NationStates Jolt Archive

.. when Saddam used it against the Kurds... (http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/intel/950901/22431050_91r.txt)


IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS
CHEMICAL
WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE
IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS
STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND
REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED.

TEXT: 1. DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED
BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ]

. DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION,THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS --

A. IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES'
OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR
STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL
CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL
TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE
PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE
POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN
BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI
BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY
ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION
AT THIS TIME).


So, how is it NOT a Chemical Weapon when used in Fallujah?

.. when Saddam used it against the Kurds... (http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/intel/950901/22431050_91r.txt)
So, how is it NOT a Chemical Weapon when used in Fallujah?

Silly you! It's never wrong when the US does it.

Because napalm is a chemical weapon.

Silly you! It's never wrong when the US does it.


Oh.


Right.


Sorry.


:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Silly you! It's never wrong when the US does it.
That seems to be the administration line.

Silly you! It's never wrong when the US does it.

That's EXACTLY the bullshit the Bush [neocon] administration has been feeding we, the American people, for the past 4 years. We're getting tired of it.

START the withdrawl plan NOW, and get them OUT.

Sould I sing the Oompa Loompa song again?

Sould I sing the Oompa Loompa song again?

Please, do. Wear makeup, too! :)

.. when Saddam used it against the Kurds... (http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/intel/950901/22431050_91r.txt)

So, how is it NOT a Chemical Weapon when used in Fallujah?
It was used as a chemical weapon in Fallujah. :(

Oompa! Loompa! Doompity-doo!
I've got a perfect puzzle for you!
Oompa! Loompa! Doompa-dadee!
If you are wise you will listen to me!

What do you get with white phosphorous?
A lot of dead people with a grimacing pus?
Why not simply give it a miss?
Or do you think we'd just dismiss?

(Something so - something so - something so heinous?)

Oompa! Loompa! Doompa-dadee!
If you are wise you'll listen to me!
You will live in happiness, too!
Like the! Oompa! Loompa!
Oompa!Loompa! Doompity doo!

It was used as a chemical weapon in Fallujah. :(
Yet again, silence from the right-wing. Guess they're waiting to see how Assrocket or Limbaugh or whomever is on spin duty tonight tries to make this one go away.

Oompa! Loompa! Doompity-doo!
I've got a perfect puzzle for you!
Oompa! Loompa! Doompa-dadee!
If you are wise you will listen to me!

What do you get with white phosphorous?
A lot of dead people with a grimacing pus?
Why not simply give it a miss?
Or do you think we'd just dismiss?

(Something so - something so - something so heinous?)

Oompa! Loompa! Doompa-dadee!
If you are wise you'll listen to me!
You will live in happiness, too!
Like the! Oompa! Loompa!
Oompa!Loompa! Doompity doo!
http://i3.ebayimg.com/04/i/05/81/9a/b4_1.JPG
Master P and the No Limit Soldiers roll all over them Oompas with the big gold tank!

Yet again, silence from the right-wing. Guess they're waiting to see how Assrocket or Limbaugh or whomever is on spin duty tonight tries to make this one go away.
Actually, it's kinda like watching vultures at the zoo. Better to just watch. ;)

Yet again, silence from the right-wing. Guess they're waiting to see how Assrocket or Limbaugh or whomever is on spin duty tonight tries to make this one go away.
The sad part is that the US opted for WP because teargas is a banned combat weapon.

The fact that WP is far more deadly in enclosed spaces seems like the logical alternative? :rolleyes:

From another blog:

1) White phoshporus isn't on any banned weapons list, nor is it widely considered to be a "chemical weapon."

2) But that's because it's largely used as a diversion, to light up battlefields, or for other purposes not directly related to killing people.

3) If it is used for killing people, it's some pretty nasty stuff. It burns straight through anything it touches, and once lit, it's nearly immpossible to extinguish. In that sense, it's indiscriminate, making it more similar to a chemical weapon like Napalm than to conventional weapons.

4) Given number three, raining white phosphorus down over a city may not violate the letter of chemical weapons treaties, but it certainly appears to be morally questionable, particularly if used by a country that cited the immoral, indiscriminate use of chemical weapons by Iraq as one reason for going to war in the first place.

5) The U.S. military is using white phosphorus as a weapon. Whether we've careful to use it only against clusters of enemy solidiers (as I believe we've generally been careful to do throughout the war with other weapons, despite my objections to it) or more broadly against targets like Fallujah, where insurgents are more interspersed with civilians, seems to be the source of contention.

One of my friends was trying to tell me "Dude, the people who say that US forces used phosphorus on people in Iraq are dumbasses! They used it for light!"


And I responded, fairly calmly actually, "You didn't hear about the thousands of bodies which had been reduced to burnt flesh and bone? You didn't hear about the bodies of not just soldiers, but women, children, even babies which were found in this condition? Maybe you need to read a bit more. *coughdumbasscough*"

Very interesting.

One of my friends was trying to tell me "Dude, the people who say that US forces used phosphorus on people in Iraq are dumbasses! They used it for light!"


And I responded, fairly calmly actually, "You didn't hear about the thousands of bodies which had been reduced to burnt flesh and bone? You didn't hear about the bodies of not just soldiers, but women, children, even babies which were found in this condition? Maybe you need to read a bit more. *coughdumbasscough*"
And where, pray tell, do I read about this?

And where, pray tell, do I read about this?
They say that payback is a bitch!! :D

Dude, don't you know how to use a freaking search engine? Bitch Bitch Bitch. Research if it's THAT important to you. GEEZ

They say that payback is a bitch!! :D

LOL. (OTOH, one woulkd expect a massacre on that order to be common knowledge.)

They say that payback is a bitch!! :D
I did search first. I can't find any mass slaughters by U.S. troops using WP anywhere. And you'll notice I didn't post 50 times DEMANDING sources.

I just asked. Once. After I looked.

I did search first. I can't find any mass slaughters by U.S. troops using WP anywhere. And you'll notice I didn't post 50 times DEMANDING sources.

I just asked. Once. After I looked.
Perhaps if you knew the history between Cornman and myself, you would understand? I also did a search and couldn't find anything to support his claim and that is why I pressed him on it, and I didn't ask him 50 times.

BTW, I wasn't really picking on you, I was just demonstrating how ones words can come back to them at the least expected moment. :)

Perhaps if you knew the history between Cornman and myself, you would understand? I also did a search and couldn't find anything to support his claim and that is why I pressed him on it, and I didn't ask him 50 times.

BTW, I wasn't really picking on you, I was just demonstrating how ones words can come back to them at the least expected moment. :)
I deserved it. :D I shouldn't have butted into your argument with Corny!

No hard feelings?

.. when Saddam used it against the Kurds... (http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/intel/950901/22431050_91r.txt)



So, how is it NOT a Chemical Weapon when used in Fallujah?

I'm not sure how TNT (any explosive), napalm, etc. aren't considered chemical weapons but I think the answer to your question has much to do with the Iraqi Baath regime losing the war and being the bad guys.

I'd also acculy like to see a sourse for the claim of "thousands killed by WP." Just so that if I use it in an argument, I can back it up.

And FireAntz, I love the sig :) I'm in complete agreement

And FireAntz, I love the sig :) I'm in complete agreement
;)

2) But that's because it's largely used as a diversion, to light up battlefields, or for other purposes not directly related to killing people.

It's used for a variety of reasons, and even if it is banned, it should still be carried in some circumstances and places. One such thing being vehicles.

They are used to destroy information that could fall into enemy hands. If you're driving along the road and are ambushed, you chuck a WP grenade (kept specifically for that purpose) in the back of the vehicle to destroy any information (or equipment) that the enemy could use against you.
Note it's a bad idea to be too hasty in the destruction of the goods, as it may just leave you stuck with a burnt vehicle.

Apologies if this overlaps

The sad part is that the US opted for WP because teargas is a banned combat weapon.

The fact that WP is far more deadly in enclosed spaces seems like the logical alternative? :rolleyes:

You aren't actually so ignorant of the issue that you have no idea why people are concerned with the use of WP? For the same reasons Iraq was not allowed to have chemical weapons (if those reasons matter to you, and I hope they do), it is a concern that U.S. is using it. I'm not saying that you are Pro-Chemical weapons, but just remember, that IS a relevant issue.

1) White phoshporus isn't on any banned weapons list, nor is it widely considered to be a "chemical weapon.

But this, given that the difference is highly technical, AND that this is a post about the Pentagon itself reffering to WP as chemical, this claim is not acceptable.

2) But that's because it's largely used as a diversion, to light up battlefields, or for other purposes not directly related to killing people.

And those instances are not contested. But bringing up this point seems to attempt to dismiss the concern of WP. The fact is it HAS been used as a weapon and THOSE instances are the ones we are concerned with.

3) If it is used for killing people, it's some pretty nasty stuff. It burns straight through anything it touches, and once lit, it's nearly immpossible to extinguish. In that sense, it's indiscriminate, making it more similar to a chemical weapon like Napalm than to conventional weapons.

Not sure I get the disctintion? Does your blogger mean "conventional chemical weapons".


4) Given number three, raining white phosphorus down over a city may not violate the letter of chemical weapons treaties, but it certainly appears to be morally questionable, particularly if used by a country that cited the immoral, indiscriminate use of chemical weapons by Iraq as one reason for going to war in the first place.

A relevant point, hence this discussion.

5) The U.S. military is using white phosphorus as a weapon. Whether we've careful to use it only against clusters of enemy solidiers (as I believe we've generally been careful to do throughout the war with other weapons, despite my objections to it) or more broadly against targets like Fallujah, where insurgents are more interspersed with civilians, seems to be the source of contention.[/i]
While relevant, I fear that this characterization of it dulls our grip of what WP actually is and how horrid its affects. It is nonetheless accurate, and given your opinion, and how you introduced this, I'm interested in knowing it this is your stance as well?

I know that this was a blogger that posted it and not yourself, but insofar as you feel these words represent you, I am speaking to you.

-snip-
:D Rest assured that CH is on your side, my friend.

.. when Saddam used it against the Kurds... (http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/intel/950901/22431050_91r.txt)



So, how is it NOT a Chemical Weapon when used in Fallujah?

the United States Army has used white phosporous grenades, mortar shells, and artillery rounds since the middle of World War II. Along with napalm.

Its also a standard grenade and mortar shell in nearly all armies.

Its a weapon like any other, but is also more frequently used to create smoke for tactical movement, and is used to clear buildings and fortified buildings in order to minimize friendly casualties.

Which I am for, as I have a son in the Marines and I would prefer that his chances of becoming a friendly casualty are minimized.

A flake of WP on exposed skin or clothing will burn through until it is physically put out or removed from the fuel source (and yes, that includes the poor bastard who got some on him). It tends to leave nasty, even horrific burns. However, troops generally know what it means to get some on them, and they tend to immediately evacuate an area attacked by it. Hence its effectiveness in urban warfare.

Yes, its nasty, but so is a landmine, or for that matter, a high velocity assault rifle round hitting a limb or anywhere else on the body.

I'm not to sure about their excuse; "Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon." It's a rather poor excuse. Haven't the American Army ever heard of element 15? That suggests to me that it's a chemical.

Anyway, the American Army's centralised command and hich level of tech advancement will mean they'll get mashed pretty soon, like the Germans in Russia, and the Americans in Vietnam.

.. when Saddam used it against the Kurds... (http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/intel/950901/22431050_91r.txt)



So, how is it NOT a Chemical Weapon when used in Fallujah?


So because someone wrote something in caps and posted on the internet its got to be true .

.. when Saddam used it against the Kurds... (http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/intel/950901/22431050_91r.txt)

So, how is it NOT a Chemical Weapon when used in Fallujah?

It's a stretch to call WP a "chemical weapon". People only do so when they want to make their opponent look bad.

If they don't use WP, then you get them for using cluster munitions.

If they don't use cluster munitions, then you get them for using rifle ammunition that is unstable (nearly all rifle ammunition is unstable on impact).

Silli, it's a PR job - your opponent can't fight you directly without being wiped out, so they fight in the court of world opinion, and seek to disarm you completely.

No matter how far you comply with the Hague Conventions (or other Conventions), people will say, "even though you are complying with the letter of your treaty agreements, you should be complying with the "spirit" (completely undefined) of the Conventions.

We're already complying with our treaty agreements as far as WP goes.

You won't be happy until the US doesn't have any weapons at all. Ever see anyone die of a bayonet wound? I'd rather burn to death...

And once again, the point goes sailing clearly over the heads of both Deep Kimchi and Beer and Guns like a Barry Bonds homer into the Bay.

Guys--it's not the question of whether or not WP is a chemical weapon when used on personnel. It's not whether the US ought to use such weapons, or how they choose to use them. It's the hypocrisy.

The US is charged with using WP as a chemical weapon on enemy personnel when one of the conventions the government signed said that we wouldn't. First, the military denies having done so, and then when it's pointed out (by members of said military, I might add) that they did, they reply with "well, it's not really a chemical weapon." Now, we discover that our very own government called it a chemical weapon when Saddam Hussein used it in the very same way we did. So how is it that WP is a chemical weapon when Saddam uses it, but not when we use it?

I really don't know how I can make it any simpler for you apologists out there--that's the issue. How does the use of WP go from being a chemical weapon in Saddam's hands to not a chemical weapon in ours? Answer that, if you can.

And once again, the point goes sailing clearly over the heads of both Deep Kimchi and Beer and Guns like a Barry Bonds homer into the Bay.

Guys--it's not the question of whether or not WP is a chemical weapon when used on personnel. It's not whether the US ought to use such weapons, or how they choose to use them. It's the hypocrisy.

The US is charged with using WP as a chemical weapon on enemy personnel when one of the conventions the government signed said that we wouldn't. First, the military denies having done so, and then when it's pointed out (by members of said military, I might add) that they did, they reply with "well, it's not really a chemical weapon." Now, we discover that our very own government called it a chemical weapon when Saddam Hussein used it in the very same way we did. So how is it that WP is a chemical weapon when Saddam uses it, but not when we use it?

I really don't know how I can make it any simpler for you apologists out there--that's the issue. How does the use of WP go from being a chemical weapon in Saddam's hands to not a chemical weapon in ours? Answer that, if you can.


Here's a twist for you then.

If you believe that WP is a chemical weapon - and you have insisted very, very vehemently that it most certainly is - then we have found the WMD (chemical weapons) that Saddam had - there are literally millions of WP shells in the Baghdad area alone - they are as common as cherry stones.

I'm not an apologist - I had no problem with Saddam using WP unless it was in violation of agreements that his government had signed.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

The whole idea of "legal" and "illegal" weapons has always been a point of discussion, controversy, and disagreement for a while.

Not just on WP. And, as indicated in the following presentation, mostly for political or economic reasons - not for real humanitarian reasons:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001smallarms/parks2.pdf

And then there's this (no copyright issue - this was released by the Pentagon):
MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, UNITED STATES ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

SUBJECT: Sniper Use of Open-Tip Ammunition

DATE: 23 September 1985

1. Summary.

This memorandum considers whether United States Army Snipers may employ match-grade, "open-tip" ammunition in combat or other special missions. It concludes that such ammunition does not violate the law of war obligations of the United States, and may be employed in peacetime or wartime missions of the Army.
2. Background.

Sierra MatchKing 168-grain match grade boat tail For more than a decade two bullets have been available for use by the United States Army Marksmanship Unit in match competition in its 7.62mm rifles. The M118 is a 173-grain match grade full metal jacket boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet, while the M852 is the Sierra MatchKing 168-grain match grade boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet with an open tip. Although the accuracy of the M118 has been reasonably good, though at times erratic, independent bullet comparisons by the Army, Marine Corps, and National Guard marksmanship training units have established unequivocally the superior accuracy of the M852. Army tests noted a 36% improvement in accuracy with the M852 at 300 meters, and a 32% improvement at 600 yds; Marine Corps figures were twenty-eight percent accuracy improvement at 300 m, and 20% at 600yds. The National Guard determined that the M852 provided better bullet groups at 200 and 600 yards under all conditions than did the M118. [FNa1]

The 168-grain MatchKing was designed in the late 1950's for 300 m. shooting in international rifle matches. In its competitive debut, it was used by the 1st place winner at the 1959 Pan American Games. In the same caliber but in its various bullet lengths, the MatchKing has set a number of international records. To a range of 600 m., the superiority of the accuracy of the M852 cannot be matched, and led to the decision by U.S. military marksmanship training units to use the M852 in competition.

A 1980 opinion of this office concluded that use of the M852 in match competition would not violate law of war obligations of the United States. (citation omitted) Further tests and actual competition over the past decade have confirmed the superiority of the M852 over the M118 and other match grade bullets. For example, at the national matches held at Camp Perry, OH in 1983, a new Wimbledon record of 2--015 X's was set using the 168-gr. MatchKing. This level of performance lead to the question of whether the M852 could be used by military snipers in peacetime or wartime missions of the Army.

During the period in which this review was conducted, the 180-gr. MatchKing (for which there is no military designation) also was tested with a view to increased accuracy over the M852 at very long ranges. Because two bullet weights were under consideration, the term "MatchKing" will be used hereinafter to refer to the generic design rather than to a bullet of a particular weight. The fundamental question to be addressed by this review is whether an open-tip bullet of MatchKing design may be used in combat.
3. Legal Factors.

The principal provision relating to the legality of weapons is contained in Art. 23e of the Annex to Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907, which prohibits the employment of "arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury." In some law of war treatises, the term "unnecessary suffering" is used rather than "superfluous injury." The terms are regarded as synonymous. To emphasize this, Art. 35, para. 2 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, states in part that "It is prohibited to employ weapons [and] projectiles . . . of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." Although the U.S. has made the formal decision that for military, political, and humanitarian reasons it will not become a party to Protocol I, U.S. officials have taken the position that the language of Art. 35(2) of Protocol I as quoted is a codification of customary international law, and therefore binding upon all nations. The terms "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" have not been formally defined within international law. In determining whether a weapon or projectile causes unnecessary suffering, a balancing test is applied between the force dictated by military necessity to achieve a legitimate objective vis-à-vis suffering that may be considered superfluous to achievement of that intended objective. The test is not easily applied. For this reason, the degree of "superfluous" injury must be clearly disproportionate to the intended objectives for development and employment of the weapon, that is, it must outweigh substantially the military necessity for the weapon system or projectile. The fact that a weapon causes suffering does not lead to the conclusion that the weapon causes unnecessary suffering, or is illegal per se. Military necessity dictates that weapons of war lead to death, injury, and destruction; the act of combatants killing or wounding enemy combatants in combat is a legitimate act under the law of war. In this regard, there is an incongruity in the law of war in that while it is legally permissible to kill an enemy combatant, incapacitation must not result inevitably in unnecessary suffering. What is prohibited is the design (or modification) and employment of a weapon for the purpose of increasing or causing suffering beyond that required by military necessity. In conducting the balancing test necessary to determine a weapon's legality, the effects of a weapon cannot be viewed in isolation. They must be examined against comparable weapons in use on the modern battlefield, and the military necessity for the weapon or projectile under consideration. In addition to the basic prohibition on unnecessary suffering contained in Art. 23e of the 1907 Hague IV, one other treaty is germane to this review. The Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets of 29 July 1899 prohibits the use in international armed conflict:

". . . of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions."

The U.S. is not a party to this treaty, but U.S. officials over the years have taken the position that the armed forces of the U.S. will adhere to its terms to the extent that its application is consistent with the object and purpose of Art. 23e of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, quoted above.

It is within the context of these two treaties that questions regarding the legality of the employment of the MatchKing "open tip" bullet must be considered.
4. Bullet Description.

As previously described, the MatchKing is a boat tail, ogival spitzer tip bullet with open tip. The "open tip" is a shallow aperture (approximately the diameter of the wire in a standard size straight pin or paper clip) in the nose of the bullet. While sometimes described as a "hollow point," this is a mischaracterization in law of war terms. Generally a "hollow point" bullet is thought of in terms of its ability to expand on impact with soft tissue. Physical examination of the MatchKing "open tip" bullet reveals that its opening is extremely small in comparison to the aperture in comparable hollow point hunting bullets; for example, the 165-grain GameKing is a true hollow point boat tail bullet with an aperture substantially greater than the MatchKing, and skiving (serrations cut into the jacket) to insure expansion. In the MatchKing, the open tip is closed as much as possible to provide better aerodynamics, and contains no skiving. The lead core of the MatchKing bullet is entirely covered by the bullet jacket. While the GameKing bullet is designed to bring the ballistic advantages of a match bullet to long range hunting, the manufacturer expressly recommends against the use of the MatchKing for hunting game of any size because it does not have the expansion characteristics of a hunting bullet.

