US admits using white phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah

[Franconicus]

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.

Oh 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.

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.

[Redleg]

Oh 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.

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.

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.

[Franconicus]

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.

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.

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.

[Redleg]

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.

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I only dared to ask Gawain for this exchange of arguments and hoped he would let me learn from his superior argumentations.

OK Ill bite. What would you like to know?

[Tribesman]

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
So are your protestations just a smoke screen as it were
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.

[Tribesman]

OK Ill bite. What would you like to know?
What is Jordan , and what land is allocated to the state of Israel
I await your superior arguementations , but please try and stick to facts

[Redleg]

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 .

Correct -

So as you used them in the scope of their design then your protestations about possible war crimes are just hot air .

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.

Though I must admit that your writings on chemical warfare have been educational

What chemical warfare - I have fired smoke in combat and training. I have fired incendaries in training and in combat.

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.

especially your mustard gas(thats a misnomer isn't it) in training exercises

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.

, I encountered that wonderful liquid at an old but still active (at the time) British Army depot , nice stuff eh

Been around worse at Dugway -

So are your protestations just a smoke screen as it were

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.

You know full well the implications of this issue , as it relates to the real issue that has been raised but largely ignored .

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.

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.

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.