OT: surprise surprise, chemical weapons found in Iraq.

[SanHeChuan]

While I was hoping to illustrate the manipulative nature of the media in my first post they were closer to the truth than I wanted to show, but not as closed as they wanted you to believe.

Concerning the Mark 77 firebombs, Marine’s do use them and have used variations of Napalm in every war since World War II. They aren’t considered chemical agents though. They are in incendiary devices, similar to Greek fire.

“Incendiary or explosive chemicals (such as napalm, extensively used by the United States in Vietnam, or dynamite) because their destructive effects are primarily due to fire or explosive force, and not direct chemical action.”

It’s more kin to Dynamite than Sarin.

“International law does not prohibit the use of napalm or other incendiaries against military targets[2], but use against civilian populations was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980 [3]. The United States did not sign the agreement, but claimed to have destroyed its napalm arsenal by 2001.”

If this makes you feel any better here is a quote about the Mark 77 firebombs

“They said mixture used in modern firebombs is a less harmful mixture than Vietnam War-era napalm.”
“ This additive has significantly less of an impact on the environment," wrote Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily, in an e-mailed information sheet provided by the Pentagon.

As for the white phosphorous

Although I should know definitively the US policy for use of Chemical weapons, I’m not sure exactly what the policy for Riot controlled agents is. I’m fairly certain our policy prohibits their use in war time situations.

So since the white phosphorous was used more or less in a similar way as roit gas to “smoke” there targets out. If you can imagine your room suddenly filled with white smoke you’d have a hard time breathing, and I image that it would burn the eyes and throat similar to more traditional Lachrymatory agents.

So you could argue its use in that way as a violation of both US policy and international law.

........ and you wonder why so many people in the world think Bush is more dangerous to world's peace than Osama....... just read some of the redneck remarks here.

If you are referring to myself...red neck hardly.

And the very least I am able verbalize more that indignation. If you have something more to say, other than useless insults, please go ahead.

If you are refering to How Jugde Pen Owned your first post i can't help ya.

[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.

[Mr Punch]

To David and Ben, who are criticising the accuracy of the article, especially Ben and SHC who are categorically stating the effects of WP being not as bad as all that, have any of you had direct experience of this chemical?

If so please state it, if not, please supply your sources which are so much more reliable than the sources that Monbiot uses (his article with sources quoted is at his own site: ). Some of his sources are maybe a little dubious, but since nobody has provided conflicting sources, I'll take them, thanks.

Further to that, I'm pretty sure that the people who wrote Schedule 3 of the Geneva Convention which specifically bans the use of WP against personnel had some experience in the matter.

The nitpicking over napalm and its use is pretty much covered in the article which I agree with: that there's precious little difference between kerosene and petrol in actual effect. Maybe it's nicer on the environment as that nice general said, but pretty much the same when it sticks to someone's skin, which I believe was Monbiot's point.

Which brings me back to what for me is the point: these things shouldn't be used on personnel, especially when there is a high chance that some of these people are civilians. The already much debated 'what is a civilian' debate - as it seems by Guantanamo and most similar decisions made by this administration ( - and yes Bill Clinton's and Margaret Thatcher's and Tony Blair's...) is part of the same continuum: these decisions are arbitrary or using circular logic: we're bombing/renditioning/torturing/napalming/uranium shelling/imprisoning these people therefore they must be insurgents.

I do not think it is OK to use these weapons in this way. And sure, you should do what you have to do in war, but IMO we should still be trying to avoid civilian casualties and perpetuating the cycle of violence.

[Mr Punch]

Since the article's detractors are obviously busy or have lost interest, I'll leave you with this:

Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.

[shadowlin]

With all the rules in war.... I propose we just get rid of war, and use a more modern approach...

football.

Or.. better yet... settle disputes by just having boxing matches between world leaders. Imagine, Hussein vs. Bush.

we'd be screwed, I think... Hussein could probably take Bush.

But if we need armies of over-testosterone filled men in uniforms, conforming to rules, and beating the hell out of each otehr to make old white dudes rich... I say just use the NFL. It's pretty much the same. And the rest of us who aren't power-greedy SOBs like politicians can get on with our lives.

It's a shame that the leaders of the world are about as spiritually mature as the college students that write the paper at my University. Reading the articles, they seem no different than the jargon coming out of DC and Europe. What ever happened to the Philosopher-King?

Oh well.

That's just my solution.

Football and Boxing.

[SanHeChuan]

personal experiences, well as a Nuclear Biological and Chemical Defense Specialist for the United States Marine Corps I have a good deal of knowledge of Chemical weapons of which neither WP or Firebombs are counted among.

