U.S. using phosphorus bombs in Iraq

Quote:

---

The "ill-informed" comment seems a bit haughty in this context.

---

Yes, his ill-informed comment certainly was haughty. You see, that is what I was responding to. Combustion is still the key, this is an incindiary. It is not a chemical weapon like Sarin that just happens to burn and is being intentionally misclassified with a wink and a nod.

He is making a false argument, trying to extend something that has been used for decades into the "chemical weapons" category. It is DISHONEST to do so.

Water is a chemical. So is salt. I've actually seen news reports of a "hazardous chemical spill" from an over the road tanker truck that turned out to be saltwater. (Caught the "newsflash" watching the news when the spill happened locally.) Broadening the chemical weapons definition so that it extends to anything is not going to help...unless you want nations to back away from that protocol too.

As for the toxicity of phosphorous, whoop-tee-doo. It is not a primary effect of the rounds, it is secondary...very secondary. Slow poisoning is not the effect the round is being used for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I don't think it matters what government is currently in the white house, [...] tactics and politics are two different things

---

Actually, tactics and strategy and politics are very much the same thing. If your army goes killing civilians you'll lose goodwill for your nation, which has severe political effects. It may cause foreign nations or simply terrorist organizations to want to threaten your country, which may force your politicians in a later situation to choose to start a war, which is a political decision that would never have been needed otherwise.

The main point of discussion in my post was how the army refuses to give guarantees, promises and help for the civilians to leave the area. Taking that very point so carelessly has negative political effects, apart from being cruel. If you use normal guns it's harder to kill an entire block of civilians by accident. If you use chemical weapons of mass-destruction, then you certainly have to make sure you choose a good strategy for making all civilians leave the area. A such strategy is the one I mentioned. You need to have guarantees for the civilians, have camps where they get food, shelter and protection for the period they have to leave their homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

You need to have guarantees for the civilians, have camps where they get food, shelter and protection for the period they have to leave their homes.

---

You can’t guarantee civilians safety, not in a war zone and not in a city like Fallujah. For the US or collation forces to do so would be… stupid. One civilian dies and the world would be pointing fingers and saying “but you said they would be safe” and “the US lied”. It is a bit of a catch 22 in the fact that in order to protect the civilians you need to get the bad guys out but in order to get the bad guys out civilians will get hurt. In the case of Fallujah there were better, more civilian friendly ways of doing things but for whatever reason they weren’t chosen and as I am not there I freely give my consent to the military to take care of these matters as they think would be best. In this case they must have thought that the use of WP was best and I am ok with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Actually, tactics and strategy and politics are very much the same thing. If your army goes killing civilians you'll lose goodwill for your nation, which has severe political effects. It may cause foreign nations or simply terrorist organizations to want to threaten your country, which may force your politicians in a later situation to choose to start a war, which is a political decision that would never have been needed otherwise.

The main point of discussion in my post was how the army refuses to give guarantees, promises and help for the civilians to leave the area. Taking that very point so carelessly has negative political effects, apart from being cruel. If you use normal guns it's harder to kill an entire block of civilians by accident. If you use chemical weapons of mass-destruction, then you certainly have to make sure you choose a good strategy for making all civilians leave the area. A such strategy is the one I mentioned. You need to have guarantees for the civilians, have camps where they get food, shelter and protection for the period they have to leave their homes.

---

If you put it that way I have to agree (but I would like to have the use of these weapons in urban area's confirmed). And congrats with your 1000th post in hell ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

You can’t guarantee civilians safety, not in a war zone and not in a city like Fallujah. For the US or collation forces to do so would be… stupid. One civilian dies and the world would be pointing fingers and saying “but you said they would be safe” and “the US lied”. It is a bit of a catch 22 in the fact that in order to protect the civilians you need to get the bad guys out but in order to get the bad guys out civilians will get hurt. In the case of Fallujah there were better, more civilian friendly ways of doing things but for whatever reason they weren’t chosen and as I am not there I freely give my consent to the military to take care of these matters as they think would be best. In this case they must have thought that the use of WP was best and I am ok with it.

