NEWS: US Used White Phosphorus in Iraq

The long and short of the entire topic is, should it have been used if there was reason to believe there are civilians around, the answer is DEFINITIVELY no, having the knowledge that there ARE civilians in the target area means it is either illegal to use the WP in that area, otherwise you are targeting civilians with it. (And for those of you who love quoting whats so LEGAL about whats being done) The legality of it states that unless there is a delineation clearly marked from the concentration of civilians versus the combatants, then it is illegal. Isnt that what Protocol III states?

Also Cavscout, just a remark on your last post where you stated the US "initiated hostilities"....just by claiming that yourself, isnt that saying something? Initiating Hostilities sounds to me like, well, awfully hostile...or was that just a poor choice of words?

Originally posted by cavscout
Remember how many combat experienced Iraqis surrendered to us the first time we initiated hostilities against their nation? Every one of them who was too afraid to fight was one we didn't have to kill.

So, to use a little doublespeak, Willie Pete helps save lives.


[edit on 17-11-2005 by cavscout]

initiated hostilities.

good call that one.


i can see this being stepped up , with dirtier and dirtier methods being used to maim or kill each side.


maybe the `beheadings` were in revenge for events that have happened earlier in the war?? just an off the cuff thought that one

Originally posted by Harlequin
maybe the `beheadings` were in revenge for events that have happened earlier in the war?? just an off the cuff thought that one

If they are, then you'd imagine the insurgents would talk about it. I mean, they can easily get their videos on the internet, I'd think they'd make mention of their compatriots being burned alive on a regular basis if it occured.

Originally posted by Esoterica

If they are, then you'd imagine the insurgents would talk about it. I mean, they can easily get their videos on the internet, I'd think they'd make mention of their compatriots being burned alive on a regular basis if it occured.

Why would they talk about it? Insurgents are combatants, they know that in that capacity the likelihood of them getting killed is extremely high..by posting the fact that they were killed in combat would make them appear to be as if they were crying about what it is they are trying to do in the first place...it would make no sense.

But, again, their ability to communicate with the outside world or lack thereof still doesnt touch upon the topic of civilians and should WP have been used in an area known to house them. Whats your thoughts on that Esoterica?

FlyersFan:

No Jakomo ... the truth is that the sanctions killed no one.
It was SADDAM stealing the $$$ that killed.

No, FlyersFan, the truth is that the US pushed to keep the sanctions going even though they knew the people who were suffering were kids and the poor. They KNEW and they kept them up.

www.fff.org...

www.fff.org/freedom/fd0402c.asp


jsobecky:

Wrong. It was the U.N. that imposed the sanctions, which made them binding on all U.N. members

It was the UN that strongly suggested sanctions be dropped after it was clear that they weren't working. That people were starving to death and dying of simple infections because they had no medical supplies because of the strict sanctions.

It was the U.S. that blocked these attempts to stop sanctions. Knowing people were dying. Madeline Albright even said the death of 500,000 children was WORTH IT! (look it up, it's an infamous quote, and one that Iraqis reference a lot)

IAF101:

HAve you ever read the Geneva Protocol ? The US is fighting an internal conflict that isnt covered by the Protocol, also the protocol only applies if both sides follow it.

Total BS. NOWHERE in the Geneva Convention does it say "If your enemy doesn't follow the Geneva Convention, then you don't have to either.". I would be incredibly interested to see you dig up anything from the body of the Conventions that says so, or to see your apologize for your misleading info (intentional or not).

It is ILLEGAL and morally repugnant to use WP in a civilian center, whether or not you tell the inhabitants to leave first. Where the heck were they supposed to go? HUGE gas shortages mean no cars. Walk through the desert until they find a new home?

So if they decide to stay then they are fair game? The 8 members of my family need to stay in Fallujah because I have a business to run and I can't just up and leave my house unguarded and my shop empty.

So this means if the US decides to use White Phosporous in an URBAN AREA (where the effects will be worse), I should think "Well it's my own fault" as I watch my children scream and their flesh melt off their bones and die horribly?