The purpose of the small, shallow aperture in the MatchKing is to provide a bullet design offering maximum accuracy at very long ranges, rolling the jacket of the bullet around its core from base to tip; standard military bullets and other match bullets roll the jacket around its core from tip to base, leaving an exposed lead core at its base. Design purpose of the MatchKing was not to produce a bullet that would expand or flatten easily on impact with the human body, or otherwise cause wounds greater than those caused by standard military small arms ammunition.
5. MatchKing performance.

Other than its superior long range marksmanship capabilities, the MatchKing was examined with regard to its performance on impact with the human body or in artificial material that approximates human soft tissue. It was determined that the bullet will break up or fragment in some cases at some point following entry into soft tissue. Whether fragmentation occurs will depend upon a myriad of variables, to include range to the target, velocity at the time of impact, degree of yaw of the bullet at the point of impact, or the distance traveled point-first within the body before yaw is induced. The MatchKing has not been designed to yaw intentionally or to break up on impact. These characteristics are common to all military rifle bullets. There was little discernible difference in bullet fragmentation between the MatchKing and other military small arms bullets, with some military ball ammunition of foreign manufacture tending to fragment sooner in human tissue or to a greater degree, resulting in wounds that would be more severe than those caused by the MatchKing. [FNaaa1]

Because of concern over the potential mischaracterization of the M852 as a "hollow point" bullet that might violate the purpose and intent of the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets, some M852 MatchKing bullets were modified to close the aperture. The "closed tip" MatchKing did not measure up to the accuracy of the "open tip" MatchKing.

Other match grade bullets were tested. While some could approach the accuracy standards of the MatchKing in some lots, quality control was uneven, leading to erratic results. No other match grade bullet consistently could meet the accuracy of the open-tip bullet.
6. Law of War Application.

From both a legal and medical standpoint, the lethality or incapacitation effects of a particular small-caliber projectile must be measured against comparable projectiles in service. In the military small arms field, "small caliber" generally includes all rifle projectiles up to and including .60 caliber (15mm). For the purposes of this review, however, comparison will be limited to small-caliber ammunition in the range of 5.45mm to 7.62mm, that is, that currently in use in assault or sniper rifles by the military services of most nations.

Wound ballistic research over the past fifteen years has determined that the prohibition contained in the 1899 Hague Declaration is of minimal to no value, inasmuch as virtually all jacketed military bullets employed since 1899 with pointed ogival spitzer tip shape have a tendency to fragment on impact with soft tissue, harder organs, bone or the clothing and/or equipment worn by the individual soldier.

The pointed ogival spitzer tip, shared by all modern military bullets, reflects the balancing by nations of the criteria of military necessity and unnecessary suffering: its streamlined shape decreases air drag, allowing the bullet to retain velocity better for improved long-range performance; a modern military 7.62mm bullet will lose only about one-third of its muzzle velocity over 500 yards, while the same weight bullet with a round-nose shape will lose more than one-half of its velocity over the same distance. Yet the pointed ogival spitzer tip shape also leads to greater bullet breakup, and potentially greater injury to the soldier by such a bullet vis-à-vis a round-nose full-metal jacketed bullet. (See Dr. M. L. Fackler, "Wounding Patterns for Military Rifle Bullets," International Defense Review, January 1989, pp. 56-64, at 63.)

Weighing the increased performance of the pointed ogival spitzer tip bullet against the increased injury its breakup may bring, the nations of the world-- through almost a century of practice--have concluded that the need for the former outweighs concern for the latter, and does not result in unnecessary suffering as prohibited by the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets or article 23e of the 1907 Hague Convention IV. The 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets remains valid for expression of the principle that a nation may not employ a bullet that expands easily on impact for the purpose of unnecessarily aggravating the wound inflicted upon an enemy soldier. Such a bullet also would be prohibited by article 23e of the 1907 Hague IV, however. Another concept fundamental to the law of war is the principle of discrimination, that is, utilization of means or methods that distinguish to the extent possible legitimate targets, such as enemy soldiers, from noncombatants, whether enemy wounded and sick, medical personnel, or innocent civilians. The highly trained military sniper with his special rifle and match grade ammunition epitomizes the principle of discrimination. In combat, most targets are covered or obscured, move unpredictably, and as a consequence are exposed to hostile fire for limited periods of time. When coupled with the level of marksmanship training provided the average soldier and the stress of combat, a soldier's aiming errors are large and hit probability is correspondingly low. While the M16A2 rifle currently used by the United States Army and Marine Corps is capable of acceptable accuracy out to six hundred meters, the probability of an average soldier hitting an enemy soldier at three hundred meters is ten percent.

Statistics from past wars suggest that this probability figure may be optimistic. In Would War II, the United States and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per soldier; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier. The risk to noncombatants is apparent.

In contrast, United States Army and Marine Corps snipers in the Vietnam War expended 1.3 rounds of ammunition for each claimed and verified kill, at an average range of six hundred yards, or almost twice the three hundred meters cited above for combat engagements by the average soldier. Some verified kills were at ranges in excess of 1000 yards. This represents discrimination and military efficiency of the highest order, as well as minimization of risk to noncombatants. Utilization of a bullet that increases accuracy, such as the MatchKing, would further diminish the risk to noncombatants.
7. Conclusion.

The purpose of the 7.62mm "open-tip" MatchKing bullet is to provide maximum accuracy at very long range. Like most 5.56mm and 7.62mm military ball bullets, it may fragment upon striking its target, although the probability of its fragmentation is not as great as some military ball bullets currently in use by some nations. Bullet fragmentation is not a design characteristic, however, nor a purpose for use of the MatchKing by United State Army snipers. Wounds caused by MatchKing ammunition are similar to those caused by a fully jacketed military ball bullet, which is legal under the law of war, when compared at the same ranges and under the same conditions. The military necessity for its use-- its ability to offer maximum accuracy at very long ranges--is complemented by the high degree of discriminate fire it offers in the hands of a trained sniper. It not only meets, but exceeds, the law of war obligations of the United States for use in combat.

This opinion has been coordinated with the Department of State, Army General Counsel, and the Offices of the Judge Advocates General of the Navy and Air Force, who concur with its contents and conclusions.

An opinion that reaches the same conclusion has been issued simultaneously for the Navy and Marine Corps by The Judge Advocate General of the Navy.

Authored by W. Hays Parks, Colonel, USMC,
Chief of the JAG's International Law Branch

I did search first. I can't find any mass slaughters by U.S. troops using WP anywhere. And you'll notice I didn't post 50 times DEMANDING sources.

I just asked. Once. After I looked.


"Mass slaughter" may be an overstatement, but since I didn't make it I'm not to worried about it.

However, you have to look no further than the US Army's Field Artillery Magazine (http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf) for documentation on the deliberate use of WP as a weapon rather than as illumination. They called them "Shake and Bake" missions.

"WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and . . . against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

This was also documented by an embedded reporter (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt)


"they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."

"Mass slaughter" may be an overstatement, but since I didn't make it I'm not to worried about it.

However, you have to look no further than the US Army's Field Artillery Magazine (http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf) for documentation on the deliberate use of WP as a weapon rather than as illumination. They called them "Shake and Bake" missions.

This was also documented by an embedded reporter (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt)

As long as the targets are insurgents, it's completely legal.

You will note that the Iraqi government is investigating allegations that it was used against non-combatant civilians - they could care less if insurgents were killed that way.

It's a stretch to call WP a "chemical weapon". People only do so when they want to make their opponent look bad.

If they don't use WP, then you get them for using cluster munitions.

If they don't use cluster munitions, then you get them for using rifle ammunition that is unstable (nearly all rifle ammunition is unstable on impact).

Silli, it's a PR job - your opponent can't fight you directly without being wiped out, so they fight in the court of world opinion, and seek to disarm you completely.

No matter how far you comply with the Hague Conventions (or other Conventions), people will say, "even though you are complying with the letter of your treaty agreements, you should be complying with the "spirit" (completely undefined) of the Conventions.

We're already complying with our treaty agreements as far as WP goes.

You won't be happy until the US doesn't have any weapons at all. Ever see anyone die of a bayonet wound? I'd rather burn to death...


Talk about a PR job.

However, the only point I was making is that the use of WP was included as part of the "documented use of Chemical Weapons of the Kurds" that is still so often used as an excuse for the war.

Now, either the use of WP is or is not a violation of treaty. If it is not, of course, then the accusations against Saddam for atrocities get significantly degraded, so people still talk about his use of WMD against the Kurds without mentioning this fundamental detail - but excuse the same by the US.


The point being that people are trying to have it both ways. In other words - being hipocrites.

As long as the targets are insurgents, it's completely legal.


So given that the Pentagon report clearly documents it's use against an increased Kurdish insurgency, then it was completely legal and so should not have been cause for complaint.

correct?

Or, as I was alluding to, is it only legal against insurgents targetting the CURRENT Iraqi security forces?

You see Kimchi, I'm not passing judgement one way or the other.


I'm just saying "Stop being fucking hypocrites"

So given that the Pentagon report clearly documents it's use against an increased Kurdish insurgency, then it was completely legal and so should not have been cause for complaint.

correct?

Or, as I was alluding to, is it only legal against insurgents targetting the CURRENT Iraqi security forces?

When you wake up and realize that these reports and allegations are used merely as PR fodder, and realize that under OUR treaty obligations, even a "shake and bake" mission is completely legal, then you'll understand.

As long as you maintain that "international law" is something you can pull out of thin air and claim we have to follow "the spirit" of a treaty, you're going to have this sort of trouble.

We would have to look into Saddam's treaty obligations to know the answer to your question. It's perfectly legal for us to burn insurgents alive with WP.

BTW, WP is such a poor killer of troops in the open that you have to fire HE or more commonly, ICM shells in there right after the WP bursts.

WP works in a "shake and bake" because poorly disciplined troops panic because of the smoke and burning bits that fall (about as fast as snowflakes). I've been in such a burst, and unless the shell bursts right next to you, the only thing that will kill you is panic.

Untrained insurgents panic in a WP cloud, and begin what I call "milling about". It's what troops do when they panic. Now that they are standing up in the open, the ICM shells land, the bomblets scatter and bounce to waist high, and they get their balls blown off.

Very, very effective. And although there might be a corpse or two that eventually looks burned, that's hardly what killed them. They were eviscerated by thousands of fragments of notched wire in a blizzard of bomblet detonations.

If you think that WP is hideous, and evil, and shouldn't be used, I suggest you take a look at people killed by ICM - which is also perfectly legal, and comprises 80 percent of all artillery ammunition fired.

You see Kimchi, I'm not passing judgement one way or the other.

I'm just saying "Stop being fucking hypocrites"

You might want to tell the rest of the world to stop, too.

Germany uses a disposable phosphorus incendiary weapon at the individual infantry level.

Russia has them too, along with flamethrowers, thermobaric rounds, etc.

France and Italy use thermobaric rounds.

I'm not being a hypocrite - I only want to hold people to the standards of things they signed - not tell them to comply with "the spirit" - which means that I can keep moving that goalpost no matter how nice they are.

Still completely missing the point I see.....

Except that your notion of variable goalposts by which to judge others in contradiction to how you judge yourself.


Which is to say, hypocritical intellectual dishonesty.....

I know that you only want to play politics rather than examine things from a realistic perspective, and that is certainly your right. And within a political environment it is how things get sold to the masses.


Just as pointing out the fact that your side can't seem to put together a solid argument WITHOUT resorting to hypocricy is my right.

So, to summarize the points that we are in agreement with:

1) Use of WP against insurgents by Iraq was documented by the Pentagon and used as part of the list of Iraqi atrocities.

2) Use of WP against insurgents by the US was documented and is pooh-poohed as being within the letter of the law.


And your summation:

3a) Hypocricy is okey-dokey if it can further your agenda.

And mine:

3b) Hypocricy is fun to point out in your opponents because they get all huffy and blustery about it as they come up with their excuses.


Hey, it's what won GW the election wasn;t it? The "flip-flopper" label?


clear enough? Did I miss anything?

But it's been fun watching you get all huffy! :D

Still completely missing the point I see.....

Nope, you're missing mine.
Except that your notion of variable goalposts by which to judge others in contradiction to how you judge yourself.

Which is to say, hypocritical intellectual dishonesty.....

You will notice that the whole world does it. As in your case, you want to say that the mere use of WP is illegal - when we are completely fulfilling our treaty obligations. So you're moving the goalpost.

I know that you only want to play politics rather than examine things from a realistic perspective, and that is certainly your right. And within a political environment it is how things get sold to the masses.
That's the only reason you brought the subject up - to play politics.


1) Use of WP against insurgents by Iraq was documented by the Pentagon and used as part of the list of Iraqi atrocities.
And I could care less - unless you can show that Iraq was violating any treaty obligations.

2) Use of WP against insurgents by the US was documented and is pooh-poohed as being within the letter of the law.
Would you rather we not follow the law? Or would you rather we follow our treaty obligations?


3a) Hypocricy is okey-dokey if it can further your agenda.
It's what everyone is doing - I've listed some hypocrite nations for you.

3b) Hypocricy is fun to point out in your opponents because they get all huffy and blustery about it as they come up with their excuses.
It's all part of the political game - and when I was a soldier on the ground, I could care less about inane political hay-making sessions - it struck me as complete bullshit manufacturing by people who wished they were in charge and who felt impotent at being unwilling and unable to change events on the ground.


But it's been fun watching you get all huffy! :D

If I'm huffy, it's because you're not paying attention to what I've been saying.

Isn't it interesting that in all other matters you take the international community's and the UN's word over the Bush administrations, but when it comes to defining WP as a chemical weapon the lying, cheating, fact-distorting Bush administration is correct?

It seems you're just trying to smear America's armed forces, and you're willing to back up a Bush administration distortion to do it. Yay for playing the politics of bigotry.

Isn't it interesting that in all other matters you take the international community's and the UN's word over the Bush administrations, but when it comes to defining WP as a chemical weapon the lying, cheating, fact-distorting Bush administration is correct?

It seems you're just trying to smear America's armed forces, and you're willing to back up a Bush administration distortion to do it. Yay for playing the politics of bigotry.

It's not bigotry if a Republican opponent does it!

:D Rest assured that CH is on your side, my friend.

my mistake

Isn't it interesting that in all other matters you take the international community's and the UN's word over the Bush administrations, but when it comes to defining WP as a chemical weapon the lying, cheating, fact-distorting Bush administration is correct?

It seems you're just trying to smear America's armed forces, and you're willing to back up a Bush administration distortion to do it. Yay for playing the politics of bigotry.


No, the point I am making is simple: In 1995 the Pentagon called it a Chemical Weapon when Iraq used it.

In 2005 the Pentagon does NOT call it a CW when THEY use it.

I am NOT referencing any UN documentation nor other extraneous sources. I am not stating any opinion at all as to if it is or is not a CW.


I am simply pointing out the inconsistency in how the Pentagon describes the use of WP against insurgents - seemingly entirely dependant on who is the one using it. In the context of the greater documentation regarding the validity of the intelligence and how it was presented in the push to war, these sorts of inconsistencies may or may not be relevant. In the contet of the investigation into it's use in Falluja, that - as Kimchi pints out - is more restricted to WHERE it was used as on who.


But fact-checking, finding such inconsistencies and publicizing them does, I think, help to try and keep governments as close to honest as you might hope for..... which probably isn't all that much.

Nope, you're missing mine.

You will notice that the whole world does it. As in your case, you want to say that the mere use of WP is illegal - when we are completely fulfilling our treaty obligations. So you're moving the goalpost.


Point to where I said that.

It's what everyone is doing - I've listed some hypocrite nations for you.


Yes, you have good company. That doesn't excuse the practice though nor will it diminish my attempts to try and keep governments as honest as I can.

If I'm huffy, it's because you're not paying attention to what I've been saying.

The thing is that you get huffy too easily. You just HAVE to jump in knee-jerk to defend the hypocricy while pointing your fingers at others.

Fine - others are hypocrites. Granted. Big Time!


Just like you.

Fine - others are hypocrites. Granted. Big Time!

Just like you.

I'm not the one saying that Iraq had illegally used WP - maybe that was the Pentagon, but it wasn't me.

So show me where I'm a hypocrite.

I'm not the one saying that Iraq had illegally used WP - maybe that was the Pentagon, but it wasn't me.

So show me where I'm a hypocrite.

Well HELLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO KIMCHI!


Now then, what do you think the point of the thread was?

WAs it "KIMCHI called WP a weapon when Saddam used it?"


No.


Was it "The PENTAGON called WP a CW?"


*buzzers, bells, and flashing lights*

Yes - you win the prize!!!!

The thread *gasp* was about ..... the PENTAGON! And NOT YOU!


Geee, now wouldn't it have been simpler if I just put that in the title?


Oh wait....


:rolleyes: :headbang: :rolleyes:

The thread *gasp* was about ..... the PENTAGON! And NOT YOU!



I see what your problem is. Pronoun trouble. Let's try that again.

Then why did you say "Just like you."

You is a personal pronoun. You could have said, "Just like the Pentagon" or "Just like the US Government" or "Just like Bush".

Oooohhhhh, it's to be a debate on semantics now.

How fun!

Is it your new mission to sidetrack EVERY thread from the actual point of it into side-issues or personality conflicts?

Oooohhhhh, it's to be a debate on semantics now.

How fun!

Is it your new mission to sidetrack EVERY thread from the actual point of it into side-issues or personality conflicts?

No, I just spent the better half of this morning's posts (and indeed most people seem to post this way) trying to understand why people apply ethics, morality, and the personal pronoun to me.

I'm not sidetracking it - you need to use definite articles instead of unreferenced pronouns.

Maybe I should make it even more clear.

You seem to think that I'm defending the Pentagon's statements, even though I have stated repeatedly that I am not.

I am defending their own use of WP, which is legal under our treaty obligations and its conditions of use.

I could care less if Saddam used it - but if you want to say it's a chemical weapon, then we've found millions of rounds of it in Iraq - guess he did have "chemical weapons" all along, eh?

DK, Silli, you two are adressing different issues! You are both arguing different arguments, but arguing them at each other!

Silli is saying that the government is being hypocritical on WP.

DK is saying that it is not a chemical weapon that should be banned.

DK never said the gov wasn't hypocritical.

Silli never said it is a chemical weapon that should be banned.

You two have nothing to fight about! You're just talking at each other! And not even about the same thing.

DK, Silli, you two are adressing different issues! You are both arguing different arguments, but arguing them at each other!

Silli is saying that the government is being hypocritical on WP.

DK is saying that it is not a chemical weapon that should be banned.

DK never said the gov wasn't hypocritical.

Silli never said it is a chemical weapon that should be banned.

You two have nothing to fight about! You're just talking at each other! And not even about the same thing.

Silli and I do this all the time - please move along...

Maybe I should make it even more clear.

You seem to think that I'm defending the Pentagon's statements, even though I have stated repeatedly that I am not.

I am defending their own use of WP, which is legal under our treaty obligations and its conditions of use.

I could care less if Saddam used it - but if you want to say it's a chemical weapon, then we've found millions of rounds of it in Iraq - guess he did have "chemical weapons" all along, eh?

Now you're being facetious. WP's status as a dual-use item has also been described by you - especially insofar as you have already indicated that the issue of using WP against civillians is a legitimate line of inquiry for the Iraqi government.

Having WP is not deemed to be possession of CW under treaty, however it's use MAY be deemed to have been used as such under certain circumstances.

Owning a baseball bat is legal. Using it for it's original purpose is also legal. Using it upside your neighbours head is probably not.

I haven't adressed the issue at all of the legality of WP use against insurgents except insofar as to point out that the Pentagon seems to have a hypocritical stance on it.

The stance becomes even muddier if you were to read Chapter 5, section III of the G4 Battle Book published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas which clearly states:


“It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.”


But again, this thread is not about that. It is about the hipocricy.

But again, this thread is not about that. It is about the hipocricy.

I believe I've already said that I don't care about the hypocrisy, because it doesn't matter.

Especially to the people on the ground.

Isn't it interesting that in all other matters you take the international community's and the UN's word over the Bush administrations, but when it comes to defining WP as a chemical weapon the lying, cheating, fact-distorting Bush administration is correct?

It seems you're just trying to smear America's armed forces, and you're willing to back up a Bush administration distortion to do it. Yay for playing the politics of bigotry.

Yeah, because it's like not the troops are doing the bidding of the liars, cheaters and fact-distorters - they're completely innocent saints.

The point here is: "It's not wrong to use WP when the US uses it, but it is wrong when Saddam does." This should come as a surprise to none, really - this sort of double standard is what the US and the West are infamous for. It's just fun to see the apologists claim it doesn't matter that our principles are so easily betrayed in wars we claim to be fighting for said principles.

Yeah, because it's like not the troops are doing the bidding of the liars, cheaters and fact-distorters - they're completely innocent saints.

The point here is: "It's not wrong to use WP when the US uses it, but it is wrong when Saddam does." This should come as a surprise to none, really - this sort of double standard is what the US and the West are infamous for.

