OT: surprise surprise, chemical weapons found in Iraq.

[Mr Punch]

Speaks for itself. Moral relativists need not reply.

[Ben Gash]

Neither white phosphorous or napalm is counted as a chemical weapon under any recognised definition.

[David Jamieson]

they're incindiaries not in the category of chem or bio weapon.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

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

[Wong Fei Hong]

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.


No offence to blondes btw :P

[Mr Punch]

Neither white phosphorous or napalm is counted as a chemical weapon under any recognised definition.

Your point being?

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?

[Ben Gash]

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.

[Chanwa]

No surprise at all.

[Judge Pen]

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?

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.

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.

[Mortal1]

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.

[shrub]

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.

[Chief Fox]

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.

Good point but if we (the US) are going to talk the talk. Then we should walk the walk. This isn't higher/double standard crap. It's called having morals and values. And having the balls to stick to those morals or values when the sh!t hits the fan.

Also, my mom always said "two wrongs don't make a right".

It's funny how people (conservatives) don't care who they step on, violate, invade or kill all in the interest of doing what they "think" is right. Without even considering the minute possibility that they just might be wrong.

We could go on and on about this but the truth is people aren't perfect and neither are countries or political systems. We can only hope that in the future there will be more talking and less shaking and baking.

[Mr Punch]

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.

At the time, there were threads saying how disgusting it was that those *******s were cutting hostages heads off. I'm pretty sure I expressed my anger at them then.

It is not relevant to this argument, other than of course, this thread partially being about killing civilians.

I'm not going to start a thread saying 'I love America', because I've never been there and I have no particular opinion about it. The government is hypocritical as are all governments, that's neither here nor there.

It's probably a reasonable place to live, as are many places.

Now, I appreciate you may be a little confused, as Bush has just come out in a speech and said that it's perfectly OK to be critical of the war as an American just three days after having agreed with Cheney that being against the war was reprehensible. Please go away and think about what he means while the growed-ups talk.