US used chemical weapons to fight Iraq?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Razor, Nov 8, 2005.

  1. Razor

    Razor Spy

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    4,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this is true, it is very hypocritcal. To fight a madman who had used chemical weapons on his people by dropping chemical weapons on his people :stare:.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10901.htm

    I know what Phosphorus is and i know it is a nasty thing if it gets on your skin, especially if you don't know what to do if you become exposed to it and panic.

    For people who don't know what it is, it's a type of incendiary fuel that burns. If you get it on your skin, you have to get a damp cloth and cover the wound up by tightly gripping the wound and trying to starve the phosphorous of oxygen, if you don't do it, it burns right down to your bone.
     
  2. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    which is contrary to what they've officially said after it came out they had used WMD in fallujah


    "The United States categorically denies the use of chemical weapons at anytime in Iraq, which includes the ongoing Fallujah operation. Furthermore, the United States does not under any circumstance support or condone the development, production, acquisition, transfer or use of chemical weapons by any country. All chemical weapons currently possessed by the United States have been declared to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and are being destroyed in the United States in accordance with our obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention."


    which is a load of baloney cuz in the same press release they say:

    "Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003."

    "First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003."

    so in other words:

    "it's not wmd cuz it's not naplam ...well it's sorta like naplam but we call it something different"



    but they do admit to using phosphorus:


    "Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorus shells in Fallujah. Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes."



    which again is a lot of bullshit because they're using SHELLS not gernades and even gernades are used as an anti-personnel device:


    "The white phosphorus grenade, also known as "Willie Petes", is a horrifically effective device that is officially listed as a screening device for the grey, wispy, light smoke it produces. Most experienced military personnel know better, using them for anti-material and anti-personnel effects.

    does 3D damage per round to flammable material (including most people) until smothered/submerged, or until the effected bodily areas and/or structures are gone."

    source



    I'm willing to offer a solution, complete withdrawl from iraq to be replaced with 150,000 ground troops from an international coalition not spearheaded by the US
     
  3. Bob_Marley

    Bob_Marley Tank

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,101
    Likes Received:
    2
    I dont doubt that the Americans used that kind of stuff on Fallujah. Lets face it, they dont exactly have a squeeky clean record as far as the development and use of these kind of weapons now do they?

    Just remember as far as America is concerned
    "We can use it becase we represent all that is right and good in the world. But noone else can."

    Unfortuneatly, white phosphorus is a dual purpose munition which means that the use of it can be explained as illumination. Like agent orange in Veitnam, because offically it was a defoliant, it just had the side effect of being an effective chemical weapon.

    And anyway, noone is going to actually do anything about it are they. Well all just sit here saying "oh this is terrible" while all the people in power sit on their hands and wont do anything becase the US might decide that they need a "regime change".
     
  4. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    kinda hard to justify shells as being used for illunimation ..besides as I've posted the soldiers who use phosphorus gernades use it as a anti-personnel device
     
  5. SAJ

    SAJ Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the argument over chemical weapons is a bit of a red herring really. It would be hard to argue conclusively that such weapons were used(albeit on a technicality).
    Consider the relevant conventions:

    Although styrine is an additive to the us army`s replacement for napalm(an additive that has the sole function of making the weapon deadlier against personnel ), more useful is the protocol on incendary weapons use.

     
  6. SAJ

    SAJ Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Furthermore consider this quote:
    (quoted out of laziness)

    If I may offer an interpretation;the use of phosphorous would only become a chemical attack if the u.s army intended to use the effects of the munition against people. If the resulting deaths were unintentional , then it isnt a chemical attack.
    Tricky , huh?
     
  7. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    kinda goes with my post on how the US justified it's use in fallujah
     
  8. Eg.

    Eg. Newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, if I missuse my flaregun, that means the US army has used chemical weapons?
     
  9. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46

    hardly the same scenario:

    "Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003."

    "First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003."
     
  10. The Mullinator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    5,798
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find it somewhat difficult to imagine why they would risk using them. The risk of it being discovered and for the world to find out is simply not worth risking using something that really wouldn't even give much of an advantage in the situation it has been claimed to be used in.
     
  11. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    I dont know, there's tons of atrocities that never made it into mainstream press ..or at least got scant notice ...like this article on how in one particular battle US forces bulldozed iraqi troops, burying some alive

    "One infamous incident during the war highlighted the question of large-scale Iraqi combat deaths. This was the `bulldozer assault' in which two brigades from the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized)--The Big Red One--used plows mounted on tanks and combat earthmovers to bury Iraqi soldiers defending the fortified "Saddam Line."

    While approximately 2,000 of the troops surrendered, escaping burial, one newspaper story reported that the U.S. commanders estimated thousands of Iraqi soldiers had been buried alive during the two-day assault February 24-25, 1991."



    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html



    I firmly believe we dont know half of what actually goes on
     
  12. Bait

    Bait Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    The risk of perpetuating the lie that Iraq could deploy WMD's within an hour was a pretty big risk too. Along with a countless score of other lies which are now labelled as "false information" which completely washes the hands of all those involved.

