US admits using white phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah [Archive]

Hurin_Rules

11-16-2005, 08:42

US used white phosphorus in Iraq

The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Falluja.

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.

The US earlier denied it had been used in Falluja at all.

Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.

Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices.

Col Venable said a statement by the US state department that white phosphorus had not been used was based on "poor information".

The BBC's defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial has been a public relations disaster for the US military.

'Incendiary'

The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.

Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases".

"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol III not signed by US

And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.

It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.

"When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round or rounds into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.

'Particularly nasty'

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."

A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.

But Professor Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford department of peace studies said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

When the Rai documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November, it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm

Mods: I know there was a thread on these allegations, but that descended into a flame war that strayed far from the original issue, so I thought I'd start a new one.

English assassin

11-16-2005, 12:39

What's the story? targetting civilians is illegal whatever weapon you use, and surely no one imagines wars between combatants are fought with "nice" weapons?

It seems to me to be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, if anyone is really saying that its cool to use ordinary munitions but not phosphorus ones.

IMHO the smokescreen is coming from the journalists, not the phosphorus.

I know there was a thread on these allegations, but that descended into a flame war

Was white phosphorus used?

Adrian II

11-16-2005, 12:47

Mods: I know there was a thread on these allegations, but that descended into a flame war that strayed far from the original issue, so I thought I'd start a new one.It did not descend into a flame war. It descended into a semantic peeing contest over whether covering neighbourhoods with poison clouds constitutes chemical warfare.

Watchman

11-16-2005, 12:54

Assorted regulations, treaties and suchlike about what goes and doesn't in war are set in place specifically to try to remove the worst and ugliest excesses it tends to spawn - treatment of prisoners, "off-limits" targets such as medical personnel, how to proceed when fighting in ares likely to contain civilians... that sort of thing. Nobody (at the levels where these things get drafted) has any illusions about what war becomes like when it's fought without rules; this is specifically why the rules are made, to remove the worst edge of barbarism from it. Not all that different to the logic why societies have laws, really.

Anyway, there's an international treaty banning the use of incendiaries as weapons, nevermind in population centres, and rather typically the US has failed to ratify that one. Their stubborn insistence on not ratifying anything that might legally oblige them to behave in a nice and wholesome manner never ceases to amaze me.

Although, granted, Finland for one hasn't AFAIK ratified that treaty either (or if we have it's a bit odd that our army has napalm lying around...), but then again we didn't recently burn scores of civilians to death in Iraq either.

The point, assassin, is that there is much reason to believe the US very intentionally deployed incendiary munitions in Fallujah much less out of tactical considerations than as a terror tactic, a message to the insurgents and their civilian sympathizers - "oppose us and this is what happens". Whatever the case may be, the fact is that how they used WP was pretty specifically against the letters of the aforementioned treaty and morally pretty repugnant, which is no doubt why they typically tried to keep their "foul deeds" under the wraps - predictably unsuccesfully.

In short, they did something bad, tried to call black white to cover it up, and eventually had to admit the whole mess in a depressingly characteristical PR disaster. If you ask me, the only ones who got anything out of it were the insurgents and jihadists, who got a whole new pile of new propaganda material to go around with.

Ja'chyra

11-16-2005, 12:56

Don't see the problem so long as it was valid military targets, what's the difference if you burn them or shoot them?

el_slapper

11-16-2005, 13:50

Don't see the problem so long as it was valid military targets, what's the difference if you burn them or shoot them?

The difference is that in urban warfare where your opponent does use civilians as shields(which is bad), shooting them is more accurate than using area zone weapons - especially ones specifically forbidden in unaccurate uses.

Redleg

11-16-2005, 14:13

It did not descend into a flame war. It descended into a semantic peeing contest over whether covering neighbourhoods with poison clouds constitutes chemical warfare.

That is because it does not constitute chemical warfare, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

Adrian II

11-16-2005, 14:20

That is because it does not constitute chemical warfare, regardless of your opinion on the matter.Define 'matter'. :smug:

Redleg

11-16-2005, 14:25

Define 'matter'. :smug:

Define chemical warfare -:duel:

Ja'chyra

11-16-2005, 14:57

The difference is that in urban warfare where your opponent does use civilians as shields(which is bad), shooting them is more accurate than using area zone weapons - especially ones specifically forbidden in unaccurate uses.

Depends what weapons you use, a lot of the heavier weapons are area effect or suppresion weapons where accuracy isn't such a issue. So are you saying they shouldn't use artillery or tanks?

Ser Clegane

11-16-2005, 15:15

Some information on why incendiary weapons have been banned by a lot of countries for the use in situations where military and civilian targets cannot be clearly separated:

Napalm bombing came under discussion at the International Conference on Human Rights in Teheran (1968). The Conference's proposal that a study should be made was supported by the ICRC. The report on napalm, other incendiary weapons and all aspects of their possible use, presented to the General Assembly in 1972, concluded that the spread of fire with these weapons affected military and civilian targets indiscriminately, that the injuries were intensely painful, and that medical treatment was beyond the resources of most countries.

The United Nations Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects was the outcome of a conference held in Geneva in 1979 and 1980. The holding of the Conference had been recommended by the Diplomatic Conference which approved in 1977 the Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

The close connection between the Conventional Weapons Convention and other international humanitarian legislation, including the 1977 Protocols, is acknowledged by the States parties in recalling "the general principle of the protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities" as well as the principles of avoiding unnecessary suffering and of protecting the environment.

Three Protocols accompany the Convention. The first prohibits the use of weapons which injure by fragments not detectable by X-rays. The second seeks to prohibit or restrict the use of mines, booby-traps and devices which are actuated by remote or time controls. The third Protocol restricts the use of incendiary weapons.

Link to quote (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs13.htm)

Link to "Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons" (Protocol III) (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument)

Just for the record (again):
The US did not sign this protocol.

Therefore the use of WP was not illegal.

The question whether using WP in situations such as the one in Fallujah is "appropriate" or "moral" is of course something different.

Ironside

11-16-2005, 15:19

Depends what weapons you use, a lot of the heavier weapons are area effect or suppresion weapons where accuracy isn't such a issue. So are you saying they shouldn't use artillery or tanks?

It depends on what you're planning to do with the city you attack...

Adrian II

11-16-2005, 15:35

Therefore the use of WP was not illegal.Of course the anti-personnel use of WP is illegal. Look up the Chemical Weapons Convention ratified by the U.S. in 1997. It forbids the 'use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare'. QED.

English assassin

11-16-2005, 16:01

No doubt this is how the "peeing contest" started. Its not the toxic properties of WP that are used in phosphorus munitions.

Thought experiment: Uncle Sam hits you with WP. Do you shout "Help, help, I'm being poisoned" or "Help, help I'm being burnt"?

Not illegal. QED.

Adrian II

11-16-2005, 16:11

Its not the toxic properties of WP that are used in phosphorus munitions.In this case they were, that is precisely the point. Haven't you followed the story at all? Even the Pentagon admits they were used against personnel, not for illumination or marking. Whole blocks were 'flushed' with WP. This in a built-up area. That constitutes chemical warfare, even if all the victims were heavily armed jihadists -- which they were not...

Devastatin Dave

11-16-2005, 16:14

We used phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah? Good.

English assassin

11-16-2005, 16:38

Even the Pentagon admits they were used against personnel, not for illumination or marking. Whole blocks were 'flushed' with WP. This in a built-up area. That constitutes chemical warfare,

?

The US has now admitted using white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year, after earlier denying it. The substance can cause burning of the flesh but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical weapon.

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt Col Barry Venable, confirmed to the BBC the US had used white phosphorus "as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants" - though not against civilians, he said.

I don't want to get all scientific on yo ass but it does say they used it as an incendiary, not a toxin ?

I'm still not seeing a story here.

Ser Clegane

11-16-2005, 16:52

Of course the anti-personnel use of WP is illegal. Look up the Chemical Weapons Convention ratified by the U.S. in 1997. It forbids the 'use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare'. QED.

Actually I do not think that this Convention can be applied here.

If you look at the text at the Convention:

9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:

(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes;

(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons;

(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;

(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.

1993 Convention (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/553?OpenDocument)

it is rather clear that an incendiary weapon like WP is not covered by this convention as it is not dependent on its toxic properties (which are a secondary, albeit very nasty effect).

This seems to be the very reason for the additional Protocol I mentioned in my previous post - to cover additional "conventional" waepons that do not fall under the chemical warfare definition.

Don't get me wrong - by no means do I condone the use of WP on potentially civilian targets and I think it's rather a shame that the US uses such weapons in urban warfare - however, technically I do not think that you can make the point that the US violated any Conventions signed and ratified by them.

Red Harvest

11-16-2005, 17:34

Of course the anti-personnel use of WP is illegal. Look up the Chemical Weapons Convention ratified by the U.S. in 1997. It forbids the 'use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare'. QED.
Perhaps you will get tired of LYING about this subject at some future date. This didn't use the toxic properties, it used the incindiary ones.

It is amazing that you would throw away your credibility over something like this.

Devastatin Dave

11-16-2005, 17:42

It is amazing that you would throw away your credibility over something like this.

Adrian? Credibility?... Nevermind, I'll be nice.~D

Red Harvest

11-16-2005, 17:50

Anyway, there's an international treaty banning the use of incendiaries as weapons, nevermind in population centres, and rather typically the US has failed to ratify that one. Their stubborn insistence on not ratifying anything that might legally oblige them to behave in a nice and wholesome manner never ceases to amaze me.
Gee, maybe the terrorists will start playing nice and we can all have a group hug instead of fighting terriorsts in urban centers? (While I usually make a distinction between the insurgency and terrorism, the enemy in Fallujah were using terror attacks agains civilians on the rest of the country--they were by definition terrorists.)

What amazes me is that people want us to tie BOTH arms behind our backs while fighting these guys. Treaties like this are not going to interest us, because they will be abused by people like Adrian for political reasons, and by terrorists for tactical ones.

It is humorous that nations that don't have to deal with the problems directly think they should dictate our methods to us.

And contrary to your assertion I find nothing morally repugnant about using incindiaries on these terrorists.

Reverend Joe

11-16-2005, 17:59

qed.

AOI?

Hurin_Rules

11-16-2005, 18:24

There are two issues here, IMHO:

1. Was the use of WP illegal and/or immoral?

I'm not sure yet that it was illegal. One thing to note, however, was that WP was used as an incendiary when High Explosive rounds had no effect, and that they were used to 'flush out' insurgents. This, to me, suggests that it was the distinctive chemical properties of the rounds that were being used. If not, why did they switch from HE rounds? The fact that these were being used in urban areas makes it even more questionable.

2. Why did the US government first lie about this?

Because, obviously, they felt this was a questionable tactic that they didn't want to admit they were using. While they could argue, in Bushite legalese language, that, strictly speaking, the use of WP was not illegal, they knew they were on shaky moral ground.

Kralizec

11-16-2005, 18:29

2. Why did the US government first lie about this?

That's what I said in the other thread, and it's far more serious then #1 IMO.

Adrian II

11-16-2005, 19:30

@Ser Clegane and English Assassin, in this case the WP was used for its toxic qualities, i.e. to create poisonous clouds from which there was no escape for anyone. As a blister agent, it is worse than mustard gas.

Adrian II

11-16-2005, 19:33

Perhaps you will get tired of LYING about this subject at some future date.I am immune to such language.
If only some others were less immune to the truth... ~;)

Crazed Rabbit

11-16-2005, 19:33

You know, I think if we shot enough bullets we create enough smoke that the insurgents might get sick from the smoke, thus making guns a chemical weapon.

Crazed Rabbit

Ser Clegane

11-16-2005, 19:46

@Ser Clegane and English Assassin, in this case the WP was used for its toxic qualities, i.e. to create poisonous clouds from which there was no excape for anyone. As a blister agent, it is worse than mustard gas.

How do you know that, Adrian - is that your assumption or are there any actual reports on this intention you could refer to?

Adrian II

11-16-2005, 19:53

How do you know that, Adrian - is that your assumption or are there any actual reports on this intention you could refer to?It is all in the other thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=56758), Ser Clegane. There you will also find the views of people who disagree. I guess everyone can make up their own mind by now. I am moving onto greener threads.
:bow:

Ser Clegane

11-16-2005, 19:59

It is all in the other thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=56758), Ser Clegane. There you will also find the views of people who disagree. I guess everyone can make up their own mind by now. I am moving onto greener threads.
:bow:

I guess we will just have to disagree on the formal/legal aspect of this incident while agreeing with regard to the moral implications :bow:

Tribesman

11-16-2005, 20:36

Seamus Fermanagh

11-16-2005, 20:48

AOI?

Not sure if this is what you're asking, but QED means

Quod Erat Demonstratum, loosely translated as "As has already been demonstrated"

Papewaio

11-16-2005, 21:01

My first post in the other thread still stands:

Not nice, but apparently legal...

Ser Clegane

11-16-2005, 21:03

it is rather clear that an incendiary weapon like WP is not covered by this convention as it is not dependent on its toxic properties (which are a secondary, albeit very nasty effect).

Secondary effect , thats how the Germans justified their early gas attacks in WWI wasn't it , they were not gas shells they were shells that contained gas , the primary "intent" was to cause an explosion the gassing was just a "secondary effect" . That way they were not breaking any conventions or treaties .

OK - how about some facts?

Do you have any numbers from this WP attack or any other WP attack that would show that poisoning is indeed the primary effect of this weapon?

If you have read my comments in the other thread on this issue you will hopefully understand my view on this.

While it is IMO clear that the use of WP is not covered by the chemical weapons convention under the given definitions, I see that one could argue that this definition should include weapons like WP as these weapons have effects that are indeed similar to the chemical weapons that are defined in the relevant convention.

That they are not covered is probably one of the reasons that there are some protocols that cover the usage of weapons that fall under the current definition of conventional weapons, such as incendiary weapons or anti-person mines.
As things stand, the US decided not to sign these protocols, and one can certainly draw conclusions regarding this decision made by US administrations.

Personally, I consider the use of weapons like WP in urban areas that are still inhabited by civilians as abhorrent and against the spirit of conventions such as that against the use of chemical weapons.
However, I think discussing whether it is illegal or not distracts from the IMHO more important discussion whether it is acceptable or not, as the former can easily be refuted and thus the discussion does not lesd anywhere.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-16-2005, 21:07

It would appear that a majority of those disconcerted by the USA's use of white phosphorous munitions in this assault are also those who believe our invasion of Iraq to have been illegal/immoral/premature in the first place.

Setting aside your opposition to us being there at all (not asking you to discard your beliefs, merely to set them aside for the purpose of discussion), how should US forces have addressed the situation?

If you are facing non-conventional forces intermixed with civilians in a built-up urban area, you have a number of choices, none of which are thrilling.
You could:

A) cede control of the area to the non-conventional forces. This would minimize civilian casualties (barring some kind of pogrom by the non-conventionals) and minimize your own casualties, but would be a victory for the opposition allowing them to reinforce, develop a base, etc.

B) conduct a slow and painstaking infantry assault moving from room to room and house by house without the use of explosive devices or incendiaries or chemicals and carefully waiting for a positive identification before firing on any target. Since the non-conventional forces will be under no such restrictions, there will still be significant civilian casualties, but your forces will not contribute to that. Your casualties will be very high, since the defender has all of the tactical advantages in this scenario.

C) Use some form of chemical agent to discomfit the enemy and force them to leave many/all of the positions. The civilians intermixed will be harmed by this approach nearly as much as the non-conventional defenders, but the subsequent assault can move forward with fewer casualties and a greater likelihood of success. A number of civilians will require significant medical treatment. It is difficult to discern if civilian casualties will be less than in scenario "B," though it seems likely, but chemical injuries are more difficult to treat than standard trauma.

D) Identify enemy positions at range and hammer them with high-explosive munitions. Civilian casualties will be significant. The follow up assault will take casualties -- no bombardment zeros the opposition.

E) Identify the general area occupied by non-conventional forces and demolish it with lethal area-effect weapons. Civilian casualties will be horrific, but casualties to your own troops following up will be minimal.

F) use tactical nuclear weaponry to effect "e" above. Virtually everthing in the primary blast area will be eradicated, including civilians. No losses will be incurred by your forces. Radioactive contamination will be a concern, as will the political repercussions of this act.

Given a range of choices analogous to this -- remember, you've agreed to set aside the decision to be there in the first place for the sake of this discussion -- which choice is the most practical?

Papewaio

11-16-2005, 21:11

G) Play Celine Dion and have them either surrender or head to the showers and scream out "Arghh get it off me, I feel so unclean!"

Adrian II

11-16-2005, 21:16

Given a range of choices analogous to this -- remember, you've agreed to set aside the decision to be there in the first place for the sake of this discussion -- which choice is the most practical?Interesting post and a good question for debate. I would be happy to partake, but I can not because I know too little about the modus operandi, the range of weapons, tactical capabilities and information position of the U.S. army plus the situation on the ground in that town (like everybody else here, I have never been to Fallujah). I am constantly racking my brains about a decent political solution to the whole imbroglio, but we have discussed that issue elsewhere and at length. I am looking forward to other peoples answers.

EDIT
Maybe there are some good clues in the Battle for Basra in March 2003, when the Brits took the town without too many casualties after highly selective bombardment and with the use of good human intelligence.

