BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: artbrooks
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 07:37 AM

Dianavan, burning is a physical action, not a chemical action. What is the point, anyway? This is an item that had no business being used as an anti-personnel weapon, it apparently was used as an anti-personnel weapon, and the US State Department, after an initial false/incorrect statement, have said so. Your calling WP a chemical weapon won't change the definition of chemical weapons, won't result in an indictment in the World Court against the US for using chemical weapons, and won't change the minds of either the rabid Bushites here or those who know anything about chemical weapons (which is definitely two separate groups). Why don't you give it a rest and go on to the next topic?

BTW, there is a link to the Schedules, which are in the Annex on Chemicals, in the Annex. There are 3 types of phosphorous listed; WP, aka phosphorus tetramer, is not one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 04:19 PM

lets face it, petr, youve lost this one...
the Bush administration has not been caught lying about not using chemical weapons, in a war fought largely because of Iraqs (asserted by the UN) chemical and other wmd programs, considered by the UN to be a threat, and prohibited by the UN resolutions and cease-fire terms.






"So what if theyre not signatories to some agreement, then its ok? By that argument Saddam could say he didnt sign any such agreement and no one would have the right to invade... "

Except HE DID- the cease-fire terms WHICH HE AGREED TO specifically prohibited that, and a number of other things that he then proceded to acquire. So, you are wrong, again.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 04:26 PM

dianavan,

"We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. "

where is the burning skin? I read this as using the smoke to "SMOKE OUT" the insurgents and then kill them with HE ( which is alright)


So, if there is one case of chemical burns on coalition personnel from combat with Iraqi forces, by your definition the Iraqis used chemical weapons. Or are you still insisting the Iraqis did not have them?

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:37 PM

Bruce you are a nitwit...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 05:45 PM

Ake, you are not making any contribution to this discussion.


You do not have anything to contribute, so you insist on making insults. Seems like you have admitted even to yourself that you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 06:09 PM

Its those tactics again Bruce....I'm not in denial like you and Teri,
I'm in despair... at the inhumanity I see in these threads.

I dont mean to be insulting, by calling you "nitwit", its just that I dont think you're being sincere in supporting Teribus in every single opinion that he holds.
I used to respect your views...When they were your own views .

No one can be right all of the time ....even George Bush....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 06:54 PM

"Not caught lying". Regardless of the fact that they have admitted to publishing statements about this which were "incorrect".

Well, it is possible to make incorrect statements without lying, but it is very hard to see how this can have been an instance of that. It's not as if there is any suggestion that some lowly commander broke the rules, and tried to cover up about it. It seems pretty clear from what has come out that the use of white potassium as a chemical anti-personnel weapon was authorised and approved and recorded.

Does anyone have anyone doubt that if people fighting against us were using white potassium in this way it would be seen as anything other than illegal chemical warfare, which could be added to the charge sheet of war crimes?   Actually on second thoughts I suspect the people in charge on our side would probably prefer to avoid paying too much attention to that kind of thing; they'd be likely to see the need to write off the suffering caused to low level soldiers or civilians as a price well worth to avoid embarrassment about their own use of such weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 07:50 PM

art, you asked, "What is the point, anyway? This is an item that had no business being used as an anti-personnel weapon, it apparently was used as an anti-personnel weapon, and the US State Department, after an initial false/incorrect statement, have said so."

The point is not whether it is or it isn't a chemical weapon. Even if it was, the U.S. was probably not a signator to any agreement restricting its use. The point is that it was used as an anti-personnel weapon and many civilians sufferred as a result. The citizens of Fallujah probably don't give a damn how it was classified. It still burned them to the bone regardless of what you call it.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: Peace
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 07:56 PM

Telll ya what, BB. You get the US to stop exporting weapons and I'll get Canada to stop exporting asbestos. Howzat?

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 08:46 AM

Ake,

" dont mean to be insulting, by calling you "nitwit", "

It seemed like it to me.


"its just that I dont think you're being sincere in supporting Teribus in every single opinion that he holds."

I DO NOT- JUST the ones I agree with. Try READING my posts, and looking at what I do NOT support.

"I used to respect your views...When they were your own views ."

The views I state are my own, based on what I can find out. I do not claim to always be correct, as some here- IF you show me EVIDENCE I will consider it in relation to the evidence I have found on my own. Can YOU say the same?

"No one can be right all of the time ....even George Bush....Ake "

In this we can agree entirely. There are a number of points I disagree with the Bush administration- BUT that does not mean I will accept lies and unbased statements JUST BECAUSE they may support what I want to believe.

