Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< 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. >>> It must be part of that vast left-wing conspiracy.
Originally Posted By ElKay SuperDry: "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." Sure WP is in fact a conventional weapon. However, it does matter HOW it is used. If it is used to mark artillery fire or used as a smoke generating device that's perfectly acceptable useage on a battlefield. The issue of the US useage of WP is in the setting of a civilan population center. The very nature of WP's indescriminate burning has made it an unsavory weapon. I've read articles in which the Army boasted it's use as a psych/opps weapon, trying to instill fear in insergents of possible chemical weaponery inflicted on them. The nub of the moral issue is that WE went in to Iraq to prevent the use of WMDs against innocent civilians Iraqi and the World alike. Nearly everyday it appears that Bush is lowering our supposed superior civilized and moral authority to the level of our enemy. McCain is quoted in saying that "It isn't about them, but about who WE are." Traditionally, it was our enemies (Nazi, Japanese, and all Communists) that took the concept of victory at all costs against the US and our allies concept that we fight hard but withing international standards, trying to limit civilian casualties whenever possible. Has this conflect debased ourselves to their level? "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"." If you take that attitude then Saddam was just another world leader, on the same level as Bush.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Traditionally, it was our enemies (Nazi, Japanese, and all Communists) that took the concept of victory at all costs against the US and our allies concept that we fight hard but withing international standards, trying to limit civilian casualties whenever possible.> We're still doing that.
Originally Posted By gadzuux 'Shake and Bake' Robert C. Koehler Tribune Media Services Turns out the United States doesn't use chemical weapons the same way it doesn't do torture. It took an Italian TV documentary and the digging of bloggers among obscure documents and bits of data, but a hideous practice of our military, long rumored and alleged - that we used something other than bullets and conventional explosives when we dismantled Fallujah a year ago - has finally been outed. The few eyewitness accounts that reached world attention after the city was reduced to rubble in November 2004 included testimony that burned and melted corpses had been found. "A rain of fire fell on the city", claimed Fallujah biologist Mohamad Tareq, who is interviewed in "Fallujah: The Concealed Massacre", the investigative piece produced by Italy's RAI News. "The people struck by this multicolored substance started to burn. We found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact." Well, no matter. The US government stonewalled for a year. The official State Department Web site USinfo.gov still maintains the pretense: "The United States categorically denies the use of chemical weapons at any time in Iraq, which includes the ongoing Fallujah operation. Furthermore, the United States does not under any circumstance support or condone the development, production, acquisistion, transfer or use of chemical weapons by any country." Categorical denial is pretty impressive in a country with a sleeping media. But beyond our borders and within the blogosphere, people are a little more agitated about the reality of Iraq, and have documented our use of white phosphorus against human targets. So the truth has landed. On Nov. 16th, a U.S. military spokesman, Lt. Col. Barry Venable, conceded to British Broadcasting Corp. that white phosphorus "was used as an incendiary device against enemy combatants" - not "sparingly", as a flare or smokescreen. Here's what the substance does, according to globalsecurity.org, as quoted by George Monbiot in London's Guardian: "The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size ... The particles continue to burn unless deprived of oxygen ... (and) could burn right down to the bone." And the smoke of white phosphorus is lethally caustic, sort of like, well, poison gas. U.S. serviceman Jeff Englehart, who took part in the assault on Fallujah, told a reporter on "Concealed Massacre": "Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 meters is done for. In other words, we have flouted one more human standard in our war on terrorism. Those of us who have opposed this war from the start are running out of outrage, but still, this latest news, and the prospect of further revelations about the use of a napalm-like substance called MK-77, call for a fresh burst of - something. Saddam, facing a possible death sentence, is accused of mass murder, torture, false imprisonment and the use of chemical weapons. He is certainly guilty on all counts. So, it now seems, are those that overthrew him. It may look as if they're getting away with it, but the impunity of the Bush administration is beginning to fray. At the beginning of November, about the time President Bush was telling Panamanians that "We do not torture," Zogby International released the results of a poll finding the 53 percent of americans think Congress should impeach the president if he lied about going to war with Iraq. He did lie. Now we need a round of democracy to take him out.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< U.S. serviceman Jeff Englehart: "Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw burned bodies of women and children. >>> I wonder if those women and children were enemy combatants?