PDA

View Full Version : OT: surprise surprise, chemical weapons found in Iraq.



Mr Punch
11-15-2005, 09:06 AM
Speaks for itself. Moral relativists need not reply. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1642831,00.html)

Ben Gash
11-15-2005, 03:10 PM
Neither white phosphorous or napalm is counted as a chemical weapon under any recognised definition.

David Jamieson
11-15-2005, 03:17 PM
they're incindiaries not in the category of chem or bio weapon.

Xiao3 Meng4
11-15-2005, 03:34 PM
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?pgm=VIEW_ALBUM&lang=FR&OUVRAGE_ID=985

Does phosphorous really "burn cold?"

CSP

Wong Fei Hong
11-15-2005, 04:26 PM
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

Mr Punch
11-16-2005, 04:12 AM
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
11-16-2005, 05:21 AM
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
11-16-2005, 06:33 AM
No surprise at all.

Judge Pen
11-16-2005, 08:16 AM
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
11-16-2005, 09:14 AM
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
11-16-2005, 11:52 AM
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.

David Jamieson
11-16-2005, 12:05 PM
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.

Judge Pen
11-16-2005, 12:06 PM
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.

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?

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.

David Jamieson
11-16-2005, 12:11 PM
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.

Judge Pen
11-16-2005, 12:16 PM
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.

David Jamieson
11-16-2005, 01:05 PM
Canada has no military might, we also have a small population comparatively (10% of the us) and little money. We also frequently lack the political will to do much more than pay lip service to the woes of the world and hold emergency debate sessions when something goes wrong.

still, the glass ceiling exists here as it does in your country. And no, it is not the fault of someones heritage, it is the fault of the social construct that favours one over another with equal merit.

Most times, John Smith will get hired before mohammed Fariq does in a lot of cases even if Mohammed has better qualifications. That's a quirk of NA society. it is indeed a little harder to tell depending which end of teh stick you have been handed. :p

Chief Fox
11-16-2005, 01:26 PM
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.

Judge Pen
11-16-2005, 01:45 PM
Canada has no military might, we also have a small population comparatively (10% of the us) and little money. We also frequently lack the political will to do much more than pay lip service to the woes of the world and hold emergency debate sessions when something goes wrong.

That's my point. You make a lot more mistakes and develop schizophrenic/hypocritical policies when you are so involved/invested in global politics for a couple of hundred years. Two wrongs may not make a right, but if you are the only one playing by the rules how often will you win the game? If you lose, then who will look after human rights (as skewed as it is, it's better than nothing.) Like it or not, the world is a lesser of evils. America isn't a Utopia, but it's better than the alternatives even with all its faults which are so often pointed out by those who aren't in the same position as the U.S.







Oh God, I'm starting to sound like Col Jessup from "A Few Good Men."

"You live under the blanket of security that I provide and then question my means of providing it."

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Judge Pen
11-16-2005, 01:49 PM
Before I get accused of being a war-hawk let me say one thing:

I think Bush should have been impeached for shoving the false pretenses for this war down our throats. I hate that we are in this mess. But I think that we made the mess and we need to find a way to fix it, to safeguard the lifes of the soliders, and to preserve American security.

*Climbs off soap-box*

Chief Fox
11-16-2005, 02:12 PM
Greetings,

Considering the flack Bush has gotten from the public and his peers, I would not be surprised if he had Cheney mail drop some chemical weapons over there via FedEx.

This was too conveniently timed.


mickey
You didn't read the article. WE (the US) were the ones using the chemicals.

When the taliban was was hiding in their bunkers, we would flush them out with the White Phosphorous and then drop Napalm on them when they came out. They called it the "Shake and Bake".

JP, you're right. The "two wrongs don't make a right" argument totally works when it's two kids beating each other up. But maybe not so much when it comes to international politics. :D

I would still like to see more discussion at the international level and less blowing people up.

shrub
11-16-2005, 02:22 PM
In the latest poll 38% of Canadians felt Bush was more dangerous to world security than Osama bin Laden.
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=513073ac-7eba-4c51-925b-18c28af1bba2

Judge Pen
11-16-2005, 02:27 PM
I would still like to see more discussion at the international level and less blowing people up.

