NationStates Jolt Archive

It has been established that American forces used White Phosphorous as an offensive weapon to flush out insurgents in Iraq, inadvertently killing and injuring many civilians (the exact number is unknown). While the use of White Phosphorous is legal if it is used strictly as an illuminating agent, if it is used in a manner so that its chemical properties cause harm to human beings it is considered a chemical weapon (it burns flesh down to the bone, and it was fired into insurgent trenches). Therefore, its use by the US military violated the Chemical Weapons Convention, breaking a US treaty obligation and committing a War Crime.

This is deeply ironic for several reasons.

1. The only chemical weapons used in the current Iraq conflict were used by the United States.
2. In using White Phosphorous, the United States has committed an action which is similar to that committed by Saddam’s regime, the use of chemical weapons against military and civilian targets (the targeting of civilians was accidental, but they were firing the weapons in a crowded city).
3. The United States original reason for going to war in Iraq was to prevent the use of chemical weapons.
4. Another reason (still used) was Saddam's war crimes, such as the use of chemical weapons…

This would be hysterical if it were not so tragic…

I would be laughing but right now I am so tired that the only thing that comes in my mind is that citizens were reported to have been hit by (some of) it. Damn.....

Well, I wouldn't exactly have referred to as Faluja as "crowded", but otherwise, it is rather disappointing.

Well you know the Marines are the Bottom of the Barrel so what do you expect.

This would be true except:

The US has not signed the international treaty limiting the use of white phosphorous.
Even if they had, the treaty allows the use of white phosphorous against enemy combatants, but not civilians.
White Phosphorous is not currently defined as a chemical weapon, even in the international treaty.

While the use of these weapons is morally reprehensible, legally it is a grey zone - The US will say that they gave civilians ample opportunity to leave Fallujah and that anyone remaining must have been an enemy combatant.

Yes that is true.

This would be true except:

The US has not signed the international treaty limiting the use of white phosphorous.
Even if they had, the treaty allows the use of white phosphorous against enemy combatants, but not civilians.
White Phosphorous is not currently defined as a chemical weapon, even in the international treaty.

While the use of these weapons is morally reprehensible, legally it is a grey zone - The US will say that they gave civilians ample opportunity to leave Fallujah and that anyone remaining must have been an enemy combatant.

That would be true except:

The Chemical Weapons Convention defines a chemical weapon as anything used to cause harm to human beings by its chemical properties and the Convention forbids the use of such weapons (enemy combatants or otherwise, and enemy combatant is a loaded legal term which could mean anything and has been constantly abused to circumvent established legal protocols).

So no! Kradlumania you are incorrect...

Well you know the Marines are the Bottom of the Barrel so what do you expect.

I'd love to see you say that to one of their faces.

I'd love to see you say that to one of their faces.
- Because HArlesburg having his face ripped off naturally invalidates his statement.

- Because HArlesburg having his face ripped off naturally invalidates his statement.

His statement itself invalidates his statement. Why should I treat a statement as asinine as that as a valid argument?

I should clarify my position. Anybody who thinks the various "scandals" that occasionaly arise = Saddam's torture machine is either...

A) stupid; having no sense of proportion and no sense of deduction--seeing as how soldiers are being punished for these offenses, not rewarded,


B) Ignorant, taking no time to look into anything,

or

C) an anti-American dick who does not deserve a response above the type I give KKK members and neo-Nazis; I ignore them.

Here's the story from the BBC . Notice there is no refuting that the use of WP is legal , none what so ever . Now why do you think that happened ?
Could it be that your assertation that the use of wp illegal is bullshit ?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm

These days, I find that I need to laugh in order to keep from sobbing.

Would somebody please just give Bush a blowjob, so we can impeach him?

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



The story is just more anti war drivel .

BTW..I aggree that Bush is in serious need of a blow job..all the republicans are...maybe that explains some of the shit they spew.

This has to rank pretty high on the hypocrisy list (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-11-17-iraq_x.htm) I think.
BAGHDAD (AP) — The United States warned Iraqi officials Thursday against allowing Shiite militias a role in the security services following allegations of torture of Sunni Arabs by the Shiite-led Interior Ministry.
Because we're the only people allowed to torture prisoners in Iraq, don't you know. Can't have the locals moving in on our business.

Would somebody please just give Bush a blowjob, so we can impeach him?

You know, as much as I can't stand the man it's a sacrifice I would be willing to make if it would get rid of him.

You know you'd love it really

To paraphrase Kevin Smith, "Don't be so suburban. If it'll get me a couple hundred miles down the road to a saner government, I'll take a shot in the mouth."

It has been established that American forces used White Phosphorous as an offensive weapon to flush out insurgents in Iraq, inadvertently killing and injuring many civilians (the exact number is unknown). While the use of White Phosphorous is legal if it is used strictly as an illuminating agent, if it is used in a manner so that its chemical properties cause harm to human beings it is considered a chemical weapon (it burns flesh down to the bone, and it was fired into insurgent trenches). Therefore, its use by the US military violated the Chemical Weapons Convention, breaking a US treaty obligation and committing a War Crime.

This is deeply ironic for several reasons.

1. The only chemical weapons used in the current Iraq conflict were used by the United States.
2. In using White Phosphorous, the United States has committed an action which is similar to that committed by Saddam’s regime, the use of chemical weapons against military and civilian targets (the targeting of civilians was accidental, but they were firing the weapons in a crowded city).
3. The United States original reason for going to war in Iraq was to prevent the use of chemical weapons.
4. Another reason (still used) was Saddam's war crimes, such as the use of chemical weapons…

This would be hysterical if it were not so tragic…
Sad but true. :(

BTW..I aggree that Bush is in serious need of a blow job..all the republicans are...maybe that explains some of the shit they spew.
Well, it is rare but I have to agree with you here. :)

Ehh blokes, White Phosphorous is used in both standard smoke grenades and incendiary grenades as well as tank shells. Also, CS gas (tear gas) Riot Control Grenades used by our own police on our own citizens "violates" that Convention as much as Phosphorous does. It can cause severe blisters after ten minutes of exposure and has been linked to lung cancer. :rolleyes:

Sad but true. :(

Too bad the main irony is not true.

It has been established that American forces used White Phosphorous as an offensive weapon to flush out insurgents in Iraq, inadvertently killing and injuring many civilians (the exact number is unknown). While the use of White Phosphorous is legal if it is used strictly as an illuminating agent, if it is used in a manner so that its chemical properties cause harm to human beings it is considered a chemical weapon (it burns flesh down to the bone, and it was fired into insurgent trenches).

You admit that it's an incendiary weapon and not a chemical weapon when you admit that it burns. And note that the legality of WP is at best debatable. Furthermore, note that it is common to most military arsenals, including those of the European nations who are objecting to the US's use of it.

Therefore, its use by the US military violated the Chemical Weapons Convention, breaking a US treaty obligation and committing a War Crime.

Nope.

This is deeply ironic for several reasons.

Only in your imagination.

1. The only chemical weapons used in the current Iraq conflict were used by the United States.

Nope. The only chemical weapon used so far was an old expired sarin gas shell that appears to have been left over from the 80s and looted. It was used unsuccesfully by insurgents, who most likely disn't knbow what they had.

2. In using White Phosphorous, the United States has committed an action which is similar to that committed by Saddam’s regime, the use of chemical weapons against military and civilian targets (the targeting of civilians was accidental, but they were firing the weapons in a crowded city).