Ahem... what most of the world is infamous for, as I have pointed out previously in the thread.

Ahem... what most of the world is infamous for, as I have pointed out previously in the thread.

The rest of the world doesn't claim to be the beacons on the hill we're supposed be. I hold the West to a much higher standard because of it, and the misbehaviour of others is not an excuse for betraying the principles we say we fight our wars for.

This is just a nice example of particularly apparent BS coming from self-proclaimed fighters for freedom and democracy and whatnot - "hmm, WP really isn't that bad," when it clearly was so bad when it was being used in the ever so copious "but Saddam was mean to the kurds (with the weapons we gave him, while we willingly looked the other way, but hush, hush about that, we're the good guys, remember!)" propaganda used to post-factly motivate the war, when the imaginary status of the WMD was unearthed/told-you-so'd.

I believe I've already said that I don't care about the hypocrisy, because it doesn't matter.

Especially to the people on the ground.



Oddly enough, it's relevance to you was not part of my decision-making process when it came to making this thread. Nor, frankly, do I consider you to be the final arbitrer of what things "matter".

But damn you've spent a lot of time discussing something that you claim not to care about!

The rest of the world doesn't claim to be the beacons on the hill we're supposed be. I hold the West to a much higher standard because of it, and the misbehaviour of others is not an excuse for betraying the principles we say we fight our wars for.

This is just a nice example of particularly apparent BS coming from self-proclaimed fighters for freedom and democracy and whatnot - "hmm, WP really isn't that bad," when it clearly was so bad when it was being used in the ever so copious "but Saddam was mean to the kurds (with the weapons we gave him, while we willingly looked the other way, but hush, hush about that, we're the good guys, remember!)" propaganda used to post-factly motivate the war, when the imaginary status of the WMD was unearthed/told-you-so'd.

When France, Italy, the UK, Russia, and China stop selling and using flame and thermobaric weapons, give me a call. Until then, those nations must also be lumped into the "beacon on the hill" because they seem the most inclined to cricitize the US on matters like these. As far as I'm concerned, they're engaged in a lot of pot-kettle-black.

But damn you've spent a lot of time discussing something that you claim not to care about!

I enjoy it, that's why.

One of my friends was trying to tell me "Dude, the people who say that US forces used phosphorus on people in Iraq are dumbasses! They used it for light!"


And I responded, fairly calmly actually, "You didn't hear about the thousands of bodies which had been reduced to burnt flesh and bone? You didn't hear about the bodies of not just soldiers, but women, children, even babies which were found in this condition? Maybe you need to read a bit more. *coughdumbasscough*"


No, wrong you. The weapons no kill anyone. Hurt them. Owe.

No documented case of anyone dying due to phosphorus use (as in the only cause) by the United States forces in Iraq. The bodies shown by an Italian State Television Report which originally published the story were, if looked closely, not a result of phosphorus use. The bodies were reportedly taken after the offensive, however the people behind the documentary, many of which have yet to come forward, refuses to show other proof of the death of civilians due to phosphorus weapons.

Although it is possible, the "death toll" as a result of the weapons, is over exaggerated and smells of "documentaries" such as Michele Moore's Bowling for Columbine, although a bit more jaded and biased.

When France, Italy, the UK, Russia, and China stop selling and using flame and thermobaric weapons, give me a call. Until then, those nations must also be lumped into the "beacon on the hill" because they seem the most inclined to cricitize the US on matters like these. As far as I'm concerned, they're engaged in a lot of pot-kettle-black.

Which part of "we in the West" and "our wars" did you miss? Europe is no exemption - the same bull is applied here. But, again, the misbehaviour of others does not take away from the misbehaviours of someone else. The only thing that can be done here is to stop pretending that WP isn't so bad, and just acknowledge that the principles of the West are not as shiny as we like to think of them, and that indeed, we are fucking hypocrites, and that the circumference of our halos divided with their diameter won't return pi.

The apologism that is "this doesn't matter" or "look, China and Russia do it, because we use fucking China and Russia as moral standards by which we measure ourselves, when in fact we claimed this was bad when Saddam was doing it" just simply doesn't fly.

...
It's just fun to see the apologists claim it doesn't matter that our principles are so easily betrayed in wars we claim to be fighting for said principles.

Who's "We," Nordic Boy? I don't see a whole lot of Swedes fighting for principles in the middle east (on either side).

Which part of "we in the West" and "our wars" did you miss? Europe is no exemption - the same bull is applied here. But, again, the misbehaviour of others does not take away from the misbehaviours of someone else. The only thing that can be done here is to stop pretending that WP isn't so bad, and just acknowledge that the principles of the West are not as shiny as we like to think of them, and that indeed, we are fucking hypocrites, and that the circumference of our halos divided with their diameter won't return pi.

The apologism that is "this doesn't matter" or "look, China and Russia do it, because we use fucking China and Russia as moral standards by which we measure ourselves, when in fact we claimed this was bad when Saddam was doing it" just simply doesn't fly.

Technically, unless the US deliberately used it against unarmed civilians, they are not in violation of their own treaty agreements.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I do not care for moral arguments, especially when it comes to international politics - it's a one way ticket to moving the goalposts for strictly political reasons - not for any real sense of outrage.

If you don't like the use of WP, then get every nation to sign off on "We'll Never Use WP Again!" and "No Flame Weapons or Thermobaric Weapons that fry your skin off before blowing you into kebabs!"

Until then, don't expect the US or the West to "lead the way".

As far as I'm concerned, the day that the UN put Syria on the Human Rights Commission was the day the world announced that it didn't give a flying hoot about any standards of morality.

Technically, unless the US deliberately used it against unarmed civilians, they are not in violation of their own treaty agreements.

No, they just betrayed their own principles and exposed what everyone already knows: The good guys aren't so good, but like to pretend they are.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I do not care for moral arguments, especially when it comes to international politics - it's a one way ticket to moving the goalposts for strictly political reasons - not for any real sense of outrage.

If you don't like the use of WP, then get every nation to sign off on "We'll Never Use WP Again!" and "No Flame Weapons or Thermobaric Weapons that fry your skin off before blowing you into kebabs!"

Until then, don't expect the US or the West to "lead the way".

Of course, never mind this was despicable when someone else did it. No, it's apparently easily excused when the right person does it in name of whatever catchphrase is used today to buff the ego.

As far as I'm concerned, the day that the UN put Syria on the Human Rights Commission was the day the world announced that it didn't give a flying hoot about any standards of morality.

Ah, yes, because it's not like the member nations of the UN vote for those positions, and the UN itself doesn't appoint them (or can do something it's member nations don't want it to do, or can withstand something they want), because it's so much easier to pretend that it is the UN itself to blame and not the member nations for crippling it with votes such as these, or vetos aimed at undermining it, and to pretend this is in any way relevant to the US using a weapon they claimed was something horrid and barbaric when Saddam used it, but then completely not-so-bad, and acceptable, and apologisable when it itself did it.

If you don't like the use of WP, then get every nation to sign off on "We'll Never Use WP Again!" and "No Flame Weapons or Thermobaric Weapons that fry your skin off before blowing you into kebabs!"

Until then, don't expect the US or the West to "lead the way".

So... get every ass-backward nation to sign it first and then, and only then, will the West and the US lead the way..?

Sounds like we shouldn't be exporting 'freedom/all the niceties' if we aren't even willing to act like examples, right?

So... get every ass-backward nation to sign it first and then, and only then, will the West and the US lead the way..?

Sounds like we shouldn't be exporting 'freedom' if we aren't even willing to act like examples, right?

And who appointed us the example?

Who's "We," Nordic Boy? I don't see a whole lot of Swedes fighting for principles in the middle east (on either side).

*sigh* Reading comprehension has never been your forte Greenlander, so I will not expect you to understand why I used "we" when I was referring to the nations of the West as a community, but here is a hint: Get an atlas.

And who appointed us the example?
I honestly thought WE did.

I honestly thought WE did.

Consider the fact that we use it on armed insurgents and not, as a matter of principle, on hordes of unarmed people, as a shining example.

Consider the fact that we got rid of flamethrowers long before Germany got rid of their HAFLA hand-held people roaster a shining example. We got rid of ours and the Russians still use the RPO and LPO flame weapons to burn people alive in Chechnya - right now.

The standard of performance in the world is SO LOW that we don't have to be terribly nice to be a shining example.

Consider the fact that we use it on armed insurgents and not, as a matter of principle, on hordes of unarmed people, as a shining example.

Consider the fact that we got rid of flamethrowers long before Germany got rid of their HAFLA hand-held people roaster a shining example. We got rid of ours and the Russians still use the RPO and LPO flame weapons to burn people alive in Chechnya - right now.

The standard of performance in the world is SO LOW that we don't have to be terribly nice to be a shining example.
Sure. I'm considering all that. Russia might be using those weapons as we speak. So may USA. France? Germany? I don't think so. Would they, if there was a chance? possibly - but they aren't now. I mean, I wouldn't use Russia as an example of anything exept for a failure - certainly not as an example of the western behaviour... but USA using them in late days of 2005?!?

The Battle of Fallujah was conducted from 8 to 20 November 2004 with the last fire mission on 17 November. The battle was fought by an Army, Marine and Iraqi force of about 15,000 under the I Marine Expeditionary Force (IMEF). US forces found WP to be useful in the Battle of Fallujah. "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. ... We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions."

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by 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.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm

*sigh* Reading comprehension has never been your forte Greenlander, so I will not expect you to understand why I used "we" when I was referring to the nations of the West as a community, but here is a hint: Get an atlas.


*Got Atlas - looked it up, still doesn't see many Swedes fighting for principles*

*Got Atlas - looked it up, still doesn't see many Swedes fighting for principles*
Cos you only can fight for principles in Iraq. (possibly with phosphorous rounds... Come on ye Swedes!)

Cos you only can fight for principles in Iraq. (possibly with phosphorous rounds... Come on ye Swedes!)

:p

How can they say "we," when they didn't even join NATO... Before it was, "Eww eww, the soviets won't like it so we won't do it :eek: But now it's because, we don't 'want' to be a part of you. Then so be it.

*Got Atlas - looked it up, still doesn't see many Swedes fighting for principles*

Yeah, it's not like Swedish forces are in, among others, Afghanistan. (http://www.mil.se/int/)

But of course, your reading comprehension problem seems to have manifested itself again with the apparent inability to understand "referring to the nations of the West as a community."

Here's a twist for you then.

If you believe that WP is a chemical weapon - and you have insisted very, very vehemently that it most certainly is - then we have found the WMD (chemical weapons) that Saddam had - there are literally millions of WP shells in the Baghdad area alone - they are as common as cherry stones.

I'm not an apologist - I had no problem with Saddam using WP unless it was in violation of agreements that his government had signed.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I have insisted no such thing. In case you hadn't noticed, this is the first time I've ventured into this debate, largely because I don't know very much about the field. I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in the arguments thus far. I don't believe WP is generally considered a chemical weapon, nor should it be from the little I've garnered from this entire discussion. My point is that if the US government engaged in hyperbole earlier when accusing Saddam, then they ought not get twisted when it gets turned on them later.

:p

How can they say "we," when they didn't even join NATO... Before it was, "Eww eww, the soviets won't like it so we won't do it :eek: But now it's because, we don't 'want' to be a part of you. Then so be it.
Maybe you are confusing Sweden with Finland? For the Finns it might have been impossible to join NATO ten to thirty years ago... with Sweden, I believe it was a choice (correct me if I'm wrong). They chose not to take part, but stay impartial instead. For that they (the citizens of Sweden) can't take part in this NS conversation? Cos they didn't spill blood for this very noble cause in Iraq..?

And yes, if nothing else, they can say "We" as a western country, as pointed out to you before.

Nonsense. The US did not use white phosphorus in Iraq. Michael Moore used it and then made it look like the US used it. The official records show that Michael Moore is to blame. All evidence contrary to this fact was planted by doubleplusungood crimethinkers who are being vaporized as we speak. Remember, Bush is watching you and war is peace.:cool:

I did search first. I can't find any mass slaughters by U.S. troops using WP anywhere. And you'll notice I didn't post 50 times DEMANDING sources.

I just asked. Once. After I looked.
Did you try "white phosphorus fallujah" in Google? Because... there it is.

I posted this over at another forum for military affairs, and there are a few things that appear to have either been missed or misrepresented.

1) It's a report on raw human intelligence. Note that it says: WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE.

2) It's the source of the intelligence (a Kurd on the ground apparantly) and not the DoD that calls it a chemical weapon.

3) The person writting up the report was likely not qualified to correctly
distinguish between
The interrogator that spoke with the source and wrote the report called it a chemical weapon. He would be a 96 series MOS (which is intel) and not a 11, 12, 18, or 19 series, any of which would know that it isn't a chem weapon because they either handle it, fire it, compute how to fire it, or call for someone to fire it. A 96 doesn't do this, which is why you have the erroneous label.
(http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/89-33371.asp)


So, it appears that this is just more of the same confusion and mistakes.

Did you try "white phosphorus fallujah" in Google? Because... there it is.

Zing.

I have insisted no such thing. In case you hadn't noticed, this is the first time I've ventured into this debate, largely because I don't know very much about the field. I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in the arguments thus far. I don't believe WP is generally considered a chemical weapon, nor should it be from the little I've garnered from this entire discussion. My point is that if the US government engaged in hyperbole earlier when accusing Saddam, then they ought not get twisted when it gets turned on them later.

The thing is, the bulk of the Whitehouse PR is exactly what you've described. They've done it from the very beginning, all the while beating the drum that the "other side" is a waffling, flip-flopping mess (which they are, but to a lesser extent than the Bush WH.)

Not to butt in and disrupt the somewhat one-sided debate here, but just to set some things in stone:

1) Whoever thinks that using WP is wrong because it's "immoral" should look at the whole of war first. I'm sure shooting someone in the face is what some people would call immoral, but those bastards want to KILL US before we can kill them. And that's pretty immoral, too. Just a thought.

2) We can't just "pull out." It's not that simple. If we pull out now, terrorist forces will KNOW that it's their chance to move in and claim Iraq, and even Afghanistan, if we retreat from Afghanistan as well. It will cause MUCH more disarray and disorder than there was during the U.S. occupation. (Yes, I did just say that there is disorder in Iraq and Afghanistan. If there wasn't, we wouldn't be there anymore. There's disorder in everything, and there are ALOT of causes, other than a U.S. occupation. Just a warning to anyone planning to put words in my mouth.) We can't just plan to leave and do it. We have to wait until Iraq can establish a stable government and a stable military that can maintain itself as an effective fighting force.

Just some thoughts I though I'd put up here before I head to bed, which I plan on doing right now... so if you want a heated debate, you're gonna have to wait. ;)

Not to butt in and disrupt the one-sided debate here, but just to set some things in stone:

1) Whoever thinks that using WP is wrong because it's "immoral" should look at the whole of war first. I'm sure shooting someone in the face is what some people would call immoral, but those bastards want to KILL US before we can kill them. And that's pretty immoral, too. Just a thought.

2) We can't just "pull out." It's not that simple. If we pull out now, terrorist forces will KNOW that it's their chance to move in and claim Iraq, and even Afghanistan, if we retreat from Afghanistan as well. It will cause MUCH more disarray and disorder than there was during the U.S. occupation. (Yes, I did just say that there is disorder in Iraq and Afghanistan. If there wasn't, we wouldn't be there anymore. There's disorder in everything, and there are ALOT of causes, other than a U.S. occupation. Just a warning to anyone planning to put words in my mouth.) We can't just plan to leave and do it. We have to wait until Iraq can establish a stable government and a stable military that can maintain itself as an effective fighting force.

Just some thoughts I though I'd put up here before I head to bed, which I plan on doing right now... so if you want a heated debate, you're gonna have to wait. ;)


1. If immorality is justified in times of war or when putting down insurgencies, then why are we in Iraq?

2. No one except for an extremely tiny fringe think we should drop everything and pull out. The Democratic proposal was nothing more than a policy fot the accelleration of the withdrawl timetable followed by "watching very closely and have troops "over the horizon," i.e. out-of country, but close enough to mobilize rapidly. When has a Bush official even outlined a post-withdrawl strategy and policy?

Remember, it was the Republicans who drafted the "pull out immediately," bill.

I have insisted no such thing. In case you hadn't noticed, this is the first time I've ventured into this debate, largely because I don't know very much about the field. I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in the arguments thus far. I don't believe WP is generally considered a chemical weapon, nor should it be from the little I've garnered from this entire discussion. My point is that if the US government engaged in hyperbole earlier when accusing Saddam, then they ought not get twisted when it gets turned on them later.

And IF they did accuse Saddam or any one else they would deserve the hoisting and petard propping that would be delivered to them and more .
In fact I would lead the parade . The thing is I never heard ANYONE ...ever describe WP as a chemical weapon...till now of course...never mind the US .

And IF they did accuse Saddam or any one else they would deserve the hoisting and petard propping that would be delivered to them and more .
In fact I would lead the parade . The thing is I never heard ANYONE ...ever describe WP as a chemical weapon...till now of course...never mind the US .
Well, on this very thread, someone pointed out a news article that shows the US government referring to WP as a chemical weapon when Saddam Hussein used it. So, ready to lead that parade?

Well, on this very thread, someone pointed out a news article that shows the US government referring to WP as a chemical weapon when Saddam Hussein used it. So, ready to lead that parade?

yep... the unatributed , unproven and unsourceable article from the same internet that says Elvis is alive . Show me something thats at least slightly proven to be true . Then I'll hold the rope .

Well, on this very thread, someone pointed out a news article that shows the US government referring to WP as a chemical weapon when Saddam Hussein used it. So, ready to lead that parade?
yep... the unatributed , unproven and unsourceable article from the same internet that says Elvis is alive . Show me something thats at least slightly proven to be true . Then I'll hold the rope .

Nazz, no one has actually linked the news article yet. So, here you go:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article328703.ece

And as for the credibility of the source of the document in the OP, it is from the Federation of American Scientists web site:
http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

The Intelligence Resource Program section of that web site (http://www.fas.org/irp/) has this to say:

This site provides a selection of official and unofficial resources on intelligence policy, structure, function, organization and operations. It was created by John Pike and is maintained by Steven Aftergood.

Federation of American Scientists
1717 K Street, NW, Suite 209
Washington, DC 20036

Steven Aftergood

voice (202) 454-4691
fax (202) 675-1010
email saftergood@fas.org

That's the same John Pike of http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/


As far as the truthfulness of the document, I addressed that above.
To repeat:
1) It is a raw intelligence report.
2) The human intelligence source called WP a chemical weapon, not the DoD.
3) The DoD person responsible for the report is does not handle WP, and did not note that it was mislabled by the source.

I'd also point out that those who are making these claims have been quick to accuse the "right" of non-responsiveness when a claim is not answered immediately. However, my post above has gone unanswered by either side.

Here's a twist for you then.

If you believe that WP is a chemical weapon - and you have insisted very, very vehemently that it most certainly is - then we have found the WMD (chemical weapons) that Saddam had - there are literally millions of WP shells in the Baghdad area alone - they are as common as cherry stones.

I'm not an apologist - I had no problem with Saddam using WP unless it was in violation of agreements that his government had signed.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

And the truth has been spoken.

Still completely missing the point I see.....

Your the only one that is missing the point. As is the rest of the lot that thinks WP is a chemical weapon and have failed to do any investigation whatsoever.

Your the only one that is missing the point. As is the rest of the lot that thinks WP is a chemical weapon and have failed to do any investigation whatsoever.
Where is YOUR investigation/proof?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9951179&postcount=36

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9979940&postcount=94

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9977960&postcount=82

You have nothing to offer other than insults and hollow rhetoric.

WP was used as a chemical weapon against the Iraqis.

And the truth has been spoken.
Still waiting for your answers:

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

You made claims and you haven't backed them up yet.

I'm still waiting on your response to my question in regards to bullets being chemical weapons.

WP is not a chemical weapon according to the militaries of the world. They are free to be used and we shall use them against our enemy's military. We will use them against insurgents too because we all know they are not civilians.

Also, what is your military training like? Lets face it CH, the US Military Personel on this board is kicking your butt all over the forum because of your ignorance.

White phosphorous is a chemical.
Ergo, it is a chemical weapon.

Now, lets forget the chemical weapon stigma we have, becuase its fairly stupid.
There isnt really anything you can achieve with chemical weapons, that you cant do with conventional ones.

The important thing to remember, is tha wp is not a chemical weapon of mass destruction......BIG difference.

It is however, a shitty way to die, and a fairly bastard-like weapon to use against people.

What we in the US dont want you to know, is that we are no better than the insurgents.
We will use such weapons against whomever we want, and you cant stop us.

What no one is mentioning, is the reason so many countries have banned its use, and that is its destructive, but not always lethal effects.
Horrible burns can leave you scarred for life, even if they dont kill you.

