civilians. You clearly do not ave a problem with that, and that is your opinion.

Its already been stated that it isn't a chemical weapon.

I do have every right to ask a straight question about why, when many other countries have stopped using this weapon against soldiers never mind civilians, the USA has decided that it will continue to do so. I would ask the same question were it the UK. I would ask the same question about APMs, phosgene or any other weapon. This is not an anti US thread from my perspective. In case you've forgotten, my country is up to its neck in this war too.

Because America is playing a different game, to continue your analogy. America's legal argument on this is right up there with Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

The US, Israel, and a number of other nations have not signed Protocol III. Doctrine approves of use of thermobaric and other incendiary weapons as antipersonnel munitions.

We just have to be very careful about wagging our finger at Saddam while we ourselves have destabilized the nation and are using weapons that call our position into question.

The common Iraqi has not read the Geneva Convention. The common Iraqi doesn't care what the terms of the CWC say.

They ask, "Why did they come here?" They can reasonably argue that life under Saddam, while severe, was nowhere near as chaotic and frightening as this. They hear about these weapons, and 90% of them will never be as informed as you would hope. And even if they were informed, they still might think it was atrocious.

One of the reasons Saddam was a brutal dictator was because he had been snuffing out jihadis like this for decades. The problem was that he was an indiscriminant killer. He (and his regime) would kill those that might have deserved killing, and also kill those that did nothing wrong.

The CIA helped put him on the top in the 1960s. We supported him in his war against Iran in the 1980s. We simulataneously put the Taliban on the map in Afghanistan in the 1980s by funding the muhajedin against the Soviet Union. Our Cold War policies have come home to roost.

Even so, there's no love there. We might have helped them into power, but once there they did not care to keep the relationship going. There's a tremendous common hatred against us built up since the 1991 war especially, but going further back to the 1960s with US support of Israel. The relationship was a sham. Our covert operations were made without any deep, genuine, long-lasting diplomatic alliance. Yes, the US has always played by different rules. And some portions of the US, such as the intelligence services, play by an even more obscure set.

The Iraqis have their own rules, too. There's a lot of leeriness about this experiment in democracy. They have not been known for a corruption-free government ever during the past century. I haven't done enough research to know what it was like under the Ottomans, but they were never the most trouble-free government. So when? The monarchy under the British? The brief republican era that jailed the oppositions? The coups? You cannot expect the rule of law to take hold overnight.

Attitudes will not change overnight. Anything we do to reinforce a negative attitude is a danger for the safety of the people of Iraq, who are under our protection, as well as a risk to our personnel and a setback to the swift completion of the mission.

We need to come off clean as a whistle.

It really doesn't matter what domestic liberal opinion is in the US if the common Iraqi decides to pick up an RPG due to the outrage of what gets spread on the streets.

and what another deluded lunatic strapping explosives onto himself will fall for.

They don't need a reason - it matters not one whit what we do - were we using WP on people before 9-11? Obviously, not a shortage of recruits for suicidal attacks on Americans.

Quite frankly, it makes the US look bad. And right now, that is something that no one needs. Legal or otherwise, you acknowledged that earlier on with your list of incendiaries currently being manufactured by other states. It might be efficient, but it isn't going to win hearts and minds.

Killing people is bad business. As I pointed out, the opponents of the US made up stories about us sacking a hospital in Fallujah, killing patients in their beds in Fallujah, destroying all the mosques unprovoked in Fallujah, etc.

No, regardless of what we do, we're going to be accused of being the bad guys, in a manner similar to being pecked to death by ducks, precisely because the opponents of the US have no other way to defeat us other than "make us look bad" - which so often is a simple matter of making false allegations.

So, instead of throwing WP shells into basements, which you view as bad, how about throwing these down into the basement?

They don't go off, unless you screw with the tripwires - and you have four hours to get out of the basement.

Pursuit Deterrent Munition (I've used these)

DESCRIPTION: PDM is a manually-activated Area Denial Artillery Munition (ADAM) with a hand grenade-type release firing mechanism. It deploys up to seven trip wires and possesses the ADAM self-destruct capabilities. For safety purposes, arming will occur one minute after the firing mechanism is released.

DESCRIPTION: The Pursuit Deterrent Munition is the first munition designed especially for Special Forces, by the SWCS Directorate of Combat Developments. SF unites operating in hostile territory take every precaution to prevent discovery or confruntation with the enemy. But if discovery does occur, the need to break contact with the enemy is critical- otherwise there is often no chance of extraction, resupply or accomplishing the mission. Current munitions to protect withdrawals are slow and hazardous to emplace. The use of these munitions requires units to record their position, since they do not have a self-destruct mechanism and will remain in place.

DESCRIPTION: Only 3 1/2 inches hight and approximately three inches in diameter, the PDM weighs one pound and can easily be thrown or emplaced by hand. The PDM i sslefdestructing : it will detonate automatically aftre a predetermined period of time.

DESCRIPTION: Several activated PDMs dropped behind withdrawing SF elements would create an obstacle: The pursuing enemy forces would either take casualties, stop and breach the mined area or divert theri route. Any of these options would give the SF unite time to break contact.

DESCRIPTION: Powered by a build-in battery, the PDM is activated by pulling a pin and removing an arming strap. Once activated the PDM automatically deploys sever 20-foot trip wires. the PDM can be triggered by disturbing these wires, by its anti-tampering mechanism or by the expiration of its self-destruction time. When triggered, a small preliminary charge throws the main charge to approximately sholder-height before it explodes.

DESCRIPTION: The M86 pursuit-deterrent munition ( PDM) (Figure 4-1) is wedge-shaped and is similar in configuration and functioning to the ADAM. The PDM is a manually activated mine. It has an arming time of 25 seconds and can deploy up to seven trip wires.Once the PDM is armed, disturbing it or any of its trip wires will initiate the munition. The munition contains a liquid propellant that rests under a kill mechanism and propels upward approximately 2.5 meters. The kill mechanism detonates in the air and propels fragments in all directions. If the munition is not disturbed, it will self-destruct in 4 hours. The PDM is used as a deterrent by special-operations forces (SOF) and in operations where units may be pursued by an enemy force.

Its already been stated that it isn't a chemical weapon.

And it has been argued strongly that it is. For a variety of reasons already listed in this thread.

And it has been argued strongly that it is. For a variety of reasons already listed in this thread.

I'll believe the soldiers over anyone else. They will know this better than the average citizen of ANY country.

WP primarily kills by burning, not poisoning. Like a bullet, it can poison you, but by the time poisoning sets in the other effects have already killed you.

My point in mentioning CS, CN and OC was that the phosphoric acid produced in the smoke of a WP shell is much less of an irritant than those, and safer than the stuff used by police on civilians. I never said that the military used irritants like those on enemy troops in battle, but I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to.

The asphyxiation it can cause (by consuming the air in enclosed places) is covered as a chemical process by the CWC, and other asphyxiants are banned.

You're arguing the minutae. The problem is you're missing the big picture: the people are not reacting favorably to it.

While I'm not a professional in arms control, neither are 99.9999% percent of Iraqis.

They won't care.

Meanwhile, for those who are in arms control, this is so close to the borderline as to make some of those professionals say that yes, since it was not used as an illuminant nor an obscurant, this was not a proper use as per Protocol III, and it is marginally within the CWC's prohibitions.

The asphyxiation it can cause (by consuming the air in enclosed places) is covered as a chemical process by the CWC, and other asphyxiants are banned.

You're arguing the minutae. The problem is you're missing the big picture: the people are not reacting favorably to it.

While I'm not a professional in arms control, neither are 99.9999% percent of Iraqis.

They won't care.

Meanwhile, for those who are in arms control, this is so close to the borderline as to make some of those professionals say that yes, since it was not used as an illuminant nor an obscurant, this was not a proper use as per Protocol III, and it is marginally within the CWC's prohibitions.
In the end it won't be the use of WP that will give the US a bad name, it will be the fact that we went into Iraq, deposed a tyrannical, but effective ruler, and are unable to provide the security and guidance needed to build a stable secular democracy.

Hopefully we can train up enough Iraqi police and military to keep the new Islamic government stable and prevent civil war. That will be something at least.

They don't need a reason - it matters not one whit what we do - were we using WP on people before 9-11? Obviously, not a shortage of recruits for suicidal attacks on Americans.[QUOTE]

Oh no. Let's not go down this route. There is absolutely no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and absolutely no evidence that Sadam was anything other than the enemy of his own people.

[QUOTE]Killing people is bad business. As I pointed out, the opponents of the US made up stories about us sacking a hospital in Fallujah, killing patients in their beds in Fallujah, destroying all the mosques unprovoked in Fallujah, etc.

Agreed. And easily repudiated at least in the West. But in this case, the evidence is all over the Western media, and the suicide bombers who bombed London were British.