---

You have to work out exact details of course. For instance say if a civilian makes it out of the war zone and gets to a camp say 10 miles or more away, they'll be guaranteed to get water, food and somewhere to sleep, and no US Army personell will hurt them. I'm sorry, i should have clarified beforehand that this is what I meant.

Im waiting for the story, US uses 50 cals in Iraq. LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

You have to work out exact details of course. For instance say if a civilian makes it out of the war zone and gets to a camp say 10 miles or more away, they'll be guaranteed to get water, food and somewhere to sleep, and no US Army personell will hurt them. I'm sorry, i should have clarified beforehand that this is what I meant.

---

Makes sense to me. :bow:

And congrats on 1,000!~:cheers:

~:cheers: :barrel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Im waiting for the story, US uses 50 cals in Iraq. LOL.

---

What you mean we were not suppose to use the .50 cal, M2 Machine guns ~;)

I guess some would not want to here how the vulcans were used during Desert Storm either?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Oh there is much I could tell you about the effects of WP and fuel air explosives - but you would probably end up calling me a war criminal - so why should I bother?

---

You do not provide any alternative sources on Fallujah that might change our perspective. Not even alternative views. Now you are second-guessing Yours Truly. That is not cricket.

If you have any indication that the Iraqi Health Ministry, established by Paul Bremer, is an anti-American propaganda institute, please share it with us, Redleg. As far as I know they do not have a record of spreading disinformation.

It seems they were truly at a loss what to make of the wounds and symptoms they encountered when investigating human and animal remains in Fallujah.

Btw, are there any UN observers in Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

You do not provide any alternative sources on Fallujah that might change our perspective. Not even alternative views.

---

LOL - you don't want your perspective changed the terms you use in this thread already show that.

Quote:

---

Now you are second-guessing Yours Truly. That is not cricket.

---

Nope you have already stated that you believe about WP - I shot WP at enemy troops positions to mark them for aircraft and to burn an ammo dump during Desert Storm. Not hard to image what you would say about it given the nature of your comments in this thread.

Quote:

---

If you have any indication that the Iraqi Health Ministry, established by Paul Bremer, is an anti-American propaganda institute, please share it with us, Redleg. As far as I know they do not have a record of spreading disinformation.

---

Try again - your attempting a strawman arguement here - I said the comment was I wonder if you even read this before you posted it. It has so much propaganda in it you really have to sort out the crap from the truth.

Now care to speak about weapons effects and how it looks on the ground in an honest way - I will explain to you why the comments from the health institute are full of crap (see below) - however one first must understand how the different munitions work - the health ministry does not know - his comments are of a nature of guess work - however it seems you want to believe them lock stock and barrell.

Quote:

---

It seems they were truly at a loss what to make of the wounds and symptoms they encountered when investigating human and animal remains in Fallujah.

---

Again care to learn how fuel air explosives work and how WP works?

If there is no air available to breath because it is being used to make the muntions work as they are intended to do, What happens to the people and animals within the area effected by the munition?

Comments about the Military hiding the fact that the weapons were used and that they might not have been used correctly are approiate in my opinion, making claims of chemical and nuclear weapons well is crap if one understands what is in the inventory of munitions and how those weapons work.

Chemical or nuclear weapons being used is extremely doubtful - the chemical weapon use would have had harmful effects on the soldiers walking through the environement after their use. Do you see anyone in Bio suits handling the causalites? Are the soldiers in the video walking around in MOPP gear?

Care to guess how long mustard gas can stay on the ground in the desert? I will give you a clue - I used to train in the desert at Dugway Utah when I was in the Utah National Guard and a few times during my active duty - guess on average how many soldiers are treated for mustard gas burns in their lungs (very minor) every training cycle - especially those that get lost and wonder into the wrong area - which is clearly marked. It would remain even longer in the shadows and cranies of a city block.

