BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq

Subject: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 03:15 PM

Did anyone hear about this - chemical weapons used in Iraq?

The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 04:01 PM

Yes anonymous guest.

This has been discussed in more than one other thread here.

It is old news.

It is false news, since the weapons described are not chemical weapons as the terms are conventionally used by those who make the treaties. They are called "chemical weapons" only by the ignorant ones who hope to sensationalize their latest "finding."

Bye for now.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 05:30 PM

Hummm, what would you actually call them then, friendly chemicals that spew friendly fire from a hand held contraption & besides why strap a target like that to some poor boys' back? I believe that napalm and it's like were prohibited by the Geneava Convention, I may be wrong but it sure is one hell of an invention as far as ways to kill people go. Espically people who are only asking us to quite terrorising their country (can anyone say VietNam). Can any one condon the use of this not-a-weapon weapon or this kind of behavior? Yup, I'm sure some could. Commit arson on a living human body, lynching was kinder. Say, let's become a lynch mob nation, I'm sure if the government puts a good PR spin on it things well change for the better, HELL IT COULDN'T BE WORST, could it. This way the whole world will really love us, even more than they do now.   

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:02 PM

This is not "old news" - it was only last Thursday that the US State Department, faced with new evidence, announced "We have learned that some of the information we were provided ... is incorrect."

As George Monbiot sums it up in today's "old news", "The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon."

Under the Chemical Weapons Convention a chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm". And that's what the US State Department has now put its hands up to.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:15 PM

Disgraceful....The Americans denied the use of white phospherus in Fallujah, and have now been forced to admit that it was in fact used as a battlefield weapon.

Since the battle in Iraq ,stories have been circulating of massacres of civilians, many through contact with white phospherus.

America says that "only 1100" Iraqis were killed and none of them were civilians.
Nothing has been done to verify the American claims, but if they blatently lie about the use of "chemical weapons", how can we believe their claims over civilian deaths...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: Peace
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:06 PM

"America says that "only 1100" Iraqis were killed and none of them were civilians."

Lemme see. Attack, shell, bomb a place that has civilians interspersed with 'troops' (insurgents, guerrilias, etc) and not one civilian was killed. Fuckin' A. Sure, I'd believe that. Sure.

Anyone got a bridge for sale?

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 07:18 PM

Sorry Peace, we already sold our only spare one to an American.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:54 PM

I have been unable to find a first-hand record of this State Department "admission". Could someone provide a link, please...and to something other than a blog or newspaper article.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 09:42 PM

Courtesy of a few seonds with Google, here is Here's a link to a State Department page with the relevant passage where they admit having passed on "incorrect" information. The incorrect infirmation is still carried in the rest of the page.

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes �." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 09:46 PM

I've only seen the BBC News article here.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 09:56 PM

And if you click on the link given by its author, George Monbiot, to his web site, the article is reprinted there, supplemented by a whole collection of references and links.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:18 PM

Could this be part of the "shoot low sherriff, they're praying to Mecca" scene?

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:25 PM

The United States is not a signatory to the convention outlawing the use of these, so of course technically they are not in the breach of anything, sort of like George W. saying that technically America doesn't torture. Technically speaking, America also upholds human rights and all good things. Technically.

One wonders what will be left of the America some of us respected when this is all over.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:17 PM

Thank you, McGrath. My google search was unsuccessful.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:47 PM

Peter T.-

You are absolutely right. When I brought this information forward in another thread, the feedback was that it was alright because, technically, it wasn't napalm, and technically, white phosphorous was only used for illumination.

I guess this brings up the most glaring example of technics vs. ethics.

Funny though, the U.S. is not known for adhering to anything it agrees to anyway. So whether they are or are not signators to an agreement, is a moot point.

In other words, the U.S. doesn't care what is considered ethically, responsible behaviour whether its about war or anything else. They do whatever they have to do to 'win'. This is what has destroyed the reputation of the U.S. There is no longer a sense of what is fair and right.

So what if a few civilians get burned to the bone. The important thing is that there are no reporters or photographers present.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 07:56 AM

dianavan,

All countries act in what they consider their best interest.



Canadian asbestos exports, in violation of international agreements , is expected to kill over 3 million people over the next 30 years.