Hurin_Rules

11-16-2005, 21:30

I fail to follow your logic Seamus.

You assign numbers to a list of options, but of course there are a whole host of options available here. Are you saying this was the most effective option, and so the US was forced/wise to use it? If that is the case, napalm or nuclear weapons would be far more effective. That doesn't mean they are either moral or legal.

Watchman

11-16-2005, 21:34

Gee, maybe the terrorists will start playing nice and we can all have a group hug instead of fighting terriorsts in urban centers? (While I usually make a distinction between the insurgency and terrorism, the enemy in Fallujah were using terror attacks agains civilians on the rest of the country--they were by definition terrorists.)

What amazes me is that people want us to tie BOTH arms behind our backs while fighting these guys. Treaties like this are not going to interest us, because they will be abused by people like Adrian for political reasons, and by terrorists for tactical ones.

It is humorous that nations that don't have to deal with the problems directly think they should dictate our methods to us.

And contrary to your assertion I find nothing morally repugnant about using incindiaries on these terrorists.
Oh go away Red. What you're essentially saying is that just because the opposition uses nasty, underhanded, repulsive, barbaric and generally unwholesome tactics and methods it gives you a carte blanche to do the same.

Which is bull, at least unless you intend to render your moral standing to their level.

Them's the breaks. The cops don't use the same methods the mob does either, now do they ?

The most ardent adherents of the logic of "the end justifying the means" have always been tyrants, fanatics and terrorists; one is allowed to expect better from a country claiming to be a civilized nation, plus a general upholder of human rights, freedom et all.

You're also making the assumption you can play fast and loose with these sorts of things without lowering your ethical standards on the long term on the side; this has a serious stench of hubris about it. People act civilized partly so as to avoid getting used to acting uncivilized, if you see what I mean.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-16-2005, 21:54

EDIT
Maybe there are some good clues in the Battle for Basra in March 2003, when the Brits took the town without too many casualties after highly selective bombardment and with the use of good human intelligence.

HUMINT can make a world of difference. On those occasions where the USA has had it, our operations have been both more selective and more effective. The Brits (and USMC? or did they bypass?) did quality work in Basra.

Hurin

Yes, part of my argument is that the tactical choice made was one of the better ones available on an unpleasing list. All of these choices involve the deaths and injury of people who aren't combatants and really shouldn't be involved.

If you discount morality entirely, than the nuclear stuff becomes practical, but to discount the moral component entirely is to cede victory to the concept of terrorism if not to the particular terrorists in question. Not fun.

If you know a way of actually generating an open field fight with the terrorists/insurgents please let us know. Most of our military types dream of an engagement -- even facing long odds -- where they don't have to worry about innocents. Many of our opponents simply don't worry -- or use them as shields to make us hesitate.

Devastatin Dave

11-16-2005, 21:58

Oh go away Red.

Gotta defend Red on this one. He should go away simply because you disagree with him? So much for debate. Many times (in fact most of the time) I have disagreed with him, but he has as much of a right to his opinions as you do. :knight:

Watchman

11-16-2005, 22:03

Eh, don't take it literally. Think of it as more of a general expression of being-fed-up-with-something, along the lines of "gimme a break". Plus a rough estmate of how highly I rate his points, mind you.

Devastatin Dave

11-16-2005, 22:04

Understood...:bow:

Kagemusha

11-16-2005, 22:11

Watchman

11-16-2005, 22:15

Xiahou

11-16-2005, 22:24

Soldiers get paid to die? That's a new one on me.... ~:confused:

Papewaio

11-16-2005, 22:40

Personally speaking, I'd incidentally appreciate it if people didn't try to justify dubiously ethical methods with reducing friendly casualties. After all, when the chips are down it's a fact that soldiers get paid to die for things and civilians don't...

Soldiers get paid to protect their nation. If any dieing is to be done it is the other sides soldiers/warriors/resistance fighters/insurgents/terrorists not your own soldiers as meat shields for your civilians or theirs.

the true role of infantry was not to expend itself upon heroic physical effort, not to wither away under merciless machine-gun fire, not to impale itself on hostile bayonets, but on the contrary, to advance under the maximum possible protection of the maximum possible array of mechanical resources, in the form of guns, machine-guns, tanks, mortars and aeroplanes; to advance with as little impediment as possible; to be relieved as far as possible of the obligation to fight their way forward.

I agree with John Monashs tactics that infantry are not there to die but are to be supported with the maximum amount of resources possible.

Watchman

11-16-2005, 23:15

So ? It doesn't change anything about the fact that when you get down to the fundamentals, the role soldiers fulfill in a community is to fight, kill and if necessary die when needed. That's the basic reason of existence of the whole profession. All the rest is really just additional paraphenelia such as how exactly they go about fulfilling these duties, when, where, why, with what tools etc etc, or if they can make themselves useful during peacetime too.

Particularly in a professional (which in practice means mercenary; soldiers serve in return of financial benefits) army like the American one (indeed, particularly the American one which has fought about one war per decade since WW2...) this adds up to their lives being as-such worth less than those of the civilians; after all, they have on their own accord, for whatever reason, entered into a profession where getting killed in combat is an expected health hazard, and thus don't really have too much in the way of complaint coming if it happens. Conscript armies, based on the legal obligation of the citizens to serve under arms, are a bit different issue, but with them it can be argued that the risks of military service are a part of the "membership fee" the community demands from its inhabitants.

Civilians, conversely, have not conditionally rented their lives away in such a fashion. Hence, it is morally unsustainable to argue for tactics that incur considerable risks to civilian populations with the safety of one's own soldiers.

Papewaio

11-16-2005, 23:30

Professional soldiers are volunteers. As long as they are part of a countries armed forces they are not mercenaries. It would pay (pun intended) for you to get your definitions right. Nor does getting paid negate their right to life. Mercenaries get paid not to die but to protect people and objects.

Civilians get all the fruits of conquest and the benefit of not having in general to put their lives on the line. Soldiers and Civilians are equal citizens and as humans have equal right to life.

Proletariat

11-16-2005, 23:36

In this instance, putting the lives of enemy civilians over the lives of your own soldiers (citizens) is preposterous.

American Military actions must serve the lives of Americans first. Doing otherwise would be ineffectual at best, and treasonous at worst.

Watchman

11-16-2005, 23:40

In my books fighting in return for payment (as opposed to, say, legal obligation) amounts to "mercenaries". The semantics of the matter don't particularly interest me.

I won't contest the thing about all humans having an equal right to live, but that was never the issue anyway.

Be they volunteers or mercenaries, however, the point is that unlike for example the hapless civilian population of, say, Fallujah the soldiers have chosen to embark on a potentionally quite dangerous career, and if you ask me this makes them to a fair degree responsible for any loss of life or limb that might happen. IMHO this also means they are to a degree responsible for not endangering the likes of civilians, sort of like how truck drivers are expected not to endanger pedestrians.

Proletariat

11-16-2005, 23:44

In my books fighting in return for payment (as opposed to, say, legal obligation) amounts to "mercenaries". The semantics of the matter don't particularly interest me.

So your books say that only those who fight for free escape the definition mercenary?

Mercenary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mercenary)

1 Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2 Hired for service in a foreign army.

Watchman

11-16-2005, 23:45

Never said that, did I ?

Proletariat

11-16-2005, 23:49

No, but what you're saying doesn't make sense to me, nor does it jive with the definition of a mercenary.

US soldiers in Fallujah aren't mercenaries.

Watchman

11-17-2005, 00:04

US soldiers in Fallujah aren't mercenaries.
By my definitions they are, because pretty much the whole US military is essentially a mercenary outfit. The same goes for any professional army.

You see, I divide armies to about three categories based on their recruiting method. Mercenaries are those whose soldiers have no external obligation to serve, but are rewarded for their services in some fashion by their masters (that professional national armies serve only a single, fixed paymaster is of no consequence here). Conscripts are those serving due to external obligation to their masters, and usually also salaried - but this is by no means automatic. The final category aren't really armies at all (proper, organized armies fall to either of the previous categories) but irregular forces, whose members are neither obliged nor paid by their masters to fight but do so purely for their own reasons.

Of course, the above categories are by no means set in stone or final - conscript armies invariably have a corps of salaried full-time professionals, mercenary armies may find themselves obliged to become conscript armies due to circumstances (think the British in WW1), and irregulars may fill their ranks by forcibly recruiting new members or hiring people or get established enough to "graduate" into either of the two categories. And of course badly mauled mercenary or conscript armies may dissolve into irregular forces - this at least partially happened in Iraq, for example.

Obviously what motivates (or doesn't) individual soldiers in any army has no part in this typology, due to the simple fact that it can A) be externally manipulated B) comes in such a dizzying number of permutations as to be a functionally meaningless mess; the criteria is the primary source of new recruits.

Papewaio

11-17-2005, 00:07

IMHO this also means they are to a degree responsible for not endangering the likes of civilians, sort of like how truck drivers are expected not to endanger pedestrians.

Well IMDHO if a car swerves across the road I don't expect the truck driver to kill himself trying to protect the car driver.

Papewaio

11-17-2005, 00:13

By my definitions they are, because pretty much the whole US military is essentially a mercenary outfit. The same goes for any professional army.

You see, I divide armies to about three categories based on their recruiting method. Mercenaries are those whose soldiers have no external obligation to serve, but are rewarded for their services in some fashion by their masters (that professional national armies serve only a single, fixed paymaster is of no consequence here). Conscripts are those serving due to external obligation to their masters, and usually also salaried - but this is by no means automatic. The final category aren't really armies at all (proper, organized armies fall to either of the previous categories) but irregular forces, whose members are neither obliged nor paid by their masters to fight but do so purely for their own reasons.

Of course, the above categories are by no means set in stone or final - conscript armies invariably have a corps of salaried full-time professionals, mercenary armies may find themselves obliged to become conscript armies due to circumstances (think the British in WW1), and irregulars may fill their ranks by forcibly recruiting new members or hiring people or get established enough to "graduate" into either of the two categories. And of course badly mauled mercenary or conscript armies may dissolve into irregular forces - this at least partially happened in Iraq, for example.

Obviously what motivates (or doesn't) individual soldiers in any army has no part in this typology, due to the simple fact that it can A) be externally manipulated B) comes in such a dizzying number of permutations as to be a functionally meaningless mess; the criteria is the primary source of new recruits.

I'm quoting you in full to make sure you don't edit on the fly.

Making up your own definitions as you go is not a valid way to prove anything.

Mercs serve anyone for money. Volunteer soldiers serve their country. They are a form of public servant. Mercs are private contractors who serve corporate interests in general.

Volunteer soldiers are normally held in higher esteem then conscripts, while mercs are seen in the same light as pirates, brigands and CEOs.

Watchman

11-17-2005, 00:14

It's the pedestrians we're talking about.
*sigh*
Or, if you want me to stop playing around with metaphors and wring it out of wire, the US soldiers are the truck driver, the Iraqi civilians are the pedestrians and the insurgents are the dangerously driving biker gang.

Tribesman

11-17-2005, 00:18

OK - how about some facts?

Do you have any numbers from this WP attack or any other WP attack that would show that poisoning is indeed the primary effect of this weapon?

Primary effect ? where did I say it was the primary effect ?
Hey , just pointing out a previous historical incident of secondary effects Clegane ,
Besides which WP is for smoke/target marking , fire starting is a secondary effect , toxic poisoning from inhalation is a secondary secondary effect , burning on the other hand would be a primary secondary effect of smoke markers .
Then again it wasn't being used for marking was it , "shake and bake" is described by the US forces as Phsycological warfare .

US soldiers in Fallujah aren't mercenaries.
Certainly not , but it was the death of 4 mercenaries in Fallujah that triggered the assault .

Watchman

11-17-2005, 00:20

*shrug* Your definitions, not mine. I explained those already. Personally, I see little reason to cover the main purpose of soldiers or the fundamental reality of professional armies with any rhetorical fig leaves. Notice that there were no implicit or explicit values involved in my typologies - I'm far too avid a student of military history to make any generic judgements one way or other merely on the basis of a combat force's recruitement method. Well, not counting press-gang methods.

Besides...

Volunteer soldiers are normally held in higher esteem then conscripts,......you do realize that the Iraqi insurgents are by and large volunteers ? Or at least to my knowledge they're neither salaried nor legally obliged to fight for the cause(s) they obviously feel very strongly about...

Hurin_Rules

11-17-2005, 00:41

So your books say that only those who fight for free escape the definition mercenary?

Mercenary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mercenary)

1 Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.

So those Americans who only signed up for the Army so they could get money for college are all mercenaries?

Then a heck of a lot of US soldiers are clearly mercenaries.

Watchman

11-17-2005, 00:48

Haven't I been saying for quite a while now that so far as I'm concerned professional armies are essentially mercenary ones ? ~:confused:

Not a big deal as such as far as I'm concerned, though - I do not consider the substantive "mercenary" to have particular moral or ethical baggage attached. IMO that's just one type of soldier among many.

"Mercenary" used as an adjective has its obvious negative connotations, though.

Proletariat

11-17-2005, 01:01

So those Americans who only signed up for the Army so they could get money for college are all mercenaries?

No, unless you accept Watchman's definition.

Xiahou

11-17-2005, 01:03

Watchman, do you realize your definition classifies almost every organized military throughout all of history as mercenaries?

Well IMDHO if a car swerves across the road I don't expect the truck driver to kill himself trying to protect the car driver.Good analogy.

Papewaio

11-17-2005, 01:06

"A definition that cannot differentiate is as useful as tits on a bull."

Watchman

11-17-2005, 01:08

They get paid money for fighting wars. Sounds like mercenaries enough to me.

Regardless of what exactly you define soldiers as, though, I for one rate avoiding civilian casualties higher than avoiding soldier casualties. Their job description includes a real possibility of dying a very nasty death somewhere quite far away, after all. Conversely it ought to be something of a matter of good etiquette for foreign soldiers from far away to refrain from burning local inhabitants to cinders solely for their own convenience, if you see what I mean.

Tribesman

11-17-2005, 01:15

1 Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.

Hey my dad was a mercenary , he desired the material gain of a decent pair of boots from the FCA .

Red Harvest

11-17-2005, 01:30

Personally speaking, I'd incidentally appreciate it if people didn't try to justify dubiously ethical methods with reducing friendly casualties. After all, when the chips are down it's a fact that soldiers get paid to die for things and civilians don't...
Well, personally speaking, I disagree with this and just about everything else you've said in the thread. Fallujah was a terrorist haven. Using incindiaries to destroy it is alright by me. It is the sort of place you make an example of, not "play nice" and take needless casualties in.

If you choose to live among terrorists, don't expect folks to go out of their way to keep you safe. That's the message. I see no reason for my friends or relatives to die (in uniform) to protect your precious terrorists' friends and family.

Tribesman

11-17-2005, 01:51

Fallujah was a terrorist haven. Using incindiaries to destroy it is alright by me. It is the sort of place you make an example of, not "play nice" and take needless casualties in.

But unfortunately making an example didn't work did it .~:rolleyes:
Edit to add....If you choose to live among terrorists, don't expect folks to go out of their way to keep you safe. That's the message.
Since the country is full of terrorists where do you suggest the people go to live then ?

Redleg

11-17-2005, 02:02

Someone either needs a history lesson on what consitutes a mercenary force - be it company, battalion, brigade, or even army. And what constitutes a soldier serving in a National Army, or he needs to speak/ go serve in the military of any nation and call a soldier a mercenary - I lay odds on the soldier giving the individual a history lesson that they wont forget - especially if that soldier is an NCO of any army..

Warping terms and history to fit your own views of the world smacks of revision.

Watchman

11-17-2005, 02:08

'Harvest courteously demonstrated exactly the attitude that worries me the most about the whole mess.
:bow:

Red Harvest

11-17-2005, 02:14

Since the country is full of terrorists where do you suggest the people go to live then ?
Doesn't appear to me that the whole country is full of terrorists. The Sunni portions are. It's not my concern where they chose to live if they are going to harbor terrorists.

Perhaps they should actually try the political process and try to find a way out, rather than resorting to terrorizing their neighbors and political opponents? I don't feel sorry for them, they are making their own path, and they will have to figure out how to live with it.

Red Harvest

11-17-2005, 02:15

'Harvest courteously demonstrated exactly the attitude that worries me the most about the whole mess.
:bow:
That terrorists not be given safe haven? Or that we not be paralyzed by terrorist techniques?

Watchman

11-17-2005, 02:15

Congrats for having become incapable of differentiating between the insurgents and the civilians, Red. I'm sure more of that attitude will greatly help things down there...

Watchman

11-17-2005, 02:17

That terrorists not be given safe haven? Or that we not be paralyzed by terrorist techniques?
No. Having already undergone fairly serious moral corruption without noticing, and feeling all self-righterious about it.

Xiahou

11-17-2005, 02:18

Doesn't appear to me that the whole country is full of terrorists. The Sunni portions are.Indeed, there are portions that are quite peaceful- don't expect to hear about that in the news though.

Watchman

11-17-2005, 02:23

Red Harvest

11-17-2005, 02:28

And everyone living in the troubled areas obviously has the resources to pack up their stuff and move across half the country once the wild-eyed gunmen start turning their flat into a firebase, right ?

Bloody brilliant reasoning.
In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, they've had over 2 years to figure it out.