No, regardless of what we do, we're going to be accused of being the bad guys, in a manner similar to being pecked to death by ducks, precisely because the opponents of the US have no other way to defeat us other than "make us look bad" - which so often is a simple matter of making false allegations.
I suspect you are a great deal bigger than falling for that. I couldn't care less about what terrorists say. It is what they do. And anything that the US or the rest of the Western world does that gives their bile any credence is simply one more thing that should be avoided. We are all a great deal better than that.

So, instead of throwing WP shells into basements, which you view as bad, how about throwing these down into the basement?

They don't go off, unless you screw with the tripwires - and you have four hours to get out of the basement.

Pursuit Deterrent Munition (I've used these)



Sorry, you've lost me there. Are you suggesting using these as offensive weapons, or suggesting that terrorists would leave them for US soldiers to be killed by?

The asphyxiation it can cause (by consuming the air in enclosed places) is covered as a chemical process by the CWC, and other asphyxiants are banned.


If you're in an enclosed space with burning WP, you'll burn to death before you asphyxiate.

While you and a few other reasonable posters may be reasonably objecting to the use of incendiaries to kill people, or may want to make sure that unarmed civilians were not targeted intentionally, a lot of the people excited by these allegations are excited precisely because they want to disarm the US, and prevent the US from using any weapon of any sort against the insurgents.

Fallujah was an interesting battle from the perspective of military history - for the first time, a major military entered urban combat against an insurgency, and took dramatically lower losses than expected, and inflicted near total casualties on the insurgents. There were 28 dead insurgents for every 1 wounded or killed US soldier.

Facing those facts, insurgents know that either they have to resort to roadside bombs that are unattended (which more than likely kill unarmed civilian Iraqis), or count on international pressure to have the US either leave Iraq or stop using effective weapons and tactics.

I've already heard from some Palestinians that the use of rifle-proof body armor by US forces is completely unfair. Are we going to take that issue up and move the goalposts a bit further, just to make combat "fair"?

I'll believe the soldiers over anyone else. They will know this better than the average citizen of ANY country.

Nonsense. Because they know how to use a weapon doesn't mean they know what its classification is. I'll go with international definitions anytime. And there, I suspect, is the rub.

Well folks, I'm off home. The pub is calling and it's Friday night. Whatever you're up to have a safe and happy weekend.

Nonsense. Because they know how to use a weapon doesn't mean they know what its classification is. I'll go with international definitions anytime. And there, I suspect, is the rub.

HAHAHA!! Hun, the Army has classes on what is and isn't a chemical weapon. My dad, who is in the Air Force, goes through similiar training though he doesn't deal with Chemical Weapons.

The Military sure as hell knows the difference and this is a very ignorant statement.

Well folks, I'm off home. The pub is calling and it's Friday night. Whatever you're up to have a safe and happy weekend.

You 2

Here's some information from a friend of mine posted in Baghdad.
IF WP is considered an illegal chemical agent then I can tell you US forces have proven that Saddam had WMD. I can not tell you how many WP arty shells I came across in Southern Baghdad. So by their reasoning the war has now been justified to their standards.

I think most of Europe holds that particular notion fairly dear. We're pretty aware of habeus corpus too in the UK thanks. I think you'll find it is a pretty early tenent of English Common law. Which was then used in your Constitution. That really isn't helping anything.

This is not an anti American thread. In fact, two of the more articulate posters questioning the use of WP are Americans.

Asking legitimate questions about the use of a weapon that is banned by many other countries doesn't strike me as condemning the US for targetting civilians. It does question the use of the weapon full stop.
I don't mind discussions of whether or not it's right. That was targeted at those who seem to have already found the soldiers guilty of firing it at civilians on purpose.

Nonsense. Because they know how to use a weapon doesn't mean they know what its classification is. I'll go with international definitions anytime. And there, I suspect, is the rub.

Well folks, I'm off home. The pub is calling and it's Friday night. Whatever you're up to have a safe and happy weekend.
Frankly, I don't care what your views on our weapons are, or what is a chemical, and what isn't. If your a Pub man, your O.K. in my book! ;)
Drink one for me, partner! CHEERS!

And the results are in:

Jeff Englehart, described as a former US soldier who served in Falluja, tells of how he heard orders for white phosphorus to be deployed over military radio - and saw the results.

"Burned bodies, burned women, burned children; white phosphorus kills indiscriminately... When it makes contact with skin, then it's absolutely irreversible damage, burning flesh to the bone," he says.

phosphorus:

1. chemical element that ignites and glows: a poisonous nonmetallic chemical element that ignites in air and glows in the dark. Use: matches, fireworks, incendiary devices, fertilizers.

Not a chemical huh?:rolleyes:
explosives are chemicals...so whats your point ?

The above would certainly be a terrorist action.


I would suggest that targetting US troops is an insurgent initiative.


You are confirming what I stated? "The biggest killers of American troops in Iraq" is "roadside bombs". I would call that the work of the insurgency.

The insurgent terrorist are the biggest killer OF IRAQI CITIZENS

That also seems to be an insurgent initiative .

I've already pointed out that it simply makes us look bad, even if it's not a technical violation of CWC, and even if we did not sign Protocol III. The miltary said we used it. The State Department said we didn't. Makes us look bad, and any credibility gap, while it can be a minor flap in western media, is turned into outright lies on the scale of genocide by the Arab-language media.

Remember that there are public sentiments being won or lost here.

Right now, the insurgents/terrorists are non-state actors. They don't fight according to the Geneva Conventions.

Why isn't the world chiding them to play by the rules? Well, probably because they don't really care to and would shoot you dead if you tried to get in their way.

Yet the US government is expected to abide by the conventions of war, simply from a moral standpoint.

It is indeed odd that a 155mm shell is not banned, but WP is. A 155mm shell is far more directly deadly.

It's tragic to see the mosques bombed today. To see the hotel bombing. Iraqi civilians are taking the casualties. It's insane by western standards.

The Iraqi people are faced with 3,000 foreign insurgents, and approximately 10,000 - 12,000 domestic insurgents.

We need to somehow get that number down by an order of magnitude by marginalizing the cause of jihad. I think the insurgents are not winning themselves any friends each time they kill civilians.

Therefore, it is imperative that we do not bring any risk to our position, ethically or morally. If we wish to use unconventional weapons, we probably should disclose this to the Iraqi government and say, "Look, this is what we wish to use. Do you agree to its deployment?"

If we do, then the Iraqis can take the issue to their own government, which can answer, "We chose to let this happen so the military operation could be executed swiftly and effectively."

Ironically, one of if not the very first historical uses of phosphorus bombs were made by Britain against the Iraqi people during their repression of the Kurds back in the 1920s.

If you want to know why the nation might be a bit twitchy over the issue, and why the Brits categorically do not want to use them, you might realize "Ah, there's also a cultural anger here."

So to you, it's not a big deal. For the local populace, it opens an old and ugly wound.

It's a hot button that does not need to be pressed. While it's a time-tested tactic we've used going back to WWII, the world has grown a bit more sensitive since then, the treaty against incendiaries that 90 other nations abide by (Protocol III) makes us seem as if we're scoffing international laws, it skirts real damn close to the limits of CWC, and generally, its tactical effectiveness was offset by the public relations bruhaha that's erupted thereafter.

Again, we need to limit the booing in the stands.

I aggree with almost everything you say here . Here's the exception ; knowing the lessons of Vietnam do we realy want to limit the tactical descisions of our troops and commanders on the ground for political reasons ?
This whole WP story is a , cringer anti war liberal , smokescreen designed to discredit the US military . Its a load of bullshit being dumped and eaten up by those predisposed to consider that the US is , the evil antichrist , world destroying , creatures from hell and all around bad guys .
But still the idiots in charge know that its use is being looked at hard and have made asswipes of themselves by not being clear from the beginning how it was used . They are at times their own worse enemy.

The US, Israel, and a number of other nations have not signed Protocol III. Doctrine approves of use of thermobaric and other incendiary weapons as antipersonnel munitions.

We just have to be very careful about wagging our finger at Saddam while we ourselves have destabilized the nation and are using weapons that call our position into question.

The common Iraqi has not read the Geneva Convention. The common Iraqi doesn't care what the terms of the CWC say.

They ask, "Why did they come here?" They can reasonably argue that life under Saddam, while severe, was nowhere near as chaotic and frightening as this. They hear about these weapons, and 90% of them will never be as informed as you would hope. And even if they were informed, they still might think it was atrocious.

One of the reasons Saddam was a brutal dictator was because he had been snuffing out jihadis like this for decades. The problem was that he was an indiscriminant killer. He (and his regime) would kill those that might have deserved killing, and also kill those that did nothing wrong.

The CIA helped put him on the top in the 1960s. We supported him in his war against Iran in the 1980s. We simulataneously put the Taliban on the map in Afghanistan in the 1980s by funding the muhajedin against the Soviet Union. Our Cold War policies have come home to roost.