Funny though, Canada is not known for adhering to anything it agrees to anyway. So whether they are or are not signators to an agreement, is a moot point.

In other words, Canada doesn't care what is considered ethically, responsible behaviour whether its making mioney or anything else. They do whatever they have to do to 'win'. This is what has destroyed the reputation of Canada. There is no longer a sense of what is fair and right.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 07:57 AM

and isn't asbestos a chemical?

Under the Chemical Weapons Convention a chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:28 AM

lets see...



That's 100,000 innocent civilians a YEAR, killed by a country 1/10th the population of the US....


But I guess that is ok, since Canada never even declared war on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:19 AM

So what if a few hundred thousand civilians get killed by asbestos. The important thing is that there are no reporters or photographers present.





"the Canadian government, with pit-bull intensity, has fought all efforts to ban or control the use of asbestos. Canada, the world's second-largest exporter of asbestos, has sued the Environmental Protection Agency, challenged its European allies and financed questionable science to try to prove that asbestos, especially Canadian asbestos, really isn't dangerous.
The result is that lives are still at risk."

"Some U.S. diplomats are as puzzled as EPA officials in trying to pin down why the Canadians are so zealous in their defense of a Quebec industry that employs fewer than 1,600 miners.

"It's politics," says Steven Guilbeault, an environmental specialist with Greenpeace in Vancouver, B.C.

"It becomes understandable when you know the desire of the federal (Canadian) government to gain as much public support in Quebec as it can. Its support of Quebec's asbestos miners must be visible to prevent the sovereignist movement from using the argument that the federal government is in no position to defend the interest of the Quebec population."

France banned asbestos in 1997, but Canada is fighting the French efforts before the World Trade Organization courts, insisting that chrysotile, the asbestos that Canada exports, is not carcinogenic."


"Canada, however, has exercised enormous influence internationally.

At a recent conference organized by the asbestos industry in India, 14 of the presentations were by perennial defenders of asbestos from Canada.

The asbestos mined in Canada is exported almost entirely to Third-World countries.

Unions, environmental groups and residents of Quebec have urged that the asbestos mines be closed and that the 1,000 or so remaining asbestos miners be pensioned off with money heretofore spent on propping up the declining trade. But Canada continues to use its international prestige to market asbestos. "

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:36 AM

and isn't asbestos a chemical?

Under the Chemical Weapons Convention a chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm". (Bearded Bruce)

the words to pay attention to are through its chemical action

Yes, asbestos is a chemical but the damage it can do is not through its chemical action

Asbestos is not a chemical weapon.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:46 AM

I stand corrected.

So, is phosphorus? Obviously tear gas is, so we can't use that to get them to surrender. Have to kill them all, I guess...


I guess dianavan woould say it was ok to dust the insurgents with asbestos powder. We will have to make up some new munitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:59 AM

a load of shit

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:10 AM

I think you have brought up a good point bb. Who cares whether you are using regular munitions, chemical munitions (though in this case they were not used to kill) or bad government policy. The end result is that people are still dead.

There is nothing more 'moral' about killing someone with a gun than killing someone with poison. The end result is that they are still dead. All of this ethical wrangling will not change that fact for the dead person.

Good grief you could classify McDonalds as a chemical weapon if you really wanted to.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: GUEST,A
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:11 AM

Guest, are you holding the rope yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:15 AM

"Good grief you could classify McDonalds as a chemical weapon if you really wanted to. "

You mean it ISN'T?????


I always thought it was part of the secret Green conspiracy to kill off enough people to reduce the pollution to a level that the Earth could recover from. It only gets the "right" people- those who stay round populated areas...

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:49 AM

The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it.

The title of the first link in this thread says it all. That's how it was and one can only debate a minor point perhaps if what they have used were not in rpinciple chemical weapons (that is not manufactured with that intention) but used as chemical weapons (with intention at the moment of use).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:59 AM

Why do you care if the US uses chemical weapons in Iraq? What is the point of your posts or of this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:05 PM

Are you attempting to justify the use of white phosphorous as a weapon by the US by pointing out the Canadian export of asbestos? Sure sound like it to me.

Both are obscene practices as far as I'm concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:11 PM

Do you consider shooting someone an obscene practice? Or bombing? How would you wage war?