They can leave a person a mangled wreck of flesh, or simply flash-fried.
It really isnt the sort of weapon that is considered "pc" anymore, and thats what has so many of my fellow liberals in a tizzy about this whole thing.

What do I mean by "pc weapons"?

Simple.

a bullet simply is a piece of spinning lead that hits a target and penetrates.
It does its job, simple.

Phosphorous is a powder used in an area effect, that cuases horrible cuastic burns, and SOMETIMES death, usually horrificly.

Rather rude, much like napalm, only not in jelly form.

What I dont understand is what difference it makes.
We should be taking a closer look to WHY we are fighting, and not at the kind of weapons we are using.

And I responded, fairly calmly actually, "You didn't hear about the thousands of bodies which had been reduced to burnt flesh and bone? You didn't hear about the bodies of not just soldiers, but women, children, even babies which were found in this condition? Maybe you need to read a bit more. *coughdumbasscough*"
Pics please, the only pictures of these so-called burnt bodies currently running were either fake, mainly because the clothes and shit were entirely intact, which would not be the case if they died from having WP burning them, or they were obviously killed by gunshot or other wounds. Hearsay is a funny thing, sort of like how all those people were supposedly raped and murdered in the superdome yet no evidence was ever actually found.

yep... the unatributed , unproven and unsourceable article from the same internet that says Elvis is alive . Show me something thats at least slightly proven to be true . Then I'll hold the rope .


For the record, FAS.org is generally deemed to be about the most credible site out there for searching government docs. It is the Federation of American Scientists and exists as a database for providing access to various publications - often those provided under FOI requests, and presents them without bias or commentary on a wide range of issues, most of which relate to nothing of political interest.

If you had the slightest clue about what repositories are credible or not, you'd be aware of that fact.

However, in this case it's your lucky day!

You can source the report from the Military itself: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html


There, now you can safely return to finding your "proof" about Elvis' current living arrangements instead of continually worrying about this thread.

Just don't forget to bring your baton. The parade starts at noon....

For the record, FAS.org is generally deemed to be about the most credible site out there for searching government docs. It is the Federation of American Scientists and exists as a database for providing access to various publications - often those provided under FOI requests, and presents them without bias or commentary on a wide range of issues, most of which relate to nothing of political interest.

If you had the slightest clue about what repositories are credible or not, you'd be aware of that fact.

However, in this case it's your lucky day!

You can source the report from the Military itself: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html


There, now you can safely return to finding your "proof" about Elvis' current living arrangements instead of continually worrying about this thread.

Just don't forget to bring your baton. The parade starts at noon....

Well, on this very thread, someone pointed out a news article that shows the US government referring to WP as a chemical weapon when Saddam Hussein used it.


This is what I had posted about . If you had the slightest clue you may have known that. In fact you didnt even need a clue..you only had to read a bit and they were not even big words .

now you could have gone back to page of writing in caps and also noticed that it was UNSOURCED , UNATRIBITUTED , and Not linked .
Since then I have seen some documentation and some info like the link you have posted along with other info I have found on my own . It all seems to prove that the US may have attempted to link the use of WP as a chemical weapon and that they deserve all the ridicule and ball breaking I can find in my heart to throw their way .

When the U.N. comes out with their report on this it will say 57,000 civilians were killed.

Oh, I just can't WAIT to hear how many people die when a tank misses it's target! :rolleyes:

This is what I had posted about . If you had the slightest clue you may have known that. In fact you didnt even need a clue..you only had to read a bit and they were not even big words .


Oh. So you're saying that the Pentagon report calling Iraqi use of WP a "chemical weapon" wasn't what you were looking for?


Edit to reflect your edit....


now you could have gone back to page of writing in caps and also noticed that it was UNSOURCED , UNATRIBITUTED , and Not linked .
Since then I have seen some documentation and some info like the link you have posted along with other info I have found on my own . It all seems to prove that the US may have attempted to link the use of WP as a chemical weapon and that they deserve all the ridicule and ball breaking I can find in my heart to throw their way .


No, actually, if you go back to the inital post the quote in all caps IS linked from FAS.or, and has been since it was forst posted.

And yes, the ridicule of the hypocricy was the whole point of the thread..... no matter how many people tried to turn it into the discussion on whether WP was legal or not....

If WP is a chemical weapon, then a FLASHLIGHT is too; since their powersource comes from chemical energy.

I'm still waiting on your response to my question in regards to bullets being chemical weapons.

WP is not a chemical weapon according to the militaries of the world. They are free to be used and we shall use them against our enemy's military. We will use them against insurgents too because we all know they are not civilians.

Also, what is your military training like? Lets face it CH, the US Military Personel on this board is kicking your butt all over the forum because of your ignorance.
Yup, the usual Corny grab bag of rhetoric, disinformation, BS, and insults.

You have added nothing to this debate that would persuade me to change my thinking about the improper choices that your government has made in regards to Iraq, and the Iraqi people. From, illegal invasion to "Shock and Awe", to violation of human rights (Abu Gharib/Guantanamo), to the killing of innocent men, women, and children, to the use of white phosphorus as a chemical weapon.

You can continue trying to peddle your excuses but I am not buying.

Meh, maybe he finds it hard to argue with anti-American, hypocritical biggots because they are blinded by hate?

Your the only one that is missing the point. As is the rest of the lot that thinks WP is a chemical weapon and have failed to do any investigation whatsoever.


While I apreciate your opinion on the correctness of my determination on what the point of my own thread is, if it's alright with you I think I'll listen to myself for the correct disposition of that matter....

Yup, the usual Corny grab bag of rhetoric, disinformation, BS, and insults.

You have added nothing to this debate that would persuade me to change my thinking about the improper choices that your government has made in regards to Iraq, and the Iraqi people. From, illegal invasion to "Shock and Awe", to violation of human rights (Abu Gharib/Guantanamo), to the killing of innocent men, women, and children, to the use of white phosphorus as a chemical weapon.

You can continue trying to peddle your excuses but I am not buying.

Typical CH bullshit. When information contradicts your beliefs, denounce it as wrong. Guess what? In this thread alone, those that have been or still is in the service has told you that it isn't a chemical weapon and that WP is in most national militaries.

As to adding things to this thread, I don't have too since those that know far more on this issue than I have done a good job in defeating all of your rhetoric in regards to WP. I don't have to add anything more to what they are saying. Why are you ignoring what they are saying hmm? I can only assume that you are ignoring what others are saying against you because it contradicts you.

As to the invasion, it wasn't illegal. That's another lie that has been thoroughly trashed.

As to shock and awe, a perfectly legal military tactic since government and military infrastructure were targeted.

As to killing men, women, and children, accidents happen in war but we do not go out of our way to do it.

As to WP, guess what? It isn't illegal to use. It is not a Chemical weapon as the people on here who are in the service has attested too for if it is, then we have found the so called WMD in Iraq since we have found WP rounds. WP is common as dirt in militaries around the world.

I'm not buying your crap today nor anyday CH. You have been proven to be inaccurate in most of the things you've said on this thread and you have been unable to prove them wrong.

While I apreciate your opinion on the correctness of my determination on what the point of my own thread is, if it's alright with you I think I'll listen to myself for the correct disposition of that matter....

Even if your disposition is wrong?

Even if your disposition is wrong?


I don't think you've figured out what that disposition is to be honest.

If WP is a chemical weapon, then a FLASHLIGHT is too; since their powersource comes from chemical energy.

That may be one of the most poorly reasoned things I've ever read.

The toxicity and chemical properties of a flashlight does not kill, unless one chooses to eat the flashlight...not exactly useful against an enemy. The toxicity of a high explosive doesn't kill the enemy, since the explosion kills the enemy before any toxic substance can be absorbed. The lead in a bullet isn't what kills you. It's the hole it makes through you.

When the toxicity or causticity of a chemical is the way in which it kills, then it is a chemical weapon. Simple as that.
With WP, it can kill you in several ways. Chemical burns. Asphyxiation. Flame. Toxicity.

THe REASON why WP is not, legally in the US, considered a chemical weapon is because it has other, non-fatal uses. When used as a weapon on personnel, I just can't see how it can't be considered a chemical weapon.

It's like making a law against killing someone with a knife and someone pleading, "But I used a machete!"

.. when Saddam used it against the Kurds... (http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/intel/950901/22431050_91r.txt)


Fiery first thread for me to read!

Corneliu, you say WP is not a chemical weapon. Well, according to the US government, it sure as hell was a chemical weapon when Iraq used it in 1991. So what's changed?

Meh, maybe he finds it hard to argue with anti-American, hypocritical biggots because they are blinded by hate?

I love America. I am American. I find your comment here to be both irrational and imflammatory in addition to being childish. Grow up. Not everyone who disagrees with you or has a moral qualm about certain practices of the US is Anti-American, and you shame everything America is supposed to stand for simply by making that comment.

Oh, and while this thread is not intended to prove the legality or illegality of WP use, here is a link to the appropriate text in the Battle Book, the official US Army Command & General Staff College textbook used to teach officers what they need to know to manage the battlefield.


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5Chp.htm


b. Projectiles.

(1) High explosive. The high explosive (HE) projectile is best used against personnel targets. The HE projectile explodes, causing the outer shell casing to shatter into many small, irregularly shaped fragments. The 155-mm HE shell has a killing radius of 50 meters.

(2) Illumination. Illumination (illum) rounds disperse flares on parachutes and are used for illuminating a designated area or signaling.

(3) Smoke. Smoke (M116B) rounds eject canisters that fall to the ground and burn, emitting white smoke for 40 to 90 seconds, depending on the caliber of weapon.

(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.



I present this not as proof as to the legailty (or lack therof), but as further support for the notion that the Pentagon can't seem to make up it's mind on this matter, except insofar as they used it as part of the documented history of Iraqi atrocities, seem to acknowledge that it IS a CW when used as an anti-personnel weapon in various disparate bits of published literature, but excuse it as being legal when they actually DO do it themselves.

Fiery first thread for me to read!

Corneliu, you say WP is not a chemical weapon. Well, according to the US government, it sure as hell was a chemical weapon when Iraq used it in 1991. So what's changed?

I suggest you read the thread a bit more. It is shown that the people who made that distiction don't handle WP.

Meh, maybe he finds it hard to argue with anti-American, hypocritical biggots because they are blinded by hate?
Anyone who opposes the War in Iraq or the use of chemical weapons by the US is anti-American? Think again:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9390635&postcount=159

BTW, your reasoning that a flashlight is a chemical weapon is just absurd and not well thought out. It is just as bad as Corny's attempt to call bullets chemical weapons.

White phosphorous is a chemical.
Ergo, it is a chemical weapon.

Now, lets forget the chemical weapon stigma we have, becuase its fairly stupid.
There isnt really anything you can achieve with chemical weapons, that you cant do with conventional ones.

The important thing to remember, is tha wp is not a chemical weapon of mass destruction......BIG difference.

It is however, a shitty way to die, and a fairly bastard-like weapon to use against people.

What we in the US dont want you to know, is that we are no better than the insurgents.
We will use such weapons against whomever we want, and you cant stop us.

What no one is mentioning, is the reason so many countries have banned its use, and that is its destructive, but not always lethal effects.
Horrible burns can leave you scarred for life, even if they dont kill you.

They can leave a person a mangled wreck of flesh, or simply flash-fried.
It really isnt the sort of weapon that is considered "pc" anymore, and thats what has so many of my fellow liberals in a tizzy about this whole thing.

What do I mean by "pc weapons"?

Simple.

a bullet simply is a piece of spinning lead that hits a target and penetrates.
It does its job, simple.

Phosphorous is a powder used in an area effect, that cuases horrible cuastic burns, and SOMETIMES death, usually horrificly.

Rather rude, much like napalm, only not in jelly form.

What I dont understand is what difference it makes.
We should be taking a closer look to WHY we are fighting, and not at the kind of weapons we are using.
I totally agree with most of what you have to say here, but I do think it is important to focus on the types of weapons that the US is using, especially if they are chemical in nature.

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~~

The above excerpt comes from Bush's speech which is aptly named:

Denial and Deception (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)

In this speech, Bush uses the word "chemical" 14 times, and the word "threat" 18 times.

I totally agree with most of what you have to say here, but I do think it is important to focus on the types of weapons that the US is using, especially if they are chemical in nature.

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~~

The above excerpt comes from Bush's speech which is aptly named:

Denial and Deception (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)

In this speech, Bush uses the word "chemical" 14 times, and the word "threat" 18 times.

So? Everything is a chemical - you can be killed by water.

I've been in the explosive burst of a 155mm WP shell - and I wasn't hurt at all - breathed the smoke, etc. Not even burned.

If WP is a chemical weapon, then so are high explosives - even an entrenching tool used as a club is iron - Fe - a chemical - it's on the periodic table.

WP kills you (if you're in a direct hit or in a confined space by burning you to death. Not by chemical action. The fumes DO NOT burn flesh. The burning chunks of it DO BURN - and they don't burn your flesh and leave your clothes intact. They burn it all.

Anyone who says that a bullet kills cleanly and neatly hasn't seen too many people killed or wounded by bullets.

Silly you! It's never wrong when the US does it.
Unfortunatly this seems to be how our &$%head of an adminstration seems to think currently...

Silly you! It's never wrong when the US does it.
Whether this substance is a chemical weapon is not a matter of right or wrong. Just of clsssification. I would like to know if it is a chemical weapon or not.

Whether this substance is a chemical weapon is not a matter of right or wrong. Just of clsssification. I would like to know if it is a chemical weapon or not.

According to the military, it isn't.

Actually, it's kinda like watching vultures at the zoo. Better to just watch. ;)
I look forward to the distant day in the future when you will dare to criticise your government.

According to the military, it isn't.
According to the quote at the beginning of this thread, it is a chemical weapon. Who is wrong?

According to the quote at the beginning of this thread, it is a chemical weapon. Who is wrong?

That report because it wasn't done by those that actually handle WP. The people who actually handle it or been on the receiving end of a WP attack (see deep kimchi's posts) and you'll see that it is, in fact, not a chemical weapon.

WP is also in most nation's military. If it was a chemical weapon then the nations wouldn't have it.

So? Everything is a chemical - you can be killed by water.
Water is NOT used as a chemical weapon, whereas WP can be.

I've been in the explosive burst of a 155mm WP shell - and I wasn't hurt at all - breathed the smoke, etc. Not even burned.
See below.

If WP is a chemical weapon, then so are high explosives - even an entrenching tool used as a club is iron - Fe - a chemical - it's on the periodic table.
This type of example does not aid your argument in the slightest.

Not by chemical action. The fumes DO NOT burn flesh.
No, the fumes suffocate you and burn your lungs out. That is a chemical action. Not to mention other long term effects:

Exposure to white phosphorus smoke in the air can also cause liver, kidney, heart, lung or bone damage and even death.

A former US soldier who served in Iraq says breathing in smoke close to a shell caused the throat and lungs to blister until the victim suffocated, with the phosphorus continuing to burn them from the inside.

Yet more to water down your claims (http://www.nsc.org/library/chemical/phsphor.htm):

White phosphorus (CAS #7723-14-0) is an element which does not occur naturally.

In the past, white phosphorus was used to make matches, but another chemical with fewer harmful health effects has replaced it.

It is considered a dangerous disaster hazard because it emits highly toxic fumes.

White phosphorus is a dangerous explosion hazard when it forms a chemical reaction with many chemicals, including alkaline hydroxides, beryllium, bromine, halogens, chlorine dioxide, chlorine trifluoride, chlorosulfonic acid, copper, iron, manganese compounds, nickel, nitrates, nitrogen dioxide, oxygen, performic acid, sulfuric acid, peroxyformic acid, chlorosulfuric acid, hologen azides, and hexalithium disilicide. When exposed to air emits a green light and gives off white funes.

Health effects

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

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

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

High concentrations of the vapors evolved by burning white phosphorus are irritating to the nose, throat, lungs, skin, eyes, and mucus membranes.

Breathing white phosphorus can cause coughing and the development of a condition known as phossy jaw -- poor wound healing in the mouth and a breakdown of the jaw bone. The most common symptom of exposure to white phosphorus is necrosis of the jaw.

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

Yeah WP is harmless. :rolleyes:

WP has been used and should be used in tactical situations that warrant it .
I could care less about its chemical properties as any explosive could be considered a chemical weapon. WP kills by burning ...period .
What this thread is about is the propaganda bullshit that is going on . It seems that the US government has played the same " wp is a chemical weapon " when it suited their propaganda needs against Saddam .
You cant have it both ways ..either you think it is or you do not think it is .
Not....." it is when it suits us " . The more I look into it the more I find the refrences by US officials to WP as a " chemical weapon " Well if its a chemical weapon for Saddam or anyone else then logic seems to dictate that we have been using " chemical weapons " against insurgents . And it also seems the press and the opposition has the right to throw our own words right back at us .
As far as I am concerned each and every insurgent or terrorist should have a willie pete stuffed up their ass and detonated at a safe distance .
But that doesnt excuse the fact that our own government cant figure out WTF to call the shit .

But that doesnt excuse the fact that our own government cant figure out WTF to call the shit .
Well they can't call it Agent Orange (http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/agentorange032102.cfm)because that name is taken.

Perhaps they should just call it Agent White (http://cybersarges.tripod.com/agentwhite.html)? Oh, they can't because that name is also taken.

And Agent Blue (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=56&ItemID=5639), well, that is meant for killing rice.

Perhaps the best name would be Agent PhorUS (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=white+phosphorous+iraq+victims+pictures&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)?

Perhaps posters such as Deep Kimchi do their fellow comrades in arms a huge disservice by downplaying the deadly effects of WP?

What do some other veterans have to say (http://www.globalwomenstrike.net/English/us_veterans_against_the_war.htm)?

The horrible secret is out of America's worst atrocity, our servicemen and women were exposed to deadly chemical and germ warfare and the illnesses and deaths are being withheld from the American people.

And the beat goes on and on.....

WP has been used and should be used in tactical situations that warrant it .
I could care less about its chemical properties as any explosive could be considered a chemical weapon. WP kills by burning ...period .
What this thread is about is the propaganda bullshit that is going on . It seems that the US government has played the same " wp is a chemical weapon " when it suited their propaganda needs against Saddam .
You cant have it both ways ..either you think it is or you do not think it is .
Not....." it is when it suits us " . The more I look into it the more I find the refrences by US officials to WP as a " chemical weapon " Well if its a chemical weapon for Saddam or anyone else then logic seems to dictate that we have been using " chemical weapons " against insurgents . And it also seems the press and the opposition has the right to throw our own words right back at us .
As far as I am concerned each and every insurgent or terrorist should have a willie pete stuffed up their ass and detonated at a safe distance .
But that doesnt excuse the fact that our own government cant figure out WTF to call the shit .
I can't say I agree with your entire sentiment, but I have to give you props for stepping up when you said you would.

Corneliu, Deep Kimchi--you could learn a thing or two from this guy.

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/134779.php

DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] . DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION, THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS

Yes, their “classified Pentagon document" boils down to a single brief phone call between two Kurdish brothers. Not so impressive now, is it?

And why does Think Progress also leave out the warning the report that forcefully states:

WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED

Just to make this clear: the Pentagon NEVER referred to white phosphorus rounds as "chemical weapons" in this report. Only the conversation of two Kurdish brothers mentioned the term "chemical weapons" and that characterization was never accepted by the military.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/allmodcons/hairafter_icon.jpg

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/134779.php

I posted information very similar to this two days ago, and people in this thread still have yet to respond.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9975873&postcount=86

In addition, this is an intelligence report, written by a person who didn't catch or comment on the sources error.

The interrogator that spoke with the source and wrote the report called it a chemical weapon. He would be a 96 series MOS (which is intel) and not a 11, 12, 18, or 19 series, any of which would know that it isn't a chem weapon because they either handle it, fire it, compute how to fire it, or call for someone to fire it. A 96 doesn't do this, which is why you have the erroneous label.

I doubt anyone will acknowledge it this time around either. :rolleyes:

I can't say I agree with your entire sentiment, but I have to give you props for stepping up when you said you would.

Corneliu, Deep Kimchi--you could learn a thing or two from this guy.


Seconded. While I rarely agree with you, Guns, I can respect you. Props be to you for that.

Nazz, no one has actually linked the news article yet. So, here you go:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article328703.ece

And as for the credibility of the source of the document in the OP, it is from the Federation of American Scientists web site:
http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

The Intelligence Resource Program section of that web site (http://www.fas.org/irp/) has this to say:



That's the same John Pike of http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/


As far as the truthfulness of the document, I addressed that above.
To repeat:
1) It is a raw intelligence report.
2) The human intelligence source called WP a chemical weapon, not the DoD.
3) The DoD person responsible for the report is does not handle WP, and did not note that it was mislabled by the source.

