US admits using white phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah

[Hurin_Rules]

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

Mercenary

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

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

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

[Watchman]

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

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

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

[Proletariat]

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

No, unless you accept Watchman's definition.

[Xiahou]

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

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

Good analogy.

[Papewaio]

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

[Watchman]

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

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

[Tribesman]

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

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

[Red Harvest]

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

Well, personally speaking, I disagree with this and just about everything else you've said in the thread. Fallujah was a terrorist haven. Using incindiaries to destroy it is alright by me. It is the sort of place you make an example of, not "play nice" and take needless casualties in.

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

[Tribesman]

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

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

[Redleg]

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

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

[Watchman]

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

[Red Harvest]

Since the country is full of terrorists where do you suggest the people go to live then ?

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

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

[Red Harvest]

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

That terrorists not be given safe haven? Or that we not be paralyzed by terrorist techniques?

[Watchman]

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

[Watchman]

That terrorists not be given safe haven? Or that we not be paralyzed by terrorist techniques?

No. Having already undergone fairly serious moral corruption without noticing, and feeling all self-righterious about it.

[Xiahou]

Doesn't appear to me that the whole country is full of terrorists. The Sunni portions are.

Indeed, there are portions that are quite peaceful- don't expect to hear about that in the news though.

[Watchman]

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

Bloody brilliant reasoning.

[Red Harvest]

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

Bloody brilliant reasoning.

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

Bloody brilliant reasoning indeed.

[Red Harvest]

No. Having already undergone fairly serious moral corruption without noticing, and feeling all self-righterious about it.

I've felt this way about terrorist supporting "civilians" for decades. My views haven't changed. You make your choices, live (or not) with the results.

Self-righteous? Nope, pragmatic.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

[Devastatin Dave]

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

There must be a database error, maybe Red Havest and Redlegs accounts got switched!!!

[Proletariat]

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

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

[Hurin_Rules]

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

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

Strange logic.

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

Come on. Can you see things from the other side in any way, shape or form? Is there any capacity for empathy, for at least attempting to see things from the other side, here?

[Red Harvest]

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Hurin_Rules]

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

Especially by a government that claims to be fighting terror.

[Watchman]

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

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

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


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

[Redleg]

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

Especially by a government that claims to be fighting terror.

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

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

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

[Ser Clegane]

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

Enemy civilians?

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

[Adrian II]

Enemy civilians?

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