Even so, there's no love there. We might have helped them into power, but once there they did not care to keep the relationship going. There's a tremendous common hatred against us built up since the 1991 war especially, but going further back to the 1960s with US support of Israel. The relationship was a sham. Our covert operations were made without any deep, genuine, long-lasting diplomatic alliance. Yes, the US has always played by different rules. And some portions of the US, such as the intelligence services, play by an even more obscure set.

The Iraqis have their own rules, too. There's a lot of leeriness about this experiment in democracy. They have not been known for a corruption-free government ever during the past century. I haven't done enough research to know what it was like under the Ottomans, but they were never the most trouble-free government. So when? The monarchy under the British? The brief republican era that jailed the oppositions? The coups? You cannot expect the rule of law to take hold overnight.

Attitudes will not change overnight. Anything we do to reinforce a negative attitude is a danger for the safety of the people of Iraq, who are under our protection, as well as a risk to our personnel and a setback to the swift completion of the mission.

We need to come off clean as a whistle.

It really doesn't matter what domestic liberal opinion is in the US if the common Iraqi decides to pick up an RPG due to the outrage of what gets spread on the streets.

The liberals and anti war crowd do not see this . You could never survive in a country like Iraq with 150,000 troops ...and not all are even combat troops...if the average Iraqi wanted you dead . You couldnt even controll Bahgdad. Thats one of the biggest reasons for the propaganda machine to spread the worse about American troops in every case possible and in every way possible . The reason that the Iraqis are going to vote Dec. 15 and have a constitution to argue over is only because the average Iraqi see's whats going on fairly well . Of course a few more Abu Grabass types of shit storms and a bunch of dead babies in the streets killed by the evil American empire of world crushing beast ...will change that fast .

In the end it won't be the use of WP that will give the US a bad name, it will be the fact that we went into Iraq, deposed a tyrannical, but effective ruler, and are unable to provide the security and guidance needed to build a stable secular democracy.

Hopefully we can train up enough Iraqi police and military to keep the new Islamic government stable and prevent civil war. That will be something at least.

Reminds me of something I read in a debate strategy book:

"And finally, if you can't beat their point, minimize its effects and show that the benefits of your overall proposal outweigh its negatives"

It's a cheap way of trying to weasel out of the main point of the argument. If you care about objectivity, you can admit that WP was used and was damaging etc. You can then seperately make any case about Iraq you feel is necessary.

Reminds me of something I read in a debate strategy book:

"And finally, if you can't beat their point, minimize its effects and show that the benefits of your overall proposal outweigh its negatives"

It's a cheap way of trying to weasel out of the main point of the argument. If you care about objectivity, you can admit that WP was used and was damaging etc. You can then seperately make any case about Iraq you feel is necessary.

Between you and me, I'd rather die of being stifled and incinerated in a confined space by WP, than have a ICM bomblet bounce to waist high right in front of me and go off.

Yes it was used - if you didn't read the whole thread, you might want to know that the Marines publicized its use a few weeks after the battle of Fallujah. It's not like they were keeping it a secret.

Freedom Fighters not Insurgents.
you think what their doing in faluja is fighting for freedom????????

Between you and me, I'd rather die of being stifled and incinerated in a confined space by WP, than have a ICM bomblet bounce to waist high right in front of me and go off.

Yes it was used - if you didn't read the whole thread, you might want to know that the Marines publicized its use a few weeks after the battle of Fallujah. It's not like they were keeping it a secret.
I know. I've read stuff on this already. I was working within the assumptions DC was allowing against his own argument.

The following are ALSO technically chemical weapons if that's your criteria:
High explosives (symtex)
Gun Powder
Mace
Water
Tear Gas
Jet Fuel
MRE's
Morphine
Tylenol

Do I need to post the "chemical formula" for each of them?
And these relate to the affects of white phosphorous in what manner?

Forget it! CH doesn't know half of what he is trying to prove.
*Canuckheaven pats Corny on the head and hands him a cookie.

As usual, all we get is that Corny rhetoric and no facts to back up your claims. Why don't you try something novel, like backing up your claims, and then we can debate the issues in a more informed matter. Throwing out insults doesn't justify your argument in the slightest.

Reminds me of something I read in a debate strategy book:

"And finally, if you can't beat their point, minimize its effects and show that the benefits of your overall proposal outweigh its negatives"

It's a cheap way of trying to weasel out of the main point of the argument. If you care about objectivity, you can admit that WP was used and was damaging etc. You can then seperately make any case about Iraq you feel is necessary.
WP was used. WP will damage our reputation if people keep harping on it. It's not an illegal weapon, it's not a chemical weapon, but if people keep making it out to be evil it will make the US look bad in the eyes of the easily persuaded.

Here's some information from a friend of mine posted in Baghdad.

:D Oh, yes! That's rich.

Outside of the United states , is there any other country in the world that puts so much effort into developing weapons that actually reduce " collateral " damage ?

At any rate if all we wanted to do was kill insurgents in any city..why not just tell the residents to leave...then just drop a bunch of daisy cutters or moabs and be done with it..send a few squads in after to clean up a bit ...?

Frankly, I don't care what your views on our weapons are, or what is a chemical, and what isn't. If your a Pub man, your O.K. in my book! ;)
Drink one for me, partner! CHEERS!

You know, in any debate the important thing, if your intention is to learn something from the debate rather than to simply prove "I'm right and you're not!" is to start with things mutually agreed upon by both parties and work from there.

You win this round! :D

*Canuckheaven pats Corny on the head and hands him a cookie.

As usual, all we get is that Corny rhetoric and no facts to back up your claims. Why don't you try something novel, like backing up your claims, and then we can debate the issues in a more informed matter. Throwing out insults doesn't justify your argument in the slightest.

And once again, when points are defeated, attack those that defeat you. CH, you have been defeated. Why don't you concede?

And once again, when points are defeated, attack those that defeat you. CH, you have been defeated. Why don't you concede?
Moi? Defeated by you? Ain't gonna happen. :D

The best you can hope for is a tie and given your utter disdain for proving your arguments with credible information, it would appear that even a tie would be difficult to obtain.

WP, a chemical weapon, was used against insurgents and civilians in Fallujah.

Your turn.:D

And once again, when points are defeated, attack those that defeat you. CH, you have been defeated. Why don't you concede?

You have to admit CH has some spunk. But I think Corneliu in my eyes you have the upper hand on this one.

You have to admit CH has some spunk. But I think Corneliu in my eyes you have the upper hand on this one.
I wouldn't expect you to say anything different Marrakech. After all, you and Corny are on the same team.

In regards to this article, Corny has posted the sum total of zero articles to support his dialogue, which leads me to believe that you haven't read this thread and are unqualified in deciding who has the "upper hand".

If you would like to contribute something meaningful to the discussion, be my guest. It has been a long time since we last locked horns. :D

I don't think that all, or even many, of them would be ex-Ba'athists either.

And I think "competent" may not be the right word either...seeing as to where Iraq was at when the war started. You could argue that it was all due to the sanctions (incorrectly IMHO), but even then - it is the job of the leader to keep relations with other countries at a reasonable level.
Everyone has it out for him.
It was doing a better job than the Goons running the show now.

Moi? Defeated by you? Ain't gonna happen. :D

The best you can hope for is a tie and given your utter disdain for proving your arguments with credible information, it would appear that even a tie would be difficult to obtain.

WP, a chemical weapon, was used against insurgents and civilians in Fallujah.

Your turn.:D

The Marines documented its use but under International Law, it is by no means a chemical weapon.

Also, EUROPEAN NATIONS have similiar types of weapons and Saddam Hussein also had WP Artillery Rounds.

So if you consider WP to be a chemical weapon then guess what? We found chemical weapons in Iraq in the form of WP Artillery shells.

Your turn.

You have to admit CH has some spunk. But I think Corneliu in my eyes you have the upper hand on this one.

Not just me but those of us who actually knows a thing or two about the types of weapons that the US uses.

CH here doesn't know a thing in regards to it and loves to cherry pick his arguements.

I'm not the only one who has the upper hand here. Deep Kimchi has also knocked this to the ground numerous times.

The Marines documented its use but under International Law, it is by no means a chemical weapon.

Also, EUROPEAN NATIONS have similiar types of weapons and Saddam Hussein also had WP Artillery Rounds.

So if you consider WP to be a chemical weapon then guess what? We found chemical weapons in Iraq in the form of WP Artillery shells.

Your turn.
[

And I must say this is one of the reasons I'm so strongly aruing the middle.

If WP is a banned chemical weapon then the ignorant have handed Bush his original justification on a silver platter.

I have come to be against the war, in essence, on the same grounds as Sen. Murtha - Bush has FUBARed it beyond recovery.

