|
Please tell me we didn't do that in Iraq (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Epicurus
http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for...palms_iraq.html
White phosphorus and MK77 (an "enhanced" version of the 1942 Napalm original) were both used. Full length video (27 minutes) about 1/4 of the way down. Both are "technically" incendiaries (yes, Napalm also), but if you somehow think that incendiaries are "less harmful" or more acceptable to use than chemical weapons, simply because they haven't been categorized as such, then I suggest you go brush up on your organic chemistry, and then come back and enlighten a chemical engineer about their differences. |
They can any less or more harmful than chemical weapons or any type of weaponry depending upon its application. I never claimed that they were any less harmful. A .22 caliber can be as harmful as a white phosphorous round depending upon how you use it. What I claimed is that they cannot be classifed as chemical weapons according to the standards and stygma ascribed to that class of weaponry. But how does a "chemical engineer" differentiate the chemical reactions of high explosives any differently than incendiary rounds such that it constitutes as a "chemical weapon" whereas high explosives does not? Is mace or tear gas a chemical weapon??? By claiming that it is a chemical weapon you're attempting to tap into the stygma associated with universally reviled chemical and biological weapons such as anthrax, sarin, etc., when in fact you would be misrepresenting the evidence to further your cause.
In the 70's there was moral outrage at the use of napalm because it looked "worse" than bullets or bombs. When they replaced napalm with cluster bombs the protests stopped despite the fact that they were far more indiscriminate and lethal than napalm ever was. The real issue behind this incident isn't the nature of the weaponry, the real issue is the accepted collateral damage associated with using this weaponry. After all a 2000lb bomb would have the same affect of killing nearby citizens.
| quote: |
This is not an argument over semantics. It's a weapon that was used on civilians.
An act such as this can not be claimed to be part of "collateral damage."
|
Did my argument ever attempt to justify the possible civilian deaths associated with the attacks? No, as a matter of fact I said that the incident was no more outrageous than a bombing of a wedding party. If you didn't get it, it's still outrageous, but it amounts to nothing more significant than innappropriate collateral damage. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Did my argument ever attempt to justify the possible civilian deaths associated with the attacks? No, as a matter of fact I said that the incident was no more outrageous than a bombing of a wedding party. If you didn't get it, it's still outrageous, but it amounts to nothing more significant than innappropriate collateral damage. |
The semantics you were using were the argument. I attached a type of pre-argument in case anyone (not just you) explained away civilian deaths by their probable use of the term "collateral damage" or similar words or actions.
I know you're not a warmonger so you have nothing to worry. It's the others that want war but don't enlist that talk nonsense I was refering to. |
|
|
| dubblies |
I just saw it reported on BBC World News....this is disgusting. I am disgusted, and have been disgusted with the Bush administration ever since they won their coup back in 2000. I wish someone could hold those soldiers and our leader accountable for these horrible atrocities. All of America should be ashamed.
BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! IMPEACH BUSH! |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
The semantics you were using were the argument. I attached a type of pre-argument in case anyone (not just you) explained away civilian deaths by their probable use of the term "collateral damage" or similar words or actions. |
I wasn't trying to "explain" away civilian casualties as justifiable "collateral damage". I was truthfully attempting to describe the situation as circumstances dictate: collateral damage with conventional weaponry. It's not like I've discarded the notion of unacceptable collateral damage. Semantics become important when propoganda is employed. This argument isn't about the unwarranted deaths of civilians (which it shoudl be about), this arguemnt is about the use of "chemical weapons", which is an innaccurate characterization of the facts and accepted notions about chemical weapons. What happened deserves condemnation, but it doesn't deserve to be distorted. Credibility always garners a larger audience ... particularly those you're trying to convince, not just your sycophants. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I wasn't trying to "explain" away civilian casualties as justifiable "collateral damage". I was truthfully attempting to describe the situation as circumstances dictate: collateral damage with conventional weaponry. It's not like I've discarded the notion of unacceptable collateral damage. Semantics become important when propoganda is employed. This argument isn't about the unwarranted deaths of civilians (which it shoudl be about), this arguemnt is about the use of "chemical weapons", which is an innaccurate characterization of the facts and accepted notions about chemical weapons. What happened deserves condemnation, but it doesn't deserve to be distorted. Credibility always garners a larger audience ... particularly those you're trying to convince, not just your sycophants. |
I follow you here, and in large part I agree. I'm slightly confused, however. Why exactly have we banned such substances like chem./biol. weaponry when we have far deadlier and indiscriminate weapons like cluster bombs? You stated earlier:
| quote: | | the real issue is the accepted collateral damage associated with using this weaponry |
Is that actually part of the international law as to why they're banned? And what does that mean exactly? I just took it at face value that international law more or less said such weapons were downright nasty , and they want to avoid it. But as you say, cluster bombing and other known weapons we have in our arsenal seem far nastier and tend to kill far more people including the innocent, so where is the line that's drawn? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| I respectfully withdraw my comments from page 1 now that it has been confirmed. Sorry, I hate to speculate on unconfirmed rumors. That said, Fallujah was an ugly operation. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I follow you here, and in large part I agree. I'm slightly confused, however. Why exactly have we banned such substances like chem./biol. weaponry when we have far deadlier and indiscriminate weapons like cluster bombs? You stated earlier:
|
Beats the hell out of me. Maybe because some chemical and biological weapons can cause slow and agonizing deaths depending upon the type of agent? Maybe because they can be persistent and last for hours/days while it moves indiscriminantly wherever the people or winds take it? I think cluster bombs and napalm are pretty much a one time instantaneous deal against a specific target/targets.