How anybody can say that they support this type of thing and actually claim to be Christian is astounding to me.

You're talking about killing someone in the most horrible way, and you're saying you're okay with it?

Well, dress warm for the afterlife. Bring shorts and sunscreen. You'll need em.



jako

I have to Say even my husband was surprised today when the US government admitted that they used the chemical substance in Fallujah, even when the government is telling that is not a chemical my husband said that is the same as what they used in Vietnam with the same results and is a chemical.

About the population in Fallujah after the assault over one hundred thousand people were missing and they where not in the camps set by the US and they could not be traced to other cities.

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Why would they talk about it? Insurgents are combatants, they know that in that capacity the likelihood of them getting killed is extremely high..by posting the fact that they were killed in combat would make them appear to be as if they were crying about what it is they are trying to do in the first place...it would make no sense.

They're crying about foreign aggression, occupying forces, lack of Islamic influence... Releasing video of charred corpses would certainly get more people on their side than beheading random truck drivers. Then again, there's nothing to the insurgent's MO that indicates intelligence.

But, again, their ability to communicate with the outside world or lack thereof still doesnt touch upon the topic of civilians and should WP have been used in an area known to house them. Whats your thoughts on that Esoterica?

I've posted a few times. First, WP is not a chemical weapon. It's an absolutely horrifying weapon, but not an chemical weapon as defined (because, as has been stated before, everything is a chemical. You're a collection of chemicals).

As for using it on civilians, civilians were never the targets. They may have been within the range of the weapons used, however.

In addition, lots of civilians die in war. I would imagine that cruise missiles, artillery strikes, high explosives, tanks, and the like kill many more people than WP does. It may be a more horrible way to die, but you're still dead. I don't feel any better about killing a civilian by shooting them than burning them, do you?

Also, look at how WP is used. To flush out enemy emplacments so they can be killed with gunfire or explosives. If there were civilians in the same building as the enemy, then they'd be forced out too, and would likely be killed along with the insurgents (After all, without uniforms and in the heat of battle, how do you tell the difference between an insurgent and an innocent bystander in the split-second reaction required? Especially if they come running out of the same building. Or if WP is dropped from an aircraft as a weapon, it burns the people. The alternative is to drop bombs or have gunships attack, which are just as indiscriminate killing tools as WP could be.

So frankly, in my opinion, we're basically arguing over how we should kill civilians with collateral damage. Because in almost every conceivable scenario, of there are innocent people in or near an insurgent position, they're dead no matter what.

from Jakomo
Knowing people were dying. Madeline Albright even said the death of 500,000 children was WORTH IT! (look it up, it's an infamous quote, and one that Iraqis reference a lot)

It was a setup, a BS number. Nowhere near that number of children died because of sanctions.

If your dear pet cat was dying, would it be worth $10,000,000,000 to make him healthy again? Yes! Oh yes!

Same difference.

Originally posted by marg6043
About the population in Fallujah after the assault over one hundred thousand people were missing and they where not in the camps set by the US and they could not be traced to other cities.

They ran into the front of the tents, out the back, and kept on running. Can't say I blame them.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by maidenwolf
Inhumane treatment of ANYONE is wrong.

if u wrote the Geneva convention i wouldnt be surprise u identify bullets as WMD and must be banned.

not to mention in yer view as inhumane.

I'm so glad you don't speak for me. *sigh* No, all bullets are not WMD...and believe it or not, I'm not against ALL war. I was all for going after Osama bin Forgotten...but since the admin decided they weren't worried about him (btw, that was Bush who actually said that) I guess the "just war" aspect of this whole thing went right out the window.
It's funny how you can just assume something about me without knowing me at all. Because I have a conscience I MUST be a total pacifist. Wow. I'm against the war in Iraq, and I'm against the use of inhumane weapons and actions. I'm not a realist, but that doesn't mean I'm totally against fighting if it's justified.

Edit: realist in the political theory sense...I should have made that clear.