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Gadzuux, you must have ignored the posts that prove WP is not illegal or some kind of war violation. I wish you and others on the left had the same passion for removing Saddam as you do an honest man like President Bush.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Gadzuux, you must have ignored the posts that prove WP is not illegal or some kind of war violation. >>> Whatever I may think of WP, I don't see convincing evidence that they are chemical weapons (that's not to say that I agree with how they were used, or that I have an opinion one way or the other as to whether such use violates some standard of war). I do think that assigning that label to them is done in an effort to sensationalize the situation and drive a particular agenda. But you should be quite familiar with this tactic. <<< I wish you and others on the left had the same passion for removing Saddam as you do an honest man like President Bush. >>> Well let's see. President Bush and his policies/agenda have killed far more people (both Americans and Iraqis) than Saddam, and present a far greater threat to both national and global security than Saddam ever did. So whether you're concerned about American lives, Iraqi lives, or US national security, it would be wise to oppose what Bush has done. And as a point of order, the only one suggesting that Saddam be restored to power are the Republican talking heads that want a straw man to argue against.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <President Bush and his policies/agenda have killed far more people (both Americans and Iraqis) than Saddam, and present a far greater threat to both national and global security than Saddam ever did.> No, they haven't, and no, they don't.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss The part I am having trouble believing is this: "The people struck by this multicolored substance started to burn. We found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact." This contradicts science... the particles will burn the clothing too.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< No, they haven't, and no, they don't. >>> Please enlighten us as to how many US forces that Saddam or his army have killed (use any time period you like). Please share with us how many US civilians Saddam has killed over the yeras. Compare these numbers to the number of Iraqi servicemen, and also Iraqi civilians, killed by US forces.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The particles never stop burning - the droplets make their way through the fabric of clothing in short order, but they remain on the skin, burning indefinitely, all the while giving off toxic smoke, mixed with the stench of human flesh. It's also indiscriminate - as the article says, "anyone within a 150 meters is done for" - civilians, women, children, anyone. >> Whatever I may think of WP, I don't see convincing evidence that they are chemical weapons << What would you call it? A self-igniting waxy substance that cannot be extinguished, that is exploded in mid-air to rain down on everyone and everything below it, and gives off toxic smoke. It was deliberately used in an urban area. People died horrible deaths. Some of them were probably insurgents, some of them probably weren't. We didn't care - kill `em all. Just don't let the press get wind of it. When they do, deny it. When it's too late for denials, minimize it. It's important to remind people that the US military represents "US" - the americans. Our integrity and sense of humanity as a nation is on the line here, and the people who are calling the shots are not representing my values. More from google: <a href="http://informationclearinghouse.info/article10901.htm" target="_blank">http://informationclearinghous e.info/article10901.htm</a> White phosphorous used on the civilian populace: This is how the US "took" Fallujah. New napalm formula also used. 11/07/05 "La Repubblica" -- -- ROME. In soldier slang they call it Willy Pete. The technical name is white phosphorus. In theory its purpose is to illumine enemy positions in the dark. In practice, it was used as a chemical weapon in the rebel stronghold of Fallujah. And it was used not only against enemy combatants and guerrillas, but again innocent civilians. The Americans are responsible for a massacre using unconventional weapons, the identical charge for which Saddam Hussein stands accused. An investigation by RAI News 24, the all-news Italian satellite television channel, has pulled the veil from one of the most carefully concealed mysteries from the front in the entire US military campaign in Iraq. A US veteran of the Iraq war told RAI New correspondent Sigfrido Ranucci this: I received the order use caution because we had used white phosphorus on Fallujah. Phosphorus burns the human body on contact--it even melts it right down to the bone. RAI News 24's investigative story, Fallujah, The Concealed Massacre, will be broadcast tomorrow on RAI-3 and will contain not only eye-witness accounts by US military personnel but those from Fallujah residents. A rain of fire descended on the city. People who were exposed to those multicolored substance began to burn. We found people with bizarre wounds-their bodies burned but their clothes intact, relates Mohamad Tareq al-Deraji, a biologist and Fallujah resident. RAI News 24 will broadcast video and photographs taken in the Iraqi city during and after the November 2004 bombardment which prove that the US military, contrary to statements