I'd also point out that those who are making these claims have been quick to accuse the "right" of non-responsiveness when a claim is not answered immediately. However, my post above has gone unanswered by either side.


However, earlier you said this:


3) The person writting up the report was likely not qualified to correctly
distinguish between

That quote is crucial, because it shows that you have no idea who this intel officer is, what his work history is or whether he has handled WP in the past or not. For all you know, he could be a CW specialist or former specialist. He could have been military at one time or another. The point is that you simply don't know. All you know is what his likely current job is.

Therefore your conclusions aren't really based on knowledge, but on speculation...as are conclusions on any other side of this issue.

There, I responded.

I think the only people who are wrong on this issue are those who say that there is no debate about WP. Let's cull this debate down to some bare facts.

1. WP used as illumination or a screen is a valid and justified use of WP.
2. The US is not a signatory to anti-incendiary treaties.
3. Use of WP against personnel in an enclosed spece is either an incendiary device or a psychological device used to incite panic. As such, whether you have moral qualms about it's use in such a manner, it is not technically illegal.
4. A DoD intel report, prepared by an intel reporter who may or may not be familiar with WP, called WP a chemical weapon in the context of Saddam using it.
5. The US, through various sources, has denied the use of WP outright, has denied the use of WP in a direct anti-personnel usage, and then has acknowledged WP's use against personnel.
6. WP does have specific, immediately acting chemical properties that effect the chemical processes of the human body in a lethal way. This is the very definition of chemical weapon. This distinguishes it from a bullet, which acts in a physical manner on a body (the amount of lead absorbed by a body is negligible, especially when compared to the physical damage,) and from high explosives (again, while toxic, high explosives affect the body in a physical/mechanical way. The toxic effects of HE only only affect those in the blast radius...who are already dead from the explosion.)
7. The use of WP is a known point of controversy to the military, hence the inclusion of this in the official US Army Command & General Staff College textbook: (thanks Silliopolous)

Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.

This, while it mentions law, is not legally binding to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong.) Therefore it should be seen as a strongly worded advisory that gives a clue to the US Military's foreknowledge of WP as a controversial anti-personnel agent.

Therefore the only legitimate conclusion is that WP needs to be further debated. Assumptions NEED to be questioned. Those that make blanket denials or affirmations are deluding themselves and have closed their minds. I personally believe the use of WP on personnel is an issue that is a dark shade of gray at least, but it is not, in an of itself, and indictment of the US administration or military. Rather, I think of it's use and the awkward denials that followed as further proof of the fumbling by those that are conducting this war. I think the sloppy way in which this whole issue has been handled is a much greater danger to our troops than any domestic dissention could ever be.

I posted information very similar to this two days ago, and people in this thread still have yet to respond.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9975873&postcount=86

In addition, this is an intelligence report, written by a person who didn't catch or comment on the sources error.



I doubt anyone will acknowledge it this time around either. :rolleyes:

You are indeed right Daistallia. The people on here who believe it is a chemical weapon are ignoring it because it contradicts everything they have said.

You are indeed right Daistallia. The people on here who believe it is a chemical weapon are ignoring it because it contradicts everything they have said.


Arrrgh! Alright, I'll bite.

The people who can classify a weapon are not the people who fire them. It's like saying a nurse knows more about a vaccine than a biochemist who makes it does, simply because she delivers it. Rank nonsense.

Classification of chemical weaponry should, and is, made by chemists and specialist agencies. The use of WP as a weapon rather than as a smokescreen is, for all the reasons already listed on this thread, a chemical weapon.

Arrrgh! Alright, I'll bite.

The people who can classify a weapon are not the people who fire them. It's like saying a nurse knows more about a vaccine than a biochemist who makes it does, simply because she delivers it. Rank nonsense.

As far as the truthfulness of the document, I addressed that above.
To repeat:
1) It is a raw intelligence report.
2) The human intelligence source called WP a chemical weapon, not the DoD.
3) The DoD person responsible for the report is does not handle WP, and did not note that it was mislabled by the source.

Daistallia can say it better than I ever could. I believe the link is:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9975873&postcount=86

Classification of chemical weaponry should, and is, made by chemists and specialist agencies. The use of WP as a weapon rather than as a smokescreen is, for all the reasons already listed on this thread, a chemical weapon.

However, it isn't used as a smoke screen in most militaries. Most nations have WP Artillery Rounds in their arsonals to drive out the enemy from trenches, spider holes, and buildings. One of our fellow posters has been in a WP burst area. That poster would be Deep Kimchi. Go back and read his posts too. They are quite informative.

Daistallia can say it better than I ever could. I believe the link is:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9975873&postcount=86



However, it isn't used as a smoke screen in most militaries. Most nations have WP Artillery Rounds in their arsonals to drive out the enemy from trenches, spider holes, and buildings. One of our fellow posters has been in a WP burst area. That poster would be Deep Kimchi. Go back and read his posts too. They are quite informative.

I have, and I've already argued with him (if you choose to review the thread ;) )

Look we're not going to agree on this, however long this goes on. That is why I was reluctant to ansswer, but my itchy fingers got the better of me.

As far as "most" nations are concerned, I can't comment , but I KNOW that many nations have banned its use as a weapon. Again, if you review the thread, there are plenty of links there to prove that.

I think the only people who are wrong on this issue are those who say that there is no debate about WP. Let's cull this debate down to some bare facts.

Therefore the only legitimate conclusion is that WP needs to be further debated. Assumptions NEED to be questioned. Those that make blanket denials or affirmations are deluding themselves and have closed their minds. I personally believe the use of WP on personnel is an issue that is a dark shade of gray at least, but it is not, in an of itself, and indictment of the US administration or military. Rather, I think of it's use and the awkward denials that followed as further proof of the fumbling by those that are conducting this war. I think the sloppy way in which this whole issue has been handled is a much greater danger to our troops than any domestic dissention could ever be.

i started to reply with a bit of hair splitting, but in the end we agree on the essentials. Damned be those who cling to their mumpsimus'.

WP has been used and should be used in tactical situations that warrant it .
I could care less about its chemical properties as any explosive could be considered a chemical weapon. WP kills by burning ...period .
What this thread is about is the propaganda bullshit that is going on . It seems that the US government has played the same " wp is a chemical weapon " when it suited their propaganda needs against Saddam .
You cant have it both ways ..either you think it is or you do not think it is .
Not....." it is when it suits us " . The more I look into it the more I find the refrences by US officials to WP as a " chemical weapon " Well if its a chemical weapon for Saddam or anyone else then logic seems to dictate that we have been using " chemical weapons " against insurgents . And it also seems the press and the opposition has the right to throw our own words right back at us .
As far as I am concerned each and every insurgent or terrorist should have a willie pete stuffed up their ass and detonated at a safe distance .
But that doesnt excuse the fact that our own government cant figure out WTF to call the shit .


Damn you!

Here I have you all nicely pegged as a blind partisan and you have to go and both a) get the point of the thread, and b) be goddamn reasonable about it!


Well now how am I supposed to dismiss you out of hand if you go and do mature things like that?!!!!


:D

Arrrgh! Alright, I'll bite.

The people who can classify a weapon are not the people who fire them. It's like saying a nurse knows more about a vaccine than a biochemist who makes it does, simply because she delivers it. Rank nonsense.

Classification of chemical weaponry should, and is, made by chemists and specialist agencies. The use of WP as a weapon rather than as a smokescreen is, for all the reasons already listed on this thread, a chemical weapon.

I'm not talking about who defines what it is - sure, you can ask a toxicologist.

I believe that when you're asking a question about whether or not a weapon is being "used" you should ask the military instead of the State Department - the military actually knows what they are using - the State Department has no effing idea.

I have, and I've already argued with him (if you choose to review the thread ;) )

Look we're not going to agree on this, however long this goes on. That is why I was reluctant to ansswer, but my itchy fingers got the better of me.

As far as "most" nations are concerned, I can't comment , but I KNOW that many nations have banned its use as a weapon. Again, if you review the thread, there are plenty of links there to prove that.

And if listen to those that have been in the military, you would know that it is still common in national militaries around the world. Including Iraq. Most people who are in the military agree that it isn't a chemical weapon. I'll take their word for it because they're the ones that have to handle the pieces.

And if listen to those that have been in the military, you would know that it is still common in national militaries around the world. Including Iraq. Most people who are in the military agree that it isn't a chemical weapon. I'll take their word for it because they're the ones that have to handle the pieces.


*sigh*

OK. Let's try this one more time.

I'm a scientist. I help with developing new drugs. I don't give the drugs, but I know what they are for, what they are called, and how they should be used.

Most of my drugs will be given by nurses, or self administered by patients. They will not, by definition, know as much about those drugs as the people who design them. They will certainly not be able to classify them without the assistance of pharmacists, doctors and the scientists who developed them.

*sigh*

OK. Let's try this one more time.

I'm a scientist. I help with developing new drugs. I don't give the drugs, but I know what they are for, what they are called, and how they should be used.

Most of my drugs will be given by nurses, or self administered by patients. They will not, by definition, know as much about those drugs as the people who design them. They will certainly not be able to classify them without the assistance of pharmacists, doctors and the scientists who developed them.

That's all well and good but I think DK said it best: "I'm not talking about who defines what it is - sure, you can ask a toxicologist.

I believe that when you're asking a question about whether or not a weapon is being "used" you should ask the military instead of the State Department - the military actually knows what they are using - the State Department has no effing idea."

If your going to classify something as a chemical weapon, ask those that actually know what a chemical weapon is as well as those that do handle WP. Those are the experts.

However, it isn't used as a smoke screen in most militaries. Most nations have WP Artillery Rounds in their arsonals to drive out the enemy from trenches, spider holes, and buildings. One of our fellow posters has been in a WP burst area. That poster would be Deep Kimchi. Go back and read his posts too. They are quite informative.

A WP burst area means a WP charge to spread the substance. That means it should have been at a temperature that would have either resulted in severe burns or outright ignited, turning Deep Kimchi into a BBQ overdone hunk of char. I don't believe his claims.

A WP burst area means a WP charge to spread the substance. That means it should have been at a temperature that would have either resulted in severe burns or outright ignited, turning Deep Kimchi into a BBQ overdone hunk of char. I don't believe his claims.

Why did I have a feeling I would get a comment like this?

"MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE
PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE
POPULACE IN ERBIL "

First of all, we just use it against people that are shooting at us, these are the same people blowing up schools, a little shake and bake on them bothers me not the least.

Second of all...

Yes, WP is a chemical, so is C-4, so is gunpowder, so is pretty much anything you could name.... Would you like us to fight this war with harsh language, or would that be considered torture?

:sniper:

A WP burst area means a WP charge to spread the substance. That means it should have been at a temperature that would have either resulted in severe burns or outright ignited, turning Deep Kimchi into a BBQ overdone hunk of char. I don't believe his claims.

WP bursts upwards. Most of the material is consumed instantly in forming a rapidly growing cloud of smoke.

There are burning fragments (mostly about the size of your thumbnail) that shower down (falling about as fast as snowflakes). These fragments will burn you if they stay on you - but they won't do what the people making the claims say happened - burn your flesh without burning your clothes. If you let it stay there, it will set your clothes on fire AND burn through you.

You can brush them off as they land on you.

There is also a WP grenade. It has a bursting radius of 35 meters - and can't be thrown that far by anyone. Are you telling me that WP is that deadly?

Sure, if I was on top of a 155mm WP shell, I would be killed by the bursting charge - a bit further, and maybe I'd be shredded by WP fragments (before they could burn me to death). But any further away (say about 30 meters for a 155mm shell), and the fragments are going nearly straight up in a narrow fan.

You can be closer to a WP grenade going off than you can a fragmentation grenade - largely because it does the same thing - throw WP fragments up in a tight fan.

Anyone who says that a bullet kills cleanly and neatly hasn't seen too many people killed or wounded by bullets.

I'd call that wishful thinking...

:sniper:

I'm not talking about who defines what it is - sure, you can ask a toxicologist.

I believe that when you're asking a question about whether or not a weapon is being "used" you should ask the military instead of the State Department - the military actually knows what they are using - the State Department has no effing idea.


Hurray! We agree! In fact that is exactly what this is all about. If the US military ahs the right to use WP due to the treaties or otherwise, that then exempts the US military from criticism in my book. What it doesn't address is whther or not the US is right to use weapons that it has already criticised Saddam for using.

Hurray! We agree! In fact that is exactly what this is all about. If the US military ahs the right to use WP due to the treaties or otherwise, that then exempts the US military from criticism in my book. What it doesn't address is whther or not the US is right to use weapons that it has already criticised Saddam for using.

Well, I agree that we shouldn't criticize Saddam for using WP, as long as he used it against armed insurgents. Since WP, like any other explosive warhead, is relatively indiscriminate, we can't fault him for collateral casualties among unarmed civilians, either.

What I believe some people are doing, however, is criticizing the US for using WP precisely because they haven't signed Protocol III - and have not stopped using WP altogether. Every time the US signs a treaty, some critics want to assume that the goal post can be moved further out, and then claim that the US is in violation of "international law".

I therefore interpret most accusations of "violation of international law" to be politically motivated (this includes the US making such statements) and are intended less to save the innocent civilian than they are to stop a war or make a war more difficult to prosecute.

As for WP, it's less harmful (except in confined spaces) than traditional HE and much less gruesome than DPICM (which accounts for 80 percent of rounds in inventory).

Im inclined to say nuke the whole planet since were to stupid to realize how minute the human race is compared to our or should i say borrowed time in our solar system

*snip*

Then why the heck are you saying you were in the blast area? If you're far enough that you're out of the effective range of the damn things, its sure as heck not inside the blast area unless you're talking about being in the target area which is a different story altogether.


Why did I have a feeling I would get a comment like this?


Because I never believe claims of immortality, implied or not.

Then why the heck are you saying you were in the blast area? If you're far enough that you're out of the effective range of the damn things, its sure as heck not inside the blast area unless you're talking about being in the target area which is a different story altogether.

Because I never believe claims of immortality, implied or not.

The "blast radius" of a weapon is where you're inside the area of effect.

In the case of WP, it's where you're going to be both inside the dense cloud of smoke, and be showered (from above) with hot fragments.

You literally have to be next to a 155mm WP shell to get killed or seriously injured. If you're laying on the ground more than about 20 meters away, or in an open shellhole within 5 meters, you're not going to be killed - and if you're smart about the fragments that land on you, you're not even going to be burned. The smoke has an acrid garlic smell, but it doesn't burn your lungs. The smoke DOES NOT make your flesh come off. And the smoke, while hot, is not intolerably hot.

It DOES cause panic amongst people who don't know what it is. Which is why "shake and bake" is extremely effective amongst people who are not familiar with it.

Imagine insurgents in open shell holes. Unless you can land HE right on a shell hole, you're not going to kill very many people per shell.

So you fire a salvo of WP rounds - the hot fragments are now raining down like snowflakes - there's smoke everywhere, and the people in the holes panic - they don't know what it is, and a few guys are getting small burns on their upper body if they don't brush the WP off. Panic-stricken, they leave the real safety of their holes, and run out into the open.

Unfortunately for them, the salvo of DPICM was fired immediately after the salvo of WP - and now many insurgents are caught in the open by hundreds of bomblets loaded with notched wire and explosives - bomblets that bounce on the ground and go off at about waist height.

Results - eviscerated insurgents with their balls blown off, some cut in half, some with the muscle structure stripped from their bones by wire fragments - no one killed by WP.

Leave the bodies in the Iraqi weather for a few days and the skin gets leathery.

Look here is my take on the issue .
WP is not a chemical weapon as it KILLS YOU BY BURNING . If WP is a chemical weapon then so is hot water or hot oil or gasoline. WP is a weapon with many tactical uses and our soldiers deserve to be able use all the arrows they have without interference by the assholes and propagandist at home or around the world using it for their games and power grabs and political statements. If WP is so horribile that unlike being blown to atoms or having your flesh stripped from your body or your organs turned to frappe by HE , it is banned by treaty by the idiots who get involved in figuring out the most polite way to kill fellow humans then fuck it . Use something else to kill the bastards .

The issue here is and should be the double standard our government seems to present to the rest of the world . If by any chance we get back on track with this thread maybe we can get further insite into IF and WHEN our wonderfull leaders ever made staements saying that WP was a chemical weapon and that Saddam or the Russians or any other assorted very bad boys had used it to spank their assorted population of freedom fries , terrorist , civilians ..etc. That should be the point of this particular thread .
I have been through alot of info and it SEEMS that the US government did in fact call WP a chemical weapon being used against KURDISH FIGHTERS in the feild and asked that its use as such be investigated. BUT ..I cant find any follow up or news accounts and I have been into the acrchives back to 1989 .
I am going to look at accounts of the Iraq / Iran conflict next. I think that if the US government would have made the claim publicly then it would appear in print . So far I cant find it . I can only find info on recent blogs and other assorted websites like "god hates bush " etc. I gotta try the BBC..I seem to remember they were looking into it.

It sucks that guys are dying and getting maimed over there while at home the usaul group of asshole are playing politics with their lives .

I think "chemical weapon" was a bad choice of label because it can be applied to so many things. It's like "organic produce". What would be inorganic produce? Apples made out of silicon?

Poor choice of words aside, what makes a weapon a chemical weapon depends on how it is used rather than the actual makeup of it. You could say that carbon dioxide could be considered a chemical weapon because in gaseous form, it could flood a building and cause people to die of asphyxiation. In solid form, it can cause burns. Hell, while you're at it, classify water as a chemical weapon because it can be use to asphyxiate people and cause burns.

About all the US has managed to do is say "We think this is wrong because it's not us doing it."

The "blast radius" of a weapon is where you're inside the area of effect.

In the case of WP, it's where you're going to be both inside the dense cloud of smoke, and be showered (from above) with hot fragments.

You literally have to be next to a 155mm WP shell to get killed or seriously injured. If you're laying on the ground more than about 20 meters away, or in an open shellhole within 5 meters, you're not going to be killed - and if you're smart about the fragments that land on you, you're not even going to be burned. The smoke has an acrid garlic smell, but it doesn't burn your lungs. The smoke DOES NOT make your flesh come off. And the smoke, while hot, is not intolerably hot.
You make this stuff sound like it is not very dangerous at all, which is contrary to all that I have read on the subject.

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

The smoke doesn't make your flesh come off, that would be the chemical properties that cause that.

You make this stuff sound like it is not very dangerous at all, which is contrary to all that I have read on the subject.

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

The smoke doesn't make your flesh come off, that would be the chemical properties that cause that.

It isn't very dangerous, unless you let the hot fragments sit on your clothing.

The smoke has no chemical properties that make your flesh come off.

Imagine a matchhead. Now make the matchhead about the size of your thumbnail, and flatten it a bit. Now it's on fire - burning as hot as a matchhead. Many of these are falling like snowflakes (and about as fast). If you're attentive, when they land on your clothes, you can brush them off. If you let them sit on you, they set your clothes on fire and burn right through you (they will burn underwater).

If what you say is right, why do they have WP hand grenades that throw these fragments up to descend right on the people who throw the grenade? There's no way you could throw a WP grenade 35 meters.

Look here is my take on the issue .
WP is not a chemical weapon as it KILLS YOU BY BURNING . If WP is a chemical weapon then so is hot water or hot oil or gasoline. WP is a weapon with many tactical uses and our soldiers deserve to be able use all the arrows they have without interference by the assholes and propagandist at home or around the world using it for their games and power grabs and political statements. If WP is so horribile that unlike being blown to atoms or having your flesh stripped from your body or your organs turned to frappe by HE , it is banned by treaty by the idiots who get involved in figuring out the most polite way to kill fellow humans then fuck it . Use something else to kill the bastards .

The issue here is and should be the double standard our government seems to present to the rest of the world . If by any chance we get back on track with this thread maybe we can get further insite into IF and WHEN our wonderfull leaders ever made staements saying that WP was a chemical weapon and that Saddam or the Russians or any other assorted very bad boys had used it to spank their assorted population of freedom fries , terrorist , civilians ..etc. That should be the point of this particular thread .
I have been through alot of info and it SEEMS that the US government did in fact call WP a chemical weapon being used against KURDISH FIGHTERS in the feild and asked that its use as such be investigated. BUT ..I cant find any follow up or news accounts and I have been into the acrchives back to 1989 .
I am going to look at accounts of the Iraq / Iran conflict next. I think that if the US government would have made the claim publicly then it would appear in print . So far I cant find it . I can only find info on recent blogs and other assorted websites like "god hates bush " etc. I gotta try the BBC..I seem to remember they were looking into it.

It sucks that guys are dying and getting maimed over there while at home the usaul group of asshole are playing politics with their lives .