If you admit the targeting of civilians was accidental, then there has been no war crime, even under the protocol covering the use of incendiary weapons.

3. The United States original reason for going to war in Iraq was to prevent the use of chemical weapons.

Which appears to have been based on falsified intel.

4. Another reason (still used) was Saddam's war crimes, such as the use of chemical weapons…

A secondary reason, and one which was not a selling point.

This would be hysterical if it were not so tragic…

It's neither.

I'm really confused. Suddenly we're all worried about Bush's chickenshit Stormtroopers using phosphorous on Fallujah (http://http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-6047-1875730-6047,00.html)? This story is ONE YEAR OLD (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7374.htm)! What the F*** is going on?

There's more (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041213/schuman).

How do you convince the arabs that you care for them, when you've just murdered several tens of thousands of innocent non-combatants? Hint: stop blowing the limbs off of arab women and children. Hint: stop setting arab women and children on fire. Hint... aw shucks; you get the idea.

Here's the description of the GLORIOUS MILITARY VICTORY massacre in Fallujah, seen by an Iraqi girl. (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#113218124805731713)

I'd love to see you say that to one of their faces.
ROFLMAO!!! Me too! :D

I know I am going to sound extremely sadistic but come on. Oh those poor terrorists. I find it ironic how there are a hundred stories crying about the US violating the Geneva Convention and a total of zero talking about the violations of the terrorists. I say napalm them all. In fact I think our government should fund the research on a slow burning incendiary so it will be more painful. I want the soldiers to come back and complain that they had to think twice about using this new technology because a group of terrorists screaming for 5 hours give away your position pretty well.

I think a lot of the Geneva Convention is stupid. The only people who even care to follow it are the US and friends. No army that we fight ever follows it. I think that we forget that wars is ugly and painful by nature. Getting rid of incendiary devices isn't going to change that. There was more outrage about us stacking up prisoners in human pyramids than there was about 9/11 and the London bombings combined.

Still... White phosphorus grenades have a legitamate usage in war. I love how there is not proof here just an inuendo. Oh they used a lot of WP grenades, so they must have used them to burn people for the fun of it.


And no my point isn't that WP grenades are a nice way to die. My point is that war isn't supposed to be nice. Can someone explain to me why we should be worried about how people are killed in war? Nobody seems to be able to explain that. It is impossible to wage a painless war.

No the civilian argument doesn't work here. It is our job not to cause unecessary civilian deaths. We also gave people plenty of time to come out of Fallujah. A major problem is that these terrorists are often indistinguishable from civilians because they doon't wear uniforms. Isn't that a violation of the convention? Oh that is right nobody cares, down with the US and spit on the soldiers. Rabble Rabble Rabble and so forth.

The reason why you never hear a news story outraged about the actions of the terrorists is because these are the people going to journalism school and spitting on the veterans during vietnam. They want to see us lose this war. That is why every time we hit another mark on the death count they have a special edition of the nightly news to celebrate it, rub it in, and try to convince their audience that 2000 deaths in 2 years is a tactically significant number. When we succeed in Fallujah they yell that we didn't win fair because we used white phosphorus. They say oh no, they burned to death. US soldiers should be forced to kill terrorists in the way that exposes them to the most, they argue. That's not fair they whine. Yeah and suicide bombs aren't fail, but that is war.

Sorry guys, I'm not falling for it. I realise the consequences of loss. I grew up around a military base. I know, unlike the media who is all but throwing out the classic line "baby killer", that the overwhelming majority of soldiers are nice guys. They aren't sitting at a desk filling out a form requesting a hundred WP grenades because they are thinking, "Wow I really have a thing for burning people to death." They are ordering them to get the job done. I would like to see more of those guys come back from the war. The 2nd ACR shipped out at the beginning of the war. If a white phosphorus or any other weapon can help that happen then I don't care if it is a little robot that goes it and rips peoples genitals to shreds. I don't care if it is the most inhumane death ever. It's not like we are torturing people or cutting their heads off after they have been captured. That would be a different story. Just to preempt the pascifists: no, playing loud music to make a terrorist uncomfortable does not constitute torture.

Somehow I'm not suprised that the US lied about doing something. Yet it still dissapoints me since I am a citizen of this country, I do plan on moving out sometime. Why does the US have to be so corrupt and evil? Why can't it be a nice United States? No wonder why the world hate's us.

Sigh....our government is at it again.....:headbang:

Somehow I'm not suprised that the US lied about doing something. Yet it still dissapoints me since I am a citizen of this country, I do plan on moving out sometime. Why does the US have to be so corrupt and evil? Why can't it be a nice United States? No wonder why the world hate's us.
Corrupt and evil?

Saddam and Fidel rule us now?

i must have missed the memo...

Somehow I'm not suprised that the US lied about doing something. Yet it still dissapoints me since I am a citizen of this country, I do plan on moving out sometime. Why does the US have to be so corrupt and evil? Why can't it be a nice United States? No wonder why the world hate's us.
And other countries dont hate us because of our so called "evil and corrupt government" they dislike us because of the fact thqat we are hypocrites, i.e democracy promotion in other countries whereas our democracy doesnt follow it's own rules, as was stated in the first thread. Pay attention to the government.

You know, as much as I can't stand the man it's a sacrifice I would be willing to make if it would get rid of him.
I wonder if anyone here realizes that ultimately bush doesn't make the majority of the descisions....oh well....asanine-ity reigns.....

Amestria']That would be true except:

The Chemical Weapons Convention defines a chemical weapon as anything used to cause harm to human beings by its chemical properties and the Convention forbids the use of such weapons (enemy combatants or otherwise, and enemy combatant is a loaded legal term which could mean anything and has been constantly abused to circumvent established legal protocols).

So no! Kradlumania you are incorrect...

If that is the case then you have to ban all weapons since their chemical properties cause harm to human beings.

You sir, are incorrect. WP is NOT a chemical Weapon at all. That has been established.

If that is the case then you have to ban all weapons since their chemical properties cause harm to human beings.

You sir, are incorrect. WP is NOT a chemical Weapon at all. That has been established.
Finally, common sense overpowers ignorance. Bravo.

WP is not considered a chemical weapon, because it kills through incendiary means, like any other explosive, although more painful. Honestly people, why do the "insurgents" get a free ride on throat slitting but the US gets constantly criticized for sillyness like naked pyramid stacks?

This would be true except:

The US has not signed the international treaty limiting the use of white phosphorous.
Even if they had, the treaty allows the use of white phosphorous against enemy combatants, but not civilians.
White Phosphorous is not currently defined as a chemical weapon, even in the international treaty.

While the use of these weapons is morally reprehensible, legally it is a grey zone - The US will say that they gave civilians ample opportunity to leave Fallujah and that anyone remaining must have been an enemy combatant.

That's true, but I have one more things to add.

The United States isn't just like Saddam's regime because with Saddam, he INTENTIONALLY used it on innocent civilians, never really on enemy combatants.

With the United States military, we gave them opportunity to leave, and whoever did not leave was considered an enemy (it's war, civilians ALWAYS get killed, even if by accident). We didn't intentionally used it against the innocent, Saddam did.

Finally, common sense overpowers ignorance. Bravo.

This is the third thread on this issue and really, it is getting quite old seeing the same arguements being spouted by those that haven't a clue as to WP.