At this point, claiming that WP is a chemical weapon excuses the war. And I don't think it should be excused.

[

And I must say this is one of the reasons I'm so strongly aruing the middle.

If WP is a banned chemical weapon then the ignorant have handed Bush his original justification on a silver platter.

I have come to be against the war, in essence, on the same grounds as Sen. Murtha - Bush has FUBARed it beyond recovery.

At this point, claiming that WP is a chemical weapon excuses the war. And I don't think it should be excused.

here's what Murtha's peers think of his cut and run outburst..

The House voted 403-3 to reject a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal

They needed to get it on the record who's for running like abused dogs .
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051119/NEWS06/511190510

The Marines documented its use but under International Law, it is by no means a chemical weapon.
Please post your reference materials.

Also, EUROPEAN NATIONS have similiar types of weapons and Saddam Hussein also had WP Artillery Rounds.
Two things:

1. Link that proves that Saddam had WP artillery rounds when the US invaded.

2. IF and when Saddam had WP artillery rounds, prove he used them as weapons against people and if so, when.

So if you consider WP to be a chemical weapon then guess what? We found chemical weapons in Iraq in the form of WP Artillery shells.
Source please. Also note, that the UN inspectors were not finished their job of inspection when the US invaded.

Your turn.

Please post your reference materials.


Two things:

1. Link that proves that Saddam had WP artillery rounds when the US invaded.

2. IF and when Saddam had WP artillery rounds, prove he used them as weapons against people and if so, when.


Source please. Also note, that the UN inspectors were not finished their job of inspection when the US invaded.

Your turn.

All your demanding is all public knowledge. It isn't my fault that your too dumb to go look for yourself. You sir, have completely lost this debate and it is quite obvious that you have.

All of your arguements have been destroyed by one poster or another and mostly by those that actually have a clue as to the rules regarding WP.

I suggest you listen to them more than whatever bad sources you've been using.

All your demanding is all public knowledge. It isn't my fault that your too dumb to go look for yourself. You sir, have completely lost this debate and it is quite obvious that you have.

All of your arguements have been destroyed by one poster or another and mostly by those that actually have a clue as to the rules regarding WP.

I suggest you listen to them more than whatever bad sources you've been using.
I say BS to your rhetoric, and insults. Just provide the proof.

You made some specific claims, now back them up, to the best of your ability, or be quiet. Your choice.

If you choose silence or further insults, without providing proof, then I would suggest that it is you that is lacking substantive material in this debate.

I say BS to your rhetoric, and insults. Just provide the proof.

You made some specific claims, now back them up, to the best of your ability, or be quiet. Your choice.

If you choose silence or further insults, without providing proof, then I would suggest that it is you that is lacking substantive material in this debate.

It funny your telling me this when the proof is all over this thread. Why don't you go and read it for youself.

It funny your telling me this when the proof is all over this thread. Why don't you go and read it for youself.

The burden of proof is on those who make the assertions. I always provide a source when a source is specifically requested. It's only polite.

It funny your telling me this when the proof is all over this thread. Why don't you go and read it for youself.
You made specific allegations, quite different from what has been posted here. I ask you once again to post proof, or documentation to back up your claims.

For reference, here is the post that asks you to provide evidence:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9960480&postcount=167

I do believe that you are evading the burden of proof once again.

The burden of proof is on those who make the assertions. I always provide a source when a source is specifically requested. It's only polite.

So far, I haven't seen any proof that it is illegal. That falls on you. As I said, the proof is all throughout the thread. No need for me to prove anything.

So far, I haven't seen any proof that it is illegal. That falls on you. As I said, the proof is all throughout the thread. No need for me to prove anything.

But the literal legality of it isn't the only thing being discussed and you've made specific assertions that fall outside of those discussions. Support them as requested, please.

So far, I haven't seen any proof that it is illegal. That falls on you. As I said, the proof is all throughout the thread. No need for me to prove anything.
Yes, you need to prove these statements:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9960480&postcount=167

You made specific allegations. Back up your claims or be quiet. Simple request.

Yes, you need to prove these statements:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9960480&postcount=167

You made specific allegations. Back up your claims or be quiet. Simple request.
Dude, don't you know how to use a freaking search engine? Bitch Bitch Bitch. Research if it's THAT important to you. GEEZ

here's what Murtha's peers think of his cut and run outburst..



They needed to get it on the record who's for running like abused dogs .
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051119/NEWS06/511190510

You do realise that's the GOP's bill not Murtha's bill, don't you?

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

You do realise that's the GOP's bill not Murtha's bill, don't you?

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

Thank you Daistallia.

Dude, don't you know how to use a freaking search engine? Bitch Bitch Bitch. Research if it's THAT important to you. GEEZ

If it's that important to Corny, he/she should back up his/her claims. Corny forever fails to do that and so most of us give no credence whatsoever to what he/she says. If Corny wants to be taken seriously, Corny needs to learn how to argue correctly.

Please post your reference materials.


Two things:

1. Link that proves that Saddam had WP artillery rounds when the US invaded.

2. IF and when Saddam had WP artillery rounds, prove he used them as weapons against people and if so, when.


Source please. Also note, that the UN inspectors were not finished their job of inspection when the US invaded.

Your turn.


The legality of the use of WP has been covered repeatedly. And as for it's being found in Iraq, it is just so widely used, I'd be utterly surprised and shocked if the pre-war Iraqi forces didn't have large stocks. I'd be equally surprised if it had not been employeed as an incendiary against both military and civilian targets, given the previous regime's record. The problem of producing evidence of it is digging it up. It's so common that I don't think the inspectors (UN or US) would have thought to particularly note it. However, I am attempting to dig up a specific reference that notes it.

How widely is it used?

White phosphorus was extensively used as a smokescreen by Russian forces in the battle for the Chechen city of Grozny in December 1994.

The UK has confirmed it has the chemical and has used it in Iraq - but only to lay smokescreens.

The use of white phosphorus in incendiary devices dates back to World War I and beyond.

It was used in World War II predominantly for smoke screens, marker shells, incendiaries, hand grenades and tracer bullets.

The chemical also has many non-military applications, being widely used by industry in products ranging from toothpaste to fertiliser.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4441902.stm

Freedom Fighters not Insurgents.

Oh, this person thinks that if you cut the heads off innocent workers then you're a freedom fighter.... They are not freedom fighters or insurgents they are flat out and purposeful TERRORISTS!!!

Oh, this person thinks that if you cut the heads off innocent workers then you're a freedom fighter.... They are not freedom fighters or insurgents they are flat out and purposeful TERRORISTS!!!


There are too many insurgents for them all to have killed civilians or cut off the heads of captives. Those could logically be called "freedom fighters" or "foreign fighters." Either way they believe, justifiably or not, the US or western culture is a threat to their freedom and so they attack the soldiers of the country they are at war with. There are likely those that have not targeted civilians specifically, but have still unintentionally caused their death and suffering. Those I would call insurgents or guerrilla fighters. There are others who have brutalized captives, targeted civilians and caused suffering at a high level. Those I call terrorists.

The problem is that our war in Iraq has CREATED the first two categories of people who are fighting us.

There are too many insurgents for them all to have killed civilians or cut off the heads of captives. Those could logically be called "freedom fighters" or "foreign fighters." Either way they believe, justifiably or not, the US or western culture is a threat to their freedom and so they attack the soldiers of the country they are at war with. There are likely those that have not targeted civilians specifically, but have still unintentionally caused their death and suffering. Those I would call insurgents or guerrilla fighters. There are others who have brutalized captives, targeted civilians and caused suffering at a high level. Those I call terrorists.

The problem is that our war in Iraq has CREATED the first two categories of people who are fighting us.

And the mess there isn't as simple as all that. Don't forget to toss the criminal gangs (both pre and post war) and the inter-ethnic rivalries of the earlie stages of the civil war. As well as the old Baathists.

And the mess there isn't as simple as all that. Don't forget to toss the criminal gangs (both pre and post war) and the inter-ethnic rivalries of the earlie stages of the civil war. As well as the old Baathists.

There's no possible way for either you or I to try to explain the complexity in a paragraph or 100 paragraphs.

Other factions/sects in Iraq:


Those who listen to radical clerics.
Those who listen to moderate clerics.
Those that are extremely interested in economic self-interest.
Those who have lost a loved one in this war who may or may not hate the US or the insurgents.
Those who have their own idea of what's going on.
And so on.

Thank you Daistallia.

Ummm...... you do realise that it was the republicans response to his outburst to put that resolution toghether so that all the cut and run cowards would have to put themselves on record as such . Some recognise the morale of the troops as important and that knowing your government backs up your job is vital . The vote was what ....408 to 3 or something ?
I guess cut and run is not a good idea is it ? But you wouldnt know that by watching the TV news and listening to what he said . For the sake of the military the the fact that a major member ogf congress made the claim that the troops should be brought home immediately had to be sorted out and FAST as the defeatest cringer bullshit it is .