I can agree with that. I agreed with going into Afghanistan, but strongly disagreed with Iraq.

David Jamieson
11-16-2005, 03:18 PM
In the latest poll 38% of Canadians felt Bush was more dangerous to world security than Osama bin Laden.
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=513073ac-7eba-4c51-925b-18c28af1bba2

That's because Usama is a dirt eating whacko nutjob with no access to real firepower and Bush is a whacko nutjob with plenty of access to real firepower.

ergo, Bush is more dangerous, but the level of lunacy in both is equal.

Design Sifu
11-16-2005, 04:04 PM
Yeah but who would win in a cage match?

David Jamieson
11-16-2005, 06:25 PM
in a cage match i'd have to give it to george.

why? because usama is gimped up after being bombed in afghanistan so his arm is out of the equation. Plus he doesn't seem to exercises regularly as W does, he's a little gaunbt and underfed looking.

so for stamina and overall resilience, George in the 3rd round by submission.

ZhuiQuan
11-16-2005, 06:36 PM
George also has the ability to use the power of cocaine to stop him from feeling pain and fatigue.

Jarhead101
11-16-2005, 09:47 PM
[QUOTE
Oh God, I'm starting to sound like Col Jessup from "A Few Good Men."

"You live under the blanket of security that I provide and then question my means of providing it."

:eek: :eek: :eek:[/QUOTE]


And what's wrong with that JP? In actuality, as a former Marine grunt, Col. Jessup was 100% correct in what he done. What, ship this obvious weak link to another unit so he could possibly get someone else killed?

Anyway, as far as this convo, I would agree on ONE thing, I don't believe Bush should have troops there. Why? Because he's bowed down to the weak poltical left and is basically half-a$$ed doing the job.

If he wants to correct the situation, throw out the media, and let's really get it on. So, you want to hide in your mosque? Fine, we'll just DESTROY your entire city along with it. Quit pu$$yfooting around already, kill'em all. You cut off one of our guys' head, fine, we'll bury each and every one of you with pig guts in your graves and ensure you don't go to "heaven."

David Jamieson
11-16-2005, 10:02 PM
And what's wrong with that JP? In actuality, as a former Marine grunt, Col. Jessup was 100% correct in what he done. What, ship this obvious weak link to another unit so he could possibly get someone else killed?

Anyway, as far as this convo, I would agree on ONE thing, I don't believe Bush should have troops there. Why? Because he's bowed down to the weak poltical left and is basically half-a$$ed doing the job.

If he wants to correct the situation, throw out the media, and let's really get it on. So, you want to hide in your mosque? Fine, we'll just DESTROY your entire city along with it. Quit pu$$yfooting around already, kill'em all. You cut off one of our guys' head, fine, we'll bury each and every one of you with pig guts in your graves and ensure you don't go to "heaven."

100k dead civs ain't enough for you? :rolleyes:

the fact that the mighty us attacked a country that was on it's knees from 12 years of sanctions and captured their tin and useless dictator?

Are there others like saddam in the region? pick a country, any country, they're all dictators with horrendous records of violations against human rights almost to a man.

Did Iraq fly planes into american buildings? nope.
Are they sponsors of AlQ? nope. AlQ is new in the area filling the void created by the power vacuum.
Did Iraq have wmd? Only those that the states sold them back in the 80's apparently and they used most of that before destroying the rest so they could get that whole food for oil thing going.

kill em all? yeah, that's a solution just like hitler's:rolleyes:

Jarhead101
11-16-2005, 10:13 PM
Well, it's obvious you know everything. No wmd's, Iraq had nothing to do with 911, Iraq never supported ALQ....geez, why do we even need the CIA when all they have to do is come ask you? Tsk, tsk, hopefully you'll let us in on who REALLY shot Kennedy soon. :D

David Jamieson
11-16-2005, 11:09 PM
Your deflection of my pointing out your ignorance is weak young skywalker. Now pick up a newspaper and read it once in a while. You are such a badass! :p