Most of these people would be debunked in the other threads on this issue long ago.

Amestria']That would be true except:

The Chemical Weapons Convention defines a chemical weapon as anything used to cause harm to human beings by its chemical properties and the Convention forbids the use of such weapons (enemy combatants or otherwise, and enemy combatant is a loaded legal term which could mean anything and has been constantly abused to circumvent established legal protocols).

So no! Kradlumania you are incorrect...

Wouldn't that also ban explosives? After all the volatility of explosives is a chemical property that causes harm to people.

This is the third thread on this issue and really, it is getting quite old seeing the same arguements being spouted by those that haven't a clue as to WP.

Most of these people would be debunked in the other threads on this issue long ago.
It's not the fact that i dont "have a clue as to wp", its the fact that people who dont undertand the government are saying how it is corrupt and evil and this is why the rest of the world dislikes us, as this is not true. While minute corruptness MAY be a factor, as i posted before, the fact that the united states government is very, very, very hypocritical is the main component.

I ahve already had this argument with me an Atlantium arguing with some fanatical US supporters.

There is no point in trying to argue with them. They simply refuse to accept that fact the US military tatics are questionable, and they engage in illegal tatics.

Like hell the US follows the genva conventions. How about the secret prisons?

Secondly the Genva conventions should always be ahered to. War is horrible but anything can be better or worse including war. If I go to war I expect to be treated like a human if captured so I would do the same to any people I captured. The US just undermines itseld by doing the stupid things it does.

*Sigh* but the good ol patriotic to the point of stupidity boys will just ignore nor this or label us terrorist America haters.

Oh and the guys I was arguing with about white phosphurus. DO you finally accept that it is a chemical weapon. I'm happy to get all the documents I got from the UN websit again to prove my points again.

If the US wants to win the war on terror or to be respected then it has to act carefully. When Clinton was in power every bashed the US but it wasnt that serious and we still saw the US as a big friendly giant but since Bush and the rise of the neo conservative bullshit and all its ignorant... i do mean ignorant as in having no idea about anything even if they are intelligent, followers the bashing has got real.

If you overly patriotic nuts want us to love the US attacking us and acting like you are superior to everyone else isn't the way to do it.

Wouldn't that also ban explosives? After all the volatility of explosives is a chemical property that causes harm to people.

This is the kind of frucktard me and Atlanitium argued with. Despite all of the evidence they just say stupid things like this.

It isnt the explosives that kills people, its the combustion of them. Phosphurs wounds and kills just by being released.

It has been established that American forces used White Phosphorous as an offensive weapon to flush out insurgents in Iraq, inadvertently killing and injuring many civilians (the exact number is unknown). While the use of White Phosphorous is legal if it is used strictly as an illuminating agent, if it is used in a manner so that its chemical properties cause harm to human beings it is considered a chemical weapon (it burns flesh down to the bone, and it was fired into insurgent trenches). Therefore, its use by the US military violated the Chemical Weapons Convention, breaking a US treaty obligation and committing a War Crime.
No it doesnt say anywhere in any treat that WP is a chemical weapon. It is a combat weapon though and used as such. You simply are pulling this out of thin air.


This is deeply ironic for several reasons.

1. The only chemical weapons used in the current Iraq conflict were used by the United States.
Minus 2 road side IED's with Sarin Artillery Warheads strap to them tend to punch a hole in this idea, luckly EOD got to them first before they were used.


2. In using White Phosphorous, the United States has committed an action which is similar to that committed by Saddam’s regime, the use of chemical weapons against military and civilian targets (the targeting of civilians was accidental, but they were firing the weapons in a crowded city).
How, same can be said with just Artillery or bombing or rocket fire ect. Have you ever seen WP used, i have and it doesnt have a very far radius (rather small explosion compare to HE mortar rounds). How can you compare WP to a true Gas Attack on the Kurds or the Iranians?

3. The United States original reason for going to war in Iraq was to prevent the use of chemical weapons.
Among many many other reasons and so far the US has secured hundred of tons of chemical weapons, that the media seems to never talk about.


4. Another reason (still used) was Saddam's war crimes, such as the use of chemical weapons…
Ever look into why? Because the Gassing of the Kurds was the easiest and quickest case to build compared to lots of other things done.

This would be hysterical if it were not so tragic…
You are right your orignal post is.



Here is a great quote for all to read;

'Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that "violence never solves anything" I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." - Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Here is a great quote for all to read;

'Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that "violence never solves anything" I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." - Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

And here is a great quote for you to read:

"Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.No need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people sharing all the world. I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will live as one." -- John Lennon

And another for good measure:

"I know not with what weapons WWIII will be fought with, but I know that WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein.

This is the kind of frucktard me and Atlanitium argued with. Despite all of the evidence they just say stupid things like this.

It isnt the explosives that kills people, its the combustion of them. Phosphurs wounds and kills just by being released.

I do not appreciate being flamed. So don't do it again, 'kay?

The story is just more anti war drivel .

BTW..I aggree that Bush is in serious need of a blow job..all the republicans are...maybe that explains some of the shit they spew.

I don't want to live in a world where someone would willingly go down on Dick Cheney.

You sir, are incorrect. WP is NOT a chemical Weapon at all. That has been established.
Established by whom? The Busheviks?

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." Strictly speaking, however, since white phosphorus's primary effects are not actually due to its toxicity or causticity, but its ignition in the presence of oxygen, many believe it has more in common with incendiary weapons instead. [4]

The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians. [5] However, the protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effect is secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed Protocol III.

US Military protocol restricts but does not absolutely prohibit use of white phosphorus in civilian areas. [6]

I have seen the pictures that were taken after an attack using WP as a weapon, and the pictures are pretty disgusting. You can rattle on all you want, but WP, whether used on combatants or on civilians is still a chemical weapon.

Well you know the Marines are the Bottom of the Barrel so what do you expect.
Would you care to expand upon this statement?

These days, I find that I need to laugh in order to keep from sobbing.

Would somebody please just give Bush a blowjob, so we can impeach him?
Don't you know anyone willing?

To paraphrase Kevin Smith, "Don't be so suburban. If it'll get me a couple hundred miles down the road to a saner government, I'll take a shot in the mouth."
And herein lies the only power the left wing of the American government has left besides lying. And thats kneeling.

Somehow I'm not suprised that the US lied about doing something. Yet it still dissapoints me since I am a citizen of this country, I do plan on moving out sometime. Why does the US have to be so corrupt and evil? Why can't it be a nice United States? No wonder why the world hate's us.
Don't let the fucking door hit you on the way out.

I'm really confused. Suddenly we're all worried about Bush's chickenshit Stormtroopers using phosphorous on Fallujah (http://http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-6047-1875730-6047,00.html)? This story is ONE YEAR OLD (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7374.htm)! What the F*** is going on?

There's more (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041213/schuman).

How do you convince the arabs that you care for them, when you've just murdered several tens of thousands of innocent non-combatants? Hint: stop blowing the limbs off of arab women and children. Hint: stop setting arab women and children on fire. Hint... aw shucks; you get the idea.