Well, if it is "other examples" that you are looking for, you need go no further than the CIA's Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html)

Which states:


Once committed, Iraq spent large amounts of money and resources on its CW program (see Figure 1). The outbreak of war with Iran in 1980 and Iraq’s failure to attain a speedy victory appear to have been the impetus for the Ministry of Defense’s launch of its industrial-scale, comprehensive, strategic CW program—code-named Research Center 922 or Project 922—on June 8, 1981. The objective was to produce CW agents—mustard, Tabun, Sarin, and VX, chemical munitions, and white phosphorus (WP) munitions. (See Annex B.)


Clearly lumping WP into their CW category for purposes of reporting on Iraq's WMD.



Interestingly enough, on the use of WP in the Battlefield you can see what the defence department thinks about being on the recieving end of WP on the "Defend America" Site which - in 2002 had the following article (http://www.defendamerica.gov/archive/2002-11/20021125.html) that - in effect - complains about WP being used against US forces by noting that it is really nasty stuff:


WASHINGTON, Nov. 25, 2002 — Three U.S. camps in Afghanistan came under Taliban and/or al Qaeda fire Nov. 24. There were no U.S. casualties in any of the incidents.
In the first incident, the U.S. outpost at Gardez came under machinegun and rocket attack. The fire came from about 200 meters from the camp. U.S. personnel called for close-air support, but before the aircraft arrived the firing stopped.
In the second incident, the camp at Lwara came under rocket fire. Ten rockets impacted within the base confines. Nine of them carried white phosphorus. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone.
The rockets started three fires in the camp that personnel quickly put out.
U.S. personnel called on close-air support and the stand-by quick reaction force. An Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt dropped a 500-pound bomb on the suspected launch site.
In the third incident, a rocket impacted at the U.S. base in Khowst. Two U.S. trucks were damaged. U.S. officials said the actions indicate the situation in the country is still dangerous.

anyway, I don't need to beat the subject to death.

I just wanted to point out the hipocricy - which I did.

It isn't very dangerous, unless you let the hot fragments sit on your clothing.

The smoke has no chemical properties that make your flesh come off.

Imagine a matchhead. Now make the matchhead about the size of your thumbnail, and flatten it a bit. Now it's on fire - burning as hot as a matchhead. Many of these are falling like snowflakes (and about as fast). If you're attentive, when they land on your clothes, you can brush them off. If you let them sit on you, they set your clothes on fire and burn right through you (they will burn underwater).

If what you say is right, why do they have WP hand grenades that throw these fragments up to descend right on the people who throw the grenade? There's no way you could throw a WP grenade 35 meters.
Your answers are too glib and seem to totally refute the inherent dangers these weapons have, despite many posts that suggest that WP is indeed very dangerous.

Since you claim to have been exposed to WP, what is to say that you won't have long term health problems as a result? How many Vietnam vets were exposed to deadly chemicals such as Agent Orange, and ended up suing the US government, and the US manufacturers?

The chemical properties of WP can cause asphyxiation, deep burns (down to the bone), and death. At least according to the experts. Perhaps your knowledge is not as strong as you believe it to be?

Your answers are too glib and seem to totally refute the inherent dangers these weapons have, despite many posts that suggest that WP is indeed very dangerous.

Since you claim to have been exposed to WP, what is to say that you won't have long term health problems as a result? How many Vietnam vets were exposed to deadly chemicals such as Agent Orange, and ended up suing the US government, and the US manufacturers?

The chemical properties of WP can cause asphyxiation, deep burns (down to the bone), and death. At least according to the experts. Perhaps your knowledge is not as strong?

Mine is quite strong. I and many other infantrymen have been in the WP.

If you light your cigarettes with regular matches, you're inhaling phosphorus. Last I checked, there were warnings not to inhale tobacco smoke - but no warnings on the matches.

I think you're confusing white phosphorus with phosphorus-based chemical weapons (organophosphates). Completely different.

If you think they're even remotely related, I'll sell you the idea that flouride in water is a mind control scheme because Prozac contains flourine.

You're only going to be asphyxiated by WP if you're in a confined space. If you're outside, it's not going to happen.

Mine is quite strong. I and many other infantrymen have been in the WP.

If you light your cigarettes with regular matches, you're inhaling phosphorus. Last I checked, there were warnings not to inhale tobacco smoke - but no warnings on the matches.

I think you're confusing white phosphorus with phosphorus-based chemical weapons (organophosphates). Completely different.

If you think they're even remotely related, I'll sell you the idea that flouride in water is a mind control scheme because Prozac contains flourine.

Quantity and purity. Makes a big difference.

Yes, WP is a chemical, so is C-4, so is gunpowder, so is pretty much anything you could name.... Would you like us to fight this war with harsh language, or would that be considered torture?


Complete and utter strawman. There's a difference between a chemical that is a weapon and a chemical weapon. It's been pointed out several times in this thread. If you can't be bothered to even read the freaking thread, how can you possibly be trusted to have a legitimate opinion about anything at all?

Go back through the thread and come back. Then state in your own words what the difference between a chemical that is a weapon and a chemical weapon.

Mine is quite strong. I and many other infantrymen have been in the WP.

If you light your cigarettes with regular matches, you're inhaling phosphorus. Last I checked, there were warnings not to inhale tobacco smoke - but no warnings on the matches.

I think you're confusing white phosphorus with phosphorus-based chemical weapons (organophosphates). Completely different.

If you think they're even remotely related, I'll sell you the idea that flouride in water is a mind control scheme because Prozac contains flourine.

Yes yes yes. Sodium is a poison. Chlorine is a poison. Sodium Chloride is table salt, and a small amount is required for life (though too much can kill you.)

Thanks for the remedial chemistry.

The thing is, that those who have read the thread have seen several references from reliable sources as to what the effects of WP specifically on a human body are...sources that are much more reliable and verifiable than you.

Keep arguing if it is better to burn to death or just die from being blown away from your skeliton by an explosion and atomized or just being bled out from being shot .

It really makes sense to me discussing the proper way to kill someone .



Somehow this is normal .


I admit I am high while I am thinking about it .



But I still recognize that some fuckers just need to be dead .



It just bees that way sometime .



So why do we care how the bastards DIE ?




It isnt making much fucking sense .


wondering how we seperate a dickhead from his body and put out the light.


If you are dead you are dead .

FUCK IT RIGHT ?

It seems the big bunch of shit storm thinking is about who gets to die and why .


So if you get to be stuck with the actual fuckin killing of these poor bastards that have been determined to be worthy of death by your peers



Hmmm ....that might suck .


so what happens when the asshole that told you to kill....



Give you rules ...



Rules to kill by.....fuckin think about THAT shit.....


There's fuckin RULES ??????????????

Why not ?

Try not to think just do it .


Someone has to .


But remember ...


You are being judged


Not everyone gives a shit

Try to be nice about it .

Keep arguing if it is better to burn to death or just die from being blown away from your skeliton by an explosion and atomized or just being bled out from being shot.

It really makes sense to me discussing the proper way to kill someone.

So perhaps beheading is okay. That's quicker than bleeding out from a gunshot wound. Why did we go to war in the first place? Oh, that's right. WMD. Wait, no. It was because Saddam put down, in particularly brutal ways, what his government designated as domestic insurgents.

If it truly doesn't matter how people die, why didn't we just pay the 200 billion we've spent on Iraq saving millions worldwide from starvation then? Is it just about US and THEM then? Or, perhaps the ways people die and why IS an important topic for debate. Maybe the lines aren't clear. Maybe we all should put more thought into those lines.


Somehow this is normal.

I admit I am high while I am thinking about it.

But I still recognize that some fuckers just need to be dead.

Who gets to decide who needs to be dead?



It just bees that way sometime.

Let's leave Apis Mellifera out of this.


So why do we care how the bastards DIE ?


I'm sure that's what the terrorists, insurgents, and angry militants think too.



It isnt making much fucking sense.

*pauses significantly, coughs in an understated way.


wondering how we seperate a dickhead from his body and put out the light.

See reference to terrorists, etc. above.


If you are dead you are dead.

FUCK IT RIGHT ?


On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. (fight club)

It seems the big bunch of shit storm thinking is about who gets to die and why.

So if you get to be stuck with the actual fuckin killing of these poor bastards that have been determined to be worthy of death by your peers

More than 51% of Americans now disapprove of the Iraq war. The number is much lower practically everywhere else.



Hmmm ....that might suck .

So what happens when the asshole that told you to kill....

Give you rules ...

Uh...America doesn't invade?



Rules to kill by.....fuckin think about THAT shit.....

There's fuckin RULES ??????????????

Why not?

Try not to think just do it.

Someone has to.

Someone always has to kill? Everywhere? We're not debating the fact that sometimes people have to be put down. If we kill for a reason, we have to expect to be killed for reasons too. If we kill in a way, we have to expect to be killed in a way too.

But remember ...

You are being judged

Not everyone gives a shit

Try to be nice about it .

Exactly why we are having this debate.

Silly you! It's never wrong when the US does it.
Which means if we wait long enough, Saddam won't have ever done anything wrong.

Mine is quite strong. I and many other infantrymen have been in the WP.
The more I research this chemical and its' effects, the more that I doubt your claims of knowledgeability.

If you light your cigarettes with regular matches, you're inhaling phosphorus. Last I checked, there were warnings not to inhale tobacco smoke - but no warnings on the matches.
Apparently, not any more:

In the past, white phosphorus was used in the manufacture of matches. However, due to health considerations (jaw-bone necrosis), red phosphorus and tetraphosphorus trisulfide (P4S3) have replaced white phosphorus since the Beme Convention of 1906 (Nyunt 1983).

I think you're confusing white phosphorus with phosphorus-based chemical weapons (organophosphates). Completely different.
The research I am conducting is strictly on WP, and what I am finding is totally contradicting your claims.

If you think they're even remotely related, I'll sell you the idea that flouride in water is a mind control scheme because Prozac contains flourine.
The only "mind control scheme" happening here, is your downplaying the dangerous effects of WP.

Some interesting info:

1. There is no evidence that elemental phosphorus is used in any consumer products other than rat poisons.

2. People who work in user sites and possibly production sites, waste disposal sites, and military personnel using phosphorus-containing ammunitions are likely populations with potentially high exposures.

3. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) is 0.1 mg/m3

4. During deployment of WP/F bursting rockets and howitzers where the smoke covered a minimum ground area of 9,500-12,000 m2, the estimated environmental concentration of smoke would be 5-25 mg/m3 (Shinn et al. 1985). On the other hand, the deployment of white phosphorus-based mortars, guns, rockets, and howitzers covering a minimum smoke area of 100-800 m2, may produce an environmental concentration of 1,800-3,500 mg/m3 smoke (Shinn et al. 1985).

5. White phosphorus exposure to plants results in a variety of deleterious effects which are based upon the species of plant, the smoke concentration, the duration of exposure, the relative humidity, and the wind speed. These effects can include leaf tip burn, leaf curl, leaf abscission and drop, floral abortion, chlorosis, neucrotic spotting, wilting, dessication, and dieback.

One wonders after reading this stuff if the US mandates the wearing of personal protection equipment, including gas masks, when using these munitions?

But I still recognize that some fuckers just need to be dead.
Why do Iraqis have to die?

So why do we care how the bastards DIE ?
What did these "bastards" ever do to deserve death at the hands of US troops?

It isnt making much fucking sense .
I agree with you there.

It seems the big bunch of shit storm thinking is about who gets to die and why .
And who made that decision to invade Iraq?

so what happens when the asshole that told you to kill....
And that would be?

Give you rules ...

Rules to kill by.....fuckin think about THAT shit.....

There's fuckin RULES ??????????????
And there shouldn't be any rules???????

Try not to think just do it .
It is a tough assignment but who handed out the assignment?

But remember ...

You are being judged
Thats a gimmee.

Not everyone gives a shit
I have noticed.

Fenland Friends, do you realize that your arguments that the experts should determine what a chemical weapon is go against your argument that WP is a chemical weapon?

The experts have agreed that it is not. See the various treaties that have been posted here and elsewhere. Even CanuckHeaven has conceeded this. Why can't you?

One wonders after reading this stuff if the US mandates the wearing of personal protection equipment, including gas masks, when using these munitions?

No, they do not. Not in the military. And we had our gas masks in a pouch attached to our gear.

I think you believe it's something as poisonous as nerve gas.

You won't find white phosphorus listed as a chemical weapon when they divide them into classes of weapon.

Not a nerve agent (VX, Sarin, Soman, Tabun).
Not a blister agent or vesicant (Mustard, Lewisite).
Not a choking agent (Phosgene).
Not a sternutatory (DM)
Not a riot control agent (CS, CN, Pepper spray).

It's just not listed in the standard list of chemical weapons. And the military does not think of it as a chemical weapon.

The experts have agreed that it is not. See the various treaties that have been posted here and elsewhere. Even CanuckHeaven has conceeded this. Why can't you?
Say what? I haven't conceded that WP is not a chemical weapon. When used against people, it most certainly is a chemical weapon:

For the purposes of this Convention:

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

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

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

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

2. "Toxic Chemical" means:

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

WP by its' own properties, is a "toxic chemical" and when used directly against people it is a "chemical weapon".

An interesting read, despite the source:

Use in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_incendiary)

And of course, there is still the original claim by the US that Saddam used phosphorus (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html)against the Kurds after the Gulf War.

Again, I declare that I have conceded nothing in this debate.

Say what? I haven't conceded that WP is not a chemical weapon.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9982882&postcount=118

You have yet to demonstrate that it has been used by anyone as achemical weapon by your own definition. I challenged you to provide such evidence or to be considered to have de facto conceded. Since you have yet to do so, I will consider you in concession until you do.

And of course, there is still the original claim by the US that Saddam used phosphorus (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html)against the Kurds after the Gulf War.

Completely debunked above. Unless you want to belive that a couple of Kurdish brothers quoted in a raw intelligence report are the US.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9982882&postcount=118

You have yet to demonstrate that it has been used by anyone as achemical weapon by your own definition.

Again, your own quote gives you up. See, this sentence above shows that you concede that WP's status as a chemical weapon depends not on it's properties but how it is used.

Therefore investigation into how it was used is merited.

Pure and simple.

Oh, your comment about the Kurdish Brothers shows you completely ignored Silliopolous' post a page back quoting ANOTHER government source (the CIA itself...but of course they wouldn't know about chemical weapons either...perhaps their agents aren't able to work covertly anymore...,) that lumps WP and chemical weapons together.

Come on Daistallia, ignoring evidence that doesn't suit you isn't like you.
here it is again.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

STILL posted at the CIA's website.

Again, your own quote gives you up. See, this sentence above shows that you concede that WP's status as a chemical weapon depends not on it's properties but how it is used.

Therefore investigation into how it was used is merited.

Pure and simple.

I would agree, if anyone could provide some evidence that it might possibly have been used for it's toxic properties.

Neither CanuckHeaven, nor anyone else, has provided the slightest bit of evidence that it has been used for purposes other than obscuration or incendiary. CanuckHeaven insists that it is a chemical weapon (an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence) but fails to provide any evidence at all.

I would agree, if anyone could provide some evidence that it might possibly have been used for it's toxic properties.

Neither CanuckHeaven, nor anyone else, has provided the slightest bit of evidence that it has been used for purposes other than obscuration or incendiary. CanuckHeaven insists that it is a chemical weapon (an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence) but fails to provide any evidence at all.

WP is a chemical weapon, if used as one. Therefore the allegations that it was used as such have to be addressed instead of brushed under the carpet.

Oh, your comment about the Kurdish Brothers shows you completely ignored Silliopolous' post a page back quoting ANOTHER government source (the CIA itself...but of course they wouldn't know about chemical weapons either...perhaps their agents aren't able to work covertly anymore...,) that lumps WP and chemical weapons together.

Come on Daistallia, ignoring evidence that doesn't suit you isn't like you.
here it is again.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

STILL posted at the CIA's website.


Sorry, I missed that in the noise. The phosphorous there is reported as a precursor to organophosphates (nerve agents):

What evidence of phosphorus did ISG find in Iraq?

ISG investigated four production areas suspected of conducting phosphorus chemistry:

* The al-Qaim Superphosphate Plant was suspected by ISG of possible production of highly reactive phosphorus compounds. An ISG site visit
revealed that by design, the plant could not be used for this purpose. At al-Qaim SPP, phosphate rock was crushed and converted into phosphoric acid. Superphosphate was then produced from the acid and sold on the local market.
* The Al Tariq Company was suspected of producing pesticides, a process that usually consumes similar precursors and employs similar chemical reactions as nerve agents. However, an ISG site visit and a series of interviews with Al Tariq employees revealed that the company imports concentrated pesticides (expensive and unsuitable for nerve agent production) for dilution, formulation, and re-sale in Iraq.
* The Qubaysah White Phosphorus Production Facilitywould have provided Iraq with the capability to convert phosphate rock into a potential nerve agent precursor. However, according to reporting the facility was never fully completed, and no equipment was installed, according to ISG analysis and a military reconnaissance mission.
* Hutin Munitions Production and Storage Facility: ISG discovered numerous barrels (over 3,000 gallons) of white phosphorus and munitions assembly lines, which we judge were intended for the production of white phosphorus illumination rounds. This white phosphorus, probably imported and declared by Iraq in 2002, could have been used to produce some nerve agent precursors on a laboratory scale.

So that's still a no go.

WP is a chemical weapon, if used as one. Therefore the allegations that it was used as such have to be addressed instead of brushed under the carpet.

And those allegations still need some evidence.

Sorry, I missed that in the noise. The phosphorous there is reported as a precursor to organophosphates (nerve agents):



So that's still a no go.

Nope, sorry, you skipped a bit.

Once committed, Iraq spent large amounts of money and resources on its CW program (see Figure 1). The outbreak of war with Iran in 1980 and Iraq’s failure to attain a speedy victory appear to have been the impetus for the Ministry of Defense’s launch of its industrial-scale, comprehensive, strategic CW program—code-named Research Center 922 or Project 922—on June 8, 1981. The objective was to produce CW agents—mustard, Tabun, Sarin, and VX, chemical munitions, and white phosphorus (WP) munitions. (See Annex B.)

And those allegations still need some evidence.

And what must one do to gather evidence? Investigate! Because neither you nor I were there.

You have yet to demonstrate that it has been used by anyone as achemical weapon by your own definition. I challenged you to provide such evidence or to be considered to have de facto conceded. Since you have yet to do so, I will consider you in concession until you do.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt

Officials said about 60,000 residents fled the city Friday in vehicles and on foot from checkpoints in the south.

In the north, however, no men are allowed to leave the part of town where insurgents concentrated last week and have led coordinated attacks in neighborhoods they fortified with bunkers, barricades and weapons caches.

Military officials no longer speak of winning hearts and minds in Fallujah.

The above would indicate that the Marines wouldn't even allow non combatants (read civilians) to leave the war zone. In other words, the innocent would die along with the warriors.

Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.

This seems to indicate the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons against the civilan population.

Add in the Air Force Times (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-502866.php)


FALLUJAH, Iraq — Hundreds of men trying to flee the assault on Fallujah have been turned back by U.S. troops following orders to allow only women, children and the elderly to leave.
The military says it has received reports warning that insurgents will drop their weapons and mingle with refugees to avoid being killed or captured by advancing American troops.

As it believes many of Fallujah’s men are guerrilla fighters, it has instructed U.S. troops to turn back all males aged 15 to 55.



Any indescriminate bombing then would also imply indescriminate targets...

No, they do not. Not in the military. And we had our gas masks in a pouch attached to our gear.

I think you believe it's something as poisonous as nerve gas.

You won't find white phosphorus listed as a chemical weapon when they divide them into classes of weapon.

Not a nerve agent (VX, Sarin, Soman, Tabun).
Not a blister agent or vesicant (Mustard, Lewisite).
Not a choking agent (Phosgene).
Not a sternutatory (DM)
Not a riot control agent (CS, CN, Pepper spray).

It's just not listed in the standard list of chemical weapons. And the military does not think of it as a chemical weapon.

Well said and accurate DK. However, it is no use arguing with CH. He's brainwashed into thinking its a chemical weapon and nothing in the world will prove him wrong.

If he truly does think its a chemical weapon then the WP we found in Iraq proves he had chemical weapons after all but he tries to deny that too.

Which is it CH?

Add in the Air Force Times (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-502866.php)

Any indescriminate bombing then would also imply indescriminate targets...
The one you reference is the 2nd assault on Fallujah which was in Nov. 2004. The one I referenced was the assault on Fallujah of April 2004, which were a reprisal of the 4 contractors killed by insurgents.

Some key statements to remember (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/01/iraq.main/):

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a U.S. Army spokesman, said "we will be back in Fallujah. It will be at the time and place of our choosing. We will hunt down the criminals."

"Quite simply, we will respond," Kimmitt said.

"We are not going to do a pell-mell rush into the city," Kimmitt said. "It's going to be deliberate. It will be precise and it will be overwhelming.

