U.S. using phosphorus bombs in Iraq

**Adrian II** · 11-11-2005, 02:43

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Wasn't it your countrymen who as Blue Hats helped round up/turnover the Bosnians so that Serbs could execute them? Yeah, we really don't need folks like this making the judgement calls.

Yes, it was. And I did not belong to the 'folks like this'. I am not afraid to criticise my own government.

You, however, subscribe to the razing of towns. You wrote that in post #26. Need I remind you that this is what the Bosnian Serbs were doing in Srebrenica? Of course it's up to you whether you want to belong in the same category.

**Red Harvest** · 11-11-2005, 03:21

Originally Posted by AdrianII

You, however, subscribe to the razing of towns. You wrote that in post #26.

Yes, I do. Siege them, starve them, and if that doesn't get them out, then blast them to oblivion. Strategic war 101. You can't leave things the way it was. They were not facing genocide, etc. They were facing the horrible threat of elections...egads. They were using the city as their launching pad to attack the rest of the country. Funny thing was, other Iraqis didn't feel sorry for them at the time. Now why was that?

And if a foreign govt had been tied directly to 9/11, I would have fully supported nuking their capitol. If you drag me into a fight and use dirty tactics, you better be ready to get your teeth kicked in when you are down. That's the way I approach it.

Then again, unlike certain Europeans, I want to see things get done, not just playing pocket pool.

**Kralizec** · 11-11-2005, 03:43

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

And if a foreign govt had been tied directly to 9/11, I would have fully supported nuking their capitol. If you drag me into a fight and use dirty tactics, you better be ready to get your teeth kicked in when you are down. That's the way I approach it.

Sure, we'd all love Bush and his trigger happy ilk deciding who is and who is not directly tied to terrorists, then watch as they arbitrarily nuke middle eastern nations into oblivion

Originally Posted by Adrian II

This is different, my friend. The shells you mention were never used for their radiation effect on the enemy. The phosphorus, however, was used on Fallujah for its chemical effect on the entire population. Read the reports posted by me or Aurelian.

It wasn't the radiation of the uranium that killed those people (though it probably didn't improve their health, either) but it poisoned them through ingestion IIRC, chemicly.

Anyway...time to get some sleep now. If I can get any

**Soulforged** · 11-11-2005, 05:23

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Yes, I do. Siege them, starve them, and if that doesn't get them out, then blast them to oblivion. Strategic war 101. You can't leave things the way it was. They were not facing genocide, etc. They were facing the horrible threat of elections...egads. They were using the city as their launching pad to attack the rest of the country. Funny thing was, other Iraqis didn't feel sorry for them at the time. Now why was that?

Then you've a serious problem with compassion, don't need to get more complicated in logical basis.

People always look for revenge, this case is no different, that will explain the same Iraquis didn't get worried about other Iraquis. Or was it because they've enough problems already? Difficult choise...

And if a foreign govt had been tied directly to 9/11, I would have fully supported nuking their capitol. If you drag me into a fight and use dirty tactics, you better be ready to get your teeth kicked in when you are down. That's the way I approach it.

If there was...I think that the better wat to approach it is to simply remove the causant. But then again I'm not an strategic expert.

Then again, unlike certain Europeans, I want to see things get done, not just playing pocket pool.

So the end justify the means, even if it involves human lives? Ok that's your option, I prefer to be more human.

**Tribesman** · 11-11-2005, 09:52

War is war - if they were given warning and allowed to leave - no war crime has been committed. If men were turned back - as the reports Aurelian linked then an investigation into a possible war crime needs to happen, to determine what the facts are.

thats a big IF isn't it , there are lots of big IFs about the assault on Fallujah and war crimes aren't there .
Perhaps why thay is why it featured so prominently in your governments report on human rights abuses in Iraq , though of course that only covers actions by your Iraqi allies/terrorists taking part in the coilition led operation .
Assaulting and occupying hospitals , thats a war crime isn't it , bombing hospitals , thats a war crime as well isn't it , detaining medical personel thats another , killing wounded fighters who have been captured and disarmed thats one more , denying access to Red cross/crescent officials , oh they just keep piling up don't they , wanton destruction of non-military targets , looting , arson , extra-judicial killings .
But of course it had to be done as Fallujah was full of foriegn illegal combatants and its clearance would remove this threat and deal a crushing blow to the insurgency .
So where were all the foriegn fighters ? and why is there still an insurgency ?