Here's the description of the GLORIOUS MILITARY VICTORY massacre in Fallujah, seen by an Iraqi girl. (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#113218124805731713)

Just so you know. Having travelled, lived and fought in Arab countries. They overwhelmingly know the US is the good guys. They may have disagreements and dont always see the whole picture. But it is the Westren media that plays up the anti-American Arabs. I say take a trip to an Arabic and or Islamic country. Ask the common folk what they think. I think most of you on this board would be dumbfounded. Alot of you would probably try and convince them that the US is evil. Only to have them convince you otherwise. These people know that war causes death, they are not stupid.

From my experience the anti-American group are far and few between.

Established by whom? The Busheviks?

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." Strictly speaking, however, since white phosphorus's primary effects are not actually due to its toxicity or causticity, but its ignition in the presence of oxygen, many believe it has more in common with incendiary weapons instead. [4]

The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians. [5] However, the protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effect is secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed Protocol III.

US Military protocol restricts but does not absolutely prohibit use of white phosphorus in civilian areas. [6]

I have seen the pictures that were taken after an attack using WP as a weapon, and the pictures are pretty disgusting. You can rattle on all you want, but WP, whether used on combatants or on civilians is still a chemical weapon.
WTF? Did you think we'd just read the red parts and the bold parts, and not the rest? You would have made a great point, if we were incapable of reading regular text. At this point, pretend I'm calling you funny names.

WTF? Did you think we'd just read the red parts and the bold parts, and not the rest? You would have made a great point, if we were incapable of reading regular text. At this point, pretend I'm calling you funny names.
Actually it was meant for someone who obviously has a difficulty in reading and comprehension skills. Perhaps you just need another bong to help you get along?:rolleyes:

I'd love to see you say that to one of their faces.
Why?

Why?
I'm assuming because it would be the last thing you said without your teeth being wired together for a few months, and I assume a few people here would like to see that.

When you call someone the bottom of the barrel, they will usually feel a bit disrespected by it.

This is all just a guess though, I may be wrong. *shrugs*

Just so you know. Having travelled, lived and fought in Arab countries. They overwhelmingly know the US is the good guys. They may have disagreements and dont always see the whole picture. But it is the Westren media that plays up the anti-American Arabs. I say take a trip to an Arabic and or Islamic country. Ask the common folk what they think. I think most of you on this board would be dumbfounded. Alot of you would probably try and convince them that the US is evil. Only to have them convince you otherwise. These people know that war causes death, they are not stupid.

From my experience the anti-American group are far and few between.

Oh, but I believe in you. The thing is, how many people supported the IRA in northern Ireland? I bet like 15% of the population. And that helped the IRA keep on ticking for 20 years+. Now, what is the percentage of people in Arab countries that hate you?

PS: Al Jaazera, do you consider it Pro-West, Pro-Arab, or independent? Out of curiosity.

I should clarify my position. Anybody who thinks the various "scandals" that occasionaly arise = Saddam's torture machine is either...

A) stupid; having no sense of proportion and no sense of deduction--seeing as how soldiers are being punished for these offenses, not rewarded,


B) Ignorant, taking no time to look into anything,

or

C) an anti-American dick who does not deserve a response above the type I give KKK members and neo-Nazis; I ignore them.

Have you asked the Iraqees how they feel about all this?

I should clarify my position. Anybody who thinks the various "scandals" that occasionaly arise = Saddam's torture machine is either...

A) stupid; having no sense of proportion and no sense of deduction--seeing as how soldiers are being punished for these offenses, not rewarded,


B) Ignorant, taking no time to look into anything,

or

C) an anti-American dick who does not deserve a response above the type I give KKK members and neo-Nazis; I ignore them.

How about:
D) A patriotic American who believes that the national command authority is betraying the nations ideals by ordering violations of conventions which the US is a signatory to. And I'm not talking about the CWC or the protocol on incendiaries, but the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.

And I'm sure many heads will be turned on ear by this, but:
Harlesburg, that was a stupid comment. I'd also like to see you try and call any Marine I know "the bottom of the barrel". You'll get what you deserve.

*snip*

Not by us but by the law. CH, you have already been defeated. Just concede

Just so you know. Having travelled, lived and fought in Arab countries. They overwhelmingly know the US is the good guys. They may have disagreements and dont always see the whole picture. But it is the Westren media that plays up the anti-American Arabs. I say take a trip to an Arabic and or Islamic country. Ask the common folk what they think. I think most of you on this board would be dumbfounded. Alot of you would probably try and convince them that the US is evil. Only to have them convince you otherwise. These people know that war causes death, they are not stupid.

From my experience the anti-American group are far and few between.

Here here.

This post is spot on. Thank You Marrakech II.

Actually it was meant for someone who obviously has a difficulty in reading and comprehension skills. Perhaps you just need another bong to help you get along?:rolleyes:

And perhaps that if you do a bit more research, you would know that we didn't violate any law in regards to using WP.

These days, I find that I need to laugh in order to keep from sobbing.

Would somebody please just give Bush a blowjob, so we can impeach him?
1, 2, 3, NOT IT!

-snip-
So what you're saying is that if the US would be invaded, and your city would be besieged by a foreign force and you had no possible way to get out of there, you wouldn't mind having your skin burned off while you were alive because it was your own fault that you did not leave the city? That you would be okay with burning alive for five hours before dying, because you should have left before they attacked? I say BS.

Here here.

This post is spot on. Thank You Marrakech II.

It is. We just need to make sure it stays that way.

So what you're saying is that if the US would be invaded, and your city would be besieged by a foreign force and you had no possible way to get out of there, you wouldn't mind having your skin burned off while you were alive because it was your own fault that you did not leave the city? That you would be okay with burning alive for five hours before dying, because you should have left before they attacked? I say BS.


How is it you have no way out ?

Oh, but I believe in you. The thing is, how many people supported the IRA in northern Ireland? I bet like 15% of the population. And that helped the IRA keep on ticking for 20 years+. Now, what is the percentage of people in Arab countries that hate you?

PS: Al Jaazera, do you consider it Pro-West, Pro-Arab, or independent? Out of curiosity.

I understand that the populace doing nothing about terrorists in there midst can be a problem. But that does not mean that they are supporting. I see a trend in Arabic/Islamic countries to start and counter these terrorists. Reason being is that they have turned on there own people time and time again.


Al Jazeera has slants that go all ways you just said. At times they are anti-American others they seem independent. However there are very few articles that hint at a pro-westren view. I read both Arabic and English versions. They are not the same in my opinion. There are pages on the Arabic version that somehow dont make it to the English version. Which I find odd. They should be almost an exact mirror of each other.

I should clarify my position. Anybody who thinks the various "scandals" that occasionaly arise = Saddam's torture machine is either...

A) stupid; having no sense of proportion and no sense of deduction--seeing as how soldiers are being punished for these offenses, not rewarded,


B) Ignorant, taking no time to look into anything,

or

C) an anti-American dick who does not deserve a response above the type I give KKK members and neo-Nazis; I ignore them.
Please subscribe me to your ignore list. I cannot resist the urge to take you to task for being moronic.

How is it you have no way out ?
Well, how supportive do you think the Iraqi fighters were of people willing to leave to find safety with the americans? I don't think many of them had any choice.

This thread is so full of victim complex...

Well, how supportive do you think the Iraqi fighters were of people willing to leave to find safety with the americans? I don't think many of them had any choice.

So where are all these dead civillians ...its been investigated and no one seems to be able to find any killed by the Americans in that battle...where did they go ? Do you realise that particular battle is considered largely successfull and that it was a huge loss for the insurgents ? Give them credit for looking out NOT to taget civillians and turn the good Iraqis against them .

