Originally Posted By gadzuux I thought we were deposing saddam because he was torturing iraqis and using chemical weapons on them. So are we. Pentagon Used White Phosphorous in Iraq By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer Tuesday, November 15, 2005 <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/15/national/w150214S49.DTL" target="_blank">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/arti cle.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/15/national/w150214S49.DTL</a> >> Pentagon officials acknowledged Tuesday that U.S. troops used white phosphorous as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November. Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said that while white phosphorous is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants. "It was not used against civilians," Venable said. The spokesman referred reporters to an article in the March-April 2005 edition of the Army's Field Artillery magazine, an official publication, in which veterans of the Fallujah fight spelled out their use of white phosphorous and other weapons. The authors used the shorthand "WP" in referring to white phosphorous. "WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition," the authors wrote. "We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE (high explosive)" munitions. "We fired `shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out." Italian communists held a sit-in Monday in front of the U.S. Embassy in Rome to protest the reported use by American troops of white phosphorous. Italy's state-run RAI24 news television aired a documentary last week alleging the U.S. used white phosphorous shells in a "massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians during the Fallujah offensive. The State Department, in response, initially denied that U.S. troops had used white phosphorous against enemy forces. "They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters." The department later said its statement had been incorrect. "There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using `outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the department said. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq." Venable said white phosphorous shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory. White phosphorous is a colorless-to-yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military ignites once it is exposed to oxygen, producing such heat that it bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. It can cause painful burn injuries to exposed human flesh. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So we're torturing people and we're roasting them alive with chemical weapons. All in an effort to 'liberate' iraq from a despotic and corrupt regime that tortured and used chemical weapons. Hey beau, tell me again how proud and noble our military is.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Would napalm as used in flamethrowers and bombs be considered “chemical weapons�
Originally Posted By gadzuux I'm not sure. Good question. Napalm was a war crime. It rained down indiscriminately on any and all in an effort to eradicate these villages. I think with flame throwers there was a limited ability to aim it. Another telling part of the above article is that the military's immediate knee-jerk reaction was to deny it. Once they realized that the 'cat was outta the bag' they retracted their earlier denial and instead sought to minimize it. Not much different than the strategy the administration adopted with the CIA outing. First - deny everything. Then, when the jig is up and you're exposed as a fraud and a liar, seek to minimize the whole thing and play it off as a minor quibble. I also thought the recent memo making the rounds of the white house was ironic. It was a "how-to" sheet of ethical behavior. Instead of, you know, actually hiring ethical people, they just pass out instructions to teach them how ethical people act. I suppose that way they hope to get better at faking it.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Some relevant quotes from the recent world press: Australian daily the Age, noted incredulously, "When the president of the United States, under repeated questioning and under pressure, has to declare, as he did [during a stop in Panama], 'We do not torture,' you know that even his allies in Congress no longer believe him." Bush's Panama performance was "a sad spectacle," the Economist snapped. A stinging editorial "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People") in the respected British newsmagazine, which had endorsed candidate Bush in the 2000 election, criticized the way Bush administration officials have handled the torture controversy. Their approach, the publication scoffed, "beggars belief." Not lost on many foreign observers is the unmistakable -- now well-documented -- role Vice President Dick Cheney has played in formulating and tirelessly advocating for the Bush administration's torture policy, such as it is. In Jamaica, newspaper columnist Wayne Brown wrote: "I don't know how else to put this: Is ... Dick Cheney mad? And has his titular boss, G.W. Bush, started all unawares down the road to impeachment? It may be