Bloody brilliant reasoning indeed.

Red Harvest

11-17-2005, 02:34

No. Having already undergone fairly serious moral corruption without noticing, and feeling all self-righterious about it.
I've felt this way about terrorist supporting "civilians" for decades. My views haven't changed. You make your choices, live (or not) with the results.

Self-righteous? Nope, pragmatic.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-17-2005, 02:37

What the hell is going on here? Ive seen at least four or five posts now where Im in total agreement with Red Harvest. Red I salute you. Either that or the end of the world is near.~:cheers:

Devastatin Dave

11-17-2005, 02:52

What the hell is going on here? Ive seen at least four or five posts now where Im in total agreement with Red Harvest. Red I salute you. Either that or the end of the world is near.~:cheers:
There must be a database error, maybe Red Havest and Redlegs accounts got switched!!!~D

Proletariat

11-17-2005, 03:33

I've waxed ad hominem in regard to Red Harvest's posts more than once, but he's definitely one of the few people on this board that genuinely comes up with independent opinions.

You should hear him speak on France's culpability on the US invasion of Iraq.

Hurin_Rules

11-17-2005, 04:58

Red Harvest

11-17-2005, 05:28

I've waxed ad hominem in regard to Red Harvest's posts more than once, but he's definitely one of the few people on this board that genuinely comes up with independent opinions.

Thank you, :bow: that is one of the kindest compliments I could ask for in regards to the issues. I don't claim to be moderate on most issues, but I do try to weigh things myself without just accepting what any group wants me to believe.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-17-2005, 06:06

So, let me get this straight. It is fine for the Americans to use white phosphorous in urban areas, where it undoubtedly killed civilians (I even saw some pictures of dogs burned by it today-- they must have done something evil, I'm sure, to warrant a firey death), because the civilians 'chose to live there'? ?

There is a world of difference between "fine" and "reluctant necessity." I believe the latter would more accurately summarize the view of most of those arguing in support.

The Americans are the people that actually invaded this nation and turned it into a war zone in the first place-- but they can do anything they want to the terrified people sitting quietly in their homes, waiting to be burned to death?

Again, you proceed from the premise that everything was "fine" in Iraq until we chose to invade. Implicitly, you thereby suggest that the USA is fully [solely?] responsible for any and all consequence resulting subsequent to the invasion. I do not accept that premise.

Even were I to accept it -- purely for the sake of argument -- I would suggest that you are playing the terrorist's game for them exactly as they designed it. They purposefully base themselve in the midst of a civilian population in order to limit the responses we may use against them without generating sharp criticism. We are then left with a series of less-than-palatable choices (as I noted above) and simply try to make the best of it. If you can divine some means of "making an omelet" without "breaking any eggs" we'd love to know of it -- all of the soldiers involved would be glad of a workable idea demonstrably better than using the willie-pete.

Here's a thought experiment for you: would it have been fine, during the US revolutionary war, for the British army to carpet bomb Boston or New York city with napalm (imagining they had napalm back then)? You're telling me you'd have been fine with this, and would not see it as a war crime?

The analogy isn't exact enough. Clearly, the use of such wholesale means against a strictly civilian target would be abhorrent. During the rebellion, neither city was a base for US military activity in the sense that Fallujah [sp?] had been for terrorist forces. Where US irregulars were based, notably farms and plantations in the Carolinas, the British regulars and irregulars did destroy civilian property and, on occasion, the civilians who were acting as a support network for American irregulars.

I am cognizant of your belief that the US decision to invade Iraq was wrong. Though I disagree with you, I can easily recognize that some [many?] Iraqis are vehemently and perhaps violently opposed to our efforts. It would be unreasonable to assume that ANY Iraqis --even those who agree with the efforts we are undertaking -- actually like the current state of affairs. It is perfectly natural for them to desire an Iraq that is of, by, and for Iraqis. In the long run, that is our goal as well, and I believe that most of them are aware of this and are willing to tolerate the current state of things while they build their own future.

Hurin_Rules

11-17-2005, 07:27

Watchman

11-17-2005, 09:05

Besides, some of the arguments put forth to the effect of the civvies being "fair game" amount to little more than claiming collective guilt by association; "if they live in a terrorist stronghold, they must be terrorists or avid sympathizers themselves and hence no more human beings worth consideration" sort of thinking.

To give a parallel, I'm fairly certain the logic of Irish extremists blowing up pubs frequented by people of the other religious persuasion went along the same lines - any of "their own" caught in the blast would obviously be traitors and whatnot, as no decent Protestant or Catholic would socialize with the "enemy" now would they ?

Kill them all and let God sort them out. And these people are supposed to represent freedom, democracy and human rights ?

Besides, AFAIK the one "playing the terrorists' game" is the US of A. Atrocious idiocy like the Fallujah WP case only helps make the militants' case look that much better, and the Americans' that much worse, in the eyes of their target audiences, and when it comes down to that scare tactics like that do not to my knowledge work too well for discouraging guerilla movements. If anything, assorted relatives and so on of the 'collateral damage' casualties are only more likely to "head to the hills" in search of vengeance. Doubly so in "vendetta country" like Iraq, where blood feuds are still a living tradition.
Heck, the insurgents have for quite a while already done their damnedest to encourage the US troops to overly liberal use of firepower, just for the effect the inevitable resulting civilian casualties have...

Redleg

11-17-2005, 09:57

What I disagree with, Seamus, is the argument that some were making, which is that any civilians caught in a war zone are fair game, that they 'chose' to be there and so don't have any right to protest when chemical weapons are used indiscrimanately against them. Arguments along the lines of, 'Yeah, but how can we kill the terrorists then?' thus carry no weight. The same arguments would justify dropping atomic bombs. This reasoning leads down a slippery slope to atrocity. Chemical weapons should not be used against civilian populations, period.

Especially by a government that claims to be fighting terror.

Your also using the same type of arguement in calling White Phosphorous a chemical weapon. Again White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon it is an incedenary smoke round.

I don't believe in fighting next to a civilian population because it is messy and the risk is great to not only the civilians but to soldiers also - but war doesn't always give you that possiblity. Care must be exercised weighing the lose of civilian life against the necessary requirements of the military operation. Unfortunately the United States Government has not explained the case as well as it should have, which give such statements as I have seen in this thread to come about.

So I guess you must be another one who believes that because I shot WP to mark targets for the Airforce - those targets happen to be tanks and men - where the rounds landed within effective range of them - that I should be held on war crime charges.

Ser Clegane

11-17-2005, 10:19

In this instance, putting the lives of enemy civilians over the lives of your own soldiers (citizens) is preposterous.

Enemy civilians?

How did they earn this status? Do Iraqi civilians in general count as enemies or only if they happen to be co-located with terrorists and/or insurgents?

Adrian II

11-17-2005, 11:24

Enemy civilians?By 'enemy civilians' Proletariat means those civilians who are being liberated by the United States. Liberated from their homes, their families, even from their lives if they happen to be in the wrong place. Strange enough, Saddam Hussein happened to be in the right place when they caught him. He is given a fair trial in his own country. Well, at least he is given a trial. Well sort of. At least he's on tv, so I reckon they didn't gas him in some village or put electrodes on his balls and kick him to death in a secret facility. Yet.

Watchman

11-17-2005, 13:50

You seem to be mucking around with technicalities again, Redleg. As if those were ever the point of the whole issue.

I'll give you that WP doesn't really rate as a chemical weapon in my books either, though.

However, "unfortunately the United States Government has not explained the case as well as it should have" is a rather curious assessement given that they initially tried to deny the whole thing - a course of action notoriously likely to make the audience inherently hostile to begin with, and for good reasons. Besides, "it became necessary to destroy the village to defend it" looks pretty ridiculous whichever way you look at it...

Proletariat

11-17-2005, 14:27

By 'enemy civilians' Proletariat means those civilians who are being liberated by the United States. Liberated from their homes, their families, even from their lives if they happen to be in the wrong place. Strange enough, Saddam Hussein happened to be in the right place when they caught him. He is given a fair trial in his own country. Well, at least he is given a trial. Well sort of. At least he's on tv, so I reckon they didn't gas him in some village or put electrodes on his balls and kick him to death in a secret facility. Yet.

Sajida al-Rishawi was more what I was thinking. I can't wait until she's hooked up to some fake electric chairs and has a lion roar at her while staying in a Romanian gulag.

Watchman

11-17-2005, 14:32

Do we really need to know your dubious tastes ?

Redleg

11-17-2005, 18:12

You seem to be mucking around with technicalities again, Redleg. As if those were ever the point of the whole issue.

Not technicalities at all - but facts. Try it sometimes versus the hyperbole of calling soldiers mercs.

I'll give you that WP doesn't really rate as a chemical weapon in my books either, though.

and you would be correct

However, "unfortunately the United States Government has not explained the case as well as it should have" is a rather curious assessement given that they initially tried to deny the whole thing - a course of action notoriously likely to make the audience inherently hostile to begin with, and for good reasons. Besides, "it became necessary to destroy the village to defend it" looks pretty ridiculous whichever way you look at it...

You might want to go back and read what was stated by the State Department - they did far worse then attempt to deny it - however again the issue is not what happen in Fallujah - but what happen on the outskirts which all of you have missed but one. And that individual is Aurelan, who while I don't often agree with him - he at least has the ability to think beyond the far left rethoric.

Watchman

11-17-2005, 18:18

And that individual is Aurelan, who while I don't often agree with him - he at least has the ability to think beyond the far left rethoric....
...uh, would you care to elaborate this ? I must've missed something.

And since when was considering the burning of civilians to death with WP (intentionally or accidentally) to be a bad thing "far left rhetoric" ? Sounds more like basic human decency to me...

Redleg

11-17-2005, 18:21

...
...uh, would you care to elaborate this ? I must've missed something.

And since when was considering the burning of civilians to death with WP (intentionally or accidentally) to be a bad thing "far left rhetoric" ? Sounds more like basic human decency to me...

All it requires one to do is read an older thread - do you need the link because of your own inablity to look for information?

You might want to look at calling soldiers mercs for a start. Typical crap of the far left to call soldiers mercs without knowing anything about them. Oh and don't attempt to mention conscripted service is different - all soldiers get paid - even conscripted ones.

Give you a hint though because I am feeling generous - now you will find it toward the end of the thread

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=56758

Watchman

11-17-2005, 18:27

You could just have quoted the thing, you know.

...so what was your point anyway ?

Slyspy

11-17-2005, 18:37

Your also using the same type of arguement in calling White Phosphorous a chemical weapon. Again White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon it is an incedenary smoke round.

I don't believe in fighting next to a civilian population because it is messy and the risk is great to not only the civilians but to soldiers also - but war doesn't always give you that possiblity. Care must be exercised weighing the lose of civilian life against the necessary requirements of the military operation. Unfortunately the United States Government has not explained the case as well as it should have, which give such statements as I have seen in this thread to come about.

So I guess you must be another one who believes that because I shot WP to mark targets for the Airforce - those targets happen to be tanks and men - where the rounds landed within effective range of them - that I should be held on war crime charges.

Er, no because those targets were military the the potential for civilian casualties may have been low (I don't know the circumstances). Also, more importantly, the WP rounds were being used to their primary purpose of marking targets.

In the recent case the rounds were being used as offensive ordinance (sp?) due to their incendary nature. Any chemical effects associated with the rounds are seconadary (side-effects if you like) and enough to classify the ammo as conventional. Unfortunately the chemical effects do exist, contrary to various pendantic posts above, and are more likely to have an harmful effect in enclosed spaces eg burning buildings. If you use such weapons, and HE is not much better, in civilian areas, especially as a "liberating" force then you better be ready to face any political fall out. First on the list of things to do should not be "lie about it to your electorate". I repeat my previously stated belief that most people would not particularly care in this case so long as the authorities were honest. To the home audience, especially those already sceptical, the lies (or half-truths, the essence is the same) are worse than the facts. For example in WW2 we sank the French fleet and bombed French cities in the name of liberty, but these facts were not hidden and were regarded by government and the governed as necessary.

All those who declare that the civilians choose to live in the warzone show a severe lack of empathy and humanity, but I am not really surprised by it.

PS
To call all soldiers mercenaries a foolish thing to say. In a modern volunteer army the pay is not a big factor. How can it be, when the salaries are so low considering the privations and dangers involved? Why not train as a plumber instead?

Tribesman

11-17-2005, 19:09

You might want to go back and read what was stated by the State Department - they did far worse then attempt to deny it - however again the issue is not what happen in Fallujah - but what happen on the outskirts which all of you have missed but one. And that individual is Aurelan, who while I don't often agree with him - he at least has the ability to think beyond the far left rethoric.
That is a seperate issue isn't it Red , though it does make a nonsense out of all those saying "they could have left , they chose to live among terrorists so deserve to die" . Now the thing is this distasteful practice is ongoing and has occured in at least 3 towns in the past month .
But back to the WP , the Iraqi government is complaining and launching an investigation to get to the bottom of the issue .

Doesn't appear to me that the whole country is full of terrorists. The Sunni portions are. It's not my concern where they chose to live if they are going to harbor terrorists.

Well it appears that you may be blind then Harvest , but don't concern yourself about where people live in their own country eh .
Perhaps they should actually try the political process and try to find a way out, rather than resorting to terrorizing their neighbors and political opponents? I don't feel sorry for them, they are making their own path, and they will have to figure out how to live with it.
Now are you talking about the Shia terrorists , the Kurdish ones the Sunni Arab ones , the foriegn ones the American backed ones or what ?
Interesting torture facilities that turned up this week wasn't there , oh but they are run by the Iranian/American backed terrorists who were terrorizing their political opponents were they not . So those must be OK .

Indeed, there are portions that are quite peaceful- don't expect to hear about that in the news though.
Quite peaceful Xiahou , compared to what ? But of course the terrorist attacks , murders and kidnapping in those peaceful portion wouldn't appear in the Liberal media would they , but luckily your government , the Iraqi government and various NGOs and political agencies do report on them . Oh that damn liberal media , why do they hide the stories eh ?

Hurin_Rules

11-17-2005, 19:13

So I guess you must be another one who believes that because I shot WP to mark targets for the Airforce - those targets happen to be tanks and men - where the rounds landed within effective range of them - that I should be held on war crime charges.

Of course not Redleg, you know that's a straw man argument. I never said using WP to mark targets is a war crime. If the US had used WP only to mark targets in Fallujah, there would be no crime. But as I've made clear in this thread, the accounts by the US's own soldiers make it clear that they used the distinctive chemical properties of WP when normal, HE rounds were ineffective, and they used WP as an incendiary in an urban environment when its use is inherently indiscriminate. Therein lies the problem, and nowhere else.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-17-2005, 19:25

Hurin_Rules

11-17-2005, 19:28

Except of coursethe US never signed any treaty that would forbid us from using this. Its a war crime in your eyes. That doesnt make it so.

The use of indiscriminate weapons in urban environments is criminal regardless of what treaties the US has signed.

Slyspy

11-17-2005, 19:32

Gawain of Orkeny

11-17-2005, 19:37

So if there were no law fobidding the mass murder of [insert name of target group here eg Welshmen] I could get away with it? Or if there was a law making the slaughter of [insert name of target group here] compulsory then that would make it right? Fantastic. *runs off to check statute books*

This is war. Its not some game. Are you claiming that US troops intentionally targeted civilians with these weapons or could it be that the insurgents were using them to get just the results your spouting?

Watchman

11-17-2005, 19:41

Gawain of Orkeny

11-17-2005, 19:46

Does it really even matter (although there's reason to suspect it was, indeed, intentional on the part of the US) ? The end result is a bunch of civilians burned to death, and the US gov't tried to hush it up to little avail.

Yes it does. Of course I can see it now. Hey Lt lets toast some civilans with WP. Yes sure their only Iraqis anyway.Fire whan ready Gridley. The insurgents would never think of using civilans as cover. We all know at least they obey the rules of war unlike the US.

Accept your moral responsibility and stop squirming.

Your the one squirming here.

Slyspy

11-17-2005, 19:53

This is war. Its not some game. Are you claiming that US troops intentionally targeted civilians with these weapons or could it be that the insurgents were using them to get just the results your spouting?

I'm claiming no such thing. I know its a war. Neither am I saying that the US deliberately targetted civilians. Show me anywhere I have said that and I believe that you will fail. In fact until you stepped in with your nonsense reply to Hurin (my post which you quote was aimed at that) I was not even talking to you. My previous posts have been aimed at primarily at Redleg who believed (that others believed) that the mere use of WP would label him a war criminal, which was clearly wrong. I also called into question his argument that WP is not a chemical weapon. While WP is self evidently not designated a chemical weapon it is nevertheless a weapon with some harmful chemical properties, which may be highlighted by the use of the munition as an incendiary in a built up civilian area as opposed to its primary role of providing smoke for cover or targeting. In this case the use of such a muntion while tactically useful is politically damaging. Trying to hide the full story is, as I have said, more so. I just wish politicians had the balls to be honest.

The comments about lack of empathy were aimed that those immature enough to suggest that it was all somehow the fault of the civilians. My comments about mercs were addressed to a similar audience.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-17-2005, 19:56

I'm claiming no such thing. I know its a war. Neither am I saying that the US deliberately targetted civilians. Show me anywhere I have said that

And I never said you did. I was replying to watchman.

