NationStates Jolt Archive

The Taliban have begun using the chemical weapon, White Phosphorus against US troops and Afghan civilians.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090510/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

"Taliban fighters have used white phosphorus, a spontaneously flammable material that leaves severe chemical burns on flesh, at least four times the last two years."

Apparently the Afghans are saying it is America's fault that the Taliban have resorted to using White Phosphorus against civilians in their country.

It should be noted that even though some wack jobs consider it a war crime to use white phosphorus for any reason, white phosphorus is not banned by international law nor is it banned by any treaties. Therefore it remains perfectly legal though use in some instances is inhumane.

On the other hand, "Afghan doctors in Farah told American officials the injuries seen in wounded Afghans from two villages in the province's Bala Baluk district could have resulted from hand grenades or exploding propane tanks."

""There has been other airstrikes in Farah in the past. We had injuries from those battles, but this is the first time we have seen such burns on the bodies. I'm not sure what kind of bomb it was," he said."

"The U.S. does use white phosphorous to illuminate the night sky"

Clearly it's not the Americans using it. That leaves the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

EDIT: Title should have said Taliban using White Phosphorus or Taliban using Chemical Weapons. WP is not a WMD.

why would that be called WMD?

Willy Peter is hardly a WMD...

Willy Peter is hardly a WMD...

WMD is a neo-con buzzword to make people sound even eviler.

you can get WP burns from smoke grenades..

I didn't mean WMD, I meant chemical weapons. Typo.

I heard that insurgents in Iraq have been using thermite against occupation forces... anyone know if that's true?

EDIT: Rofl, that's one hell of a typo.

The fact the term "WMD" is being used gives me an indication that the Taliban is about to be annihilated, 8 ways to beat the band.

History is written by the victors! Buh bye Taliban! :mp5:

So WP is not a WMD when the U.S. or Israel is alleged to use them, but when the Taliban does the exact same thing all of a sudden it is?

http://www.westernwisconsinaflcio.org/issues/FW%20IWF%20Tax%20Newsletter%20August%202008_files/image002.jpg

"Hoooooooow Conveeeenient."

WMDs are strategic weapons, WP is tactical. And it wounds by burning, not by an internal chemical reaction. Therefore, not a chemical weapon, and not a WMD. It is a legitimate weapon of war.

The Taliban have begun using the chemical weapon, White Phosphorus against US troops and Afghan civilians.
Not condoning the Taliban's use of WP, but the US has been using this "chemical weapon" since Desert Storm, and especially in Fallujah.

It should be noted that even though some wack jobs consider it a war crime to use white phosphorus for any reason, white phosphorus is not banned by international law nor is it banned by any treaties. Therefore it remains perfectly legal though use in some instances is inhumane.
I am one of those "wack jobs". :tongue:

BTW, get your facts straight about legality:

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

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

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1108/dailyUpdate.html

The Pentagon's confirmation that it used white phosphorus as a weapon during last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja has sparked criticism. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4441902.stm)

The Pentagon has admitted US forces used white phosphorus as "an incendiary weapon" during the assault last year on Fallujah. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forces-used-chemical-weapon-in-iraq-515551.html)



"The U.S. does use white phosphorous to illuminate the night sky"
* laughs....points to above stories.

Clearly it's not the Americans using it.
No.....the US would never resort to that. :p

"That leaves the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Really? :tongue:

So WP is not a WMD when the U.S. or Israel is alleged to use them, but when the Taliban does the exact same thing all of a sudden it is?

"Hoooooooow Conveeeenient."
Yup.....Policies of Convenience,

God dammit, can't we just stop killing each other already?

:D

God dammit, can't we just stop killing each other already?

:D
Apparently not. :(

White phosphorus is not kosher. When my unit visited wounded at Bethesda there was a guy with White phosphorus burns.... not a pretty sight.

Apparently not. :(Wasn't it Jefferson that said something about war-making not stop war-making, else our problems would have solved themselves millenia ago?

WMDs are strategic weapons, WP is tactical. And it wounds by burning, not by an internal chemical reaction. Therefore, not a chemical weapon, and not a WMD. It is a legitimate weapon of war.

Not exactly a very pleasant one though. It is unnecessarily cruel.

Yes, I realize that a weapon is a weapon, and given that their purpose is to kill it can get a little ridiculous deciding what weapons can or cannot be considered legitimate, but the way I see it, in the modern age, killing is something we ought to work to avoid rather than encourage, and if we have to kill it is better to utilize methods that kill as quickly as possible, not only for the safety of our troops, but for the sake of not inflicting unnecessary cruelty.

Wasn't it Jefferson that said something about war-making not stop war-making, else our problems would have solved themselves millenia ago?

Actually that was Colman McCarthy.

“War making doesn’t stop war making. If it did, our problems would have stopped millennia ago.” ~Colman McCarthy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colman_McCarthy

Not exactly a very pleasant one though. It is unnecessarily cruel.

Yes, I realize that a weapon is a weapon, and given that their purpose is to kill it can get a little ridiculous deciding what weapons can or cannot be considered legitimate, but the way I see it, in the modern age, killing is something we ought to work to avoid rather than encourage, and if we have to kill it is better to utilize methods that kill as quickly as possible, not only for the safety of our troops, but for the sake of not inflicting unnecessary cruelty.

Its job is to be a weapon, which it does extremely well. Weapons are designed to either kill the enemy or take them out of the fight. I don't like the idea of trying to tame warfare. War is no matter how you try to regulate it, an untameable monster. It has always been and always will be hell.

Actually that was Colman McCarthy.

“War making doesn’t stop war making. If it did, our problems would have stopped millennia ago.” ~Colman McCarthy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colman_McCarthyHuh, you learn something every day.

Its job is to be a weapon, which it does extremely well. Weapons are designed to either kill the enemy or take them out of the fight. I don't like the idea of trying to tame warfare. War is no matter how you try to regulate it, an untameable monster. It has always been and always will be hell.

WP is kinda useless in my opinion. Unless the enemy is in a forest, or they make their buildings out of paper, thermobaric weapons are much more effective since they get enemies in shelter.

WP is kinda useless in my opinion. Unless the enemy is in a forest, or they make their buildings out of paper, thermobaric weapons are much more effective since they get enemies in shelter.

Themrobaric works good for enclosed spaces, but out in the open, Willy Pete works good because it gets real nice sread.

Its job is to be a weapon, which it does extremely well. Weapons are designed to either kill the enemy or take them out of the fight. I don't like the idea of trying to tame warfare. War is no matter how you try to regulate it, an untameable monster. It has always been and always will be hell.
My feeling is that if we must wage warfare, we should do it with the intent of minimizing casualties and the cost of lives. War is hell no matter how you look at it, but if we are able to make it less hellish, then I think we ought to.