Ummm...... you do realise that it was the republicans response to his outburst to put that resolution toghether so that all the cut and run cowards would have to put themselves on record as such . Some recognise the morale of the troops as important and that knowing your government backs up your job is vital . The vote was what ....408 to 3 or something ?
I guess cut and run is not a good idea is it ? But you wouldnt know that by watching the TV news and listening to what he said . For the sake of the military the the fact that a major member ogf congress made the claim that the troops should be brought home immediately had to be sorted out and FAST as the defeatest cringer bullshit it is .




The simple fact that anyone could call or imply that a 37 year veteran who saw combat in both Korea and Vietnam and won a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts a coward is simply disgusting. That the administration orchestrating such attacks is led by a man who at best was a poor soldier and at worst a deserter is nothing short of making me want to post something that would likely get me banned.

The simple fact that anyone could call or imply that a 37 year veteran who saw combat in both Korea and Vietnam and won a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts a coward is simply disgusting. That the administration orchestrating such attacks is led by a man who at best was a poor soldier and at worst a deserter is nothing short of making me want to post something that would likely get me banned.

OK now remove all the invective and side show bullshit and determine for yourself if the cut and run strategy is cowardly .

Also notice the that only three voted for it . None named Murtha .
Anyone who thinks Murtha is a coward is a moron . But then again it seems we have alot of them in power .

OK now remove all the invective and side show bullshit and determine for yourself if the cut and run strategy is cowardly .

Also notice the that only three voted for it . None named Murtha .
Anyone who thinks Murtha is a coward is a moron . But then again it seems we have alot of them in power .

The "Republican response" was nothing more than the Republicans constructing a strawman out of Murtha's proposal and then presenting it. The 3 votes against were probably cast for show.

The "Republican response" was nothing more than the Republicans constructing a strawman out of Murtha's proposal and then presenting it. The 3 votes against were probably cast for show.


It doesnt work that way . It was to get on record who wanted to cut and run . Its called "calling your bluff" and it is what happens when you play politics with a war that is still being fought and in a place where your soldiers are being killed ...while you are at home undermining their efforts. You dont pull the rug out from under the people you have fighting and being killed and wounded .

Its far from a fucking show for those guys .

It doesnt work that way . It was to get on record who wanted to cut and run . Its called "calling your bluff" and it is what happens when you play politics with a war that is still being fought and in a place where your soldiers are being killed ...while you are at home undermining their efforts. You dont pull the rug out from under the people you have fighting and being killed and wounded .

Its far from a fucking show for those guys .

Then why didn't the vote on Murtha's proposal? You simply don;t want to believe that it's"your side" that's playing games with this war, but it is. They played games to start it, and they're playing games to extend it. What the Democrats want is a pullout "when it becomes practicable."

What the Republicans seem to want is a long occupation rife witht he same tactics and strategies that have already made this war the mess it it. You want to talk about undermining efforts? It's the yahoos in power that are undermining our troops. They went in with too few troops. They expected to be greeted as liberators. They failed to protect some of Iraq's greates treasures from looters. They failed to plan for the insurgency. They failed to seal the border or even plan for making a semblance of such. You want someone who has failed the troops? Look in the oval office!

"Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";
Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy."

Just for fun, here's the GOP "alternative":

The GOP version:

"Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives thatthe deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forcesin Iraq be terminated immediately."



I looked in the dictionary under " pure political bullshit " and I found this .
So whats the difference from both of these ? They both call for the removal of troops immediately. So WTF are you crying about it not being Murthas proposal ...seems to me it ( the Republican one ) cut directly to the case now didnt it . They are all a bunch of dickheads to be playing this shit while our troops are at war . Fuck all of them .

here's how one of the Arab news services are repoting it .

Home Site Guide Contact Us Set As HomePage Add to favorites







US Democrat calls for Iraq pullout


Friday 18 November 2005, 8:05 Makka Time, 5:05 GMT


Bush's approval ratings have hit a new low



Related:
Cheney attacks 'cynical' war critics
Clinton: Mistakes made in Iraq
US: Incendiary weapon used in Iraq
Annan urges Iraq unity
UN extends Iraq force mandate
Cheney bashes 'indecisive' Kerry



Tools:
Email Article
Print Article
Send Your Feedback



A senior member of the US Democratic Party has called for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, rejecting White House attacks on critics of the war.


The call from Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democrat voice on military issues, coincides with the release of a new poll on Thursday showing US President George Bush's job approval rating touching a new low of 34%.



"The US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home," said Murtha, the senior Democrat on the House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees defence spending.



His comments came after a string of sharp attacks by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney against critics of their Iraq-war policy and handling of prewar intelligence.



Earlier in the week Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada accused the White House of "a weak, spineless display of politics at a time of war" with its campaign against war critics.



Reid's comments were echoed by veteran Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy, who said Bush's "pure, unadulterated fear-mongering" had led the country into war.

'Dishonest'

On Wednesday Cheney hit out at such criticism, describing as "dishonest and reprehensible" accusations that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the attack on Iraq.



Responding to Cheney's attacks, Murtha, a retired marine colonel and Vietnam veteran, refered to the military draft deferments that kept Cheney out of the call-up to serve during the Vietnam War.



"The US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."

John Murtha,
Democratic Congressman

"I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done," Murtha said.



Murtha, who supported the Iraq war but has become a critic of the administration's handling of it, urged the president to pull out US troops as soon as it could be done safely. He estimated that would take about six months.



His comments sparked a fresh counter-offensive from Republican members of Congress.



In a statement emailed to Aljazeera.net, Representative Geoff Davis, a Republican from Kentucky, said Democrat critics of the administration's policy "offered no leadership and no solutions" to the situation in Iraq.



"An arbitrary call for the withdrawal of our troops serves only to embolden our enemies and makes meaningless the sacrifice of American men and women," Davis said.



Meanwhile House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said Murtha and other critics "want us to wave the white flag of surrender to the terrorists of the world".



He added: "We must not cower like European nations who are now fighting terrorists on their soil."



Ratings plummet



The growing political storm comes as the president's approval rating continues to hit new lows.




Calls are growing for Bush to
bring US troops home from Iraq


According to Thursday's poll, published by Harris Interactive, 65% of Americans rate the president's performance as "only fair" or "poor".



Bush's approval rating has been steadily slipping from 50% when he was re-elected in November 2004, to 45% in June to 40% in August of this year, according to the New York-based pollster.



In 2001, at the start of his first four-year term, Bush enjoyed a 56% approval rating.



That shot up to 88% after the September 11 attacks.



In April 2003, during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, 70% of Americans approved of the president's job performance, but his approval ratings had been steadily falling for a year.



Compared with other two-term presidents at a similar point in their mandates, Bush is now slightly more popular than Richard Nixon's 29% approval rating.



In the latest Harris survey, Vice President Dick Cheney fared even worse than his boss, with just 30% of Americans believing he was doing a good job, down from 35% in August.



Of those polled, 68% said the country was on the "wrong track", while 27% said it was headed in the "right direction".




Shows our resolve to do what we need to do to everyone freinds and enemy alike . Bunch of fucking morons in congress . They do not deserve our military .
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/94B17C40-260B-4CAB-B653-70845E9ED97B.htm

I looked in the dictionary under " pure political bullshit " and I found this .
So whats the difference from both of these ? They both call for the removal of troops immediately. So WTF are you crying about it not being Murthas proposal ...seems to me it ( the Republican one ) cut directly to the case now didnt it . They are all a bunch of dickheads to be playing this shit while our troops are at war . Fuck all of them .

I agree 100%.

I agree 100%.
Still waiting for your proof on those points you raised.:D

Still waiting for your proof on those points you raised.:D

Go back and re-read the thread. The proof is all throughout the thread. I guess your just to lazy to look it up and I'm much to busy getting ready to leave here to go home.

Not to mention schoolwork and a test to study for.

Despite all the rhetoric, BS, and a desire for a warm fuzzy feeling, the post that makes the most sense and has been dealt with in a most professional manner, is this one:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9951179&postcount=36

Well done Listeneisse. :)

Go back and re-read the thread. The proof is all throughout the thread. I guess your just to lazy to look it up and I'm much to busy getting ready to leave here to go home.

Not to mention schoolwork and a test to study for.
You are much too busy to back up your claims? You are the lazy one when it comes to providing proof, mainly because you have none.:D

You are much too busy to back up your claims? You are the lazy one when it comes to providing proof, mainly because you have none.:D

This may surprise you but I actually throw most of my energies to things that actually matter. Online debating isn't high on my priority list. School is and I'm doing quite well.