Paul Bremer:

Top U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer, speaking at a police cadet graduation ceremony, said, "Yesterday's events in Fallujah are a dramatic example of the ongoing struggle between human dignity and barbarism."

The four -- employees of a security company that has provided security for Bremer -- "were attacked and their bodies subjected to barbarous maltreatment," Bremer said. "The acts we have seen were despicable and inexcusable. They violate the tenets of all religions including Islam as well as the foundations of civilized society.

"Their deaths will not go unpunished."

Motive = retaliation

Well said and accurate DK. However, it is no use arguing with CH. He's brainwashed into thinking its a chemical weapon and nothing in the world will prove him wrong.

If he truly does think its a chemical weapon then the WP we found in Iraq proves he had chemical weapons after all but he tries to deny that too.

Which is it CH?
Since you continually refer to Deep Kimchi's expertise and provide none of your own, your comments are somewhat redundant, and unworthy of response.

Since you continually refer to Deep Kimchi's expertise and provide none of your own, your comments are somewhat redundant, and unworthy of response.

Since DK is in the military, and I have seen no evidence to disprove this, I will refer to his expertise.

I also have the experience of my father who is also in the military. And most military personel I know will not characterize it as a Chemical Weapon because it isn't.

DK has proven as such and yet you are still refusing to listen to the other side. Every one of your points has been addressed by people on here and yet you still refuse to accept their arguements.

How has this been disproven ? Think about it for sec. How does WP kill ?
Knowing that how would you class it ? Where on this list does it belong ?

Originally Posted by Deep Kimchi
No, they do not. Not in the military. And we had our gas masks in a pouch attached to our gear.

I think you believe it's something as poisonous as nerve gas.

You won't find white phosphorus listed as a chemical weapon when they divide them into classes of weapon.

Not a nerve agent (VX, Sarin, Soman, Tabun).
Not a blister agent or vesicant (Mustard, Lewisite).
Not a choking agent (Phosgene).
Not a sternutatory (DM)
Not a riot control agent (CS, CN, Pepper spray).

It's just not listed in the standard list of chemical weapons. And the military does not think of it as a chemical weapon.


Just because both sides have been stupid enough to call it a chemical weapon for their own propaganda needs doesnt mean every one else has to be stupid about it .
WP explodes and if you are unlucky to be in its blast zone you MAY burn to death or be injured. If you are in a hole or bunker you may get baked .
Please explain how WP is by burning you a chemical weapon..it burns by creating heat ..comonly known as FIRE ...not by blistering etc.

Are people still callled peaceniks any more ?:p Or is it all just lumped under left wing liberals etc.

Since DK is in the military, and I have seen no evidence to disprove this, I will refer to his expertise.

I also have the experience of my father who is also in the military. And most military personel I know will not characterize it as a Chemical Weapon because it isn't.

DK has proven as such and yet you are still refusing to listen to the other side. Every one of your points has been addressed by people on here and yet you still refuse to accept their arguements.
And I will continue to refute their arguments as long as I find evidence that is contrary to your claim to their "expertise".

As I stated earlier, your comments are redundant and add nothing to this topic. When you tone down the rhetoric, lose the insults, and provide some logical arguments, then I will be able to respond.

And I will continue to refute their arguments as long as I find evidence that is contrary to your claim to their "expertise".

Even though you have been debunked constently when you do? Come on CH, there is only so much fun I can have at your expense. You really are losing this debate to those that actually KNOW what WP can do. Do you? Have you been in the military?

As I stated earlier, your comments are redundant and add nothing to this topic. When you tone down the rhetoric, lose the insults, and provide some logical arguments, then I will be able to respond.

No they just back up what those who have and still is serving in the military. They are far more knowledgable than you and the press.

Well, think like this.. considering that everything the US does is not a crime, and everything that the US does, Saddam did in any point of time, I reckon he will be declared not guilty of all charges!

Well, think like this.. considering that everything the US does is not a crime, and everything that the US does, Saddam did in any point of time, I reckon he will be declared not guilty of all charges!

Oh, he'll be found guilty alright. He is still guilty for gassing his own people during the Iran-Iraq war. Not to mention the crimes committed when he invaded Kuwait.

That still leaves what he did to his own people so I don't think he'll be found not guilty.

Oh, he'll be found guilty alright. He is still guilty for gassing his own people during the Iran-Iraq war. Not to mention the crimes committed when he invaded Kuwait.

That still leaves what he did to his own people so I don't think he'll be found not guilty.

You are right. The US missed using Sarin gas :/

You are right. The US missed using Sarin gas :/

:confused:

Pardon me?

Come on CH, there is only so much fun I can have at your expense.
It is comments such as these that are the root of your problem, and re-iterates my contention that you really do have nothing to offer in this debate.

You really are losing this debate to those that actually KNOW what WP can do.
I do believe that I am holding my own in this debate which is more than I can say about your contribution.

Do you? Have you been in the military?
Briefly yes, but that has nothing to do with this debate.

No they just back up what those who have and still is serving in the military. They are far more knowledgable than you and the press.
The fact that someone has served in the military doesn't mean that their knowledge cannot be questioned, and from what has been posted so far, some of it is definitely questionable. Hence the debate.

And as far as your knowledge is concerned, I haven't seen you post anything that backs up any of your claims, and in a previous thread about WP, you made some claims and I asked you for your proof and you still haven't provided any.

If you want to debate, perhaps you could start by answering these questions:

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

You are always asking others to prove their statements and yet you don't feel compelled to do likewise. That is not the essence of debate.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10_04.txt

Officials said about 60,000 residents fled the city Friday in vehicles and on foot from checkpoints in the south.

In the north, however, no men are allowed to leave the part of town where insurgents concentrated last week and have led coordinated attacks in neighborhoods they fortified with bunkers, barricades and weapons caches.

Military officials no longer speak of winning hearts and minds in Fallujah.

The above would indicate that the Marines wouldn't even allow non combatants (read civilians) to leave the war zone. In other words, the innocent would die along with the warriors.

Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.

This seems to indicate the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons against the civilan population.


You still have yet to demonstrate that it has been used by anyone as a chemical weapon by your own definition. This repetition of yours is starting to grow weary. Your claims have been reduced to argumentum ad nauseam.

It is comments such as these that are the root of your problem, and re-iterates my contention that you really do have nothing to offer in this debate.


I do believe that I am holding my own in this debate which is more than I can say about your contribution.

If you want to debate, perhaps you could start by answering these questions:

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

You are always asking others to prove their statements and yet you don't feel compelled to do likewise. That is not the essence of debate.


Pot, kettle. Until you can answer the question I've put to you here and elsewhere, you have no business demanding that others do what you won't.

Nope, sorry, you skipped a bit.

Hmmm. Nope. I read that It still says the same thing. WP was a concern as a precursor.

Any indescriminate bombing then would also imply indescriminate targets...

A: There was indescriminate bombing.
B: The targets were indescriminate.
C: Thus WP was used as a chemical weapon.

Sorry Charlie, that's a non sequitur.

Pot, kettle. Until you can answer the question I've put to you here and elsewhere, you have no business demanding that others do what you won't.
Hold your horses there. I asked Corny those questions long before you asked your questions (ad nauseum), which I do believe I have answered by the way.

I strongly suggest you go back through the thread to see my posted references and articles. From the submissions made, there is no doubt in my mind that WP was used not only against combatants but against non combatants.

The only matter left for debate as far as I am concerned would be the legality and morality for such usage.

Hmmm. Nope. I read that It still says the same thing. WP was a concern as a precursor.

That paragraph contains no mention of precursors and it precedes any mention of precursors. It specifically refers to WP munitions as CW and it is the second occurence of such in government documents (that we know of.)

Again Daistallia, I know you pride yourself in not tossing aside evidence that disproves your preconceptions, just as I do. Don't let yourself slip away from that standard.

Again, for everyone here. There simply can be no argument that WP can, be a chemical weapon. It depends entirely on how it's used. Therefore anyone stating conclusively that WP is or is not a chemical weapon in all cases is showing an incredible ability to lie to themselves (I'm looking at you, Corny.)

Hasn't anyone really considered that it doesn't matter if its legal or illegal? Think about it. If somebody can use it, and they aren't a Westernized Nation, they'll most likely use it. Perfect example of this is Saddam on the Kurds. North Korea too; if they have nukes, they'll be using them shortly, whether on South Korea or China. Doesn't matter to them.

So technically its only the chemical laws and laws of physics that we all have to follow.
And let me tell you, as soon as I can figure out how to make myself completely invisible, I'm doin it.

Deep Kimchi, your right, it's pretty dumb to assume a soldier can throw it further than thirty five metres.

Then again, it only has a blast radius of seventeen metres.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m15.htm

"5) Capabilities -- the average soldier can throw the grenade 30 meters. The grenade has a bursting radius of 17 meters. All friendly personnel within this 17-meter area should be in a covered position to avoid being struck by burning particles. The WP filler burns for about 60 seconds at a temperature of 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This intense heat causes the smoke produced by the grenade to rise quite rapidly, especially in cool climates. This makes the M15 grenade less desirable for use as a screening agent."

Judging by that, if you're near the centre of the blast radius, you're cooked. You can bake a turkey at 425 Fahrenheit. WP grenades are a bit more than that. It will incinerate anything within a close range of the actual detonation. It doesn't need to touch to to burn you. I've gotten first degree burns from a campfire because it was so hot -- and my boots started to melt. Nevermind the fact I was about two metres away. It radiates heat, too, remember.
=============================================================
Is the US being hypocritical? Most likely -- hell, it's politics, why be surprised?

Here's an idea Bush should adopt:

1) "Admit" (used lightly) that WP is a chemical weapon

2) With the possession of confiscated WP weaponry from Saddam's Iraq, he now has evidence for WMD possession (since most of it hopped the border to Syria et al)

3) After the war, change the definition of "chemical weapon" and "white phosphorus" so you can use WP again

Is it hypocritical? Hell yeah. It's politics, politics is immature.
============================================================
On a side note, I stopped caring about Iraqi casualties once our soldier's death count hit one thousand. That's when I knew we were trying to be too polite about our war. We need more Patton, and less Patent Leather.

You wanna know my policy? Burn the fuckers. Burn EVERY SINGLE ONE of them. I'm done caring about the people on the left here at home bitching about every damn thing our troops do there simply because they don't like our president. No matter what the troops do, no matter what Bush orders, they will not lose blame, deserving or not. So, here's the plan:

Give civilians forty-eight hours to leave the Sunni Triangle at the designated departure points, guarded by multiple checkpoints that aren't afraid to shoot. Anyone who tries to leave in places other than the designated departure points will be shot. After the forty-eight hour period is complete, large-scale air strikes need to be called in to flatten strongholds and wipe them off the face of the planet. Then, and ONLY THEN, are the infantry called in to do a final sweep of the area. Any being who even looks like they pose a threat is to be nuturalized, for the saftey of the troops. Afterwards, let the civilians back in one sector at a time.


Is it harsh? Yes. But I'm tired of the polititians in Washington pussy-footing around and being generally mentally challenged when it comes to the handling of the war. We had so many troops die because of poor planning and a doomed effort to fight a "politically correct war."

Now, how does this rant tie into WP?

Simple -- WP needs to be used more, not less. When special forces units -- Rangers, SEALs, FORCE RECON, Task Force 11, etc -- clear a building, they first breach the door and usually toss in a grenade. Why? To kill as many hostiles as possible before putting themselves at risk. White Phosphorus, in a closed environment, is very effective at this. Break open a window or keep the door open, and the WP will go on until all of it burns out, since all it needs to ignite is contact with oxygen. Hell, if you want to be nice and "PC" about it, put a houseplant of live roses in the room to decorate the graves of the dead terrorists. Makes it look pretty, supplies WP with oxygen. Win-win situation.

WP is an effective weapon -- that's why people don't want us to use it -- it's effective. Anything that lowers the US casualty count is bad, after all.

On a side note, I stopped caring about Iraqi casualties once our soldier's death count hit one thousand. That's when I knew we were trying to be too polite about our war. We need more Patton, and less Patent Leather.

You wanna know my policy? Burn the fuckers. Burn EVERY SINGLE ONE of them. I'm done caring about the people on the left here at home bitching about every damn thing our troops do there simply because they don't like our president. No matter what the troops do, no matter what Bush orders, they will not lose blame, deserving or not. So, here's the plan:

Give civilians forty-eight hours to leave the Sunni Triangle at the designated departure points, guarded by multiple checkpoints that aren't afraid to shoot. Anyone who tries to leave in places other than the designated departure points will be shot. After the forty-eight hour period is complete, large-scale air strikes need to be called in to flatten strongholds and wipe them off the face of the planet. Then, and ONLY THEN, are the infantry called in to do a final sweep of the area. Any being who even looks like they pose a threat is to be nuturalized, for the saftey of the troops. Afterwards, let the civilians back in one sector at a time.


Is it harsh? Yes. But I'm tired of the polititians in Washington pussy-footing around and being generally mentally challenged when it comes to the handling of the war. We had so many troops die because of poor planning and a doomed effort to fight a "politically correct war."

Now, how does this rant tie into WP?

Simple -- WP needs to be used more, not less. When special forces units -- Rangers, SEALs, FORCE RECON, Task Force 11, etc -- clear a building, they first breach the door and usually toss in a grenade. Why? To kill as many hostiles as possible before putting themselves at risk. White Phosphorus, in a closed environment, is very effective at this. Break open a window or keep the door open, and the WP will go on until all of it burns out, since all it needs to ignite is contact with oxygen. Hell, if you want to be nice and "PC" about it, put a houseplant of live roses in the room to decorate the graves of the dead terrorists. Makes it look pretty, supplies WP with oxygen. Win-win situation.

WP is an effective weapon -- that's why people don't want us to use it -- it's effective. Anything that lowers the US casualty count is bad, after all.
And the above makes the world a better place in what way?

And the above makes the world a better place in what way?

It lets the mission in Iraq be accomplished faster so we can leave without leaving Iraq in total and complete chaos, as a pullout now would do.

WP is an effective weapon -- that's why people don't want us to use it -- it's effective. Anything that lowers the US casualty count is bad, after all.

Ah. The old "you hate America and the troops!" crap. Screw you buddy. That is a bullshit statement and the fact that you even jokingly (and I have my doubts about that,) offer it shows that you don't give a shit about any kind of meaningful and intelligent debate.

You know what? We could have prevented all American casualties by nuking Iraq...killing all civilains, insurgents and terrorists indiscriminately.

You like that, does that sound like a good idea to you?

If you are reasonable, the answer is no. Therefore, clearly, a line HAS to be drawn as to what is reasonable and what is not, even in a time of war. This particular debate is about where exactly that line is. It's a valuable debate and it's a necessary debate, and your attempt to demonize the debate is not appreciated.

It lets the mission in Iraq be accomplished faster so we can leave without leaving Iraq in total and complete chaos, as a pullout now would do.

There are more factors to how quickly we can withdraw from Iraq in good order than how efficiently we kill the insurgents.

It lets the mission in Iraq be accomplished faster so we can leave without leaving Iraq in total and complete chaos, as a pullout now would do.
Many would argue that Iraq is already in total and complete chaos.

If your primary concern is reducing the number of US casualties, then why not just advocate a pullout now?

I don't know what the hell happened, but for some reason this got deleted. Let's try this again. :D

Ah. The old "you hate America and the troops!" crap. Screw you buddy. That is a bullshit statement and the fact that you even jokingly (and I have my doubts about that,) offer it shows that you don't give a shit about any kind of meaningful and intelligent debate.

It is not a bullshit statement as, around here, both where I live and on the General Forum, there ARE people who hold the "I hate America and the Troops" stance.

You know what? We could have prevented all American casualties by nuking Iraq...killing all civilains, insurgents and terrorists indiscriminately.

You like that, does that sound like a good idea to you?

If you are reasonable, the answer is no. Therefore, clearly, a line HAS to be drawn as to what is reasonable and what is not, even in a time of war. This particular debate is about where exactly that line is. It's a valuable debate and it's a necessary debate, and your attempt to demonize the debate is not appreciated.

First off, if my post(s) seemed like they were demonizing the debate, I apologize, it was not meant to be interpreted that way.

I agree with you -- nuking is bad. As much as it doesn't seem like it, I do care about the Iraqis. However, we are too worried about public opinion here at home and in the rest of the world and are not carrying out a logical, strategically acceptable war. There are groups out there and people out there who are waiting with foaming mouths for the next move for Bush so they can jump on it and demonize America. We can't shoot at a mosque because it's a religious institution. And if the terrorist scum are using it as a hideout? Tough luck. Our soldiers shouldn't be prohibited from using logical tactics to fighting a war, instead of a suicide march.

Where was I? Oh, right.

I don't want needless civilian lives lost, but when we care more about their lives than about not sending our soldiers into death traps, something is wrong.

There are more factors to how quickly we can withdraw from Iraq in good order than how efficiently we kill the insurgents.

I'm aware, but let's face it -- the terrorists are a major part on why we can't.


Many would argue that Iraq is already in total and complete chaos.

I'm aware, but that's frankly not true. Well, in some parts it is, namely the Sunni Triangle, but there are many large parts quite subdued. Notice how you don't hear too much about attacks from the Kurdish zone of Iraq, do you? Nope.

If your primary concern is reducing the number of US casualties, then why not just advocate a pullout now?

Because in the long run that could be disasterous for the United States, plus it would effectively kill any chance of a non-despot government in Iraq.

Granted, there isn't too much of a chance of that right now, but that's for another thread.

I don't know what the hell happened, but for some reason this got deleted. Let's try this again. :D



It is not a bullshit statement as, around here, both where I live and on the General Forum, there ARE people who hold the "I hate America and the Troops" stance.


No one hates the troops, or at least no one of consequence. It's not a mainstream opinion. All it is is a small group of loudmouth retards. To characterize a whole side of a debate based on them just chaps my hide.

As for those who hate America, well, some do. Some for dumb or false reasons. Some because of jealousy. Some because familiarity breeds contempt. Others dislike America because they strongly disagree with American governmental policy. Personally, I hate the denizens of the Whitehouse because I deeply feel that they are tarnishing much of what makes America great, but I love America.

Sorry if I reacted too strongly to your posts, but I get so tired of people I'm trying to discuss important things with hiding behind stereotypes and gross mischaracterizations.

No one hates the troops, or at least no one of consequence. It's not a mainstream opinion. All it is is a small group of loudmouth retards. To characterize a whole side of a debate based on them just chaps my hide.

HERE HERE! (@ t3h b0ld!n355) Sorry for the generalizations, though. I rant about it, yet I do it myself. Damn my evil hypocrisy. :)

As for those who hate America, well, some do. Some for dumb or false reasons. Some because of jealousy. Some because because familiarity breeds contempt. Others dislike America because they strongly disagree with American governmental policy. Personally, I hate the denizens of the Whitehouse because I deeply feel that they are tarnishing much of what makes America great.

I won't go as far as to say I hate Bush, but he is by far not my favourite president we've ever had. He's too liberal. :D

Sorry if I reacted too strongly to your posts, but I get so tired of people I'm trying to discuss important things with hiding behind stereotypes and gross mischaracterizations.

That's fine -- seeing it from your point of view, I can't blame you. I would probably do the same thing.

On a side note, I stopped caring about Iraqi casualties once our soldier's death count hit one thousand. That's when I knew we were trying to be too polite about our war.
And why shouldn't the US be "polite about your war"? The US is after all, an uninivited guest in Iraq.

You wanna know my policy? Burn the fuckers. Burn EVERY SINGLE ONE of them.
How does this tie in with Bush's "compassionate conservatism"?

We had so many troops die because of poor planning and a doomed effort to fight a "politically correct war."
Many would argue that the US is already waging a "politically incorrect war" by illegally invading Iraq. By advocating a continuation of this war using "politically incorrect" measures would demonstrate to the world that the US has no moral authority to remain in Iraq.

White Phosphorus, in a closed environment, is very effective at this. Break open a window or keep the door open, and the WP will go on until all of it burns out, since all it needs to ignite is contact with oxygen.
According to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the use of WP in this manner is illegal.

Hell, if you want to be nice and "PC" about it, put a houseplant of live roses in the room to decorate the graves of the dead terrorists. Makes it look pretty, supplies WP with oxygen. Win-win situation.
I am sure that it is comments such as these that will win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, and the rest of the world? The fact remains that many civilians are dying along with the terrorists, especially in Fallujah, Civilians that were trapped there and unable to leave before the onslaught of US bombardment, with the latter apparently being a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

WP is an effective weapon -- that's why people don't want us to use it -- it's effective.
When used against people, it is an illegal weapon that violates the CWC.

OOC: I shouldn't respond to this, as it violates my "Only one serious post every ten pages" rule, but I guess I have to.
=============================================================
And why shouldn't the US be "polite about your war"? The US is after all, an uninivited guest in Iraq.

politeness = needless US Casualties


How does this tie in with Bush's "compassionate conservatism"?