Slyspy

11-17-2005, 20:00

Yet quoting me? Seems unlikely.

Kagemusha

11-17-2005, 20:00

This is war. Its not some game. Are you claiming that US troops intentionally targeted civilians with these weapons or could it be that the insurgents were using them to get just the results your spouting?

Does it matter if the US troops turned all males back in the city from the civilians who tryed to escape. Im sure you know how much area a single mortar or artillery munition covers with its blast and shrapnels.
This is not a new tactic, maybe US commanders took it from the Russians ,who so succesfully are exploiting same kind of artillery tactics in Tzechenia.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-17-2005, 20:05

Yet quoting me? Seems unlikely.

Watchman Does it really even matter (although there's reason to suspect it was, indeed, intentional on the part of the US) ? The end result is a bunch of civilians burned to death, and the US gov't tried to hush it up to little avail.

Accept your moral responsibility and stop squirming.

This is a quote from you?

Does it matter if the US troops turned all males back in the city from the civilians who tryed to escape. Im sure you know how much area a single mortar or artillery munition covers with its blast and shrapnels.
This is not a new tactic, maybe US commanders took it from the Russians ,who so succesfully are exploiting same kind of artillery tactics in Tzechenia.

They did. This is news to me. Maybe you could provide some proof. Wow only women and children were allowed to leave huh?

Redleg

11-17-2005, 20:05

Of course not Redleg, you know that's a straw man argument. I never said using WP to mark targets is a war crime. If the US had used WP only to mark targets in Fallujah, there would be no crime. But as I've made clear in this thread, the accounts by the US's own soldiers make it clear that they used the distinctive chemical properties of WP when normal, HE rounds were ineffective, and they used WP as an incendiary in an urban environment when its use is inherently indiscriminate. Therein lies the problem, and nowhere else.

Of course I knew it was a strawman - just like I know calling white phosphorous a chemical weapon is a strawman arguement. Edit - therefor you now see how ridiculous I see the calling of White Phosphorous as a chemical weapon. Get off the Chemical aspect and concentrate on what the weapon is - smoke and an incedenary.

An incedenary being used in a city - I am not normally for that type of use of the munition - because you never know what fire is going to do. But as an allegation of chemical weapons use - the arguement falls flat on its face because its nothing but a strawman arguement.

Now there is valid tactical reasons for using WP in a city to mark targets for aircraft and even to mark and area for manuever - but when one focus on only calling it a chemical weapon - well you defeat your moral outrage of using a incedenary in a city - into the typical leftist ranting against the military. Add the comments of soldiers are mercs - and your position (Watchman) shows exactly how much leftist propaganda one has fallen for in their development.

Care to guess why smoke munitions were added to the Chemical Weapons treaties and refused to be ratified by both the United States and the USSR when the treaties came out? Something I am afraid those who can't remember the cold war or have no knowledge of things military have fallen victim to forgeting to look into regarding the history of the treaties.

BTW - I will given you a hint the former USSR wanted to have all smoke munitions labeled as chemical weapons to prevent battlefield smoke - to include smoke generators, smoke pots, and the ability for combat vehicles to generate smoke.

Slyspy

11-17-2005, 20:11

Tribesman

11-17-2005, 20:14

They did. This is news to me.
Perhaps you should pay more attention ~:rolleyes:
oh but its OK they were only men and all men are terrorists aren't they .
Hey I wonder who the Serbs let go in Srebrenica , but of course that was different wasn't it , as the men were all terrorists weren't they , they must have been because they lived there .

Gawain of Orkeny

11-17-2005, 20:17

Mi'lud Gawain I refer you to post #104 (by you) which quotes post #103 (by myself). #103 was originally posted in response to post #101 (by you).

Hope I got that right or this could get even more confusing. This thread hopping is not helping much either!

If you go back and check the posts you will notice I asked if that was your position . I didnt say it was.

Perhaps you should pay more attention
oh but its OK they were only men and all men are terrorists aren't they .

So the place was never evacuated then as everyman remained in the city. Can you provide a link?

Kagemusha

11-17-2005, 20:28

Here is the link Aurelian posted in the previous thread.http://http://www.underthesamesun.org/content/2004/11/all_men_between_1.html
And peace of the article from that link, that pretty much clears it up:

November 14, 2004
Fallujah as an Operation versus Fallujah as a Town

All men between the ages of 15 to 55 are being separated from refugee convoys and their families and turned back into the city:

As [the military]believes many of Fallujah's men are guerrilla fighters, it has instructed U.S. troops to turn back all males aged 15 to 55.

"We assume they'll go home and just wait out the storm or find a place that's safe," one 1st Cavalry Division officer, who declined to be named, said Thursday.

Army Col. Michael Formica, who leads forces isolating Fallujah, admits the rule sounds "callous." But he insists it's is key to the mission's success.

"Tell them 'Stay in your houses, stay away from windows and stay off the roof and you'll live through Fallujah,'" Formica, of the 1st Cavalry Division's 2nd Brigade, told his battalion commanders in a radio conference call Wednesday night.

Most of what you need to understand the nature of this war is right there when Army Col. Michael Formica advises Fallujans how to "live through Fallujah".

To this Army Col., Fallujah is not a place or a town but an operation to be lived through. It's a phase, a thing to be done and gotten over and through with. These people, on the other hand, live in Fallujah.

There's another thing about turning back men. It's a war crime.

Human rights experts said Friday that American soldiers might have committed a war crime on Thursday when they sent fleeing Iraqi civilians back into Fallujah.

Citing several articles of the Geneva Conventions, the experts said recognized laws of war require military forces to protect civilians as refugees and forbid returning them to a combat zone.

"This is highly problematical conduct in terms of exposing people to grave danger by returning them to an area where fighting is going on," said Jordan Paust, a law professor at the University of Houston and a former Army prosecutor.

James Ross, senior legal adviser to Human Rights Watch, said, "If that's what happened, it would be a war crime."

A stream of refugees, about 300 men, women and children, were detained by American soldiers as they left southern Fallujah by car and on foot. The women and children were allowed to proceed. The men were tested for any residues left by the handling of explosives. All tested negative, but they were sent back.

Note that these men tested negative for handling explosives. They weren't detained. They weren't charged. They were simply sent back into the war zone for the crime of being the rightful resident of a city that we are pounding into rubble.

A lot of people ask, well, why didn't they leave earlier? Forget the legality of everything we are doing and why people should have to leave their homes so we can flatten a city -- the effect of which will be to simply spread the "insurgents" around the country, as many experts have already pointed out. Forget the experts, that much is obvious if you think about it for more than ten seconds.

Remember this rule has been in effect since the cordon began. Men have been trapped in that city for sometime. Would you leave your 15 year old son, your husband, uncle, all your male relatives behind and go? Obviously, many people stayed with their families because, well, that's what families tend to do: they don't listen to your instructions to abandon their men. Of course, this "family values" administration neither understands or nor cares about such humanitarian concerns.

Slyspy

11-17-2005, 20:31

Gawain why ask me at all since that was not an issue which I had raised. Jeez even getting someone to admit to misreading who was saying what is impossible.....

~;)

Gawain of Orkeny

11-17-2005, 20:33

November 14, 2004
Fallujah as an Operation versus Fallujah as a Town

All men between the ages of 15 to 55 are being separated from refugee convoys and their families and turned back into the city:

As [the military]believes many of Fallujah's men are guerrilla fighters, it has instructed U.S. troops to turn back all males aged 15 to 55.

So then all males were not turned back. You then go on to show a perfectly reasonable reason the others were turned back. Also the casulaities everyone is complaining about seems to be women and children. Do you really think US soldiers intentionaly targeted women and children?

Kagemusha

11-17-2005, 20:43

If you read the whole article it was stated that many families simply turned around, because families tend to stick together. If US forces suspected those men as insurgents.Why didnt they just capture them?
About your question, artillery shell really doesnt ask you if you are an civilian or insurgent. If you look at the previous thread there is also an article from embedded journalist who was with an mortar section and described the mortar fire as random. Even the battalion Doctor came by and shot few grenades in the city. Im not starting to argue about some formalities with you on this subject. I cant prove that shelling a city full of civilians is intentionally killing civilians. Im sure that the intention was to kill insurgents. But its simple as it rejecting civilians a free passage out of an fighting zone is a war crime and thats it.

Watchman

11-17-2005, 20:49

Add the comments of soldiers are mercs - and your position (Watchman) shows exactly how much leftist propaganda one has fallen for in their development.This topic really seems to put your knickers in a twist, Redleg. Any particular reason ? Just curious.

Incidentally, I'd appreciate if you actually read the basis of my curious typologies that I helpfully explained. You'd notice that for one I don't consider all soldiers to be mercenaries, or there to be any emotional baggage attached to the term... I'll take my flak when need be, but only for things I actually did or said if you don't mind.

Tribesman

11-17-2005, 20:49

So then all males were not turned back
Learn to read ~:doh:
Only....only ...only ...only

You then go on to show a perfectly reasonable reason the others were turned back.
Yes and told to stay under cover , but someone was using WP to bring people out of cover and into the open .
Besides which it is not reasonable to return people to an area that is about to be assaulted , it is a war crime .
If they were under suspicion then they should have been detained .

Slyspy

11-17-2005, 20:49

So then all males were not turned back. You then go on to show a perfectly reasonable reason the others were turned back. Also the casulaities everyone is complaining about seems to be women and children. Do you really think US soldiers intentionaly targeted women and children?

That is weak Gawain, really weak.

Papewaio

11-17-2005, 21:09

So many strawman arguements, so many potential flames, something is going to blow.

The US can legally drop as much incendiaries as they want on an enemy position.

Is this the nice thing to do? No.
Will it help win the battle? Yes.
Will it help win the hearts and minds? No.
Are USA soldiers mercenaries? No.
Is there any physical object that is not a chemical? Well Yes, they are called neutron stars...

Kagemusha

11-17-2005, 21:12

Gawain of Orkeny

11-17-2005, 21:13

That is weak Gawain, really weak.

Well thats your usual strong reply.

So many strawman arguements, so many potential flames, something is going to blow.

The US can legally drop as much incendiaries as they want on an enemy position.

Is this the nice thing to do? No.
Will it help win the battle? Yes.
Will it help win the hearts and minds? No.
Are USA soldiers mercenaries? No.
Is there any physical object that is not a chemical? Well Yes, they are called neutron stars...

Sums it up nicely

Watchman

11-17-2005, 21:14

...and suggests you consistently fail to grasp the point of the issue.

Redleg

11-17-2005, 21:19

This topic really seems to put your knickers in a twist, Redleg. Any particular reason ? Just curious.

You might want to read about what happens to mercs in war - then you might begin to understand. Calling soldiers who serve in a national army mercs is nothing other then pure BS.

Incidentally, I'd appreciate if you actually read the basis of my curious typologies that I helpfully explained. You'd notice that for one I don't consider all soldiers to be mercenaries, or there to be any emotional baggage attached to the term... I'll take my flak when need be, but only for things I actually did or said if you don't mind.

Read it and regarded it for what it is - hyperbole and BS. BTW I guess the army of your nation is full of mercs to - since you do have some career soldiers along with the conscripts.

Redleg

11-17-2005, 21:23

...and suggests you consistently fail to grasp the point of the issue.

Well since it seems your the one calling soldiers mercs - and one of the ones calling White Phosphorous a chemical munition - I think Papewaio's post shows your failure to grasp the point also. ~:eek:

Tribesman

11-17-2005, 21:27

Will it help win the battle? Yes.
Will it help win the hearts and minds? No.

So , the battle was to clear fallujah of terrorists and deal a cruching blow to the insurgency , the insurgency is as active as ever and terrorists are back in Fallujah , besides which those that it said it was vital to get were not even there . So what battle is it they won ?
Hearts and minds , hmmm ... neccesary to stop the insurgency and curtail the creation of new terrorists , oops lost that one as well .
So despite all the crap about it being neccesary and vital to the operation it has achieved bugger all , in fact it has has negative results .
Congratulations , empty victories and negative publicity are really the way to win a war .

Watchman

11-17-2005, 21:33

Shouldn't you be thanking me for providing another pointless detail (the merc thing) to get stuck on so you can get some variety to your usual fare about WP classification, 'Leg ? ~:handball:

It's not like I ever claimed it to be anything more than a personal categorization that to me appears logically quite sound... but then again the reading you did on the whole thing was obviously cursory indeed.

Judging by your impassioned reaction to the term, I take "merc" is a four-letter word in more than the most literal sense in some circles ?

Redleg

11-17-2005, 21:45

Shouldn't you be thanking me for providing another pointless detail (the merc thing) to get stuck on so you can get some variety to your usual fare about WP classification, 'Leg ? ~:handball:

Yawn

It seems you can't argue your point about mercs or WP very well. What was that comment earlier about resorting to statements such as above - oh yeah - BS. Play the ball not the man.

It's not like I ever claimed it to be anything more than a personal categorization that to me appears logically quite sound... but then again the reading you did on the whole thing was obviously cursory indeed.

Again read it and regarded it as the BS that it was. It seems you have no knowledge about the military and can not defend such a baseless accusation of soldier being mercs without resorting to the typical BS in your first sentence.

Judging by your impassioned reaction to the term, I take "merc" is a four-letter word in more than the most literal sense in some circles ?

When you can distinguish from poor policies of the adminstration in sending soldiers to war - versus calling soldiers mercs then come back and discuss

Hurin_Rules

11-17-2005, 21:54

In regards to the issue of mercenaries:

I personally do not find any negative connotation in the word, though I can obviously understand why most people do (and why Redleg does). My interest is more academic. I have done essays on mercenaries in medieval Europe, when the distinction between regular soldier and mercenary was even more difficult to make. At that time, mercenaries were in many ways better than 'feudal' troops-- they stuck together over long periods of time (rather than serving only for 40 days a year), and in a sense were more 'regular' than the knights summoned by a feudal ban (who appear more like reservists than regulars). These mercenaries often had a highly developed code of honour (their lives would be lost without it) and were recognized as more professional than other troops.

In the research I did, however, there was always a nagging question that I was never able to answer: what constitutes a mercenary? Are knights mercenaries if they are serving anyone other than their liege lord? Do they have to be foreigners? What about when knights started receiving pay for their services, even when fighting for their own king? Are all those who are paid for their services mercenaries? And the idea of defining them by motivations is inherently problematic. Who knows why anyone fights, except the fighters themselves? This seems a flawed as a method of definition.

So, my attempts to discuss some of these issues were not at all intended to demonize modern armed forces, nor US troops in particular. I'm still trying to reach a satisfying definition of mercenary, because I never have been given one. US troops are no different than Canadian or British or Iraqi troops in this regard. My question was theoretical, not polemical, in its intent.

To avoid further confusion and flaming, I will start another thread on this issue.

Watchman

11-17-2005, 21:54

When you can distinguish from poor policies of the adminstration in sending soldiers to war - versus calling soldiers mercs then come back and discussI think I can consider that a yes.

Out of curiosity, if I went and said I was wholly in error on the whole merc thing, denounce all my arguments in that direction and generally take back the whole issue (which I can well do - I've no strong feelings about it), would that make you stop getting jammed on the question like an ant in tar ? 'Cause you know, the fact that your arguments are currently riding mostly on that issue (plus the WP thing, but I've nothing to do with that one) is getting fairly boring...

Papewaio

11-17-2005, 22:30

Since we are bringing up treaties I think we should refer to the grand-daddy of them when referring to warzones and the definition of Mercenaries:

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)

Article 47.-Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Note point 1 and you can understand why most soldiers do not want to be classified as mercs.

Redleg

11-17-2005, 22:38

I think I can consider that a yes.

Out of curiosity, if I went and said I was wholly in error on the whole merc thing, denounce all my arguments in that direction and generally take back the whole issue (which I can well do - I've no strong feelings about it), would that make you stop getting jammed on the question like an ant in tar ? 'Cause you know, the fact that your arguments are currently riding mostly on that issue (plus the WP thing, but I've nothing to do with that one) is getting fairly boring...

That is because those are the two issue which have been presented - both are in a nutshell incorrect and baseless. Stick to the actual violations of the rules of war and the conduct of such - which is the possible turning back of civilians males which resulted in civilians being unneccessarily caught in the war zone, and the issue of the administration attempting to cloud the issue by first denying the use of WP, then in error stating it was used of illumination. (why that error happen could also be debated - was it a error by an un-informed spokesperson - or was it a delibrate lie by the State Department.)

But as long as some wish to argue that soldiers are nothing but mercs and WP is a chemical munition - well your stuck with the arguement you have created.

Discuss the real issue not the red herrings that you have presented so far.

BTW - I do agree that an investigation from outside the United States Military needs to happen in regards to the civilians being turned around when they at first attempted to flee the combat zone.

Watchman

11-17-2005, 23:00

But as long as some wish to argue that soldiers are nothing but mercs...Oh Goddammit, give it a rest willya ? I never said they were mercenaries from any sort of official standpoint ferchrissakes. ~:pissed:

Redleg

11-17-2005, 23:08

Oh Goddammit, give it a rest willya ? I never said they were mercenaries from any sort of official standpoint ferchrissakes. ~:pissed:

You asked - I gave you an answer - and it seems that you don't like it because it stays on the topic in which you brought up in the first place. ~:eek:

Watchman

11-17-2005, 23:16

A topic to which you made some curious alterations.