Ben Gash
11-17-2005, 03:39 AM
The CIA don't really have secret detention centres, they farm the work out to Egypt and Uzbekistan, where they are tortured without the US getting it's hands physically dirty :(
As I always say, the problem with most debates is that the issue gets clouded by related issues which have no real significance to the debate. The debate here is about the validity of the article about white phosphorous and napalm, which even the most liberal anti-bushist people such as DJ are saying is flawed.
What do some of you have against shake and bake? You are not going to clear a bunker without killing everyone inside, and the targeted use of napalm is VERY quick. It's not like they're pumping Chlorine or Sarin into the bunker (which is what is implied by the title and tone).

Judge Pen
11-17-2005, 04:39 AM
Did Iraq fly planes into american buildings? nope.
Are they sponsors of AlQ?

Didn't most of the 9/11 terrorist come from Saudi Arabia? Why didn't we go in there and clean house?

David Jamieson
11-17-2005, 05:17 AM
Didn't most of the 9/11 terrorist come from Saudi Arabia? Why didn't we go in there and clean house?

Because Saudi Arabia did not attack the US. The US was attacked. But not by a sovereign nation. The case was built against Iraq after 911 and the media in the US and the meme from the whitehouse was that there was a connection. For some reason, people bought into that meme and the next thing you know, there you are...in the desert...getting you ass shot off.

TonyM.
11-17-2005, 06:23 AM
Gassing people is so wrong. Burning them alive indiscriminately is perfectly OK.



www.veteransforpeace.org/

Chief Fox
11-17-2005, 08:13 AM
What I find most disturbing in this whole mess is how divided the American people still are. While Bush IS loosing popularity, there are still people out there that think he is doing the right thing.

Think back to just after 9/11 for a second. Remember George Bush standing at ground zero with all of the fire fighters? I felt proud to be an american. I remember running through my neighborhood and counting all of the American flags flying. (It was well over 200) It felt like we were all unified. What has George Bush done to this unity? Well first he bombed the snot out of Afganistan and then he used the unity to fabricate a war against Iraq. Talk about misguided.

Here we are 3 years later. Still at war and our country is divided. Everyday, more and more people are loosing faith in their leader. Add to this a botched handling of a natural disaster, A CIA leak connected to the white house, more and more soilders dying, we're still at war, the entire continent of South America hates us and now this whole chemical warfare thing.

Honestly, how much more crap are we going to take from our government? :mad:

**steps down from soap box**

Sorry about that. Whew, I feel better now. :D

whitefox
11-17-2005, 08:56 AM
Canada has no military might, we also have a small population comparatively (10% of the us) and little money. We also frequently lack the political will to do much more than pay lip service to the woes of the world and hold emergency debate sessions when something goes wrong.



And your doing a great job in representing on this thread....with your lip service that is:eek:

David Jamieson
11-17-2005, 09:07 AM
And your doing a great job in representing on this thread....with your lip service that is:eek:

While I am Canadian, I am not Canada. Just like wherever you are is your home, but still, you are not your home.

Anyway, what is your point Whitefox? Are you one of those peeps that think everyone should just tow the line and fall into lockstep with the movement at play? That's pretty un-american if you ask me. :p

whitefox
11-17-2005, 09:34 AM
That's pretty un-american if you ask me. :p
I didn't ask.... I do not tow a line or consider myself a "peep". A peep is a marshmellow candy bird that is usually bought around easter:rolleyes:

David Jamieson
11-17-2005, 09:36 AM
That's great, so you're here to cherry pick posts and rag on the poster with no further contribution to the discourse at hand then?

terrific. I'll just have to disregard your 'filler' then and continue to lock horns with those who understand how to do so. :p

whitefox
11-17-2005, 10:18 AM
That's great, so you're here to cherry pick posts and rag on the poster with no further contribution to the discourse at hand then?

terrific. I'll just have to disregard your 'filler' then and continue to lock horns with those who understand how to do so. :p
I consider your posts as "filler" as well. ;)

David Jamieson
11-17-2005, 11:32 AM
I consider your posts as "filler" as well. ;)

That's great, please feel free to put me on your ignore list. ;) ;)

SanHeChuan
11-17-2005, 04:49 PM
The article didn't say that the WP or the "Napalm" like munitions were used to kill people, but it was implied. Your own imaginations took care of the rest. Because that was you want to believe. That the US gov are VILLIANS.