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 02:09 PM

OK, I have been totally converted. It is moral and correct to shoot someone, or kill 3 million third world women and children with asbestos poisoning, but entirely wrong to shoot a smoke grenade or flare on someone shooting at me, in order to scare them enough so that they might surrender before I kill them.


Thank you, dianavan. I will be sure to mention your name when I receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:20 PM

"White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes �." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.] "


See, it is ok- we used HE rounds to kill them.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: artbrooks
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 04:05 PM

To be entirely accurate, the article says:

WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. 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. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.

The entire article can be read at the Field Artillery Magazine site; unfortunately, it is a .pdf file, so I couldn't link directly to it...you need to look for the Mar-Apr 2005 edition and then for an artile titled "TF 2-2 IN FSE AAR: Indirect Fires in the Battle of Fallujah".

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

Bruce, the whole asbestos thing is ludicrous. It isn't a chemical. Not unles you consider quartz, marble, feldspar and granite chemicals. Asbestos is mineral.

People don't die from asbestos 'poisoning'. People can die of alcohol poisoning but what kills most who die directly (not counting accidents) from drinking is the damage caused over years by it. Asbestos usually takes decades to kill, and it kills because it leads to the development of mesothelioma, a type of cancer, and asbestosis which may not be fatal in itself but contributes to deaths from other causes. Asbestos:asbestosis, silica:silicosis.

Asbestos is only hazardous in one form - 'friable'. It disintegrates into microscopic fibers and is inhaled. If it's not the brittle friable type or if it is, but it's convered, bound, or sealed, it's not a problem.

It's still allowed to be used for certain purposes in the US. I couldn't find information on importation regulations, but I didn't look either.

Tar and nicotine kill more people and ARE chemicals. Tobacco is also the only thing I know of which kills when it's used as intended. It might fit your purposes better... well, if it wasn't the US doing the major exporting that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 07:41 PM

Jeri,

But the international community wants tobacco- it has banned asbestos. I just wanted to point out that all countries act in what they consider their best interest, regardless of international law.

To consider the use of WP as a WMD seems ridiculus to me. But there are those here who would grab at anything to make the US look bad.

US uses WP to make smoke- evil:
Saddam makes anthrax warheads for his missiles- well, it is ok as long as he promises not to use them...

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:09 PM

By McGraths definition of a chemical weapon, gunpowder is a chemical weapon.

So is bug spray and cigarettes.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:28 PM

The whole concept of WMD is stupid as far as I'm concerned. If saddam used WP the US would have called it a WMD. US has nukes but they are not WMD...

It's all a game of rules set by the us who as accuratley noted by Peter T:

The United States is not a signatory to the convention outlawing the use of these, so of course technically they are not in the breach of anything, sort of like George W. saying that technically America doesn't torture. Technically speaking, America also upholds human rights and all good things. Technically

Techincally if the US and it's minions like the UK want to call something whatever, the dictionary is thiers to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:30 PM

BB, you already know that virtually nobody on this forum has anything against the USA. It has been repeated often enough for the meanest intellect to cotton on to the fact that it is the collection of liars, crooks, and hypocrites who are currently running the place that most of us object to.

Using WP to make smoke IS evil when that smoke is generated by burning Iraqis.

Also white phosphorus does fit the strict definition of a chemical weapon, in that it is the chemical reaction of the substance with air, and with the moisture of a human body that causes it to burn without an external means of ignition, and it cannot be extinguished by immersion in water. I believe the standard treatment, where available is to illuminate the body, while immersed, with UV light which causes the chemical to fluoresce, then physically remove each piece. A long and painful process.

However, WP could not logically be called a WMD, as one WP shell is unlikely to kill as many as one HE round.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:34 AM

The term WMD is as useless as the term 'hate crime'. Dead is Dead. An assault is an assault.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:41 AM

So, all here agree that WP is a chemical weapon?


And Saddam had how much of it? You concede that Iraq, in violation of the UN resolutions, HAD chemical weapons, and thus justify the invasion?


I doubt it...

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:42 AM

Oh, it's only US WP that is a chemical weapon?


Sounds like " virtually nobody on this forum has anything against the USA" might be a little short of the truth...

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:08 PM

We have used/tested many weapons in Iraq including chemical, electromagnetic, depleted uranium/nuclear waste, torute technique's etc.

