Speaks for itself. Moral relativists need not reply.
Printable View
Neither white phosphorous or napalm is counted as a chemical weapon under any recognised definition.
they're incindiaries not in the category of chem or bio weapon.
Heh, I remember reading a French comic book series called "scrameustache." In one book, the characters use phosphorous as a psychological tool by coating their space suits with it and then running towards the baddies.
http://www.dupuis.com/servlet/jpecat...OUVRAGE_ID=985
Does phosphorous really "burn cold?"
CSP
Hydrogen peroxide found in iraq, fear of a chemical warfare , to turn iraq women blonde thus making the population more sexually appealling which is a crime as well as lowering the rate of iq.
:rolleyes:
No offence to blondes btw :P
Your point being?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Gash
White phosphorous is a chemical, and it is a weapon. It is not classed as a conventional weapon under any recognised definition, and it is against Schedule 3 of the Geneva Convention which the US recognises but has not signed, when used against personnel.
It is illegal to manufacture landmines in the UK, but legal to manufacture 'dormant bombs'.
You've read the article, and I happen to agree with Monbiot that the precise definition isn't so important when it is sticking to your skin, burning mucous membranes through to the bone and causing permanent eye damage.
My point being that it shouldn't be used in war against personnel. There are rules to war, there always have been though they have changed, and though some people may break them it doesn't make that acceptible.
So your point was? As they are not defined as chemical weapons it's OK to use them?
Trinitrotoluene is a chemical, and it is a weapon. White Phosphorous has been the standard tool for clearing bunkers with every nation's army for the last 60 years, used extensively for this purpose in Vietnam, and to be honest very rarely causes serious harm (certainly less than a 5.56mm rifle round or a fragmentation grenade). This is very typical of the modern media, why make an issue of it now? Claims that civilians were "killed with WP" if Fallujah have NEVER been substantiated, and indeed flatly denied by Iraqi doctors working there, and also highly unlikely. You would need a large chunk of phosphorous in an unlucky place to kill you (basically you'd need to be pretty much physically hit with the device), making the numbers claimed highly improbable.
No surprise at all.
I thought your point was the the U.S. were hypocrites for being in Iraq under the pretense that Sadam had illegal weapons and yet we were using them ourselves. If WP and napalm are not banned weapons then that point is moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat
If you want to talk about the morality of using these weapons vs the legality then talk away. It's war. If you recognize the Geneva convention, then you should follow its guidelines, but if its allowed, then why not do it? I can understand the arguments as to why or why not we should be there, but if you are there, do whatever is allowed and necessary to get the job done. It's not different than a self-defense encounter. You do what is necessary to survive the situation you find yourself in.
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure taking civilian hostages(who are there to help) and cutting their heads off on camera is against the geneva convention. I could be wrong though you might want to research it. lol Why do people(liberals) only focus on the US? When there are so many other ****ant, dictator lead, human rights violating country's in the world? Don't give me that higher standard double standard crap either.
His point is that the US should not have a double standard.
- why is Bush lecturing China on human rights when we have all kinds of abuse at Gitmo and other secret CIA sites. Didn't **** Cheney just lobbied the Congress for exception to the rules of tortue?
- why is Rumsfield complaining about China's military budget when the US alone accounts for nearly 50% of all the arm expenditures in the world?
- what's the fuss about WMD when the US has the biggest WMD arsenal and the first and only country to ever drop 2 atomic bombs on civilians. Yes napalm and agent orange caused heavy civilian casualties in Vietnam and many children are still suffering from the effects.
Besides the fact that the Bush administration is a clusterf.uck of the highest order, the innacuracy of the article is what is at hand.
wp as stated is not an effective chem wepon, you would need to have a direct hit with direct skin contact and this renders it as a weapon, ineffective and therefor not likely that it would be used for much more than it's intended purpose which is to light up enemy positions in order to frag them.
I believe the term is that no matter how hard you polish a turd, it's still a turd.
Are rummy and Cheney hypocrits in their positions on the rest of the world? Yep, imo they are. Dirt rotten scoundrels is a good term for them, but that's not the point.
the reporter who wrote that is erroneous in his statements in regards to teh use of WP.
To pretty much everyone else but the bush admin and their supporters the Iraq fiasco is an illegal and unprecedented war.
The British have been accused of using Cluster bombs on Iraqi positions. I am not certain as to the validity of that because I've only seen it once in one article and not reiterated since then. It is worthy of note that cluster bombs are illegal weapons. However, this doesn't mean the US and others do not have stockpiles of them.
And yes, the US is erhaps in the top 5 greatest offenders when it comes to possession of wmds which makes much of their position on the matter hypocritical.
Do you want WMD in the hands of someone that would hijack a civilian plane and fly it into a building full of innocent people?Quote:
Originally Posted by shrub
Can you document the "abuse" at these other CIA "secret sites" you reference? Where are they? Oh, I forgot, they are secret. Wow, bad stuff must happen there.
Heck, I would worry about China's military budget too. The country is so large that no one wants to pick a fight with them. It doesn't matter how many guns and grunts I have, if they have more, it would make me worried.
Double standards? Maybe, but I'd rather have the standard in my favor than against me. At least I know what I will and won't do.
And don't even start me on the torture.
By the way, I'm against the war in Iraq and I didn't vote for Bush. But it's that type of bs philosophy that gets Americans killed once we are there. If it were up to me, we would have never went into Iraq, but if we are going to have people there, let them do the best job they can do and stop complaining about double standards when the people that hate us will do every immoral and unethical thing they can to kill Americans and our allies.
America is not above human rights abuses as is indicated by their long track record of them within their own society and inflicted upon others.
they are not in the best position to be the standard bearer in the continuing movement to lessen human rights infractions around the world.
relativism is not applicable to many situations where it is plain as the nose on your face what is wrong. Wrong is wrong regardless of traditions. Better to take a pluralistic view than that of cultural relativism. It simply is incorrect to torture people, to discriminate based on belief or sex or colour of your skin.
In law this is so in the states, yet in practice it is evidently not so in so many cases it is a staggering list of inequities.
There's a lot of lip service paid to equal rights in the americas, but when it comes right down to it, the majority of power in all segments of society is in the hands of the 50 year old white man with very few exceptions. That's a fact jack.
DJ, you are right that the US is certainly not above it. I wonder if Canada would still be above it if they were invested in international politics and war as the U.S. (you won't throw an interception if you don't drop back to pass).
I'm sure that the balance of power in Canadian Society is probably with middle-age white people too. What does that prove? I can't help that I'm white and approaching middle-age quickly.