It also didn’t say that they were used together like one poster said. They were used in to separate instances. The WP was used in Fallujah as concealment and to smoke out targets. The article did not state that anyone died or were otherwise injured from direct contact with WP.

"The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with (conventional) high explosive rounds." The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Fallujah as a chemical weapon."

The article contradicts its self in this quote as it clearly states that they were killed with conventional High explosive rounds and not with any chemical weapons. Note how it says "appears" to be admitting the use of Chemical weapons. But they in fact do not admit any such thing. But the article wants you to think otherwise.

It says that the "Napalm" like munitions where used on two occasions. Napalm is use as modern slang for mark 77 firebombs, which is similar but not the same.

"dropped incendiary bombs (mark 77 firebombs) around the bridges over the Tigris and the Saddam Canal on the way to Baghdad."

"Embedded journalists reported that napalm (mark 77 firebombs) was dropped at Safwan Hill on the border with Kuwait. "

How ever it doesn't say that anyone was killed by these munitions but again you assume that people were the targets.

The article “seems” to be proving that the US used chemical weapons, but in reality only leads you to make assumptions. Hoping that you will assume the worst. You are being manipulated by both sides.

Oh and the same press that now claims no Iraqi/AQ conection was reporting that there was one before the war.

SanHeChuan
11-17-2005, 05:33 PM
You aren’t seeing the big picture. We are never leaving Iraq. We never left Japan, Korea, or Europe. There is still a very strong military presence there, left over from bygone wars. We are paving the way for permanent military installations in Iraq right now. Al Asad airbase in Iraq has at least a 15 year lease on it, with the Air force making future plans for taking over the facility. The air force ain’t no squatters either, they mean to build, and they mean to stay.

Someone said why not invade all those other middle eastern countries who are ruled by dictators or asholes. Why do you think we invaded Iraq? Oil? Please don’t make me laugh. We did it with the hope of affecting change in the whole region, and if necessary lay the smack down on Iraq’s neighbors. However our motives were economically motivated. Stability is money at the geo-economic level. And what’s not stable? The middle east. A little war can buy you a whole lot of peace. The US supports Stability that’s why will are willing to support bad guys like saddam, so we don’t have to do like we have done in Iraq.

Bush may have steered this country into war with Machiavellian brilliance, but his motives were good ones, even if they weren’t the ones given.

And who ever thinks that the US should pull out of Iraq now couldn’t possibly be interested in the well fare of the Iraqi peoples. With out our presence there the country would fall into chaos. The very fragile interim government would collapse with out US pressure and support. With out us there would be no government in Iraq until some other military dictator like Saddam came along, or more likely until Iraq was swallowed up by Iran. Iraq is already in a shadow was against its neighbors. Most of the insurgents are not Iraqi at all but foreign fighters from its neighbors like Iran, and they are targeting Iraqis.

How many countries in the middle east do you think support democracy in Iraq?

If you think going to war with Iraq was wrong that’s fine, but leaving too soon, that’s worse.

mickey
11-17-2005, 05:37 PM
Embarassing,

Chief Fox, you're right. I did not read it because some of those links posted on this forum have troubled my computer. I tried to avoid it this time by going by the heading and got burned.

Won't do that again.


mickey

shrub
11-17-2005, 05:57 PM
........ 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.

SanHeChuan
11-17-2005, 06:59 PM
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. :D

Mr Punch
11-21-2005, 04:11 AM
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
11-21-2005, 04:33 AM
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
11-22-2005, 08:01 AM
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
11-22-2005, 12:58 PM
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
11-22-2005, 02:44 PM
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/military/systems/munitions/smoke.htm


Felt wedges oh yeah real deadly!:rolleyes:

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/military/systems/munitions/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
11-24-2005, 07:15 AM
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 :D ), 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.