[edit on 11/17/05 by maidenwolf]

Originally posted by Esoterica


As for using it on civilians, civilians were never the targets. They may have been within the range of the weapons used, however.

so by that theory i can drop a nuke on washington dc , and its ok as the civilians wern`t the target.


rubbish.

when you use area of effect weapons you know what they do.

and if what RAI say is true , then fullajah was covered from one end to the other in WP and other chemical agents.

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Why would they talk about it? Insurgents are combatants, they know that in that capacity the likelihood of them getting killed is extremely high..by posting the fact that they were killed in combat would make them appear to be as if they were crying about what it is they are trying to do in the first place...it would make no sense.

They're crying about foreign aggression, occupying forces, lack of Islamic influence... Releasing video of charred corpses would certainly get more people on their side than beheading random truck drivers. Then again, there's nothing to the insurgent's MO that indicates intelligence.

But, again, their ability to communicate with the outside world or lack thereof still doesnt touch upon the topic of civilians and should WP have been used in an area known to house them. Whats your thoughts on that Esoterica?

I've posted a few times. First, WP is not a chemical weapon. It's an absolutely horrifying weapon, but not an chemical weapon as defined (because, as has been stated before, everything is a chemical. You're a collection of chemicals).

As for using it on civilians, civilians were never the targets. They may have been within the range of the weapons used, however.

In addition, lots of civilians die in war. I would imagine that cruise missiles, artillery strikes, high explosives, tanks, and the like kill many more people than WP does. It may be a more horrible way to die, but you're still dead. I don't feel any better about killing a civilian by shooting them than burning them, do you?

Also, look at how WP is used. To flush out enemy emplacments so they can be killed with gunfire or explosives. If there were civilians in the same building as the enemy, then they'd be forced out too, and would likely be killed along with the insurgents (After all, without uniforms and in the heat of battle, how do you tell the difference between an insurgent and an innocent bystander in the split-second reaction required? Especially if they come running out of the same building. Or if WP is dropped from an aircraft as a weapon, it burns the people. The alternative is to drop bombs or have gunships attack, which are just as indiscriminate killing tools as WP could be.

So frankly, in my opinion, we're basically arguing over how we should kill civilians with collateral damage. Because in almost every conceivable scenario, of there are innocent people in or near an insurgent position, they're dead no matter what.

Civilians are NOT supposed to die in great numbers...it goes against all moral and just war theory to even say such a thing. They are also supposed to make EVERY EFFORT to minimize any civilian death....dropping something like WP in an area that they KNOW has high numbers of civilians is wrong. Period. To just dismiss it with an "oh, well, happens all the time" says a lot about peoples' humanity.

Originally posted by Harlequin
so by that theory i can drop a nuke on washington dc , and its ok as the civilians wern`t the target.

rubbish.

when you use area of effect weapons you know what they do.

and if what RAI say is true , then fullajah was covered from one end to the other in WP and other chemical agents.

maidenwolf
Civilians are NOT supposed to die in great numbers...it goes against all moral and just war theory to even say such a thing. They are also supposed to make EVERY EFFORT to minimize any civilian death....dropping something like WP in an area that they KNOW has high numbers of civilians is wrong. Period. To just dismiss it with an "oh, well, happens all the time" says a lot about peoples' humanity.

Neither of you actually understood my post.

Lots and lots of civilians are dying. Focusing on which particular weapon system we use is meaningless. Unless, as I asked, does it make you feel that much better to know how we killed someone?

[edit on 11-17-2005 by Esoterica]

Esoterica....can you not see a difference for yourself? I'm asking seriously with no sarcasm or anything like that. If I told you that you had a choice of deaths...gun or acid poured on you...which would you pick? Or how about burning to death or being shot? It wouldn't matter to you? Honestly. Think about it before you answer. Think about how different those deaths would be. How about not even death...you could be shot and live or have acid poured on you and live. Or burn. Or being made to breath a chemical that might not kill you but would damage your internal organs...with GOD only knows what long term effects it would bring on top of it? Which would you pick?

Remember everybody is a reason why the US didn't keep taps on the civilians death toll in Iraq, now can somebody guess why?

Because is the only way that any death can be tag as insurgents and can call the civilian deaths just collateral and minor.