Look, this is getting stupid and was pointless to begin with. Let's just drop the damn thing.

Redleg

11-17-2005, 23:22

A topic to which you made some curious alterations.

Actually the ill informed and curious alterations were made by yourself - ie your mentioning of soldiers as mercs and the red herring of WP being a chemical weapon. But don't let facts get in the way of emotional appeal.

Look, this is getting stupid and was pointless to begin with. Let's just drop the damn thing.

I am still waiting for the public withdraw of the statement; Soldiers of the United States Military are mercenaries. Call me anal if you wish - but your are the one that attempted to apply the term to soldiers not I. I do image however you and others will continue to attempt to state WP is a chemical munition because you have fallen typical leftist slant on incendary muntions and more so with smoke munitions started by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Watchman

11-17-2005, 23:27

*breep* I will have you know that I have consistently agreed with your view that WP is not a chemical weapon. Check if yourself if you want to.

Please refrain from being overly categorical. Although I dislike your way of getting stuck on that issue; it's pointless and looks silly.

Now can we stop this pointless pissing contest and get back to something sensible ? I'm through with the merc issue here; if you want to keep it up you'll have to do it by yourself.

Red Harvest

11-17-2005, 23:34

Actually the ill informed and curious alterations were made by yourself - ie your mentioning of soldiers as mercs and the red herring of WP being a chemical weapon. But don't let facts get in the way of emotional appeal.
Yes, that has been the funny thing about this and the other thread. There have been very relevant aspects where I feel some U.S. officials have things to answer for. Unfortunately, the discussion has been totally sidetracked by lengthy useless debates over techinical definitions that are already established and have been for a long time.

It's like debating whether something is red or blue, then checking to see where it falls according to an existing specification. If it is red, it is red. Continuing to call it blue after that is dishonest. One might not like the definition of red or blue, but there it is.

Kagemusha

11-17-2005, 23:56

BTW - I do agree that an investigation from outside the United States Military needs to happen in regards to the civilians being turned around when they at first attempted to flee the combat zone.

Its good to see that you are man of reason redleg.:bow:

Redleg

11-18-2005, 00:04

Its good to see that you are man of reason redleg.:bow:

Nah - I wouldn't call me reasonable when you call soldiers Mercenaries. :hide:

On a serious note - I do find that more then a little distrubing. Because if its true its a clear violation of both the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions - neither give the opposing forces wiggle room for sementics about what protections your suppose to give civilians who are leaving the combat area. For civilians that willing remain in the area - they put themselves at risk, but not allowing men to leave because of age - will prevent families from leaving because they do not want to be seperated in a chaotic (SP) situation.

Of everything brought out in this thread or the previous one - that is the only issue that has to be addressed - everything else is either emotional appeal - or just a side show compared to that. I wonder if anyone that has been reading the daily congressional news has seen if the United States Congress has weighed into the discussion about this type of allegation?

Kagemusha

11-18-2005, 00:23

I agree. Well im pretty sure this cant be hidden. Im sure we are going to here more about this matter sooner or later. I just hope this kind of treatment of civilians doent turn into normal practice.

Aurelian

11-19-2005, 07:48

I just ran into a new bit of information regarding Army policy on the use of WP:

US Army rules say: 'Don't use WP against people'
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 19 November 2005

The debate over the use of white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah took a new twist when it emerged the US Army teaches senior officers it is against the "laws of war" to fire the incendiary weapon at human targets.

A section from an instruction manual used by the US Army Command and General Staff School (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, makes clear that white phosphorus (WP) can be used to produce a smoke screen. But it adds: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

The row has raged since last year when US troops cleared the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah during a two-week operation that resulted in the deaths of 50 US Marines and more than 1,200 insurgents. Though the US at first denied it had used WP, the Pentagon has admitted using the weapon against insurgent targets. It insists the use of incendiary weapons against military targets is permitted.

But military specialists said the "laws of land warfare" taught at the CGSC are the guidelines that the US Army teaches as general principles. The GCSC generally teaches officers of senior rank such as major and colonel. John Pike, of the military studies group GlobalSecurity.Org, said: "These are the general principles about proportionality, doctrine and so on and so forth."

The Pentagon said it could not account for the discrepancy between its admission that WP was used at Fallujah and the guidance in the teaching manual. A Pentagon spokesman, Lt-Col Barry Venable, said: "For starters, the handbook doesn't say it's banned ... It's also important to remember that WP was used in Fallujah to help dislodge insurgent fighters from prepared defensive positions so that they could then be targeted with high-explosives ammunition."

He also quoted the Army Field Manual, which states: "The use of weapons which employ fire ... is not violative of international law. They should not, however, be employed in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering to individuals."

The 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits use of incendiaries against civilians and demands that forces using them against military targets take all available steps to avoid civilian casualties.

Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, said: "The evidence available suggests that that may not have been done."
LINK (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327926.ece)

The Army sounds pretty confused to me. The textbook says that it is "against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets". The Pentagon spokesman says "For starters, the handbook doesn't say it's banned". I guess he's saying that WP itself isn't banned (obviously). However, I fail to see the difference between 'employing WP against personnel targets' and 'dislodging insurgent fighters from prepared defensive positions so that they could then be targeted by high-explosive ammunition.' It seems to me as if that's still 'employing' WP against personnel targets. That's a pretty weak dodge.

QwertyMIDX

11-20-2005, 22:43

From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm

Chemical Weapons Convention

The debate about WP centres partly though not wholly on whether it is really a chemical weapon. Such weapons are outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to which the United States is a party.

The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

Its not the toxic properties of WP that are used in phosphorus munitions.

Thought experiment: Uncle Sam hits you with WP. Do you shout "Help, help, I'm being poisoned" or "Help, help I'm being burnt"?

Not illegal. QED.

Sorry English Assassin...

Ser Clegane

11-20-2005, 22:59

From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm

Sorry English Assassin...

I think for the sake of completeness you should also have quoted the following part:

So WP itself is not a chemical weapon and therefore not illegal. However, used in a certain way, it might become one. Not that "a certain way" can easily be defined, if at all.

The US can say therefore that this is not a chemical weapon and further, it argues that it is not the toxic properties but the heat from WP which causes the damage. And, this argument goes, since incendiary weapons are not covered by the CWC, therefore the use of WP against combatants is not prohibited.

QwertyMIDX

11-21-2005, 13:21

I actually hadn't read that far when I posted it. :hide:

Still, that's the BBC's statement, while the stuff I posted is not. Peter Kaiser obviously thinks that WP's caustic properties are its toxic properties.

Aurelian

11-22-2005, 01:37

Here is a good one. In a 1995 Pentagon intelligence document called "Possible Use of Phosphorus Chemical", the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters was described as a use of "chemical weapons".

Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’

To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren’t technically “chemical weapons.”

The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions” that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.”

But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature. A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies.

The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon’s legalistic parsings. The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a “terribly ill-conceived method,” demonstrating an Army interested “only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun.” And the dishonest efforts by Bush administration officials to deny and downplay that use only further undermines U.S. credibility abroad.

To paraphrase President Bush, this isn’t a question about what is legal, it’s about what is right. LINK (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/21/phosphorus-chemical/)

There are a number of links in the original article if you're so inclined.

Here is the original declassified document:

SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS
CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS
STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND
REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED.

TEXT: 1. DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED
BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ]. DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION, THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS --

A. IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES'
OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR
STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL
CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE
PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE
POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN
BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI
BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY
ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION
AT THIS TIME). APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS
THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ,
BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (U.S.) LED COALITION. THESE REPORTS OF POSSIBLE WP CHEMICAL WEAPON ATTACKS SPREAD QUICKLY AMONG THE KURDISH POPULACE IN ERBIL AND DOHUK. AS A RESULT, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KURDS FLED FROM THESE TWO AREAS AND CROSSED THE IRAQI BORDER INTO TURKEY. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, TURKISH AUTHORITIES ESTABLISHED SEVERAL REFUGEE CENTERS ALONG THE TURKISH-IRAQI BORDER. THE SITUATION OF KURDISH REFUGEES IN THESE CENTERS IS DESPERATE -- THEY HAVE NO SHELTERS, FOOD, WATER, AND MEDICAL FACILITIES (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).

B. IRAQI GOVERNMENT ULTIMATUM TO KURDS REBELS AND
REFUGEES -- ON OR AROUND 2 APRIL 1991, RADIO BAGHDAD ISSUED AN
ULTIMATUM TO THE KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES WHO FLED IRAQ AND
SETTLED IN REFUGEE CENTERS IN TURKEY. IN THE BROADCAST, IRAQI
AUTHORITIES WARNED THE KURDS THEY HAD 10 DAYS TO RETURN TO THEIR
TOWNS AND VILLAGES, OR ELSE FACE COMPLETE ANNIHILATION. THE IRAQI
BROADCAST ALSO PROMISED THE KURDS THAT NO RETALIATORY ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THEM IF THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).

C. KURDISH REBELS ARE LOSING IN THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST
SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES -- KURDISH REBELS WHO WERE FIGHTING IN
NORTHERN IRAQ WERE FORCED TO WITHDRAW INTO TURKEY BY TROOPS LOYAL TO SADDAM HUSSEIN. POOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND LACK OF HEAVY WEAPONS, AMMUNITION, AND SUPPLIES ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSES OF KURDISH LATEST DOWNFALL. THE ONLY GROUP CURRENTLY FIGHTING SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ IS THE "PESHMERGEH" (FRONT WARRIORS). HOWEVER, THIS GROUP IS ARMED ONLY WITH SMALL ARMS SUCH AS M-60 MACHINE-GUNS, AK-47 RIFLES AND UNKNOWN TYPES OF PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS.

D. KURDISH REBELS' EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING HELP FROM
U.S. LED COALITION FORCE -- THE KURDISH RESISTANCE'S DECISION TO
RISE UP AND FIGHT HUSSEIN'S FORCES WAS TRIGGERED BY THE
OVERWHELMING MILITARY POWER DISPLAYED BY THE COALITION DURING
"DESERT STORM" AND THE PROPAGANDA BROADCASTS OF VOICE OF AMERICA. KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES REALLY BELIEVED THAT EVENTUALLY THE COALITION FORCE WOULD COME TO HELP THEM IN THEIR FIGHTING AGAINST IRAQI FORCES. AFTER LEARNING OF U.S. PRESIDENT BUSH'S "STAY OUT OF IRAQ INTERNAL AFFAIRS" POLICY, KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES FELT AS THEY WERE SET UP AND LET DOWN BY THE COALITION FORCE (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).

E. SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REASON NOT TO USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS
AGAINST THE U.S. LED COALITION FORCE DURING "DESERT STORM" -- THE
GENERAL PERCEPTION AMONG THE KURDS IS THAT PRESIDENT HUSSEIN DID
NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE COALITION BECAUSE HE WAS
AFRAID THAT ALLIES WOULD RETALIATE BY USING BATTLEFIELD NUCLEAR
WEAPONS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).

COMMENTS: 1. (SOURCE COMMENT) - IRAQ USED WP IN ERBIL
AND DOHUK BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE KURDS TO PANIC AND FLEE FROM THE AREA. LINK (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html)

So, even the Pentagon gets confused about whether or not WP is a chemical weapon.

Soulforged

11-22-2005, 05:04

So let me get this, it's hard to eat, to much hypocresy in my sandwich.~:eek: So when the USA military uses WP against an enemy it's called "incendiary", and thus avoiding problems with international justice, but when an enemy uses it, it's called chemical? This tragi-comic, a real piece of "black" humor.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-22-2005, 05:08

So, Aury, what do you suggest?

Facing a non-conventional force in a built-up urban area, especially when that non-conv force is purposefully mixed in with a (mostly) innocent civilian population, is a thorny tactical problem.

Do we:

1) Use WP to force everyone out, harming some civilians

2) Target HE on suspected/conjectured stong points, killing some civilians "collateraly"

3) Obliterate the entire area regardless of civilian casualties

4) Go door to door taking horrible losses ourselves and still getting civilians killed

5) Quit, let the guys who use civilians as shields win, and go home

If I had the precise intel necessary for #2 with a minimum of civilian risk I'd order that, but lacking it.....

Hurin_Rules

11-22-2005, 05:50

How about an option #6:

Don't conquer nations that hate you.

Watchman

11-22-2005, 13:42

Put this way: it's a bit odd to angrily ask what else you're supposed to do other than step on the paint after you've painted yourself into a corner.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-22-2005, 15:08

Interesting how it always seems to come back to some variant on

Americani ite domum!

It's moments like these that make me wish we could and would. Perhaps ya'll need to see 8 years of a Pat Buchannan presidency.

Just A Girl

11-22-2005, 15:25

WHAT ARE YOU GUYS ARGUING ABOUT?

White phosperous Is NASTY.
You aint suposed to use it on people simple as,

Any 1 who thinks its ok Probably thinks Hiroshima was ok,
"Nuke the lot of them and thats the end of that."

Its babaric, although efective its fundimentaly wrong.
thats why rules are made to controll the usage of these things,

If America had signed and said we will play by the rules,
And iraq used White phosperous on Americans,
Could you imagine the up roar?

Thats not the case, So some of you are here saying the wepons are fine, Atleast less of our Soldiers died,

america seems to have decided they dont like the rules and have gone to play by them selfs again,

Some kids never make freinds do they :)

Gawain of Orkeny

11-22-2005, 16:51

Any 1 who thinks its ok Probably thinks Hiroshima was ok,
"Nuke the lot of them and thats the end of that."

Hiroshima saved lives.

If America had signed and said we will play by the rules,
And iraq used White phosperous on Americans,
Could you imagine the up roar?

Ah but we didnt. And do you think these people follow any rules?

america seems to have decided they dont like the rules and have gone to play by them selfs again,

Once again its America whos cheating while these brave insurgents go strictly by the rules. Get a grip.

Also why the hell are we investigating it then. We dont care right?

Just A Girl

11-22-2005, 17:00

Hiroshima saved lives.

do you think these people follow any rules?

Once again its America whos cheating while these brave insurgents go strictly by the rules. Get a grip.

Also why the hell are we investigating it then. We dont care right?

1 Hiroshima was Wrong Is wrong and people are still dying now,

2. Becous they dont follow rules Every 1 shoud neglect rules?
I think its you who should get a grip.

3. Your Investigating it becous Denying it did not work.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-22-2005, 17:04

1 Hiroshima was Wrong Is wrong and people are still dying now,

It was right. Also did you know its one of the healthiest places on earth to live? It seeems the bomb also killed wiped out a hell of a lot of germs.

2. Becous they dont follow rules Every 1 shoud neglect rules?
I think its you who should get a grip.

If Im in a fight with you for my life and your not following any rules Illl be damned if Im gonna follow any. This isnt a game of monopoly. Im gonna killl you anyway I can. And Ive been trained to do so ~:joker:

Meneldil

11-22-2005, 17:11

If Im in a fight with you for my life and your not following any rules Illl be damned if Im gonna follow any. This isnt a game of monopoly. Im gonna killl you anyway I can. And Ive been trained to do so ~:joker:

Always the same silly arguing. I'm fairly sure the Iraqi insurgency/AQ members are excusing their acts with the same argument. Way to go if you want foreign people to love america ~:wave:

Just A Girl

11-22-2005, 17:12

@ Gawain of orkney.
Well IMHO, its attitudes like yours that Cause situations where people get killed,

Its unfortunate that People hold Ignorant beliefs about life and How it is able to be taken away,

Lets just hope that people with your mental comprehention of desctruction and death dont ever get in to situations of power,

Its 1 thing to die,
Its a nother thing to live in pain and mizery for a nother 50 years becous some 1 said Who cares its a fight.

I supose ignorance is bliss,
Just a shame that i cant have the same ignorance on the matter as you seem to hold,

Its quite impressive

Fragony

11-22-2005, 17:25

Why bring up Hiroshima, that has absolutely nothing to do with the use of WP. In a conflict people get hurt, let's ban regular bullets now that we are on it, they hurt, let's do it oldschool with swords and axes. Wait, these hurt as well, oh why can't we just get along?

Franconicus

11-22-2005, 17:26

It was right. Also did you know its one of the healthiest places on earth to live? It seeems the bomb also killed wiped out a hell of a lot of germs.
Your cynism and arrogance is unbearable.

If Im in a fight with you for my life and your not following any rules Illl be damned if Im gonna follow any. This isnt a game of monopoly. Im gonna killl you anyway I can. And Ive been trained to do so ~:joker:
That is the reasons why the other nation do not want to follow the US any longer. Rules are made by the weak to keep the strong under control. They do it because there are usually so much more weak ones.

P.S.: Well spoken, Just A Girl. :bow: By the way, are you another personification of JAG?~;p

Fragony

11-22-2005, 17:40

That is the reasons why the other nation do not want to follow the US any longer.

Doesn't your new chancelor Merkel want to bring back the love? France is also quite a flirt lately, and most of europe is flexing it's muscles because of the Iran issue. Europe wants so much but they secretily expect the USA to to the work, all the time, and it are the same peacefull beings that are now on the first rank to whine about the massacres in yugoslavia, I remember it fondly 'OH NO THEY ARE BOMBING TEH HORROR'. I kind of understand that the USA is getting kind of sick of that attitude.