The problem is that if there happen to be civilian or two nearby, the wackjobs declare you guilty of warcrimes. Of course, deliberately targeting a civilian population with WP IS A war crime.
Using it in a civilian area to light up the night sky, however, is a legitimate use however.

War will never be tamed. They also banned guns, tanks, and planes and ships. Guess what. It didn't work. They tried banning chemical weapons. Guess what. It hasn't worked and it is not working. There will always be war. And the world will always use whatever weapons are at their disposal to win battles.

We can talk about playing nice and making Conventions to ban this weapon or that weapon, but when it comes to time walk the talk, those Conventions become nothing more than worthless peices of paper. They lose any meaning or force they had. Especially when you try to impose them on a non signatory that is much much more powerful than yourself.

My feeling is that if we must wage warfare, we should do it with the intent of minimizing casualties and the cost of lives. War is hell no matter how you look at it, but if we are able to make it less hellish, then I think we ought to.

I feel that war is a natural part of humanity. And that it should not exactly embraced or constantly waged, but accepted as such, just like some people stupidly view sex as unnatural, and turn away from it, I find that it is foolish to turn away from warfare.

Yup.....Policies of Convenience,

Kinda like that switch on Saddam Hussein's back that alternated between "Valuable Ally" and "Evil Dictator".

I feel that war is a natural part of humanity. And that it should not exactly embraced or constantly waged, but accepted as such, just like some people stupidly view sex as unnatural, and turn away from it, I find that it is foolish to turn away from warfare.

Just because it is natural does not mean it is good. Warfare is something we ought to work to eliminate, not glorify.

So WP is not a WMD when the U.S. or Israel is alleged to use them, but when the Taliban does the exact same thing all of a sudden it is?

http://www.westernwisconsinaflcio.org/issues/FW%20IWF%20Tax%20Newsletter%20August%202008_files/image002.jpg

"Hoooooooow Conveeeenient."

Indeed. :)

Not condoning the Taliban's use of WP, but the US has been using this "chemical weapon" since Desert Storm, and especially in Fallujah.


I am one of those "wack jobs". :tongue:

BTW, get your facts straight about legality:

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

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

Good old thread that was.

Kinda like that switch on Saddam Hussein's back that alternated between "Valuable Ally" and "Evil Dictator".
Yup, Saddam went from "Evil Dictator" to "Valuable Ally" and back to "Evil Dictator". Then Bush Jr. had to have him executed as quickly as possible to hide the evidence. Dead men tell no tales.

Good old thread that was.
Indeed it was. :)

The Taliban have begun using the chemical weapon, White Phosphorus against US troops and Afghan civilians.
US troops are a legal target for WP. Afghan civilians are not. This is true even when the US troops are using WP.


It should be noted that even though some wack jobs consider it a war crime to use white phosphorus for any reason, white phosphorus is not banned by international law nor is it banned by any treaties.
Actually the use of WP in densely populated areas is quite illegal, but the US military and the talibans don't give a fuck.


On the other hand, "Afghan doctors in Farah told American officials the injuries seen in wounded Afghans from two villages in the province's Bala Baluk district could have resulted from hand grenades or exploding propane tanks."
""There has been other airstrikes in Farah in the past. We had injuries from those battles, but this is the first time we have seen such burns on the bodies. I'm not sure what kind of bomb it was," he said."
"The U.S. does use white phosphorous to illuminate the night sky"
Clearly it's not the Americans using it. That leaves the Taliban and Al Qaeda.


Why "clearly"? Non sequitur.

General impression of the OP: right-wing rant. :rolleyes:

Using it in a civilian area to light up the night sky, however, is a legitimate use however.
No. Because of the "civilian area" thing.


War will never be tamed. They also banned guns, tanks, and planes and ships.

Excuse me? "They" who? When? Where?


Guess what. It didn't work. They tried banning chemical weapons. Guess what. It hasn't worked and it is not working. There will always be war. And the world will always use whatever weapons are at their disposal to win battles.
Mh. Actually, after WW1, there were pretty few nations that used chemical weapons in battle. I remember Italy (in the colonies), USA (in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan), Israel (in Gaza), Iraq (in Iran).
Definitely a minority of the world's countries.


We can talk about playing nice and making Conventions to ban this weapon or that weapon, but when it comes to time walk the talk, those Conventions become nothing more than worthless peices of paper. They lose any meaning or force they had. Especially when you try to impose them on a non signatory that is much much more powerful than yourself.

That's why the signatory countries should impose sanctions on non-signatory countries, like punitive tarifs, trade embargoes, travel limitations, and general isolation from the world community.

I feel that war is a natural part of humanity. And that it should not exactly embraced or constantly waged, but accepted as such, just like some people stupidly view sex as unnatural, and turn away from it, I find that it is foolish to turn away from warfare.

There is nothing natural about humanity, except for metabolism. Anything else is a cultural construct and as such can be modified, or abandoned.

White Phosphorus is a completely legitimate (if rather painful and gruesome) weapon of war. It burns stuff.

White Phosphorus is a completely legitimate (if rather painful and gruesome) weapon of war. It burns stuff.

http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg

It isn't a chemical weapon. Therefore, it can be used against military targets. The Taliban can certainly use it against US troops, and US troops can use it against the Taliban.

The question of civilians will come up, undoubtedly. As with other area effect weapons, they should not be used in areas of civilian concentration. But, using White Phosphorus (intentionally) in civilian areas is no worse then using a very large high explosive in the same area. Both equally wrong.

It isn't a chemical weapon. ... no worse then using a very large high explosive in the same area. Both equally wrong.

Morally yes. Legally not. This issue, included the thing with civilians, has already been covered in an old thread that is linked to above in this thread.

I know, I still think it is incorrect. I'm just adding my 2 cents.

Mh. Actually, after WW1, there were pretty few nations that used chemical weapons in battle. I remember Italy (in the colonies), USA (in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan), Israel (in Gaza), Iraq (in Iran).
Definitely a minority of the world's countries.

Gas weapons in general post WWI aren't very useful against most armies. Unless you've got magic gas that doesn't dissipate in hours of sunlight, lingers for days and kills on skin contact, most armies are generally far too mobile and too well equipped for gas to be of much use these days.

It works well against civilian populations because people generally would try to hide in houses or other places where the gas would be sheltered from the sun and can linger for days, but not so much against armies. Iraq used them to some effect because in general Iranian conscripts were just that underarmed and undertrained. That can't be said for most decent armies now. Too many of them have the kit to fight in gassed areas, and armored transports are usually fitted out with chemical filters.

Countries didn't abandon gas weapons because they were horrific. They abandoned them because they became obsolete.


That's why the signatory countries should impose sanctions on non-signatory countries, like punitive tarifs, trade embargoes, travel limitations, and general isolation from the world community.

