Printable View
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?
Your cynism and arrogance is unbearable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
P.S.: Well spoken, Just A Girl. :bow: By the way, are you another personification of JAG?~;p
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
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,Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
http://www.digitalefotosite-corenjoke.com/margr_11.jpg
That is what it took for us to have this argument.
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.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
Your cynism and arrogance is unbearable.
Well youve just pretty much described the UN and why it cant function.Quote:
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.
Finally I agree with Gawain agian the wrold is right.
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
I would appreciate if you would not indiscriminately insult all the (numerous, BTW) patrons on this board who served in the army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Thanks - I shall refrain from making the comment I was going to make.
You'd like to discuss Hiroshima? :croc:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.
I dont beleve all soldiers are brain washed,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
"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"
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
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?
Oh Redleg,Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
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.
whatever you say,
you seem rather resentfull and bitter,
Thats a shame,
never mind.
Note to self....
no point talking to redleg
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:
What a shame that you are rather resentfull and bitter toward soldiers that you feel it is necessary to make such a generalization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
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.)
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
I hate idiots. I mean god forbid you write a sentnence that people could actually read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
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,
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
Hence you get back to the earlier statements - and the individual who is bitter and resentful is not I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
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.
Oh so you don't like being called on using a generalization is that it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Girl
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.Quote:
PM me,
Just stop wasting these peoples times With your insane arguments of Justification about the use of white phospherous.
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.Quote:
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"
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?Quote:
If you want a pointless argument pm me,
I dont think il bother to post in here again Its redundant.
Redleg,Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
OK Ill bite. What would you like to know?Quote:
I only dared to ask Gawain for this exchange of arguments and hoped he would let me learn from his superior argumentations.
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 . So as you used them in the scope of their design then your protestations about possible war crimes are just hot air . Though I must admit that your writings on chemical warfare have been educational , especially your mustard gas(thats a misnomer isn't it) in training exercises , I encountered that wonderful liquid at an old but still active (at the time) British Army depot , nice stuff eh~:eek:
So are your protestations just a smoke screen as it were~D
You know full well the implications of this issue , as it relates to the real issue that has been raised but largely ignored .
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.
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 ~;)
Correct -Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.Quote:
So as you used them in the scope of their design then your protestations about possible war crimes are just hot air .
What chemical warfare - I have fired smoke in combat and training. I have fired incendaries in training and in combat.Quote:
Though I must admit that your writings on chemical warfare have been educational
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.
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.Quote:
especially your mustard gas(thats a misnomer isn't it) in training exercises
Been around worse at Dugway -Quote:
, I encountered that wonderful liquid at an old but still active (at the time) British Army depot , nice stuff eh~:eek:
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.Quote:
So are your protestations just a smoke screen as it were~D
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.Quote:
You know full well the implications of this issue , as it relates to the real issue that has been raised but largely ignored .
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.Quote:
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.
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 .
Shake and Bake falls into the latter .
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:
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?
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 .
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 .
Tsk TskQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.Quote:
Shake and Bake falls into the latter
.
Well as long as you want to use Strawman arguements - I will use them in returnQuote:
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:
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.Quote:
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?
Nope Tear Gas/CS is used to create confidence in the NBC protective gear.Quote:
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 .
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:Quote:
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 .
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 .
Nope - but the terms used do not constitute chemical warfare because the muntion was used as an incedary, and a smoke muntion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.Quote:
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 .
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.)Quote:
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 .
But some places they did remove the signs - but who's fault was that - the government or a private agency?
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 .
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 ~;)
Never said it wasn't a problem - just that it is not a chemical weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Psycological warfare is legal by the way.....
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.Quote:
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 ~;)
It was quite unpleasant - one of the many reasons I stay away from riots - CS just sucks to be near for me.
Yes it is. https://img31.imageshack.us/img31/34...llengif8to.gif~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I see your still making an hoof mammals rear end of yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
~:eek: ~:joker:
You will understand that I don't give a rodent's fundament. https://img259.imageshack.us/img259/...sescool5el.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Well that pretty much sums up your knowledge on the subject also. :fishbowl:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Speaking of knowledge, did you know what the Pentagon called Saddam's use of white phosphorus against Kurds in 1995?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Department of Defense
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......Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
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?.
You mean that it's only legal if used by USA?~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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 americaQuote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Not at all - care to guess how many nations use the munition in the way it is intended?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.Quote:
No seriously...Let me see if I understand you. The weapon is only considered chemical if it's used in a certain way.
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.Quote:
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?
This has a decent write up on the way that the United States Military white phosphorous munitions work
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nitions/wp.htm
THen one needs to look at the revelant treaty and documents - the definitions are helpful to know
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWC
and
Quote:
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/...byart_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.
Read the darn document. God you are lazy sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I mean nobody is watching Him, right? ~;)
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 ~;)
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
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.
Dear Redleg, the answers are given in the document.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Like I said I read the thing - I know what it states. However your the one that statedQuote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
So one could conclude with this statement you really didn't read the document. And you called me lazy - laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian
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.Quote:
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.
Read the header of the report.
Quote:
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
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
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) ?
LOL - where are you reading that - it talks about not using nerve gas.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
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:
Mustard gas is a blistering agent. Saddam used it against Kurds in 1988.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
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.
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'?
Because it suits propaganda purposes to use or dismiss the word 'chemical' depending on the situation. I believe even Redleg recognises that now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
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.
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 ~;)
You mean they tried to pin Halabja on Iran? ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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. ~:)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
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.Quote:
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?
You might want to ask the source who was a Kurd who passed the information to the intelligence agent.Quote:
If phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, why are the using the term 'phosphorous chemical weapons'?
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.
Oh yes - your using it as propaganda - which you have already been informed of several times.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
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.Quote:
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.
Big difference between the two - once you sort out the propaganda of calling white phosphorous a chemical weapon.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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:
Yes, and there is so much more to forget... If only you and I had time to write a book about it. ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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:
1. When WP is used to mark targets, it is not a chemical weapon.
2. There are some uses of WP that would qualify it as a chemical weapon (when used as an incendiary, for example).
3. There are other uses where it is debatable whether WP could/should be considered a chemical weapon.
Now, I am assuming we are in agreement so far.
Are you arguing, then, that the use of WP by American troops in Fallujah etc. was #3 rather than #2? Please clarify.
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.
Is there anything I've stated here that you would disagree with?
That makes us about even - since you have been misreading the difference between an incedary muntion and a chemical munition. ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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".