Printable View
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 .
That is weak Gawain, really weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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...
You are right using WP is not illegal for US, but turning civilians back in the fighting zone is.:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Well thats your usual strong reply.Quote:
That is weak Gawain, really weak.
Sums it up nicelyQuote:
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...
...and suggests you consistently fail to grasp the point of the issue.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.Quote:
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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 .
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 ?
YawnQuote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.
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.Quote:
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.
When you can distinguish from poor policies of the adminstration in sending soldiers to war - versus calling soldiers mercs then come back and discussQuote:
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 ?
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.
I think I can consider that a yes.Quote:
When you can distinguish from poor policies of the adminstration in sending soldiers to war - versus calling soldiers mercs then come back and discuss
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...
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:
Note point 1 and you can understand why most soldiers do not want to be classified as mercs.Quote:
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.
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.
Oh Goddammit, give it a rest willya ? I never said they were mercenaries from any sort of official standpoint ferchrissakes. ~:pissed:Quote:
But as long as some wish to argue that soldiers are nothing but mercs...
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.Quote:
Look, this is getting stupid and was pointless to begin with. Let's just drop the damn thing.
*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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Its good to see that you are man of reason redleg.:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Nah - I wouldn't call me reasonable when you call soldiers Mercenaries. :hide:Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
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?
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.
I just ran into a new bit of information regarding Army policy on the use of WP:
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.Quote:
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
From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4442988.stm
Quote:
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."
Sorry English Assassin...Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
I think for the sake of completeness you should also have quoted the following part:Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
Quote:
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.
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.
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".
There are a number of links in the original article if you're so inclined.Quote:
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
Here is the original declassified document:
So, even the Pentagon gets confused about whether or not WP is a chemical weapon.Quote:
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
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.