US admits using white phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah

[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.