- Because HArlesburg having his face ripped off naturally invalidates his statement.
No that would prove my point they are thugs not good soldiers(Or Sailors)

Go Army.

No that would prove my point they are thugs not good soldiers(Or Sailors)

Go Army.

My late uncle would kill you if he were alive with a statement like this.

And perhaps that if you do a bit more research, you would know that we didn't violate any law in regards to using WP.
Perhaps no violation of American laws but International laws, now that is debatable.

Prof Rodgers said white phosphorus would be considered as a chemical weapon under international conventions if it was "deliberately aimed at people to have a chemical effect".

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

Violation of moral laws? I most definitely think so in this case.

I am truly saddened by all of this.

Perhaps no violation of American laws but International laws, now that is debatable.

Prof Rodgers said white phosphorus would be considered as a chemical weapon under international conventions if it was "deliberately aimed at people to have a chemical effect".

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

Violation of moral laws? I most definitely think so in this case.

I am truly saddened by all of this.

Now are you talking civilians or those that want to kill our forces? If your talking civilians then no, we didn't intentionally targeted them. Now we did intentionally target insurgents inside the city and that isn't a violation of the law.

It has been established that American forces used White Phosphorous as an offensive weapon to flush out insurgents in Iraq, inadvertently killing and injuring many civilians (the exact number is unknown). While the use of White Phosphorous is legal if it is used strictly as an illuminating agent, if it is used in a manner so that its chemical properties cause harm to human beings it is considered a chemical weapon (it burns flesh down to the bone, and it was fired into insurgent trenches). Therefore, its use by the US military violated the Chemical Weapons Convention, breaking a US treaty obligation and committing a War Crime.


Using it in that manner is not a violation of any treaty the US has signed.

I'm really tired of pointing that out over and over again.

Using it in that manner is not a violation of any treaty the US has signed.

I'm really tired of pointing that out over and over again.

Most people understand that however, people like CH apparenlty don't like to get it through their heads because in their minds, that is all we do is violate international treaties.

Most people understand that
They do? Please provide a source that proves that MOST people understand that it is okay for the US to use WP because the US didn't sign an International treaty that bans its use.

however, people like CH apparenlty don't like to get it through their heads because in their minds, that is all we do is violate international treaties.
This goes way beyond International treaties and deals more specifically with moral issues.

"In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality."

~~George W. Bush~~

Did Iraq use chemical weapons on US troops? No.

However, it is ok for US troops to use chemical weapons on Iraqis, including innocent men, women and children. Hmmm. Something is wrong with this picture?

However, it is ok for US troops to use chemical weapons on Iraqis, including innocent men, women and children. Hmmm. Something is wrong with this picture?

WE. DID. NOT. USE. CHEMICAL. WEAPONS! Is that so hard to get through your brainwashed skull? Apparently it is. The only thing wrong with this picture is your lying self.

They do? Please provide a source that proves that MOST people understand that it is okay for the US to use WP because the US didn't sign an International treaty that bans its use.


We didn't sign Protocol III, which bans its use.

We are a signatory to the CWC, and we've destroyed our stocks of chemical weapons, as defined in the Appendix, way ahead of schedule. In complete accord with what we signed.

You can't say "The US is violating the CWC" if you're intentionally being vague about what we signed and what we are in compliance with.

We are completely in compliance with the provisions of the CWC, specifically the parts we signed.

Instead of saying the US is in violation of the treaty, which is a lie and a distortion, why don't you just say, "Using WP is evil!"

BTW, I've been inside a WP explosion (155mm shell), and I was not harmed. Been right in the middle of falling bits of burning phosphorus (brush it off before it burns through your clothes), breathed the smoke quite deeply (my skin didn't melt off my body).

It is used to cause panic, not as a primary means of causing casualties. It causes people who are undisciplined and unfamiliar with WP to run out into the open, where conventional artillery (DPICM bomblets) can blow them away.

However, it is ok for US troops to use chemical weapons on Iraqis, including innocent men, women and children. Hmmm. Something is wrong with this picture?

you keep saying this . PROVE IT . Show proof ...real proof , back it up with sources howing innocent men women and children were killed by US troops using WP . Where is the proof ? All I see is bullshit claims and allegations with NO FUCKING PROOF . JUst " I said it so its true " shit . Its on the news ...they wouldnt say it if it wasnt true ...etc. etc. ...Allegations are not proof by any stretch of the imagination .
NO PROOF WP IS CONSIDERED A CHEMICAL WEAPON .
NO PROOF THE US TARGETED CIVILIANS WITH IT OR ANYTHING ELSE.

WHATS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ?
That you can base a thread on a bullshit unstubstatiated story on something that has no consensus to begin with .
Thats whats wrong with this story and this picture .

WHATS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ?
That you can base a thread on a bullshit unstubstatiated story on something that has no consensus to begin with .
Thats whats wrong with this story and this picture .
However, you might want to keep in mind that some of the US allies do indeed consider it a chemical weapon. If you'd, for example, followed the Danish press the last week, you'd see that the Danes are now suing their government to bring home the Danish troops.

This is how you fight a war for the hearts & minds of your enemies? You behave so utterly amoral that even your allies are turning their backs on you...

WE. DID. NOT. USE. CHEMICAL. WEAPONS! Is that so hard to get through your brainwashed skull? Apparently it is. The only thing wrong with this picture is your lying self.
Brainwashed and a liar to boot? Oh My!!

Although I have posted these before, perhaps they will refresh your memory?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9956204&postcount=45

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9975349&postcount=73

I do believe that anything that will melt flesh or cause people to die through asphyxiation because the air was sucked out of their lungs is chemical in nature, and as such, is a chemical weapon when used on people.

Brainwashed and a liar to boot? Oh My!!

Although I have posted these before, perhaps they will refresh your memory?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9956204&postcount=45

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9975349&postcount=73

I do believe that anything that will melt flesh or cause people to die through asphyxiation because the air was sucked out of their lungs is chemical in nature, and as such, is a chemical weapon when used on people.

*sighs*

Yes you are brainwashed. You are proving it even now. It has been shown that it isn't a chemical weapon. It has been shown that we have been using it legally.

Now what part of this isn't seeping into your mind?

*sighs*

Yes you are brainwashed.
Such an ironic statement.

You are proving it even now.
How so? By referencing material that refute your claims?

It has been shown that it isn't a chemical weapon. It has been shown that we have been using it legally.
Shown by whom? According to what I have posted, the material would refute your claim.

Now what part of this isn't seeping into your mind?
Well I am certainly not going to let your BS seep into my brain. Your staunch support of Bush's policies doesn't surprise me in the least.

If Iraqi insurgents incinerate hundreds of US troops using WP, that will be acceptable by your standards?

How about:
D) A patriotic American who believes that the national command authority is betraying the nations ideals by ordering violations of conventions which the US is a signatory to. And I'm not talking about the CWC or the protocol on incendiaries, but the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.

There is no such thing as a patriotic American who believes in giving up national sovereignty to a bunch of UN beurocrats.

Please subscribe me to your ignore list. I cannot resist the urge to take you to task for being moronic.

What do we have here? Another leftist idiot who can't argue on facts and resorts to pointless name-calling?

Such an ironic statement.