I have personally used WP smoke grenades. They are can shaped about one and half times the size of a normal soda can. The can burns so bright you can’t look right at it. The thick white smoke it produces is mostly inoffensive.

“WP may be used to produce a hot dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus pentoxide which are converted by moist air to droplets of phosphoric acid. The smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. Field concentrations of the smoke are usually harmless although they may cause temporary irritation to the eyes, nose or throat.”

“When RP (-ed. red phosphorus) is oxidized, it forms a mixture of phosphorus acids. When these acids are exposed to water vapor, they in turn form polyphosphoric acids, which may be responsible for the toxic injuries to the upper airways. Most of these injuries are mild irritations. No human deaths have been reported from exposure to either white phosphorous or RP smokes.”
NATO HANDBOOK ON THE MEDICAL ASPECTS OF NBC DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS AMedP-6(B) Sec. 814 b.

Now about the Mortar rounds they were using,

“The M825 WP projectile is an FA-delivered 155-mm base-ejection projectile designed to produce a smoke screen on the ground for a duration of 5 to 15 minutes. It consists of two major components--the projectile carrier and the payload. The projectile carrier delivers the payload to the target. The payload consists of 116 WP-saturated felt wedges. The smoke screen is produced when a predetermined fuze action causes ejection of the payload from the projectile. After ejection, the WP-saturated felt wedges in the payload fall to the ground in an elliptical pattern. Each wedge then becomes a point or source of smoke. The M825 is ballistically similar to the M483A1 (DPICM) family of projectiles.”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ions/smoke.htm

Felt wedges oh yeah real deadly!

Seriously if one did happen to land on you before burning out it could burn all the way to the bone. There was a Corpsman giving a class just yesterday who mentioned WP burns, apparently you should put mud on it.

“If burning particles of WP strike and stick to the clothing, take off the contaminated clothing quickly before the WP burns through to the skin. Remove quickly all clothing affected by phosphorus to prevent phosphorus burning through to skin. If this is impossible, plunge skin or clothing affected by phosphorus in cold water or moisten strongly to extinguish or prevent fire. Then immediately remove affected clothing and rinse affected skin areas with cold sodium bicarbonate solution or with cold water. Moisten skin and remove visible phosphorus (preferably under water) with squared object (knife-back etc.) or tweezers. Do not touch phosphorus with fingers! Throw removed phosphorus or clothing affected by phosphorus into water or allow to bum in suitable location. Cover phosphorus burns with moist dressing and keep moist to prevent renewed inflammation. It is neccessary to dress white phosphorus-injured patients with saline-soaked dressings to prevent reignition of the phosphorus by contact with the air.”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nitions/wp.htm

Other cool discussion about WP

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002122.php
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002134.php
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002154.php
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002150.php
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002123.php

What ever happened to the Philosopher-King?-shadowlin

Alexander the Great, Marcus Aurelius, Catherine II of Russia, three figures in history who have been used as examples of Platos Philosopher-Kings, all of whom steered their countries to war.

I'll post again when I get a chance about the firebombs, or whatever else I feel I need to address. I've been busy with work and school.

[Mr Punch]

Thanks for your input.

I've learned quite a lot form the refs you've provided.

However, you've just told us you don't have any experience of the projectiles in question, but of grenades, and you don't have any direct knowledge of WP, but of chemical weapons (which as you say, WP is not counted among). So we're both relying on other people's accounts.

Do you know whether 'field concentrations' as referred to in the Nato quote are relating to 'battlefield' or an open space?

And as for your gag about the felt (which incidentally I found pretty funny ), I think 116 pieces of felt wedged into a 155mm shell could cause quite a problem as they are 'saturated' with WP and ejected by force with an explosive...

just putting mud on it doesn't appear to be entirely accurate either when you look at the medical directions you then quote:

1) Don't touch it with your fingers; How many Iraqis (soldiers/citizens/OK OK insurgents) are going to know this, esp when their first reaction will be to try and get the thing off them?

2) Remove all clothing... /plunge skin or clothing into cold water; How many people would do or even think of these things in a battle zone esp in an area notoriously short of water?

3) Moist dressing to prevent reignation; Again how many have access to any dressings let alone moist ones?

4) Saline-soaked dressings; ditto.

Doesn't seem so innocuous to me.

And to say there have been no reported cases of death from WP seems a bit misleading: how many burns specialists or forensic biologists are embedded in the active units to identify who was burned up by WP and who was burned up by napalm or a bomb or whatever?

Again, the Schedule 3 definition is there for a reason, as is the Battle Book.