Franconicus

11-22-2005, 17:51

Fragony

11-22-2005, 18:03

You are right. Europe used to follow the US too long. Now they are not able to act on their own. But things can change. How much has changed the last 25 year.
I am a cold war kid and to me the US and its army still stands for freedom and democracy. However, I see that things have changed. The US are so used of fighting that they cannot see that the war is over.
And Merkel! If she wants to make love to the US it is fine. She can go there and stay there if she wants ~D

Of course we do, remember who your friends are, even the best friends have their issues from time to time. And our friends they are, here look,

http://www.digitalefotosite-corenjoke.com/margr_11.jpg

That is what it took for us to have this argument.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-22-2005, 19:43

Always the same silly arguing. I'm fairly sure the Iraqi insurgency/AQ members are excusing their acts with the same argument. Way to go if you want foreign people to love america

The same silly argument trying to compare our actions with those of the insurgents.If we used their tactics this would all be over by now.

Well IMHO, its attitudes like yours that Cause situations where people get killed,

Its unfortunate that People hold Ignorant beliefs about life and How it is able to be taken away,

Lets just hope that people with your mental comprehention of desctruction and death dont ever get in to situations of power,

Its 1 thing to die,
Its a nother thing to live in pain and mizery for a nother 50 years becous some 1 said Who cares its a fight.

I supose ignorance is bliss,
Just a shame that i cant have the same ignorance on the matter as you seem to hold,

Its quite impressive

Look Ive been to war and seen the faces of the dead. It is you who wallow in ignorance. I have no callous attitude towards war but I know the true harsh reality of it.

Your cynism and arrogance is unbearable.

Im neither. Thats a fact. I dont like the fact that so many people died. But it did indeed save far more lives than it cost. You see I unlike many of you live in the real world.

That is the reasons why the other nation do not want to follow the US any longer. Rules are made by the weak to keep the strong under control. They do it because there are usually so much more weak ones.

Well youve just pretty much described the UN and why it cant function.

Strike For The South

11-22-2005, 19:47

Finally I agree with Gawain agian the wrold is right.

Just A Girl

11-22-2005, 23:07

well i never knew youd been in the army gawain.
no wonder your a little brain washed, i supose it explains alot,
Your Sig for a start,

Note to self...
no point talking to gawain

Ser Clegane

11-22-2005, 23:12

well i never knew youd been in the army gawain.
no wonder your a little brain washed, i supose it explains alot,

I would appreciate if you would not indiscriminately insult all the (numerous, BTW) patrons on this board who served in the army.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-22-2005, 23:21

Cleggy:

Thanks. I've never served, but I appreciate those who have.

Just':

All war is horrible -- yet we do not seem to be able to rid ourselves of it.

That having been said, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were the most horrific events of that war. Among bombings the "winner" is the Tokyo fire raid, which killed many more people than either A-weapon. Many HAVE argued that it ultimately saved lives, by preventing the hideous casualties -- on both sides -- to have been expected from an invasion of Japan.

Such weapons are indiscriminate area effect weapons, and the USA has spent much time and treasure since in developing precision weaponry that would not have such an effect.

Unless you would embrace non-violence at all times and in all things, some horrible things are bound to happen -- even when the cause is just.

Redleg

11-22-2005, 23:23

I would appreciate if you would not indiscriminately insult all the (numerous, BTW) patrons on this board who served in the army.

Thanks - I shall refrain from making the comment I was going to make.

Franconicus

11-23-2005, 09:15

Im neither. Thats a fact. I dont like the fact that so many people died. But it did indeed save far more lives than it cost. You see I unlike many of you live in the real world.
You'd like to discuss Hiroshima? :croc:

Watchman

11-23-2005, 10:52

So now it's down to the good old "the end justifies the means" again ? The favourite logic of the terrorist, the zealot and the tyrant. Well, that may indeed be so, at least when the dice are down; but don't expect the posteriety to like it.

Just A Girl

11-23-2005, 12:12

I would appreciate if you would not indiscriminately insult all the (numerous, BTW) patrons on this board who served in the army.

I dont beleve all soldiers are brain washed,
"Draged in to army style of thinking, where Killing is A good thing to do all of a suden "

Some are, Some were just like that in the begning.
and some are quite normal.
"just went for the money Hopeing never to see a war"

So im sorry if it sounded like i was saying All soldiers are brain washed,
I Just ment it helps explain to me why gawain is brain washed IMO,

"IMHO people who havent been brain washed shouldnt think things like, Hiroshima was ok It saved lives"

Strike For The South

11-23-2005, 15:11

Hiroshima was ok it saved many lives. Am I the only one who has who has those ww2 in color videos. Where after the Marines took the island the japenesse would jump off the rocks and kill themsleves. The bomb saved many more than it killed

oh and I just noticed something Just A Girl

Redleg

11-23-2005, 15:59

You'd like to discuss Hiroshima? :croc:

Sure - go right ahead. You might be surprised if you are not aware of all the reasons behind the decision. But if you have not read Truman's papers - don't bother to discuss it with me.

Redleg

11-23-2005, 16:01

I dont beleve all soldiers are brain washed,
"Draged in to army style of thinking, where Killing is A good thing to do all of a suden "

Some are, Some were just like that in the begning.
and some are quite normal.
"just went for the money Hopeing never to see a war"

So im sorry if it sounded like i was saying All soldiers are brain washed,
I Just ment it helps explain to me why gawain is brain washed IMO,

"IMHO people who havent been brain washed shouldnt think things like, Hiroshima was ok It saved lives"

So that is suppose to excuse you for making a generalization about all whol serve in the military.

Should I make a generalization about intelligence and sentence structure?

Franconicus

11-23-2005, 17:18

Sure - go right ahead. You might be surprised if you are not aware of all the reasons behind the decision. But if you have not read Truman's papers - don't bother to discuss it with me.
Oh Redleg,
Of course I see the dominance of your erudition and I would never dare to challenge you. Further more I know that my knowledge of spoken and written English is insufficient and so I won't bother you. :bow:

I only dared to ask Gawain for this exchange of arguments and hoped he would let me learn from his superior argumentations.

P.S.: The little I know about nukes is from university and my military service in a nuke unit.

Redleg

11-23-2005, 17:56

Oh Redleg,
Of course I see the dominance of your erudition and I would never dare to challenge you. Further more I know that my knowledge of spoken and written English is insufficient and so I won't bother you. :bow:

I only dared to ask Gawain for this exchange of arguments and hoped he would let me learn from his superior argumentations.

P.S.: The little I know about nukes is from university and my military service in a nuke unit.

I spent over 15 years in the Artillery (total combination of National Guard, Reserves, and Active) during that time I had over 8 years was with special weapons training.

Assembly, firing, destruction of the weapon, transportation, and effects. Plus extensive NBC training both the short and the long course. I have written several papers on the subject for both School and Military.

To adequately discuss the use of the weapons on Japan - you have to have studied some of the documents at the Truman Library - and some from the Japanese War archives. Most are available on the web in one form or another.

If your just after the emotional appeal argument of the morality of the use of the weapons - even that requires a little research into the archives.

Just A Girl

11-23-2005, 21:10

So that is suppose to excuse you for making a generalization about all whol serve in the military.

Should I make a generalization about intelligence and sentence structure?

Im sorry if your interpretation of my statment offended you,
But i doubt that is my fault,

Redleg

11-23-2005, 21:25

Im sorry if your interpretation of my statment offended you,
But i doubt that is my fault,

Didn't offend me at all - it just shows how narrow minded some are when it comes to understanding soldiers.

Its a par for the corse, statement from individuals who have no clue about how the military functions - nor do they wish to actually learn. Some people just like being stuck on their generalizations without attempting to gain knowledge, it seems that maybe you fit this generalization very well.

Just A Girl

11-23-2005, 21:35

whatever you say,

you seem rather resentfull and bitter,

Thats a shame,
never mind.

Note to self....
no point talking to redleg

Strike For The South

11-23-2005, 21:39

whoa there lil feller if you dont want to talk to someone thats fine but you could at least have the class to say good day. Not to mention Redleg is respected on these boards unlike a few other posters ~:rolleyes:

Redleg

11-23-2005, 21:41

whatever you say,

you seem rather resentfull and bitter,

Thats a shame,
never mind.

Note to self....
no point talking to redleg

What a shame that you are rather resentfull and bitter toward soldiers that you feel it is necessary to make such a generalization.

Make a note to yourself concerning this.

Without the soldiers you decided to generalize as brainwashed - you wouldn't be living in a free society. (and I don't mean soldiers from the United States - I am talking about the brave men and women of the United Kingdom that stood up to Hilter and fought Nazi Germany.)

Just A Girl

11-23-2005, 21:56

Tell u the truth redleg,

I couldnt give a monkeys wether the romans owned the world, the nazis The brits Or whoever els wants it,

There all gonna make a hell of a mess and Say They were right to murder all those people,
So dont give me that.

Thanx for offering But i think wed be better off with no soldiers Ta,

"gas chambers, white phosperous, roting cows thrown over walls, nukes"

Who cares aslong as you think your right huh

Strike For The South

11-23-2005, 22:07

I hate idiots. I mean god forbid you write a sentnence that people could actually read.

Just A Girl

11-23-2005, 22:08

I hate idiots. I mean god forbid you write a sentnence that people could actually read.

Yes thats right,

Resort to insults,
Thats very clever of you.

Maby its you who fails to comprehend.

This is probably where i will stop talking to you,
But please feel free to spout more Childish remarks,

Strike For The South

11-23-2005, 22:13

Becuase calling soliders brainwashed isnt an insult~:rolleyes: and its not only that. Its the way you veiw soldiers you wouldnt be able to do half the things under stalin or hitler or pol pot. All you show is a lack of respect and it sickens me

Redleg

11-23-2005, 22:14

Just A Girl

11-23-2005, 22:20

i see, You just want to argue about any thing?

Thats fine by me,

PM me,
Just stop wasting these peoples times With your insane arguments of Justification about the use of white phospherous.

Most countrys officials decided
ITS NOT SUPOSED TO BE USED ON PEOPLE.
And then theres you guys with your
"I was in the forces for x Years."
"I know whats best for them"

If you want a pointless argument pm me,
I dont think il bother to post in here again Its redundant.

Redleg

11-23-2005, 22:35

i see, You just want to argue about any thing?

Thats fine by me,

Oh so you don't like being called on using a generalization is that it?

PM me,
Just stop wasting these peoples times With your insane arguments of Justification about the use of white phospherous.

This thread happens to be about just that subject - so it is approiate and revelant to discuss it here. Next I guess you will want to call me a war criminal for firing WP as a smoke screen in combat, as a marking round for an air strike in combat, and for setting a ammunition and petro dump on fire in combat? All these purposes are what the munition is designed for.

Most countrys officials decided
ITS NOT SUPOSED TO BE USED ON PEOPLE.
And then theres you guys with your
"I was in the forces for x Years."
"I know whats best for them"

Who said "I know what best for them." I was in the Field Artillery for over 15 years - I know how the munition is suppose to be used and against what type of targets. Maybe you should go back and read a few comments before making such a generalization. Again before calling someone resentfull and angry - maybe you should evaluate the way in which you decided to post on the topic. You get the treatment that the tone of your statement warrants.

If you want a pointless argument pm me,
I dont think il bother to post in here again Its redundant.

So it seems you can't handle any public discussion that doesn't follow exactly the way you want people to think. Is that it?

Franconicus

11-25-2005, 08:13

I spent over 15 years in the Artillery (total combination of National Guard, Reserves, and Active) during that time I had over 8 years was with special weapons training.

Assembly, firing, destruction of the weapon, transportation, and effects. Plus extensive NBC training both the short and the long course. I have written several papers on the subject for both School and Military.

To adequately discuss the use of the weapons on Japan - you have to have studied some of the documents at the Truman Library - and some from the Japanese War archives. Most are available on the web in one form or another.

If your just after the emotional appeal argument of the morality of the use of the weapons - even that requires a little research into the archives.
Redleg,
Once more, I have no problem to accept the dominance of your erudition! To me the use of nukelar weapons against towns is a terrible crime. However, I know that there are many people who think the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were right. Even Ser Clegane, who I think is a very integer person. So I was looking forward to discuss this topic with you and others who share your point of view and learn new arguments.

But I see that I do not have the right to bother you. I will take your advice and search the net.:bow:

Redleg

11-25-2005, 16:10

Redleg,
Once more, I have no problem to accept the dominance of your erudition! To me the use of nukelar weapons against towns is a terrible crime. However, I know that there are many people who think the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were right. Even Ser Clegane, who I think is a very integer person. So I was looking forward to discuss this topic with you and others who share your point of view and learn new arguments.

But I see that I do not have the right to bother you. I will take your advice and search the net.:bow:

Well start a new thread - and I will share - but not in this one. The Truman Library though is a great place to start if you want to review it from source documents.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-25-2005, 18:16

I only dared to ask Gawain for this exchange of arguments and hoped he would let me learn from his superior argumentations.

OK Ill bite. What would you like to know?

Tribesman

11-25-2005, 22:46

Tribesman

11-25-2005, 22:50

OK Ill bite. What would you like to know?
What is Jordan , and what land is allocated to the state of Israel ~D ~D ~D
I await your superior arguementations , but please try and stick to facts ~;)

Redleg

11-25-2005, 23:03

This thread happens to be about just that subject - so it is approiate and revelant to discuss it here.
Next I guess you will want to call me a war criminal for firing WP as a smoke screen in combat, as a marking round for an air strike in combat, and for setting a ammunition and petro dump on fire in combat? All these purposes are what the munition is designed for.

Do you mind if I butt in here Red ~;) Isn't this thread about people using these munitions outside the scope of what they are designed for .

Correct -

So as you used them in the scope of their design then your protestations about possible war crimes are just hot air .

Of course it was hot air - or a strawman - because of the comments made by some about the munitions. Two can play the game that is going on around here with this discussion. Anyone care to call me a war criminal because of my ordering 4 howitzers to shoot the munitions at enemy targets - know that when I shot those munitions at the proscribed targets - I also knew that real life human beings were in the area that I shot those muntions - you know Iraqi soldiers.

Though I must admit that your writings on chemical warfare have been educational What chemical warfare - I have fired smoke in combat and training. I have fired incendaries in training and in combat.

Again it seems you show a bit of a strawman here - apply the correct terms - or not - but now you see why I use the strawman arguement that your attempting to criticize. Calling smoke and incedenary muntions chemical warfare is along the same lines as my strawman above - which you correctly identified - but seems you can't not recongize in your own writings.

especially your mustard gas(thats a misnomer isn't it) in training exercises

Lewisite (SP) and we don't use it in training exercises. I have been around left over agent that stays on the ground for many many years - and its restricted to one area that I am aware of in the United States. Its CS that is used ,common name is Tear gas.

, I encountered that wonderful liquid at an old but still active (at the time) British Army depot , nice stuff eh~:eek:

Been around worse at Dugway -

So are your protestations just a smoke screen as it were~D

As long as people attempt to call it chemical warfare - I will protest such by informing them where they are incorrect - you can call it smoke screen if you wish - but those who call White phosphorous a chemical weapon are incorrect.

You know full well the implications of this issue , as it relates to the real issue that has been raised but largely ignored .

Yes the real issue is being ignored chasing the drama of calling smoke munitions and incedary munitions - chemical weapons. However I don't see you jumping off that band wagon and attempting to inform people that they are blowing smoke in labeling them in the wrong terms. When you do that - I will dicuss the real issues involved in better detail - but it seems many are just stuck on emotional appeal and generalizations without knowing what they are talking about.

Though it must be said that it appears with the latest operations that they have finally taken steps to partially reduce the possible implications of war crimes allegations.

The war crime that possiblity exists will remain until an investigation is done and determines wether or not someone ordered civilians back into the combat zone in which they were trying to flee. Someone needs to be charged if the article Aurelin posted has any facts and truth in it.

Tribesman

11-26-2005, 00:06

Redleg

11-26-2005, 00:19

Calling smoke and incedenary muntions chemical warfare is along the same lines as my strawman above - which you correctly identified - but seems you can't not recongize in your own writings.
Not at all , if the munition is used as it is specified to be used then that is conventional , if however it is used to exploit the caustic/toxic properties of the chemicals contained then it is indeed chemical warfare , even if it is only to scare the people by those properties .And using it in civilian areas is indeed a war crime even if you havn't signed up to the latest protocols as it is in earlier protocals that have been signed .

Tsk Tsk

Shake and Bake falls into the latter

Actually the way the article described the effects is correct - however the targeting was not how I learned that fire mission. The bake was to set the fuel on fire on the T72 and T62 tanks, have to cracked the fuel tanks on the back.
.

Still on the bandwagon Red, and I ain't jumping off till there are answers , it will be a long ride , it's lucky I bought a picnic for the hayride.~:joker:

Well as long as you want to use Strawman arguements - I will use them in return

What chemical warfare - I have fired smoke in combat and training. I have fired incendaries in training and in combat.

Didn't you write somewhere about the effects of Mustard on soldiers on the training grounds , was that all residual?

I believe that is what I stated - that it remains on the ground and 50 years later was still effecting soldiers if they walked through it and kicked up dust.

Its CS that is used ,common name is Tear gas.

A variant of , Tear gas/CS isn't a blister agent is it , mouth and eye protection are sufficient to counter that .