Actually, no it isn't ironic.

How so? By referencing material that refute your claims?

The military personell on this board has refuted your claims already but you don't seem to listen to them.

Shown by whom? According to what I have posted, the material would refute your claim.

The military people on this board has shown you to be inaccurate.

Well I am certainly not going to let your BS seep into my brain. Your staunch support of Bush's policies doesn't surprise me in the least.

And your staunch support for falsehoods doesn't surprise me in the least and no. I am not a staunch supporter of Bush.

If Iraqi insurgents incinerate hundreds of US troops using WP, that will be acceptable by your standards?

Since WP doesn't incinerate people, this statement is moot. However, since it isn't a chemical weapon and perfectly legal to use on military troops, the insurgents could theoretically use it.

The military personell on this board has refuted your claims already but you don't seem to listen to them.
You are biased in your beliefs and refuse to believe opposing views and materials. Sorry but I can't help you if you don't want any help in arriving at the truth.

The military people on this board has shown you to be inaccurate.
I don't believe that they have. I watched the Italian documentary that included two US soldiers telling their stories about WP use in Iraq and they were rather convincing. Where is your contribution/proof, other than being an over zealous cheerleader?

And your staunch support for falsehoods doesn't surprise me in the least and no.
You have proven nothing here, other than you don't have a problem with US troops using chemical weapons.

I am not a staunch supporter of Bush.
Whatever. :rolleyes:

Since WP doesn't incinerate people, this statement is moot.
I have seen pictures and they are not pretty. Do a Google search for "white phosphorous Fallujah" and perhaps you might understand better. This chemical will burn you to the bone, and if that is not chemical in nature than I know nothing about chemicals.

However, since it isn't a chemical weapon and perfectly legal to use on military troops,
Not according to the article that I posted.

the insurgents could theoretically use it.
Nevermind the theory aspect, I asked you a direct question and you gave me an evasive answer.

Try again:

If Iraqi insurgents incinerate hundreds of US troops using WP, that will be acceptable by your standards?

(it burns flesh down to the bone, and it was fired into insurgent trenches).

This was, of course, to illuminate the enemy trenches to give the enemy sufficient light to see the the exits.

I think if WP was used on American soldiers by Iraqi soldiers, there'd be an outcry from conservative Americans about the immorality of the insurgents.

It seems to be a bit of a double standard, like the use of tortrue by American troops and Sadam Hussein's regime.

I'm not sure if I'd class it as a chemical weapon, though the arguments presented seem to suggest some American allies and classification systems would.

:gundge: Hmmm...how applicable.

I think if WP was used on American soldiers by Iraqi soldiers, there'd be an outcry from conservative Americans about the immorality of the insurgents.

Wp is a really shitty offensive weapon, great for psych warfare but useless for actually harming any great amount of people.

This would be true except:

The US has not signed the international treaty limiting the use of white phosphorous.
Even if they had, the treaty allows the use of white phosphorous against enemy combatants, but not civilians.
White Phosphorous is not currently defined as a chemical weapon, even in the international treaty.

While the use of these weapons is morally reprehensible, legally it is a grey zone - The US will say that they gave civilians ample opportunity to leave Fallujah and that anyone remaining must have been an enemy combatant.
ooh, good answer. throw the book at him boys!

I ahve already had this argument with me an Atlantium arguing with some fanatical US supporters.

There is no point in trying to argue with them. They simply refuse to accept that fact the US military tatics are questionable, and they engage in illegal tatics.

Like hell the US follows the genva conventions. How about the secret prisons?

Secondly the Genva conventions should always be ahered to. War is horrible but anything can be better or worse including war. If I go to war I expect to be treated like a human if captured so I would do the same to any people I captured. The US just undermines itseld by doing the stupid things it does.

*Sigh* but the good ol patriotic to the point of stupidity boys will just ignore nor this or label us terrorist America haters.

Oh and the guys I was arguing with about white phosphurus. DO you finally accept that it is a chemical weapon. I'm happy to get all the documents I got from the UN websit again to prove my points again.

If the US wants to win the war on terror or to be respected then it has to act carefully. When Clinton was in power every bashed the US but it wasnt that serious and we still saw the US as a big friendly giant but since Bush and the rise of the neo conservative bullshit and all its ignorant... i do mean ignorant as in having no idea about anything even if they are intelligent, followers the bashing has got real.

If you overly patriotic nuts want us to love the US attacking us and acting like you are superior to everyone else isn't the way to do it.


Wow, i love the support in the US for what i do.

Just beautiful.

oh and about WP.
not a chemical weapon, no more a chemical weapon than napalm or C4.

though WP is nasty stuff, and I've been around one going off(notice i didn't say seen, because well the Drill Sergeants made us put our faces in our Kevlars to shield our eyes from the bright light). Oh and in combat you fight with what you have, if your signaling devices can kill the mother fuckers you use them. WAR IS HELL. And last time I checked the Army has very strict ROE's and tiptoes around the fucking bushes on all sorts of shit (like i'm a military police officer and i'm not allowed to carry my weapon with a round in a chamber and i don't carry a full magazine)


SPC. Wallace
US Army
Operation Noble Eagle II

oh and about WP.
not a chemical weapon, no more a chemical weapon than napalm or C4.

SPC. Wallace
US Army
Operation Noble Eagle II
And the chemical experts say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm):

The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"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."

Why is there so much denial over this issue?

And the chemical experts say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm):

The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"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."

Why is there so much denial over this issue?

Everything has a toxic property. Bullets have a toxic property. Are they chemical weapons too?

It is standard artillery in EVERYONE'S military. Since it is, then it isn't a violation of ANY treaty.

CH, grow up and pay more attention for once in your life.

Everything has a toxic property. Bullets have a toxic property. Are they chemical weapons too?

It is standard artillery in EVERYONE'S military. Since it is, then it isn't a violation of ANY treaty.

CH, grow up and pay more attention for once in your life.
Grow up? An amusing comment from someone less than half my age. :eek:

Learn to read sonny boy and perhaps you will learn something?

You blithely ignore expert evidence, and all you post is hollow rhetoric. You have zero facts to support your claims and piss poor analogies. Did you watch the Italian documentary yet? Did you read any of the articles that I linked to? IF you did, then you just want to live in denial.

It is one thing to be patriotic, it is another to support the use of chemical weapons. All your yipping about Saddam's atrocities, and yet you support weapons that disolve human flesh to the bone. Totally unbelieveable!!

All of this, goes way beyond any legalities of treaties that are signed or unsigned....these are issues of morality. Perhaps you cannot fathom that aspect of this discussion?

Grow up? An amusing comment from someone less than half my age. :eek:

At least I don't go around spreading lies like you.

Learn to read sonny boy and perhaps you will learn something?

I have learned quite alot by reading and listening. One thing I'm glad I didn't learn was to believe everything I read.

You blithely ignore expert evidence, and all you post is hollow rhetoric. You have zero facts to support your claims and piss poor analogies. Did you watch the Italian documentary yet? Did you read any of the articles that I linked to? IF you did, then you just want to live in denial.

Sorry, I don't really care about the italians. All I do know is the fact that it isn't a chemical weapon. Yes I have read them however, I'll go with the military on this one for the simple reason that they no more about it than some experts.

It is one thing to be patriotic, it is another to support the use of chemical weapons. All your yipping about Saddam's atrocities, and yet you support weapons that disolve human flesh to the bone. Totally unbelieveable!!