Online debating isn't high on my priority list.
Throwing out rhetoric without backing it up is NOT debate. Gymoor and I both asked you to back up your claims by responding to this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9960480&postcount=167

Now you are making lame excuses as to why you cannot respond. However, I am a patient kinda guy and will await your answers. :D

This may surprise you but I actually throw most of my energies to things that actually matter. Online debating isn't high on my priority list. School is and I'm doing quite well.

13,461 and counting.

You sir, have completely lost this debate and it is quite obvious that you have.

All of your arguements have been destroyed by one poster or another and mostly by those that actually have a clue as to the rules regarding WP.

I suggest you listen to them more than whatever bad sources you've been using.
You claim victory, but you cannot, and will not, back up your own claims/arguments.

You cannot win a debate under those circumstances. I invite you one last time to answer the questions that I posed to you as a result of YOUR claims. Yes YOUR claims, and no one elses.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9960480&postcount=167

I await your supporting evidence to YOUR claims.

You claim victory, but you cannot, and will not, back up your own claims/arguments.

You cannot win a debate under those circumstances. I invite you one last time to answer the questions that I posed to you as a result of YOUR claims. Yes YOUR claims, and no one elses.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9960480&postcount=167

I await your supporting evidence to YOUR claims.

Asking Corny to support an argument is like asking a pig to knit a sweater. It's not going to happen and even if the attempt is made it's not going to be pretty nor will it fit very well.

Asking Corny to support an argument is like asking a pig to knit a sweater. It's not going to happen and even if the attempt is made it's not going to be pretty nor will it fit very well.
Well, I went through the thread and of 23 posts that he made, 9 of them were of the insulting variety, and only 1 of the 23 actually had links and those links did not even support his argument. The rest were the usual mixed bag of Corn pops.

I have been mulling over a couple of different approaches for future encounters with the CornMeister. It should be interesting. :)

Well, I went through the thread and of 23 posts that he made, 9 of them were of the insulting variety, and only 1 of the 23 actually had links and those links did not even support his argument. The rest were the usual mixed bag of Corn pops.

I have been mulling over a couple of different approaches for future encounters with the CornMeister. It should be interesting. :)

If someone shows a consistent unwillingness to argue in an appropriate manner, I tend to get agressive a bit insulting. At the very least, it lowers my blood pressure to get the annoyance out in text form.

Out evil spirits!

The liberals and anti war crowd do not see this . You could never survive in a country like Iraq with 150,000 troops ...and not all are even combat troops...if the average Iraqi wanted you dead . You couldnt even controll Bahgdad. Thats one of the biggest reasons for the propaganda machine to spread the worse about American troops in every case possible and in every way possible . The reason that the Iraqis are going to vote Dec. 15 and have a constitution to argue over is only because the average Iraqi see's whats going on fairly well . Of course a few more Abu Grabass types of shit storms and a bunch of dead babies in the streets killed by the evil American empire of world crushing beast ...will change that fast .

I'll therefore consider myself an unusual "Liberal." I believe in progressive and peaceful self-determination and engagement on cultural, economic and social programs before choosing "bombing the crap out of people" as a foreign policy tool.

What is shocking to most Liberals is that there are so many totally racist and, dare I say, fascist, people who are beating the war drum. They hate the Iraqis, and they want to bomb them into the stone age (not that they aren't close to that regardless in cases).

They call all Iraqis "terrorists" regardless of their political motivations rather than "insurgents" or simply "criminals" and they derogatorily call them "Hajji," mocking their deeply-religious tradition of taking the pilgrimage to Mecca.

And then they indignantly wonder why we are not universally loved?

So we are trying to "win hearts and minds" while at the same time finding individuals are becoming burned out and embittered -- that is, if they did not enter the theater of operations with already deeply held prejudices and antagonistic views.

Yes, the average Iraqi and the average American can get along reasonably well. The average Christian can get along quite well with the average Muslim given minimal basic cultural sensitivity and mutual respect.

I have to revise my estimates of the size of the insurgency however. There are indeed about 3,000 foreign insurgents.

But there are between 30,000 domestic insurgents (according to US estimates), and up to 200,000 (according to Iraqi estimates).

Out of a population of 27,000,000, that's somewhere between .1% to .74% of the population. Which means there's a great variance in what constitutes an 'enemy' in this war.

The definition of what is an insurgent, a terrorist, a common criminal, a gang or militia member, a death squad assassin, or a purely political, ethnic or sectarian enemy, is all blurred. We need to ensure an even-handed application of the rule of law.

A lot of people on the search-and-seizure raids are a bit leery of leaving each house with an AK-47 and a clip of ammunition, but that's the rules. We have to obey the political laws and guidelines we have established. It's the only way to show that there is respect for local administration and law.

What is more worrisome is we are starting to make leery-sounding alliances of convenience simply to cobble together the local political coalitions and to talk to the cameras at home that we're making progress. Yet we're making deals with people who truly do not love us for short-term pragmatical arrangements. It's a marriage on paper. She'll divorce us and take half of what we own as soon as we're married. Our friends are warning us this girl's no good. But, demanding to get on with it, we're making a bad arranged marriage anyway.

While the soldiers are doing a fairly decent job under extremely difficult circumstances, they are very leery about getting partnered with, or made subordinate to people they feel we should be arresting rather than seeing being promoted into high government office. But that is democracy, and that's what the Iraqis are doing.

Many of our armed forces personnel are gritting their teeth and letting the process happen, privately making mental notes of who exactly they think will be the next political warlord or mullah they'll have to watch out for as they expand their power base.

It seems we fully expect to get betrayed in the long run, like we were when we supported Saddam himself and the Taliban.

It's a bit disengenuous to blame US betrayal by Democrats and Liberals when the Republicans and Conservatives in power are making such blatant deals with bad people. Plain and simple.

Yes, there are indeed decent people who want democracy to work. But in a nation where the adult literacy rate is said to be no better than 39% (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html) to 58% (http://www.emro.who.int/iraq/country_profile.htm) by UNICEF and WHO, expect mullahs and skewed local Arabic television coverage will affect public sentiment far more than what an American sees on CNN or Fox.

The hope we hold forth still is that there are good people, and sufficient quantities of them, to hold forth a tenuous, highly-challenged alliance for peace and stability. However, the odds are that pressure from the US, UK, France, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and a dozen other nations will sink the nation by backing different favorite horses in the upcoming races to the polls. There'll be a power-grab after the election as well, which the losers may not take well to.

Yet we're already going to be making a planned force draw-down. The US knows already we're going to shrink our force from 155,000 to 138,000 after the election. Iraq is proposing an addition reduction to US forces early in the new year to about 125,000 (http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-29T171147Z_01_SIB954631_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-WITHDRAWAL.xml).

We're basically being given a "free out" by the Iraqis if we wish to take it. While we are saying we have to stay the course, it's always possible for the administration to take the Iraqis up on their offer and shrug, saying, "Well, the host nation said they did not want us there."

Are we going to start remonstrate and chide the Iraqis because they want to see us head home?

My opinion is that we can be down by a total of 40-60% by next Christmas. Basically somewhere in the neighborhood of 60,000 to 90,000 troops. By the year thereafter we could draw down to about 20,000 to 40,000, where we'd likely have to stay for a few years yet.

Some argue it might be best to deploy our forces in neighboring countries along the border, such as Turkey (if they'd let us), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and even Jordan. Certainly air forces, helicopters and support troops can be positioned out of the country.

I don't think this is "treason" to suggest, nor a "coward's retreat." It's simply pragmatic and economical to not keep forces in a theater of operations where they are exacerbating issues on the ground and are increasingly irrelevant to the long-term objectives of the combatants, especially as Iraqi civilians and police seem to be the targets even more than the US troops.

They know we're "short timers." So instead the targets have been revenge killings, political, ethnic, religious and other sectarian opponents and rivals.

While we do bring some stability to the region which is undeniable, we can replace that with increased support for expanding the Iraqi forces.

They are far more willing to take up arms and at a far less-costly price for the US to support than building up our own forces.

We need to be cautious about who specifically is recruited, trained and armed. But even then we need to trust, ultimately, the Iraqis themselves.

It would probably be best to link our aid to their commitments to freedoms, humanitarian and civil rights, good governance and ethics, etc. In other words, we have to dangle the carrot of economic and military aid, and make sure that we do not give it to those who are willing to figuratively elbow and literally backstab everyone else to end up with it.

We also have to reign in our own excesses. If we find fat-cats dining off our defense dollars, we need to probably revoke their contracts, bust them and fine them.

People reviled the carpet baggers that opportunistically bought up property and businesses and otherwise "aided" the reconstruction of the south after the Civil War. We need to make sure that whatever we do in Iraq does not similarly set up sixty years of hostilities in the aftermath.

If anything, I believe we probably should raise the compensation for personal deaths we cause by our troops' actions. It's been seen as dehumanizing and demoralizing to see the paltry sums granted to families who have been devastated by our military forces.