Damned cowards should have fought rather than hiding behind excuses.
Yes Harvest , then they would have been illegal combatants and war criminals .
It was a morally repugnant thing to do.
Yep , but unless the Netherland was willing to declare war on one side in a civil war (which is also a crime) then they were constrained by their rules of deployment . It is not the first time it has happened and unfortunately will not be the last .

**Redleg** · 11-11-2005, 14:26

Originally Posted by Tribesman

War is war - if they were given warning and allowed to leave - no war crime has been committed. If men were turned back - as the reports Aurelian linked then an investigation into a possible war crime needs to happen, to determine what the facts are.

thats a big IF isn't it , there are lots of big IFs about the assault on Fallujah and war crimes aren't there .

War has a lot of ifs in it. So your point here is lost in the clutter that is war.

Perhaps why thay is why it featured so prominently in your governments report on human rights abuses in Iraq , though of course that only covers actions by your Iraqi allies/terrorists taking part in the coilition led operation .

And what do you think war is - two sides going out in the middle of nowhere and playing pattycake.

Assaulting and occupying hospitals , thats a war crime isn't it ,

Not if the enemy is using it as a cache for their weapons and ammunition. Not if the enemy is occupying it as a command post. Not if the enemy is using it as a defensive position.

bombing hospitals , thats a war crime as well isn't it

See above.

detaining medical personel thats another

Nope you can detain medical personel who are not in the process of performing their duties in treating medical emergancies.

killing wounded fighters who have been captured and disarmed thats one more ,

Only if you captured and disarmed them.

denying access to Red cross/crescent officials ,

A violation of the Geneva Conventions - but not a crime.

oh they just keep piling up don't they , wanton destruction of non-military targets

Not if they are being used by the enemy for purposes of storage, command, communications or as strongpoints.

, looting

Looting is against the rules of the army. You got proof or as I suspect you are just throwing that one out there, because of the looting by Iraqi civilians that was not immediately stopped by the military. It seems that some had problems with how the military stopped the looting once they did take action.

, arson

Again got proof of arson -

, extra-judicial killings

Got proof of extra-judicial killings that are not being investigated and the individual who did the killing is not being held responsible.

But of course it had to be done as Fallujah was full of foriegn illegal combatants and its clearance would remove this threat and deal a crushing blow to the insurgency

Fallujah might or might not have had to be a city fight.

So where were all the foriegn fighters ? and why is there still an insurgency ?

Well when you look at some of the pictures of the fighting - some are probably dead, some are probably captured, and some got away.

War is Hell Tribesman there is no such thing as a clean war, and there is no war that doesn't have innocents caught in the middle.

Damned cowards should have fought rather than hiding behind excuses.
Yes Harvest , then they would have been illegal combatants and war criminals .

Charges that would of stuck against the actions of the Serbs - not against the UN soldiers.

Edit: Using the High Horse of Moral outrage against war in Iraq - but defending the actions of soldiers because of some rule of the United Nations when they did not prevent a massacre of civilians - well is hypocrisy as it is defined.

**Kralizec** · 11-11-2005, 14:31

Well about Dutchbat & Srebrenica, it's clear that everything went wrong on just about every level. Still even today it's pretty hard to form an image of what the hell happened exactly. I blame our politicians who never did seem to eager to get to the bottom of this.

**Adrian II** · 11-11-2005, 14:46

Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder

Well about Dutchbat & Srebrenica, it's clear that everything went wrong on just about every level. Still even today it's pretty hard to form an image of what the hell happened exactly. I blame our politicians who never did seem to eager to get to the bottom of this.

Just about everything went wrong - that is the bottom of it, I'm afraid. An all-round lack of political will, sense of urgency, diplomatic investment, military force, coordination, international support, vision. Of course those 350 Dutchbat with a dozen apc's were no match for 3000 Serbs with tanks, artillery and nothing to lose. Worst thing of all was that the air support which Dutchbat had been promised never materialised. That was when the Serbs realised they could do whatever they wanted.