Nerve agents leave a tell on how the person dies - its an obvious death - and not something a doctor would have to guess at once he began to investigate the cause of death. Again same for mustard gas - it has a tell on how people or animals die from being exposed. Not something that would confuse a doctor.

Care to guess how the nuclear weapons work which is also being accused of being used? A simple test would confirm or deny such an allegation - however its a research your going to have to do - I don't feel like educating you any farther on the effects of weapons since its obvious that you have already reached a preconcieved notion about the events based upon speclutation, propaganda and incorrect data.

But I won't go into the nuclear weapon data as of yet because it is obvious that nukes were not used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

What you mean we were not suppose to use the .50 cal, M2 Machine guns ~;)

I guess some would not want to here how the vulcans were used during Desert Storm either?

---

Aren't some soldiers using shotguns? Don't the special forces guys use hollow point rounds? Where are the press stories about this?

While we are at it, what are the insurgents doing using mosques for cover and supply? ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

There are other chemicals used militarily that are not technically considered to be "chemical weapon agents," such as:

Defoliants that destroy vegetation, but are not immediately toxic to human beings. (Agent Orange, for instance, used by the United States in Vietnam, contained dioxins and is known for its long-term cancer effects and for causing genetic damage leading to serious birth deformities.)
Incendiary or explosive chemicals (such as napalm, extensively used by the United States in Vietnam, or dynamite) because their destructive effects are primarily due to fire or explosive force, and not direct chemical action.

---

Don't know if it will solve your arguing about either phosphorus is a chimical weapon or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Now, to further corroborate the story, the Christian Science Monitor published a link this morning to an Iraqi Health Ministry investigation into what happened in Fallujah.

He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.
...

“I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.”

---

So he says US troops used mustard gas, nerve, gas, nuclear weapons and WP. Sounds pretty credible to me. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So he says US troops used mustard gas, nerve, gas, nuclear weapons and WP.

---

He says he is not excluding any of them.

Quote:

---

Sounds pretty credible to me.

---

More credible than your government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

He says he is not excluding any of them.

---

No, he said there was supposed proof of mustard and nerve gas and that he wouldn't exclude nuclear weapons. Saying we used nerve/mustard gas in Fallujah is patently ridiculous and only serves to discredit his other assertions.

Read the excerpt:

Quote:

---

He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So he says US troops used mustard gas, nerve, gas, nuclear weapons and WP. Sounds pretty credible to me. ~:rolleyes:

---

In a similar story the same guy said the US has harnessed the power of the Bogyman, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and is using it on the innocent people.~;)

Oh yah, sarcasm on.~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

He says he is not excluding any of them.More credible than your government.

---

No, not more credible. Despite Dubya's credibility problems, none of the stuff you are spouting adds up. You are trying to manufacture a chemical arms story out of traditional weapons. And yes, incindiaries are traditional, going back to greek fire and the like.

Considering how many casualties we took, an argument that we didn't do enough to protect civilians is bogus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

No, he said there was supposed proof of mustard and nerve gas and that he wouldn't exclude nuclear weapons. Saying we used nerve/mustard gas in Fallujah is patently ridiculous and only serves to discredit his other assertions.

---

The point is they didn't know what to make of it, particularly the burns and the dead animals. Hence: 'I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.'

Now here is a tough one for you - which round was it allocated for?

Wrong subject Red , the allocation isn't for improving the projectiles , it is for improving the production of the chemical .

Phosphorous burns. Just like gunpowder. I guess that means we better ban gunpowder if its 'chemical warfare'.

Yep and if people were getting covered in gunpowder then set alight there would be a big outrage over it wouldn't there .~:rolleyes:

It is attitudes like you are exhibiting right now that keep us wary of participating more in global treaties like this. Your abuse of the system is abhorrent to us.
Oh the irony , defending the actions of a country who refuses to sign up to treaties on Chemical warfare yet invades another country over allegations of not complyimng with chemical warfare treaties .
Abuse of the system eh ? totally abhorrent~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

The point is they didn't know what to make of it, particularly the burns and the dead animals. Hence: 'I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.'