I note that in the case of nuclear weapons, the signatories who put the most pressure towards preventing anyone else getting the weapons are the ones with the biggest stockpiles of nuclear weapons themselves.

It all sounds nice to you, but to me, it sounds like "We're the big shots because we have nukes. We can do what we like because you can't hurt us without us destroying you utterly. And you'll never be allowed on equal grounds."

See the differences of belligerence towards Iraq and North Korea.

You can talk about responsible stewards of nuclear weapons and whatever platitudes you care to put up, but when it comes down to it, the most obvious power comes from the barrel of the gun, or in this case, the fissioning of the atom. And when it comes to international dealings, it's a damn powerful bargaining chip. Countries which have them have a bigger say on the international stage than those who don't. Only the foolish and the naive would ignore that.

It isn't a chemical weapon. Therefore, it can be used against military targets. The Taliban can certainly use it against US troops, and US troops can use it against the Taliban.
Living in denial doesn't make your point true.

The question of civilians will come up, undoubtedly. As with other area effect weapons, they should not be used in areas of civilian concentration. But, using White Phosphorus (intentionally) in civilian areas is no worse then using a very large high explosive in the same area. Both equally wrong.
Something we can definitely agree on.

God damnit, dubya, why didn't we just kill the buggers when we had the chance?

God damnit, dubya, why didn't we just kill the buggers when we had the chance?

Because a quick victory means less profit for the Military-Industrial Complex!
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884

God damnit, dubya, why didn't we just kill the buggers when we had the chance?

Because a quick victory means less profit for the Military-Industrial Complex!
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884

That and he wanted to "one-up Daddy" by going after Saddam.

That and he wanted to "one-up Daddy" by going after Saddam.

Sadamm was BIG money. Wasnt it? It allowed M-IC welfare programs to continue like the Raptor F-22. (a very expensive jet that has never seen combat and never will that has 95,000 people building it in 44 different states)

The really awful part about Iraq was our soldiers being ordered to allow Iraqis to loot. Then to watch the looting become more organized. Then finally getting involved when it turned to violence.

Every damm thing Dick & W did was designed to keep our enemies afloat (in Iraq and Afghanistan) to keep the defense contracts flowing.

The really awful part about Iraq was our soldiers being ordered to allow Iraqis to loot. Then to watch the looting become more organized. Then finally getting involved when it turned to violence.


I apologize for going off topic, but I was under the impression that there were few U.S. soldiers around to prevent the looting, as they were moved pre-maturely and the rest looking for WMDs...

I apologize for going off topic, but I was under the impression that there were few U.S. soldiers around to prevent the looting, as they were moved pre-maturely and the rest looking for WMDs...

I would not have brought up Iraq if I had saw no connection. But sorry if this is the wrong thread for this. From what I saw in the film "No End in Sight" (http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/316/index.html) the soldiers sure thought they could have handled it. And in any event, it went on for about 30 days. That puts the blame on the Commander in Chief of the US military in my book.

I don't know all the details that went on with The Taliban (not yet anyway) But the fact remains, our enemies HAVE stayed afloat for all these years. I trace the scam all the way back to W saying "Your either with us or against us!" Now is that any way to gain allies? "Help me or fuck you!" More allies would have meant a quick victory which was no apparent desire of the W administration.

War will never be tamed. They also banned guns, tanks, and planes and ships. Guess what. It didn't work. They tried banning chemical weapons. Guess what. It hasn't worked and it is not working. There will always be war. And the world will always use whatever weapons are at their disposal to win battles.
"They" tried to ban rape, murder, and theft too. Guess what? It didn't work. It will never work, and there will always be these things in the world. Therefore, we should legalize rape, murder, and theft.:eek:

Your logical is impeccable, sir.:rolleyes:

White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, any more so than a fuel air bomb or napalm, it's an incendiary device. Chemical weapons make use of a chemical's toxic* properties to kill or wound. Merely being made up of chemicals does not a chemical weapon make--otherwise water would be a chemical weapon.

*Toxic properties: Nerve, Blister, Asphyxiant, Pulmonary and Cytotoxic. NOT BURNING.

Actually the use of WP in densely populated areas is quite illegal, but the US military and the talibans don't give a fuck.

There is also nowhere in Afghanistan that is densely populated.

USA (in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan), Israel (in Gaza)

Source please.

By Vietnam, are you meaning the Rainbow Agents, or the alledged use of Sarin gas?

And WP is not a chemical weapon, neither is Napalm, so no go there skippy.

It allowed M-IC welfare programs to continue like the Raptor F-22. (a very expensive jet that has never seen combat and never will that has 95,000 people building it in 44 different states)

Oh my god, you can see the future!

When will the global economy recover? Who will win the superbowl this year? what is next weeks winning lotto number?

Oh my god, you can see the future!



No! I cheated! :tongue: (http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/3/25/172751/539)

there's just too much radio interference. To quote the man in charge of Air Combat Command, Gen. Ronald E. Keys:

"We didn't anticipate there was going to be this level of jamming. Every patrol is out there with personal jammers. We've got lots of airplanes that are also jamming. At the same time, we've got people trying to listen [to insurgent conversations], a lot of it on the same or overlapping frequencies."
The jammers he's talking about are the ones the troops use to disable roadside IEDs. So the F-22, at $351 million a pop, is an excellent plane; it just doesn't work over a battlefield where one side is using booby traps activated by TV remotes and electronic garage door openers.

So Iraq is out. And anyplace else with TVs, radios and cars.



So really, the only place we can use an F-22 is in a war where we could just knock the enemy over with a feather anyway!
:(

White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, any more so than a fuel air bomb or napalm, it's an incendiary device. Chemical weapons make use of a chemical's toxic* properties to kill or wound.
No shit Sherlock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy_Pete#Arms_control_status_and_military_regulations)?

The convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals" (CWC, II). An annex lists chemicals that fall under this definition and WP is not listed in the Schedules of chemical weapons or precursors.[48]

In an 2005 interview with RAI, Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (an organization overseeing the CWC and reporting directly to the UN General Assembly), questioned whether the weapon should fall under the convention's provisions:

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

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

If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons".[4]
I wonder if you would be saying that if in fact WP was used on you?

Merely being made up of chemicals does not a chemical weapon make--otherwise water would be a chemical weapon.
This has to be one of the most assinine ongoing responses that I have seen in defending against WP being considered a chemical weapon.

No! I cheated! :tongue: (http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/3/25/172751/539)

Seems like a very reliable source.

*snicker*

No! I cheated! :tongue: (http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/3/25/172751/539)



So really, the only place we can use an F-22 is in a war where we could just knock the enemy over with a feather anyway!
:(

Oh yes because god for bid someone with a real airforce might threaten use in the next ten years, then we'd be using 40+ year old airframes, with hundreds of thousands of flight hours worth of stress on them, which isn't good.