The final crunch was when they gave Dutchbat a choice between surrender and a massacre of the inhabitants. And they made good on their thread when they started bombing Potocari camp where thousands of Bosnians had fled to. Of course it should not have come to that, the crucial mistakes were made far earlier. Red Harvest is absolutely right that it was nauseating debacle.

EDIT
You remember when the Serbs took some international monitors hostage, shackling some of them to lamp posts and military barracks? That is when NATO should have stopped negotiating and bombed their military headquarters to smithereens. Too bad for the hostages, but they were soldiers and they knew what they had enlisted for. And I bet the Bosnian Serbs would have caved in real fast anyway.

As it happened, the only instance of Blues fighting back was when a French batallion recaptured a bridge on the Bosnian Serbs, losing 23 men in the fight. And that was only because their representative, general Janvier, had enough clout within the UN hierarchy to bang his fist on the table. The UN as it is should never, ever be in charge of a military operation.

**Tribesman** · 11-11-2005, 16:58

Not if the enemy is using it as a cache for their weapons and ammunition. Not if the enemy is occupying it as a command post. Not if the enemy is using it as a defensive position.

Ah , but they were not were they , and the only flimsy evidence put forward to support the claim was that there were telephones at the hospital . Thatv doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all does it .
See above.

Yeah , see above

Nope you can detain medical personel who are not in the process of performing their duties in treating medical emergancies.

And what other duties would medical personael be performing in a hospital ?
Only if you captured and disarmed them.
So if I capture and disarm someone you can come along and kill them

Looting is against the rules of the army. You got proof or as I suspect you are just throwing that one out there, because of the looting by Iraqi civilians that was not immediately stopped by the military.
Yeah I just make it up as I go along and throw it out there

, but the small problem with that assumption is it ignores the fact that it is detailed in your governmnets reports into actions carried out by forces under coilition authority in Fallujah .
Not if they are being used by the enemy for purposes of storage, command, communications or as strongpoints.

See above

Again got proof of arson -

See above

Got proof of extra-judicial killings that are not being investigated and the individual who did the killing is not being held responsible.
No prosecutions so far .But the allegations are made by your government , I am just repeating them , see above

A violation of the Geneva Conventions - but not a crime.

So breaking conventions governing warfare is not a crime

Well when you look at some of the pictures of the fighting - some are probably dead, some are probably captured, and some got away.

Come on Red you must be able to recall the numbers of foriegners dead or captured , they were spectacularly low

Charges that would of stuck against the actions of the Serbs - not against the UN soldiers.

Red you know the conventions and treaties , they would have stuck against both groups , different charges and different categories .
Using the High Horse of Moral outrage against war in Iraq - but defending the actions of soldiers because of some rule of the United Nations when they did not prevent a massacre of civilians - well is hypocrisy as it is defined.
Yeah right ....hypocracy .... Yep oh look I agreed it was morally repugnent . But unless the Serbs fired at the Dutch they were not allowed to take any action were they .An absolutey crazy situation , but unfortunately it is a fact .

Anyway back toThen your question is irrevelant - since they are both air burst munitions.
Nope , magnesium illumination rounds don't burst , if they did then the parachute wouldn't work would it (unless you are talking about multiple illumination devices in a single projectile) , they stay intact , and the casing is consumed by the heat of the chemical , not an air-burst at all is it

The incident I referred to was an example of of them not being used correctly, they are supposed to burn out while still in the air arn't they , as if they hit the ground they are incendiary arn't they , so incindiary that they burn through sheet metal and you cannot use incendiaries in civilian areas can you .

**Geoffrey S** · 11-11-2005, 17:09

Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder

Well about Dutchbat & Srebrenica, it's clear that everything went wrong on just about every level. Still even today it's pretty hard to form an image of what the hell happened exactly. I blame our politicians who never did seem to eager to get to the bottom of this.

Oh yeah, I loved the government stepping down several years after the fact; just went to show how spineless they were. Rule number one, never send troops to an area to perform an actual duty if you don't actually have the will to back up their presence with something substantial. The behaviour of the Dutch government in this case was disgusting, something to be ashamed of.