Bush was WRONG about not taking action in Dufar, the POST_WAR stratagy in Iraq, and quite a bit else- I just think the reasons for GOING to war were valid. Once the anti-war folks gave Saddam the idea that he did not need to comply, the war became inevitable.


dianavan,

You state as fact: "many civilians sufferred as a result. The citizens of Fallujah probably don't give a damn how it was classified. It still burned them to the bone regardless of what you call it. " Please provide SOME evidence of this, besides your immagination and a need to critisize the US.


Peace,

What about Canadian weapons exporting? What about the attack on the soul of the US population by your sending (a) certain actor to boldly go where no man has gone before?

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 12:14 PM

Bruce your mind is made up about the war obviously, so futher discussion is pointless.

I find it difficult to understand how you can defend that position in the face of several leaked documents which clearly show that Bush and Blair had decided to go to war well before the mass demonstrations that you claim gave Saddam the signal that he need not comply

BTW I do not agree that Saddam was not complying.
Like all the so called facts served up by Teribus this is open to interpretation.

There are very few "facts" that cant be distorted by putting a different spin on them.....by both sides

Give me ideas over "facts" any day.

If you have been offended by anything I've said in other posts please accept my apologies ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 04:02 PM

lied..
they denied the use of wp as a chemical weapon but then later admitted to so called 'shake & bake' operations - in which they were indeed used as weapons.

lied.. Rumsfeld 'we know they have wmds and we know where they are'
Rumsfedl the wmds are an imminent threat .. later denied saying it on meet the press .. but looked like an idiot when they played a recording of him saying it..

lied.. Dick Cheney (vice-president for torture) link between AlQaede
and Iraq - the only bit of evidence that he continued to trot out was the supposed meeting in Praque btwen Atta and Iraqi secret service..
.. now known to be be provided by a drunk and completely discredited..
and even after Bush publicly admitted there was no proven link Cheney still talked about this meeting (Cheney of the 5 deferments who had 'other priorities' during Vietnam)

the famous 16 words - of Bushs speech - about the yellow cake in Niger 'totaly discredited' lame evidence done on out-of-date letterhead ...

it was never about terrorism or wmds, it was not even about oil.
it was a power grab by a bunch of neocons whose plans just happened to collide with and be emboldened by the plans of a bunch of extreme islamists who were never much danger to the world anyway..

the real damage done aside from the squandered goodwill towards America after 911 is the possible dismantling of the UN and move toward the 19th century system of shifting alliances and ententes,
and we know where that led to in 1914.
and of course if there is a real threat to the US there just how many countries will take it seriously after this 'wolf crying' episode.

the tide is turning, even republicans are demanding answers and a withdrawal.. Bush's 'Base' is crumbling.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 05:04 PM

Maybe so Petr...but Teribus and Bruce stand firm!!

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: Peace
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 05:32 PM

"What about the attack on the soul of the US population by your sending (a) certain actor to boldly go where no man has gone before?"

OK. I admit that THAT was beyond the pale (sorry Little Hawk, but it had to be said just this once).

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 06:16 PM

Ake,

"If you have been offended by anything I've said in other posts please accept my apologies ...Ake "

No problem. In the heat of discussion, most of us have gone beyond what we would say in person. Just don't be suprised if I react to statements that I read that are not backed by known or presented facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:39 AM

Behind the phosphorus clouds (from the GUARDIAN)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 08:21 PM

Thanks, Wolfgang. I thought this was pretty revealing:

"But white phosphorus is both incendiary and toxic. The gas it produces attacks the mucous membranes, the eyes and the lungs. As Peter Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the BBC last week: "If ... the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because ... any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

I guess he hasn't talked to Artbrooks, who insists that "it is an obscurant and an incendiary."

Most importantly, "...we shouldn't forget that the use of chemical weapons was a war crime within a war crime within a war crime. Both the invasion of Iraq and the assault on Falluja were illegal acts of aggression. Before attacking the city, the marines stopped men "of fighting age" from leaving. Many women and children stayed: the Guardian's correspondent estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians were left. The marines treated Falluja as if its only inhabitants were fighters."

I am disgusted with the actions of the U.S. government and it's military. Until they are tried for war crimes, the U.S. will continue its downhill decline. A new election will not fix this.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:47 PM

My statement stands, and I think that I will bow out of any further participation in this circular discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 03:04 PM

Have flamethrowers been ruled out of order? Americans used them frequently when dealing with Japanese soldiers deep in the caves of the Pacific islands.

Is the use of WP any different from that of flamethrowers?

If a soldier has a tool that is available and has been provided and will save American lives, he or she is going to use that tool. Not using it would be grounds for courtmartial.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 08:02 PM

What about the civilians?

Were their any Japanese civilians deep in the caves?

We know, without a doubt, that there were civilians in Fallujah.

Apples and oranges.