No shit Sherlock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy_Pete#Arms_control_status_and_military_regulations)?


No, by your interpretation, any form of incendiary and explosive weapon could then be considered to be a chemical weapon.

It doesn't work that way. Chemical action on life processes is exactly that. An interaction that binds the properties of chemicals to an organic being that can cause death. White phosphorus kills not by binding any specific element of itself to organic objects, but by imparting a whole lot of thermal energy onto it.

Calling it a chemical weapon demonstrates a distinct lack of scientific knowledge.

I also note that you snipped the very next line of your bolded, which states.


An annex lists chemicals that fall under this definition and WP is not listed in the Schedules of chemical weapons or precursors.

Dishonest much?

Seems like a very reliable source.

*snicker*

With plenty of links within the story from several different sources.

we'd be using 40+ year old airframes, with hundreds of thousands of flight hours worth of stress on them, which isn't good.

No it's not good concidering those old planes would work better than our most expensive one.

The good news is, Obama wants to stop production and move on to what works.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009105105_apuswarcostweaponsfight1stldwritethrough.html

No, by your interpretation, any form of incendiary and explosive weapon could then be considered to be a chemical weapon.

It doesn't work that way. Chemical action on life processes is exactly that. An interaction that binds the properties of chemicals to an organic being that can cause death. White phosphorus kills not by binding any specific element of itself to organic objects, but by imparting a whole lot of thermal energy onto it.

Calling it a chemical weapon demonstrates a distinct lack of scientific knowledge.
Knowledge = Intelligence?

US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html)

In late February 1991, an intelligence source reported, during the Iraqi crackdown on the Kurdish uprising that followed the coalition victory against Iraq, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships."

According to the intelligence report, the "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas" across the border into Turkey.
I will repeat what I posted before:

White phosphorus: weapon on the edge (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm)

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."
I believe that is fairly clear?

I also note that you snipped the very next line of your bolded, which states.

Dishonest much?
The only dishonesty is you not acknowledging that it can be classified as a "chemical weapon" if used as suggested by that same article.

Knowledge = Intelligence?

US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html)


I will repeat what I posted before:

White phosphorus: weapon on the edge (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm)


I believe that is fairly clear?

Sounds good to me. They are using WMDs on us. Let's rip em a new one and bring the soldiers home.

Sounds good to me. They are using WMDs on us. Let's rip em a new one and bring the soldiers home.
You've already ripped them a new one and made enough enemies.....how about just bringing the troops home? :)

Not condoning the Taliban's use of WP, but the US has been using this "chemical weapon" since Desert Storm, and especially in Fallujah.
Long before that: it was heavily used in Nam.

Long before that: it was heavily used in Nam.
True dat!! :)

You've already ripped them a new one and made enough enemies.....how about just bringing the troops home? :)

Well it would be nice to do SOMETHING about 9-11. And since Obama has no hidden agendas like the previous administration this thing can be wrapped up within a reasonable amount of time I think.

No shit Sherlock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy_Pete#Arms_control_status_and_military_regulations)?

So you agree with me that White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon? I'm confused by your link, because it seems to confirm that it's not a chemical weapon.


I wonder if you would be saying that if in fact WP was used on you?

First I'd probably scream in agony, but once I received medical attention, and given that I wasn't dead or permanently incapacitated...no, no I wouldn't, because that would be inaccurate to call White Phosphorous a chemical weapon. I'd probably complain about it being a blatant violation of treaty, but I certainly wouldn't call it a chemical weapon.


This has to be one of the most asinine ongoing responses that I have seen in defending against WP being considered a chemical weapon.

It's an apt comparison. Both water and white phosphorous kill indirectly, and not through their toxic properties, but through asphyxia and burning respectively?

The only dishonesty is you not acknowledging that it can be classified as a "chemical weapon" if used as suggested by that same article.

The articles state that it can be classified as a chemical weapon if used for it's caustic, not incendiary, properties.

Knowledge = Intelligence?

US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html)

I don't put stock in US intelligence or the media when it's so twisted to fit whatever political goals are in vogue.

A chemical weapon is a weapon that kills by chemical bonding to biological organisms that is harmful to them. Mustard gas is a chemical weapon. VX is a chemical weapon. Nerve gas is a chemical weapon. Sarin is a chemical weapon. They all kill by bonding their molecular components to organisms which disrupt living process. White Phosophorus kills by generating intense thermal energy, thereby, it is NOT a chemical weapon, and is no more a chemical weapon than ignited jellied petroleum.

The only dishonesty is you not acknowledging that it can be classified as a "chemical weapon" if used as suggested by that same article.

Then explosives and incendiaries fall under the same category. Petrol is a chemical weapon, since if I douse you with it, and make you breath it long enough, you die. For that matter, so do bullets if they don't kill you immediately or you bleed to death. Want to call those chemical weapons? It's an asinine interpretation that only comes out that way by those with an agenda to pass who also failed their science class. I don't acknowledge it as valid anymore than I would acknowledge a YEC bible thumper trying to get his idiocy passed as valid by pushing the "no known exact down-to-the-minute age of the Earth" argument.

You can try to squirm and wriggle like you did in the US election run ups. Won't change the fact that you fail to make a valid point.

No it's not good concidering those old planes would work better than our most expensive one.

The good news is, Obama wants to stop production and move on to what works.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009105105_apuswarcostweaponsfight1stldwritethrough.html

Come back when you know what you're talking about.

Come back when you know what you're talking about.

I'm here and wondering WTF your talking about. Has the F-22 ever been in combat? NO! Because it is a useless piece of crap. It has only stayed in production because of political engineering. (the fact that it is being built in 44 states by 95,000 people)

I'm here and wondering WTF your talking about. Has the F-22 ever been in combat? NO! Because it is a useless piece of crap. It has only stayed in production because of political engineering. (the fact that it is being built in 44 states by 95,000 people)Moar F35s, says Lockheed!

Moar F35s, says Lockheed!

Yes with the improved stealth, a different design than the F-22 and if in fact information about the F-35 did NOT fall into the hands of spies in 2007 and 2008, enabling the development of defense systems against the aircraft....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

... It just might work.

Lockheed says the information was not compromised so give them money.... Can we trust their assessment?

I don't put stock in US intelligence or the media when it's so twisted to fit whatever political goals are in vogue.

A chemical weapon is a weapon that kills by chemical bonding to biological organisms that is harmful to them. Mustard gas is a chemical weapon. VX is a chemical weapon. Nerve gas is a chemical weapon. Sarin is a chemical weapon. They all kill by bonding their molecular components to organisms which disrupt living process. White Phosophorus kills by generating intense thermal energy, thereby, it is NOT a chemical weapon, and is no more a chemical weapon than ignited jellied petroleum.
I have presented evidence contrary to your belief. I can do no more. The bottom line is that white phosphorus causes horrendous burns/deaths and should not be used in civilian areas.