When US walked into Baghdad it was not insurgency but just Saddam left over guard.

How come the so call insurgency was allowed to grow and manifest?

Because it was the only way to justify civilian deaths and blame it on outside forces.

But something happen . . . it got out of control and now the insurgency is back by terrorist.

And is also beyond control.

id like to thank just about every participating member in the thread (except for valhall) for overlookin the point of this thread.

i really couldnt care less how they died, they died. yes its wrong to kill in anyway, and worse to kill slow, but that is hardly the topic at hand. the fact we used white phosphorus is wrong, but that shouldnt be whats in the spotlight, try to bear with me and look at the bigger picture.

they could have used mustard gas, still bear with me and see the bigger picture. THEY LIED. plain out, simple as it can get.

the fact is they lied about using it. whether or not it was humane or right, shouldnt be the topic here. its the fact that we had to catch them red handed with undeniable evidence in order for them to tell the truth. that is by far the scariest part that people are failing to see.

they did another lie and managed to get themselves caught. so this lie will come out, another plunder, but how many other lies had no evidence to back them up. they got away with those then. THAT is the topic at hand, and THAT you cant argue over. unless you can should that the statement made of them denying the use of WP was false, or them admitting to it soon after is false. then the facts are as clear as day

Originally posted by marg6043
How come the so call insurgency was allowed to grow and manifest?

Because it was the only way to justify civilian deaths and blame it on outside forces.

Wow, u for real? You think the U.S. was so excited about the possibility of killing civilians instead of uniformed troops that we created an insurgency so we could off more innocents? I cant figure out if it is just your usually poor language skills or if you are off your rocker.

BTW, Marg, you always seem to quote your husband on military related threads as if his word is the end all to these arguments. In the last decade there have been millions of people coming and going in the military; your husband is nothing. And if he said that WP is the same as some of the horrible crap we used in nam, he is either ignorant or a liar.

Originally posted by Jakomo

IAF101:

HAve you ever read the Geneva Protocol ? The US is fighting an internal conflict that isnt covered by the Protocol, also the protocol only applies if both sides follow it.

Total BS. NOWHERE in the Geneva Convention does it say "If your enemy doesn't follow the Geneva Convention, then you don't have to either.". I would be incredibly interested to see you dig up anything from the body of the Conventions that says so, or to see your apologize for your misleading info (intentional or not).

Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Hmm well, you could arugue that since the insurgents aren't a signatory and don't abide by it, that it doesn't apply to them.

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Also Cavscout, just a remark on your last post where you stated the US "initiated hostilities"....just by claiming that yourself, isnt that saying something? Initiating Hostilities sounds to me like, well, awfully hostile...or was that just a poor choice of words?

No, not a poor choise of words. In your haste to prove to yourself that you are smarter than everyone else, you have placed me in the wrong category. I dont support war no matter where it is or how popular it is, to include the Gulf War. the Gulf war was not about some kind of altruistic feelings toward the poor people of Kuwait, it was about not interupting the supply of oil to the west. If Kuwait had been doing to the U.S. the things it did to Iraq, we would have done the same thing Sadam did.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
i really couldnt care less how they died, they died. yes its wrong to kill in anyway, and worse to kill slow, but that is hardly the topic at hand. the fact we used white phosphorus is wrong, but that shouldnt be whats in the spotlight, try to bear with me and look at the bigger picture.

Well no it's not wrong It is a legal weapon.

they could have used mustard gas, still bear with me and see the bigger picture. THEY LIED. plain out, simple as it can get.

the fact is they lied about using it. whether or not it was humane or right, shouldnt be the topic here. its the fact that we had to catch them red handed with undeniable evidence in order for them to tell the truth. that is by far the scariest part that people are failing to see.

LOL, I can understand why, when you see all the hysterical people here who jump on the catch phrase chemical weapon There is no comparison to mustard gas as you are trying to imply

It's the same with all the BS about the new SMAW-NE thermobaric warhead, because they didn't say they were using it, there must be something shady about it Go figure, too many paranoid people out there.