I don't support the use of Chemical weapons. That was why I believe in the Iraq War. It got rid of a dictator that DID use chemical weapons.

All of this, goes way beyond any legalities of treaties that are signed or unsigned....these are issues of morality. Perhaps you cannot fathom that aspect of this discussion?

Oh I can fathom it. However, I am glad that our military uses it against the enemy. WP is not a chemical weapon as anyone in the US military or any military for that matter, will tell you. It is standard piece of artillery and most national militaries.

His statement itself invalidates his statement. Why should I treat a statement as asinine as that as a valid argument?
Because it is an opinion. The best counter to an opinion that is not linked to fact (ie the opinion of the military) is to counter with an alternate and more moderate, broad appealing opinion.

ie "I think throughout history the US Army -including the Marine Corps- has proven itself a valuable and honourable fighting force. Defending the freedom of the United States and other... Yes, there have been crimes commited by our soldiers. But the glory of America is these soldiers are held accountable. It is because of this, not in spite of it, that I am proud of Marines..."

Or somethign to that effect.

You are biased in your beliefs and refuse to believe opposing views and materials. Sorry but I can't help you if you don't want any help in arriving at the truth.

I agree with some of what you say CH, but it would seem that you yourself are incapable of taking into account anything said by anyone else utterly refusing to accept that they may have some validity in what they say.



Personally I agree with the comments made by the military people here (I am ex-military myself). If something works, and your in the middle of a combat situation, and it'll save the lives of your own soldiers, your going to use it (I'm not talking to the extent of nukes here so dont anyone try that one).


There is more than one side to the moral issues here.

His statement itself invalidates his statement. Why should I treat a statement as asinine as that as a valid argument?
Because it is an opinion. The best counter to an opinion that is not linked to fact (ie the opinion of the military) is to counter with an alternate and more moderate, broad appealing opinion.

ie "I think throughout history the US Army -including the Marine Corps- has proven itself a valuable and honourable fighting force. Defending the freedom of the United States and other... Yes, there have been crimes commited by our soldiers. But the glory of America is these soldiers are held accountable. It is because of this, not in spite of it, that I am proud of Marines..."

Or somethign to that effect.

His statement itself invalidates his statement. Why should I treat a statement as asinine as that as a valid argument?
Because it is an opinion. The best counter to an opinion that is not linked to fact (ie the opinion of the military) is to counter with an alternate and more moderate, broad appealing opinion.

ie "I think throughout history the US Army -including the Marine Corps- has proven itself a valuable and honourable fighting force. Defending the freedom of the United States and other... Yes, there have been crimes commited by our soldiers. But the glory of America is these soldiers are held accountable. It is because of this, not in spite of it, that I am proud of Marines..."

Or somethign to that effect.

At least I don't go around spreading lies like you.
Please point to these "lies" that you claim I am "spreading". Then prove that they are "lies".

I havent really jumped into this thread head on. The reason is that a few on here are holding there own vs the "it's a chemical weapon" crowd. I actually used them in Gulf War I. Why do you ask? The reason was to lay down a cover of white smoke to shield our view from the T-72's we found ourselves in the middle of. There is a specific reason why we have these munitions. Number one reason is to provide cover from the enemies eyes. I personally don't remember anyone screaming over the use of them back then. Why is it a big deal now?

Here is an article I found that makes sense to me and basically outlines my position.

http://armchairgeneralist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/11/its_not_chemica.html

I agree with some of what you say CH, but it would seem that you yourself are incapable of taking into account anything said by anyone else utterly refusing to accept that they may have some validity in what they say.
So say you squire. I do believe that I have a very open mind about many things, but I can smell BS a mile away.

First and foremost, the US had no business to invade Iraq in the first place. It has gone downhill from there, starting with the "Shock and Awe" show, to prisoner abuse, to the use of chemical weapons.

Personally I agree with the comments made by the military people here (I am ex-military myself). If something works, and your in the middle of a combat situation, and it'll save the lives of your own soldiers, your going to use it (I'm not talking to the extent of nukes here so dont anyone try that one).

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.

~~George W. Bush~~

Update 22 November: I have received an e-mail from a reader who points me to a reported US army document from 1991 which refers to WP as a chemical weapon. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm) The document reports the possible use of WP by Iraq against the Kurds who rose up after the Gulf War. It says: "Iraq has possibly employed phosphorous chemical weapons against the Kurdish population."

There is more than one side to the moral issues here.
How so?

Saddam has chemical weapons.
Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iraqis.
Saddam = bad.

The US has chemical weapons.
US used chemical weapons against the Iraqis.
US = good?

CH were you ever in the military? If so what branch? Would like to know what training you have on military hardware, munitions and tactics. I know that if you were in the Canadian military you were trained under some of the same training as we went through in the US military. Would like to know what background you have in this subject.

CH, even your own sources say WP is only considered a chemical weapon if used for it's toxic properties. You and the others promoting the suggestion have yet to demonstrate that it was used for it's toxic properties.

CH, even your own sources say WP is only considered a chemical weapon if used for it's toxic properties. You and the others promoting the suggestion have yet to demonstrate that it was used for it's toxic properties.
I watched the Italian documentary and it was gruesome to say the least.

What does "shake and bake" mean to you?

The US should never have invaded Iraq the way they did. It truly saddens me to see all of this crap.

Bush took all of that goodwill after 911 and flushed it down the Iraqi toilet.

I am deeply disappointed that the Senate is not heeding the imperatives of the Constitution and is instead poised to hand off to the President the exclusive power of Congress to determine matters of war and peace.

~~Senator Byrd~~

They do? Please provide a source that proves that MOST people understand that it is okay for the US to use WP because the US didn't sign an International treaty that bans its use.


This goes way beyond International treaties and deals more specifically with moral issues.

"In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality."

~~George W. Bush~~

Did Iraq use chemical weapons on US troops? No.

However, it is ok for US troops to use chemical weapons on Iraqis, including innocent men, women and children. Hmmm. Something is wrong with this picture?

yeah... i think that your interpretation is wrong.

why are there so many people blaming bush for everything in iraq? honestly, why? i mean, even kerry and a whole bunch of democrats voted to go to iraq, and now they say hes a criminal for going. what kind of bullshit partisan politicing is that?

there is no evidence for there NOT being chemical or biological weapons in iraq... there are numerous locations they could have gone. they couldve been destroyed, shipped out of the country, or even sold... giving iraq a couple of weeks notice about rising tensions obviously let them open the border to terrorists, so why the hell wouldnt they ship the weapons out?

finally, since when have we started using "chemical weapons" on innocent children?! why havent i heard it on abc, the most slanderous bush-bashing channel a democrat can find? furthermore, bush is right... the iraqi fundamentalists, who they are fighting against in a CONFLICT, dont use any sort of ROA (rules of engagement) or anything! they even suicided themselves in the middle of a muslim wedding!! what does that say about their morality?

There is more than one side to the moral issues here.

How so?

Saddam has chemical weapons.
Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iraqis.
Saddam = bad.

The US has chemical weapons.
US used chemical weapons against the Iraqis.
US = good?

That is one of the moral issues that is being debated, provided some agreemant can be made on whether the WP is considered to be a chemical weapon or not (I'm not giving an opinion on whether I believe it is or not here).