too soon to answer those questions, but not to begin asking them." (Jamaica Observer) Citing the American prison camp at Guantánamo, Cuba, where the U.S. military has long maintained a base, a commentator in Saudi Arabia's Arab News noted: "By all accounts, appalling torture and ill treatment were committed against ... detainees [at Guantánamo], who were denied due process, prisoner-of-war status and the protection of the Geneva Conventions. Reportedly, dozens of suicide attempts and massive 'self-harm action' were thwarted by the military when detainees tried to hang themselves with bedding or clothing, with one attempt resulting in permanent brain damage." Similarly, as the Economist pointed out, the Washington Post's [recent] revelation "that the C.I.A. maintains a string of jails [in Eastern European countries], where it can keep people indefinitely and in secret, only heightens the suspicion that ... Cheney wants the agency to keep using 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' The Economist admonished: "[T]he loss to America in terms of public opinion [is] clear and horrifically large. Abu Ghraib was a gift to the insurgency in Iraq; Guantánamo Bay and its dubious military commissions ... have acted as recruiting sergeants for al-Qaeda around the world. In the cold war, America championed the Helsinki human-rights accords. This time, the world's most magnificent democracy is struggling against vile terrorists who thought nothing of slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians -- and yet the [Bush] administration has somehow contrived to turn America's own human-rights record into a subject of legitimate debate." As the Australian Age's Gawenda puts it, that debate over the Bush administration's tolerance of -- or apparent enthusiasm for -- torture and the fact that such activity by Americans is being carried out at all is "about chickens coming home to roost. It's about the growing realization in America that the systematic abuse and torture of prisoners and detainees held by the U.S. around the world is a direct consequence of administration policies and directives." In an increasingly violent world, it may be that the price of Bush's torture policy is merely waiting to be extracted. That payback will come if or when any of America's growing number of enemies ever captures any U.S. soldiers or other personnel and mistreats them. If or when that day comes, Washington will have no good argument to make about the illegality of the horror. <a href="http://sfgate.com/columnists/worldviews/" target="_blank">http://sfgate.com/columnists/w orldviews/</a>
Originally Posted By planodisney you mean like now, when they are captured by these terrorists you are so concerned about gadzuux, and get their heads chopped of? I wonder if these wimpish pascifists will shut up, when one of these terrorists in gitmo or any prison camp that they cry at night for, is released only to later blow up a hotel or metro station? Probably not. Ideology is more important than what protects the innocent. Why cant you guys understand that these guys arent some Joe Schmo citizen for for a nation who is just carrying out orders? These guys are killing for their religion, as they interpret it. They will kill anybody, innocent or not, child or not, woman or not, and are NOT TO BE TREATED AS REGULAR SOLDIERS. We need information from these terrorist to keep more innocent men, women and children from being murdered. Harsh tactics are just fine with me in the cases of cold blooded terrorists.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< These guys are killing for their religion, as they interpret it. ... They will kill anybody, innocent or not, child or not, woman or not>>> You should be very careful with your words, as there are a wide variety of people that could fit into the terms you describe.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Why cant you guys understand that these guys arent some Joe Schmo citizen for for a nation who is just carrying out orders? << How do we know that? We don't. Our president has made sure that any prisoners never get a reading of charges, never get to face their accusers, never get to proclaim their innocence. We are expected to take it on faith alone that our government is acting with honor and decency. Why would we think that? When have they ever? Some people are all too willing to believe whatever the bush administration tells them. Not me. And apparently not fifty-something percent of the american people. And as we've seen from the world press, not many people outside of this country either. >> Harsh tactics are just fine with me in the cases of cold blooded terrorists. << So you are in favor of torture. You support the bush administration's use of torture against enemies - real or perceived. And you don't think they should bear any particular burden of proof that these "detainees" are actually guilty of any criminal act. Being muslim is enough - for you. >> These guys are killing for their religion, as they interpret it. << And we're different - how? I'm getting awfully sick of people disparaging my patriotism and implying that I'm un-american when they clearly don't understand what "being an american" really means.