Nope Tear Gas/CS is used to create confidence in the NBC protective gear.

Been around worse at Dugway -

yeah , same as , and that was at a defense contractor rather than a defense establishment , this crap is in all sorts of unusual places isn't it , it does freak you out a little when men in funny spacesuits start rounding you up for decontamination don't it .

No what is worse is when you see the sign and don't pay attention - like I watched a young LT do when I was a private.... The Military Police were not very nice to him... ~:joker:

Tribesman

11-26-2005, 00:44

The bake was to set the fuel on fire on the T72 and T62 tanks, have to cracked the fuel tanks on the back

Were there many russian made tanks deployed in Fallujah ?

Nope Tear Gas/CS is used to create confidence in the NBC protective gear.

But as it isn't effective on skin how does that work ?????Its like saying heres a snorkel you can breath in the water when you are swimming , now lets swim down to the Titanic .

No what is worse is when you see the sign and don't pay attention
Ah but there was no signs for either the gas rounds or the radioactive material that had been dumped and forgotten about, it turned their profitable redevolopments into very expensive liabilities .

Redleg

11-26-2005, 01:03

The bake was to set the fuel on fire on the T72 and T62 tanks, have to cracked the fuel tanks on the back

Were there many russian made tanks deployed in Fallujah ?

Nope - but the terms used do not constitute chemical warfare because the muntion was used as an incedary, and a smoke muntion.

Nope Tear Gas/CS is used to create confidence in the NBC protective gear.

But as it isn't effective on skin how does that work ?????Its like saying heres a snorkel you can breath in the water when you are swimming , now lets swim down to the Titanic .

But on the NBC gear - and you will find out. And that is funny that it doesn't work on skin - it seemed to make mine skin itch slightly.

No what is worse is when you see the sign and don't pay attention
Ah but there was no signs for either the gas rounds or the radioactive material that had been dumped and forgotten about, it turned their profitable redevolopments into very expensive liabilities .

You have never been to Dugway have you? THere signs where they tested the muntions, there are signs where the muntions were stored (and later removed, but the signs remained.)

But some places they did remove the signs - but who's fault was that - the government or a private agency?

Tribesman

11-26-2005, 01:36

Redleg

11-26-2005, 02:36

the muntion was used as an incedary, and a smoke muntion.

Really , I thought it was being used for psycological warfare , what category does that fit into ?
Besides which what is that litle thing about using incendiaries against civilian areas ? oh yeah thats a no no just like torture , unless you are refusing to say that it is a no no , eh .

Never said it wasn't a problem - just that it is not a chemical weapon.

Psycological warfare is legal by the way.....

it seemed to make mine skin itch slightly.

Ah a slight dermatological irritant for sensative skin types , I thought you were more thick skinned than that Red~D ~D ~D Or are you talking about the NBC gear ? Be specific dammit , it can lead to Laurel and Hardy type discussions ~;)

The CS - you have to take your mask off in the chamber - not only did it burn the crap out of my eyes, made my nose run - like a waterfall, along with my eyes tearing up so quickly that I could not see, and my neck itched like hell as soon as the protection came off.

It was quite unpleasant - one of the many reasons I stay away from riots - CS just sucks to be near for me.

Adrian II

11-26-2005, 02:49

(..) it is not a chemical weapon.Yes it is. https://img31.imageshack.us/img31/3465/blotebillengif8to.gif~D

Redleg

11-26-2005, 03:00

Yes it is. https://img31.imageshack.us/img31/3465/blotebillengif8to.gif~D

I see your still making an hoof mammals rear end of yourself.

~:eek: ~:joker:

Adrian II

11-26-2005, 03:07

I see your still making an hoof mammals rear end of yourself.

~:eek: ~:joker:You will understand that I don't give a rodent's fundament. https://img259.imageshack.us/img259/6645/sunglassescool5el.gif

Redleg

11-26-2005, 03:39

You will understand that I don't give a rodent's fundament. https://img259.imageshack.us/img259/6645/sunglassescool5el.gif

Well that pretty much sums up your knowledge on the subject also. :fishbowl:

Adrian II

11-26-2005, 03:44

Well that pretty much sums up your knowledge on the subject also. :fishbowl:Speaking of knowledge, did you know what the Pentagon called Saddam's use of white phosphorus against Kurds in 1995?

Redleg

11-26-2005, 04:01

Speaking of knowledge, did you know what the Pentagon called Saddam's use of white phosphorus against Kurds in 1995?

Oh your wanting to go back on topic now is it. Why don't you enlighten me on what they called it in 1995? Why you are at it - care to describe the delivery system for the White Phosphorous and how it was used?

That is the key - the how the munition is used based upon how it is deployed on the ground.

It seems the report your refering to leaves that part out - it only mentions the delivery systems used - not the how. The report was also used by the military to validate that the cease fire conditions were being violated by Iraq. Care to also guess what happened in 1995 after the use by Iraq?

Would I call the Pentagon officials hypocrits for their attempting to define White Phosphorous as a chemical round - back in 1995 to support the overfly missions that were happening during that time frame - sure I would.

Oh by the way if your really wanting to play that game - we can add that to the category of WMD and there you go - just finding White Phosphorous shells in Iraq would justify the invasion....~:eek: Care to guess how common White Phosphorous is in the Artillery muntion inventory, and how many were found in Iraq?

Adrian II

11-26-2005, 04:17

Oh your wanting to go back on topic now is it. Why don't you enlighten me on what they called it in 1995? Why you are at it - care to describe the delivery system for the White Phosphorous and how it was used?
PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).

Link (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html)
The episode was in February 1991, the document dates from 1995. Apparently what makes all the difference is not just the method of use, but the nature of the user as well. ~:joker:

Redleg

11-26-2005, 04:32

The episode was in February 1991, the document dates from 1995. Apparently what makes all the difference is not just the method of use, but the nature of the user as well. ~:joker:

February 1991 - care to guess what was happening in 1991 at that exact same time? Uhmm - I wonder why those gas rounds sitting on the Iraqi gun line were not used.....when I passed by them as we over-ran the Defensive Belt of the Iraqi Army in the Desert......

So which year was it Adrian 1991 or 1995? Your seeming to have a problem identifing what year it was. Is the year a moving target depending on what type of arguement you wish to have?

Again care to guess what was happening in 1995 to generate such a report from the Pentagon?.

Soulforged

11-26-2005, 04:46

Oh your wanting to go back on topic now is it. Why don't you enlighten me on what they called it in 1995? Why you are at it - care to describe the delivery system for the White Phosphorous and how it was used?
You mean that it's only legal if used by USA?~;)
No seriously...Let me see if I understand you. The weapon is only considered chemical if it's used in a certain way. So supposedly Saddam's minions were using it in a way that tended to chemical warfare, while USA used it in a legitime way. Did I understand it?

Strike For The South

11-26-2005, 04:59

You mean that it's only legal if used by USA?~;)
No seriously...Let me see if I understand you. The weapon is only considered chemical if it's used in a certain way. So supposedly Saddam's minions were using it in a way that tended to chemical warfare, while USA used it in a legitime way. Did I understand it?

finally someone trully understands. Get outta our way were america

Redleg

11-26-2005, 05:25

You mean that it's only legal if used by USA?~;)

Not at all - care to guess how many nations use the munition in the way it is intended?

No seriously...Let me see if I understand you. The weapon is only considered chemical if it's used in a certain way.

To put it simply it is not a chemical weapon - however it can be used in a way that runs counter to the rules of war and several treaties concerning the use of incedenaries in civilian areas.

So supposedly Saddam's minions were using it in a way that tended to chemical warfare, while USA used it in a legitime way. Did I understand it?

Nope - the way that the United States used it in Fallujah can be considered running counter to the rules of war and the use of incedanries on civilian areas. But it is not a chemical munition in the matter in which the United States uses it in its Artillery and Mortar rounds. The rounds are made to function as smoke for the base ejecting rounds and incedaries for the bursting rounds. This is in complaince with the chemical weapons treaties.

This has a decent write up on the way that the United States Military white phosphorous munitions work

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm

THen one needs to look at the revelant treaty and documents - the definitions are helpful to know

. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

and

9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:

(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes;

(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons;

(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;

(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.

http://www.cwc.gov/treaty/articles/art-02_html

Now what everyone should be looking at is this document versus wether or not white phosphorous is a chemical round is this.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument

http://www.defenselink.mil/acq/acic/treaties/ccwapl/artbyart_pro3.htm

But it seems some would like to label it a chemical weapon for the emotional appeal of the arguement - not for the facts. A violation of a treaty occured - but it was not the chemical weapon's treaty.

Adrian II

11-26-2005, 11:08

February 1991 - care to guess what was happening in 1991 at that exact same time? Uhmm - I wonder why those gas rounds sitting on the Iraqi gun line were not used.....when I passed by them as we over-ran the Defensive Belt of the Iraqi Army in the Desert......

So which year was it Adrian 1991 or 1995? Your seeming to have a problem identifing what year it was. Is the year a moving target depending on what type of arguement you wish to have?

Again care to guess what was happening in 1995 to generate such a report from the Pentagon?.Read the darn document. God you are lazy sometimes.

Tribesman

11-26-2005, 11:36

God you are lazy sometimes.
God is not Lazy , he is just taking a break to ponder his next move , when you have already created everything what is there left to do ?

Adrian II

11-26-2005, 11:40

God you are lazy sometimes.
God is not Lazy , he is just taking a break to ponder his next move , when you have already created everything what is there left to do ?Destroy it piece by piece in gruesome ways. That is what I have suspected for some time.

I mean nobody is watching Him, right? ~;)

Tribesman

11-26-2005, 11:54

I mean nobody is watching Him, right?
No , Lazlo Woodbine is on the case , he is searching for God in Godalming . the big fella had to do an insurance fraud you see , the creation was a present for Mrs. God and of course after a present like that she obviously wanted a bigger one on the next occasion . Unable to deliver something bigger than everything he had to fake his death to avoid dissapointing the missus . The insurance companies thought they were onto a winner selling life insurance to an immortal being and are very unhappy about the payout . It is rumoured that he is in Godalming indulging in his taste for virgins of the Jewish persuation, a habit he picked up about 2000 years ago .

Oh ..copyright Robert Rankin , just to keep it legal ~;)

Redleg

11-26-2005, 16:08

Read the darn document. God you are lazy sometimes.

LOL - I read the document - I am asking you a question. It seems you don't want to answer it do you. It seems you might be the lazy one..~:eek:

So what was happening in February 1991?

What was happening in 1995 that would generate such a report?

Which year was it Adrain 1991 or 1995? But it seems like most of the media blogs and the media - you have decided to read the report without really understanding what it states.

Adrian II

11-26-2005, 16:19

LOL - I read the document - I am asking you a question. It seems you don't want to answer it do you. It seems you might be the lazy one..~:eek:

So what was happening in February 1991?

What was happening in 1995 that would generate such a report?

Which year was it Adrain 1991 or 1995?Dear Redleg, the answers are given in the document.

The point is that the Pentagon in 1995 called WP a 'chemical weapon' because it suited them, whereas these days they don't because it does not suit them. The label is political. As Ser Clegane has remarked earlier, it is not the label that makes WP morally right or wrong, but the method of use in particular circumstances.

Redleg

11-26-2005, 16:27

Dear Redleg, the answers are given in the document.

Like I said I read the thing - I know what it states. However your the one that stated

Speaking of knowledge, did you know what the Pentagon called Saddam's use of white phosphorus against Kurds in 1995?

So one could conclude with this statement you really didn't read the document. And you called me lazy - laughable.

The point is that the Pentagon in 1995 called WP a 'chemical weapon' because it suited them, whereas these days they don't because it does not suit them. The label is political. As Ser Clegane has remarked earlier, it is not the label that makes WP morally right or wrong, but the method of use in particular circumstances.

Actually it is not a conclusion at all. Its an intelligence report where the officer or agent who took the report captured the information as it was given to him.

Read the header of the report.

SUBJ: IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS BY IRAQ IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN
BORDERS; AND CURRENT SITUATION OF KURDISH RESISTANCE AND REFUGEES
(U)

WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED
INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED

Meneldil

11-26-2005, 16:31

Speaking of knowledge, did you know what the Pentagon called Saddam's use of white phosphorus against Kurds in 1995?

I might be missing the word issue, but I think 1995 refers to year the Pentagon qualified the WP as chemical, not the year of the bombing against kurds (which happened in 1991).

Adrian II

11-26-2005, 20:21

I might be missing the word issue, but I think 1995 refers to year the Pentagon qualified the WP as chemical, not the year of the bombing against kurds (which happened in 1991).Exactly. A 1995 document describing an episode in 1991. The document also stipulates that Saddam did not use WP against American troops because they might consider it an excuse for nuclear retaliation. Actually, if phosphorus is used as a chemical weapon its effects are worse than those of mustard gas and some other stuff Saddam used against Kurds.

Meneldil

11-26-2005, 20:41

Hum, I'm kinda lost then
So, according to the Pentagon, WP is not used as a chemical weapon, except if your name is Saddam and if you're at war with the US (in which case you are the possible target of a nuclear attack) ?

Redleg

11-26-2005, 20:58

Exactly. A 1995 document describing an episode in 1991. The document also stipulates that Saddam did not use WP against American troops because they might consider it an excuse for nuclear retaliation. Actually, if phosphorus is used as a chemical weapon its effects are worse than those of mustard gas and some other stuff Saddam used against Kurds.

LOL - where are you reading that - it talks about not using nerve gas.

APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS
THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ,
BECAUSE
THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES
(U.S.) LED COALITION.

and farther down

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REASON NOT TO USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS
AGAINST THE U.S. LED COALITION FORCE DURING "DESERT STORM" -- THE
GENERAL PERCEPTION AMONG THE KURDS IS THAT PRESIDENT HUSSEIN DID
NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE COALITION BECAUSE HE WAS
AFRAID THAT ALLIES WOULD RETALIATE BY USING BATTLEFIELD NUCLEAR
WEAPONS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).

Someone needs to learn how to read intelligence reports, beside President Bush ~:rolleyes:

Adrian II

11-26-2005, 21:06

LOL - where are you reading that - it talks about not using nerve gas.Mustard gas is a blistering agent. Saddam used it against Kurds in 1988.

The author of the document explains why, according to his Kurdish sources, WP was used against them but not against U.S. soldiers in 1991. The U.S. could retaliate with nuclear, the Kurds couldn't.

Soulforged

11-26-2005, 21:17

But it seems some would like to label it a chemical weapon for the emotional appeal of the arguement - not for the facts. A violation of a treaty occured - but it was not the chemical weapon's treaty.So the Pentagon did it also for the emotional appeal? Or did it used it to justify the war against Saddam? Or perhaps to get support from the international community? And later they started to name the WP as an incendiary weapon, they made a quick turn arround, covering all bases, and now stating that, that previous statement (ie WP= chemical weapon) was incorrect, and that the correct one is the new definition. Further more I don't think that the only weapons forbid by the international so called community are the chemical and certain incendiary ones, there must be others wich could belong to both categories.

Redleg

11-26-2005, 21:27

Mustard gas is a blistering agent. Saddam used it against Kurds in 1988.

The author of the document explains why, according to his Kurdish sources, WP was used against them but not against U.S. soldiers in 1991. The U.S. could retaliate with nuclear, the Kurds couldn't.

Let me break it down for you.

The report is a 1995 regeneration of the 1991 Intelligence report - what you have not answered - nor does the sources that are throwing this out across the web and the blogs - is why was the Intelligence Report regenerated in 1995?

The orginial report date and reasons are in the header.

HEADER R 170142Z APR 91

Then the reader must pay attention to this area of the document.

*********** THIS IS A COMBINED MESSAGE ************/
BODY PASS: (U) DIA FOR ITF/JIC/OICC/; DA FOR DAMI-FII-E

COUNTRY: (U) IRAQ (IZ); TURKEY (TU); IRAN (IR).

SUBJ: IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS BY IRAQ IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN
BORDERS; AND CURRENT SITUATION OF KURDISH RESISTANCE AND REFUGEES
(U)

WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED
INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED

It tells you that it is an intelligence spot report - information has not been evaluated.

One needs to find the report that shows what the evaluation is to reach an understanding what the conclusions of the intelligence.

Then you must pay attention to the first lettered paragraph. I will skip the first line since it tells the source of the information,

. IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES'
OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR
STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL
CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL
TO
PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE
PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE
POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN
BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI
BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY
ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION
AT
THIS TIME). APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS
THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ,
BECAUSE
THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES
(U.S.) LED COALITION. THESE REPORTS OF POSSIBLE WP CHEMICAL WEAPON
ATTACKS SPREAD QUICKLY AMONG THE KURDISH POPULACE IN ERBIL AND
DOHUK. AS A RESULT, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KURDS FLED FROM THESE
TWO AREAS AND CROSSED THE IRAQI BORDER INTO TURKEY. IN RESPONSE TO
THIS, TURKISH AUTHORITIES ESTABLISHED SEVERAL REFUGEE CENTERS
ALONG
THE TURKISH-IRAQI BORDER. THE SITUATION OF KURDISH REFUGEES IN
THESE CENTERS IS DESPERATE -- THEY HAVE NO SHELTERS, FOOD, WATER,
AND MEDICAL FACILITIES (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).