It doesn't. Mind you, I find his "CC" stance retarded.


Many would argue that the US is already waging a "politically incorrect war" by illegally invading Iraq. By advocating a continuation of this war using "politically incorrect" measures would demonstrate to the world that the US has no moral authority to remain in Iraq.

What is an "illegal war" anyways? I never thought that term really made any sense.

And CH, the tactics the US used in Iraq will not change public opinion up until the point they decide to actually get something done and stop pussyfooting around. That's when real results will happen, and public opinion may go up. I use may for a reason -- those that are against the war already believe that the US has no moral athourity to be there, that's not going to change no matter what happens. It really is a moot point.
According to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the use of WP in this manner is illegal.


I am sure that it is comments such as these that will win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, and the rest of the world?

Do I care? (@ emphasized point) The path we are on now sure as hell isn't going to win them.

The fact remains that many civilians are dying along with the terrorists, especially in Fallujah. Civilians that were trapped there and unable to leave before the onslaught of US bombardment, with the latter apparently being a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Unfortunate. Not what I would have done. Deliberate bombing of civilians is reprehensible. Going out of your way and getting yourself killed so as to avoid them, though, is stupid.


When used against people, it is an illegal weapon that violates the CWC.

How unfortunate. Do like the US always does -- ignore "international law."

No one hates the troops, or at least no one of consequence. It's not a mainstream opinion. All it is is a small group of loudmouth retards. To characterize a whole side of a debate based on them just chaps my hide.

As for those who hate America, well, some do. Some for dumb or false reasons. Some because of jealousy. Some because familiarity breeds contempt. Others dislike America because they strongly disagree with American governmental policy. Personally, I hate the denizens of the Whitehouse because I deeply feel that they are tarnishing much of what makes America great, but I love America.

Sorry if I reacted too strongly to your posts, but I get so tired of people I'm trying to discuss important things with hiding behind stereotypes and gross mischaracterizations.

There are plenty of people who are giving lip service to "support the troops" and then actively speaking against them on campus at George Mason University, the University of Maryland, and Georgetown University.

I hardly see these as unique. I've even seen people deliberately shun ex-soldiers or freeze them out of discussions - people who I have heard say they "support the troops". I'm already hearing the same "baby killer" talk that they say troops returning from Vietnam heard.

OOC: I shouldn't respond to this, as it violates my "Only one serious post every ten pages" rule, but I guess I have to.
=============================================================
politeness = needless US Casualties

It doesn't. Mind you, I find his "CC" stance retarded.

What is an "illegal war" anyways? I never thought that term really made any sense.

And CH, the tactics the US used in Iraq will not change public opinion up until the point they decide to actually get something done and stop pussyfooting around. That's when real results will happen, and public opinion may go up. I use may for a reason -- those that are against the war already believe that the US has no moral athourity to be there, that's not going to change no matter what happens. It really is a moot point.
According to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the use of WP in this manner is illegal.

Do I care? (@ emphasized point) The path we are on now sure as hell isn't going to win them.

Unfortunate. Not what I would have done. Deliberate bombing of civilians is reprehensible. Going out of your way and getting yourself killed so as to avoid them, though, is stupid.

How unfortunate. Do like the US always does -- ignore "international law."
Although you and I may have some fundamental differences as to this topic, I do respect your straightforward and honest rebuttal. There are also a few points that we are in general agreement.

In regards to US troop withdrawal, I do not feel that it would be "disastrous" as you claim. If the US starts drawing down the forces in big numbers after the Iraqi elections in Dec., I think the US would gain big brownie points on the world stage. The majority of Iraqis look upon the US as an occupying force and want the troops to withdraw, even though they know that it will be more difficult for them once the US troops are gone.

With a US troop withdrawal, the insurgents and terrorists will have less targets to shoot at, and indigenous Iraqis can get on with the rebuilding of their country. Now that is a "win/win" situation.

There are plenty of people who are giving lip service to "support the troops" and then actively speaking against them on campus at George Mason University, the University of Maryland, and Georgetown University.

I hardly see these as unique. I've even seen people deliberately shun ex-soldiers or freeze them out of discussions - people who I have heard say they "support the troops". I'm already hearing the same "baby killer" talk that they say troops returning from Vietnam heard.

And there are an equal number who don't give a shit about the troops but love the fact that America is kicking some camel jockey ass. There are those who get deferment after deferment so that they don't have to fight, and then they call others cowards. In fact, it's my belief that those who started the war don't give a shit about the troops...which is why the troops were sent with insufficient armor to a country that was not a threat to us (until we got there.)

And to all those a-holes who keep saying "well, people don't want the US to use WP because that means fewer US troops will die!" you all can kiss my ass. Apparently the Pentagon didn't send over enough body armor and armor for Hummers because they wanted US troops to die.

The people who have done the most concrete harm to the troops (aside from those who are actually blowing them up,) are those entrusted with the welfare of the troops.

Over 2000 of the USA's "babies", young men and women, have been killed in this war. I call the Bush administration "baby killers" not the troops.

Where, as well, is the sense of sacrifice that people back home who supported the troops back in other wars? What did Bush supporters want more than anything? Tax cuts. In a time of war. So much so that no other issue really mattered to them (certainly not equipping the troops properly.) The hypocritical, flag-waving, Bush ass-kissing "troop supporters" supported the troops...as long as it didn't mean they actually had to do anything or go without anything.

So shove your selfish and hypocritical flag waving up your ass.

Over 2000 of the USA's "babies", young men and women, have been killed in this war. I call the Bush administration "baby killers" not the troops.

In that case, I'll call FDR a babykiller for sacrificing 400,000 soldiers. I'll call Lincoln and Davis babykillers for sacrificing 600,000 soldiers. I'll call Wilson a baby killer for sacrificing 126,000 people. Might as well through in President Madison while we're at it. Maybe even Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon too for the 55,000 that have died in Vietnam.

Do you want me to continue?

In that case, I'll call FDR a babykiller for sacrificing 400,000 soldiers. I'll call Lincoln and Davis babykillers for sacrificing 600,000 soldiers. I'll call Wilson a baby killer for sacrificing 126,000 people. Might as well through in President Madison while we're at it. Maybe even Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon too for the 55,000 that have died in Vietnam.

Do you want me to continue?

Sure. I always enjoy people making fools of themselves.

You do realize that in the Civil War, WWI and WWII (though not Vietnam, which any rational person now realizes was a mistake,) we were attacked, don't you?

Tell me Corny, aside from empty lip service and empty platitudes, how have YOU supported the troops?

Although you and I may have some fundamental differences as to this topic, I do respect your straightforward and honest rebuttal. There are also a few points that we are in general agreement.

Why thank you. :) It looks like I will have to erase my preconception of you as a typical propaganda-spewing moron. Don't worry, the erasing is a good thing. :D

In regards to US troop withdrawal, I do not feel that it would be "disasterous" as you claim. If the US starts drawing down the forces in big numbers after the Iraqi elections in Dec., I think the US would gain big brownie points on the world stage. The majority of Iraqis look upon the US as an occupying force and want the troops to withdraw, even though they know that it will be more difficult for them once the US troops are gone.

Ah, then it looks like I musunderstood you as a "100% pull-out" supporter.

I don't entirely disagree with you that it would earn them brownie points -- but then he gets slammed afterwards for not "helping the Iraqis with their defence." With Bush, it's always a lose-lose situation, but meh.


With a US troop withdrawal, the insurgents and terrorists will have less targets to shoot at, and indigenous Iraqis can get on with the rebuilding of their country. Now that is a "win/win" situation.

Other than the Iraqis. You see, the terrorists do not care if their Iraqi or not -- at least, not Al-Zarqoui (spelling butchered). If you don't follow their brand of Islamofacism, you die. Period.

In an ideal world, you'd be right, as the terrorists would only be angry at the US occupation, and when we leave, they'll put down their weapons, hold hands, and sing kum-bai-yah. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Sure. I always enjoy people making fools of themselves.

You do realize that in the Civil War, WWI and WWII (though not Vietnam, which any rational person now realizes was a mistake,) we were attacked, don't you?

Tell me Corny, aside from empty lip service and empty platitudes, how have YOU supported the troops?

We were attacked in World War I? Interesting. So what American territory was attacked in World War I?

Who did the US attack in the Civil War? Notice I said Davis in there? President Davis was the President of the Confederate States of America.

Granted about World War II but my point remains on that one.

As for supporting the troops, YES I have. My father is in the United States Air Force and I have a cousin who is in the Navy. I had a nother cousin who was in the Army too. Most of the people I know are soldiers or airmen and half of those have gone to Iraq. I support our men and women in uniform everyday and will continue to do so for the rest of my life.

We were attacked in World War I? Interesting. So what American territory was attacked in World War I?

Does the Lusitania ring a bell?


Who did the US attack in the Civil War? Notice I said Davis in there? President Davis was the President of the Confederate States of America.

The US attacked itself, hence "Civil War."

Granted about World War II but my point remains on that one.

As for supporting the troops, YES I have. My father is in the United States Air Force and I have a cousin who is in the Navy. I had a nother cousin who was in the Army too. Most of the people I know are soldiers or airmen and half of those have gone to Iraq. I support our men and women in uniform everyday and will continue to do so for the rest of my life.

How do you support our men and women in uniform? By opening your mouth, or do you do something concrete? What have you personally scarificed? Hell, you don't even pay taxes, do you?

This is just back draft from the cold war. This all started when the world adopted a policy of arming itself to the teeth (thinking we were on the brink of WW3, being the only possible result of such preperation and tension)and then finding somthing to blame for there parinoia. Americans blamed comunisim. The comusists blamed capitalism. Bolth were former allies and bolth were superpowers capable of destroying the entirity of all the earth. bolth took means of reding themselves. America funded anti-commi terrorists that in retrospect trained the al-queda. And the soviets proceded to place missile sylos everywhere. That damage the world even unto this day. Dont think that i think this war in Iraq is at all a good idea. I just think that the credit needs to go where it is due. Governments are inherently evil in some sense. If you dont like it, find a way to change it.:headbang:

And besides, humankind is looming with overpopulation that will be hemmed in one way or the other. Having no natural preditors, what would you expect? Although, i would prefer that it remain unchecked. People dieing in large numbers is enevitable, be it in an act of violence, or a biological menace. Fast or slow, People die. Its cold but it's true.

Does the Lusitania ring a bell?

The Zimmermann telegram didn't help either.

How do you support our men and women in uniform? By opening your mouth, or do you do something concrete? What have you personally scarificed? Hell, you don't even pay taxes, do you?

I dunno. Having multiple family members and supporting them I think is good enough for me. And anyone with an income pays taxes.

.. when Saddam used it against the Kurds... (http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/intel/950901/22431050_91r.txt)



So, how is it NOT a Chemical Weapon when used in Fallujah?

I don't see them referring to it as a chemical weapon, nor do I see White Phosphurus as a 'chemical weapon'.
Although I not sure on the exact mechanics, it seems to be like napalm, not mustard gas or things along that nature.
It use is debatable, but I do not class it as a 'chemical weapon'

I don't see them referring to it as a chemical weapon, nor do I see White Phosphurus as a 'chemical weapon'.
Although I not sure on the exact mechanics, it seems to be like napalm, not mustard gas or things along that nature.
It use is debatable, but I do not class it as a 'chemical weapon'

Some people classify napalm as a chemical weapon, though. I don't remember who, though. Personally, I see nothing wrong with napalm or WP, but that's me.

Does the Lusitania ring a bell?

Yep but pray tell how that constituted an attack on the US since it wasn't even a registered U.S. Ship.

The US attacked itself, hence "Civil War."

This is most definitely up for debate.

How do you support our men and women in uniform? By opening your mouth, or do you do something concrete? What have you personally scarificed? Hell, you don't even pay taxes, do you?

What have I sacrificed? I have to spend time alone while my father left his family to go off to war. I gave the nation my father. Luckily, my father came back alive but I know he could've died there just as easily.

The Zimmermann telegram didn't help either.

True but still... the US wasn't attacked.

I dunno. Having multiple family members and supporting them I think is good enough for me. And anyone with an income pays taxes.

Amen.

On the face of it, it is silly that the Pentagon called it a chemical weapon when Saddam used it - when they don't consider it a chemical weapon when they use it.

But, I must remind CanuckHeaven that he and others believe that Saddam had no WMD and the US failed to find any. In fact, it was the conclusion of the survey group that no WMD (especially chemical weapons) were found in Iraq.

If Canuck wants to define white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons, then he has given the Bush Administration a wide path to the way out of that problem, as there are literally millions of WP rounds that Saddam had manufactured. They're littered all over Iraq in various places, and are as common as hen's teeth. Therefore, if you're going to classify WP as a chemical weapon, we most certainly have found the WMD.

You can't have it both ways, either, Canuck.

Of course you can "have it both ways", because - as frequently noted - when it comes to some items like WP the possible legal implications relate to HOW it is used, not it's simple existance.

As I said before - it's perfectly legal to own a baseball bat and use it.... as long as that use doesn't also involve it's application to your neighbour's cranium.

Now, I tend to think that WP does not qualify as a CW under the letter of the law, unless of course you were to carpet bomb with it. "Shake and Bake" certainly approacehs the line.

I just enjoy pointing out propoganda Bullshit when it smells bad enough.

And you gotta admit - this one qualified.

The fact that they decided to use it also just strikes me as stupid as it (once again) degraded any notion of moral superiority over Saddam that the US was trying to achieve.

I mean, if the Defence Department really thought that it was a non-issue, then they wouldn't have tried to hide the fact that they had done it, lied about it when they made official statements claiming that it had not been used in that manner, and then had to concede that it had when a preponderance of evidence showed up.

You get caught lying often enough, and people will stop believing ANYTHING you say. And this administration just keeps on expanding its credibility gap.

As a former soldier, I could care less what bureaucrats say (or get themselves into). I feel it's a very effective weapon, and feel that it's perfectly legitimate to use it on people who are actively fighting against you. I would think that firing any weapon of any sort at a group of unarmed civilians is a bad idea.

Firing a rifle at an unarmed civilian is a bad idea - I could care less what the rules say, or what weapons people think are ugly.

Of course, I also think that the US should continue to use napalm and flamethrowers, with the same caveat - military targets only. Considering how badly the current crop of explosive and fragmentation warheads can mutilate a body and still not kill you instantly, I can't see the difference between our conventional weapons and being toasted at over 1500 degrees C.

Some of the insurgents in Fallujah were quite recalcitrant and in some cases, a tank was brought up to fire several shells into the building to bring it down (presumably, most of the insurgents were killed by the shells, but obviously, some were buried alive). I think it would have been no worse to have a flamethrower set the building and its occupants ablaze - as long as they were insurgents who had been shooting at you.

On the face of it, it is silly that the Pentagon called it a chemical weapon when Saddam used it - when they don't consider it a chemical weapon when they use it.

But, I must remind CanuckHeaven that he and others believe that Saddam had no WMD and the US failed to find any. In fact, it was the conclusion of the survey group that no WMD (especially chemical weapons) were found in Iraq.

If Canuck wants to define white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons, then he has given the Bush Administration a wide path to the way out of that problem, as there are literally millions of WP rounds that Saddam had manufactured. They're littered all over Iraq in various places, and are as common as hen's teeth. Therefore, if you're going to classify WP as a chemical weapon, we most certainly have found the WMD.

You can't have it both ways, either, Canuck.
Well, I think you have got it all wrong.

First, I support the view of the CWC, in that WP is only a "chemical weapon" IF it is used against people:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9979940&postcount=94

Second, when was the last time that Saddam used WP against people? As far as memory serves me, he was accused of using chemicals against the Kurds, but there is no conclusive proof (read conflicting evidence) and in any case, that was way back in 1991. Perhaps you can document the times that Saddam used chemical weapons.

Third, the US knowingly supported Saddam against the Iranians, and gave him chemical and biological agents.

Fourth, the US did not break off diplomatic relations with Iraq, until they invaded Kuwait way back in 1990.

Fifth, the UN inspectors were in Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003 and were not finding any WMD. This begs the question as to why the US decided to invade given the evidence before them.

Sixth, even IF Iraq has millions of rounds of WP, they themselves are not chemical weapons unless they are used against people. See point number 1.

Seventh, I invite you to prove that WP is "littered all over Iraq in various places, and are as common as hen's teeth".

Further, to all of this, I ask you these questions:

1. Did Iraq use chemical weapons against coalition forces when they invaded Iraq in the first Gulf War?

2. Did Iraq use chemical weapons against coalition forces when they invaded Iraq in 2003?

3. Did the US use chemical weapons against Iraqi forces in 1991?

4. Did the US use chemical weapons against Iraq in 2003-04-05?

I believe the answers to 1 and 2 are no, and the answers to 3 and 4 are yes.

The resultant propaganda has contributed to the unnessary deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and the destruction of that country.

The whole Iraqi fiasco has a stamp on it: Made in the USA

Seventh, I invite you to prove that WP is "littered all over Iraq in various places, and are as common as hen's teeth".

There are several million rounds of WP from Saddam's army collected from the Baghdad area alone, and stacked up at the airport. Maybe if you had friends working EOD you would know these things.

Saddam fired WP on Iranians who were doing human wave assaults during his Iran-Iraq War.

Also, what proof do you have that we used chemical weapons in the First Gulf War? Eh?

As a former soldier, I could care less what bureaucrats say (or get themselves into). I feel it's a very effective weapon, and feel that it's perfectly legitimate to use it on people who are actively fighting against you. I would think that firing any weapon of any sort at a group of unarmed civilians is a bad idea.
Of course you would have no problem with using WP as a weapon against people, since you have stated in a previous thread that you would exterminate the entire populations of Afghanistan and North Korea. Methinks you have contradicted yourself in regards to your last sentence.

Thank God that the world does not operate on your modus operandi.

Of course you would have no problem with using WP as a weapon against people, since you have stated in a previous thread that you would exterminate the entire populations of Afghanistan and North Korea. Methinks you have contradicted yourself in regards to your last sentence.

Thank God that the world does not operate on your modus operandi.

Nope, but if we're going to be accused of killing unarmed civilians on purpose when we aren't, we might as well do it.

Nope, but if we're going to be accused of killing unarmed civilians on purpose when we aren't, we might as well do it.
This comment makes absolutely zero sense.

This comment makes absolutely zero sense.

If you accuse me of doing something, and I haven't been doing it, and I get punished, you can bet I'm going to run out and do it.

If I'm going to do the time, then I might as well do the crime.

This comment makes absolutely zero sense.

Are you saying that we are killing civilians on purpose?

No one hates the troops, or at least no one of consequence. It's not a mainstream opinion. All it is is a small group of loudmouth retards. To characterize a whole side of a debate based on them just chaps my hide.

As for those who hate America, well, some do. Some for dumb or false reasons. Some because of jealousy. Some because familiarity breeds contempt. Others dislike America because they strongly disagree with American governmental policy. Personally, I hate the denizens of the Whitehouse because I deeply feel that they are tarnishing much of what makes America great, but I love America.

Sorry if I reacted too strongly to your posts, but I get so tired of people I'm trying to discuss important things with hiding behind stereotypes and gross mischaracterizations.


your killing me ... :p but I heartily endorse the above comment . Although I do not quite " hate " the current occupants of the White House..I sure as hell wish they were better at what they do .

If you accuse me of doing something, and I haven't been doing it, and I get punished, you can bet I'm going to run out and do it.

If I'm going to do the time, then I might as well do the crime.
Sorry DK but this is just not sound reasoning at all.

your killing me ... :p but I heartily endorse the above comment . Although I do not quite " hate " the current occupants of the White House..I sure as hell wish they were better at what they do .

Better at what? Better at sucking dry welfare programs and giving themselves pay rises? Or better at hiding their dirty laundry? You give a wide range of options here.

Better at what? Better at sucking dry welfare programs and giving themselves pay rises? Or better at hiding their dirty laundry? You give a wide range of options here.

I could rage against the machine but I prefer to vote instead .
You got a problem ? Fuckin do something constructive about it , besides bitching . Make the oppostion offer something besides an IDIOT without a plan . Or a clue . The people rule ..if you think different then your in the wrong system ...so change shit or leave ...or revolt ..or STFU ..ANYONE can say " YOU AINT DOING IT RIGHT " ....so WHATS the alternative ? "GIVE " us something else besides worthless left wing bullshit that will NEVER be accepted to choose from . Too much bitching like smacked down whores...not enough constucrive criticism to go on.
The thing is if the left wing ever got its way we would all die like sheep .
As much as you would like ....or hope.... to think otherwise the world just DONT BE THAT WAY ... For the Europeans that just dont get it... well never mind..you get to go first ...always have always ..well hopefully ..always will .

And I say that with the utmost of regret ....BIG TIME ...regret because you never fucking learn . ... ever .