The White Phosporus issue was simply imprudent to conduct without a clear memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Iraqi authorities.

I'd suggest we get formal documentations like that for future operations. Ensure that the locals have given their own blessings and authority to what we do. Not that every special op or secret weapon needs to be approved, but we need to consider when we might be near the grey-zone of public opinion, so that, if anything, the Iraqi government can have a response prepared when they are asked by their own media and people. Plus, their health care groups could be prepared and trained to deal with casualties that might result because of their use.

Also, in response to another poster, just because Iraqi forces had WP rounds does not make them "chemical weapons." Remember that what violates the CWC is not their existence, but their manner of use. If we have proof that Saddam Hussein's forces fired WP rounds on our troops purposefully to cause chemical effects, then yes, he did violate the CWC. If they fired them for purposes of illumination or obscuration, then that's not a violation of CWC.

It helps to avoid logical fallacies. Yes, Iraqi troops probably had untold numbers of WP rounds. But the crime is in their method of deployment.

Just as it is legal for each Iraqi home to have one weapon and one clip of ammunition. It is only illegal to pull them out to shoot your neighbor or the Iraqi or coalition troops.

I'll therefore consider myself an unusual "Liberal." I believe in progressive and peaceful self-determination and engagement on cultural, economic and social programs before choosing "bombing the crap out of people" as a foreign policy tool.

What is shocking to most Liberals is that there are so many totally racist and, dare I say, fascist, people who are beating the war drum. They hate the Iraqis, and they want to bomb them into the stone age (not that they aren't close to that regardless in cases).

They call all Iraqis "terrorists" regardless of their political motivations rather than "insurgents" or simply "criminals" and they derogatorily call them "Hajji," mocking their deeply-religious tradition of taking the pilgrimage to Mecca.

And then they indignantly wonder why we are not universally loved?

So we are trying to "win hearts and minds" while at the same time finding individuals are becoming burned out and embittered -- that is, if they did not enter the theater of operations with already deeply held prejudices and antagonistic views.

Yes, the average Iraqi and the average American can get along reasonably well. The average Christian can get along quite well with the average Muslim given minimal basic cultural sensitivity and mutual respect.

I have to revise my estimates of the size of the insurgency however. There are indeed about 3,000 foreign insurgents.

But there are between 30,000 domestic insurgents (according to US estimates), and up to 200,000 (according to Iraqi estimates).

Out of a population of 27,000,000, that's somewhere between .1% to .74% of the population. Which means there's a great variance in what constitutes an 'enemy' in this war.

The definition of what is an insurgent, a terrorist, a common criminal, a gang or militia member, a death squad assassin, or a purely political, ethnic or sectarian enemy, is all blurred. We need to ensure an even-handed application of the rule of law.

A lot of people on the search-and-seizure raids are a bit leery of leaving each house with an AK-47 and a clip of ammunition, but that's the rules. We have to obey the political laws and guidelines we have established. It's the only way to show that there is respect for local administration and law.

What is more worrisome is we are starting to make leery-sounding alliances of convenience simply to cobble together the local political coalitions and to talk to the cameras at home that we're making progress. Yet we're making deals with people who truly do not love us for short-term pragmatical arrangements. It's a marriage on paper. She'll divorce us and take half of what we own as soon as we're married. Our friends are warning us this girl's no good. But, demanding to get on with it, we're making a bad arranged marriage anyway.

While the soldiers are doing a fairly decent job under extremely difficult circumstances, they are very leery about getting partnered with, or made subordinate to people they feel we should be arresting rather than seeing being promoted into high government office. But that is democracy, and that's what the Iraqis are doing.

Many of our armed forces personnel are gritting their teeth and letting the process happen, privately making mental notes of who exactly they think will be the next political warlord or mullah they'll have to watch out for as they expand their power base.

It seems we fully expect to get betrayed in the long run, like we were when we supported Saddam himself and the Taliban.

It's a bit disengenuous to blame US betrayal by Democrats and Liberals when the Republicans and Conservatives in power are making such blatant deals with bad people. Plain and simple.

Yes, there are indeed decent people who want democracy to work. But in a nation where the adult literacy rate is said to be no better than 39% (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html) to 58% (http://www.emro.who.int/iraq/country_profile.htm) by UNICEF and WHO, expect mullahs and skewed local Arabic television coverage will affect public sentiment far more than what an American sees on CNN or Fox.

The hope we hold forth still is that there are good people, and sufficient quantities of them, to hold forth a tenuous, highly-challenged alliance for peace and stability. However, the odds are that pressure from the US, UK, France, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and a dozen other nations will sink the nation by backing different favorite horses in the upcoming races to the polls. There'll be a power-grab after the election as well, which the losers may not take well to.

Yet we're already going to be making a planned force draw-down. The US knows already we're going to shrink our force from 155,000 to 138,000 after the election. Iraq is proposing an addition reduction to US forces early in the new year to about 125,000 (http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-29T171147Z_01_SIB954631_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-WITHDRAWAL.xml).

We're basically being given a "free out" by the Iraqis if we wish to take it. While we are saying we have to stay the course, it's always possible for the administration to take the Iraqis up on their offer and shrug, saying, "Well, the host nation said they did not want us there."

Are we going to start remonstrate and chide the Iraqis because they want to see us head home?

My opinion is that we can be down by a total of 40-60% by next Christmas. Basically somewhere in the neighborhood of 60,000 to 90,000 troops. By the year thereafter we could draw down to about 20,000 to 40,000, where we'd likely have to stay for a few years yet.

Some argue it might be best to deploy our forces in neighboring countries along the border, such as Turkey (if they'd let us), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and even Jordan. Certainly air forces, helicopters and support troops can be positioned out of the country.

I don't think this is "treason" to suggest, nor a "coward's retreat." It's simply pragmatic and economical to not keep forces in a theater of operations where they are exacerbating issues on the ground and are increasingly irrelevant to the long-term objectives of the combatants, especially as Iraqi civilians and police seem to be the targets even more than the US troops.

They know we're "short timers." So instead the targets have been revenge killings, political, ethnic, religious and other sectarian opponents and rivals.

While we do bring some stability to the region which is undeniable, we can replace that with increased support for expanding the Iraqi forces.

They are far more willing to take up arms and at a far less-costly price for the US to support than building up our own forces.

We need to be cautious about who specifically is recruited, trained and armed. But even then we need to trust, ultimately, the Iraqis themselves.

It would probably be best to link our aid to their commitments to freedoms, humanitarian and civil rights, good governance and ethics, etc. In other words, we have to dangle the carrot of economic and military aid, and make sure that we do not give it to those who are willing to figuratively elbow and literally backstab everyone else to end up with it.

We also have to reign in our own excesses. If we find fat-cats dining off our defense dollars, we need to probably revoke their contracts, bust them and fine them.

People reviled the carpet baggers that opportunistically bought up property and businesses and otherwise "aided" the reconstruction of the south after the Civil War. We need to make sure that whatever we do in Iraq does not similarly set up sixty years of hostilities in the aftermath.

If anything, I believe we probably should raise the compensation for personal deaths we cause by our troops' actions. It's been seen as dehumanizing and demoralizing to see the paltry sums granted to families who have been devastated by our military forces.

The White Phosporus issue was simply imprudent to conduct without a clear memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Iraqi authorities.

I'd suggest we get formal documentations like that for future operations. Ensure that the locals have given their own blessings and authority to what we do. Not that every special op or secret weapon needs to be approved, but we need to consider when we might be near the grey-zone of public opinion, so that, if anything, the Iraqi government can have a response prepared when they are asked by their own media and people. Plus, their health care groups could be prepared and trained to deal with casualties that might result because of their use.

Also, in response to another poster, just because Iraqi forces had WP rounds does not make them "chemical weapons." Remember that what violates the CWC is not their existence, but their manner of use. If we have proof that Saddam Hussein's forces fired WP rounds on our troops purposefully to cause chemical effects, then yes, he did violate the CWC. If they fired them for purposes of illumination or obscuration, then that's not a violation of CWC.

It helps to avoid logical fallacies. Yes, Iraqi troops probably had untold numbers of WP rounds. But the crime is in their method of deployment.

Just as it is legal for each Iraqi home to have one weapon and one clip of ammunition. It is only illegal to pull them out to shoot your neighbor or the Iraqi or coalition troops.

Stop making me aggree with you ...its getting on my nerves ...:p
I do hope we have learned the lessons of Vietnam and every other place we backed the wrong horse ..if not we are screwed and deserve it .
Still you are trying to fight a battle in both the political and tactical along with strategic theaters and some of the "T" s wont be crossed nor will the " I " 's be dotted . The WP fiasco along with Abu grabass and all the rest of the PR blunders prove it. They are survivable glitches...if the US troops are hated by the average Iraqi ...thats fatal and thats my point .
I see the US acting in a pragmatic way and IMO a much better fashion than they did in Afghanistan and I see this proccess as largely successfull and increasingly inclusive of all Iraqi segments ...but we will see .
Honestly so far they get a B for the job..hope they did not need an A .