Then explosives and incendiaries fall under the same category. Petrol is a chemical weapon, since if I douse you with it, and make you breath it long enough, you die. For that matter, so do bullets if they don't kill you immediately or you bleed to death. Want to call those chemical weapons? It's an asinine interpretation that only comes out that way by those with an agenda to pass who also failed their science class. I don't acknowledge it as valid anymore than I would acknowledge a YEC bible thumper trying to get his idiocy passed as valid by pushing the "no known exact down-to-the-minute age of the Earth" argument.
See above.

You can try to squirm and wriggle like you did in the US election run ups.
Irrelevant to this thread.

Won't change the fact that you fail to make a valid point.
Won't change the fact that you say potato, and I say potatoe. :p

Moar F35s, says China!

fix'd :p

I have presented evidence contrary to your belief. I can do no more. The bottom line is that white phosphorus causes horrendous burns/deaths and should not be used in civilian areas.

Nice squirm. You presented no evidence indicating that white phosphorus actually was a chemical weapon, and then turned around from your false claim of it being one to saying it shouldn't be used in civilian areas.


Irrelevant to this thread.


When considering your past behavior, it has plenty of relevance in determining the honesty of your argument.

I'm here and wondering WTF your talking about. Has the F-22 ever been in combat? NO! Because it is a useless piece of crap. It has only stayed in production because of political engineering. (the fact that it is being built in 44 states by 95,000 people)

Because we haven't needed it at this point.

the Yorktown-class carriers were built in 1938 when we didn't have a threat that we needed them for. So for 3 years, they were useless pieces of trash because we didn't have a use for them and were only built because of politcal engineering. You can say the same thing about any weapon built for long term service.

I have presented evidence contrary to your belief...

Incidentally, in doing so, you've presented even more evidence confirming that White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon.

I can do no more. The bottom line is that white phosphorus causes horrendous burns/deaths and should not be used in civilian areas.

Is there anyone here contesting that? White Phosphorous should never be used in urban warfare, and is questionably useful elsewhere.





Won't change the fact that you say potato, and I say potatoe. :p

Then you're in the same boat as Dan Quayle.

fix'd :phttp://davidszondy.com/ephemeral/uploaded_images/chef_says_okay-748447.png

Nice squirm. You presented no evidence indicating that white phosphorus actually was a chemical weapon, and then turned around from your false claim of it being one to saying it shouldn't be used in civilian areas.
I have presented proof that WP can be considered a chemical weapon, and that US Intelligence even stated that it was indeed a chemical weapon. You choose to ignore that evidence. You are flogging a dead horse.

When considering your past behavior, it has plenty of relevance in determining the honesty of your argument.
If you are suggesting that my posting history over the past 5 plus years is dishonest, you need to get a life. Try sticking to the topic at hand.

I have presented proof that WP can be considered a chemical weapon, and that US Intelligence even stated that it was indeed a chemical weapon. You choose to ignore that evidence. You are flogging a dead horse.

chemical weapon in what sense ?
that it is chemical and a weapon. Or that it is a banned weapon under international law?

If you are suggesting that my posting history over the past 5 plus years is dishonest, you need to get a life. Try sticking to the topic at hand.

Canadians are naturally dishonest.

I have presented proof that WP can be considered a chemical weapon, and that US Intelligence even stated that it was indeed a chemical weapon. You choose to ignore that evidence. You are flogging a dead horse.

You didn't present a damn thing. The only thing you showed was that it could it be used as one in the stupidest of ways. By ingestion.

If you swallowed a bullet, lead poisoning would kill you. That makes it a chemical weapon too? I don't ignore the evidence. You just twist it the way a YEC twists things to say what they want it to say.

As far as US Intelligence or lack thereof is concerned, when they start showing us things like WMDs in Iraq, maybe I'll believe them. Or maybe you'll start pretending that things aren't twisted to make a better spin when they involve people the US isn't friendly with, since the only claim of it being a chemical weapon involved Iraqi forces using WP.

You didn't start out dishonest, but you sure got that way quick last year. And in this thread at least, you're holding onto that record.

Knowledge = Intelligence?

US intelligence classified white phosphorus as 'chemical weapon' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-intelligence-classified-white-phosphorus-as-chemical-weapon-516523.html)


I will repeat what I posted before:

White phosphorus: weapon on the edge (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm)


I believe that is fairly clear?

You must remember that the only prohibition is if they intentionally used as weapons used directly against people. There is no distinction between using them on civilians or soldiers.
However, there is no prohibition on using it to create smoke screens or lighting up the skies, even when doing so in populated areas. Nothing in the treaty governing chemical weapons, especially the portions dealing with white phosphorus, prohibit this type of use in populated areas.

Now some countries have prohibited their own people from using it, but those prohibitions do not apply to other nations. If the UK bans WP for any reason, that ban does not apply to Israel or the US. Nor does it apply to Russia or China. It applies only to the UK because the UK is only soverign over the UK.

Also, as has been noted previously, even with treaties, they are only enforceable against signatories who agreed to voluntarily be bound by them. And right now there are a lot of treaties which the US is not bound to and since the US is still the most powerful nation on the planet, there is no one who can force the Americans to submit.

I'm here and wondering WTF your talking about. Has the F-22 ever been in combat? NO! Because it is a useless piece of crap. It has only stayed in production because of political engineering. (the fact that it is being built in 44 states by 95,000 people)

at least those 95,000 had jobs to support their families with. Now they have nothing and the US economy collapsed because of the democrats in Congress.

at least those 95,000 had jobs to support their families with. Now they have nothing and the US economy collapsed because of the democrats in Congress.Pointless if the jobs weren't sustainable.

Pointless if the jobs weren't sustainable.

Exactly. It's like manufacturing cars with no engine. The F-22 cannot do what it is needed to do. The fact that that 95,000 people build them in 44 states should cleary outline the political engineering scam that kept this piece of crap in production for so long. Good thing we finally have a president that will give national security the top priority that it needs.

Because we haven't needed it at this point.

the Yorktown-class carriers were built in 1938 when we didn't have a threat that we needed them for. So for 3 years, they were useless pieces of trash because we didn't have a use for them and were only built because of politcal engineering. You can say the same thing about any weapon built for long term service.

Pretty different situation in 1938 than it is now. We could damm sure use a working F-22 now. But they are too easy to jam so they can't be used.

You didn't present a damn thing. The only thing you showed was that it could it be used as one in the stupidest of ways. By ingestion.