One dark story I have heard whispered revolves around US troops who drove certain tanker trucks getting severe VX symptoms. The afflicted were sent to Germany and put in isolation where they died.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:11 PM

"One dark story I have heard whispered revolves around US troops who drove certain tanker trucks getting severe VX symptoms. The afflicted were sent to Germany and put in isolation where they died. "

Has anyone bothered to isolate the facts around this slander? Or are we just beating drums and dancing around the campfire here?

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:20 PM

Gee, Donuel, have you heard the one about the disembodied hand that sneaks up on you in the dark?


"We have used/tested many weapons in Iraq including chemical, electromagnetic, depleted uranium/nuclear waste, torute technique's etc"


Chemical? under discussion in another thread- YOU are admitting that Saddam had them, used them on us, and the war is justified?

Electromagnetic? Probably, as an attempt to use less than deadly force - but if you want we can just kill them all instead of making them surrender.

Depleted uranium/nuclear waste? Yes- steel, aluminum, copper, and titanium as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: GUEST,rarelamb
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:50 PM

" Depleted uranium/nuclear waste" I think he is refering to A10 ammunition. I don't understand why he is pointing this out. Are you trying to say it's a radiological device? Need some more input here.

Electromagnetic? What is this? Electromagnetic rail guns? Or ???? I know there have been experiments with developing non-lethal wave guns but I don't know what you are refering to here.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:59 PM

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects.
...

Phosphorus is an element, the name derived from the Greek "phosphoros" or light bearing, the ancient name for the planet Venus when appearing before sunrise. Brand discovered phosphorus in 1669 by preparing it from urine. Phosphorus exists in four or more allotropic forms: white (or yellow), red, and black (or violet). Ordinary phosphorus is a waxy white solid; when pure it is colorless and transparent. White phosphorus has two modifications: alpha and beta with a transition temperature at -3.8oC. It is insoluble in water, but soluble in carbon disulfide.

Never found free in nature, Phosphorus is widely distributed in combination with minerals. Phosphate rock, which contains the mineral apatite, an impure tri-calcium phosphate, is an important source of the element. Large deposits are found in Russia, in Morocco, and in Florida, Tennessee, Utah, Idaho, and elsewhere.

White phosphorus may be made by several methods. By one process, tri-calcium phosphate, the essential ingredient of phosphate rock, is heated in the presence of carbon and silica in an electric furnace or fuelfired furnace. Elementary phosphorus is liberated as vapor and may be collected under phosphoric acid, an important compound in making super-phosphate fertilizers.



I presume the refernce to EM weapons was the sonic effect tests. But I can see that it is much better just to kill them, than to try to keep them from killing you by other means.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 06:47 PM

lets face it, bb, youve lost this one...
the Bush administration has been caught lying about not using chemical weapons, in a war fought largely because of Iraqs (trumped up) chemical and other wmd threat.

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...

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 09:01 PM

Donuel - 17 Nov 05 - 02:08 PM

"One dark story I have heard whispered revolves around....."

I will tell you what pal, that phrase above above sums you up in total - you don't do anything, you fantasise, you invent things that have absolutely no bearing on reality. You probabley make a good living out of it for it it is 'cool' and extremely populist, but nought what you say is truth. Because truth requires real work, interpretation and diligence, and you show all the signs that you are incapable of any of those requirements.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 09:04 PM

bb says, "So, all here agree that WP is a chemical weapon?"

It is a chemical, bb, but it is how it is used that determines whether or not its a weapon.

If its sitting in a warehouse its not a weapon. If its used to illuminate, its not a weapon. If its used to burn the skin off human beings, its a weapon.

Grab a couple of ethics, dude.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 10:46 PM

WP is not a chemical weapon. It is an obscurant and an incendiary. It can be used as a weapon against personnel, and will cause horrible injuries if so used. "Chemical weapon" is specifically defined here, among many other places. The continuous restatement of a falsehood does not make it true.

Subject: RE: BS: Chemical Weapons in Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 03:29 AM

It looks to me that it is a toxic chemical that is defined as a type of chemical weapon.

For the purposes of this Convention:
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:


(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

2. "Toxic Chemical" means:


Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)

I could not, however, locate the schedules contained in the Annex.

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.