Obama's "Red-Line": Why is one red-line worth more than another?

This is not breaking news, but piggy-backs on the current Mid-east situation.

I'm not going to post links as we've all seen the stories and reports:

1) We know that there are claims that Assad used chemical weapons on his people in the last week.

2) There was reports by Assad going back 3 to 4 months ago of FSA rebels using aquired chemicals weapons against civilians. Assad even asked the UN to investigate this for themselves.

3) Obama stated that any chemical weapons used would be a RED Line!

Obama has conveniently forgotten when Israel used "Chemical Weapons" (White Phosphorous) against Gaza in 2009.

Israel used White Phophorous against Gaza civilians areas.

When white phosphorus lands on skin it burns deeply through muscle and into the bone, continuing to burn until deprived of oxygen.

Amnesty International’s delegates found still-burning white phosphorus wedges all around residential buildings on Sunday. These wedges were further endangering the residents and their property; streets and alleys are full of children playing, drawn to the detritus of war and often unaware of the danger.

The carrier shells which delivered the wedges were also still lying in and around houses and buildings. Some of these heavy steel 155mm shells have caused extensive damage to residential properties.

WHY IS ONE RED LINE WORTH MORE THAN ANOTHER?

Question: Is the use of depleted uranium weaponary classified as a Chemical Weapon? Has been used in Iraq (massive birth defects since), used against Serbia, in AFPAK war theatre and latest missile strike by Israel used Depleted Uranium. How is using depleted Uranium not a war crime due to its ongoing effects?

It is simple and you know it. America protects isriel they are our jewish buddies thats why as long as they dont bite us they are well protected. Plus think about it mossad is available to us in the middle east that alone is worth its weight in dead palestinians.

America and Israel are unequivocal defenders of freedom and should never be questioned.

reply to post by Melbourne_Militia

Question: Is the use of depleted uranium weaponary classified as a Chemical Weapon?

Yes. Problem is that it isn't exactly in any class. Not conventional explosive, chemical or nuclear weapon. It is however been looked at by the UN but since the US is largest manufacturer and seller of arms worldwide and a permanent member on the UN Security Council, it hardly comes up.

But some links about it...

DU

The red line thing is interesting. It was issued as a warning but wasn't very specific. For instance, what if the Syrian military uses chemicals and they only kill three people? I think it was addressing a scenario with a lot of Syrian civilian casualties.

The implied threat is vague as well.

Can you imagine a scenario that requires the US to undertake a Normandy style Invasion of Syria?

reply to post by Melbourne_Militia

White phosphorus is an interesting example because it's primary purpose is to produce smoke to provide concealment or mark locations. It is also used to start fires. Yes, it burns if it gets on you, but I've been burned by a dripping marshmallow at a campfire.

Yes, white phosphorus is a chemical, but it's not normally classed as a chemical weapon.

The use of white phosphorus as an obscurant is legal. Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'.

The same protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or against military targets in close proximity to civilians or civilian property. This protocol is only binding upon those who have signed it; the United States, has not signed or agreed to Protocol III.

However, regardless of whether or not a country or territory has signed or agreed to abide by protocol III of the CCCW, the use of white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon against military targets that are not in close proximity to civilians or civilian property is completely legal. (Emphasis added)

en.wikipedia.org...

Notice that incendiary weapons are discussed in a "Conventional weapons" convention.

P.s. On the depleted uranium issue, I understand that the ammunition itself is safe, But if the uranium breaks up into dust or small particles which are inhaled, or eaten, then you get various amounts of trouble. So when you're standing next to tank that is being shot full of holes with DU, remember not to breathe.

reply to post by charles1952

White phosphorus is an interesting example because it's primary purpose is to produce smoke to provide concealment or mark locations. It is also used to start fires. Yes, it burns if it gets on you, but I've been burned by a dripping marshmallow at a campfire.

Phosphorous is most certainly an anti personnel weapon. Difference between it and a "melting marshmallow" is that a marshmallow will cool away from the fire.

Phosphorus spontaneous ignites in contact with oxygen. The human body is mostly water (which contains Oxygen), so it will burn and continue to burn its way to the bone. Imagine having a fire in your body that you cannot put out. The flesh involved with the phosphorus must be entirely cut away to remove the remaining phosphorous.

That is a chemical reaction and a chemical weapon. Unlike marshmallows.

G raphic

reply to post by intrptr

Dear intrptr,

What a good post! I agree with half of it and disagree with half. That must mean something.

Difference between it and a "melting marshmallow" is that a marshmallow will cool away from the fire.

Phosphorus spontaneous ignites in contact with oxygen. The human body is mostly water (which contains Oxygen), so it will burn and continue to burn its way to the bone. Imagine having a fire in your body that you cannot put out. The flesh involved with the phosphorus must be entirely cut away to remove the remaining phosphorous.

I quite agree with all of that. If it's burning and gets on you, real pain is just an instant away. No argument.

Phosphorous is most certainly an anti personnel weapon.
That is a chemical reaction and a chemical weapon.

Here, I'm having a little more trouble, but it may very well be that some of my disagreement doesn't matter. You say it's an anti-personnel weapon, and I say it's a multi-purpose weapon which can be, but is not primarily, anti-personnel. You know, looking at it, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference, so I'll agree with you on that one, too.

But calling it a chemical weapon? The UN doesn't think so, as I pointed out in the Convention on Conventional Weapons (above), which includes incendiaries. Bullets only work by chemical reaction, but nobody considers them to be "chemical weapons."

Again, nice post, it's a pleasure.

With respect,
Charles1952