If you swallowed a bullet, lead poisoning would kill you. That makes it a chemical weapon too? I don't ignore the evidence. You just twist it the way a YEC twists things to say what they want it to say.

As far as US Intelligence or lack thereof is concerned, when they start showing us things like WMDs in Iraq, maybe I'll believe them. Or maybe you'll start pretending that things aren't twisted to make a better spin when they involve people the US isn't friendly with, since the only claim of it being a chemical weapon involved Iraqi forces using WP.

You didn't start out dishonest, but you sure got that way quick last year. And in this thread at least, you're holding onto that record.
You don't want to debate, you just want to carry on with personal attacks. I have posted evidence that WP can be considered a chemical weapon dependent upon its' usage here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14783630&postcount=11), here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14785771&postcount=52), and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14785824&postcount=57), and yet you continue with your strawman arguments.

Now that I got that off my chest, I have two questions for you:

1. Do you think that WP should be used as a weapon?

If you answer NO to question 1, then there is no need to answer question 2.

2. Do you think that WP should used as a weapon:

a) against enemy positions where civilians might be victimized?

b) against enemy positions where there is no possiblity of civilian casualties?

c) with no restrictions?

You must remember that the only prohibition is if they intentionally used as weapons used directly against people. There is no distinction between using them on civilians or soldiers.
That is my argument....I agree.

However, there is no prohibition on using it to create smoke screens or lighting up the skies, even when doing so in populated areas. Nothing in the treaty governing chemical weapons, especially the portions dealing with white phosphorus, prohibit this type of use in populated areas.
Again, this is consistent with my argument......as long as it is not being used as a "weapon".

Now some countries have prohibited their own people from using it, but those prohibitions do not apply to other nations. If the UK bans WP for any reason, that ban does not apply to Israel or the US. Nor does it apply to Russia or China. It applies only to the UK because the UK is only soverign over the UK.
I totally understand that.

Also, as has been noted previously, even with treaties, they are only enforceable against signatories who agreed to voluntarily be bound by them. And right now there are a lot of treaties which the US is not bound to and since the US is still the most powerful nation on the planet, there is no one who can force the Americans to submit.
You might be glad to know the direction of the Obama administration:

On January 21, the United States deposited its instruments of ratification for Protocols III, IV, and V of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (”CCW“) and for an amendment to that Convention. Protocol III covers incendiary weapons, Protocol IV covers blinding laser weapons, and Protocol V deals with explosive remnants of war. The Amendment expands the scope of the Convention to non-international armed conflicts. (http://www.undiplomatic.net/2009/01/30/most-underreported-story-of-the-week-ccw/)
Even though it may take some time, at least the US is one step closer to ratification. :)

I'm here and wondering WTF your talking about. Has the F-22 ever been in combat? NO! Because it is a useless piece of crap. It has only stayed in production because of political engineering. (the fact that it is being built in 44 states by 95,000 people)

they have been using it to intercept Russian fighters along the Bering Strait since 2005. The lesson we learned in Kosovo is you don't want to bring out your top line *secret stealth* equipment to fight a 3rd world dictator. It makes your secret stealth that much less effective.
the role of the F-22 is focused on encounter between the US and Russia or perhaps China down the line. To use it against chumps like Iraqi insurgents is not only unnecessary over kill it makes the aircraft less effective if and when we have to use it against someone who actually poses a threat against us.

You don't want to debate, you just want to carry on with personal attacks.

Oh bollocks to that. You're just trying to insist on something that isn't happening and crying foul when called on it.


I have posted evidence that WP can be considered a chemical weapon dependent upon its' usage here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14783630&postcount=11),


They confirmed it's use as an incendiary. Not a chemical weapon.


here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14785771&postcount=52), and

This blabs about anything that can be used for its toxic qualities classifies as a chemical weapon. Again, it's trash because if I make you swallow lead, lead poisoning kills you. Does that make lead a chemical weapon?

Yes or no. Answer that. Because if the answer is yes, then almost anything classifies as a chemical weapon and the definition is useless.


here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14785824&postcount=57), and yet you continue with your strawman arguments.

You repeated yourself here.


1. Do you think that WP should be used as a weapon?

If you answer NO to question 1, then there is no need to answer question 2.


To me, WP is no different than napalm or latter variant incendiaries. A weapon is a weapon. It is designed to kill or to incapacitate. How much pain it inflicts is irrelevant. So to answer your question, I don't care if it's used or not.


2. Do you think that WP should used as a weapon:

a) against enemy positions where civilians might be victimized?

b) against enemy positions where there is no possiblity of civilian casualties?

c) with no restrictions?

Asking about civilian casualties for WP is as fallacious as asking about the use of strategic bombing where civilian casualties can occur, or hell, even urban combat operations. It's also a damned stupid thing to ask in any conflict between nationstates since the armed forces generally depend on the civilian population for supplying war materials, supplies and precursor items, not to mention that strikes against cities where large civilian populations live are normal.

The only consideration towards any weapons use should be whether it's practical and whether it can achieve your objective.

they have been using it to intercept Russian fighters along the Bering Strait since 2005. .

They flew up one time and looked at some Russian planes. But that was in 2007.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2007/December%202007/December%2014%202007/1025raptor.aspx

Since the program is being nerfed anyway, you would figure they would try to prove that it does work in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan. But they know it dosn't work.

They flew up one time and looked at some Russian planes. But that was in 2007.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2007/December%202007/December%2014%202007/1025raptor.aspx

Since the program is being nerfed anyway, you would figure they would try to prove that it does work in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan. But they know it dosn't work.

the article doesn't mention it was the only. It mentions it was the first.
I would guess if it is assigned to a squadron that performs intercepts, I reckon it still performs intercepts.

Kinda hard to imagine sending them to Iraq or Afghanistan considering the F-22 is designed primarily to shoot down other jets, and the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have not really deployed an air force.

What would you Have the F-22 do in Iraq and Afghanistan shoot down the non existent air force ??

the article doesn't mention it was the only. It mentions it was the first.
I would guess if it is assigned to a squadron that performs intercepts, I reckon it still performs intercepts.

Kinda hard to imagine sending them to Iraq or Afghanistan considering the F-22 is designed primarily to shoot down other jets, and the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have not really deployed an air force.

What would you Have the F-22 do in Iraq and Afghanistan shoot down the non existent air force ??

At least a dang recon mission, Take some pictures. And at least one could be modified to drop a bomb just to see how it goes. But the need for this plane is just non-existant.
http://www.slate.com/id/2212034/

At least a dang recon mission, Take some pictures. And at least one could be modified to drop a bomb just to see how it goes. But the need for this plane is just non-existant.
http://www.slate.com/id/2212034/

why it is a fighter aircraft ?
Yeah you can drop bombs and use it for Recon. But these roles are already filled by aircraft made specifically for that purpose.
We haven't been at war against someone with an air force since 2003. And they got their ass handed to them too quickly for the raptor which was introduced in 2005.