---

One more time, so maybe it'll sink in.... From the article you posted:

Quote:

---

He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

One more time, so maybe it'll sink in...

---

Yeah, they were probably wrong on the kind of gas. I already said that the Italian documentary sheds new light on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

The point is they didn't know what to make of it, particularly the burns and the dead animals. Hence: 'I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.'

---

Once again go back and study the effects of the different muntions that he alledged were used.

Mustard Gas leaves a sign on the body and the environment
Nerve Gas leaves a sign on the body and the environment
Nuclear Weapons leaves a tell in the environment - and on the body.

Fuel Air explosives take the oxygen out of the immediate area to fuel the explosive. To include a shock wave that can create damage not only to the structures near the explosion - but maybe to the animals near the explosion. Doesn't take much of a shock to kill many domestic animals or birds for that matter

edit:

And finally in a fire how many die from the heat - and how many die simply form the lack of oxygen and/or smoke inhalation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Once again go back and study the effects of the different muntions that he alleged were used.

Mustard Gas leaves a sign on the body and the environment
Nerve Gas leaves a sign on the body and the environment
Nuclear Weapons leaves a tell in the environment - and on the body.

Fuel Air explosives take the oxygen out of the immediate area to fuel the explosive.

---

He was probably wrong because they didn't know what to make of the burns and other symptoms. So where do you think this leaves us with regard to those symptoms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Fuel Air explosives take the oxygen out of the immediate area to fuel the explosive. To include a shock wave that can create damage not only to the structures near the explosion - but maybe to the animals near the explosion. Doesn't take much of a shock to kill many domestic animals or birds for that matter

edit:

And finally in a fire how many die from the heat - and how many die simply form the lack of oxygen and/or smoke inhalation.

---

I think that's the most likely explanation. But again, there is so much misinformation and flat out BS being thrown around on this that it's tough to get any reliable facts. I just take a heaping spoonful of common sense with these reports- why would US forces need to use chemical weapons when we have so many other numerous ways to get the job done as good or better without all the risks? It just doesnt pass the smell test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

(..) why would US forces need to use chemical weapons when we have so many other numerous ways to get the job done as good or better without all the risks?

---

You don't, and that may be an important part of the explanation. You had way too few troops in the ground from the very beginning; that is why enclaves like Fallujah could flourish, get organised and arm themselves. And the chemicals may have been used to prevent unusual numbers of American casualties as a result of house to house fighting in that town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

He was probably wrong because they didn't know what to make of the burns and other symptoms. So where do you think this leaves us with regard to those symptoms?

---

That there was no chemical used - that the symptoms based upon smoke, fire, and no oxygen.

Calling it chemical warfare is just spin -

Again I if you want to criticize the use of WP smoke in a built up area - I will gladly argue that point - probably in a way that would surprise you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

You don't, and that may be an important part of the explanation. You had way too few troops in the ground from the very beginning; that is why enclaves like Fallujah could flourish, get organised and arm themselves. And the chemicals may have been used to prevent unusual numbers of American casualties as a result of house to house fighting in that town.

---

Smoke muntions are not chemical weapons. Chemical weapons leave a tell - just like nuclear.

Again if Chemical weapons were used why is the town still occupied?
Why are the pictures of the troops shown without the soldiers being in MOPP gear?

Why are the civilians handling the bodies not in full bio suits or chemical protection suits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

That there was no chemical used - that the symptoms based upon smoke, fire, and no oxygen.

---

The wounds have to be explained. The nature of the burns in combination with the intact clothes strongly suggests the use of a chemical as the killer.

Quote:

---

Again if Chemical weapons were used why is the town still occupied?

---

Because once it has been allowed to burn out, phosphorus disappears. It says so in the link you provided: 'White phosphorus burns spontaneously in air. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears.'