| quote: |
Is that actually part of the international law as to why they're banned? And what does that mean exactly? I just took it at face value that international law more or less said such weapons were downright nasty , and they want to avoid it. But as you say, cluster bombing and other known weapons we have in our arsenal seem far nastier and tend to kill far more people including the innocent, so where is the line that's drawn? |
Who knows. I certainly don't know where to draw the line in war. I tend to side with the geneva accords which state that WP shouldn't be used if it could endanger civilians. Too bad the US didn't ratify that part ... |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Too bad the US didn't ratify that part ... |
Strategery. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I wasn't trying to "explain" away civilian casualties as justifiable "collateral damage". I was truthfully attempting to describe the situation as circumstances dictate: collateral damage with conventional weaponry. It's not like I've discarded the notion of unacceptable collateral damage. Semantics become important when propoganda is employed. This argument isn't about the unwarranted deaths of civilians (which it shoudl be about), this arguemnt is about the use of "chemical weapons", which is an innaccurate characterization of the facts and accepted notions about chemical weapons. What happened deserves condemnation, but it doesn't deserve to be distorted. Credibility always garners a larger audience ... particularly those you're trying to convince, not just your sycophants. |
A weapon is a weapon is a weapon no matter what adjective you use.
Simple enough. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
A weapon is a weapon is a weapon no matter what adjective you use.
Simple enough. |
What about WMDs? |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| So, this actually happened?!?! |
|
|
| Shakka |
Yeah, but I think the knee-jerk response may have been a little over the top. War is an ugly thing.
link
| quote: | US defends use of white phosphorus against Iraq insurgents
11.16.2005, 02:59 PM
WASHINGTON (AFX) - The US today defended the use of white phosphorus munitions against insurgents in Iraq last year but denied civilians were targeted.
The toxic agent was used during what a US army journal called 'shake and bake' missions against insurgents in the battle for Fallujah last year.
'It's part of our conventional weapons inventory. We use it like we use any other conventional weapon,' said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman.
Whitman said he had no knowledge of any civilian victims of attacks with white phosphorus.
'We don't target any civilians with any of our weapons, and to suggest US forces were targeting civilians with these weapons would be wrong,' he said.
'We don't target civilian populations. We go to great lengths to do everything possible to prevent civilian casualties, and collateral damage to property,' he said.
Reports that white phosphorous was used in Fallujah has thrust the US into a new controversy over Iraq war tactics.
But another Defense Department spokesman highlighted that white phosphorous has been used by armies around the world for the past century.
A yellowish substance with a pungent smell similar to garlic, white phosphorous erupts spontaneously into fire when exposed to oxygen, releasing a dense white smoke.
Incandescent particles of white phosphorus can cause deep, painful chemical burns, said GlobalSecurity.Org, a Washington group that gathers information on military subjects.
A report on the battle of Fallujah published in April in the army journal Field Artillery said white phosphorous 'proved to be an effective and versatile munition' in Fallujah.
'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 (high explosives),' said the report.
'We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out,' it said.
'We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions,' it said.
Whitman said US forces used the munition mainly to create smoke screens in battle and to mark targets, but he acknowledged they were used against insurgents as well.
Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable, another Pentagon spokesman, said the white phosphorus also was used as an incendiary weapon.
'It has been used in armies the world over for most the past century, I believe. It was used by US forces in Operation Al Fajr, specifically to target enemy combatants so we could defeat them,' he said. |
I believe that they weren't targeting civilians. Recall that in Fallujah, insurgents were using mosques and schools and such for cover. Additionally, ample notification was given that civilians needed to get the out of the city or take cover.
There is no benefit in targeting civilians--especially "concentrations of civilians" as proscribed by the unsigned convention. Targeting civilians runs contra to the mission and if anything makes matters worse by inciting the opposition.
| quote: | | As to its use as an incendiary weapon, the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians. [3] However, the protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effect is secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from the protocol, as well. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III. |
So with a little grey area on the "indiscriminate incendiear attacks against military forces co-located with civilians", though in that situation it was probably "specifically" designated as a smoke gernade. Remember, the other side is capable of producing propoganda too...
| quote: | | As of 2001, 89 nations were party to the convention. Some of those countries (including the United States) have only adopted two of the five protocols, the minimum required to be considered a signatory. |
SO, only 89 out of how many? And the U.S. does count in those 89 as it is signatory to the minimum required two. Probably a good indication of just how useful WP is as a tactical weapon/tool. :o
Besides, the whole thing is pretty much useless anyway--at least from an enforcement standpoint. It even comes with a "Bite Me" clause:
| quote: | | The convention lacks verification and enforcement mechanisms and spells out no formal process for resolving compliance concerns. |
Reminds me of Team America. "Or else we will write you a very mean letter!"
\\\\\
Reading the treaty, I would think the writers were probably thinking along the lines of napalm. WP seems like an interesting work around. In the context of using it for its smoking purposes, it is untouchable by the treaty anyway. And in the instance that it's used specifically as a weapon, i.e. targeting the enemy for death, as long as it is not expressly being used as a killing device in this instance, it is still legit to use it according to the terms of the provision...which the U.S. did not sign.
Directly from the Treaty
| quote: |
Article 1
Definitions
For the purpose of this Protocol:
1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
5. "Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives. |
|
|
|
|
|