It is a contingency weapon for in the event we fight someone with a large air force say China over Taiwan.

why it is a fighter aircraft ?
Yeah you can drop bombs and use it for Recon. But these roles are already filled by aircraft made specifically for that purpose.
We haven't been at war against someone with an air force since 2003. And they got their ass handed to them too quickly for the raptor which was introduced in 2005.

It is a contingency weapon for in the event we fight someone with a large air force say China over Taiwan.

Let's hope to God we have something better if push comes to shove against China. This thing even fails on test missions:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52O65E20090325?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

But then a big knock-down drag-out against Russia or China is unlikely. Fear of nukes and international trade keeps that from happening.

Let's hope to God we have something better if push comes to shove against China. This thing even fails on test missions:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52O65E20090325?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

But then a big knock-down drag-out against Russia or China is unlikely. Fear of nukes and international trade keeps that from happening.

Could we wait for the investigation to be complete. Blaming the plane on what could be pilot error.

Not to mention I hope we have something to answer china's fifth generation Aircraft due out 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-XX

I hope we have something to answer china's fifth generation Aircraft due out 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-XX

That would be a good reason to get something else besides the F-22 into production. But then again would China even want a fight with the US since we owe them all that money?

That would be a good reason to get something else besides the F-22 into production. But then again would China even want a fight with the US since we owe them all that money?

Who is to say we don't pick it for a legitimate reason to repudiate the debt?

Your reasoning that the F-22 is a poor Aircraft is flawed as it is based off a crash that hasn't been fully investigated yet. It may well have been pilot error. (which accounts for 75% of all aviation accidents)
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf

During live combat simulations
the F22 scored hundreds of kills to 0.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371
This is a top end fighter.
To toss it because it is not useful during the current scenario is short sighted.

Oh bollocks to that. You're just trying to insist on something that isn't happening and crying foul when called on it.
Your refutation failed.

They confirmed it's use as an incendiary. Not a chemical weapon.
Sigh.

This blabs about anything that can be used for its toxic qualities classifies as a chemical weapon. Again, it's trash because if I make you swallow lead, lead poisoning kills you. Does that make lead a chemical weapon?
You love building those strawmen don't you?

Yes or no. Answer that. Because if the answer is yes, then almost anything classifies as a chemical weapon and the definition is useless.
You want me to bring your strawman to life? Wow.

You repeated yourself here.
I need to repeat myself......you seem to be having a hard time reading the black part.

To me, WP is no different than napalm or latter variant incendiaries. A weapon is a weapon. It is designed to kill or to incapacitate. How much pain it inflicts is irrelevant. So to answer your question, I don't care if it's used or not.
So then you shouldn't give a damn about whether I call it a chemical weapon or an incendary weapon? Who cares because according to you, a "weapon is a weapon" and it doesn't matter how much pain or suffering it may cause...interesting indeed.

Asking about civilian casualties for WP is as fallacious as asking about the use of strategic bombing where civilian casualties can occur, or hell, even urban combat operations. It's also a damned stupid thing to ask in any conflict between nationstates since the armed forces generally depend on the civilian population for supplying war materials, supplies and precursor items, not to mention that strikes against cities where large civilian populations live are normal.
So then it is okay not to worry about the civilian population.....hell, just carpet bomb the piss out of them, using any kind of weapon that will get the job done? OH WAIT (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14392449&postcount=1171):

Explain Israeli fire on UN chartered and marked schools/aid centers which had no militant activity in them or their compounds and yet were bombed then. Then try to explain why they used false claims of militant activity to justify it.

OH WAIT there is more (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14392456&postcount=1172):

So not even inside the building or compound, but a street near it is fine now. How much longer before you start defending carpet bombing of entire cities on the same logic?

First it was inside the building or compound. Fine. I can go with that. Now you're saying "Oh, it's some street near the place". Complain about slippery slope all you want, you're doing it, so you haven't got a leg to stand on.
So, which hat are you wearing tonight?

The only consideration towards any weapons use should be whether it's practical and whether it can achieve your objective.
Your definition of "practical" would probably change radically if enemy forces were laying a little "shake and bake" on you and your family?

Your reasoning that the F-22 is a poor Aircraft is flawed as it is based off a crash that hasn't been fully investigated yet.

Well not exactly. It is our most expensive plane ($140 million each) We have made 187 (or so) and there is talk of nerfing the program.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7269683

I think the future of warfare is those unmanned drones.

Well not exactly. It is our most expensive plane ($140 million each) We have made 187 (or so) and there is talk of nerfing the program.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7269683

I think the future of warfare is those unmanned drones.

Until they kill it; it's just talk. Even if they kill it, they are only stopping production for new ones.

They will keep the ones they have and parts, etc. will still be made to support them.

at least those 95,000 had jobs to support their families with. Now they have nothing and the US economy collapsed because of the democrats in Congress.

Don't worry. We can pay those 95,000 people to dig a hole and then fill that hole back up.

Anyway, that 95,000 number is an estimate of the number of jobs related to the F-22, meaning some of those people work on other projects. Either way, even if the funding was cut, we've already paid for two and a half more years of production. Hopefully the economy will have recovered by the end of 2011.

You want me to bring your strawman to life? Wow.

You want to argue that by using really ambiguous wording, you can make out WP to be a chemical weapon? Well fine, but by the same logic, or lack thereof, lead is also a chemical weapon. You don't like it, don't try to use that argument.


So then you shouldn't give a damn about whether I call it a chemical weapon or an incendary weapon? Who cares because according to you, a "weapon is a weapon" and it doesn't matter how much pain or suffering it may cause...interesting indeed.

A weapon is a weapon, yes. It is designed to kill, maim, or otherwise cause suffering. A weapon that fails to fulfill any of the above criteria is a failure as a weapon. I give a damn because your argument is the sort that tries to paint a DU rounds as bad as a strategic yield nuclear device. It's misinformation at best.


So then it is okay not to worry about the civilian population.....hell, just carpet bomb the piss out of them, using any kind of weapon that will get the job done? OH WAIT (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14392449&postcount=1171):

Lovely twist. Did Israel's bombing achieve their stated objectives? Not at all. It didn't get the job done. Hit the wrong targets. Wasted effort. I take a pragmatic view to war. Carpet bombing a city to get one person is wasted effort and is counter productive in most cases. I don't like it, but if you're committed to doing war, you do it in the best way possible, not half assed drunken fighting.


So, which hat are you wearing tonight?

I don't wear hats, much less the ridiculous ones you're trying to fob off on me.


Your definition of "practical" would probably change radically if enemy forces were laying a little "shake and bake" on you and your family?