Now your reading what this states incorrectly. It states that there was a possible use of WP chemical by Artillery and Helicopeter Gunships - Now notice what this doesn't state.

Then it clearly states that Iraq did not use Nerve Gas because they were afraid of possible retaliation.

Now no where does it confirm in that paragraph does it confirm the use of WP chemicals by Iraq. Just a spot report about the possible use.

B . IRAQI GOVERNMENT ULTIMATUM TO KURDS REBELS AND
REFUGEES -- ON OR AROUND 2 APRIL 1991, RADIO BAGHDAD ISSUED AN
ULTIMATUM TO THE KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES WHO FLED IRAQ AND
SETTLED IN REFUGEE CENTERS IN TURKEY. IN THE BROADCAST, IRAQI
AUTHORITIES WARNED THE KURDS THEY HAD 10 DAYS TO RETURN TO THEIR
TOWNS AND VILLAGES, OR ELSE FACE COMPLETE ANNIHILATION. THE IRAQI
BROADCAST ALSO PROMISED THE KURDS THAT NO RETALIATORY ACTION WOULD
BE TAKEN AGAINST THEM IF THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER (NO
FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).

. KURDISH REBELS ARE LOSING IN THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST
SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES -- KURDISH REBELS WHO WERE FIGHTING IN
NORTHERN IRAQ WERE FORCED TO WITHDRAW INTO TURKEY BY TROOPS LOYAL
TO SADDAM HUSSEIN. POOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND LACK OF
HEAVY WEAPONS, AMMUNITION, AND SUPPLIES ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSES OF
KURDISH LATEST DOWNFALL. THE ONLY GROUP CURRENTLY FIGHTING SADDAM
HUSSEIN'S FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ IS THE "PESHMERGEH" (FRONT
WARRIORS). HOWEVER, THIS GROUP IS ARMED ONLY WITH SMALL ARMS SUCH
AS M-60 MACHINE-GUNS, AK-47 RIFLES AND UNKNOWN TYPES OF PISTOLS
AND
REVOLVERS.
D. KURDISH REBELS' EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING HELP FROM
U.S. LED COALITION FORCE -- THE KURDISH RESISTANCE'S DECISION TO
RISE UP AND FIGHT HUSSEIN'S FORCES WAS TRIGGERED BY THE
OVERWHELMING MILITARY POWER DISPLAYED BY THE COALITION DURING
"DESERT STORM" AND THE PROPAGANDA BROADCASTS OF VOICE OF AMERICA.
KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES REALLY BELIEVED THAT EVENTUALLY THE
COALITION FORCE WOULD COME TO HELP THEM IN THEIR FIGHTING AGAINST
IRAQI FORCES. AFTER LEARNING OF U.S. PRESIDENT BUSH'S "STAY OUT OF
IRAQ INTERNAL AFFAIRS" POLICY, KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES FELT AS
THEY WERE SET UP AND LET DOWN BY THE COALITION FORCE (NO FURTHER
INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).

An intelligence update on the situation - notice that it is a seperate line item - hince it each seperate intelligence entry has its own paragraph.

Now to the kicker - and where many are not reading the report correctly

E. SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REASON NOT TO USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS
AGAINST THE U.S. LED COALITION FORCE DURING "DESERT STORM" -- THE
GENERAL PERCEPTION AMONG THE KURDS IS THAT PRESIDENT HUSSEIN DID
NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE COALITION BECAUSE HE WAS
AFRAID THAT ALLIES WOULD RETALIATE BY USING BATTLEFIELD NUCLEAR
WEAPONS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).

Now where in that paragraph does it talk about the type of chemical weapon? Now read this paragraph closely because I would not want to call you lazy.

COMMENTS: 1. (SOURCE COMMENT) - IRAQ USED WP IN ERBIL
AND DOHUK BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE KURDS TO PANIC AND FLEE FROM THE
AREA.
2. [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ]

3. (SOURCE COMMENT) - MOST OF THE SMUGGLING OF REFUGEES
ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS OCCURRED AT NIGHT.
4. (FIELD COMMENT) - ACCORDING TO THE TIMES' WORLD
ATLAS, THE TWO IRAQI PROVINCES ERBIL AND DOHUK ARE ALSO CALLED
ARBIL AND DIHOK RESPECTIVELY.

Comments of the agency compiling the report.

Now your comments regarding this report only show what you believe the report to state - the wording is very clear in this report - its an intelligence officer reporting his source information up through the channells.

Hurin_Rules

11-26-2005, 23:25

That's all well and good, Redleg, but doesn't the mere fact that the document (and the army field manual noted earlier in the thread) refer to 'WP chemical weapons' mean that they considered WP to be a chemical weapon when used in the fashion stated?

e.g.: 'IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS'

Obviously, someone in the US military and US intelligence classified WP as a chemical weapon when used in the manner discussed, no?

If phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, why are the using the term 'phosphorous chemical weapons'?

Adrian II

11-27-2005, 00:00

If phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, why are the using the term 'phosphorous chemical weapons'?Because it suits propaganda purposes to use or dismiss the word 'chemical' depending on the situation. I believe even Redleg recognises that now.

The interesting thing is there are actually a lot of parallels between Halabja (1988) and Fallujah (2004). 'Halabja' is generally considered to have been Saddam's worst war crime. The town was smaller than Fallujah, it had about 100.000 inhabitants (Fallujah had about 250.000) and it was occupied by enemy forces, both Iranian soldiers and Kurdish peshmergas who were allied to Iran, and mainly Kurdish civilians. They were bombed with mustard gas, sarin and other chemical agents which left between 500 and 5000 dead, mostly civilians. In Fallujah too, most of the 50.000 people left in the town during the attack were civilians. The Halabja episode was not recognised as a war crime by the outside world at the time, again mainly for propaganda purposes. The civilian victims were called 'collateral damage' and U.S. diplomats were instructed to help protect their ally Saddam from an outcry of world opinion.

Tribesman

11-27-2005, 00:32

The civilian victims were called 'collateral damage' and U.S. diplomats were instructed to help protect their ally Saddam from an outcry of world opinion.

Don't be silly Adrian , if they were going to protect their ally they would have blamed the Iranians for the killing of the ....ummm .....oh forget that ~;)

Adrian II

11-27-2005, 00:37

Don't be silly Adrian , if they were going to protect their ally they would have blamed the Iranians for the killing of the ....ummm .....oh forget that ~;)You mean they tried to pin Halabja on Iran? ~:eek:

Who would have thunk Washington could make such a mistake after all the nerve gasses and precursors and delivery instructions the United States gave or sold to Saddam Hussein during 1980-1984. What with all the American sarin gas, the mustard gas components, the 'agricultural' helicopters to deliver the stuff at the closest possible range.. I mean... oh forget that too. ~:)

Redleg

11-27-2005, 01:57

That's all well and good, Redleg, but doesn't the mere fact that the document (and the army field manual noted earlier in the thread) refer to 'WP chemical weapons' mean that they considered WP to be a chemical weapon when used in the fashion stated?

The field manual you are refering to is not a munitions manual - it covers what is considered the laws of war and the international treaties that have been signed -it is not a munitions manual. The use of white phosphorous can be a violation of the laws of war - as alreadly noted as an incednary against civilians - but to call it a chemical weapon in the form that the United States uses it in artillery and mortar shells is incorrect.

e.g.: 'IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL
WEAPONS'

Obviously, someone in the US military and US intelligence classified WP as a chemical weapon when used in the manner discussed, no?

Obviousily the intelligence gather of this report gather it just like it was reported to him by his source - which is exactly the way its suppose to go. Care to guess how many ways you can deliver White Phosphorous as an incedary muntion - and how you deliver it as a chemical weapon. The report mentions artillery and helicopters gunships - but it does not say how the muntion was deployed on the ground.

If phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, why are the using the term 'phosphorous chemical weapons'?

You might want to ask the source who was a Kurd who passed the information to the intelligence agent.

So I am still waiting for you and a few others to call me a war criminal because I have shot white phosphorous rounds at the enemy in 1991.

Redleg

11-27-2005, 02:01

Because it suits propaganda purposes to use or dismiss the word 'chemical' depending on the situation. I believe even Redleg recognises that now.

Oh yes - your using it as propaganda - which you have already been informed of several times.

The interesting thing is there are actually a lot of parallels between Halabja (1988) and Fallujah (2004). 'Halabja' is generally considered to have been Saddam's worst war crime. The town was smaller than Fallujah, it had about 100.000 inhabitants (Fallujah had about 250.000) and it was occupied by enemy forces, both Iranian soldiers and Kurdish peshmergas who were allied to Iran, and mainly Kurdish civilians. They were bombed with mustard gas, sarin and other chemical agents which left between 500 and 5000 dead, mostly civilians. In Fallujah too, most of the 50.000 people left in the town during the attack were civilians. The Halabja episode was not recognised as a war crime by the outside world at the time, again mainly for propaganda purposes. The civilian victims were called 'collateral damage' and U.S. diplomats were instructed to help protect their ally Saddam from an outcry of world opinion.

Saddam for using chemical weapons on his civilians - the United States for using an incedary on enemy positions within an area where there was known to be civilians.

Big difference between the two - once you sort out the propaganda of calling white phosphorous a chemical weapon.

Adrian II

11-27-2005, 02:13

Saddam for using chemical weapons on his civilians (..)No, you misread again. He used them against an enemy stronghold. Halabja was held by Iranian troops and Kurdish irregulars with a lot of civilians between them.

Tribesman

11-27-2005, 02:29

Saddam for using chemical weapons on his civilians - the United States for using an incedary on enemy positions within an area where there was known to be civilians.

Hmmm would that be incendiaries properly used .
And saddam was using weapons against civilian areas that contained domestic terrorists and foriegn fighters as well as civilians
but to call it a chemical weapon in the form that the United States uses it in artillery and mortar shells is incorrect.

Were they properly used Red ? if not then all your arguements about the correct designation of a chemical compound when it is properly used is just a smoke screen (pardon the pun) .

You mean they tried to pin Halabja on Iran?

No they would never do that , neither would they claim that there was no evidence that chemical weapons had been used . Well not until they said it was probably Iraq , then definately Iraq , then oh look at all the evidence we have ~;)
You see only nasty people use substances that lead to nasty incidents and as Saddam wasn't nasty at the time then he cannot have used them , until they decided that he was nasty so he definately used them , which is why the US cannot have used them as it doesn't do nasty things ~:handball:

Adrian II

11-27-2005, 02:41

You see only nasty people use substances that lead to nasty incidents and as Saddam wasn't nasty at the time then he cannot have used them , until they decided that he was nasty so he definately used them , which is why the US cannot have used them as it doesn't do nasty things ~:handball:Yes, and there is so much more to forget... If only you and I had time to write a book about it. ~:rolleyes:

Hurin_Rules

11-27-2005, 02:52

Redleg

11-27-2005, 04:02

No, you misread again. He used them against an enemy stronghold. Halabja was held by Iranian troops and Kurdish irregulars with a lot of civilians between them.

That makes us about even - since you have been misreading the difference between an incedary muntion and a chemical munition. ~:eek:

Soulforged

11-27-2005, 04:02

So I am still waiting for you and a few others to call me a war criminal because I have shot white phosphorous rounds at the enemy in 1991.Ok lets not try to made ourself victims here. The point of thread was to discuss USA using Wp in an iligitime way. So in this case, did it use it correctly or did it use it incorrectly?
Though you know my personal position regarding this kind of matters, I think that no one is in the possition to judge the other, so no one will call you a war "criminal".

Redleg

11-27-2005, 04:05

Saddam for using chemical weapons on his civilians - the United States for using an incedary on enemy positions within an area where there was known to be civilians.

Hmmm would that be incendiaries properly used .
And saddam was using weapons against civilian areas that contained domestic terrorists and foriegn fighters as well as civilians

Now how many times have I stated that they were probably used - oh wait I haven't.

but to call it a chemical weapon in the form that the United States uses it in artillery and mortar shells is incorrect.

Were they properly used Red ? if not then all your arguements about the correct designation of a chemical compound when it is properly used is just a smoke screen (pardon the pun) .

Again - have I stated that the rounds were used in accordance with the rules regulating incendiaries - oh wait I haven't. Calling an incednfiary a chemical round is incorrect.

So the smoke screen is yours.

Soulforged

11-27-2005, 04:09

Again - have I stated that the rounds were used in accordance with the rules regulating incendiaries - oh wait I haven't. Calling an incednfiary a chemical round is incorrect.But in your opinion were they?~:confused: Or not. That's pretty simple and will almost end with this pointless discussion no?

Redleg

11-27-2005, 04:22

Ok Redleg, lets try to understand what exactly we are disagreeing about, and whether there is some common ground here.

Firstly, I am not trying to call you a war criminal. In fact, we seem to be in agreement (correct me if I am wrong) on a few things:

Okay I am game

1. When WP is used to mark targets, it is not a chemical weapon.

When it is used to mark targets it is the correct use of the incendary munition.

2. There are some uses of WP that would qualify it as a chemical weapon (when used as an incendiary, for example).

Not at all - in the incident your attempting - it is being used as an incendiary - which is the correct application of the round. Now where and what the target is can be a violation of the agreements signed.

3. There are other uses where it is debatable whether WP could/should be considered a chemical weapon.

White phosphorous is a smoke munition or an incendiary - nothing more.

Now, I am assuming we are in agreement so far.

Nope

Are you arguing, then, that the use of WP by American troops in Fallujah etc. was #3 rather than #2? Please clarify.

If the report that Aurelian linked is correct then the incendiary rounds fired into the Fallujah are a possible violation of the 1980 agreement already linked about firing incendiaries into a civilian occupied area. Since they turned civilians back into the combat zone - the hands of the United States should of be constraint to only engaging postivily identified enemy combatants. Area fire weapons have a tendency to effect anyone within the effective radius of the munition.

For my part, it seems to me that evidence suggests US troops have used WP in an illegal fashion, namely, as an incendiary to 'root out' terrorists when normal rounds proved ineffectual.

That we are in agreement - not because of the enemy being in the city - but because civilians were known to be in the area.

Is there anything I've stated here that you would disagree with?

Done -

For white phosphorous to be considered a chemical agent - it has to be delivered in a means that the rounds do not function as incendaries or smoke munitions.

Some of the posters here are focusing on calling it a chemical weapon - and not on the actual possible violations of war. That being the use of an incendary within a civilian occupied area - and the possible forcing civilians who were acting as refugees back into the combat area.

Again - I am waiting on the European's to come to the United States and arrest me for shooting White Phosporous rounds at the enemy during 1991 - because if you think its a chemical weapon - then you must continue with the strawman arguement and call for the arrest of all soldiers who have ever fired the round at an enemy target.

Plus your validating the reasons for the invasion because Iraq also had White Phosporous muntions with the arguement of calling it a chemical munition. (another strawman for your arguement about labeling white phosporous as a chemical munition.)

Redleg

11-27-2005, 04:24

But in your opinion were they?~:confused: Or not. That's pretty simple and will almost end with this pointless discussion no?

Oh I have stated exactly what I think about firing incendaries into a location where it is know to consist of mainly civilians. However calling the muntion a chemical round is still incorrect no matter how you attempt to dice it.

Soulforged

11-27-2005, 05:28

Oh I have stated exactly what I think about firing incendaries into a location where it is know to consist of mainly civilians. However calling the muntion a chemical round is still incorrect no matter how you attempt to dice it.
Whatever, that was the point of the discussion, not the classification of white phosporus, wich appears to be circumstancial at best.

Redleg

11-27-2005, 05:37

Whatever, that was the point of the discussion, not the classification of white phosporus, wich appears to be circumstancial at best.

Then your missing the arguement that Adrian and the rest are doing - they are not focusing on the real issue - but the issue of it being a chemical weapon - which would be incorrect - it is an incendiary.

Tribesman

11-27-2005, 11:49

Redleg

11-27-2005, 15:12

White phosphorous is a smoke munition or an incendiary - nothing more.

Oh but there is more isn't there , when it is used as a psycological weapon .
Just as , on a slightly different topic , burning bodies can be done for hygenic reasons , but doing it or using it for psycological effect is a no no .

Its an incendiary muntion - the psycological effect does not make it a no-no. We have already discussed what makes it a no-no - using it in an area where civilians are known to be is the no-no

Now how many times have I stated that they were probably used - oh wait I haven't.

Properly Red , Properly~;) check what you are quoting :bow:

Oh I have - the munition were used in a city - which I have stated I would not have done.

Area fire weapons have a tendency to effect anyone within the effective radius of the munition.

Wow thats a blast from the past , remember the topic on AC-130s , or the use of tank rounds to "obtain a better view through a crowd"~D

Your sarcasm is noted for what it is.

edit to add ,they are not focusing on the real issue - but the issue of it being a chemical weapon - which would be incorrect - it is an incendiary.

Yes but an incendiary can be a chemical weapon , as can a smoke generation round , and your government and military has described their use as chemical warfare has it not .

Notice your terms here Tribesman the incndiary is not a chemical weapon - because its called an incendiary. Again focusing on calling it a chemical weapon ignores the real issue concerning the use of an incendiary in an area were civilians were known to be - since it seems according to the article Aurelin posted that civilians were turned back to the city.