Stop making me aggree with you ...its getting on my nerves ...:p
I do hope we have learned the lessons of Vietnam and every other place we backed the wrong horse ..if not we are screwed and deserve it .
Still you are trying to fight a battle in both the political and tactical along with strategic theaters and some of the "T" s wont be crossed nor will the " I " 's be dotted . The WP fiasco along with Abu grabass and all the rest of the PR blunders prove it. They are survivable glitches...if the US troops are hated by the average Iraqi ...thats fatal and thats my point .
I see the US acting in a pragmatic way and IMO a much better fashion than they did in Afghanistan and I see this proccess as largely successfull and increasingly inclusive of all Iraqi segments ...but we will see .
Honestly so far they get a B for the job..hope they did not need an A .

Beer, my respect for you continues to grow.

I'll therefore consider myself an unusual "Liberal." I believe in progressive and peaceful self-determination and engagement on cultural, economic and social programs before choosing "bombing the crap out of people" as a foreign policy tool.

What is shocking to most Liberals is that there are so many totally racist and, dare I say, fascist, people who are beating the war drum. They hate the Iraqis, and they want to bomb them into the stone age (not that they aren't close to that regardless in cases).

They call all Iraqis "terrorists" regardless of their political motivations rather than "insurgents" or simply "criminals" and they derogatorily call them "Hajji," mocking their deeply-religious tradition of taking the pilgrimage to Mecca.

And then they indignantly wonder why we are not universally loved?

So we are trying to "win hearts and minds" while at the same time finding individuals are becoming burned out and embittered -- that is, if they did not enter the theater of operations with already deeply held prejudices and antagonistic views.

Yes, the average Iraqi and the average American can get along reasonably well. The average Christian can get along quite well with the average Muslim given minimal basic cultural sensitivity and mutual respect.

I have to revise my estimates of the size of the insurgency however. There are indeed about 3,000 foreign insurgents.

But there are between 30,000 domestic insurgents (according to US estimates), and up to 200,000 (according to Iraqi estimates).

Out of a population of 27,000,000, that's somewhere between .1% to .74% of the population. Which means there's a great variance in what constitutes an 'enemy' in this war.

The definition of what is an insurgent, a terrorist, a common criminal, a gang or militia member, a death squad assassin, or a purely political, ethnic or sectarian enemy, is all blurred. We need to ensure an even-handed application of the rule of law.

A lot of people on the search-and-seizure raids are a bit leery of leaving each house with an AK-47 and a clip of ammunition, but that's the rules. We have to obey the political laws and guidelines we have established. It's the only way to show that there is respect for local administration and law.

What is more worrisome is we are starting to make leery-sounding alliances of convenience simply to cobble together the local political coalitions and to talk to the cameras at home that we're making progress. Yet we're making deals with people who truly do not love us for short-term pragmatical arrangements. It's a marriage on paper. She'll divorce us and take half of what we own as soon as we're married. Our friends are warning us this girl's no good. But, demanding to get on with it, we're making a bad arranged marriage anyway.

While the soldiers are doing a fairly decent job under extremely difficult circumstances, they are very leery about getting partnered with, or made subordinate to people they feel we should be arresting rather than seeing being promoted into high government office. But that is democracy, and that's what the Iraqis are doing.

Many of our armed forces personnel are gritting their teeth and letting the process happen, privately making mental notes of who exactly they think will be the next political warlord or mullah they'll have to watch out for as they expand their power base.

It seems we fully expect to get betrayed in the long run, like we were when we supported Saddam himself and the Taliban.

It's a bit disengenuous to blame US betrayal by Democrats and Liberals when the Republicans and Conservatives in power are making such blatant deals with bad people. Plain and simple.

Yes, there are indeed decent people who want democracy to work. But in a nation where the adult literacy rate is said to be no better than 39% (http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html) to 58% (http://www.emro.who.int/iraq/country_profile.htm) by UNICEF and WHO, expect mullahs and skewed local Arabic television coverage will affect public sentiment far more than what an American sees on CNN or Fox.

The hope we hold forth still is that there are good people, and sufficient quantities of them, to hold forth a tenuous, highly-challenged alliance for peace and stability. However, the odds are that pressure from the US, UK, France, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and a dozen other nations will sink the nation by backing different favorite horses in the upcoming races to the polls. There'll be a power-grab after the election as well, which the losers may not take well to.

Yet we're already going to be making a planned force draw-down. The US knows already we're going to shrink our force from 155,000 to 138,000 after the election. Iraq is proposing an addition reduction to US forces early in the new year to about 125,000 (http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-29T171147Z_01_SIB954631_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-WITHDRAWAL.xml).

We're basically being given a "free out" by the Iraqis if we wish to take it. While we are saying we have to stay the course, it's always possible for the administration to take the Iraqis up on their offer and shrug, saying, "Well, the host nation said they did not want us there."

Are we going to start remonstrate and chide the Iraqis because they want to see us head home?

My opinion is that we can be down by a total of 40-60% by next Christmas. Basically somewhere in the neighborhood of 60,000 to 90,000 troops. By the year thereafter we could draw down to about 20,000 to 40,000, where we'd likely have to stay for a few years yet.

Some argue it might be best to deploy our forces in neighboring countries along the border, such as Turkey (if they'd let us), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and even Jordan. Certainly air forces, helicopters and support troops can be positioned out of the country.

I don't think this is "treason" to suggest, nor a "coward's retreat." It's simply pragmatic and economical to not keep forces in a theater of operations where they are exacerbating issues on the ground and are increasingly irrelevant to the long-term objectives of the combatants, especially as Iraqi civilians and police seem to be the targets even more than the US troops.

They know we're "short timers." So instead the targets have been revenge killings, political, ethnic, religious and other sectarian opponents and rivals.

While we do bring some stability to the region which is undeniable, we can replace that with increased support for expanding the Iraqi forces.

They are far more willing to take up arms and at a far less-costly price for the US to support than building up our own forces.

We need to be cautious about who specifically is recruited, trained and armed. But even then we need to trust, ultimately, the Iraqis themselves.

It would probably be best to link our aid to their commitments to freedoms, humanitarian and civil rights, good governance and ethics, etc. In other words, we have to dangle the carrot of economic and military aid, and make sure that we do not give it to those who are willing to figuratively elbow and literally backstab everyone else to end up with it.

We also have to reign in our own excesses. If we find fat-cats dining off our defense dollars, we need to probably revoke their contracts, bust them and fine them.

People reviled the carpet baggers that opportunistically bought up property and businesses and otherwise "aided" the reconstruction of the south after the Civil War. We need to make sure that whatever we do in Iraq does not similarly set up sixty years of hostilities in the aftermath.

If anything, I believe we probably should raise the compensation for personal deaths we cause by our troops' actions. It's been seen as dehumanizing and demoralizing to see the paltry sums granted to families who have been devastated by our military forces.

The White Phosporus issue was simply imprudent to conduct without a clear memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Iraqi authorities.

I'd suggest we get formal documentations like that for future operations. Ensure that the locals have given their own blessings and authority to what we do. Not that every special op or secret weapon needs to be approved, but we need to consider when we might be near the grey-zone of public opinion, so that, if anything, the Iraqi government can have a response prepared when they are asked by their own media and people. Plus, their health care groups could be prepared and trained to deal with casualties that might result because of their use.

Also, in response to another poster, just because Iraqi forces had WP rounds does not make them "chemical weapons." Remember that what violates the CWC is not their existence, but their manner of use. If we have proof that Saddam Hussein's forces fired WP rounds on our troops purposefully to cause chemical effects, then yes, he did violate the CWC. If they fired them for purposes of illumination or obscuration, then that's not a violation of CWC.

It helps to avoid logical fallacies. Yes, Iraqi troops probably had untold numbers of WP rounds. But the crime is in their method of deployment.

Just as it is legal for each Iraqi home to have one weapon and one clip of ammunition. It is only illegal to pull them out to shoot your neighbor or the Iraqi or coalition troops.
The ball has exited the stadium and you have touched all the bases. Once again Listeneisse, a job very well thought out and executed. :)

I'll therefore consider myself an unusual "Liberal." I believe in progressive and peaceful self-determination and engagement on cultural, economic and social programs before choosing "bombing the crap out of people" as a foreign policy tool.


Iraq to me , was a place and time that needed the crap bombed out of it as a foriegn policy tool . Thats where we differ , I do not believe you can have the peacefull and progressive self determination and engagement at times UNLESS you are willing and able to bomb the crap out of those who are not willing to be peacefull and to allow self determination or any engagement on a cultural level ..just like Saddam Hussein . A covenant without a sword is just words .