Let me put it this way. With a knife, I can stab you in the gut, twist the blade, and leave you to die slowly and painfully in a matter of hours as you bleed to death. You going to illegalize knives now?

If I die, I die. The hows are irrelevant and useless to consider. Death is unavoidable, but if it's to hostile action, I do my damndest to take as many as possible with me. Beyond that, any other consideration is worthless.

You want to argue that by using really ambiguous wording, you can make out WP to be a chemical weapon? Well fine, but by the same logic, or lack thereof, lead is also a chemical weapon. You don't like it, don't try to use that argument.
There is no ambiguity in the links that I posted regarding WP when it is used as a weapon rather than an obscurant. Your strawman is so covered in lead, it is about to topple over and shatter into a million tiny fragments. :p

A weapon is a weapon, yes. It is designed to kill, maim, or otherwise cause suffering. A weapon that fails to fulfill any of the above criteria is a failure as a weapon. I give a damn because your argument is the sort that tries to paint a DU rounds as bad as a strategic yield nuclear device. It's misinformation at best.
We are not discussing DU rounds here....stay focused. WP should not be used as a weapon (incendary or chemical)...PERIOD!!

I am not alone on this matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy_Pete#2008.2F9_Israel.E2.80.93Gaza_conflict):

Several reports [25][26][27] indicate that white phosphorus shells were used by Israel in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Human Rights Watch claims shells exploded over populated civilian areas, including a crowded refugee camp[28] and a United Nations school where civilians were seeking refuge[29]. Additionally, Human Rights Watch has claimed that White phosphorus injuries are suspected in the cases of ten burn victims.[30]

Human Rights Watch said its experts in the region had witnessed the use of white phosphorus. Kenneth Roth, the organisation's executive director, added: "This is a chemical compound that burns structures and burns people. It should not be used in populated areas."[31]

Amnesty International said a fact-finding team found "indisputable evidence of the widespread use of white phosphorus" in crowded residential areas of Gaza City and elsewhere in the territory.[32] Donatella Rovera, the head of an Amnesty fact-finding mission to southern Israel and Gaza, said: "Israeli forces used white phosphorus and other weapons supplied by the USA to carry out serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes."[33]
If WP is now being used by the Taliban, perhaps the US will move quickly to call for a ban of WP use as a weapon before her troops start becoming victims of "shake and bake" operations.

Lovely twist. Did Israel's bombing achieve their stated objectives? Not at all. It didn't get the job done. Hit the wrong targets. Wasted effort. I take a pragmatic view to war. Carpet bombing a city to get one person is wasted effort and is counter productive in most cases. I don't like it, but if you're committed to doing war, you do it in the best way possible, not half assed drunken fighting.
The only twisting there are the words that you supplied. Your points in arguments appear to resemble those of a weathervane that change dependent upon the direction of the wind.

I don't wear hats, much less the ridiculous ones you're trying to fob off on me.
It is a figure of speech and yes you change hats to suit your argument.

Let me put it this way. With a knife, I can stab you in the gut, twist the blade, and leave you to die slowly and painfully in a matter of hours as you bleed to death. You going to illegalize knives now?'
Back to your strawman arguments again huh.....although this one is so much more graphic, perhaps even vindictive, in its' presentation. :p

If I die, I die. The hows are irrelevant and useless to consider. Death is unavoidable, but if it's to hostile action, I do my damndest to take as many as possible with me. Beyond that, any other consideration is worthless.
It is easy to make these kinds of determinations from the comfort and safety of our homes that are so totally removed from the brutal reality on the other side of the planet.

Well not exactly. It is our most expensive plane ($140 million each) We have made 187 (or so) and there is talk of nerfing the program.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7269683

I think the future of warfare is those unmanned drones.

Based upon Gate's short sighted we are never going to fight a major power with an Airforce again.
thats nice, Unmanned drones are not ready to be fighter aircraft. Not to mention the delay between the operator and the unmanned drone would make the drone able to be downed by a much less sophisticated manned vehicle.

Based upon Gate's short sighted we are never going to fight a major power with an Airforce again.
thats nice, Unmanned drones are not ready to be fighter aircraft. Not to mention the delay between the operator and the unmanned drone would make the drone able to be downed by a much less sophisticated manned vehicle.

If all hell broke loose now, the unmanned drones would not be much of a factor. If/when they go into mass production a few hundred thousand of them should be afforable.
The delays you speak of could be minimalized by temporary relay stations in the air and on the ground. (they can shoot some of them down but not all of them)

There is no ambiguity in the links that I posted regarding WP when it is used as a weapon rather than an obscurant. Your strawman is so covered in lead, it is about to topple over and shatter into a million tiny fragments. :p

Hah! Your posts talked about WP used as an incendiary. The only one that even came close to indicating that it could be used as a chemical weapon is when it's used to cause internal damage by chemical process, which given the high temperature nature of WP, is questionable at best.


We are not discussing DU rounds here....stay focused. WP should not be used as a weapon (incendary or chemical)...PERIOD!!

Your opinions are noted, and discarded as ultimately useless to just about every military with access to WP, incendiaries and explosives.


I am not alone on this matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy_Pete#2008.2F9_Israel.E2.80.93Gaza_conflict):

You're very alone since they don't make the assertion that it's a chemical weapon and by their own word choice, portray it as an incendiary.


If WP is now being used by the Taliban, perhaps the US will move quickly to call for a ban of WP use as a weapon before her troops start becoming victims of "shake and bake" operations.

The US and every other world power has long had a history of double standards of what they can have and what others can't. It's not like they want a level playing field. Try again.


The only twisting there are the words that you supplied. Your points in arguments appear to resemble those of a weathervane that change dependent upon the direction of the wind.

Oh please. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, I'll give that much. You use whatever works, to achieve the objectives desired. You don't go about chasing a dead end idea and then widen the scope in the hopes that it'll work if you do it on a big enough scale. And you don't pretend to be the white knight when you do it. I'd have less of a problem if the idiots in that corner of the world were honest about their intentions rather than trying to cloak it in whitewashing. Better an honest thug than a shyster of one.


Back to your strawman arguments again huh

It's no different than your "I'd change my tune if it was used against me" idiocy. Either I stab you and you want knives illegalized, or you drop that part of the argument.


It is easy to make these kinds of determinations from the comfort and safety of our homes that are so totally removed from the brutal reality on the other side of the planet.

And it's easy for you to make empty moral demands without having to face the reality of combat demands. I dislike war in general, but I know what it entails and at least have an idea of what is needed to get the most results for the least unnecessary destruction. You think it can be sanitized and gentlemanly. Naive thinking that only makes things worse in the long run.

EDIT: War should be horrific to the point where it is only taken as the very last resort. It should never be cleaned up and made pretty with stupid restrictions, because then people find it easy to support it as a first resort.