    Granted, it is a slightly different spin than what you are mentioning, but the point still stands. Even if the general populus knew that the US were using chemical weapons, the reprocussions wouldn't be THAT great.

    .......But nowadays we are seeing a changing opinion towards the war, so maybe it would be hard to really say what public opinion towards those weapons would be.
     
  13. Bob_Marley

    Bob_Marley Tank

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,101
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thats why I said unfortuneatly. The Americans could say that these white phosphorus shells were being used for illumination and just happened to have the side effect of being an anti-personell weapon. I dont believe it, but thats how they would probubly explain it if the matter were ever brought before an international court (which it wont, remember, the USA can do no evil) and that cannot be eaily disproved.

    Just remember, 'Nam may seem like a long time ago but the ideas that the US forces used there are still prevelant in the US military today (ie, bulldozing enemy positions, using incedury weapons, cloud seeding [well, they havent done that, yet (as far as we know)....], etc). This is just one more example of it.

    They've done it before, and there is no doubt in my mind that they will do it again. They use weapons such as these under the justification of somthing legitimate (illumination, defoliant, etc) and they just happen to end up harming the enemy and/or civillains.

    The argument comes down to this: is it a chemical weapon, if so its use is entirely illegal (as you cannot garuntee that it wont harm/kill people) or is it an incendury weapon that has been used against civillians (because while there is nothing illegal in using incendury weapons against enemy forces it is illegal to use it against civillans [which is odd because they dont use flame throwers because they are inhumane but still use napalm])
     
  14. Top Secret

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,258
    Likes Received:
    0
    I honestly don't see the problem with bulldozing enemy soldiers inside buildings. Sounds pretty effective to me. Not to meantion fun.
     
  15. spookymooky

    spookymooky Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,014
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clearly it's much more humane to shoot/bomb them.
     
  16. Eg.

    Eg. Newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    And when did naplam become WMD?
     
  17. southernman17

    southernman17 Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd like to request a moderator take off the link to the video of the victims of the attack. Be it children or terrorist being shown I think it is inappropriate for anyone under 18 to view those images and we do have users under 18-year-olds on this forum.
     
  18. Javert

    Javert Tank

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    3,384
    Likes Received:
    1
    Careful.
    You have to ask whether it's a chemical weapon or not just because the "effects" (I'm assuming the "boom" part) are similar. In that case, TNT or any incendiary explosive that feeds off the oxygen in the air would be a "chemical weapon/WMD".

    However you're probably right on everything else.

    It isn't, but it's still nasty stuff that we said we wouldn't use.
     
  19. Reaktor4

    Reaktor4 Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whatever they did i bet theyll get away wiht it.
     
  20. Bob_Marley

    Bob_Marley Tank

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,101
    Likes Received:
    2
    Also, the US is not a signatory to the incendury weapons treaty so, leagly speaking they can use such weapons on military targets in civillan areas all they want. Also, they are under no obligation not to use napalm/flame throwers and only dont use them to try and keep public opinion on their side.
     
  21. Direwolf

    Direwolf Newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    6,190
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm thinking something really went to hell for someone to order something like that. So I'm curious as to what the tactical situation is. Heck, I might have agreed if the situation was bad enough.
     
  22. SAJ

    SAJ Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oops, I may have to retract what I said previously about white phosphorous. It looks as though it may well fit the category of chemical weapon after all:
    And this:
    link: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts103.html
    Consider that WP(white phosphorous) was used not only in an urban area,but also as a weapon:
    (from VIOLENCE SUBSIDES FOR MARINES IN FALLUJAH by DARRIN MORTENSON, North County Times, Saturday, April 10, 2004)
     
  23. SAJ

    SAJ Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    And also :
    http://emedicine.com/emerg/topic918.htm
     
  24. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    "been noted to pass phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome"). "



    talk about flaming butthole :eek:
     
  25. Polaris

    Polaris Spy

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,138
    Likes Received:
    1
    Its really different story.
    Sadam used (on civilians) real chemical weapons like yperite, sarine, phosgene. US Army used (if its true) white phosphorus and its not chemical weapon!
     
  26. gick

    gick Newbie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a weapon.

    Phosphorus is a chemical.

    Therefore - chemical weapon
     
  27. Polaris

    Polaris Spy

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,138
    Likes Received:
    1
    Nuke bomb is weapon.

    Uranium/plutonium is chemical.

    Nuke bomb is chemical weapon.
     
  28. southernman17

    southernman17 Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Any weapon could be considered a chemical weapon, even a gun. The powder in gun cartridges is a chemical, to fire it, it requires a chemical reaction (burning powder) therefore it is a chemical weapon.
     
  29. gick

    gick Newbie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's your point? That doesnt stop phosphorus being a chemical.
     
  30. gick

    gick Newbie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    True, but with a gun it isnt the chemical that does the actual harm, its the bullet.
     
  31. Polaris

    Polaris Spy

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,138
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bullet is lead - lead is chemical element :LOL:
     
  32. gick

    gick Newbie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aaaaargh! The bitter taste of defeat......
     

Share This Page