You are simplifying it a bit to much there also. Saying "Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iraqis" and "US used chemical weapons against the Iraqis" is implying that the situations were similar when in reality they were completely different. Sadam intentionally used (confirmed) chemical weapons against CIVILIANS. The americans used (debatably) chemical weapons against soldiers (and POSSIBLY, inadvertantly against civilians).



Another moral issue is whether the officers/warrant in charge of the troops on the ground at the time should have had to decide "I've got this weapon I can use effectively to reduce the casualties of my men, but it could be construed as breaching some international legislation because its going to kill the enemy by burning them slowly (also a point in dispute) so perhaps I just let my men die". A descision which could cost lives, especially in a combat situation.

put the way you seem to like it

officer uses WP
completes mission more efficiently
less american casualties = GOOD/BAD

officer doesnt use WP
completes mission less effectively (if at all)
more american casualties = GOOD??


And then there's the question of whether the WP would indeed have done that much damage. As stated by someone earlier who has experienced the effects by actually being within the "damage" zone, and the fact the tactic employed was to force the iraqi's into the open in order to kill them using weapons designed to kill.

there is no evidence for there NOT being chemical or biological weapons in iraq... there are numerous locations they could have gone. they couldve been destroyed, shipped out of the country, or even sold... giving iraq a couple of weeks notice about rising tensions obviously let them open the border to terrorists, so why the hell wouldnt they ship the weapons out?

You cannot prove a negative. It's like asking someone to prove God doesn't exist. But the burden of proof is on those who said definitively that there ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to produce those weapons, not on those who do not believe them to prove there aren't.

And either way, the whole not finding WMDs in Iraq would be good evidence of there not being WMDs in Iraq, if it were even possible to prove.

the whole not finding WMDs in Iraq would be good evidence of there not being WMDs in Iraq, if it were even possible to prove.

I think the point Kakaru_of_Death was making is that there could very easily have been WMD in Iraq that were removed before the allied forces took control, therefor making it appear there had been none there in the first place...

(imho) probably in order to dis-credit one of the main reasons for the invasion to sceptics.

My late uncle would kill you if he were alive with a statement like this.
Wait after i was threatened with having my face ripped off?
Nice.

This would be true except:

The US has not signed the international treaty limiting the use of white phosphorous.
Even if they had, the treaty allows the use of white phosphorous against enemy combatants, but not civilians.
White Phosphorous is not currently defined as a chemical weapon, even in the international treaty.

While the use of these weapons is morally reprehensible, legally it is a grey zone - The US will say that they gave civilians ample opportunity to leave Fallujah and that anyone remaining must have been an enemy combatant.
Phosphorous is a chemical. In this instance it was used as a weapon. Surely that makes it a chemical weapon? I don't know what the "definition" really says, but in my books, that's a chemical weapon.

Phosphorous is a chemical. In this instance it was used as a weapon. Surely that makes it a chemical weapon? I don't know what the "definition" really says, but in my books, that's a chemical weapon.

Have you taken a high school Chemistry class? Everything is a chemical of some kind.

).
officer uses WP
completes mission more efficiently
less american casualties = GOOD/BAD

officer doesnt use WP
completes mission less effectively (if at all)
more american casualties = GOOD??


Insurgent uses WP
completes mission more efficiently
less insurgent casualties = GOOD/BAD


Insurgent doesn't use WP
completes mission less effectively (if at all)
more insurgent casualties = GOOD??

Now, how about that?

Just been flicking through the posts and as it seems you can't agree on chemical weapons, and as this thread is related to the Iraq War, I just want to say this:

I watched a documentary on TV (in England, I'm English by the way) about Iraq on the programme "Despatches" (dunno if any other countries get this series).

It was deeply disturbing, but the main points I got from it are (no necessarily in any particular order):

1. Before the war, there were Shiate Muslims and Sunni Muslims, each group having a different interpretation of Islam, with one (I think it's Shiate, can't remember properly, so from now on I'm going to call them "Opressive Muslims") being very oppressive. There was also a third group of people (in the North I think) who's religious/cult views didn't fit with either Shiate or Sunni views.

2. Before the war, Saddam was evil but at least kept these groups at bay through his restrictive (or psychotic) regime.

3. Neither Bush nor Blair considered number 1 above before invading. They didn't even know about these divisions. Yet they still invaded without finding out more information. That's like someone invading Ireland to try to gain peace, without knowing about the Catholic and Protestant divisions.

4. Now the Opressive Muslims have been unleashed. A part of Iraq where people used to be able to walk around in relative freedom is now under control of the Oppressive Muslims and women must cover themselves from head to foot or they get killed. This is because the US army, under the idea of "giving Iraq back to the people" allowed the Oppressive Muslims to take control of the army.

5. The organisations that are supposed to be looking after the Iraqi Citizens are under the control of dangerous men, such as the Oppressive Muslims referred to above. A woman told dispatches her story but didn't want to be filmed. She'd been attacked (I can't remember what she said happened) and went to the Iraqi Police for help. They told her to go to the Iraqi Army for help. They told her to go to a man who was controlling them (I forgot hos name) who had extremist and oprresive views of Islam, for example considered it justifiable to kill prostitutes.

It seems that Iraq has made worse than it was before, though I'm not sure if rapes are still sanctioned by the Government as they were under Saddam's regime.

Phosphorous is a chemical. In this instance it was used as a weapon. Surely that makes it a chemical weapon? I don't know what the "definition" really says, but in my books, that's a chemical weapon.

Look up the definition of a Chemical Weapon. They are defined before they are restricted and guess what? WP is NOT on that list.

I watched the Italian documentary and it was gruesome to say the least.

What does "shake and bake" mean to you?

The US should never have invaded Iraq the way they did. It truly saddens me to see all of this crap.

Bush took all of that goodwill after 911 and flushed it down the Iraqi toilet.

I am deeply disappointed that the Senate is not heeding the imperatives of the Constitution and is instead poised to hand off to the President the exclusive power of Congress to determine matters of war and peace.

~~Senator Byrd~~


And how exactly does that demonstrate that WP was used as chemical weapon?

Again, your source says it might possibly be considered a chemical weapon if used for it's toxic properties.

Until you can present evidence it was used as a chemical weapon (ie a weapon used primarily for it's toxic properties as covered by the various treaties regarding such weapons), I shall consider you to have de facto conceeded that WP was not used as such.

Insurgent uses WP
completes mission more efficiently
less insurgent casualties = GOOD/BAD


Insurgent doesn't use WP
completes mission less effectively (if at all)
more insurgent casualties = GOOD??

Now, how about that?
This should probably read, insurgent attempts to make WP, kills himself. Not the easiest stuff to make and store. Now red phosphorus, that's easy.

officer uses WP
completes mission more efficiently
less american casualties = GOOD/BAD

officer doesnt use WP
completes mission less effectively (if at all)
more american casualties = GOOD??

Insurgent uses WP
completes mission more efficiently
less insurgent casualties = GOOD/BAD


Insurgent doesn't use WP
completes mission less effectively (if at all)
more insurgent casualties = GOOD??

Now, how about that?

Its their own fault they didnt use WP. If they had used it, then fair enough. Thats what war is about, kill or be killed.

Look up the definition of a Chemical Weapon. They are defined before they are restricted and guess what? WP is NOT on that list.
Yup, harmless stuff.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9984628&postcount=127