in a December 9 communiqué from the US Department of State, did not use phosphorus to illuminate enemy positions (which would have been legitimate) but instend dropped white phosphorus indiscriminately and in massive quantities on the city's neighborhoods. In the investigative story, produced by Maurizio Torrealta, dramatic footage is shown revealing the effects of the bombardment on civilians, women and children, some of whom were surprised in their sleep. The investigation will also broadcast documentary proof of the use in Iraq of a new napalm formula called MK77. The use of the incendiary substance on civilians is forbidden by a 1980 UN treaty. The use of chemical weapons is forbidden by a treaty which the US signed in 1997. << >> White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm". White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air. As it oxidises, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke "releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces... Contact... can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage." Until last week, the US state department maintained that US forces used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes". They were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters". Confronted with the new evidence, on Thursday it changed its position. "We have learned that some of the information we were provided ... is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, ie obscuring troop movements and, according to... Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes...' The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds." The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon. The invaders have been forced into a similar climbdown over the use of napalm in Iraq. In December 2004, the Labour MP Alice Mahon asked the British armed forces minister Adam Ingram "whether napalm or a similar substance has been used by the coalition in Iraq (a) during and (b) since the war". "No napalm," the minister replied, "has been used by coalition forces in Iraq either during the war-fighting phase or since." In August 2003 the Pentagon confirmed that the marines had dropped "mark 77 firebombs". Though the substance these contained was not napalm, its function, the Pentagon's information sheet said, was "remarkably similar". While napalm is made from petrol and polystyrene, the gel in the mark 77 is made from kerosene and polystyrene. I doubt it makes much difference to the people it lands on. So in January this year, the MP Harry Cohen refined Mahon's question. He asked "whether mark 77 firebombs have been used by coalition forces". The US, the minister replied, has "confirmed to us that they have not used mark 77 firebombs, which are essentially napalm canisters, in Iraq at any time". The US government had lied to him. Mr Ingram had to retract his statements in a private letter to the MPs in June.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The link for the second quote - <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/ story/0</a>,12271,1642989,00.html
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<"We have learned that some of the information we were provided ... is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, ie obscuring troop movements and, according to... Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes...' The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.">> I fail to see how this admits that it was used as a chemical weapon, especially when reading the last part: "US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds." In other words, it was used in a way that would scare the fiighters out into the open, where they could then be killed by artillary fire. I don't doubt that some people may have been killed from burns, but it sounds like they were incidental casualties, not targeted ones.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The government lies. When they get caught in their lies, they tell a different lie. Why would you believe anything they say? For that matter, you've got eye-witnesses (some are members of the US military) that are plainly saying that we deliberately used WP against civilians in the fallujah battle. We also have authenticated military personnel saying that we used MK77 - even though the state department says we didn't. We even have british officials retracting their earlier statements about US use of MK77, because they later discovered we lied to them. Who you gonna believe?
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Ok, let's suppose for a moment that there was a widespread use of WP over the city. Why would the military use it, when we could easily send in an airstrike and pretty much accomplish the same results?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip All of this hand-wringing and whining gets really annoying. By all accounts very few civilians remained in Fallujah at the time of the offensive, and those who remained there did so against repeated warnings. As far as I'm concerned we'd have been justified in nuking the place. I can't get too upset over a little WP being used.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< As far as I'm concerned we'd have been justified in nuking the place. >>> What a notion. We invade Iraq based on an imaginary WMD threat, yet you're okay with using atomic weapons against a civilian target since we gave enough notice to get out of town.
Originally Posted By SuperDry RoadTrip, I have to ask the question: you said that we would have been "justified." Please tell us what the justification would be.