Originally Posted By iluvdisneyland ""There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using `outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the department said. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."" I recall reading a statement like that once... except it was the Iraqi Information Minister who said it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Ideology is more important than what protects the innocent. Why cant you guys understand that these guys arent some Joe Schmo citizen for for a nation who is just carrying out orders?<< When are you guys going to understand that when you say stuff like that, you sound no better than them. We are Americans, for God's sake. We're better than that. We are supposed to be showing the world a better way, not tossing aside our laws and our way of life because we're scared of a bunch of criminals. I'm ashamed that so many people who have flag stickers on their cars have so little understanding of what it actually means.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I can't beleive someone actually posted this thread. I read about this last week when it came up, but you will notice it was quickly dropped by the military and Bush hating media for a reason. The story is bogus and another slap at the military by the " we support the troops " left.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I'm ashamed that so many people who have flag stickers on their cars have so little understanding of what it actually means. >>> Isn't it a reminder that you should Super Size your Freedom Fries?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Here is a letter from a Vietnam Vet who knows a lot about this " chemical weapon " Again, I will listen to the guys in the military long before I listen to the " America is Evil! " crowd. ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Fred Ray emails: Just wanted to comment on the allegations going 'round about "indiscriminate" use of white phosphorus against civilians. I'm a former armor officer and Vietnam vet who has used WP on quite a number of occasions. So far as I know it is no longer made for tank (or Bradley) guns, but is fired by artillery and at times by mortars. We use WP as a marking round, because it makes a nice column of white smoke that's easy to see. The most common use is with air strikes and helicopters -- you can direct them in relation to the smoke column and thus avoid hitting your own troops or civilians. I suppose you could use it as an incendiary (and it says so in the book) but I've never seen it used that way, because it's not very efficient. So did we use WP in Fallujah? Maybe -- but the effects would have been quite limited because the burst radius is about 150' (that for a 155mm shell), and it only affects people who get some particles of it on them. We also have a non-WP smoke round that we use for screening. Now, WP is nasty stuff, no doubt. If you get it on you it will burn you badly and it's very difficult to extinguish. But it's not a "chemical" weapon except in the sense that any non-nuke is a chemical weapon i.e. it works by means of a chemical reaction. Nor is it in any sense banned by any sort of international convention. Some of the drivel coming from these so-called human right organizations is unbelievable -- that people can be burned or "caramalized" (what does that mean?) without their clothes burning. WP will burn anything it comes in contact with. Or...that WP creates a killing toxic "cloud." I'm sure breathing the smoke isn't the best thing for you, but Sarin it ain't. Both these statements ought to be your clue that you're dealing with pure BS. It always amazes me what people will believe, but apparently there is a segment of the MSM that will believe anything as long as it's anti-American.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Here is another vet talking about this subject. He basically says the liberal media trying to talk about things military is hillarious.. kinda like this "shocking" chemical weapons story. "Look for the next breathless reporting about weapons in Iraq to include the startling news that bullets are being used, and they hurt people. White phosphorus has been around at least since World War II--and it was used as an antipersonnel weapon. Like napalm, it was useful against targets protected from conventional explosives. In my Army days, 1959-61, we fired WP ("Willie Peter") shells from 4.2 inch mortars for practice. When the round lands, it produces a cloud of white. (Watch for this in WWII documentaries, especially from the Pacific.) Nasty stuff, we were told, because the dispersed particles stick to cloth and skin and cannot be extinguished with water. Bad, but certainly not new. This is what happens when news staffs have nobody with any military connections. Reminds me of a Wall Street Journal headline from decades ago that referred to a .30 caliber cannon. That would be an accurate descriptor, of course, only in the Lilliputian army.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Isn't it a reminder that you should Super Size your Freedom Fries?<< Did you hear that the GOP congressman who brought the 'freedom fries' thing before Congress now things he made a mistake in voting for the war?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip War is nasty. You can't fight it with squirt guns and slingshots. WP is a conventional weapon that has been used for over 50 years. Frankly, when people get all up in arms about its use in Fallujah it gives credence to what the Beau's of the world say about "libs".
Originally Posted By gadzuux So then why did the military initially deny it's use in combat? If it wasn't for the fact that accounts had already been published in military press, they'd still be denying it to this day.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So then why did the military initially deny its use in combat?>> The military did not deny it. The State Department did. Since when does the State Department know anything about the operational details of a war? In fact since when does the State department know ANYTHING since Colin Powell left? They should not have commented on it IMHO. <<The State Department, in response, initially denied that U.S. troops had used white phosphorus against enemy forces. “They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.†The department later said its statement had been incorrect.>> The military answered the question accurately: <<Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday that while white phosphorus is most frequently used to mark targets or obscure a position, it was used at times in Fallujah as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.>>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Personally, even if we did use chemical weapons to kill terrorists I could care less. But we are much to nice to ever do that. It does get irritating to have the left try and constantly compare us to the bad guys, which is exactly what a story like this tries to do. If we were REALLY bad we would just carpet bomb the Sunni triangle and get it over with.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Roadtrip, we always seem to agree on the terrorist stuff. It's everything else that we never agree on. You going to campaign for Hillary??
